The Stride Murder

[New Waterloo]

Thanks for the Welcome GBinOZ I did use to post a bit some years ago as Waterloo but lost track and now posting a bit again. The Stride murder has always seemed very confusing to me but only recently has the penny dropped that amongst all the players, one of them around the gate and in Berners street before and after she was discovered was probably the murderer. (possibly JTR). And we know the names of most of them and if not names we have descriptions. The spanner in the works is identifying the in the shadows man. I still cant really see how somebody not already there before Stride falls/is pulled to the floor could appear from the street and manage to walk into the gateway without being seen.. Pipeman and BSM and anyone else mentioned wouldn't just disappear. So I suppose its not as is normally the case of how did JTR disappear? but how did he manage to get into the yard unseen with all the comings and goings. Yes some will say he could have hidden himself in the yard awaiting a passing victim, but really in a yard where people are in and out at unpredictable moments. That would have to be someone that would not arouse suspicion like a member of the club. Perhaps we already know who this person is, hiding in plain sight. I don't. But I bet you experienced researchers do.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Thanks for the Welcome GBinOZ I did use to post a bit some years ago as Waterloo but lost track and now posting a bit again. The Stride murder has always seemed very confusing to me but only recently has the penny dropped that amongst all the players, one of them around the gate and in Berners street before and after she was discovered was probably the murderer. (possibly JTR). And we know the names of most of them and if not names we have descriptions. The spanner in the works is identifying the in the shadows man. I still cant really see how somebody not already there before Stride falls/is pulled to the floor could appear from the street and manage to walk into the gateway without being seen.. Pipeman and BSM and anyone else mentioned wouldn't just disappear. So I suppose its not as is normally the case of how did JTR disappear? but how did he manage to get into the yard unseen with all the comings and goings. Yes some will say he could have hidden himself in the yard awaiting a passing victim, but really in a yard where people are in and out at unpredictable moments. That would have to be someone that would not arouse suspicion like a member of the club. Perhaps we already know who this person is, hiding in plain sight. I don't. But I bet you experienced researchers do.

There weren't that many people about. In fact, PC Smith commented that 'there were but few people in the bye-streets' and the only people seen by Fanny Mortimer were Leon Goldstein and a couple.

To make it all fit:

Parcel man and Liz disappeared into the yard pretty much as soon as PC Smith was out of sight, which is why when Fanny came to the door she didn't see them. James Brown didn't see Liz, confirmed by the flower. The spot where Liz was murdered was very dark, to the point Louis Diemschutz had passed Liz's body when his pony alerted him to an object, and so the people coming out of the club missed the body in the dark.

If you want to believe Schwartz was there, then let's say the Schwartz and associates episode was just another one of those commotions that Fanny heard regularly outside of the club, and they had no idea that a body was lying nearby; which they couldn't see because it was so dark where Liz lay.

And, for a real outlier, the murderer was Leon Goldstein.

Leon, or I should say Jack, was disturbed approx. 12.40am by someone who didn't necessarily go into the yard, possibly Fanny and her door or possibly someone in the club. Leon upped sticks and walked 'round the block, not sure whether or not the body had been discovered. He waited and listened, knowing there was a body for him to carve up. He didn't hear any whistles nor shouting, and so he went back for his body. This is when he hurried down the street, saw Fanny at the door, and thought it's probably not a good idea to finish the job with busybody Fanny knocking about. He looked up at the club for any sign that a body had been found a body, i.e. that they were about to come out and see him walking past, putting him in the frame; and so on he hurried to the Mitre Square area.

Leon's little black, shiny bag of goodies contained the newspaper that PC Smith had seen and at least one implement 'that the ladies don't like'.

In addition, Blotchy, or I should say Jack; murdered Mary. Leon Goldstein, or I should say Jack, managed to completely change his appearance in the space of a few weeks. I haven't put the full thesis together on that one, but I think it may have been a dietary course aided by layers of clothes.

How's that? Case solved?

