The Stride Murder

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I agree that Harris is the other possibility. With all due respect, the evidence is that Jacobs existed because Eagle named him as leaving with another man to search for a P.C..

Hi George

I think you are not explaining how how Eagle could be quoted saying two different names in the same sentence, because you know it will not make sense.
So, you keep repeating "Eagle said Jacobs"
You know as well as I do that this does not mean Jacob existed.

Diemshutz already tells us he brought Kozebrodski out of the club, in the Morning Advertiser Diemshutz consistently refers to Koz being with him as "we".
So there it is clear Diemshutz & Kozebrodski both run along Fairclough, they don't have to be side-by-side, they are just two men who ran in the same direction.
Diemshutz is also the one claiming to be shouting "police" as they ran.
Kozebrodski also tells us he ran towards Grove St., which is along Fairclough.
Spooner said two Jews came running towards him shouting "murder", "police".

Also, you know the Telegraph has Eagle telling us Diemshutz ran, with another, along Fairclough.

All sources tells us two men ran along Fairclough towards Grove.

So, how does this "Jacobs" fit in?

You are choosing to negate that evidence by claiming a misprint of his name. I have noticed that some reports of the inquest have more detail than others, and the others didn't quote Eagle as naming Diemshitz rather than Jacobs, they just left out that detail altogether. I am reluctant to discard this extra information.

It is necessary to identify errors where they exist, the main clue with "Jacobs" is we have multiple sources

Koze said that he failed to find a PC in Fairclough and later went to Commercial Road. Diemshitz didn't mention Koze returning with him to the yard. He mentioned only Spooner. Eagle said he was distressed at the sight of the blood and left immediately to find a PC. Had he turned west at Commercial Road (to allow for the time required for Koze to get to Grove St and back) he may very well have run into Smith.

The above sounds right.

If he turned east into Commercial he would have been at the corner of Batty in time to meet Koze had the later proceeded up that road, which would mean Koze wasn't one of the men seen by Spooner and Brown.

But Koz tells us where he went, and he didn't say up Batty, he said towards Grove.

You are suggesting that I am creating a scenario to fit someone who never existed and who nobody saw, but Eagle testified that he saw Jacobs form part of a search party. If I can be permitted to volley a couple of your questions back over the net, why does dismissing Jacobs matter so much to you, and why cling to a story that requires sworn testimony to be dismissed?

My objection begins with the question I asked you - how do you explain one reply from Eagle refering to two different people?
You never did answer that.

[Wickerman]

It's all or nothing with Schwartz. We either believe him and then no one else had the courage to come forward after Stride was thrown down and then had her throat cut, OR, he was lying, under a false name and BS man and Pipeman never existed in the first place.

Could a simple error in translation (or a deliberate attempt by persons unknown) have caused the confusion we still see today and that Schwartz COULD have meant he saw Stride being thrown down by BS Man to the location she was later found AND NOT the footway which implies the street side of the gate?

I agree, the simplest solutions are to be preferred.

I have to wonder though, just how much the press influenced the story Schwartz gave them.

Interestingly, it begins by saying what Schwartz told them was the same as what he told police, yet by the end of the press version we see much more detail than in the police version. Doesn't anybody wonder why?
The press version begins..
the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police.

Ok, well here is what Schwartz told police, it is possibly in summary form, but we should notice, there is no detail. It could be any street that includes a gateway entrance somewhere down the street.

"...had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road “Lipski” & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far..."

However, Schwartz was 'sure' he passed through Berner St.

That being the case, there are legitimate questions:
- What was the name of the gateway?
- Why is the assault outside the gateway, on the footway?
- Was the gate closed?
- No identification of the building "opposite".
- Why do the press change the "pipe" to a "knife"?
- Where did the 2nd man come from?
- No mention of a pub on the corner.

Given the press were well aware of where the crime took place, that a knife was used, and in which gateway the body was found, and the geography of the area.
Is it possible it was the press who added these details to make the story more identifiable to the reader?
Schwartz felt sure he had passed through Berner St. so the press coloured the story with details that reflect the assumed location.

[GBinOz]

Hi George.
So are you seriously saying the witness Eagle turned to the Times reporter and used the name Jacobs, but turned to the Telegraph reporter and spoke the sentence again, this time using the name Diemshutz?
So, the coroner heard Eagle give two answers to the same question?

