Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[c.d.]

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

That is where Schwartz saw her being assaulted not killed. He had no control over what took place after he left so it could not be "the wrong place" only the place he last saw her alive.

And again, you keep presenting your opinions as facts beyond dispute. All of your posts seem to be presented in that way. Are you aware of that?

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

And all of this because no one saw a 30 second incident in a Whitechapel backstreet at 12.45am.

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

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
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.
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.
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.
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...

And ALL of this occurs in..


30 seconds.

Hmmm...

Plus we negate the other couple standing at the corner of faircloth street
We negate Brown who saw a couple at 12.45am
We negate Mortimer who stood at her door sometime after Eagle and Pc Smith had gone

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

The same man who nobody can find outside of the Stride murder.
A man who was not at the official inquest, despite seeing a woman being assaulted shortly before someone cuts her throat.

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.
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.

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
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.

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

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.


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, it wouldnt. But with Louis stating he only first arrived at 1 to discover the body, then Lamb had to be much later than "just before 1" when he saw Eagle, and Johnson could not have been there at 1:10 at all.

It doesnt makes sense suggesting that Louis DID arrive at 1 like he said and all the rest of the statements that would directly conflict with that time are all wrong......but there are folks who do that too.

Lamb didn’t have to have been much later. This has been explained numerous times but you persist in repeating this obvious falsehood. It’s predicated on Diemschitz spending an entirely unrealistic 5 or 10 minutes at the club before going for a Constable. A reading of the inquest testimony tells us what happened and how there’s no way it could have taken anything like that length of time. Two minutes tops as far as most are concerned. I’d suggest less as do others on this thread.

So how can all that time be justified? Yup, they stand around plotting.

You can have the opinion that Louis would have been at the yard for longer, reading the paper, having a quick snack… (you would be wrong of course) but you can’t state it as a fact. But you are compelled to exaggerate the length of time so that you can suggest that other times don’t fit when they clearly do.

Perhaps you should check out the work that Jeff, Frank and George are doing - none of them are biased, and all of them show no problem with the times.

[Fiver]

Using only Lamb for the moment, and setting aside any subjective arguments about a reasonable plus/minus filter to apply to here..."Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting"

"Constable Henry Lamb, 252 H division, examined by the coroner, said: Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting." - 3 October 1888 Daily Telegraph.

"Police-constable Henry Lamb, 252 H, who said: At about one o'clock on Sunday morning last I was in Commercial-road between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running to me, shouting." - 3 October 1888 Daily News.

"Police-constable Henry Lamb said that on Sunday morning when he was in Commercial-road, at about 1 o'clock, two men came to him shouting out that there had been another horrible murder." - 6 October 1888 East London Advertiser.

"Police-constable Henry Lamb, 252 H, deposed - About one o'clock on Sunday morning last I was in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street. Two men came running to me shouting something.' - 3 October 1888 Morning Advertiser.

"Police-constable Henry Lamb, 252 H, deposed as follows: - About 1 o'clock, as near as I can tell, on Sunday morning I was in the Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street. Two men came running towards me." - 3 October 1888 Times.

"Henry Lamb, police constable 252 H, deposed: - About 1 o'clock on Sunday morning last I was in the Commercial Road, between Christian Street and Batty Street. Two men came running to me, shouting something." - 6 October 1888 Newcastle Weekly Chronicle.

"Police-constable Henry Lamb, 252 H, said that on Sunday morning about one o'clock he was in Commercial-road, when two men came to him running and shouting." - 3 October 1888 Morning Post.

"The first witness called was Police-constable Henry Lamb, 252 H, who said that about one o'clock on Sunday morning last he was on duty in Commercial-road, when two men came to him." - 3 October 1888 Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser.

So one paper said "before". Seven papers said "about".

So why do you repeatedly ignore the majority of newspapers?

[c.d.]

There is no evidence to suggest that Stride was killed using a different knife to the other victims.

And even if this were proven what would have prevented the Ripper from having more than one knife? They were relatively cheap to buy and readily available were they not?

