A closer look at Eagle and Lave

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Did you know? A tailor, Israel Goldstein (45, born in Warsaw/Poland) was living at 40 Berner Street in 1891 (census).

Yes. Referred to in this post ...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/scene-of-the-crimes/11031-the-nihilist-club-ie-berner-street?p=643847#post643847

[Lewis C]

I don't think Mortimer saw the cart, either. What I was alluding to is the possibility that her locking the front door and Diemschitz turning into Berner St, were very close in time. The other possibility for an arrival of Diemschitz a few minutes before 1am, is that Mortimer has locked up, say 4 or 5 minutes earlier. That places her at her doorstep in the 12:45 period, with obvious implications for personal timelines.



Presumably you don't like the idea of Eagle being the BS man, first suggested by Tom Wescott. Not BS man the murderer, by the way, just the assaulter who is not happy with Stride standing in the gateway. Otherwise, yes, Schwartz and co. cannot overlap with anything, and not forgetting the indeterminate length of time Stride stands at the gates, seemingly alone.

There was a debate in another thread years ago, about the identity of the board school couple and the possibility that Mortimer had been aware of their presence. What I think matters more is that she seems to have claimed that the street had been very quiet, but not completely deserted. In that case, she may well have seen people like Eagle, Lave and Charles Letchford, but not Stride and Parcelman.

I agree that Mortimer locking her front door and Diemschutz turning onto Berner Street may have been very close in time. Another possibility is that what Mortimer thought was 10 minutes standing at her door was really 8 minutes.

I do think that Eagle could have been BS Man, so probably the best thing to do when making a timeline is make a range of times for both Eagle and BS Man that allows for the possibility of them being the same, and also for that not being the case. So hypothetically, 12:39-12:41 could be listed as the time for Eagle, and 12:41-12:43 for BS Man. That way the timeline allows for 12:41 for both, meaning they are the same, and also for, say, 12:40 for Eagle and 12:43 for BS Man if they're not the same.

Mortimer said that the street wasn't completely deserted, but also that the man with the black bag was the only man that she saw. So how do we reconcile these two statements? I can think of 2 possibilities. One is that the black bag man was the exception; other than him, the streets were completely deserted. Another is that he was the only one that she SAW, but she heard a voice or two outside of people that she couldn't see.

[Lewis C]

Mortimer mentions a couple on the Board School corner. Her door was the third up from the club, 100 ft away from the corner of the Board School.
I can hear people talking 100 ft from my door, it's not that far, and sound carries further at night, though I don't know if there was a lamp on that corner.

Mortimer could have heard people talking, but my understanding is that what she said about the young couple was based on what they told her when she talked to them after the murder, not on personal observation.

[Wickerman]

Regarding the board school corner ...

On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

If that crossing had been a diagonal one, how close would Schwartz then be to the corner?

Pretty close, from the yard to the corner was 20 yds, so lets say 10 yds as he passed the centre of the street.

... then Schwartz walked away, ...

Has he reached Fairclough St already, at this point?

We can't pinpoint him exactly, but if his timing was accurate the couple on the corner would have seen him coming towards them - assuming he was in Berner St.
I had to add that last bit, his statement only fits if there's nobody else in the street, or if he was in a different street.

... but finding that he was followed by the second man ...

It was not immediately apparent that the second man was following, but surely by the time it was, Schwartz would have at least reached Fairclough St.

... he ran so far as the railway arch ...

Which one? Well, did Schwartz continue down Berner St, or turn East into Fairclough St?

There's some who think it could be either.

Crossing Berner St when he did, could well tell us the answer. So, if the answer is Fairclough St, then let's at least acknowledge the coincidence of ...

FM: ... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the board school.

... who just happened to live near the Christian St railway arch.

That again?
I find it hard to believe anyone would propose such an idea.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Pretty close, from the yard to the corner was 20 yds, so lets say 10 yds as he passed the centre of the street.

So, Fairclough St is just seconds away. By the time he walks away and then realises he might be being followed, those seconds have surely elapsed. Thus, any pursuit must be east on Fairclough, or on the east side of Berner, south of Fairclough. Whatever the case, he seems to have crossed the road to get where he intended to go, and not as an evasive action.

