Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

The short answer to your question is.... I don't have the slightest idea. As I said, Smith's testimony only outlined the perimeter of his beat with a comment regarding the internal possibilities, which I interpret as random with regard to Smith's judgement in each particular case on the night. At one stage I spent some considerable hours trying to work out a feasible beat, but with no joy. I have formed the opinion that we have no way of deducing the internal configuration of Smith's beat, so the logical conclusion is that we can only accept Smith's testimony that he saw Stride with Parcelman as he was proceeding north along Berner St, and accept that, in his experienced professional opinion, that occurred between 12:30 and 12:35 police time. The fact is that he is the ONLY ONE that knew his beat on that night. I shall remain obdurate in this opinion until evidence is produced to the contrary, such evidence not to include the unsubstantiated times of Fanny Mortimer.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I see that Jeff has beaten me to it to react to your post. Our responses are somewhat different, but our conclusions are rather similar. Anyway, here it goes.

I think you’re a bit too pessimistic about this. Of course, we can’t and will never know how Smith precisely walked his beat on each and every round he went, including the one when he saw Stride & companion. But that doesn’t matter much.

If he was at the top of Berner Street at 12:30 and then patrolled it first down and then up and went around his beat (which would take him 25 to 30 minutes), then he would arrive back at the top of Berner Street again at 12:55 to 1 am.

Now, if we would split the patrolling down Berner Street from the patrolling up the street, then those times (the 12:30 & the 12:55 to 1 am) would no longer be 25 to 30 minutes apart. They would be longer.

An example. Let’s say he was at the top of Berner Street at 12:30 and he patrolled it south where he would turn right or left on Fairclough. Then, let’s just, as an example, say, he then patrolled Batty Street first up and then down again and then went to Berner Street through Fairclough and then patrolled it in the northern direction.

In this example it would have taken, at least, some 4 to 5 minutes to first go to Batty Street, patrol it up and down and then to return to Berner Street, before he could arrive at the spot where he saw Stride & companion. So, then 12:30 to 35 should have been at least 12:35 to 12:40. The longer, however, it would have taken Smith to return to Berner Street to do the stretch in the northern direction, the less what Smith testified would correspond with the actual truth.

What we’re stuck with is a route that places Smith where he saw Stride & companion and places him almost there again 25 to 30 minutes or almost one beat-round later. There’s no way around it. And no orderly or easy-to-remember route that would fit. I have come up with 5 examples of Smith doing Berner Street in seperate goes and none of them fit. That is what we can deduce from all the information we do have, however little it may seem.

The best,
Frank

[The Rookie Detective]

If it has to happen post-Smith and pre-young couple, then it must happen pre-Fanny's vigil. That might suggest that the fellow PC Smith sees with Stride is also B.S., and he left Stride after PC Smith went by and headed north, then when Smith exits, he turns around and heads back, and Schwartz enters behind him. B.S. is angry, perhaps because Stride was trying to convince him the area was "safe", and then along came a PC! He roughs her up, Schwartz passes etc. He's now really upset at her because look how busy this place is, and in a rage kills her and takes off south. Fanny them comes out on to her door step, and the young couple show a few minutes later.

- Jeff

Not to dissimilar from my version...


After Pc Smith sees Stride and Parcelman opposite the yard, he heads north up Berner Street and is heard by Mortimer as he passes her door.
The PC turns left into Sanders Street
After ensuring the PC has turned the corner, Parcelman and Stride walk into the yard in a gesture to go and have a more private interaction.
Stride takes out some Cachou as she walks slightly ahead of him. Parcelman opens the unsealed parcel that conceals his knife at the same time and as they go through the gateway, he pulls her back savagely by her neck attire, essentially garroting her as he violently cuts her throat; almost decapitating her with one cut.
It's so quick that it takes a second longer for the initial blood to exit the wound (a bit like if you were to chop your finger off quick and cleanly, it will in the very first moment have a delay before spurting or oozing blood compared to a slower ragged cut)
He has time to lower her to the floor just as the blood starts running.
He then replaces the knife into his faux parcel and casually walks off, exiting the yard and immediately walking across the road and sneaking down the alleyway that runs into Batty Street before turning left and heading north into the busier Commercial Road

From the moment that Pc Smith turns left into Sanders Street to the moment that the Ripper sneaks through the alleyway, after killing Stride, takes no more than 90 seconds.
After hearing Pc Smith pass her door, Mortimer delays her going to begin her vigil at her door, but by the time she stands at her door, the Ripper is already in Batty Street.

The Schwartz incident never happened


All my opinion though obviously


No truth to be had here



RD

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I have to offer my compliments on the commendable work that you have done on producing a viable model of Smith's beat. However, I do have some reservations and observations that I would like to share regarding the most relevant portions of the beat, those being his sighting of Stride with Parcelman and his arrival at the Berner St corner at 1am.

You say that "From his testimony, it appears he patrols both sides of Berner Street, so one side heading south and the other side when heading north.". I have read the accounts of his testimony in the Daily Telegraph, The Times and the Morning Advertiser and have been unable to draw that conclusion from those publications. Can you direct me to the reference that persuaded you of this fact please?

The Times 6 Oct:
When you saw them talking, which way did you go? - Straight up Berner-street into the Commercial-road.
Inspector Reid. - Did you see these people more than once? - No.

Morning Advertiser 6 Oct:
I did not see the man and woman more than once.