And again, this is another example of the increasingly more prevalent if A then B thinking. If it can be shown that the knife used to kill Stride was different from other victims then she could not have been killed by the Ripper. Uh no, simply not true. It would only tell us that a different knife was used.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

This does appear to be the case c.d. as we yet again head down Conspiracy Avenue. And all of this because no one saw a 30 second incident in a Whitechapel backstreet at 12.45am. People would rather assume ludicrous planted witnesses and all manner of twists and lies that would seem far-fetched in a Hitchcock movie than keeping their feet planted on terra firma. Ripperology made to look like a joke yet again.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again the impossible is being attempted. It’s the attempt to ‘prove’ that Stride wasn’t a ripper victim. Now I’ve made it very clear that I think it’s possible that she wasn’t but that she certainly could have been and I’m making this point again in case it’s stated or implied that I have a reason for ‘making’ her a victim - I don’t. Like everyone, I have no way of being certain because there’s no way of being certain. Others however have a committed opinion that she wasn’t.

So how do we decide? It’s been stated here that a different knife was used on Stride than was used on the other victims but I’d advise anyone to read Steve Blomer’s excellent article in the latest Ripperologist - A Question Of Blades: Looking at the possible knives of the Ripper, where he clears up this misinterpretation of the evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that Stride was killed using a different knife to the other victims. This can now be dismissed.

Then we have the suggestion that the Ripper only killed women who were actively soliciting. The addition of actively of course is intended to sow a seed of doubt but we have no way of knowing if Stride was soliciting at the time that she was killed or not. The various suggested possible sightings of her with men ‘might’ suggest otherwise but of course we can’t state this as a fact and I’m certainly not attempting to do so here.

Her clothing of course is entirely irrelevant as she would hardly have had an extensive wardrobe so it’s difficult to see why it’s ever mentioned in connection with this point.

Might the location preclude the suggestion of soliciting? It’s another unknown. Wess was asked at the inquest:

[Coroner] Do low women frequent Berner-street? - I have seen men and women standing about and talking to each other in Fairclough-street.
[Coroner] But have you observed them nearer the club? - No.
[Coroner] Or in the club yard? - I did once, at eleven o'clock at night, about a year ago. They were chatting near the gates. That is the only time I have noticed such a thing, nor have I heard of it.

Whether Wess was keen just to disassociate the club from anything disreputable or not is an unknown but his last comment suggests that it certainly wasn’t impossible for a prostitute to have tried her luck there.

One important point has been neglected though. Did she need to have been actively soliciting to have been a victim or might it just have been that she’d been recognised as a prostitute (even if only part-time)? It’s not difficult to suggest possibilities -

A drunken previous punter sees her waiting for someone, recognises her and propositions her but she turns him down. He gets angry, taking a ‘so I’m not good enough for you now’ attitude and cuts her throat.

Equally, as we know that the ripper probably knew various prostitutes by sight, maybe he saw her and targeted her? She turned him down with the same result. Maybe he wasn’t interrupted and it was simply the refusal that made him angry and killing her was enough: a spur of the moment anger kill?

Or maybe she was killed by the Ripper but he was interrupted. Not necessarily by Diemschitz though it’s possible of course. As Mrs D said that the side door was open maybe someone went to the outside looking and disturbed him? Maybe someone opened it to let some air in. There are any number of things that might have spooked the killer. Again though, I’m only stressing ‘might.’


So there really is no way that we can decide whether she was a ripper victim or not or whether she was actively soliciting or not. Sometimes we have to just hold our hands up and say that we have no way of knowing and not try to shape the evidence one way or another.

[c.d.]

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.

[c.d.]

So...you question whether this same man might not just change his spots next time out? I can only say that YOU need to provide a supported argument that suggests he was flexible in these aspects, I dont have to prove what is already proven.

Except that when it is pointed out to you over and over by myself and others that we have documented, factual evidence of killers in other cases drastically changing their M.O.'s you simply ignore it. Since we have evidence that killers can and do this, I would think the onus would be on you to provide some sort of justification for your intransient belief that Jack was committed to 100% consistency in every thing that he did.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

I dont recall Abberline championing Israels statement other than just stating he believed it, same for Swanson....

