When was Elizabeth Stride actually killed?

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

Your post is kind of jumpy and I am at a loss to try to determine your point. All I can say is that I doubt it was simply hearing "Lipski" that made Schwartz take off. I think it much more likely that it was accompanied by a look and a gesture. It would be the combination of all three that was frightening.

I am even more at a loss to explain why you would be puzzled by a reference to a conspiracy. Maybe I have completely misunderstood your posts but have you not pounded the table for a conspiracy enacted by the club members in which they persuaded poor Schwartz to tell a falsehood in order to deflect suspicion away from the club?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

Let me point out once again that Schwartz never stated that he saw Liz being killed.

As for Scots having sharp eyes, that must in fact be true as it seems they are able to see things that no one else does. An admirable trait and one that is unfortunately shared by some patients in mental hospitals.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer



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

Ugh ... it´s a beehive of possibilities!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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.

I did mention it in my original post, Jon - just as I mentioned that the article had it´s origin in an Echo article from the day before (2:nd and 1:st of October, respectively).

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?

I think a lot hinges on the people who saw the two men running. They could have noticed the scene, only to later get information of what had happened in Dutfield´s Yard, and then they started drawing conclusions. Actually, if they had known about the murder as they saw the men, would they not have participated in the hunt - for the Ripper?
Like everything else in this business, it works both ways ...

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

See the above - and I think it was more than one witness; the Scotsman mentions that, I believe.

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

I´m not protesting, Jon - could well be the case. I just find it a bit elaborate.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

conspiracy and such

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Your post is kind of jumpy and I am at a loss to try to determine your point."

I had two.

1. I was asking you to provide a bit of narrative.

2. I wished to call a halt to conspiracy nonsense.

"All I can say is that I doubt it was simply hearing "Lipski" that made Schwartz take off. I think it much more likely that it was accompanied by a look and a gesture. It would be the combination of all three that was frightening."

Personal conjecture is fine. But I am trying to deal with the tale--as delivered.

"I am even more at a loss to explain why you would be puzzled by a reference to a conspiracy."

If, by conspiracy, you refer simply to two people in agreement, very well. But let's, then, drop all the connotations.

"Maybe I have completely misunderstood your posts but have you not pounded the table for a conspiracy enacted by the club members in which they persuaded poor Schwartz to tell a falsehood in order to deflect suspicion away from the club?"

Pounded the table? I think I suggested--as per Tom Wescott--that many questions would be answered if we accept that two or three of the upper echelon at the club were afraid (rightly so) of further police investigation, and subsequently suborned Schwartz to relate a story that:

1. covers the time of the murder

2. makes the killer a Gentile

But then, let's drop the emotive language.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

fine line

Hello (again) CD. Thanks.

"Let me point out once again that Schwartz never stated that he saw Liz being killed."

But of course. However, if the story be true, BSM is your lad.

"As for Scots having sharp eyes, that must in fact be true as it seems they are able to see things that no one else does."

Precisely.

"An admirable trait . . ."

I thank you.

". . . and one that is unfortunately shared by some patients in mental hospitals."

Quite. It's that fine line between genius and madness.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I think a lot hinges on the people who saw the two men running. They could have noticed the scene, only to later get information of what had happened in Dutfield´s Yard, and then they started drawing conclusions. Actually, if they had known about the murder as they saw the men, would they not have participated in the hunt - for the Ripper?
Like everything else in this business, it works both ways ...

A'int that a fact

Another point that struck me as questionable is, that even on Sunday (as published Monday morning), the press were theorizing that the Mitre Sq. victim was by the same hand. That the killer had obviously fled in that direction (N/W) to find another victim.

Which, once again makes me wonder why anyone would think a man being chased in an easterly direction was the murderer, unless the other man was shouting "police", "murder", or something of that ilk to make him think this.

So I am back to this scenario of two men running in silence (Schwartz & Pipeman), as opposed to two men running (Diemschits & Kozebrodski) to the tune of raised voices.

[lynn cates]

scenario

Hello Jon. That's a good scenario to be back to.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

A'int that a fact

Another point that struck me as questionable is, that even on Sunday (as published Monday morning), the press were theorizing that the Mitre Sq. victim was by the same hand. That the killer had obviously fled in that direction (N/W) to find another victim.