If Smith walked south down Berner and then turned around and walked back up Berner, to see the couple only once they must have emerged from somewhere to the north, behind him, shortly after he passed the gateway. But Marshall saw a couple to the south of the gateway and testified that they departed to the south. Packer observed his couple arrive from the south and take up position where Smith had seen them, and stated they stayed there for a long time, and were still there when he went to bed. Mortimer only stated that she heard one "measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat.". Brown's observation of a couple was also to the south, although IMO he was viewing the Mortimer couple rather than Stride. While it is possible that they emerged from the yard or from Hampshire Ct, IMO it is not probable. As I was writing the above it occurred to me that, conversely, he may have considered seeing them as he walked down the street and back as one event, although I think he might then have mentioned this as part of his testimony.

I would think that the level of detail in the description provided by Smith would suggest that he was on the same side of the street as the couple, and I think it is possible that Smith may have turned from Fairclough into Berner and walked up the eastern side of the street to encounter Stride and Parcelman. With regard to times, Smith testified to the range of time that it took to complete his beat. This indicates to me that he had a reference clock on his beat to provide him with the data to deduce that range. I acknowledge that you have conceded this possibility, and we have agreed to disagree as to how closely it it may have been in sync with the Leman St Police clock (GMT).

In summary, I am still unsure that we have enough solid data to be able to construct a model for Smith's beat superior to the knowledge of that beat, and the times involved, possessed by Smith himself.

On another note, on the slim chance that you are not aware of its existence, I'd like to draw your attention to some reports that I find interesting in The Echo on 6 Oct,

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881006.html

beginning with the heading "THE MAN AT THE FRUIT SHOP" through to "THE BLACK SHINY BAG".

Best regards, George

Hi George,

When PC Smith talks about his beat, he says as per above he heads north to Commercial, so we know he goes north on Commercial. The other point is that he also says he sees the crowd outside the club when he turned into Berner from Commercial on his next round, which would have him going south at that point. Combined with the need to cover his perimeter, and the internal streets, etc, to provide complete coverage given the layout of the streets involved, the most efficient pattern is for him to go down then back up Berner, over to the next street, down and back up, then over again, down and then east to cover the south-east "spike" on Fairclough, and then straight over to BackChurch Lane to go North, etc. I'm leaning towards Sander being covered during his northern patrol of Back Church Lane, but obviously can't say that for sure. Anyway, what I'm suggesting (and I hope it is clear), ensures he covers all bits of the beat without doubling any of the sections (counting each side of the internal streets as separate sections - police were to check locks and so forth of some buildings and gates I believe, so each side of the street would have it's duties). It is difficult to construct a path that covers all of the perimeter without him going in both directions on the internal streets that run North-South.

Also, given I'm suggesting he heads south then back north, his sighting of Stride would be "one sighting" during his entire time in Berner Street. He would emphasize the point in time when he gets the best look at time (passes by them while on the same side of the street), but that doesn't mean he hadn't noticed them for longer. I take his statement of not seeing them again as to mean not seeing them other than during the time he was in Berner Street (i.e. he didn't pass them elsewhere during his beat, such as later on Fairclough as he was heading towards Back Church Lane).

I agree that we have to consider the possibility that his identification of the woman as being Stride could be a mistake, but he does say that the woman was Stride so I tend to treat that as the "hypothesis we would have to disprove". But, I'm open to considering the implications of what it would mean if he was wrong. I don't think Stride could be dead at that time given I think he walks past where she's later found, and she wasn't so far into the yard that he would have missed her (he may even had been required to look into the alley by the club after all). If it wasn't her, then she has to come from elsewhere after he's passed.

One possibility as to why Mortimer doesn't see the couple after PC Smith's passes them is that, if it is Stride, then having a PC walk past them could very well have spooked a potential punter, and so they leave (to the south I would think) after PC Smith has gone past them, so that by the time Fanny emerges they've left. Of course, Fanny's "young couple" have to be fit in at some point too, as they have to arrive from somewhere. So if you're correct, and PC Smith mistook the "young couple" for Stride, that would suggest the murder takes place post-vigil. Except the young couple I think gets a mention as being at the crime scene when the police are there. If the murder couldn't have taken place before PC Smith's patrol, and can't happen after, there's a problem as it has to happen at some point (I'm not even talking about the Schwartz event here, just the murder itself, whether that involves Schwartz event or not is another question).

If it has to happen post-Smith and pre-young couple, then it must happen pre-Fanny's vigil. That might suggest that the fellow PC Smith sees with Stride is also B.S., and he left Stride after PC Smith went by and headed north, then when Smith exits, he turns around and heads back, and Schwartz enters behind him. B.S. is angry, perhaps because Stride was trying to convince him the area was "safe", and then along came a PC! He roughs her up, Schwartz passes etc. He's now really upset at her because look how busy this place is, and in a rage kills her and takes off south. Fanny them comes out on to her door step, and the young couple show a few minutes later. (I am totally speculating here, and more or less just creating this idea as I type it out, and am not expecting it to be viewed as the definitive solution by any stretch of the imagination - which my story has probably stretched more than enough already! )

Anyway, I realise I went a bit beyond just explaining why I think PC Smith had to have gone both south and north on the internal Streets. And also, I don't think he would have counted it as "two sightings" if he saw Stride while going south and then passed them when going north. I can't see anyone counting that as seeing them on "another occasion" because it's all part of the same "event" (his patrol of Berner Street).

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

This is a very important point; 12:45, by whose clock?

- Jeff

Exactly. It would be great if anyone quoting times could add this qualification.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi RD,

The point isn't that there's no question that the Schwartz incident happened, but that what we know about the Stride murder doesn't tell us that it couldn't have happened, or even that's it's unlikely to have happened. Also, keep in mind that 12:45 is an approximation, just as Brown leaving to get dinner at 12:45 is an approximation. Maybe one happened at 12:43 and the other at 12:47, to give just one possible example.