We can't pinpoint him exactly, but if his timing was accurate the couple on the corner would have seen him coming towards them - assuming he was in Berner St.
I had to add that last bit, his statement only fits if there's nobody else in the street, or if he was in a different street.

So, you must entertain the possibility that the whole thing never happened. If no one heard or saw anything to support the story and the story is difficult to fit into timelines, excluding something extraordinary like the thing actually occurring in Batty St, then we have to wonder if the Leman St police had good reason to doubt the truth of the story.

There's some who think it could be either.

Those who think Berner St should ponder why Schwartz crossed the street immediately after witnessing the struggle. Those who think Fairclough St should imagine Schwartz carrying a black bag and turning into Christian St unnoticed by Edward Spooner. In either case, they should wonder about Schwartz being 'run to earth' on Backchurch Lane. Who gave the Star that location, and for what purpose?

That again?
I find it hard to believe anyone would propose such an idea.

I'm wondering what D.I. Reid might have said to the coroner, about his men visiting 22 Ellen St and hearing nothing of Schwartz's tale. Perhaps Baxter had reason to doubt the truth of the story, but then, why would Schwartz make it up?

[Wickerman]

So, Fairclough St is just seconds away. By the time he walks away and then realises he might be being followed, those seconds have surely elapsed. Thus, any pursuit must be east on Fairclough, or on the east side of Berner, south of Fairclough. Whatever the case, he seems to have crossed the road to get where he intended to go, and not as an evasive action.

I can't see how we can separate him crossing the street, suddenly at the gateway, from the assault taking place in that same gateway.
The story as he tells it suggests that was his reaction so as not to be involved in whatever was going on.

So, you must entertain the possibility that the whole thing never happened. If no one heard or saw anything to support the story and the story is difficult to fit into timelines, excluding something extraordinary like the thing actually occurring in Batty St, then we have to wonder if the Leman St police had good reason to doubt the truth of the story.

More to the point, I strongly avoid any accusation of lying. I am so used to people using the "he lied" as an excuse to promote their own theory. It's the easy option - if you can't make your theory fit because of some witnesses statement, just accuse them of lying. It's the cheap cop-out, and I really don't like anyone raising that excuse, even though people did lie, I'm not suggesting they didn't, but it's what they lied about that becomes the issue.
People had all manner of personal reason's to give false names, false addresses, reason's for not seeing what they must have seen. They may have been wanted for owing rent, or wanted by police for any number of crimes. Possibly even lying about being with a prostitute, or not coming forward, because they are married. This was the East End after all, rife with dens of iniquity, but to suggest some full blown conspiracy involving Schwartz, the club and a few notable citizens, is too much like paperback crime thrillers than real life.

Therefore, if Schwartz was telling the truth, and if nobody saw him or witnessed anything that he claims to have seen, and the time he passed through cannot be changed from 12:45, to be earlier, or later, then what alternative is left?
Could Schwartz have been in a different street, and he only thought he was in Berner St.?

It would have to be a nearby street, and whats more, it would have to have a driveway gated entrance on the west side.
I've checked Back Church Lane, Christian St., Grove St., but only Batty Street seems to fit that criteria, though I have not been able to find a photograph of that Red Lion pub to see if the entrance on the south side was gated.

Which then urged me to look at the original police statement, it's actually only a summary of it. To see if Schwartz had given any definite location details that could only be applied to Berner St., I was surprised that he didn't.
The details all appear in the press version, not the police version.
Swanson naturally writes that Schwartz entered Berner St. because Schwartz genuinely thought that is where he was, but throughout the subsequent incident the police statement does not include any specific details that can be applied to Berner St.

It's not like I have not considered every other alternative, though I'm not married to the idea. It seems like the last alternative.
Practically everything else has been considered.

Those who think Berner St should ponder why Schwartz crossed the street immediately after witnessing the struggle. Those who think Fairclough St should imagine Schwartz carrying a black bag and turning into Christian St unnoticed by Edward Spooner. In either case, they should wonder about Schwartz being 'run to earth' on Backchurch Lane. Who gave the Star that location, and for what purpose?

