Sequence of comings & goings - Stride

[Michael W Richards]

Can you point out where he says he was sent out alone, or is this just your interpretation of his statement?

Iwent to look for a policemanat the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers."

So, How do you interpretI? And why wouldnt he just say if he was with someone, like he later does after meeting up with Eagle. Or even say WE.

He went alone... its clear... and doesnt require an interpreter.

[Joshua Rogan]

Iwent to look for a policemanat the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers."

So, How do you interpretI? And why wouldnt he just say if he was with someone, like he later does after meeting up with Eagle. Or even say WE.

He went alone... its clear... and doesnt require an interpreter.

I take that to mean that he doesn't say he went alone, that is your interpretation.

[Michael W Richards]

I take that to mean that he doesn't say he went alone, that is your interpretation.

You dont have to take my word for it, he uses singular first person for when he went alone, I, and mentions company when he had it...like when he met Eagle while returning to the club. Why would he say "I" if he wasnt alone, and why wouldnt he say he went with Louis if he had.

Its funny how often logical extrapolations from basic english constitutes blasphemy.

So theres no confusion, I is singular, We is plural. Not my "translation" at all...its just bloody English for god sakes.

[Joshua Rogan]

You dont have to take my word for it, he uses singular first person for when he went alone, I, and mentions company when he had it...like when he met Eagle while returning to the club. Why would he say "I" if he wasnt alone, and why wouldnt he say he went with Louis if he had.

Its funny how often logical extrapolations from basic english constitutes blasphemy.

So theres no confusion, I is singular, We is plural. Not my "translation" at all...its just bloody English for god sakes.

Mmm, a language which the reporter felt it necessary to point out that Kozebrodski spoke imperfectly....

What he is reported as saying may be perfectly correct, and perfectly good English, yet still not tell the whole story.
For instance, if Eagle never mentioned anyone from the club joining him at any point during his trip to fetch a policeman, does that mean Kozebrodski is lying?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. He may have had 5 minutes or more with the victim, so whats the problem?

But we can’t say that he did have 5 minutes and that’s what counts. Saying that ’he might have had 5 minutes so where’s the mutilation’ is like saying ’well he might have had a broken ankle so how did he make a quick getaway?’ We can’t pinpoint to a minute Stride’s TOD so all that we can say is that it’s possible that she wasn’t killed by the ripper but it’s also possible that she was and that he was interrupted by Diemschutz arrival.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
They couldnt just move the body Herlock, the blood trail alone would be problematic, and if the majority of witnesses are correct, there is a small crowd gathering around Liz as early as 12:40ish. No privacy for Louis, or Louis and Eagle to get her legs and hands and place her off the property

But if Diemschutz wanted to keep this quiet for the reputation of the club why did he tell everyone that there was a body? Why not just tell a couple of trusted comrades? And as for the blood trail, they could’ve wrapped the body in something.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Has there been a less reliable sounding witness than Kozebrodsky?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So Gillen is Gilleman?

Eagle returns to the club at 12.35 and around 20 minutes later Gilleman enters and mentions the body. Which is 12.55. So given that he’s only estimating it’s no stretch for it to have been 3 or 4 minutes after 1.00. Are we really going to use this level of nitpicking to make a case?

So to sum up....Kozebrodski sounds about as reliable as a chocolate teapot. Gilleman and Eagle pretty much confirm Diemschutz. Spooner (as he mentiond Lamb) was very obviously mistaken. And Mortimer in the longer version to the EN (and taking that Smith was the more likely to have gotten his timing right) appears to have been indoors when Schwartz arrived. There’s zero evidence that precludes interruption and the plan, if there was one was one, was one that Baldrick would have been proud of.

There’s no mystery here. A few witness discrepancies. Occam’s Razor. Killer more than likely the Ripper interrupted by Diemschutz.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You dont have to take my word for it, he uses singular first person for when he went alone, I, and mentions company when he had it...like when he met Eagle while returning to the club. Why would he say "I" if he wasnt alone, and why wouldnt he say he went with Louis if he had.

Its funny how often logical extrapolations from basic english constitutes blasphemy.

So theres no confusion, I is singular, We is plural. Not my "translation" at all...its just bloody English for god sakes.

Did he ever say the word ‘alone?’

If he didn’t, then “...at the request of Diemschutz..” more than likely meant that Diemschutz requested that Kozebrodski accompany him.