To be exact, rather than say that none else saw the incident, we should say that no one else that we know of saw it. Herlock has explained why that isn't very surprising.

This is a very important point; 12:45, by whose clock? And what does that clock read when compared to another clock? What Lewis C points out is that "Brown Time" and "Schwartz Time" are sort of like talking about different "time zones". His example has those time zones 4 minutes apart. So, for example, when Brown says 12:45, that could be 12:49 or 12:41 in "Schwartz Time". We're not adjusting Schwartz's "Time" per se (In Schwartz Time it is still 12:45 in both cases), rather the notion more like saying "When it is 8 o'clock in Nova Scotia, it is 8:30 in Newfoundland" So if there were a celestial event, say the appearance of a flash in the night sky visible in both places, Jack in Nova Scotia says it happened at 8:00, while Jill in Newfoundland says 8:30. Neither is wrong per se, but when placing the event on a timeline, then both Jack and Jill get placed at 8:00 if you base that timeline on Nova Scotia time, but both get placed at 8:30 if you build your timeline based upon Newfoundland Time. You're not adjusting either Jack's or Jill's time as if they are "wrong" about when it happened in "time" per se, you are accounting for the 30 minute difference in the "clocks", which determines the "value" that point in time has for each of them.

This is why I'm impressed with the consistencies we're seeing between the timelines that George, Frank, and I have been working on. The pacing between events are very similar, despite each of us using different methods, making a few different assumptions, and so forth, and yet on the whole the events occur similarly, with the bulk of differences between the time values generally being a constant, that reflects the difference between the clocks each of us is using - in effect it is like we're referencing "different time zones". While one could discuss the issue of which is closest to GMT, that to me is (at least for now) a much less important issue than getting the sequencing and pacings correct. But that, of course, is just my personal opinion, and I don't speak for anyone else on the relative importance of that GMT issue.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Indeed, working out the beats of the various PC's is never a sure thing. I'm sure Steve could give a fair lecture on the complications of working out PC Neil's beat in the Nichols case, for example. On the other hand, we're not completely in the dark. As you say, we know PC Smith's perimeter (in yellow), and we also know the beat PCs were to patrol all the streets internal of their perimeter (in purple), and the courts and alleys (green, blue, and red). The tricky bit is to work out the order of some of those (Sander Street has come up a few times as to whether PC Smith would patrol that when he reached the west end (so during the portion of his beat when he's heading North on Back Church Lane) or the east end (when on Berner Street). From his testimony, it appears he patrols both sides of Berner Street, so one side heading south and the other side when heading north. Frank believes he did the east side while heading south, while I've suggested he does the west side when heading south. He also mentions Batty's Gardens (which would fall under the "courts and alley requirement). He doesn't mention Hampton Court, but presumably that falls under his beat requirement as well, though whether he enters that from the east or west end we don't know (entering from the West end extends his time in the Berner Street portion of his patrol). It's also possible that some of these courts and alleys he "splits", and so does a portion by entering at one end, and completes it by entering from the other end (i.e. Batty's Garden (in green) has an odd shape, and I could see him entering from the west and just patrolling some portion, maybe just the bit that heads east, and either just viewing the bit that runs north/south from that vantage point, or even patrolling to the court yard are itself, then doubling back. Then, while in Berner Street, he re-enters and circles the court area itself. He may have done something similar with Hampton Court (blue line just east of Batty's Garden). There's a couple of areas like court yards that may have been part of his beat (in red), but the map does show a line across them, which may indicate they were gated off (in which case he doesn't patrol them). The blue lines show a few other alley ways that, presumably, he is expected to patrol. Some of those only have the one entrance, and others are not in the critical region of Berner Street, so at the moment are of less concern as to which direction of entrance gets chosen, though that could change.

My thoughts are that the red areas are probably gated off, as indicated by the presence of a line cutting them off from the road way. Also, all the internal streets (purple) I think he patrols both sides of, so along one side, then crosses, and back along the other. We know he patrols Batty's Garden, and probably does enter it from Berner's Street, but I think it's worth considering whether he then did the whole of it, or just the court-yard portion (possibly including the small ally stretch at the south-west corner to where it then heads north), and does the other portion by entering from Back Church Lane. A similar "split" should be considered as a possibility for Hampton Court, along with the options of doing the whole thing starting at either end.

Now, we can work out the total distance of his beat even if we don't know the above specifics, because in the end the total distance will be the same regardless. That allows us to estimate his patrol speed, or a range of patrol speeds given his beat takes anywhere from 25-30 minutes (so 27.5 minutes would be an unbiased starting point). And 27.5 minutes tends to work out at around a patrol speed of 2.8 ish mph. There are two versions of how he patrols Berner Street, east side first or west side first. There are then 3 suggestions of how to deal with Batty's Gardens (will do it all from Back Church Lane; will do it all from Berner Street; will do the court section only from Berner), 3 similar versions for Hampton Court, and 2 versions for Sander Street (does it from Back Church Lane or Does it from Berner Street). That gives us 2 x 3 x 3 x 2 = 36 combinations (not including options to skip anything entirely). While that might seem like a lot, it isn't exactly insurmountable as it's just a matter of measuring bits independently, and then playing around with the totals for the various combinations after getting those measurements. And then one can use his average patrol time to determine how long he is in that portion of his patrol. If we can estimate the time he started that portion, then we can estimate the time he leaves Berner Street under the different configurations.