[Aethelwulf]

Thanks for the Welcome GBinOZ I did use to post a bit some years ago as Waterloo but lost track and now posting a bit again. The Stride murder has always seemed very confusing to me but only recently has the penny dropped that amongst all the players, one of them around the gate and in Berners street before and after she was discovered was probably the murderer. (possibly JTR). And we know the names of most of them and if not names we have descriptions. The spanner in the works is identifying the in the shadows man. I still cant really see how somebody not already there before Stride falls/is pulled to the floor could appear from the street and manage to walk into the gateway without being seen.. Pipeman and BSM and anyone else mentioned wouldn't just disappear. So I suppose its not as is normally the case of how did JTR disappear? but how did he manage to get into the yard unseen with all the comings and goings. Yes some will say he could have hidden himself in the yard awaiting a passing victim, but really in a yard where people are in and out at unpredictable moments. That would have to be someone that would not arouse suspicion like a member of the club. Perhaps we already know who this person is, hiding in plain sight. I don't. But I bet you experienced researchers do.

Likelihood is the man seen assaulting stride not long before she was found probs was the killer. I don't think we need to resort to cooking the books to find some mystery man in the shadows.

My real issue is that assuming Schwartz was translated accurately his statement reads like his lipski is alerting pipeman about Schwartz, pipeman moves him on.

[Abby Normal]

There weren't that many people about. In fact, PC Smith commented that 'there were but few people in the bye-streets' and the only people seen by Fanny Mortimer were Leon Goldstein and a couple.

To make it all fit:

Parcel man and Liz disappeared into the yard pretty much as soon as PC Smith was out of sight, which is why when Fanny came to the door she didn't see them. James Brown didn't see Liz, confirmed by the flower. The spot where Liz was murdered was very dark, to the point Louis Diemschutz had passed Liz's body when his pony alerted him to an object, and so the people coming out of the club missed the body in the dark.

If you want to believe Schwartz was there, then let's say the Schwartz and associates episode was just another one of those commotions that Fanny heard regularly outside of the club, and they had no idea that a body was lying nearby; which they couldn't see because it was so dark where Liz lay.

And, for a real outlier, the murderer was Leon Goldstein.

Leon, or I should say Jack, was disturbed approx. 12.40am by someone who didn't necessarily go into the yard, possibly Fanny and her door or possibly someone in the club. Leon upped sticks and walked 'round the block, not sure whether or not the body had been discovered. He waited and listened, knowing there was a body for him to carve up. He didn't hear any whistles nor shouting, and so he went back for his body. This is when he hurried down the street, saw Fanny at the door, and thought it's probably not a good idea to finish the job with busybody Fanny knocking about. He looked up at the club for any sign that a body had been found a body, i.e. that they were about to come out and see him walking past, putting him in the frame; and so on he hurried to the Mitre Square area.

Leon's little black, shiny bag of goodies contained the newspaper that PC Smith had seen and at least one implement 'that the ladies don't like'.

In addition, Blotchy, or I should say Jack; murdered Mary. Leon Goldstein, or I should say Jack, managed to completely change his appearance in the space of a few weeks. I haven't put the full thesis together on that one, but I think it may have been a dietary course aided by layers of clothes.

How's that? Case solved?

nope. lol jk. interesting idea though. goldstein is exactly the type of witness/suspect that need looking into, not some phantom ripper or famous person or someone who has ef all connection to the case like a hardiman or mann. i do have an issue with him returning to the body of a freshly killed victim but perhaps not. if the ripper would do something like the double event and gsg, then i guess he might try to return to a body. But get ready for the howls of outrage from all who think serial killers never do odd or risky things like voluntarily go to the police.

do we have a physical description of what goldstein looked like?

[Fleetwood Mac]

do we have a physical description of what goldstein looked like?

Aye:

Long, tapering fingers; a melancholy, soft, educated voice; peculiar eyes; strange gait; blotchy face; in his spare time often seen passing himself off as a sailor; thin, sallow face; broad shoulders.

The man.

Walter Dew claimed Fanny was the only person to see 'the Ripper', the City PC was actually PC Smith. They saw the same man.

Obviously the police heard Leon's tall tale of Spectacle Alley, thought they'd chance their arm, and PC Smith confirmed that the man he saw was Leon Goldstein.

As a result, Leon was placed under close observation by the police.

[GBinOz]

And, for a real outlier, the murderer was Leon Goldstein.

