Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[FrankO]

Mortimer also confirms that Diemshutz arrived around 1am.

Yup, true.

[Fiver]

At the same time, there are others who are discussing mostly witnesses like Mortimer and Schwartz, who played a part before the discovery. I think (almost) everybody sees that Mortimer is, at best, not very useful for confirming or discarding any happenings that took place in this period, except that she confirms Goldstein’s passing through the street somewhere before one o’clock.

Mortimer also confirms that Diemshutz arrived around 1am.

[JeffHamm]

It is hard to argue that Schwartz was not called due to disbelief. First of all, we have Mary Malcolm testifying, and it is very clear from the coroner's questions that he "is not convinced" and the police spend time locating her sister, who is of course, alive and well, Second, we have the police doing a search of the Lipski families in the area spending time and resources following up Schwartz's original story. Basically, witnesses were not omitted due to being unbelievable, and the police took action based upon Schwartz, which was ongoing during the inquest

we do not know why he doesn't testify, but based upon such things as the above, it seems unlikely his absence reflects any thing about whether or not he was believed by the police.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

[bolding added]

Hi Herlock,

What makes it even more unlikely is that Israel initially said that he thought BS man was talking to Pipeman. If they wanted to make the police assume that the killer was gentile, then why lead them to believe that a man that may have been BS man's accomplice was Jewish, or appeared to BS man to be Jewish?

Hi Lewis.

Exactly. And even worse (although I have my doubts about The Star version) why did he put the knife in Pipeman’s hands? It’s not a difficult brief is it? ‘Ok Israel, just tell the police that you saw a woman being attacked by a man with a knife who then said “Lipski” to you.’

All Diemschitz or Eagle or any member needed to have said was “I went into the yard and saw a strange man holding a knife standing over the body of a woman. I approached him and he shouted ‘f**k off you Jewish b*****d in a local accent before running away.”

Job done. Too simple apparently.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi c.d.

‘Mortimer wasn’t called to the inquest because the police knew that she was a lying busybody who was in bed by 12.30.’

Will that one be allowed to stand do you think?

Arguments of convenience repeated over time in the hope that they will be accepted as true.

[Lewis C]

The problem isn’t necessarily whether Diemschitz and the other members might have been worried about the police’s reaction to there being a murder on their premises, the problem is what they might have done about it. Let’s assume for arguments sake that they were extremely worried that the police might close the club what could they have done?

Whatever alternative discovery time is suggested (12.35, 12.40, 12.45?) we know that these men didn’t have long to act. I’m not going to quibble here on how long but I’ll say ‘around 15 minutes.’ What would they come up with as they were all standing in that yard around the body?

Surely in a street on a police beat, with the possibility of anyone walking passed as well as a Constable, someone would have suggested closing the gates? Wouldn’t that have been an obvious thing to have done; not requiring any great level of cunning? Hide the corpse. But no, the gates weren’t closed until after the Doctor got there.

So what could they have done to ‘disconnect’ it from the club? The obvious option would have been for them to have moved the body of course. It was near 1am, dark, a poorly lit backstreet with almost no one around. Someone has a look into the street to ensure that no one is around then how long would it have taken 2 members to have moved the body a dropped it say 5 yards from the club? 10 seconds? Then the blood is washed away. Of course the doctor would have known that she hadn’t been killed where she’d been discovered (whenever the next passer-by or PC Smith passed) but they would have had no reason to have connected her murder to the club. In actual fact they might have had more reason to connect it to the pub on the corner.

More risky perhaps but they could have put her onto Louis’ cart and dumped her elsewhere.

Can we really believe, that under those circumstances, in that short time someone might have suggested ‘why don’t we find someone who will lie about walking along Berner Street and seeing the woman being attacked? And if we get him to say that the attacker called him Lipski then the police will assume that the killer was a gentile and therefore not a club member.’ Would anyone have come up with that? Not a chance. Too obscure for a start. Who’d have thought of it? And who could have thought of that whilst neglecting the far more obvious and far more effective, lower risk suggestions? The risks would have been glaringly obvious to anyone. It remains an absolute non-starter.

