Stride..a victim?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unfortunately no. However, worth a thought is where they were immediately prior to reaching the board school.
According to the female member of another couple on Berner street that night, they met as planned, at midnight...

"I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street."

So at what time did the board school couple meet up, and where did they live?
I would suppose that they too, would have planned to meet somewhere on the hour, or maybe half hour.
That could mean they were in the vicinity of the 'action', from 12:30 or earlier.
It's possible they were witnessed earlier and elsewhere...

Is there a fuller quote than the one above? My question is: how do we know that this woman and her young man weren’t Brown’s couple?

Baxter: Did you see anyone about in Berner-street?
Eagle: I dare say I did, but I do not remember them.

I dare say Eagle either saw the board school couple, or Stride with parcel man.
Perhaps Wess saw the board school couple too, taking with another couple...

Baxter: Did you meet anybody in Berner-street?
Wess: I can't recollect; but as I went along Fairclough-street, close by, I noticed some men and women standing together.

The point is, there were people out on Berner and neighbouring streets, others at their door, others waiting up for arrivals from work, and people in the club kitchen, behind an ajar door, just a few yards from the murder spot.
If Israel Schwartz wants to put himself and three others on street in this time period, and include quarrelling, shouts, physical assaults and running, into the mix, then it has to be accepted that the odds are against no one noticing any of this.

.
"A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises".
Daily News, 1^st Oct. 1888

Could this couple, quoted by Wickerman, have been Spooner and his companion? The length of time that they had been talking is about the same. She left just before Diemschutz arrived. The location isn’t far off either.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. After being physically assaulted by a staggering drunk who has been witnessed at close range, why on earth would she suppose that going into the darkness of the laneway, would placate him?
On the contrary, the anonymity of the darkness would likely worsen the thugs behaviour.
Stepping into the laneway would have been about the last thing she would have suggested or consented to.
Have we now reached the stage that Stride's intelligence is to be casually insulted, in the ongoing efforts to protect Israel Schwartz

Or shouldn’t we ask how we have reached the stage where we are now assuming that we know what a victim was thinking? What if this drunk was indeed someone that she knew and was pestering her for sex? She says ‘no’ for whatever reason. He gets angry and she tries to resist. She realises that this bloke isn’t going away so she decides to go along with it. Sadly for Liz and the other women these kinds of encounters would not have been a rarity and 2 minutes of unpleasant sex might have been considered a better option than a broken jaw. Maybe he was a regular who was skint and was asking for an “I’ll pay you tomorrow” quickie?”

There’s no effort to ‘protect’ Schwartz. He’s a witness who was interviewed and believed by experienced police officers at the time. Of course police officers can be fooled but there’s no real evidence in this case. We have Schwartz non-attendance at the Inquest which can’t be explained in terms of the police not believing him but we do have possible/plausible explanations (either way his non-attendance isn’t proof of his unreliability) And then we have the fact that no one else saw or heard an incident that probably lasted for 30 or 40 seconds in a street that was hardly The Strand. Pretty barren ground IMO.

......

A question, where did the quote come from which said that others saw the incident and thought that it was a domestic? Was this just from a single source?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Stride was actually with the man. She didn’t need to read ‘signs’ as she’d been manhandled to the ground. She was the target of his aggression.

I used 'signs' sarcastically.

Perhaps she didn’t think that she had any chance of out running him? Perhaps she thought that a better option was to try and placate him? Or just to do what he wanted to avoid any further violence?

After being physically assaulted by a staggering drunk who has been witnessed at close range, why on earth would she suppose that going into the darkness of the laneway, would placate him?
On the contrary, the anonymity of the darkness would likely worsen the thugs behaviour.
Stepping into the laneway would have been about the last thing she would have suggested or consented to.
Have we now reached the stage that Stride's intelligence is to be casually insulted, in the ongoing efforts to protect Israel Schwartz?

Common sense is rarely applied here. This is another example of an attempt to make something out of nothing.

Until this murder is solved, we are indeed dealing with something rather then nothing.

When battered wives stay with their violent husbands people say “why didn’t she just leave?” You’ve pretty much just done the same.

Comparing Stride's predicament on Berner street, to that of a battered wife, is drawing a long bow.
Unless perhaps, you are hinting at the closest thing she had to a de facto husband, at the time - Michael Kidney.
Kidney was cleared of the murder, and while that doesn't amount to proof that he was innocent, it does make it quite a bit less likely, ceteris paribus.

Stride didn’t run and we don’t know why but we can suggest reasons which may or may not be correct. As a conspiracy theorist you of course go straight to the sinister explanation.

A murder, by definition, is sinister.

The most instructive thing though is the lengths that you continue to go to in the never ending quest to see conspiracy where none exists.