Then, we can examine other information we have to see if that allows us to rule out any of those options, until we are left with a set of beats that seem to remain viable (which could be all of them if there's nothing we can use to rule any of them out). Using the remaining set, we then look to see how information we're unsure of might fit, and what influence "beat choice" has on those values, producing various time window ranges. For example, if event X looks like it runs from 12:35-12:40 for one Beat, but from 12:38 to 12:43 in another, we could mark things off from 12:35 to 12:38 as 0.5, from 1238-12:40 as 1, and from 12:40 to 12:43 as 0.5, to represent the amount of agreement. If we were left with all 36 configurations, there will be a fairly wide range under consideration, but many of the beat versions will be similar lengths, and as such, it will highlight the time window that has the highest probability (because it will fit with the most versions).

None of that will ensure we've got it right, of course, but there is no way to know the specifics of truth, only ways to deal with the information we have to see what we can extract from it to guide our interpretations. This sort of thing is probably the best we can do with the information we have, but I think it could be very interesting.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I have to offer my compliments on the commendable work that you have done on producing a viable model of Smith's beat. However, I do have some reservations and observations that I would like to share regarding the most relevant portions of the beat, those being his sighting of Stride with Parcelman and his arrival at the Berner St corner at 1am.

You say that "From his testimony, it appears he patrols both sides of Berner Street, so one side heading south and the other side when heading north.". I have read the accounts of his testimony in the Daily Telegraph, The Times and the Morning Advertiser and have been unable to draw that conclusion from those publications. Can you direct me to the reference that persuaded you of this fact please?

The Times 6 Oct:
When you saw them talking, which way did you go? - Straight up Berner-street into the Commercial-road.
Inspector Reid. - Did you see these people more than once? - No.

Morning Advertiser 6 Oct:
I did not see the man and woman more than once.

If Smith walked south down Berner and then turned around and walked back up Berner, to see the couple only once they must have emerged from somewhere to the north, behind him, shortly after he passed the gateway. But Marshall saw a couple to the south of the gateway and testified that they departed to the south. Packer observed his couple arrive from the south and take up position where Smith had seen them, and stated they stayed there for a long time, and were still there when he went to bed. Mortimer only stated that she heard one "measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat.". Brown's observation of a couple was also to the south, although IMO he was viewing the Mortimer couple rather than Stride. While it is possible that they emerged from the yard or from Hampshire Ct, IMO it is not probable. As I was writing the above it occurred to me that, conversely, he may have considered seeing them as he walked down the street and back as one event, although I think he might then have mentioned this as part of his testimony.

I would think that the level of detail in the description provided by Smith would suggest that he was on the same side of the street as the couple, and I think it is possible that Smith may have turned from Fairclough into Berner and walked up the eastern side of the street to encounter Stride and Parcelman. With regard to times, Smith testified to the range of time that it took to complete his beat. This indicates to me that he had a reference clock on his beat to provide him with the data to deduce that range. I acknowledge that you have conceded this possibility, and we have agreed to disagree as to how closely it it may have been in sync with the Leman St Police clock (GMT).

In summary, I am still unsure that we have enough solid data to be able to construct a model for Smith's beat superior to the knowledge of that beat, and the times involved, possessed by Smith himself.

On another note, on the slim chance that you are not aware of its existence, I'd like to draw your attention to some reports that I find interesting in The Echo on 6 Oct,

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881006.html

beginning with the heading "THE MAN AT THE FRUIT SHOP" through to "THE BLACK SHINY BAG".

Best regards, George

[Lewis C]

So...


It looks like we're back to square one y'all


The er...Schwartz thing...well... yeah, it happened.

12.45am


Remember the time y'all



At 12.45am Stride was assaulted and Schwartz saw everything.



I was wrong.

I've been proven wrong...yet again.


Just like I was with that Bachert guy...


"In truth..."

There is...


No Mystery


No Plots.



it all makes sense now.


I stand corrected.



Schwartz was the man, the key to this case.





Nothing now needs to be questioned or challenged about the night of Stride's murder.


Pack up your old kit bag, and smile.

It's been sorted.


Absolutely nothing more to see here


Move on to Nichols...that's much more difficult to explain...unlike Stride, which is a piece of cake



Good effort y'all


Time to put the Stride thing to bed






Now...in the time it took you to read that utter nonsense and Jibberish...







Stride has been approached and then assaulted, and 3 other people whom nobody else saw; or heard, who arrived at different times; have all just left at different times, before any of you even noticed.


I am not sure how, but...if the majority say it happened, then it happened.


"It was Bachert!"

*puts mirror down and blows out the candle




RD

Hi RD,

The point isn't that there's no question that the Schwartz incident happened, but that what we know about the Stride murder doesn't tell us that it couldn't have happened, or even that's it's unlikely to have happened. Also, keep in mind that 12:45 is an approximation, just as Brown leaving to get dinner at 12:45 is an approximation. Maybe one happened at 12:43 and the other at 12:47, to give just one possible example.

To be exact, rather than say that none else saw the incident, we should say that no one else that we know of saw it. Herlock has explained why that isn't very surprising.

[The Rookie Detective]

So...


It looks like we're back to square one y'all


The er...Schwartz thing...well... yeah, it happened.

12.45am


Remember the time y'all



At 12.45am Stride was assaulted and Schwartz saw everything.



I was wrong.

I've been proven wrong...yet again.


Just like I was with that Bachert guy...


"In truth..."

There is...


No Mystery


No Plots.



it all makes sense now.


I stand corrected.