[bolding added]

Hi Herlock,

What makes it even more unlikely is that Israel initially said that he thought BS man was talking to Pipeman. If they wanted to make the police assume that the killer was gentile, then why lead them to believe that a man that may have been BS man's accomplice was Jewish, or appeared to BS man to be Jewish?

[c.d.]

Hello Herlock,

I have no problem with any poster saying I think it is highly suspicious that Schwartz did not appear at the inquest and that fact along with others makes me doubt his story. It is when a poster says there cannot possibly be any other reason other than Schwartz was not believed by the police.

And interesting that Mortimer was not called but apparently there was a reason for that. But doesn't that fact alone establish the conclusion that it is possible for a witness not to be called but still believed? Apparently not by some.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Michael, can we please put this whole inquest business to bed once and for all? Do you know for a fact why Schwartz wasn't called to the inquest?

A simple yes or no would be appreciated.

c.d.

I said that the aims of an inquest have been explained to him 20 times c.d. but I swear I’m undercooking it. It has to be more. It’s just not sinking in. It’s black and white. We have even posted the relevant pages of the law regarding inquests and we still get the same point being made.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem isn’t necessarily whether Diemschitz and the other members might have been worried about the police’s reaction to there being a murder on their premises, the problem is what they might have done about it. Let’s assume for arguments sake that they were extremely worried that the police might close the club what could they have done?

They could present their stories in such a way as to point accusing fingers away from the club. Since, as Ive said, only club members onsite would have access to Stride without using the street or gates based on the Inquest statements. That would certainly make the initial focus on those same men...the only ones who could have done it without being seen. So Louis says he discovers the body after she is cut, at 1, not just before or at the same time as. Lamb confirms that the search party for help had reached Commercial at, or just before 1. Some have criticized that I continue to use Lambs quote of "just before 1" rather than "at 1". It really is irrelevant whether it was just before or at 1, either way Eagle must have known of the body sometime before then to be where Lamb sees him at that time. Ergo...he did not first learn of this from Louis after he says he arrived at "precisely" 1.

You continue to create problems where none exist - Diemschitz finds the body at approx 1.00 - Eagle find Lamb at approx 1.05 - Eagle and Lamb get to the club at approx 1.06. Why do you see a problem with this Michael when no one else does. It’s perfectly straightforward.

Whatever alternative discovery time is suggested (12.35, 12.40, 12.45?) we know that these men didn’t have long to act. I’m not going to quibble here on how long but I’ll say ‘around 15 minutes.’ What would they come up with as they were all standing in that yard around the body?

I think you already have the answer to that....Lave saw nothing, Eagle saw nothing, despite saying independently that they were in the same location at the same time. If Louis admitted he arrived earlier than 1, then he leaves open the suggestion he hesitated before sending men for help. Which is precisely what I believe happened.

I don’t know why you’ve brought Eagle and Lave into it because my point is about what these men could have come up with in such a short space of time.

Surely in a street on a police beat, with the possibility of anyone walking passed as well as a Constable, someone would have suggested closing the gates? Wouldn’t that have been an obvious thing to have done; not requiring any great level of cunning? Hide the corpse. But no, the gates weren’t closed until after the Doctor got there.

Hide it... then what? The blood stream to the door? Dont you really think a small adjustment to what time things happened is preferable to them having to mop up blood and smuggle the body off premises?

Of course not. Your plot requires these men to have spent time discussing what to do so do you really think that they would have congregated in a yard, around a body, at 12.45am with the gates wide open? How would they explain themselves if Smith had passed and wondered why this group of men where there. “What corpse officer? Oh, that one. Well, you probably won’t believe this but…”

More risky perhaps but they could have put her onto Louis’ cart and dumped her elsewhere.

Uh yeah, much more risky.

The police didn’t do ‘stop and search’ in those days so unless he was careless how could he have been caught dumping the body. But if we’re talking ‘risky’ how about one neighbour showing up and saying that they were looking out of their window the whole time between 12.30 and 1.00 and didn’t see Schwartz passing or the incident…only a man and a women totally alone. Plan scuppered, club members all exposed as liars, police now totally focused on the club. Would they have risked something so everyday and obvious?

