The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[seanr]

We dont know what time Stride was murdered. It's possible that she was attacked by another man after BS Man, assuming he existed, but that seems far too coincidental to me.

And no way does she voluntarily enter a pitch black passage, calmly taking the cachous, with brutal BS Man-not likely at anytime, and certainly not during the Ripper scare!

Unless she knew him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When I was a kid, we had 'Imps", little black square pills, they were liquorice flavored and hot, much the same as cachous.

They sound a bit like Fisherman’s Friend.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Those cachous weren’t in one of those bags with a draw string were they?

[Wickerman]

They sound a bit like Fisherman’s Friend.

Much smaller than Fisherman's Friend.


https://picclick.co.uk/Vintage-Origi...784236067.html

The Imps are little black square pills, just the same as Nipits https://www.amazon.co.uk/Treasure-Is.../dp/B00GZ2SBTY

[drstrange169]

>> there was blood on her hand. perhaps her hand goes to the throat instinctively, stemming some of the blood.<<

They were spots of blood, not really conducive with stemming blood flow. I remember decades ago someone suggesting they were transplant there by Johnson or Lamb feeling her pulse. Maybe, maybe not.

[drstrange169]

>> There was no Pipeman, there was no BS man, and in all liklihood, IF there was an Israel Schwartz there at all it was not in the capacity he claims,<<

Fair enough, if you don't like the whole Schwartz saga, substitute Goldstein instead, same result, no couple.



>>She did see the young couple, which she later talked to, and thats the couple Brown likely saw...<<

Show everybody the evidence that Mortimer "saw" the couple from her door at the time in question as opposed to merely relating to the reporter a story they told her and we might believe you.

Of course, you would still have to explain away all the other anomalies in that theory too.



"... Spooner never did say that he was nowehere near the corner of Berner, maybe actually reading the statements would help you.<<

Since your the one stating as fact he "meandered" between 12:30 and 1 o'clock the onus, is on you.



>> ... maybe actually reading the statements would help you. <<

Certainly, they do help me, you ... not so much;-)

"Sunday morning between 12.30 and 1 o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Tavern, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street along with a young woman. I had been standing there about five-and-twenty minutes ..."

"On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public-house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman."

"On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the "Bective," at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman."

"Edward Spooner said, - I live at 26, Fairclough-street, and am a horse-keeper at Messrs. Meredith's. Between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman."

Timing that fits with every other witness.

One report does make a mistake,

"I stood at the top of the street for about five minutes, and then 25 minutes outside the publichouse. I should say it was about 25 minutes to 1 when I first went to the yard."

Why is it that people with wild theories always chose the one mistaken report to bolster their stories on?

Since you love Fanny so much, perhaps you could explain how she missed the club members shouting and running around, Spooner arriving, your couple on the corner not seeing any of this and Brown not only missing it all, but hearing the two club men run past his house to fetch Spooner after one o'clock?

Hey ho.

[drstrange169]

>> Abberline could have only meant 'no other person the word Lipski could have been aimed at' ...<<

We read a lot of tall stories to justify the unjustifiable, but that is up there with the best!

Abberline apparently knew there were a street full of witnesses, but didn't think it worth mentioning???!!!




>> you wrote "over 100 feet", not "150ft"<<

Correct 100 feet past the corner as I've already explained.



>>Couples are not interested in who else is coming and going in the street, they are only concerned with each other.<<

But, somehow remember a man heading towards Aldgate.

[drstrange169]

>> A trained journalist now?, I wasn't aware there were any Journalist colleges, no university degree's in journalism in the 19th century.
You wouldn't be laying the icing on a bit thick would you? <<

So, you don't think it was not mandatory for a journalist to be able to read and write with a certain degree of competence? As opposed to witnesses who do not have to have any kind of educational requirements?

You seem obsessed with adjectives rather than dealing with the holes in your theory.



>>Given the social standards of Victorian England, do you really think a "young girl" would be out in public after midnight with a man?
Nah, neither do I. So, lets get back to reality.<<

Are we to take it, you don't know about Stead's Babylon article, kids working in coal mines, flower girls, Dicken's books, the prevalence of incest, the Sally Army etc etc?

Yeah, Victorian social standards all right!

[Harry D]

Why nine feet? The gateway was 9 feet across, each gate therefore being four feet six inches approx...her feet were just beyond the radius of the swing of the gate, say a couple of yards...perhaps two paces...and if she was already in the gateway, possibly less

She was found 3 yards (nine feet) inside the yard by her feet.

[Harry D]

She was found 3 yards (nine feet) inside the yard by her feet.

I'm aware this could turn into an Abbott and Costello routine.

[Cogidubnus]

She was found 3 yards (nine feet) inside the yard by her feet.

At the Inquest, per the Times 2nd October 1888, when Morris Eagle is testifying:

I could then see a woman lying on the ground near the gateway, and in a pool of blood. Her feet were about six or seven feet from the gate.....

and later

The Coroner: Did you see anybody touch the body?
Witness: I think the policeman touched it, but the other persons appeared afraid to go near it.....

At the Inquest, per the Times 3rd October 1888, when Constable Lamb is testifying:

Witness:.....When I got there I had the gates shut.
The Coroner: But did not the feet of the deceased touch the gate?
Witness: No they went just behind it, and I was able to close the gates without disturbing the body

Lamb also testified the body had not been moved. Blackwell arrived about ten minutes after this, and it was he testified three yards in...did somebody perhaps move the body in that ten minutes? I don't know....but they certainly didn't before Lamb's arrival. Edward Spooner said he was the last of the first batch of witnesses to arrive:

I saw a woman lying just inside the gate.....No-one touched the body....It was the last witness who first arrived

The "last witness was" Lamb...So nobody moved the body before Lamb's arrival...and presumably he wouldn't have allowed anybody to move it until the doctors arrived. Reach your own conclusions...

