The Stride Murder

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No one apparently heard the attack on Nichols, unless you count Lilley.
On Cadosch standing a few feet away heard Chapman's attack, and no one heard the attack on Eddowes
All had people who could have heard an attack c.d. But no one did.
We make the assumption that the attack would make a noise someone must hear, it's always our assumptions that lead us astray.

Steve

There is no assumption on my part. Sarah Diemschitz knew the area well, the sounds of the neighbourhood, and the level of noise in the club leading up to the discovery. If she said she would have heard screams if there had been any, her comments should be taken seriously. She is not just some stupid woman who can be casually dismissed.

Fanny Mortimer: There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe anyone enter the gates. ... It was almost incredible to me that the thing could be done without the steward's wife hearing the noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found.

Her astonishment is obvious. What all this tells us is that the murderer acted in effective silence. Stride appeared to have been laid down quietly (PC Lamb), and she is barely still clinging to an open cachous packet. Your theory is that the man responsible for this was some rowdy character who threw the intended victim to the ground in front of strangers, yelled at a passer-bye, and then continued his attack on the victim. No way José.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So am i getting this right Mac , for Leon Goldstein to be Strides killer then Schwartz didnt see B.S attack Stride, thus he made the whole thing up ?

Sleight-of-hand magic designed to take attention away from the Whitechapel Murderer.

Cachous were potentially incriminating for somebody in the cigarette trade, particularly someone seen very close to the murder scene at the right time, someone seen hurrying down the street. His little ruse with the cachous and poor Liz didn't see it coming.

BullShit Man and the three little screams, how convenient, not loud enough to bring attention to a racket; but loud enough to suggest Liz was in danger.

[FISHY1118]

So did Schwartz witness the attack on Stride yes /no ? , was there any attact on Stride besides her murder yes /no ? .


Sorry but im just trying to find out where you think Schwartz fits in with Strides murder, if at all .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its yet to be determined that Cadosch actually heard Chapman being attacked ,its only a presumption based on a 5.30 am t.o.d which also is yet to be determined.

Off topic thread i know, however relevant to c.d post . Ill post on John Richardson thread for further discussion if required.

No, it’s a presumption based on what a man said who was there at the time and who was only a very few feet from the fence and who had absolutely no reason to lie (and the fact that he made no attempt to claim for 100% certainty that the ‘no’ came from the yard [despite it being his opinion] is further proof of his honesty). It’s also the case that no one has come up with a remotely plausible suggestion for what the noise could have been which, according to them, came from a yard which contained a severely mutilated corpse.

Three witnesses with no reason to lie, none of whom as far as we know were idiots, who all point to a later ToD versus a Doctor’s estimation that we know (not falsely assume without evidence) was using unreliable methods. How can this be considered ‘close’? A fact that is confirmed by every single modern day forensic expert. Why does anyone pursue this point as if it’s a kind of 50-50 toss-up? It’s not. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a later ToD. Read what the experts tell us Fishy they aren’t making things up. Read David Orsam’s book The Temperature Of Death to find out just how unreliable ToD estimates were. Or read Corpse: Nature, Forensics, And The Struggle To Pinpoint Time Of Death by Jessica Snyder-Sachs. Why ignore evidence? Why bend over backwards to denigrate witnesses.

[FISHY1118]

Ill respectfully disagree on your above post Herlock, but stand by my post regarding Cadosch. it remains undetermined that the''NO'' was the start of the Chapman murder, or he even heard ANY murder being committed . Evidence that supports this can be easily obtained on the ''John Richardson thread topic , I suggest you continue your interest there as not to deviate from this one.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The problem with BullShit Man, is that the medical evidence does not support the type of attack described by Schwartz.

BullShit Man. I love it. You're right about the medical evidence of course.

Poor Liz had no defence wounds which suggests she didn't know what hit her and didn't have time to put her hands up.

And then of course we have a few people on the street around that time, and Fanny awake two doors down, and yet nobody saw or heard Schwartz's commotion.

On balance, I'm going to say that the said event did not happen.

Which begs the question: why was this statement given? was it to take attention away from Leon Goldstein?

Of course it was.

It's all falling into place. Leon with his cachous intended to distract. Serial killers tend to have a little ruse, something to distract and manipulate, designed to catch the victim off guard. Bag open, hands Liz the cachous, Liz looks down at her hands but doesn't have time to get one out, Leon's bag is already open in the interests of speed.

Is Leon the parcelman? Did the parcel come out of the black bag?