Leon, or I should say Jack, was disturbed approx. 12.40am by someone who didn't necessarily go into the yard, possibly Fanny and her door or possibly someone in the club. Leon upped sticks and walked 'round the block, not sure whether or not the body had been discovered. He waited and listened, knowing there was a body for him to carve up. He didn't hear any whistles nor shouting, and so he went back for his body. This is when he hurried down the street, saw Fanny at the door, and thought it's probably not a good idea to finish the job with busybody Fanny knocking about. He looked up at the club for any sign that a body had been found a body, i.e. that they were about to come out and see him walking past, putting him in the frame; and so on he hurried to the Mitre Square area.

How's that? Case solved?

Hi FM,

That's as good a solution as any, although I would have had him being spotted by Mrs Artisan on his way to the Spectacle Cafe to establish an alibi, and by Mortimer on his way back. The police checked that he was at the Cafe, but for how long? A candidate worthy of further attention. You might care to check out this thread:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/756816-a-closer-look-at-leon-goldstein

Cheers, George

[Scott Nelson]

Walter Dew claimed Fanny was the only person to see 'the Ripper', the City PC was actually PC Smith. They saw the same man.

I think the City PC was Edward Watkins.

[GBinOz]

I think the City PC was Edward Watkins.

So do I.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think the City PC was Edward Watkins.

I don't. In the event there ever was a City PC 'near' Mitre Square who 'possibly' saw Jack, then I'd say it was neither Watkins nor Harvey, but some other PC on a nearby beat.

Watkins' own statement at the inquest, suggests he was not the supposed City PC.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

That's as good a solution as any, although I would have had him being spotted by Mrs Artisan on his way to the Spectacle Cafe to establish an alibi, and by Mortimer on his way back. The police checked that he was at the Cafe, but for how long? A candidate worthy of further attention. You might care to check out this thread:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/756816-a-closer-look-at-leon-goldstein

Cheers, George

Cheers for the link George.

I did read a part of that thread some time back. An interesting argument by the OP.

It did get a bit lost in small details, e.g. what is up and what is down.

'Seems clear to me that Fanny saw Leon once, and the direction confusion was simply press repetition of a source and not paying attention to the exact details.

The other thing is, let's take a mid point somewhere and say Fanny was at her door for 15 minutes. Is it that unusual that somebody walked down the street during a 15 minute period, and that person had to be somebody, on this occasion it just happened to be Leon Goldstein?

In the end, there simply isn't enough information on Leon Goldstein to link him to the crime.

[Elamarna]

On the subject of the City PC close to Mitre Square.

First point, I do not think for all the mistakes he makes, and there are plenty in the memorandum, that Macnaghten mixed up Berner Street with Mitre Square.
To accept Smith is the office it means we have to ignore what Schwartz says completely, in favour of "maybes" and "what ifs."

Watkins, appears to have been named in several reports from retiring officers in later years, I forget if the reports are here or on the other forum.

He must remain a very good choice for the officer; but I do not think we can completely discard Harvey either, although Watkins does appear to be the better choice.

But could it have been another officer?

Yes, of course it could, especially given Mac's words of close to, rather than in the square.

So we have a possibility in the man who spoke to Blenkinsop in the Orange Market.
This of course revolves entirely around the time that encounter occurred.
If as reported, then It's a real possibility, if as many suggested, the timing was 10 or 25 minutes out, then we can I think discount.

For sometime I have wondered, if it could apply to a policeman who stopped someone after the event. We know of at least two in Wentworth St, and there were probably more.

But now we are straying into a different topic, and that not what I wish to do.

I will just say, I have pondered if there were in fact two witnesses, just as suggested with Smith and Mortimer.

This time it would be a witness who saw something that would ensure conviction, an attack maybe?
And a second witness, a City PC, who saw the same individual close in both time and location to another murder, at a separate site. Such would be confirmation of the same person at two site, not enough to convict, but enough to warrant watching.

I touched on this in a Casebook online conference talk in 2021, on the Seaside Home Witness. Avaliable on this site.


Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

And a second witness, a City PC, who saw the same individual close in both time and location to another murder, at a separate site. Such would be confirmation of the same person at two site, not enough to convict, but enough to warrant watching.

