If Schwartz Lied ...

[JeffHamm]

Here's Smith's beat as it may be interpreted, Jeff. As you can see, it's almost 1.4 miles, which, walked at a speed of 2.5 mph, would have taken a little over 33 minutes. Not sure if it was actually supposed to be walked like that, but there you go.

One thing that strikes me are the rather long side streets on the western side of Backchurch Lane, which could explain why Smith didn't hear any shouting and why he wouldn't have been missed by Eagle, if Eagle did in fact run west along Commercial Road and did look down Backchurch Lane.

Thanks FrankO,

Yes, that's more complete, and includes a few western side streets I had missed in my quick once over version above. As GBinOz suggests, if by "interior" streets he only means ones to the eastern side of Backchurch Lane, then those sides drop off, but a 33 minute beat, while on the long side, would not be too long to consider. Also, given his northern stretch goes west, then those western side streets could be interpreted as being "interior" as they're inside the most extreme boundaries; also the description "interior" may just mean any side streets, and not just referring to interior in the geometric sense.

I suppose, though, if we use his beat time of 25-30 minutes as his usual short and long circuit time, then perhaps he was only responsible for the eastern side of Back Church Lane and there was another beat that covered the western side (and so those side streets). There's a court, or square, just by the C in Church (of Back Church Lane), which he probably had to cycle through, so if we removed the western side streets and included that and the other "interior" sides, we're probably looking at something like this:



Sorry, my measuring got broken into two sections, but it totals 2365.996 feet, which at 2.5 mph would take 30 min, 28 seconds. To do that in 25 minutes, he would have to walk at about 3 mph, which is about average walking speed (3.1 mph), so faster than regulation, but not running or anything like that. So this version only has him responsible for the eastern side of Back Church Lane, and on the eastern boundary of his beat, he may only have been responsible for the western side of Church Street. Presumably there's another beat that would cover those sections. Overall, that looks ok to me too, it's just the two odd "tails" in the north west and south east that look strange to me. I can sort of understand the south east one, as it just has him go to the end of Fairclough so that covers the whole street, but the north west section seems a bit out of place for the rest of his beat area and I would think would get covered by someone else. But, just because it looks odd to me doesn't mean it wasn't based upon some reasoning, and he states that is part of his patrol, so there you have it.

Anyway, yes, looking at the various possibilities suggested, given the possibility of him being inside some nook or cranny, or at quite some distance, it is possible to understand why he may not have heard the commotion. I find sorting out these beats, where possible, to be really helpful, and a lot of things that seem bizarre suddenly make a sort of sense once we get a better idea of where the police were (or roughly where they were) at various times.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

So much of what Diemschitz said, is questionable. Yet like that very odd figure, Israel Schwartz, he is almost universally 100% believed. Incredible.

Some of what Diemschutz said might disagree with what other witnesses said. Yet your only solution to these differences is that Diemscutz lied. You ignore the possibility of the newpapers getting things wrong. You ignore the possibility of both people were being approximate and that their accounts do not contradict each other. You ignore the possibility that both people might have made an error. You ignore the possibility that the other person might have been in error. You ignore the possibility that Diemschutz might have been in error. You ignore the possibility that the other person might have lied. You ignore the possibility that the clock which Diemscutz saw might have been wrong. The only answer you accept for any real or imagined discrepancy between Diemschutz' account and what others said is that Diemschutz lied.

So far you have not provided any proof of Diemschutz lying, nor have you provided any credible reason for him to lie.

[Fiver]

How could the 'horse' have felt something if it were pulling to the left?

You ignore the obvious explanation that the horse pulled to the left because it felt something.

[Fiver]

Quote someone other than Diemschitz, to back this up.

Spooner and Brown both supported Diemschutz' claim to have gone looking for the police.

So did Morris Eagle - "I ran towards the Commercial-road, Dienishitz, the club steward, and another member going in the opposite direction down Fairclough- street."

[Fiver]

The only way the cart could have contacted the body, is for the body to have been laying across the passage, to some extent.

If the pony had not shied to the left, it is clear Deimshutz' cart would have run over Stride's neck.

"The deceased was lying on her left side obliquely across the passage, her face looking towards the right wall. Her legs were drawn up, her feet close against the wall of the right side of the passage. Her head was resting beyond the carriage-wheel rut, the neck lying over the rut." - Dr Blackwell

And accounts vary enough that we cannot know if the pony or cart brushed Stride's body or if it shied away without making contact. Diemschutz himself might not have been sure.