Which, once again makes me wonder why anyone would think a man being chased in an easterly direction was the murderer, unless the other man was shouting "police", "murder", or something of that ilk to make him think this.

So I am back to this scenario of two men running in silence (Schwartz & Pipeman), as opposed to two men running (Diemschits & Kozebrodski) to the tune of raised voices.

To be fair, Jon, it does not say that Schwartz and Pipeman were silent (if it was them). Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.
Plus, of course, if we are to suppose that the couple WERE silent, then it would not be Diemschitz/Kozebrodski at any rate, would it?

As for the running in an easternly direction prohibiting anybody reasoning that such a man could be the murderer, I don´t think we should invest too much in that. To begin with, I myself very rarely keep track of what is East and West when I walk the streets of a city. And then, as I said before, why would we predispose that the witnesses reasoned the the chased man was a murderer from the outset?
They could quite easily have been informed of the murder after having seen the chase, and only then decided that the chased party could have been the killer.

Why would the secretary speak of a man that was not a member of the club in combination with a potential killer (who most certainly would not have been an identified club member), if it was Diemshitz and Kozebrodski? Even if his information was second hand, who "knew" that the chaser was a non-member?

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

To be fair, Jon, it does not say that Schwartz and Pipeman were silent (if it was them).

Exactly the point Christer.
For it to have been Schwartz & Pipeman they would have to be running in silence. Pipeman had been in no position to see Stride dead, so he can hardly have been shouting anything at Schwartz. They would have been running in silence.
And, a couple of men running in silence are more consistent with accomplices than pursued & pursuer.
So what was it that made this witness think a killer was being pursued?

I think it must have been the sound of raised voices, hence we are back to Diemschitz & Kozebrodki.

As for the running in an easternly direction prohibiting anybody reasoning that such a man could be the murderer, I don´t think we should invest too much in that.

Agreed, he could have doubled back, but then for what purpose? Why double back through what will become a hotbed of police activity?

Any murderer escaping easterly, and intent on murdering again, would surely commit his next murder east of Berner St., not north west.

[Sam Flynn]

Agreed, he could have doubled back, but then for what purpose? Why double back through what will become a hotbed of police activity?

...perhaps we should be talking about a "Double-Back" Event, Jon

Seriously, though - some very, very good points.

[moonbegger]

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

Hello Wickerman ..

My source is right here on Casebook ? under Schwartz .. I know the lead in is probably incorrect , but I assumed the actual statement was lifted from the A-Z .. ??? Confused !!

In any event, Schwartz's statement was taken on September 30th, the day of the murder, by Chief Inspector Donald Swanson:

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 .

[Hunter]

If that is printed here, on Casebook, then its a mistake. Swanson mentions Commercial Road twice in his Oct. 19 report. No Commercial St.

[moonbegger]

If that is printed here, on Casebook, then its a mistake. Swanson mentions Commercial Road twice in his Oct. 19 report. No Commercial St.

AHH .. That always bugged me ,

cheers

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

Exactly the point Christer.
For it to have been Schwartz & Pipeman they would have to be running in silence. Pipeman had been in no position to see Stride dead, so he can hardly have been shouting anything at Schwartz. They would have been running in silence.

They would reasonably not have shouted "murder", that´s true. But that would not mean that they must have been silent! Anything like "Stop it!" to a number of antisemitic slurs, swearwords and/or things like "help!" could have been uttered.
There is absolutely no way of knowing this.

And, a couple of men running in silence are more consistent with accomplices than pursued & pursuer.
So what was it that made this witness think a killer was being pursued?

Perhaps a very frightened look on the face of the frontrunner combined with a very determined and grim ditto on the chaser, combined with the odd "You just wait!" on the latters behalf?
And - once again - as the witnesses saw the scene unfold, they need not have been aware of the potential link to Dutfields Yard. That could have come later, evoking conclusions.

I think it must have been the sound of raised voices, hence we are back to Diemschitz & Kozebrodki.

Not necessarily, no - as I have shown.

Agreed, he could have doubled back, but then for what purpose? Why double back through what will become a hotbed of police activity?

Any murderer escaping easterly, and intent on murdering again, would surely commit his next murder east of Berner St., not north west.

"Surely"?

When was anything a certainty in the case ...?

All the best,
Fisherman