When was Elizabeth Stride actually killed?

[lynn cates]

nitey

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Well I'll be damned if I can see it, unpalatable or not. What conclusion can we reach?"

That it's time to go for some more sleep?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

reference

Hello Jon. Thanks.

The shout was my primary reference.

Cheers.
LC

[Ginger]

Not to beat a dead horse here but were people in 1888 as obsessed with time as we are today? In other words, did they really feel a need to know what time it was on a constant basis?

I don't think they were, no, at least not in the East End. Most of the poor didn't carry watches, and it was a common and expected thing for the local policeman to "knock you up" of a morning so you'd be ready for work on time. They (fortunate people!) didn't have radio and television shows around which to schedule their lives either.

Among the middle class, in the city at least, I think a more or less constant awareness of time was becoming the expected way of life, what with railway and trolley timetables, and the emerging need to coordinate the efforts of large numbers of business functionaries and workers toward common goals. None of that self-discipline had really drifted down into the poorer classes yet, apart from the need to show up to work at a set time.

[moonbegger]

Hi Moonbegger.
What are you referring to?

This is the intro to Swanson's 19th Oct. report on the subject...

12.45 a.m. 30th Israel Schwartz of 22 Ellen street, Backchurch Lane stated that at that hour on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.....

Looks fine to me

??? So when did the original report Switch from Commercial Street on the 30th sept ?

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner Street from Commercial Street and having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed,

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer.

Here, circled in red, are all the railway arches I have been able to identify.



The problem I see with Schwartz running east towards Grove, then south is, he is running away from his home.

This is his last named address & conventional direction of flight.


.

Many thanks for this, Jon!

So, whether he ran for the railway arch down Backchurch Lane or the ones down Christian or Grove Street, he would run the approximate same stretch. So I donīt see any problem with suggesting either of these arches.

Would he have run for home? Perhaps, but it is something we cannot know. Maybe the chasing man forced him to turn into Fairclough Street at the intersection with Berner, for example. Itīs impossible to say what applies, but my overall impression is that more factors speak for Schwartz/Pipeman than for Diemschitz/Kozebrodski.

Once again thanks for the map - this issue has been on my mind before, but I have never delved deeper into it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

??? So when did the original report Switch from Commercial Street on the 30th sept ?

What is your source?
I was using Stewart's "Ultimate", page 122.

[Wickerman]

Interestingly, we also have Spooner, who claims to have also seen two men running along Fairclough St. shouting, "murder" and "police".

"On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public- house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman. We had left a public- house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police." "

This does appear to confirm Diemschitz when he says "when we reached Grove-st., another man returned with us" (paraphrase).

Spooner makes no mention of seeing two other men also running in the same direction just minutes before.

[c.d.]

I don't see how we can reach any sort of conclusion based on the direction that Schwartz ran. The point being that his course of action was to simply run in a direction that was away from the perceived threat. I think anybody would pretty much do the same thing.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Interestingly, we also have Spooner, who claims to have also seen two men running along Fairclough St. shouting, "murder" and "police".

"On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public- house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman. We had left a public- house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police." "

This does appear to confirm Diemschitz when he says "when we reached Grove-st., another man returned with us" (paraphrase).

Spooner makes no mention of seeing two other men also running in the same direction just minutes before.

True enough, Jon. But we need to take into account that if the timing in the Scotsman is on target, then we may have something like nigh on twenty minutes between the first running couple and the second.
Just like you say, the fellow Diemschitz mentions having met may well have been Spooner, although Diemschitz says he met his guy up at Grove Street, some way past Christian Street.

Itīs down to personal preferences and interpretations, thus, and I am still of the meaning that the Scotsman are reporting Schwartz and Pipeman.

- The timing is spot on.
- The secretary says that the "chaser" was not a member of the club, and one must predispose that the "murderer" wasnīt either. Diemschitz and Kozebrodski were both members.
- It is said that the pursued man escaped, which would be exactly what Schwartz did - but not Diemschitz/Kozebrodski.
- Nothing is said about the chaser and the chased man shouting "murder" or "police".