Seems like the body was moved and tidied up a bit, although there was no evidence for the cart having contacted the victim.

You have provided no evidence that Stride's body was moved, nor have you given any credible reason for anyone to have moved it.

There is no evidence of the body being tidied up, either.

"Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side." - Dr Philips

"Examining her jacket I found that although there was a slight amount of mud on the right side, the left was well plastered with mud." - Dr Philips

It's obvious what happened. Diemschitz realized his collision story had a major flaw - the victim would show no physical signs of this. So he changed to the whip and prod story. Still nonsense, of course, but not as easy to disprove.

No version of what Diemschutz said was a collision story. All involve the pony shying to the left after either sensing or brushing against Stride's body. No version of Diemshutz' story is disproved by the body not being run over by the cart.

And while you claim Diemschutz' whip and prod story is nonsense, you haven't proved anything about it was false nor have you provided any credible reason for him to lie about it.

[Fiver]

My theory is that he were trying to create the perception of a very definite and specific gap between Fanny Mortimer's locking up of her front door, and his arrival.

Diemschutz had no way of knowing if Fanny Mortimer or anyone else had observed Berner Street before his arrival. Diemschutz had no way of knowing there was a gap, let alone making it definite or specific.

From her own account, Fanny Mortimer had already closed her front door before Diemschutz arrived. Diemschutz did not create that gap - Mortimer did.

[Fiver]

In the Stride case, as in the Nichols case, it is time intervals that matter. The reference clock's relationship to GMT is less important than the time intervals deduced by people who are viewing that same clock. We know that Diemshitz, Smith, Lamb, Johnson, Blackwell, Schwartz and Goldstein were at the corner of Commercial Road and Berner St and had the opportunity to look at the Harris clock. We know that Smith, Lamb, Johnson and Blackwell were coming from the west so would have a clearer view of the clock, and that Diemshitz was probably coming from the east. We don't know which side of the street that Schwartz and Goldstein were on at that intersection. The disagreement we are having revolves around who is likely to have looked at the Harris clock as they passed.

Diemshutz probably would have approached Commercial Road and Berner Street from the west, not from the east.

Lamb was "on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street". Both of those streets are east of Berner, so he would have been coming from the east, not the west. He was contacted "shortly before one o'clock". This contradicts both Diemscutz and Smith's accounts on time.

Johnson and Blackwell were coming from "No. 100, Commercial-road," that is near the corner of Commercial and Batty, so they also would have approached Commercial Road and Berner Street from the east, not the west. Johnson and Blackwell do not refer to the Harris clock. Times given are based on Blackwell's watch.

So if people coming from the west had the best view of the Harris clock, then Diemschutz had best view and Lamb, Johnson, and Blackwell had inferior views.

[Fiver]

In other words, Diemschitz' transition from 'about one o'clock' to 'exactly one o'clock', is of fundamental importance to the interruption theory.

Neither 'about one o'clock' or 'exactly one o'clock', is of fundamental importance to the interruption theory. If Diemschutz had said he arrived at 12:55am that would have made the interruption theory more likely as it reduced the length of the time gap between Fanny Mortimer closing her door and his arrival.

Diemschitz and Mortimer obviously talked about the murder. He gave her the idea of interruption, and she gave him the idea of arriving at Berner street, right on one o'clock.

All the newspaper accounts prove is both Mortimer and Diemschutz thought he had interrupted Stride's killer. We have no idea if they talked about it, let alone gave each other ideas. Mortimer might have heard the idea from Diemschutz. She might have heard of it from someone else in the neighborhood. She might have heard about it from the reporter. She might not have thought it and the reporter put words in her mouth. She might have come to the conclusion on her own.

So far you have provided no evidence of Diemshutz giving the interruption idea to Mortimer, nor have you provided any credible reason for him to do so.

Diemschutz appears to have been saying 'about one o'clock' or 'exactly one o'clock' from the beginning, so he didn't get the idea from Mortimer. You have provided no credible reason for Diemschutz to lie about the time. You have provided no evidence that Diemschutz lied about the time.

[Varqm]

This doesn’t mean that Schwartz name was forwarded to the inquest at all. It means that a mistake was made in that it was assumed that Schwartz had attended the inquest. We can assume no more than this.