The press may have paid a visit to the club and spoken to Wess (West), the Secretary, but if that was their source why not mention it, or at least why only mention visiting the police station?

I'm wondering what D.I. Reid might have said to the coroner, about his men visiting 22 Ellen St and hearing nothing of Schwartz's tale. Perhaps Baxter had reason to doubt the truth of the story, but then, why would Schwartz make it up?

The story only says they run him down in Back Church Lane, not that he lived there. Ellen St. may have been his new address, as it was on the police statement that he gave on Sunday evening. So, either he had not moved and Ellen St. was his old address, or he had moved and Ellen St. was his new address, but Back Church Lane is not described as his address, just where the press found him.
There were a few Jewish businesses in Back Church Lane, a couple of pubs, no Synagogues.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I can't see how we can separate him crossing the street, suddenly at the gateway, from the assault taking place in that same gateway.
The story as he tells it suggests that was his reaction so as not to be involved in whatever was going on.

What was going on? Was she quarrelling with the Ripper? Surely that wasn't his style.

More to the point, I strongly avoid any accusation of lying. I am so used to people using the "he lied" as an excuse to promote their own theory. It's the easy option - if you can't make your theory fit because of some witnesses statement, just accuse them of lying. It's the cheap cop-out, and I really don't like anyone raising that excuse, even though people did lie, I'm not suggesting they didn't, but it's what they lied about that becomes the issue.
People had all manner of personal reason's to give false names, false addresses, reason's for not seeing what they must have seen. They may have been wanted for owing rent, or wanted by police for any number of crimes. Possibly even lying about being with a prostitute, or not coming forward, because they are married. This was the East End after all, rife with dens of iniquity, but to suggest some full blown conspiracy involving Schwartz, the club and a few notable citizens, is too much like paperback crime thrillers than real life.

Is suggesting "he lied", essentially the same as suggesting "some full blown conspiracy involving Schwartz, the club and a few notable citizens"?

Therefore, if Schwartz was telling the truth, and if nobody saw him or witnessed anything that he claims to have seen, and the time he passed through cannot be changed from 12:45, to be earlier, or later, then what alternative is left?
Could Schwartz have been in a different street, and he only thought he was in Berner St.?

It would have to be a nearby street, and whats more, it would have to have a driveway gated entrance on the west side.
I've checked Back Church Lane, Christian St., Grove St., but only Batty Street seems to fit that criteria, though I have not been able to find a photograph of that Red Lion pub to see if the entrance on the south side was gated.

Which then urged me to look at the original police statement, it's actually only a summary of it. To see if Schwartz had given any definite location details that could only be applied to Berner St., I was surprised that he didn't.
The details all appear in the press version, not the police version.
Swanson naturally writes that Schwartz entered Berner St. because Schwartz genuinely thought that is where he was, but throughout the subsequent incident the police statement does not include any specific details that can be applied to Berner St.

It's not like I have not considered every other alternative, though I'm not married to the idea. It seems like the last alternative.
Practically everything else has been considered.

If you cannot accept the street and time as given, then you must be 100% sure of the Schwartz in Batty St theory, if you are also sure that Schwartz could not have lied.

The press may have paid a visit to the club and spoken to Wess (West), the Secretary, but if that was their source why not mention it, or at least why only mention visiting the police station?

Maybe Wess and the Star did a deal - no mention of the club in exchange for more juicy gossip.

The story only says they run him down in Back Church Lane, not that he lived there. Ellen St. may have been his new address, as it was on the police statement that he gave on Sunday evening. So, either he had not moved and Ellen St. was his old address, or he had moved and Ellen St. was his new address, but Back Church Lane is not described as his address, just where the press found him.
There were a few Jewish businesses in Back Church Lane, a couple of pubs, no Synagogues.

I agree. It would be a bit odd to be saying that they ran him to earth, at his place. So even if his real address had been leaked, how did the Star find him?

[Wickerman]

What was going on? Was she quarrelling with the Ripper? Surely that wasn't his style.