Schwartz was the man, the key to this case.





Nothing now needs to be questioned or challenged about the night of Stride's murder.


Pack up your old kit bag, and smile.

It's been sorted.


Absolutely nothing more to see here


Move on to Nichols...that's much more difficult to explain...unlike Stride, which is a piece of cake



Good effort y'all


Time to put the Stride thing to bed






Now...in the time it took you to read that utter nonsense and Jibberish...







Stride has been approached and then assaulted, and 3 other people whom nobody else saw; or heard, who arrived at different times; have all just left at different times, before any of you even noticed.


I am not sure how, but...if the majority say it happened, then it happened.


"It was Bachert!"

*puts mirror down and blows out the candle




RD

[c.d.]

Nice response, R.D.

c.d.

[c.d.]

How many times do we have to keep hearing of perfectly everyday events in Berner Street being talked of as if they occurred at Roswell?

One of the best lines ever on these boards.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

You just got owned by post #742

Yes, I did.

The one thing I admire most about Herlock; is that he always has something to contribute and bring to the table.

He is passionate about what he believes in.

He is knowledgeable and knows more about the Ripper case than I will ever know.

And in the vast majority of occasions he often proves me wrong, or at the very least has an excellent counterargument that makes my efforts a fruitless waste of time.

I can't argue with your comment, because frankly; why would I if it's true.



When the day comes when you can provide the same level of insight and understanding as Herlock, then I will be more than happy to be the recipient of another excellent comeback from you; just like the one Herlock has demonstrated so eloquently.


The biggest positive for me is that I know I am having an impact when I receive such kind, detailed, analytical, progressive, and constructive comments like the one you gave me.

But jokes aside...

We all know that there is no proof to be had here; and that my comments are full of as much conjecture and speculation as anyone else, and so my chosen use of words; such as "In truth," that present me as someone who knows more than anyone else, is perhaps embedded in more nuanced meaning than is seen at face value.

Consider the possibility that my choice of words are chosen for a reason and are in no way a reflection of the real me or my actual personal beliefs.

I am an actor after all



At least my deliberate approach has inspired multiple responses, and has done some good in giving this thread some much-needed spark.

I tried the same thing over on Forums recently, but was told rather directly that nobody was interested in "Whodunnits" on Forums, and that I should essentially... move on.
This is despite the question of that thread being...

"Was Kosminski Jack the Ripper?"

I mean...if that's not a "whodunnit" question, then I don't know what is.


But i digress...


I very much thank Herlock for his guidance, and his valid comments... and of course, for tearing me a new a**


It didn't hurt too much...



More tea vicar?



RD

[FISHY1118]

Excellent Michael

I concur with this entirely


In truth, the night of the Murder of Stride, there was no big drama, no assault, no anti Semitic slur shouted across the street...and no suspect who bought grapes either

The night was wholly uneventful and the only distinguishable sounds came from the after-hours lock-in at the club as they sang songs and got merry.

Stride's killer convinced her to walk from her position as seen by PC Smith and lure her into the relative darkness of the yard.
Within 30 seconds of manoeuvring her into the yard, he had pulled her back violently by her neck attire, strangled her, cut her throat savagely once, layed her down and walked off.

That's why nobody heard anything and saw nothing

Apart from Schwartz

Lave, Eagle and the other couple saw or heard nothing to warrant any suspicion.
Pc Smith saw Stride with Parcelman talking quietly

Mortimer heard boots and saw Goldstein

Brown may have been the last person to see Stride alive IF it was indeed Stride who he saw.

If it was, then the comment of "no, not tonight, some other night" ? paraphrasing possibly could be contextually relevant because there may be a chance that after Brown saw her (Stride?) she may have walked from her position to head toward the club in a bid to get away from the man who may not have taken no for an answer. As she walks thought the yard in a bid to go onto the club he may have followed and cut her throat before she could reach relative safety.
In other words, Stride may have been murdered by the man Brown saw just moments after she openly rejected him.

But going back to the Schwartz...

It is rather telling how he never appeared at the inquest.

It does make me wonder whether the police tried to locate him to be a key witness at the inquest, but they couldn't find him.

The man was a ghost


RD

You just got owned by post #742

[Herlock Sholmes]

And nobody heard it either, despite a man shouting "Lipski"

Yes. Do you hear everything that happens in the street outside your house? I certainly don’t. One word? What was she doing at the time? Was she at the front part of the house or the rear? Had she gone to the outside loo? Was she talking to her husband at the time? We seem to keep taking everyday, normal occurrences and using them as if they are somehow extraordinary.

So you are saying that...

Bs Man enters Berner Street unseen and walks towards Stride
Just behind him is Schwartz who has also walks the length of the northern section of Berner Street unseen

No one saw them. Things occur unseen all the time.

Schwartz then witnesses Bs Man walk over to Stride and physically assault her by grabbing her, spinning her around and then throwing her down onto the floor, again all unseen...and unheard.
The woman quite then screams 3 times but inexplicably, not very loudly.

There’s nothing inexplicable about it although ‘screams’ is perhaps a poor choice of word and who might have used a poor choice of word? A man that couldn’t speak English is a likely candidate wouldn’t you say? The fact that she wasn’t very loud is also hardly remarkable. These women were hardened by circumstances they weren’t Victorian debutantes who fall into a swoon at the drop of a hat. Sadly Stride had probably been on the wrong end of many a beating in her time so she may have just been resigned to getting another. She may even have recognised the man and not considered him as a potential killer.