Can we really believe, that under those circumstances, in that short time someone might have suggested ‘why don’t we find someone who will lie about walking along Berner Street and seeing the woman being attacked? And if we get him to say that the attacker called him Lipski then the police will assume that the killer was a gentile and therefore not a club member.’ Would anyone have come up with that? Not a chance. Too obscure for a start. Who’d have thought of it? And who could have thought of that whilst neglecting the far more obvious and far more effective, lower risk suggestions? The risks would have been glaringly obvious to anyone. It remains an absolute non-starter.

There you have what I described before, your summary suggesting this matter is now sufficiently addressed. The Truth is much different though isnt it? What that comment does not reflect is that there is no record at all that has been found or known to exist that states Israel Schwartz's tale was verified, corroborated, supported by known evidence or witness statements, or that the authorities believed it was important enough evidence to present at the Inquest.

See the real Truth is that for anyone to presume Israel Schwartz's encounter really happened in the way he described..via translator, they must also recognize the value it would have had at the Inquest. How Liz Died is perhaps addressed by that alleged encounter. The BSM guy likely takes her in the alley and kills her.

But alas, Israel did not inspire the officials of the moment that his story was at all relevant to Strides death, despite them investigating it before the Inquest. You can accept Israel as a valid witness and his story as factual, but that would be a great disadvantage to you if you are inclined to determine what actually happened

It’s really difficult to make excuses for you simply repeating this untruth when it’s been explained to you around 20 times. An inquest isn’t a police investigation. The police don’t choose who does or doesn’t appear. An inquest also isn’t just a chat about the case it has specific aims.

To identify the body - by name, not by someone saying ‘yes, that’s the woman I saw.’ Schwartz couldn’t name Stride because he didn’t know her.

The time of death - and by this we mean the date, not the actual time. Just a date. They didn’t need Schwartz for that.

How she was killed and if it was murder - Schwartz didn’t see her die so he couldn’t contribute. That information would come from the Doctor alone.

If it was murder do they have a suspect - Schwartz would only have been useful if he could have said ‘I saw Fred Smith attacking her.’ A broad shouldered man was no good to the inquest as he simply becomes ‘person or persons unknown.’

So the coroner wasn’t obliged to call Schwartz but he could have done. David Orsam made, I believe 8 suggestions as to why he might not have been called. We don’t know why he wasn’t called but it was nothing to do with the police. It was the coroner’s decision. Plus of course…Abberline trusted him which is pretty much all that counted at the time.


.

You avoided the sheer unlikeliness of the plot of course. And in my OP I mentioned Debra Arif finding a newspaper quote where a Jewish man insulted another Jewish man by calling him Lipski. So if the phrase was used by Jews against Jews you’re plot collapses at the first hurdle.

[Fiver]

Yes.....I did suggest between the lines that its within the realm of possibility that Louis killed her, then created a timeline that suggested he couldnt have. She was obviously cut before 1....so... he arrived precisely at 1. Its possible he could have done just that, and it would explain why we have an abundance of witnesses that said they knew of the body well before 1am, which contradicts Louis's contention...and I think the assumption by many...that he must have discovered her first, at 1.

That makes no sense. Changing the time when the body was found does not eliminate the possibility that Diemshutz killed killed Stride. Fanny Mortimer directly supports the 1am discovery time. Only three witnesses contradict the 1am discovery time and they contradict each other as well.

[c.d.]

Michael, can we please put this whole inquest business to bed once and for all? Do you know for a fact why Schwartz wasn't called to the inquest?

A simple yes or no would be appreciated.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And that post illustrates exactly why you're one of the very best on this site.

That is a fact btw and not just an opinion.


Respect and admiration for you as always


Kind regards


RD

Thanks RD.

[Michael W Richards]

I know its less desirable to respond within the post being addressed, but it is more time efficient to do so. So....

The problem isn’t necessarily whether Diemschitz and the other members might have been worried about the police’s reaction to there being a murder on their premises, the problem is what they might have done about it. Let’s assume for arguments sake that they were extremely worried that the police might close the club what could they have done?