In my view no, the BS-man was not the Ripper.
Even though in other cases I have suggested the Ripper 'may' have been someone with an awkward gait. In this instance BS-man appears to have approached Stride (if we go with Schwartz's story), so he was not with her when he met her.
If I had to suggest "what was going on", it would be that as BS-man passed the gate and overheard some conversation between Stride and a man in the shadows (Parcel-man?), she had her back to the street, if we accept Schwartz's police statement. BS-man had to turn her around before assaulting her - she was facing, and talking to another man. BS-man did not like what he heard and assumed she was soliciting. He grabbed at her, spun her around and threw her down on the footway. Which means this assault took place outside the gate on the sidewalk.
BS-man didn't kill Stride, after he threw her down he may have noticed the man behind her, not wishing to continue the assault he staggered off.
Parcel-man was her killer.

Is suggesting "he lied", essentially the same as suggesting "some full blown conspiracy involving Schwartz, the club and a few notable citizens"?

In my view they are equally uncalled for.

If you cannot accept the street and time as given, then you must be 100% sure of the Schwartz in Batty St theory, if you are also sure that Schwartz could not have lied.

It's a matter of two choices; we either dismiss Schwartz's entire story & all the players - because it's all lies - for whatever reason(s), or it did happen in similar gateway, to a different woman, in another street.
No matter how we look at it, most of the witness testimony give overlapping times so there's no opening for Schwartz's assault story to have happened at a different time.

Stride was with a man in Berner St. from about 12:15 (Packer) until about 12:30, club members (Wess, Eagle, Lave), passed in and out of the club between 12:15-12:45 roughly), PC Smith saw Stride with a man about 12:35. Mortimer was at her doorway on and off between 12:30 - 01:00 am.

Maybe Wess and the Star did a deal - no mention of the club in exchange for more juicy gossip.

Wess didn't know anything, he left about 12:15, anything he knew was what others had told him.

I agree. It would be a bit odd to be saying that they ran him to earth, at his place. So even if his real address had been leaked, how did the Star find him?

I wouldn't rule out Wess being the interpreter mentioned by the press in retelling Schwartz's story.
I would imagine those Jews who run the club knew almost every Jew in the immediate vicinity of the club. Someone at the club might have known Schwartz, whether he was a member or not. Though the most likely one must be Wess himself.

[Scott Nelson]

What was going on? Was she quarrelling with the Ripper? Surely that wasn't his style.

Did he have to have a consistent style?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In my view no, the BS-man was not the Ripper.
Even though in other cases I have suggested the Ripper 'may' have been someone with an awkward gait. In this instance BS-man appears to have approached Stride (if we go with Schwartz's story), so he was not with her when he met her.
If I had to suggest "what was going on", it would be that as BS-man passed the gate and overheard some conversation between Stride and a man in the shadows (Parcel-man?), she had her back to the street, if we accept Schwartz's police statement. BS-man had to turn her around before assaulting her - she was facing, and talking to another man. BS-man did not like what he heard and assumed she was soliciting. He grabbed at her, spun her around and threw her down on the footway. Which means this assault took place outside the gate on the sidewalk.
BS-man didn't kill Stride, after he threw her down he may have noticed the man behind her, not wishing to continue the assault he staggered off.
Parcel-man was her killer.

I don't understand how there could be no interaction between the two men, or why Stride would be unconcerned about Parcelman's passivity, while she was being assaulted. What on earth could Stride and Parcelman have been quietly talking about that so angered BS-man, that he got violent?

Another point about this scenario, is that if Stride is talking to a man in the shadows and with her back to the street, she would be in the passageway and not right at the gateway. She would not be visible to BS or Schwartz until they reached the gateway. She would not be visible to Fanny, at all, which could be significant.

In my view they are equally uncalled for.

That almost sounds like a moral judgement.

It's a matter of two choices; we either dismiss Schwartz's entire story & all the players - because it's all lies - for whatever reason(s), or it did happen in similar gateway, to a different woman, in another street.
No matter how we look at it, most of the witness testimony give overlapping times so there's no opening for Schwartz's assault story to have happened at a different time.