During this, Schwartz has crossed the street and observes another man step out from a doorway, aka Pipeman...who is also unseen.
Despite Schwartz seemingly getting his bearings wrong as Pipeman is on the wrong side of the road in relation to Schwartz's statement.
Bs man then notices Schwartz and/or Pipeman and allegedly shouts over "Lipski!"
Again, unheard.

The time that it appears that the wrong side of the road is given is in The Star interview. An unofficial interview with a reporter who may not have been too concerned with accuracy. I suggest that this was likely to have been an error of reporting. It’s not a complex tale after all so it’s almost impossible that Schwartz would have given two versions even if he was lying.

Schwartz then panics and begins to run away possibly followed by Pipeman...again, unseen and unheard.
Then Pipeman needs to exit the scene and BS man also needs to leave the scene...both unseen.

You keep repeating ‘unseen’ and ‘unheard’ as if it’s somehow remarkable RD. Again these are events that would have taken up 2 minutes in a deserted, dimly lit Whitechapel backstreet.

WIth the possible adage that Bs Man may have then dragged her into the yard, despite no evidence she was dragged or followed her as she tried to escape...not by screaming for help but by walking into the darkness of the yard from her position on the floor on the street side of the gateway...

Where is it said that she was ‘dragged’ into the yard?

And ALL of this occurs in..


30 seconds.

No. Let me clear RD, and I have said this quite a few times, I’m talking about the period from BS man confronting Stride to the point where Schwartz and Pipeman exit Berner Street. Thirty seconds or less. Of course we have to add perhaps a minute or so if we include the walk along Berner Street. This is why I’ve used 2 minutes as a whole. The fact that no one saw them is explained by the fact that the street is deserted at the time that this occurred. We have no evidence that proves that there must have been someone around to see this because a) we can’t know exactly what time this occurred at, and b) we don't know when FM was or wasn’t on her doorstep. Again, perfectly normal events. In every town or country in every country, 24/7 there are things happening in streets that no one sees or hears or pays any attention to.

Hmmm...

Plus we negate the other couple standing at the corner of faircloth street
We negate Brown who saw a couple at 12.45am

No we don’t be we can’t be certain of times.

We negate Mortimer who stood at her door sometime after Eagle and Pc Smith had gone

But we don’t know when and for how long.

And we base a statement given by a man who was described as looking theatrical

That doesn’t mean that he was wearing a clowns outfit RD. How is his appearance relevant?

The same man who nobody can find outside of the Stride murder.

Have they not found him or just not found him for certain?

A man who was not at the official inquest, despite seeing a woman being assaulted shortly before someone cuts her throat.

How many times must this fallacy be repeated RD. I must have gone over this twenty times. David Orsam has written an article on it. Schwartz was not an important witness as far as the inquest was concerned. He could tell them nothing of importance.

At some point there will come a new generation of individuals who will look at this case and be astounded that Israel Schwartz formed the core of everything else that was said to have occured on the night of Stride's murder.

And let’s all hope that this knew generation won’t be conspiracy theorists shall we? And perhaps that we should show a little respect for someone like Frederick Abberline perhaps? He didn’t have modern techniques available to him, he knew nothing about serial killers and some of us apparently feel, 135 years on, that we can simply deride his judgment - but we should remember this and remember it well, he was a very experienced, highly respected officer who will have interviewed a huge number of people over the years and so we should allow him a level of competence. Plus, this was a man who needed the killer caught and so would have been wary of time wasters. Frederick Abberline appeared to have no doubt that Schwartz was genuine. Why do some feel that this counts for nothing? And I’ll add that we don’t have all of the information that was available to the police at the time.

Nothing he said happened was seen OR HEARD by anyone else and no trace of Schwartz can be made after the police realized his true worth and didnt need him to be part of the official inquest.
Bs man was never traced
Pipeman was never traced.

The police arrested and questioned someone. How do you know that this wasn’t Pipeman?

The mistake that "Schwartz" made was that Stride was assaulted in the wrong place.

An unfounded assumption.

The evidence suggests that after being seen across the road from the yard by PC Smith, Stride walked with her killer into the yard and the moment he got her in the dark, he cut her throat so quickly and silently, her brain never had time to let go of the cachou in her hand; her muscles contracting instantly through the shock of nearly being decapitated with one cut.
The kill was quick and silent and he just layed her down and let her bleed out before casually walking off.

Thats simply your suggested version of events. Stride and Parcelman could have left the street after Smith passed with Stride returning 5 or 10 minutes later and please RD don’t say something like ‘how likely is that,’ because there’s simply no way of judging likelihood. I went to my front door yesterday to go out to my brothers and guess what? He had decided to come to my house and was standing there. What are the chances….etc. Things happen which might seem strange if we don’t have an explanation for them. If Stride left the street then returned and we found out the reason then we’d just say ‘ah, that explains it.’ So the absence of a reason doesn’t make something unlikely.

The kill time of 12.45am is possibly accurate because in every great lie, there's always elements of truth required for it to be believed.

The idea that a man would lie and place himself alone at the scene of a knife murder with no one to tell the police that he wasn’t the guilty party is a little bizarre. Why would you propose this over some short event occurring unseen?

Of course, if anyone is of the opinion that Stride was violently assaulted by a man who was not seen or heard, by a man who was not seen or heard and then chased by a man who was not seen or heard and then not given a chance to be part of the inquest...and all within 30 seconds...

How many victims of serial killers are seen and heard as they are killed?

Then it's simply a case of having an unwavering mindset that cannot see the truth for fear of realizing that may just be wrong on this one.

Sorry RD but you’re falling into classic conspiracy theorist mode. “I can see it but you can’t.”