You are suggesting ‘as a fact’ that the police gave the Coroner Schwartz police statement, he then read The Star interview and decided not to call him. Why would an intelligent man like this dismiss a witness on the strength of a newspaper report (and one in The Star?) He would have been fully aware that the Press can make errors and even exaggerate to sell newspapers. Would he have been in the habit of trawling the papers looking for discrepancies or would he simply have accepted the Police’s judgment. It was their job after all to a evaluate witnesses and their statements. Would a Coroner have had the time or inclination to dispute the judgment of the police? This seems unlikely to me.

All through the case of course there are witnesses at Inquests who add nothing of value so it’s impossible to set down an exact ‘selection process,’ or to be certain of a Coroner’s thinking when selecting witnesses. What I mean is that it appears that witnesses weren’t just called because they could add to the specific aims of the inquest but David listed the actually very specific aims of the inquest and, according to that, Schwartz wasn’t a vital witness. Neither were others of course. David’s hardly known for his superficial research so I’m happy that he’s correct on these specific aims. Obviously you are free to present your evidence if you believe him to be mistaken.

When all is said and done we simply do not know (and probably never will know) why Schwartz didn’t attend the Inquest. We can speculate but, in the absence of further evidence, one suggestion is pretty much as good as the next one. The only thing that I really don’t understand Varqm is why, when every poster will admit to not knowing, you appear to be confident that you know why Schwartz didn’t attend?

First of all debating with you on this is somewhat senseless.First you ddid not know the coroner was separate
fromn the police and it was the coroner's call to put witnesses on the stand not the police's.Second you did not know
that the who,where,when and how where not the only aims of the inquest,but also the facts and circumstances of the case.
And yet you continue aattacking and lambasting without knowing the 2 above.

Yes it did mean Schwartz's statement was submitted to the inquest.But it was the Coroner's call to put witnesses on the
not the police's.The inquest was big news and no mention of an assault on Stride was glaring,everybody would have
known Schwartz or a Schwartz did not attend.

Yes it is enough not to put Schwartz in the inquest becuase the 2 statements was too different.Anybody with common sense
would not.As explained countless of times the Coroner then would have to try to determine which of the two statements
were true,in front of the jury,press and police.And even after then there would still be doubts about his statement.
It would be silly and derail the inquest.Even Caroline Maxwell whose statement was in disagreement with the police's
estimated time of death was in,because she did not not flinch and change her statements.

Common sense.Again read the inquests ,the 5,the way the Coroners interpret the
Coroners act,they created a timeline in showing the facts and circumstances about the case which was an aim of an
inquest. Inquests included murders,fires accidents, drowning.

Common sense.It was about a murder.Again in any murder case/inquiry an assault 15 minutes before a murder is a must.If you do not believe this there is no point arguing with you.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Your opinion is not evidence. So far you have provided evidence of Diemshutz lying about the time nor have you provided any credible reason for him to lie about the time.

There is plenty of evidence that Diemschitz sharpened up his original estimate. The reason I've given for him doing so, is as good as any other.

Or the press got it wrong. But you are unwilling to consider any other possibilty other than Diemschutz lied.

The press did not get it wrong. On the Sunday, Diemschitz was telling the press about grapes in her hands, and the position of the hands. How could all that be due to a mistake? "The press got it wrong" is a terrible argument, but obviously you need to protect Diemschitz' reputation.

Diemshutz did not say that at the Inquest. And "coming in contact" does not require a collision or running over the body, it could be the cartwheel brushing the body.

That would mean the pony did not shy until past the body.

The Echo: ...the wheel of my cart bumped against something.

On stony ground, that must have been a substantial bump. Yet no bump marks on the victim. Time for another story - the whip and prod.

Spooner did not identify Deimshutz by name, but he is clearly the man returned withe Diemshutz and lifted up Stride's chin.

He returned with some member of the club.

James Brown did not identify Deimshutz or Spooner by name, but his testimony supports both of theirs.

His testimony supports that there was a search along Fairclough street, and that Spooner appeared to be a policeman.

Or are Spooner and Brown now part of your conspiracy, lying to prop up Diemschutz' claim that he went looking for the police?

How could they be propping up Diemschitz if they did not give his name? That's a ridiculous suggestion.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Smith never said he wrote a report between the time he reached the murder scene and the time Johnson arrived.

"I saw that the woman was dead, and I went to the police-station for the ambulance, leaving the other constables in charge of the body. Dr. Blackwell's assistant arrived just as I was going away." - PC Smith, 2 October 1888 Daily Telegraph



"When I got there I saw constables 12 H R and 252 H. I then saw the deceased, and, on looking at her, found she was dead. I then went to the station for the ambulance. Dr. Blackwell's assistant came just as I was going away." PC Smith, 6 October Times

You are making several assumptions. Smith said he recognized the victim "at once". He does not say he made a report "at once". He does not say he made a written instead of a verbal report. He doesn't say if he made the report in Dutfield's Yard or if he made the report once he returned to the yard.