I know what the press published (as above), but I asked how you explain this, how could two different journalists hear two different names IN the same sentence?

Hi Jon,

Of course I am not saying that different testimony was given to, or heard by, the journalists. What I am saying is that it was reported differently. We can see this variation in the reports of testimony regarding the time Lamb was informed, and the time Johnson was contacted by the PC at the surgery. How can that have been when they were listening to the same testimony? Are you seriously suggesting that journalists were consistent in their reporting of testimony given at inquests? I would suggest that Eagle testified that he saw Diemshitz and Jacobs go for the police, and the journalists reported that statement differently, or indeed, not at all.

Morning Advertiser:
What did you do?-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.

Echo:
Then a man named Gildeman came up and told us that a dead woman was lying in the yard. We then went in the yard together. I struck a match, and we then saw a woman lying by the side of the Club wall. Her feet were towards the gates, and her head towards the yard. She was covered with blood. Witness said that if there had been a cry that night, he believed they should have heard it.

Daily News:
I had been there about 20 minutes when the man I mentioned-Gigelmann-came and said, "There is a dead woman lying in the yard." I went down in a second, struck a match, and saw a woman lying on the ground near the gates with a lot of blood near her. Her feet were six or seven feet from the gate, and her head lay towards the yard. When I reached the body and struck the match there was only one of the members present. I thought at first she was drunk, and told her to get up-that was before I struck the match. When I saw the blood I was very much excited. I could not see whether her clothes were disarranged, as I did not look at her after seeing the blood which was around her. I went for the police, and two constables returned with me.

These journalists were listening to the same testimony, but presumably chose to report the details that they considered relevant.

Your scenario requires that in the testimony, Diemshitz was a misprinted as Jacobs, and, "went" was misprinted as "sent". I am leaving the sworn testimony in tact and allowing for journalistic licence. My view at this stage is that the timings and descriptions by Lamb and Spooner, don't quite work out without the fourth man in the search parties, but, as Karsten suggests, time for rethinking.

Cheers, George

[Lewis C]

Am I correct when I say that the entire reason why it's not considered that Schwartz saw the murder, is because of his stating that he witnessed Stride being thrown down onto the "footway" and not the gateway?

Another reason is that if one think that she was a Ripper murder, one could question if such a murder would begin like that. It appears that Stride might have had a chance to escape, and one could doubt that the Ripper would have given a victim that chance. I'll grant that there's some conjecture in what I just said.

Also, throwing someone on the ground isn't necessarily followed by murder, so one could take the position that he could have killed her, but we really don't know.

[Wickerman]

Am I correct when I say that the entire reason why it's not considered that Schwartz saw the murder, is because of his stating that he witnessed Stride being thrown down onto the "footway" and not the gateway?

One of the reason's yes.
Another is that, from the point of view of the killer, he cannot allow a witness to escape. So the killer is going to chase the witness down to kill him also.

Bearing in mind he didn't speak English and his words are translated.

What if he actually meant the gateway, but it was translated as the footway, and therefore it implies that Stride was thrown down several feet from where she was later found murdered?

In other words, IF he meant the other side of the gateway OR the End of the Footway, then would we then consider Schwartz to have seen the man who killed her?

All witnesses who stood over the body say she was found in the darkest part, she could not be seen.
We can't have it both ways - if Schwartz saw the attack, she had to be outside the shadows, so if she is found in a spot where she could not be seen, then how could anyone see the attack?

[The Rookie Detective]

Am I correct when I say that the entire reason why it's not considered that Schwartz saw the murder, is because of his stating that he witnessed Stride being thrown down onto the "footway" and not the gateway?

Bearing in mind he didn't speak English and his words are translated.

What if he actually meant the gateway, but it was translated as the footway, and therefore it implies that Stride was thrown down several feet from where she was later found murdered?

In other words, IF he meant the other side of the gateway OR the End of the Footway, then would we then consider Schwartz to have seen the man who killed her?


Because there's no other accounts to verify or corroborate his story, it actually strengthens the case for him having seen Stride being thrown down where she was murdered.

He was of course within a few yards of BS Man and could have seen her thrown down to where she waa later found.

IT is commonplace to find errors in translation and because a0 he wasn't English speaking and b) there were no OTHER witnesses that said Stride was thrown down onto THE FOOTWAY, then isn't it just a simple case of him meaning the other side of the footway where she was later found?