On a different note, why in the world does the secretary - or the journalist - find it of essence to name the streets running off Fairclough Street...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I don't see how we can reach any sort of conclusion based on the direction that Schwartz ran. The point being that his course of action was to simply run in a direction that was away from the perceived threat. I think anybody would pretty much do the same thing.

c.d.

Exactly - that may well be the explanation to why Schwartz took the way he took (whichever way that was).
Schwartz was making his way south towards the intersection Berner/Fairclough, and Pipeman was coming out of the Nelson beerhouse at the corner of that very intersection, if Iīm correct. This may have meant that Pipeman could have forced Schwartzīs choice of way to some extent.

The Nelson beerhouse was on the same side as the Working menīs club, some doors away from it, adjacent to the house where Packer had his shop. If Pipeman had been hanging around in itīs entrance and suddenly stepped out into the street, then the expected route for Schwartz if he took evasive action would be to turn left into Fairclough Street.

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Christer

The Nelson beerhouse was on the same side as the Working menīs club, some doors away from it, adjacent to the house where Packer had his shop. If Pipeman had been hanging around in itīs entrance and suddenly stepped out into the street, then the expected route for Schwartz if he took evasive action would be to turn left into Fairclough Street.

Particularly as he'd been on the Nelson side of the road and was already crossing the street to avoid the quarrel at Dutfields...it'd just be a natural continuation of his course...

However, one might then have to explain why Spooner and his lady friend, by then ensconced outside the Beehive, didn't see him...unless he dived down either Providence or Brunswick, and the couple were otherwise engaged at the time...or simply they hadn't yet arrived and Spooner was out with that timing too!

Cheers

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hi Christer.
I'm glad you mentioned your quote was from the Scotsman, I've been trying to locate that version (and any others), just to verify.

Hypothetically, if two men are running down the street, why would any witness seeing them assume a murderer is being chased?, unless one of them indeed was shouting, "stop", "police", "murder", or something like that.
Two men running in silence would be extraordinary, would it not?
In fact, wouldn't two men running in silence suggest they were actually fleeing together as accomplices, from some criminal act?

Why did this unnamed witness think a murderer was being chased unless one of the men was indeed shouting something while he ran?

On a different note, why in the world does the secretary - or the journalist - find it of essence to name the streets running off Fairclough Street...?

The best,
Fisherman

I took that as being written by the journalist by way of clarification to his reader.

[lynn cates]

threat

Hello CD. Thanks. But whom represented the threat? Surely not BSM who was occupied. Perhaps it was PM with his freshly lit and flaming knife?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Thanks. But whom represented the threat? Surely not BSM who was occupied. Perhaps it was PM with his freshly lit and flaming knife?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

I doubt very much that the B.S. man simply looked up and said Lipski in a normal tone of voice and then refocused his attention back to Liz. It seems much more probable that he gave Schwartz a menacing stare accompanied by a gesture that indicated "hey Jew, do want some of what she is getting?" That certainly seems like a threat to me.

It seems that if you disbelieve Schwartz then everything associated with his story is seen through conspiracy glasses and is therefore immediately suspect.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

eagle eyes

Hello CD. Thanks.

Working from Swanson's report, Schwartz is passing along and sees BS man trying to pull Liz out from around the gates. Then he throws her down and she emits her legendary non-loud screams.

I think we are together so far.

About this time Israel sees PM lighting his pipe. I suppose that BSM now notices PM and he calls out to him "Lipski."

Now, Schwartz picks up speed as he leaves the vicinity of Dutfield's Yard and PM comes in behind.

Now pick up the action. Is Liz trying to rise? Is she, too, afraid of BSM? Is she also trying to flee? Is BSM now trying to console her with cachous?

By the way, what conspiracy? How did that conversation stopping buzz word appear?

I hate conspiracy talk on ANY subject. Just saw a particularly idiotic one about Stanley Kubrick and "The Shining" and NASA.

What I have in mind is more along the lines of ANOTHER documentary on "The Shining." Here, some Scots chap was able to point out all the architectural anomalies in the film. His conclusion? Given that Kubrick was meticulous in ALL details, the anomalies MUST have been intentional.

My point? Here's another Scot with a sharp eye and who understands what is, and what is not, in nature.

Cheers.
LC