But your biggest assumption is that it would take more than a minute or two for Smith to write down a description of the man he had seen with Elizabeth Stride.

Smith: When I saw deceased lying on the ground I recognized her at once and made a report of what I had seen.

Baxter: The constable feels certain that the woman he observed was the deceased, and when he afterwards was called to the scene of the crime he at once recognized her and made a statement.

What he had seen would include more than just the description of the man.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You ignore the obvious explanation that the horse pulled to the left because it felt something.

You are ignoring the evidence. Diemschitz said it was the cart that contacted something, not the pony as you are trying to suggest.

I was coming home from market at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I am a traveller by trade, and go to different markets to sell my goods. Yesterday I went to Westow-hill. As the night was so wet I did not stay quite so late as usual. After I had passed through the gate which had been left open on driving into the yard my donkey shied a little in consequence of my cart coming in contact with something on the ground.

This suggests the cart was closer to the right wall than the left. Or was it...?

My pony is frisky and apt to shy, though not much, and it struck me when I was passing through the double gates into the yard that he wanted to keep too much to the left side against the wall.

It seems as though Diemschitz discovery story went through a few revisions. Which leads me to believe that he was not the discoverer.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Spooner and Brown both supported Diemschutz' claim to have gone looking for the police.

So did Morris Eagle - "I ran towards the Commercial-road, Dienishitz, the club steward, and another member going in the opposite direction down Fairclough- street."

In the Times it is a little different...

When I got outside I saw Jacobs and another going for the police in the direction of Fairclough-street, and I then went to the Commercial-road, all the time shouting "Police!"

Was the other member Diemschitz or Kozebrodski?

In the Morning Advertiser, Eagle says:

I struck a light and saw her covered in blood. I could not look at her long, so I ran for the police. Another man went for them at the same time. We could not find one at first, but when we got to the corner of Grove-street, Commercial-road, I found two constables, and I told them there was a woman murdered in Berner-street.

Why are we never told the second man's name? According to Kozebrodski, it was him. Yet that contradicts Eagle's claim to have gone for police at pretty much the same time as two others went in the direction of Fairclough street.

We then have Diemschitz claiming that Eagle returned right when Spooner was looking at the deceased...

At the very same moment Eagle and the constables arrived.

Really? Then why did Lamb say that on his arrival...?

No one was nearer than a yard to the body.

Spooner also contradicted Diemschitz...

I stood by the side of the body for four or five minutes, until the last witness arrived.

It is possible that Diemschitz did not accurately recall events, including his memory of the time on the Harris clock.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You have provided no evidence that Stride's body was moved, nor have you given any credible reason for anyone to have moved it.

There is no evidence of the body being tidied up, either.

"Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side." - Dr Philips

"Examining her jacket I found that although there was a slight amount of mud on the right side, the left was well plastered with mud." - Dr Philips

What did Mrs Diemschitz and Mrs Mortimer say about the position of the body? That is evidence. If you ignore it, it is still evidence.

Also, please tell me how the murderer managed to pull off this feat in near darkness...

Lamb: When I got there I had the gates shut.
Coroner: But did not the feet of the deceased touch the gate?
Lamb: No; they went just behind it, and I was able to close the gates without disturbing the body.

The body was probably moved, and this occurred to the coroner, as can be seen in this question to Spooner...

Have you formed any opinion as to whether the people had moved the body before you came?

The way the question is worded, suggests Spooner had previously been asked about this. There's something about Spooner...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Diemschutz had no way of knowing if Fanny Mortimer or anyone else had observed Berner Street before his arrival. Diemschutz had no way of knowing there was a gap, let alone making it definite or specific.

They were neighbours and Mortimer made it clear she knew Diemschitz and his wife. She knew how close Mrs D was to the murder. To suppose they spoke about the murder is far from far-fetched.

From her own account, Fanny Mortimer had already closed her front door before Diemschutz arrived. Diemschutz did not create that gap - Mortimer did.

The supposed 4 minute gap depends on Diemschitz' precise timing, and the accuracy of Mortimer's clock. Both of these are questionable. So how much time passed from shooting the bolts to hearing the cart, is difficult to determine. However, if you believe the 'exactly one o'clock' claim, it is not so difficult. Hence the reason for the claim.