They could present their stories in such a way as to point accusing fingers away from the club. Since, as Ive said, only club members onsite would have access to Stride without using the street or gates based on the Inquest statements. That would certainly make the initial focus on those same men...the only ones who could have done it without being seen. So Louis says he discovers the body after she is cut, at 1, not just before or at the same time as. Lamb confirms that the search party for help had reached Commercial at, or just before 1. Some have criticized that I continue to use Lambs quote of "just before 1" rather than "at 1". It really is irrelevant whether it was just before or at 1, either way Eagle must have known of the body sometime before then to be where Lamb sees him at that time. Ergo...he did not first learn of this from Louis after he says he arrived at "precisely" 1.

Whatever alternative discovery time is suggested (12.35, 12.40, 12.45?) we know that these men didn’t have long to act. I’m not going to quibble here on how long but I’ll say ‘around 15 minutes.’ What would they come up with as they were all standing in that yard around the body?

I think you already have the answer to that....Lave saw nothing, Eagle saw nothing, despite saying independently that they were in the same location at the same time. If Louis admitted he arrived earlier than 1, then he leaves open the suggestion he hesitated before sending men for help. Which is precisely what I believe happened.

Surely in a street on a police beat, with the possibility of anyone walking passed as well as a Constable, someone would have suggested closing the gates? Wouldn’t that have been an obvious thing to have done; not requiring any great level of cunning? Hide the corpse. But no, the gates weren’t closed until after the Doctor got there.

Hide it... then what? The blood stream to the door? Dont you really think a small adjustment to what time things happened is preferable to them having to mop up blood and smuggle the body off premises?

More risky perhaps but they could have put her onto Louis’ cart and dumped her elsewhere.

Uh yeah, much more risky.

Can we really believe, that under those circumstances, in that short time someone might have suggested ‘why don’t we find someone who will lie about walking along Berner Street and seeing the woman being attacked? And if we get him to say that the attacker called him Lipski then the police will assume that the killer was a gentile and therefore not a club member.’ Would anyone have come up with that? Not a chance. Too obscure for a start. Who’d have thought of it? And who could have thought of that whilst neglecting the far more obvious and far more effective, lower risk suggestions? The risks would have been glaringly obvious to anyone. It remains an absolute non-starter.

There you have what I described before, your summary suggesting this matter is now sufficiently addressed. The Truth is much different though isnt it? What that comment does not reflect is that there is no record at all that has been found or known to exist that states Israel Schwartz's tale was verified, corroborated, supported by known evidence or witness statements, or that the authorities believed it was important enough evidence to present at the Inquest. Personal notes by a few investigators that they believed him are completely worthless in this investigation, because they do not prove or support its value by adding it to the Inquest records. We only know of him because of the press, he adds nothing of value to the investigation.

See the real Truth is that for anyone to presume Israel Schwartz's encounter really happened in the way he described..via translator, they must also recognize the value it would have had at the Inquest. How Liz Died is perhaps addressed by that alleged encounter. The BSM guy likely takes her in the alley and kills her.

But alas, Israel did not inspire the officials of the moment that his story was at all relevant to Strides death, despite them investigating it before the Inquest. You can accept Israel as a valid witness and his story as factual, but that would be a great disadvantage to you if you are inclined to determine what actually happened.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

I just re-read my response to your long post. Parts of it came across as more terse than was my intent. My excuse is that I was about to do something and was rushing to complete the post first which is never a good thing to do (it’s got me into trouble in the past)

I also don’t want you to think that I’m denigrating your contributions RD. I’m certainly not. They are just as valid as anyone else’s and let’s face it, most of the things that we debate on here are matters of our own interpretation and we don’t always interpret things the same way. Since you’ve been posting you come up with lots of interesting stuff and different viewpoints which you should keep doing. It’s just my opinion that in your enthusiasm you might get a little carried away at times (and that is just my opinion of course). As I’ve been interested in the case for longer than you I’ve probably become a bit more jaded and perhaps cynical after hearing so many theories, so I can certainly be criticised for perhaps not having the same level of enthusiasm. Maybe it will return? It ebbs and flows.