Was Leon Anderson's 'low class Polish Jew"? Were 'the protectors' the club members? Was PC Smith the City PC? By the way, I don't like Anderson one bit with his prejudice.

I've thought about this. Not sure.

The book on this will be in the shops next week: "Introducing The Whitechapel Murderer: Cachous Man" by Fleetwood Mac.

Looking forward to it.

[Elamarna]

Why can you not use the quote facility Trevor it makes reply far easier

But he could only be called if he had made a statement and if there was no statement how could a coroner then decide, and we have no evidence of a statement all we have is a verbal account.

Actually he could have made a statement to the cornoners officer, rather than the police.

But given that Abberline says in writing he was at the interview, That Anderson and Warren allude to it and Swanson seems to quote from it, your refusal to accept it is unreasoned and more of a gut reaction.
Remember the old knife stab, that was a tear on the photo, same thing.

Rubbish, if he saw the attack that would be material that a coroners jury should hear and there could be no trial without a perpetrator and at that time there was no prime suspect

Of course it is for the coroner to decide what the jury should hear, not you and not me.
Often evidence is heard at trial that would not be mentioned at a inquest.
That you don't know this speaks volumes.

What Abberline wrote is not the issue here.

Pardon, of course it's the issue, it was you who raised what Abberline said in the first place, claim it was all hearsay.
I suspect you have not even read Abberline's memo.

But does he say a written statement was taken?

So we are expected to believe that an interview is held, that a report is written by Swanson and letter are sent to the Home Office all without a statement. and b

That because we have no written statement suriving we can assume there was not statement.
Very poor methodology.
And simple because you don't want to consider Schwartz.

That's a possibility it is not unusual for Witnesses to be interviewed by the police and refuse to make a written statement.

Given that he went to the police of his own accord, that would be very strange.
He also of course spoke to the Press, hardly the actions of a man not wishing to talk.

What Abberline reported to him.

So Abbeline gave him a very detailed verbal report?
An assumption on your part.

Swanson did not have a statement from Schwartz, another assumption on your part.

All you ever do is present assumptions, and claim them as fact

I am deadly serious

SADLY we all are aware of that.

The evidence from 1888 had time and time again proved to be unsafe

I wondered when this favourite line of your would appear.
It's been proven unsafe in your mind Trevor, that does not mean it's considered unsafe by the rest of humanity.

There is a difference between research and its results and inventing scenarios to fit the facts which you continue to do

Hi ironic that you project your own failings onto others

Steve

[Elamarna]

There is no assumption on my part. Sarah Diemschitz knew the area well, the sounds of the neighbourhood, and the level of noise in the club leading up to the discovery. If she said she would have heard screams if there had been any, her comments should be taken seriously. She is not just some stupid woman who can be casually dismissed.

Fanny Mortimer: There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe anyone enter the gates. ... It was almost incredible to me that the thing could be done without the steward's wife hearing the noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found.

Her astonishment is obvious. What all this tells us is that the murderer acted in effective silence. Stride appeared to have been laid down quietly (PC Lamb), and she is barely still clinging to an open cachous packet. Your theory is that the man responsible for this was some rowdy character who threw the intended victim to the ground in front of strangers, yelled at a passer-bye, and then continued his attack on the victim. No way José.

Of course there are assumptions you make

That those nearby would have heard the attack. That is an assumption.

My suggestion is the the person who attacked STRIDE was someone who acted on impulse.
Who lost control for that moment. And someone who did not care for those few seconds if he was seen or not.

Steve

[Elamarna]

So did Schwartz witness the attack on Stride yes /no ? , was there any attact on Stride besides her murder yes /no ? .


Sorry but im just trying to find out where you think Schwartz fits in with Strides murder, if at all .

For me, the improbability of a 2nd individual attacking at the approximate time and location reported by Schwartz is immense.
BS man is Strides killer in my view, the argument to reject him is one I find hard to understand.
It smacks of NOT WANTING him to see the killer.

Steve

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I’ve asked this question on previous threads but I’ll ask it again….why do we place so much weight on Fanny Mortimer’s version of events?

She claimed to have been on her doorstep ‘nearly the whole time’ between 12.30 and 1.00 but then flatly contradicts herself by saying that she went onto her doorstep around 12.45 (or after a Constable passed her front door) So clearly if she went onto her doorstep around 12.45 then she was inside for a period before that.