What would "championing" a statement entail? Isn't saying he believed it sufficient in and of itself?

c.d.

Abberlines belief and a match will light a cigarette, but belief alone will not help make a murder case. It only means Abberline had a personal belief, not that the authorities were operating in fashion that suggested they were using his story as a foundation here. In case you havent noticed they had a witness for the time of 12:45 appear at the Inquest, so they believed his story was relevant for that time. Even though, it apparently wasnt a valid sighting.

[The Rookie Detective]

I dont recall Abberline championing Israels statement other than just stating he believed it, same for Swanson....so, how you figure this is a vetted, verified, validated accurate story given by a reputable witness is beyond me. The mere fact that his story includes the victim minutes before her death would make him the last to see her alive if true, and that would be one of the first people the Inquest would want to hear from. Couple that with an alleged victim assault in that sighting...hard to imagine that would be considered irrelevant. But it appears it was just that. He, nor his story, are not found in any documents relating to Strides Inquest,...he was not called to appear, nor was his story entered on its own.

Perhaps you might want to revisit the quote "not wholly accepted" as relates to Israel and the investigation into his claim. It may not refer to the man they questioned....."The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted." Yes, It is ambiguous as to whether they are skeptical about the man who gave the original statement, or the man they refer to as "prisoner", but it seems to me since they referred to him as Prisoner in the previous line and the questioning, the "man's statement" may well refer to the original statement by the original "man".

So we dont get caught up in semantics, there is no official document made concerning the statement given Sunday night by Schwartz that indicates the details of his story should be considered an empirical fact of any kind. People believed it...well, you above all should know that people can believe anything they wish to. Providing evidence of it can be quite another thing.

In addition, the translator may well be Wess, who knew Israel before this incident, and who later translated for Goldstein. One wonders, would Wess translate for any club attendees or members that didnt speak English. And How, if at all, might Israel fit in with that.

So...taking umbrage at me for pointing out the well documented and obvious, isnt getting anyone anywhere.

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

[Michael W Richards]

No, the facts are that up until Liz Strides inclusion into this farcical Canon he had ONLY targeted street women that were actively soliciting.

Are you saying he could not deviate in any way from that if he chose to do so? Was it like a union thing?

c.d.

IU feel like we do this in reverse cd.......I dont need to justify the profile that was created by the first 2 alleged Ripper murders, nor did I create the reason for Annies wounds...."The object of the inquiry is not only to ascertain the cause of death, but the means by which it occurred. Any mutilation which took place afterwards may suggest the character of the man who did it." ......."The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body."

There is no questioning the fact that the women were both actively soliciting, they both confided that information to friends they saw on the nights they are killed. There is no question, at least to DR Phillips, that Annie was killed and cut open so her killer could extract precisely what he took.

So...you question whether this same man might not just change his spots next time out? I can only say that YOU need to provide a supported argument that suggests he was flexible in these aspects, I dont have to prove what is already proven. Because the details in those first 2 murders seem virtually identical, and the wounds more severe the 2nd time because he had more time alone with the body. The first 2 match in MO, technique and focus.

[c.d.]

No, the facts are that up until Liz Strides inclusion into this farcical Canon he had ONLY targeted street women that were actively soliciting.

Are you saying he could not deviate in any way from that if he chose to do so? Was it like a union thing?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

AFTER ALL it wouldnt make sense for the doctor to say that the constable arrived at 1:10 AND SUBSEQUENTLY he himself arrived at Dutfield Yard at 1:10.



Cheers george, ripperologists… and DJA (hope life is well, ol’ buddy)

No, it wouldnt. But with Louis stating he only first arrived at 1 to discover the body, then Lamb had to be much later than "just before 1" when he saw Eagle, and Johnson could not have been there at 1:10 at all.

It doesnt makes sense suggesting that Louis DID arrive at 1 like he said and all the rest of the statements that would directly conflict with that time are all wrong......but there are folks who do that too.

[c.d.]

Stride wasn't the only prostitute in Whitechapel. So why not make a little extra effort to stand out from the competition? Would looking nice and having fresh breath hurt her chances of getting clients? And how much extra cost and effort would it actually require on her part?

c.d.