Joshua has pointed out that Koz spoke English imperfectly (which is polite speak for not very well) so the request of Diemschutz’ sounds a bit formal for a poor English speaker so isnt it likely to have been the reporters interpretation of what he’d said? And that it was the reporter who misunderstood the meaning?

[Trevor Marriott]

There’s no mystery here. A few witness discrepancies. Occam’s Razor. Killer more than likely the Ripper interrupted by Diemschutz.

There is not even any evidence to support this theory either.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Has there been a less reliable sounding witness than Kozebrodsky?

Yes.

Diemschitz to press:

Her hands were clenched, and when the doctor opened them I saw that she had been holding grapes in one hand and sweetmeats in the other.
…
When I first saw the woman she was lying on her left side. Her left hand was on the ground, and the right was crossed over the breast.

At inquest:

Baxter: Did you notice her hands?
Diemschitz: I did not notice what position her hands were in. I only noticed that the dress buttons of her dress were undone.

[FrankO]

The Scotsman, 1 October 1888
Lewis Diemshitz, steward of the International Working Men's Club, and the finder of the body, says -
I am a traveller by trade, and go to different markets to sell my goods. Yesterday (Saturday) I went to Westow Hill. As the night was so wet I did not stay quite as late as usual. On driving into the yard my pony shied a little in consequence of my cart coming in contact with something on the ground. On looking down I saw the ground was not level, so I took the butt end of my whip and touched what appeared to me in the dark to be a heap of dirt lately placed there - a thing I was not accustomed to see. Not being able to move it I struck a match, and found it was a woman. First of all I thought it was my wife, but I found her inside the club enjoying herself. I said to some of the members, "There is a woman lying in the yard, and I think she is drunk." Young Isaacs, a tailor machinist, went to the door and struck a match, and, to our horror, we saw blood trickling down the gutter, almost from the gate to the club. I and Isaacs ran out for a policeman, but could not find one after traversing several streets; but in the meantime another man from the club, Eagle, ran to the Leman Street Police Station and fetched two policemen, who arrived about seven minutes after the discovery. I discovered the body about one o'clock.

Times, 19 March 1889
At the Thames Police-court, before Mr. Saunders, LOUIS DIEMSHITZ [Diemschutz], an unlicensed hawker, of 40, Berner-street, St. George's; SAMUEL FRIEDMAN, cap blocker, of 81, Weaver-street, Spitalfields, and ISAAC KOZEBRODSKE, a machinist, of 40, Old Ford-road, Bethnal-green, were charged with being disorderly persons, and concerned together in assaulting Israel Sunshine, Isaac Solomons, Emanuel Snapper, and Emanuel Jacobs, of Berner-street, St. George's. They were further charged with assaulting Constables James Frost, 154 H, and George Harris, 269 H, while in the execution of their duty. They were also charged with assaulting Julius Barnett. Inspector A. Thresher, H Division, watched the case for the Commissioners of Police. The disturbance arose out of the demonstration by the Jewish unemployed, which was organized by 15 Socialists on Saturday last. Israel Sunshine, 119, Wentworth-dwellings, Whitechapel, said between 2 and 3 o'clock on Saturday afternoon he was walking down Berner-street. He saw some boys and girls knocking at the doors of the Socialist Club. Suddenly some 20 or 30 men, armed with sticks, rushed out of the club, and attacked everyone indiscriminately. Friedman, said "I will do for someone to-night, and do not care if I get 12 months for it." Witness was then struck in the mouth, and about the body. Neither of the prisoners struck him. Julius Barnett said on Saturday afternoon he went down Berner-street. A number of Socialists rushed out of the club and attacked everyone. Friedman struck witness with a stick. Emanuel Snapper, 5, Sheridan-street, deposed Friedman was the ringleader of the Socialists. Witness was struck about the body. He saw Diemshitz strike the people. The disturbance arose through the Socialists marching to the great synagogue. Witness saw the police officers pulled into the Socialists' Club, and when there they were assaulted. Constable Frost said after the Socialist meeting a crowd of 200 or 300 persons got outside the Socialists' Club in Berner-street. Witness saw Diemshitz and Friedman come out with their coats off, followed by about 30 other persons. A free fight then began, through the Socialists attacking the people outside. Witness told Diemshitz he was a police officer, and tried to stop him from striking one of the witnesses, but the prisoner took no notice of him. Diemshitz afterwards made a savage kick at witness, who fell backwards, and the blow caught him on the leg. Witness caught hold of him, but he was pulled away. Witness was then dragged into the passage of the club, where he was assaulted by a number of men and women. During the struggle the prisoner Kozebrodske struck him a blow on the head with a broom handle. In trying to get out of the place he was again assaulted. Witness felt t
he effects of the assaults very much. He denied striking Diemshitz first. Constable Harris gave further evidence, and Mr Saunders at this stage remanded the prisoners until Wednesday, and agreed to accept bail for their appearances.