PS Edit to add: Per the Daily Telegraph 3rd October 1888, Lamb added:

When I blew my whistle other constables came, and I had the entrance of the yard closed. This was while Dr. Blackwell was looking at the body. Before that the doors were wide open. The feet of the deceased extended just to the swing of the gate, so that the barrier could be closed without disturbing the body.

[Michael W Richards]

Im pleased to find some level ground to work on with the idea that Liz Stride was there purposefully, not coincidentally, because it may help answer some other pertinent questions, like where did the flowers and the cachous come from? My thinking is that she bought them herself with the 6d she was paid for cleaning rooms, that's probably why she didn't have any booze in her that night...although she had a drink that afternoon with the landlady. Perhaps her employer bought.

The fact she wanted to brush down her skirt, the "good evening wear" as was described by the lodgemate, the flowers, cachous, ...I believe a reasonable conclusion is that she was anticipating meeting someone socially and the cachous then can be described as indication the meeting was imminent. My feeling is that her snese of urgency happens around 12:40-12:45, about the time she is killed and Louis actually arrives.

Liz is seen on the street at 12:35. We have Lave, Eagle, Wess, Schwartz, various club attendees, Mr Brown, and Edward Spooner covering the time and the gates between 12:35 and 12:50, where Fanny Mortimer, a sporadic witness to the street during the previous 20 minutes, one who saw a young couple earlier, stands at her door until 1am and sees Leon Goldstein. Then by Louis's statement alone, he arrives at 1am. Wess may be with Liz at 12:35. Lave sees nothing. Eagle mentions no-one and says he "couldnt be sure" whether a body was there when he entered the passageway, even though he says he kept to the wall. Spooner says he enters the passageway with the searchers at around 12:40-12:45, club attendees Gillen, Heschburg and Kozebrodski statements match that time. James Brown sees a young couple by the corner, the woman does not have flowers on her jacket. Schwartz says that Liz was out on the street at 12:45 and his story seems to indicate her attacker is anti-Semite, making that some 4 people suddenly there on the street making scuffling and shouting noises. Louis says he arrives precisely at 1am, although Fanny Mortimer stated she was at her door from 12:50 until 1am and saw no cart or horse approaching.

People can say timepieces weren't synced, or that a few minutes here or there with some stories and it all works out, or that it was late, it was dark....all I can say is that when I look at these witnesses I can see some that had a great deal at stake with the official perceptions about what happened there, financial ones. The survival of that club. Perhaps the newspaper too. Things that were likely more important to some of them than the murder of a part time street whore, or the absolute truth about how they discovered the crime. That speaks to what the witnesses motives may have been when they gave their statements. I see a few witnesses that have no discernable motivation to lie about their experiences, there was no fee arrangement here. They came forward to assist the official investigation. That's their motive.

Its clear some people were incorrect about what happened, either the time, the event itself, or peripheral materials...but the timings as is cannot co-exist in any real world. Some stories are either incorrect accidentally, or they are not.

So..again, what were the witnesses possible motivations for telling the stories they do?

Lave-to keep the club out of it
Eagle-to cover the all important few minutes near 12:45, although he hedges his bet with "couldn't be sure"
Schwartz-to place a probable culprit off the premises at that crucial time and insert an anti Jew overtone.
Diemshutz-to show that proper and prompt steps were taken when he arrived at 1.

I of them lives there. 1 is the occasional speaker there, he was that night. 1 is the club steward. And the people whose stories do no match the times and events of those people are the witnesses that have no discernable reason to lie.

[Cogidubnus]

I'm aware this could turn into an Abbott and Costello routine.

I thought perhaps they were somebody mildly funny like Morecambe and Wise...but unless someone can explain all this "Who's on one" business, I really don't know

[Abby Normal]

>> there was blood on her hand. perhaps her hand goes to the throat instinctively, stemming some of the blood.<<

They were spots of blood, not really conducive with stemming blood flow. I remember decades ago someone suggesting they were transplant there by Johnson or Lamb feeling her pulse. Maybe, maybe not.

hi Strange
she was only cut in one place-how else would blood get on her hand if not that the natural reaction be to put her hand to the cut? and someone else touching her throat and got a lot of blood on there hand and then touched her hand seems highly unlikely. why would they touch her cut throat anyway especially knowing they would get blood all over themselves? I doubt it.

[Wickerman]

hi Strange
she was only cut in one place-how else would blood get on her hand if not that the natural reaction be to put her hand to the cut? and someone else touching her throat and got a lot of blood on there hand and then touched her hand seems highly unlikely. why would they touch her cut throat anyway especially knowing they would get blood all over themselves? I doubt it.

Hi Abby.

The original proposal was that Lamb knew the blood around her was still liquid. You can't tell that in darkness by just looking at it, both clotted & liquid blood is shiny. He would need to touch the blood with his fingers, he also admitted to feeling her wrist for a pulse. Thereby (I believe) transferring blood to the back of her wrist - it was only on the back of her hand.
Phillips said: "...and the back of the hand and wrist had on them clotted blood."

If she had felt her own throat it would be with the palm of her hand, not the back, surely?