The irong is that Schwartz and his entire story and supporting cast are what make it theatrical and far fetched.
Try considering life without Schwartz for just one moment and then everything else falls into simplistic harmony, no dramas.

And it all happens with Schwartz. Abberline didn’t dismiss so why do you think that you know better than he did?

It really doesn't matter when Mortimer was at her door, it only matters that by time she was, Stride was already laying dead out of site in the darkness of the yard and the killer had left the street with as much unremarkable quality as he had arrived.

Fantasy.

Every other witness account supports that nothing happening the street., and without Schwartz's dramatic 30 seconds speed run involving multiple characters who need to leave the scene after the assault, then the street remained quiet the entire time.

I won’t repeat about the 2 minutes that I’ve stated numerous times.

The only key part of the story of Strides demise is that she walked with her killer from her position as seen by Pc Smith and voluntarily into the yard where the killer murdered her before she could reach the club door.

The only important part of that is your unfounded assumption that you somehow know that’s what happened to the exclusion of alternatives.

Whether her killer Parcelman went into the club after he cut her throat or walked off to kill Eddowes is a topic for another thread, but we can sure it wasn't Eagle because he wasnt recognized at any point by PC Smith.

If Parcelman was the Ripper then he walked off before Mortimer got to her door.

If Parcelman wasn't the Ripper, then he was almost certainly Joseph Lave, whose need to place himself in the Street is potentially a ploy to cover if he was spotted.


Sorry RD but those last three points are waffle. You keep getting carried away.

The fact he said he went back in at 12.40am at the same time that Eagle returned is possibly the one mistake that Lave made.

Please read the press reports of what Levy said. Like Fanny have no way of knowing exactly when he was there or for how long. You also appear to assume that he stood at the gates for the whole time? You can’t create a version that suits an argument. He moved around. He could have been at the back of the yard near the office for at least some of the time. Again ‘unknowns’ are treated as knowns to arrive at a convenient conclusion.

I have also read somewhere that it was so dark that he struggled to find his way back into the club.
That is not consistent with how the lighting would has worked because the yard did have a light source further up and so being in the dark would not have obscured his view of the club door itself
When we add that Lave is the only unknown entity from the club witnesses; being a man seemingly on the run from overseas and seeking refuge in the only established that would take him.

Where do you get that he was on the run?

We have 2 potential scenarios...

If the killer wasn't the Ripper, he was a member of the club and was Joseph Lave.
Eagle returned at 12.40M and passed Lave/Parcelman but didn't notice them.
Pc Smith had seen Lave talking with Stride
And just after Eagle went back into the club at 12.40am, after Pc Smith had already gone past Mortimers door, then Lave and Stride walked into the yard and he cut her throat before walking back into the club at 12.43am
That means Pc Smith missed Eagle but the man he saw was Lave.

Or...

Stride's killer was the Ripper and he was Parcelman who after Lave and Eagle and Pc Smith had gone, he took an opportunity to kill Stride by convincing her to walk into the yard, perhaps for another kiss like they had been doing on the lead up to her murder. She takes her Cachou out to prepare for a kiss, but the Ripper being the Ripper has intended to murder her all night.
They walk as a couple into the yard and he just cuts her throat, lays her down and walks off to kill Eddowes.

When Mortimer goes to her door at 12.45am

Invention - we don’t know when she went onto her doorstep unless you know something that the rest of us don’t?

And Brown sees the other couple at 12.45am

The killer has already gone and Stride is dying in the yard in the dark, with nobody there to observe her as the singing from the club continues.


Simple, silent and effective with no major street scene created to push through anti Semitic rhetoric.

So you just conveniently eliminate a witness, that the experienced Abberline trusted, simply to conform to your own perception of events.

The reason why the Bs man assault seems so un-ripper like is because it never happened in the first place.

Opinion stated as fact.

The fact Schwartz never went to the inquest is the underlying proof that at some point the police realised his story was a dramatic act of nonsense that only served to detract from what really happened.

Total ignorance of the aims of an inquest. Amply described and explained in David Orsam’s article. You really should read it.

RD

You seem to have joined the ranks of those that see these murders in light of some kind of thriller. Jeff, Frank and George are working on timelines which show various timelines which easily account for the events described by the witnesses. There really are no issues apart from the fact that we can’t be certain of the exact order of events and of exact times. How can we in good conscience use a witness like Fanny Mortimer to dismiss Schwartz when it’s an absolute fact that we don’t know when she went onto her doorstep or how long she was there for. How much thinner can the ice get? How many times do we have to keep hearing of perfectly everyday events in Berner Street being talked of as if they occurred at Roswell? I find it not only strange but sad. We shouldn’t be reluctant to admit that there are things that we just don’t know. There are explanations that we just don’t have. It doesn’t mean that something couldn’t have happened.