Stride was with a man in Berner St. from about 12:15 (Packer) until about 12:30, club members (Wess, Eagle, Lave), passed in and out of the club between 12:15-12:45 roughly), PC Smith saw Stride with a man about 12:35. Mortimer was at her doorway on and off between 12:30 - 01:00 am.

Someone witnessed an incident that evening. When reporting the incident, the details were more or less kept, but the time of the incident was shifted.

Wess didn't know anything, he left about 12:15, anything he knew was what others had told him.

No one at the club could have known anything, unless they witnessed the incident. Otherwise, everyone got the story second hand.

I wouldn't rule out Wess being the interpreter mentioned by the press in retelling Schwartz's story.
I would imagine those Jews who run the club knew almost every Jew in the immediate vicinity of the club. Someone at the club might have known Schwartz, whether he was a member or not. Though the most likely one must be Wess himself.

Perhaps, but I'm inclined to think the interpreter friend was not Wess.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Did he have to have a consistent style?

No, but I'm guessing he had a style that avoided drawing attention to himself and the intended victim.

[Wickerman]

I don't understand how there could be no interaction between the two men, or why Stride would be unconcerned about Parcelman's passivity, while she was being assaulted....

That tells me you couldn't be Parcel-man.
Here is a man who doesn't care if the woman gets assaulted in front of him, he owes her nothing, she's just a streetwalker he picked up. What he does care about is being seen, being remembered, getting involved in some altercation, that he cannot allow to happen.

What on earth could Stride and Parcelman have been quietly talking about that so angered BS-man, that he got violent?

Funny you never asked what the couple seen by Mrs Long were talking about, or what Eddowes was talking about with her man.
Why does it matter?
Some people thought streetwalkers were despicable creatures, not worthy of sentiment. Selling their body's in the open street.
You can't imagine that?

Another point about this scenario, is that if Stride is talking to a man in the shadows and with her back to the street, she would be in the passageway and not right at the gateway. She would not be visible to BS or Schwartz until they reached the gateway. She would not be visible to Fanny, at all, which could be significant.

One step forward, or one step back?
Is she on the edge of the yard, one foot in and one foot out? Why does this matter, Schwartz said she fell down on the footway after he spun her around. Sp maybe he pulled her towards him as he spun her around?
The point is she was in the yard with another man, BS-man heard something that caused him to rebuke the woman and thrown her down on the cobbles.
That could be one argument in favour of BS-man being drunk, it's a fact drunks do irrational things, they get themselves involved in situations they normally wouldn't when sober.
Physical violence against women, even in the streets, was common place in the late 19th century.

That almost sounds like a moral judgement.

As you wish.

Someone witnessed an incident that evening. When reporting the incident, the details were more or less kept, but the time of the incident was shifted.

If the incident happened before 12:15 or after 1:00 am, the incident didn't involve Stride.

No one at the club could have known anything, unless they witnessed the incident. Otherwise, everyone got the story second hand.

So how could the Star have done a deal with Wess, maybe you could explain what you meant by that?

Perhaps, but I'm inclined to think the interpreter friend was not Wess.

You must have someone in mind?

[New Waterloo]

I am trying not to make circumstances fit any personal theory. Wickerman is correct about not assuming things and then stating them as fact. We do have comments made by Michael Kidney at the Inquest suggesting he knows more about who the killer of Stride was or he is saying that there are people who know who the killer was and that a fresh faced (as in new to area) officer could make discreet inquiries and find out the name of the killer. I dont think there is any other way of interpreting what he said. Was he BS man. Evidentially (rather than opinion) the case for this seems strong. Violent, separated from Stride after 'having words'. She has entered his locked room etc. He was known to drink. We will never achieve any more evidence that he was the BS man that Schwartz allegedly saw. But there is real evidence suggesting he may have had a motif for looking for Stride and considering his past behavior coupled with alcohol could be aggressive or at least there could be heightened tension if he came across her. There is evidence (yes circumstantial) to suggest Kidney was BS man. We have evidence of others being at or around the location but little evidence of any motif for them to assault Stride.