I think because 'only a matter of a few feet (no more than 10 feet), it's likely that we have just been avoiding the elephant in the room and therefore IF Schwartz was telling the truth; that he actually saw the man who murdered her, but no one else came forward DESPITE several newspapers stating that "THOSE who witnessed the assault"

That's very much an emphasis on the plural "THOSE witnesses"..suggesting in no uncertain terms that there were MULTIPLE witnesses to the assault on Stride.

Was Schwartz the only witness who did indeed see the killer?

It's all or nothing with Schwartz. We either believe him and then no one else had the courage to come forward after Stride was thrown down and then had her throat cut, OR, he was lying, under a false name and BS man and Pipeman never existed in the first place.

Could a simple error in translation (or a deliberate attempt by persons unknown) have caused the confusion we still see today and that Schwartz COULD have meant he saw Stride being thrown down by BS Man to the location she was later found AND NOT the footway which implies the street side of the gate?


Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one


RD

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

From the Complete A-Z, Page 247:

Jacobs - (Socialist)
Socialist member of the International Workingmen's Educational Club. Seen outside by Morris Eagle, accompanying another man (possibly Diemshitz) down Berner St towards Fairclough St in search of police after the discovery of Elizabeth Stride's body. Nothing more is known about him.

On the other hand, there is a comprehensive coverage of the Stride murder and the search parties which supports your viewpoint here:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-smiths-beat.html

Cheers, George

Are you saying I should ask Paul Begg as well?
The A-Z does not answer the question, I might even suggest the authors never considered the question.
All the evidence suggests two men left the yard, yet you seem to prefer there were three, as opposed to accepting one was a printing mistake.

[S.Brett]

Hi Jon,

From the Complete A-Z, Page 247:

Jacobs - (Socialist)
Socialist member of the International Workingmen's Educational Club. Seen outside by Morris Eagle, accompanying another man (possibly Diemshitz) down Berner St towards Fairclough St in search of police after the discovery of Elizabeth Stride's body. Nothing more is known about him.

On the other hand, there is a comprehensive coverage of the Stride murder and the search parties which supports your viewpoint here:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-smiths-beat.html

Cheers, George

Hi George!

Did Jacobs really exist as I have always thought? Thought he could have been Jacob Rombro aka Philip Krantz. My thoughts were similar to the post 119 here:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-crime-scenes/dutfields-yard-and-berner-street/8665-berner-street/page8

It is long time ago and I lost the thread... now itīs time for "Re-thinking".

Karsten.

[Lewis C]

To the question of Mortimer seeing the couple from her doorstep, the EN interview seems to be relevant.

Evening News, Oct 1:

"Was the street quiet at the time?"

"Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club."

She is saying there were people on the street, but they were very few in number. If those she refers to did not include the couple, then presumably she saw multiple men. In that case, what to make of this?...

It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and 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.

I don't think that her statement is clear that "there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club". Does it mean inside the club, or going in and out of the club? I do think though that if she had seen Goldstein come out of the club, she would have said so.

[Lewis C]

Ok, but Brown did not say the woman had a flower on her jacket, so apart from him 'felling sure' what other justification is there for assuming he saw Stride?
I just think he saw someone else, and as the press interviewed this 'sweetheart' couple, their presence confirmed by Mortimer, then it seems assured to me Brown was just mistaken.
As an aside, you'll notice he heard the cries of "murder" about 15 minutes later (later than 12;45, so nearer 1:00am), as Diemschutz & Kozebrodski run for help.

The man was standing in front of the woman, so it could be that he was blocking Brown's view of a flower, but I don't assume that Brown really saw Stride. I think that maybe he did and maybe he didn't. And yes, Brown is the only person who said that he saw Stride there at that time, so there's no corroboration for his statement.

There is an account in the Oct. 1 Echo of a young couple and her sweetheart saying good night and going home at 12:30. I'm not yet convinced that it's the same young couple that Mortimer talked to, and do have to ask how it happened that Mortimer talked to them after the murder if they went home at 12:30, but it's possible that they came back out. So while I admit to doubts about it, I think it's worth mentioning. Here's the Echo account:

It is established almost beyond doubt that the poor creature met her death some time between twelve and one o'clock. And yet no one seems to have heard a struggle, or a groan, or the slightest indication of what was going on. From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.

"We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."