That said RD, you could be right. It seems very unlikely to me that Schwartz would have lied but I think it’s certainly possible that he could have been mistaken. Let’s consider…


Perhaps sometime, maybe not long, before 12.30 Schwartz passed along Berner Street? The lateness of the hour introduces the possibility (no more) that he might have had a drink or three which wouldn’t exactly help with perception and memory. He sees a minor domestic-type confrontation at the gates (maybe his lack of English led him to misinterpret the seriousness of the incident? Maybe it was just a piece of drunken horseplay between a man and a woman actually knew each other?) The lack of any loud screaming suggests that the woman at least didn’t consider her life under threat. The next morning he hears of the murder from a friend and he tells him about seeing the incident. The friend tells him that he probably saw the killer and his victim. He thinks that it was around 12.20-12.30 but he couldn’t be sure but his friend, knowing more about when the body was found, says that it was more likely to have been around 12.45. Schwartz is now convinced that it must have been around d 12.45 so he goes to the police.

He later ID’s the body in the mortuary but we know how witnesses can be mistaken and when we consider the circumstances of the sighting we see that Schwartz would hardly have stood staring. More likely he saw her in quite fleeting glances as he passed. Women of that class didn’t have extensive wardrobes then so unlike today there wouldn’t have been such a difference in the way two lower class women dressed. So he saw a woman who looked vaguely similar to Stride, dressed similarly and he’d seen her at the very spot where a body was later found. It’s perhaps not difficult to imagine why his confidence level might have increased.

If Schwartz was right (in The Star) that Pipeman came from the doorway of the pub couldn’t he have actually been exiting the pub? This would have been less likely to have happened a full 45 minutes after closing time? What about 12.15-12.30? I don’t know. Maybe he was a barman who had been helping clean up before lights out?

So I really think it’s possible that Schwartz might have seen an unrelated incident sometime prior to 12.30. If we accept that witnesses can be mistaken on timings and we accept problems of synchronicity then we should accept the possibility with Schwartz too.

And that post illustrates exactly why you're one of the very best on this site.

That is a fact btw and not just an opinion.


Respect and admiration for you as always


Kind regards


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem isn’t necessarily whether Diemschitz and the other members might have been worried about the police’s reaction to there being a murder on their premises, the problem is what they might have done about it. Let’s assume for arguments sake that they were extremely worried that the police might close the club what could they have done?

Whatever alternative discovery time is suggested (12.35, 12.40, 12.45?) we know that these men didn’t have long to act. I’m not going to quibble here on how long but I’ll say ‘around 15 minutes.’ What would they come up with as they were all standing in that yard around the body?

Surely in a street on a police beat, with the possibility of anyone walking passed as well as a Constable, someone would have suggested closing the gates? Wouldn’t that have been an obvious thing to have done; not requiring any great level of cunning? Hide the corpse. But no, the gates weren’t closed until after the Doctor got there.

So what could they have done to ‘disconnect’ it from the club? The obvious option would have been for them to have moved the body of course. It was near 1am, dark, a poorly lit backstreet with almost no one around. Someone has a look into the street to ensure that no one is around then how long would it have taken 2 members to have moved the body a dropped it say 5 yards from the club? 10 seconds? Then the blood is washed away. Of course the doctor would have known that she hadn’t been killed where she’d been discovered (whenever the next passer-by or PC Smith passed) but they would have had no reason to have connected her murder to the club. In actual fact they might have had more reason to connect it to the pub on the corner.

More risky perhaps but they could have put her onto Louis’ cart and dumped her elsewhere.

Can we really believe, that under those circumstances, in that short time someone might have suggested ‘why don’t we find someone who will lie about walking along Berner Street and seeing the woman being attacked? And if we get him to say that the attacker called him Lipski then the police will assume that the killer was a gentile and therefore not a club member.’ Would anyone have come up with that? Not a chance. Too obscure for a start. Who’d have thought of it? And who could have thought of that whilst neglecting the far more obvious and far more effective, lower risk suggestions? The risks would have been glaringly obvious to anyone. It remains an absolute non-starter.