If not believing Schwartz, necessarily amounts to a conspiracy theory, which must therefore be a false one, is Schwartz to be regarded as innocent, by logical necessity?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Do we have a time for this couple Wick? Aren't they the couple that Brown saw on his Chandler Shop visit?

Unfortunately no. However, worth a thought is where they were immediately prior to reaching the board school.
According to the female member of another couple on Berner street that night, they met as planned, at midnight...

"I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street."

So at what time did the board school couple meet up, and where did they live?
I would suppose that they too, would have planned to meet somewhere on the hour, or maybe half hour.
That could mean they were in the vicinity of the 'action', from 12:30 or earlier.
It's possible they were witnessed earlier and elsewhere...

Baxter: Did you see anyone about in Berner-street?
Eagle: I dare say I did, but I do not remember them.

I dare say Eagle either saw the board school couple, or Stride with parcel man.
Perhaps Wess saw the board school couple too, taking with another couple...

Baxter: Did you meet anybody in Berner-street?
Wess: I can't recollect; but as I went along Fairclough-street, close by, I noticed some men and women standing together.

The point is, there were people out on Berner and neighbouring streets, others at their door, others waiting up for arrivals from work, and people in the club kitchen, behind an ajar door, just a few yards from the murder spot.
If Israel Schwartz wants to put himself and three others on street in this time period, and include quarrelling, shouts, physical assaults and running, into the mix, then it has to be accepted that the odds are against no one noticing any of this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think thats my favourite post. The Arbeter Fraint just following this murder was translated courtesy of Lynn Cates, ( I believe its here somewhere). Sadly we dont see him on much of late. But its interesting how they recall the events and when they occurred.

Really funny line though, thanks.

Yes. Strangely they say that the murder occurred at around 12.45 (coincidentally the time that Schwartz saw BS Man) and that Diemschutz found the body at 1.00. What a surprise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does Liz have the choice of going into the yard or scarpering?

If the situation is such that a man deemed it appropriate to flee incontinently, then why didn't the woman?
All the more so given that the woman alone can understand the meaning of the words being spoken (if Schwartz is to be believed).

It's incredible how well the non-English speaking male can read the signs, but not, it would seem, the English speaking female.
Once again, this defies common sense.

Stride was actually with the man. She didn’t need to read ‘signs’ as she’d been manhandled to the ground. She was the target of his aggression. Perhaps she didn’t think that she had any chance of out running him? Perhaps she thought that a better option was to try and placate him? Or just to do what he wanted to avoid any further violence?

Common sense is rarely applied here. This is another example of an attempt to make something out of nothing. When battered wives stay with their violent husbands people say “why didn’t she just leave?” You’ve pretty much just done the same. Stride didn’t run and we don’t know why but we can suggest reasons which may or may not be correct. As a conspiracy theorist you of course go straight to the sinister explanation. The most instructive thing though is the lengths that you continue to go to in the never ending quest to see conspiracy where none exists.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Arbeter Fraint's Take

Yes, where is Lynn? I've read a lot of his old posts.

[Michael W Richards]

The club didn’t have a ‘position.’

Supposed to have a occurred? What time was that?
The answer, I suppose, is; sometime between Schwartz and Diemschutz o'clock.

I think thats my favourite post. The Arbeter Fraint just following this murder was translated courtesy of Lynn Cates, ( I believe its here somewhere). Sadly we dont see him on much of late. But its interesting how they recall the events and when they occurred.

Really funny line though, thanks.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Because one is based on the other. Schwartz looks over and sees a man throw a woman to the ground. So he knows that this is not a very nice bloke with a tendency to violence. Then this bloke calls out “Lipski” at him which is a known anti-Semitic insult and, as Schwartz is Jewish, he very naturally assumes that not only is this an unpleasant, violent man but he might also dislike Jews. So he has a choice of going over to help or of scarpering? He chooses the latter. He doesn’t need to know the content or even the gist of the conversation between Stride and BS Man to make that decision.

Does Liz have the choice of going into the yard or scarpering?

If the situation is such that a man deemed it appropriate to flee incontinently, then why didn't the woman?
All the more so given that the woman alone can understand the meaning of the words being spoken (if Schwartz is to be believed).

It's incredible how well the non-English speaking male can read the signs, but not, it would seem, the English speaking female.
Once again, this defies common sense.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The club didn’t have a ‘position.’

I would suggest that the Arbeter Fraint double event article, could be called the club's unofficial position.
This differs in significant ways to club member's press statements and inquest testimony.

However, you're right that the club has no position as such, and that it's all down to individual witnesses.
Nonetheless, the club is still a collective, and in this case, a political one.
A murder has occurred, in a sense, on their turf, so conflicting statements could be problematic.