I agree with your aside. Since I estimate that Brown saw the couple at 12:50 or so, I'd estimate 1:05 or so is when he heard the cries of murder.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

From The Daily Telegraph - Coroner and Eagle:

[Coroner] Did you touch the body? - No. As soon as I struck the match I perceived a lot of blood, and I ran away and called the police.
[Coroner] Were the clothes of the deceased disturbed? - I cannot say. I ran towards the Commercial-road, Dienishitz, the club steward, and another member going in the opposite direction down Fairclough- street. In Commercial-road I found two constables at the corner of Grove-street. I told them that a woman had been murdered in Berner-street, and they returned with me.

From The Times (London):

Another member, named Isaac, was with me at the time. As soon as I saw the blood I got very excited and ran away for the police. I did not touch her.
The CORONER. - Did you see if her clothes were disturbed?
Witness. - I could not say. 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!" On getting to the corner of Grove-street I saw two constables, and told them that a woman had been murdered in Berner-street.

I can see the point you are making, but in the Telegraph Eagle names Diemshitz and another man, and in the Times he names Jacobs and another man. So Diemshitz and Jacobs fit both descriptions with a difference only in the detail. Eagle appeared before Diemshitz, so the journalists may not have yet been aware of the significance of the persons involved?

Hi George.
So are you seriously saying the witness Eagle turned to the Times reporter and used the name Jacobs, but turned to the Telegraph reporter and spoke the sentence again, this time using the name Diemshutz?
So, the coroner heard Eagle give two answers to the same question?

I know what the press published (as above), but I asked how you explain this, how could two different journalists hear two different names IN the same sentence?

[Wickerman]

Just another observation...

Why do some of the witness statements state they saw blood running from Stride and down to the door of the club...

And yet others state they saw blood running "FROM THE DIRECTION OF THE GATE"

That indicated clearly which direction the blood was flowing of course, but the way some of the statements read, it could also imply that the blood was running from the gate itself.

The key word is "Direction"

But if they blood was running from Stride to the doorway, why would anyone say that the blood was running "from the direction of the gate" instead of
"the blood was running from her neck"
"running from her neck toward the door?"
"running toward the door from her neck"

By mentioning the gateway itself, is there ANY evidence to suggest that her throat was initially cut at the gateway and her body was moved after her throat was cut?


By stating that a person sees blood running FROM the DIRECTION of one location (gateway) towards another location (side door), then it implies the person is standing by the body and gesturing FROM THERE...TO THERE...

It Stride was laying in the gateway, then the comment of blood running from the Gateway makes sense...but the context doesn't work if her body is found where she was actually found and then for multiple witnesses to state they saw blood running FROM THE DIRECTION OF THE GATEWAY.

Was her body moved post-mortem BEFORE the police arrived?


RD

'Flowing from the gate' is nonsensical if the body is downstream.
I mean, from left to right, you have the side door, then the body, then further away the gate.
The source is obviously the body, so blood flow can be towards the door, or towards the gate.
It had been raining so the ground will have been wet, easing the flow of blood. But, if the body originally had been nearer the gate and blood was flowing towards the club door, then you move the body nearer the door, the blood stops flowing from the gate - there is no source from which blood can flow.
So, the statement is nonsense.
Some people do have a poor sense of direction, and how to express direction.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Respectfully...

PLEASE STOP with the political discussion; it has NOTHING to do with the case and is only being perpetuated by a few who are throwing their toys out of the pram because some of us are making ground and raising points that warrant further discussion and analysis.

Distraction techniques are not only ridiculous; they're blatantly unfair and disrespectful to those of us who want to discuss the case.

RD

I assume by this that you’re referring to me (and Fishy)?

I didn’t start a ‘political discussion’ I simply made a throwaway comment about ‘unlikeliness’ where I used Trump as an (intended as humorous) example. I didn’t expect Trump to be mentioned again.

And I haven’t ‘thrown my toys out of the pram.’ I’ve simply cautioned about getting carried away and against ignoring a boring (perhaps) and prosaic explanation in favour of a fanciful one involved plots and planted witnesses. And it certain wasn’t done as a distraction tactic!

[S.Brett]

Thanks Karsten. It's nice to know that I'm not slipping as much as I supposed.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George!

Yes, at the time of the discovery of the Pinchin Street Murder in 1889. You can find it here:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-witnesses-evidence/matthew-packer/12621-matthew-packer-beaten?t=12453

Karsten.

Thanks Karsten. It's nice to know that I'm not slipping as much as I supposed.

Cheers, George