No, that is just your assumption. In the unquoted report, events are just starting at a later point - from the time she hears the policeman's footsteps. The reports do not conflict because the woman goes to her door to shoot the bolts but changes her mind and stays at her doorstep for about 10 minutes. The door was not locked, presumably because she had been at her doorstep earlier in time, which is just what we see in the quoted report. There is no contradiction - the unquoted report just commences in time closer to "the action". Why should both reports commence at 12:30?

It seems unlikely that this period would have been a very short one as it would have meant her first coming onto her door at 12.30 and going back inside without seeing Smith pass (12.30-12.35) So did she she come onto her step just after 12.35, stay there for 5 minutes or so then go back inside only to return to her doorstep 10 minutes later where she remained for 10 minutes before going back inside again?

Based on both reports, she might have been at her door from around 12:30 to 12:40, then about 12:45 until just before 1am.

Yet her ‘evidence’ is used, as if her timings are absolute gospel, to dismiss Schwartz. How?

Not sure what you mean by gospel. It is not a matter of precise times, rather it's a matter of considering events and times together. Her timing seems to align with Diemschitz' arrival time, and his timing is generally accepted, give or take a minute or two. So, if Fanny hears Smith pass a little before 12:45, goes to her doorstep until just before Diemschitz' arrival, we are obliged to ask when on earth this Schwartz stuff actually occurred. Opportunistic thinking would suggest that it occurred before Smith passes by, while Fanny is inside (between doorstep vigils). Yet that makes the arrival on the scene of the BS-man, almost coincident with Morris Eagle's return to the club, and Joseph Lave's period in the yard and street.

Its like Spooner. His totally way-off estimate of being at the yard at 12.35 is used. He was quite obviously mistaken. And yet his estimate of being at the yard a mere 5 minutes before Lamb got there is ignored. Why?

You're right, he was mistaken. Who are you accusing here?

Then we have the different versions of what Lave said.

Which one do you prefer? The one where he is in a position to see Stride and Parcelman, or when he should be able to witness the Schwartz incident? He claims to have seen nothing sinister.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, that is just your assumption. In the unquoted report, events are just starting at a later point - from the time she hears the policeman's footsteps. The reports do not conflict because the woman goes to her door to shoot the bolts but changes her mind and stays at her doorstep for about 10 minutes. The door was not locked, presumably because she had been at her doorstep earlier in time, which is just what we see in the quoted report. There is no contradiction - the unquoted report just commences in time closer to "the action". Why should both reports commence at 12:30?

Because her claim of being on her doorstep ‘nearly the whole time’ is very clearly thrown into doubt. It’s too vague to be used specifically. And it certainly can’t be used to dismiss Schwartz.

Based on both reports, she might have been at her door from around 12:30 to 12:40, then about 12:45 until just before 1am.

Might? How can you dismiss Schwartz on the basis of a ‘might?’ She said ‘about 12.45’ but she also said just after a Constable passed. So which do we go for? If she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed then, if Smith was fairly accurate, then the 12.45 flies out of the window.

Not sure what you mean by gospel. It is not a matter of precise times, rather it's a matter of considering events and times together. Her timing seems to align with Diemschitz' arrival time, and his timing is generally accepted, give or take a minute or two. So, if Fanny hears Smith pass a little before 12:45, goes to her doorstep until just before Diemschitz' arrival, we are obliged to ask when on earth this Schwartz stuff actually occurred. Opportunistic thinking would suggest that it occurred before Smith passes by, while Fanny is inside (between doorstep vigils). Yet that makes the arrival on the scene of the BS-man, almost coincident with Morris Eagle's return to the club, and Joseph Lave's period in the yard and street.

No it doesn’t. We even have two possibles.

a) Smith passed at, let’s say 12.33 (between his estimates of 12.30 and 12.35) and then Fanny comes onto her doorstep (let’s say 12.33/12.34) She stays on her doorstep for around 10 minutes, so until around 12.44, then goes back inside with Schwartz passing at around 12.45.

b) she comes onto her doorstep at around 12.45. With the Schwartz incident occurring at around 12.43/12.44 before she came out and after Smith and Eagle.

How can it be impossible, strange or somehow fantastic that an incident that could have taken as little as 30 seconds to a minute wasn’t witnessed. This is called everyday life. Things happen that don’t get witnessed. It was a relatively minor scuffle it wasn’t an Iron Maiden sound check.

You're right, he was mistaken. Who are you accusing here?

No one. Why do you assume I’m accusing anyone of something?