Steve

I think we'd need to take Macnaghten's full statement into account, Steve:

No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was on a beat near Mitre Square) and no proof could in any way ever be brought against anyone....

Whatever was witnessed, it certainly wasn't cast-iron in terms of a City PC seeing Jack.

What we don't know is why Macnaghten thought it may have been Jack. Was it necessarily because he was close to the murder site at the time of the murder, or was it some other reason which we don't know, involving something like someone washing his hands or some stop and search and that revealed something, or something entirely different. All we are told is a beat near Mitre Square. Whatever the reason, Macnaghten tells us that it meant 'no proof in any way'.

Either way, what we can take from that statement is that Macnaghten believed nobody saw Jack, and he throws out a possibility. He doesn't quantify how possible but I think we can take it as an outside chance, 'unless possibly', an afterthought on the main contention.

The City PC may well have been overplayed in terms of importance.

[Elamarna]

I think we'd need to take Macnaghten's full statement into account, Steve:

No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was on a beat near Mitre Square) and no proof could in any way ever be brought against anyone....

Whatever was witnessed, it certainly wasn't cast-iron in terms of a City PC seeing Jack.

Agreed, that's entirely in line with my thinking and what I have suggested.

What we don't know is why Macnaghten thought it may have been Jack. Was it necessarily because he was close to the murder site at the time of the murder, or was it some other reason which we don't know, involving something like someone washing his hands or some stop and search and that revealed something, or something entirely different. All we are told is a beat near Mitre Square. Whatever the reason, Macnaghten tells us that it meant 'no proof in any way'.

As I have suggested in the rough scenero, this person may have matched the discription of another person, seen at another murder site, and possibly identified by witnesses.

Either way, what we can take from that statement is that Macnaghten believed nobody saw Jack, and he throws out a possibility. He doesn't quantify how possible but I think we can take it as an outside chance, 'unless possibly', an afterthought on the main contention.

The City PC may well have been overplayed in terms of importance.

On the last point, I see the City PC as a confirmation of a view already held, because as you say, being seen close to a murder site, could not convict.

Interesting again how we all interpret stuff differently, I see Macnaghten as being unsure rather than having a definite opinion.

Of course we then move completely off this topic onto the Seaside Home ID and just as contentious, the Memorandum, which I see as the oddest document in the whole case.
But that's for another time.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I see Macnaghten as being unsure rather than having a definite opinion.

Agreed.

He clearly does not state that nobody ever saw Jack and that's the end of it.

But, he does make a pretty bold statement followed by 'unless possibly'.

That would suggest to me that he fancies his bold statement as being the likelihood, but there is a chance that he was seen by a City PC.

I was reading a long article last night on blood and its role in Victorian age thinking, particularly connected with sexuality. It's not directly relevant here, but I was surprised at what I read. It brought Anderson and his strange way of thinking to mind.

It gave me an insight into how different the Victorian period thought process was and how they put things together in their mind.

Macnaghten's bold statement is odd really considering that it's highly unlikely that nobody saw Jack near at least one of the murder sites, unless of course he meant saw him in a manner that could provide a definite link to the crime but then again he didn't state nor infer that.

[Elamarna]

Agreed.

He clearly does not state that nobody ever saw Jack and that's the end of it.

But, he does make a pretty bold statement followed by 'unless possibly'.

That would suggest to me that he fancies his bold statement as being the likelihood, but there is a chance that he was seen by a City PC.

I was reading a long article last night on blood and its role in Victorian age thinking, particularly connected with sexuality. It's not directly relevant here, but I was surprised at what I read. It brought Anderson and his strange way of thinking to mind.

It gave me an insight into how different the Victorian period thought process was and how they put things together in their mind.

Macnaghten's bold statement is odd really considering that it's highly unlikely that nobody saw Jack near at least one of the murder sites, unless of course he meant saw him in a manner that could provide a definite link to the crime but then again he didn't state nor infer that.

Yes, I have a work in the pipeline looking at the memo in real depth.
It maybe somewhat controversial.

One of the issues for me, which your comments on Victorian thought processes , just how often people look at events through a 21st century lens.
Worse for me is when people attempt to put themselves in the shoes of suspect x or policeman y.
Something that's really impossible

But back to the topic in hand.

Steve