Times, 26 April 1889
Lewis Diemschitz [Louis Diemschutz], 27, and Isaac Kozebrodski, 19, surrendered to their bail to answer an indictment for making a riot and rout, and for assaulting various persons. A third man, Samuel Friedman, who was indicted with the defendants did not surrender to his bail when called. Mr. Gill and Mr. Partridge prosecuted on behalf of the Commissioner of Police; and Mr. W. M. Thompson represented the defendants. The alleged disturbance occurred on March 16, on which day there had been a procession of the Jewish unemployed in the East-end. After the dispersal of the procession, many of those composing it returned to the International Workmen's Club, Berner-street, Commercial-road, E., of which they were members, and from which the procession had started. A crowd of some 200 or 300 persons, who had been following the procession, assembled outside the club, and began to annoy those inside by throwing stones, hooting, and knocking at the door. The defendant Diemschitz, steward of the club, sent for the police, but when they arrived those inside the club assumed the defensive, and, rushing out in a body, attacked the crowd with broom sticks, walking sticks, and umbrellas. It was stated that the defendants bore a prominent part in the fight, and that Diemschitz struck and kicked plain clothes constable Frost, who interfered. Frost attempted to arrest Diemschitz, but was dragged into the club, where he was beaten and kicked. On the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Gill abandoned the count for riot. A number of witnesses were called for the defence, who gave evidence to the effect that the police had made an entirely unprovoked attack on the defendants and their companions. The jury found the defendants Guilty of assaulting two constables, but Acquitted them on the other counts. The Chairman said they had greatly aggravated their offence by the defence they had set up. Diemschitz was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, and on his liberation to be bound over and to find sureties to keep the peace for 12 months. Kosebrodski was sentenced to pay a fine of £4, or to be imprisoned for one month.

More evidence supporting that Kozebrodski and Isaacs were one and the same person...

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is not even any evidence to support this theory either.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We can’t tell who killed her by any physical evidence and we have no evidence to dismiss any theory or suspect either. So I’d say that all we can do is to look at the circumstances Trevor?

Throat-cutting murders were hardly an every day occurrence but we have one here and it occurred during a spate of throat-cutting murders. All of women who engaged (whether full or part time) in prostitution. All within a very small area and all close together time wise. The killer had a compulsion to mutilate and remove organs but Stride’s case we have no mutilation. If this had occurred at some deserted location then it would likely have been put down to an angry customer/husband/boyfriend but in this case we have another murder on the same night and less than an hour later and a mere 15 minutes walk away. So the question is: could there have been a reason why Stride wasn’t mutilated which compelled the killer to search for another victim? And of course, there is. At that location and at that time a man with a cart arrives; making enough noise to pre-warn the killer of his arrival. We have a dark, shadowy yard for him to conceal himself and then Diemschutz goes inside allowing the killer to escape.

Im no statistician Trevor but the odds against this being two killers must be fairly large to say the least. It still doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have been a different killer though of course.

[FrankO]

Did he ever say the word ‘alone?’

Just like Charles Cross and Robert Paul, he didn't, Herlock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes.

Diemschitz to press:

Her hands were clenched, and when the doctor opened them I saw that she had been holding grapes in one hand and sweetmeats in the other.
…
When I first saw the woman she was lying on her left side. Her left hand was on the ground, and the right was crossed over the breast.

At inquest:

Baxter: Did you notice her hands?
Diemschitz: I did not notice what position her hands were in. I only noticed that the dress buttons of her dress were undone.

It’s certainly a good example NBFN. Would he have heard about Packer and his grapes by that time and, thinking back, added the grapes after seeing blood on her hand? I don’t know? It doesn’t follow that he got his time wrong though and he’s backed up by Mortimer.