Which one do you prefer? The one where he is in a position to see Stride and Parcelman, or when he should be able to witness the Schwartz incident? He claims to have seen nothing sinister.

Im not fussy. Lave is unimportant. Stride and parcel man were there although they could have move just around the corner out of sight when Lave emerged. The Schwartz incident occurred. Morris Eagle returned to the club. Diemschitz arrived at around 1.00. So either Lave lied or he simply went out for a period of time which allowed for him not seeing any of the above. In one report he’s out there for 5 minutes so I favour that he went out after Eagle returned and went back inside before the incident.

That Schwartz lied about being there might occur in a Hitchcock movie but this was real life.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Of course there are assumptions you make

That those nearby would have heard the attack. That is an assumption.

We cannot know with certainty, but witness comments suggest the probability that something would have been heard and possibly seen, was high.

My suggestion is the the person who attacked STRIDE was someone who acted on impulse.
Who lost control for that moment. And someone who did not care for those few seconds if he was seen or not.

Steve

An impulse attack theory is fine, as long as it remains compatible with the physical and medical evidence.

[Elamarna]

We cannot know with certainty, but witness comments suggest the probability that something would have been heard and possibly seen, was high.

Sorry but thats just your interpretation, the club is still relatively busy between 12.30 and 01.00.
certainly enough noise to cover the attack outside, unless there is loud screaming or other loud sounds from the attack. Schwartz makes no such cliams, only weak cries.

An impulse attack theory is fine, as long as it remains compatible with the physical and medical evidence.

I see nothing in physical or medical evidence that argues against such an attack.
assumptions about defensive wounds are just that, assumptions.

Steve

[Wickerman]

That's an interesting explanation for Schwartz's non-appearance at the inquest.

The opening sentence of the newspaper account tells us in plain English that Sunday afternoon a Hungarian gave a statement at the Leman St. police station.

"Information which may be important was given to the Leman Street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian".
The reporter who was present writes, he "came to the police station accompanied by a friend, who acted as interpreter".
The Star, 1 Oct. 1888.

It is known as a matter of course that journalists loitered at police stations waiting on the latest word so they could follow detectives if there was a sudden break in the case. The above is one example of this.

Schwartz gave a statement to police.

[S.Brett]

However, the probability is that BS man was her killer.
People don't like.

Steve

Steven my friend!

You know, I sign all the ideas you have, it is easy to agree with you, and so I like BS Man being Strideīs killer, he probably was...

We both are "Kozminskiites" and we know that Aaron Kozminskiīs brother Woolf Abrahams once lived next to Dutfieldīs Yard and, when the Stride murder occured, around the corner in Providence Street. The Abrahams moved away after the murder in Berner Street in October 1888.

I donīt know if we agree but I think "Kosminski", if he was Jack the Ripper, was paranoid. Before attacking a prostitute he had checked out all directions. In the case of Stride he didnīt.

It is possible that something happened to him that night, been beaten up or has had a serious argument with a (female) family member so he lost the control for a moment.

If BS Man was the killer, Jack the Ripper, he killed, half an hour later, Eddowes in the usual manner. It is possible that BS Man was "Kosminski", Jack the Ripper, but his behaviour, in the case of Stride, is different to all the other murders.

There were some people who passed through Berner Street, probably more than we think... if passing through the courts leading to Batty Street/ Batty Gardens, people, in Berner Street, appeared like a shade quickly moving.

The man Brown saw may have been "Kosminski"/ Pipeman (coming from the home of his brother in Providence Street, maybe coming from the homes of Matilda or Isaac in Greenfield Street, maybe coming from his "own home"- remember Charlotte Street-)

Jack the Ripper was paranoid, a stalker maybe he asked Stride to go with him to a location more away from the place where they were standing and she refused ("No, not tonight, some other night"). The "attack" on Stride by another man, suddenly, maybe triggered him and he did what he did.

I donīt want so say Pipeman was the killer... I wonīt believe it... I would say 5% he was, 80% BS Man... 15% another man...

10 Minutes, between 12.50 a.m. and 01.00 a.m., is what we should expect from Jack the Ripper, speaking to her, creating a relaxed atmosphere, checking out the place and location etc.

This would be the man we call "Jack the Ripper" and what we see in Berner Street, the BS Man didnīt act like the Ripper unless the Ripper had a bad day, acting like a robber. Half an hour later BS Man killed Eddowes as though nothing had happened before.

Sometimes it is hard to believe. But anything is possible.

Karsten.