Individual witnesses were spoken to and gave their statements. Discrepancies are to be expected under the circumstances. The murder occurred sometime between Schwartz and Diemschutz. Any witnesses that don’t conform to this can easily be explained.

It might not be that simple, in practice.

The Echo: In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street...

London Evening News: Diemschitz says he thinks it quite possible that after he had entered the yard the assassin may have fled out of it, having lurked in the gloom until a favourable moment arrived.

So was the murderer witnessed fleeing the scene at about a quarter to one, or not?
I would suggest that 'sometime between Schwartz and Diemschutz', is possibly too vague, and is a bit like Wess saying...

It having come to my knowledge that the man who was seen by Mrs. Mortimer, of 36, Berner-street, passing her house "carrying a black shiny bag," who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road about the time the murder was supposed to have occurred, was a member of the club, ...

Supposed to have a occurred? What time was that?
The answer, I suppose, is; sometime between Schwartz and Diemschutz o'clock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If particular speech X, results in person Y supposing that Z is true or possibly so, then we should consider the possibility that the intention of X was for Y to suppose Z.

Less abstractly, what do you suppose was the club's position (at least publicly), on when the murder occurred?
Was it when or shortly after Schwartz was on Berner street, or was it just prior to Diemschitz' arrival, or did they give conflicting evidence and opinion?

The club didn’t have a ‘position.’ Individual witnesses were spoken to and gave their statements. Discrepancies are to be expected under the circumstances. The murder occurred sometime between Schwartz and Diemschutz. Any witnesses that don’t conform to this can easily be explained.

That is a very generic argument - it could apply to anyone making up any story - but it's not my fault if no one witnessed my far-fetched story!
We know about possible/probable witnesses on Berner street, and in the club, so arguments about witnesses should generally refer to these people.

He was lucky though that no one was watching the area around the yard say from 12.40 to 12.50. Maybe someone on a doorstep or looking out of a window.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The capacity to recognize that a quarrel is occurring, and the decision to get involved in it, are two quite different things.

Because one is based on the other. Schwartz looks over and sees a man throw a woman to the ground. So he knows that this is not a very nice bloke with a tendency to violence. Then this bloke calls out “Lipski” at him which is a known anti-Semitic insult and, as Schwartz is Jewish, he very naturally assumes that not only is this an unpleasant, violent man but he might also dislike Jews. So he has a choice of going over to help or of scarpering? He chooses the latter. He doesn’t need to know the content or even the gist of the conversation between Stride and BS Man to make that decision.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Discredited, likely because no one saw or heard any of it.

That would be because an incident on Berner street involving shouting, quarreling and screaming, not being noticed by anyone, defies common sense.

But yet we have Swanson's report alluding to Schwartz possibly seeing just a not uncommon Whitechapel street hassle which is why he allowed for the possibility of Stride's killer coming along shortly after the B.S. man had left the scene.

If particular speech X, results in person Y supposing that Z is true or possibly so, then we should consider the possibility that the intention of X was for Y to suppose Z.

Less abstractly, what do you suppose was the club's position (at least publicly), on when the murder occurred?
Was it when or shortly after Schwartz was on Berner street, or was it just prior to Diemschitz' arrival, or did they give conflicting evidence and opinion?

Schwartz can hardly be blamed if no one else witnessed what he said took place. Could he be lying? Sure. But simply there being no other witnesses doesn't warrant that conclusion. Such things happen all the time.

c.d.

That is a very generic argument - it could apply to anyone making up any story - but it's not my fault if no one witnessed my far-fetched story!
We know about possible/probable witnesses on Berner street, and in the club, so arguments about witnesses should generally refer to these people.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please explain how, for example, Morris Eagle saying that he first saw the body at 1.00 cites a discovery time of 12.40/12.45?

Or how Hoschberg being alerted to events in the yard by a policeman's whistle confirms an earlier discovery time?

Or how Spooner arriving 5 minutes before Lamb confirms an early discovery time?

How are these, by any stretch of the wildest imagination, 'virtually identical?'

Ok.......I’ll answer.....they’re not.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The choice to not get involved in a quarrel, presupposes that the quarrel is occurring in a language that is understood.

I disagree completely with that conclusion. Tone and loudness of voice, facial expressions and gestures probably indicate a quarrel is taking place even if the language is not understood.

I recall being thrown out of a youth hostel in Germany many years ago by a very irate German woman. I have no idea what I did or what she was saying but it was pretty clear that the thrower outer was not happy with me. No translation needed.

c.d.

Why is it necessary to understand the language being spoken in order to appreciate that an altercation is taking place in which you don't want to get involved? The only word he quotes anyone as using was "Lipski" which is evidentially worthless in determining his knowledge of the English language.

The capacity to recognize that a quarrel is occurring, and the decision to get involved in it, are two quite different things.