It is interesting that Schwartz sees BS man walking in front of him and makes no mention of any heated argument before the assault. I would suggest that in most confrontations (excluding mugging) there would be at least some communication over a period of at least a few seconds before any punch up. BS man goes straight for pulling at Stride. There must have been a significant spark otherwise he would be walking around pulling at everybody he sees talking in any doorway or alley way. The location is significant. Is this where she worked and this agitated him. There was no particular controlled communication prior to the assault. Just goes for the pulling. If there was any meaningful communication between BS man and Stride. Schwartz doesn't comment on this (There was probably some but it soon escalates into physical contact)

Like a lot of bullies they soon back off when confronted with a stronger opposition. Perhaps Parcel man or someone else frightened him off. Licking his wounds he seeks his revenge through the police but holds back from telling them all he knows fearing for his own safety.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That tells me you couldn't be Parcel-man.
Here is a man who doesn't care if the woman gets assaulted in front of him, he owes her nothing, she's just a streetwalker he picked up. What he does care about is being seen, being remembered, getting involved in some altercation, that he cannot allow to happen.

Just a streetwalker he picked up? Then why all the chatting, especially the chatting in the dark? If he killed Stride, why didn't he get on with it and do it while BS and Schwartz are approaching the gates, or even before? How much chatting did JtR do in Mitre Square?

Funny you never asked what the couple seen by Mrs Long were talking about, or what Eddowes was talking about with her man.
Why does it matter?
Some people thought streetwalkers were despicable creatures, not worthy of sentiment. Selling their body's in the open street.
You can't imagine that?

Those examples (assuming they involved Jack) occurred prior to reaching the murder location. Once in the backyard or the square, I presume it would have been over for the victims, very quickly.

The problem with Schwartz theorising is that it mostly amounts to efforts at shoehorning. Shoehorning the incident onto a quiet street with witnesses about. Shoehorning the broad-shouldered man into the Ripper. Shoehorning Pipeman man into the Ripper, or through a closed door. Shoehorning Parcelman into the incident. None of it is convincing.

On the other hand, I think Leon Goldstein's shoes will fit Israel Schwartz's feet, just fine.

One step forward, or one step back?
Is she on the edge of the yard, one foot in and one foot out? Why does this matter, Schwartz said she fell down on the footway after he spun her around. Sp maybe he pulled her towards him as he spun her around?
The point is she was in the yard with another man, BS-man heard something that caused him to rebuke the woman and thrown her down on the cobbles.
That could be one argument in favour of BS-man being drunk, it's a fact drunks do irrational things, they get themselves involved in situations they normally wouldn't when sober.
Physical violence against women, even in the streets, was common place in the late 19th century.

Are we back in Berner St, now?

It matters where she stood in the sense that, had she been talking to a man (with parcel or not), they must have moved into the darkness for some reason. So let them go all the way into the gloom. Now, why can Schwartz detect the presence of Stride, but not her temporary companion? Why is it that a possibly drunk man can hear this conversation, which he immediately finds highly offensive to the point that he gets violent, but Schwartz does not hear it? Was Schwartz just a few feet too far away to hear them talking, but not too far to hear Stride's unloud screams, which were too soft to be heard in the kitchen even with the door partially open?

It also matters where she stood in regard to what one of the neighbours might have seen from her doorstep.

If the incident happened before 12:15 or after 1:00 am, the incident didn't involve Stride.

So, the reliable memory of Matthew Packer precludes the possibility of the incident occurring before 12:15?
Half the issue with Schwartz's story comes down to one thing - the time of the incident. So perhaps try moving it to before the club event wrapped up, and see if it works.

So how could the Star have done a deal with Wess, maybe you could explain what you meant by that?

I don't understand how the running to earth occurred, without the help of someone like Wess. So, as you said, why didn't the Star mention the club's help in finding Schwartz, and why didn't they name him in the report? It hints that a deal was done, but that notion could be wide of the mark.

You must have someone in mind?

I've no idea who it could have been, but it probably wasn't Leon Goldstein.

[Wickerman]

Just a streetwalker he picked up? Then why all the chatting, especially the chatting in the dark? If he killed Stride, why didn't he get on with it and do it while BS and Schwartz are approaching the gates, or even before? How much chatting did JtR do in Mitre Square?