We have no evidence that the Schwartz incident didn’t occur. Absolutely none. Could he have lied? Yes. Very little is impossible but because of the circumstances and the situation that he was placing himself in I’d suggest that it’s unlikely in the extreme. The apparent convenience of eliminating him isn’t sufficient reason for doing so. The fact that Abberline trusted him should at least count for something. Things happen that don’t get seen. This wasn’t a team of Morris dancers on the Whitechapel Road dancing completely unseen for ten minutes after all. And these events weren’t a script from a spy thriller either. Plenty of unknowns but no mystery. Stride was killed by a man who was never identified. No one saw it happen.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Frank,

The short answer to your question is.... I don't have the slightest idea. As I said, Smith's testimony only outlined the perimeter of his beat with a comment regarding the internal possibilities, which I interpret as random with regard to Smith's judgement in each particular case on the night. At one stage I spent some considerable hours trying to work out a feasible beat, but with no joy. I have formed the opinion that we have no way of deducing the internal configuration of Smith's beat, so the logical conclusion is that we can only accept Smith's testimony that he saw Stride with Parcelman as he was proceeding north along Berner St, and accept that, in his experienced professional opinion, that occurred between 12:30 and 12:35 police time. The fact is that he is the ONLY ONE that knew his beat on that night. I shall remain obdurate in this opinion until evidence is produced to the contrary, such evidence not to include the unsubstantiated times of Fanny Mortimer.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Indeed, working out the beats of the various PC's is never a sure thing. I'm sure Steve could give a fair lecture on the complications of working out PC Neil's beat in the Nichols case, for example. On the other hand, we're not completely in the dark. As you say, we know PC Smith's perimeter (in yellow), and we also know the beat PCs were to patrol all the streets internal of their perimeter (in purple), and the courts and alleys (green, blue, and red). The tricky bit is to work out the order of some of those (Sander Street has come up a few times as to whether PC Smith would patrol that when he reached the west end (so during the portion of his beat when he's heading North on Back Church Lane) or the east end (when on Berner Street). From his testimony, it appears he patrols both sides of Berner Street, so one side heading south and the other side when heading north. Frank believes he did the east side while heading south, while I've suggested he does the west side when heading south. He also mentions Batty's Gardens (which would fall under the "courts and alley requirement). He doesn't mention Hampton Court, but presumably that falls under his beat requirement as well, though whether he enters that from the east or west end we don't know (entering from the West end extends his time in the Berner Street portion of his patrol). It's also possible that some of these courts and alleys he "splits", and so does a portion by entering at one end, and completes it by entering from the other end (i.e. Batty's Garden (in green) has an odd shape, and I could see him entering from the west and just patrolling some portion, maybe just the bit that heads east, and either just viewing the bit that runs north/south from that vantage point, or even patrolling to the court yard are itself, then doubling back. Then, while in Berner Street, he re-enters and circles the court area itself. He may have done something similar with Hampton Court (blue line just east of Batty's Garden). There's a couple of areas like court yards that may have been part of his beat (in red), but the map does show a line across them, which may indicate they were gated off (in which case he doesn't patrol them). The blue lines show a few other alley ways that, presumably, he is expected to patrol. Some of those only have the one entrance, and others are not in the critical region of Berner Street, so at the moment are of less concern as to which direction of entrance gets chosen, though that could change.

My thoughts are that the red areas are probably gated off, as indicated by the presence of a line cutting them off from the road way. Also, all the internal streets (purple) I think he patrols both sides of, so along one side, then crosses, and back along the other. We know he patrols Batty's Garden, and probably does enter it from Berner's Street, but I think it's worth considering whether he then did the whole of it, or just the court-yard portion (possibly including the small ally stretch at the south-west corner to where it then heads north), and does the other portion by entering from Back Church Lane. A similar "split" should be considered as a possibility for Hampton Court, along with the options of doing the whole thing starting at either end.

Now, we can work out the total distance of his beat even if we don't know the above specifics, because in the end the total distance will be the same regardless. That allows us to estimate his patrol speed, or a range of patrol speeds given his beat takes anywhere from 25-30 minutes (so 27.5 minutes would be an unbiased starting point). And 27.5 minutes tends to work out at around a patrol speed of 2.8 ish mph. There are two versions of how he patrols Berner Street, east side first or west side first. There are then 3 suggestions of how to deal with Batty's Gardens (will do it all from Back Church Lane; will do it all from Berner Street; will do the court section only from Berner), 3 similar versions for Hampton Court, and 2 versions for Sander Street (does it from Back Church Lane or Does it from Berner Street). That gives us 2 x 3 x 3 x 2 = 36 combinations (not including options to skip anything entirely). While that might seem like a lot, it isn't exactly insurmountable as it's just a matter of measuring bits independently, and then playing around with the totals for the various combinations after getting those measurements. And then one can use his average patrol time to determine how long he is in that portion of his patrol. If we can estimate the time he started that portion, then we can estimate the time he leaves Berner Street under the different configurations.

Then, we can examine other information we have to see if that allows us to rule out any of those options, until we are left with a set of beats that seem to remain viable (which could be all of them if there's nothing we can use to rule any of them out). Using the remaining set, we then look to see how information we're unsure of might fit, and what influence "beat choice" has on those values, producing various time window ranges. For example, if event X looks like it runs from 12:35-12:40 for one Beat, but from 12:38 to 12:43 in another, we could mark things off from 12:35 to 12:38 as 0.5, from 1238-12:40 as 1, and from 12:40 to 12:43 as 0.5, to represent the amount of agreement. If we were left with all 36 configurations, there will be a fairly wide range under consideration, but many of the beat versions will be similar lengths, and as such, it will highlight the time window that has the highest probability (because it will fit with the most versions).

None of that will ensure we've got it right, of course, but there is no way to know the specifics of truth, only ways to deal with the information we have to see what we can extract from it to guide our interpretations. This sort of thing is probably the best we can do with the information we have, but I think it could be very interesting.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

In truth, the night of the Murder of Stride, there was no big drama, no assault, no anti Semitic slur shouted across the street...and no suspect who bought grapes either

You seem to have fallen into the habit of stating your opinion as an established fact as opposed to saying in my opinion or I think the evidence clearly indicates etc. etc.

c.d.

He lost me with "in truth" . I wonder if he realizes how dumb a comment that was .