I believe that is all part of the thrill for him.
Even today some killers like to get to know their victims, I think we have been led towards the wrong assumption with this killer.
Most authors have portrayed Jack as a blitz-type killer, who jumps out of the shadows to strike them down. Yet, this can only be argued with one victim, that of Eddowes, but with her he could be all 'dated out'. He had just spent nearly two hours with Stride, then was interrupted, so whoever he comes across now is going to be slaughtered straight away, as his compensation for Stride.
We seem to have adopted the swift killing of Eddowes as the standard when in fact it may have been the exception.

With all the rest we have no idea how many hours he spent with his victim.
Even with Kelly it is a debatable issue, depending on whether we see Blotchy, or Astrachan, or Britannia-man as her killer. Even with the last one he could have spent an hour with Kelly before killing her.
If I'm right then Stride first hooked up with her killer at the Bricklayers Arms, so he 'dated' her for just short of two hours.

I mentioned one remark before, it was in a book I read some years ago. This prostitute said they considered it a good night when the client pays for their drink & food for the evening leading up to the inevitable conclusion (sex). So, it may have been considered normal for a hooker to spend a few hours being wined and dined before they had a 'quicky' in some dark alley.

The problem with Schwartz theorising is that it mostly amounts to efforts at shoehorning. Shoehorning the incident onto a quiet street with witnesses about. Shoehorning the broad-shouldered man into the Ripper. Shoehorning Pipeman man into the Ripper, or through a closed door. Shoehorning Parcelman into the incident. None of it is convincing.

On the other hand, I think Leon Goldstein's shoes will fit Israel Schwartz's feet, just fine.

Yes, I agree with the 'Schwartz' problems, none are satisfactory.

Are we back in Berner St, now?

Yes, because if this was Batty St. the woman being assaulted was not Stride.
If we omit Schwartz's evidence then Stride was with Parcel-man the whole time up until he coaxed her into the yard shortly after PC Smith walked past. Packer does say they came back towards the club to stand outside as he closed his shutters.

It matters where she stood in the sense that, had she been talking to a man (with parcel or not), they must have moved into the darkness for some reason. So let them go all the way into the gloom. Now, why can Schwartz detect the presence of Stride, but not her temporary companion? Why is it that a possibly drunk man can hear this conversation, which he immediately finds highly offensive to the point that he gets violent, but Schwartz does not hear it? Was Schwartz just a few feet too far away to hear them talking, but not too far to hear Stride's unloud screams, which were too soft to be heard in the kitchen even with the door partially open?

I'm not following what it is you object to. A shadow has a definite beginning to it, we don't know how close the light source was, from which direction, or how strong it was. If she is on the edge of the gateway with her back to the street, her companion will be in the shadows even though he is barely an arms length, or less, away from her. Schwartz was concerned about the man grabbing this woman, not whether there was anyone with her inside the yard.
But if it happened in front of Schwartz, on the sidewalk, then he didn't look into the yard, he stepped to his left into the road with his eyes fixed on the altercation in front of him.
Schwartz didn't understand English, he doesn't say if he heard voices. Though he did tell the press he heard the sound of a quarrel.

It also matters where she stood in regard to what one of the neighbours might have seen from her doorstep.

Only if Mortimer was on her doorstep at the right moment, and right now we cannot be sure she was.

So, the reliable memory of Matthew Packer precludes the possibility of the incident occurring before 12:15?

Packer's story doesn't preclude her assault, it's just that if it took place before 12:15, then it has nothing to do with her murder.

Half the issue with Schwartz's story comes down to one thing - the time of the incident. So perhaps try moving it to before the club event wrapped up, and see if it works.

I thought they had, others have mentioned it, I wasn't aware of any suitable conclusion - meaning, one that fits.
However, if the assault did happen to Stride before 12:15, it had nothing to do with her murder. She must have picked herself up and the man she was with then took her for a walk around the block, coming up towards Packers shop from the south end (as was claimed), then her story continues.

I don't understand how the running to earth occurred, without the help of someone like Wess. So, as you said, why didn't the Star mention the club's help in finding Schwartz, and why didn't they name him in the report? It hints that a deal was done, but that notion could be wide of the mark.

I've no idea.