The Stride Murder

[Wickerman]

Im sure your not naive enough to imagine that these points could stand scrutiny Wick.

Hello, to you too
Who's going to do the scrutiny?

1. If he saw what he says he saw he could identify the victim. Not by name, but by overall appearance.

Remember Kidney? who can better identify the victim but her ex partner.
The coroner's duty is not to identify which woman was assaulted in Dutfields Yard, it is to identify the body that is the subject of his inquest.
The coroner already knows she was in Dutfields Yard, that is where she was found.

On that point, do you recall reading anywhere that Israel was asked to make a formal identification of the victim as being the one he claimed to see assaulted?

Yes, Swanson says Schwartz identified the body.

2. If he saw what he says he saw, the odds of her being "wilfully murdered" are much greater. The alleged attack coincides almost exactly with the earliest cut time estimate.

Odds have nothing to do with it.
Schwartz saw an assault, a man push or pull a woman, nothing else, no weapon, no blood, nothing to suggest he saw a murder.
And, according to professional medical opinion, this assault happened roughly 12-15 minutes before her murder.

"The most formal document produced by a coroner following the legal examination of the cause of death was the inquest itself. This was a parchment document with a brief statement of the verdict of the inquest on one side. This might include verdicts such as chance medley or felo de se (accidental death in self defence or suicide), or it could include any number of more obviously descriptive causes of death such as manslaughter, drowning, fever, etc. The name of the victim will also normally appear here, and the parish in which they died."

It seems that Israels statement of the victim being assaulted almost at the time she is fatally cut would be relevant to the Inquest mandate, huh? Is it really your contention that his evidence would not have had a direct bearing on the verdict?

If you read my points carefully, I said does it "clarify" how she died - as he did not witness her death then it obviously does not.
The coroner already knows from existing evidence how she died, Schwartz statement adds nothing to clarify that fact.

3. No one witness is charged with making that determination, where she is found the evidence suggests is where she was cut.

I think its very naive to believe that a witnessed assault on a soon to be victim would be irrelevant to the Inquest mandate. But you are not alone in that naive belief, are you? Just so you dont go thinking that when people agree with you you are by definition correct, although some seem to think that the only real facts are the ones that the most people believe. Like its factual by consensus.

In your anxiety to be confrontational, you may be reading my post but you are not absorbing what I write.
A coroner will only summonz one witness to account for one event in the sequence, he does not require several witnesses to say the same thing. That was just a matter of procedure, so as I previously pointed out, Schwartz statement does not add or change anything not already part of the witness record provided by other witnesses.
In short his statement does not matter to a coroner.
To a murder investigation then yes, of course it does, but the coroner is not charged with investigating a murder. That is the mandate of Scotland Yard.
This is what you need to understand, your objections above show you clearly do not.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But he says right there in black & white, the only person to come to the printing office was one who announced there was a woman in the yard.

Let's have another look...

I was in the back room from 9 o'clock on Saturday night until one of the members of the club came and told me there was a woman lying in the yard.

Krantz is only saying he was in the editor's office until told about the woman. He does not say the person who informs him was the only person to come in after 9pm. Likewise, he doesn't mention Yaffa, but that does not mean Yaffa was not there at that time, or that he was there with him the entire time.

Yes, so there you have the name of the member who came to tell Krantz about the body.

No-one delivering or picking up papers before the murder. Like I said that theory does not fly.

Krantz and Yaffa, it would seem. Why didn't Krantz mention Yaffa was there, and that they both went to look at the victim? Perhaps he didn't consider these to be important details, just the like the detail of someone picking up a stack of Arbeter Fraint's, half an hour earlier?

[Wickerman]

Let's have another look...

I was in the back room from 9 o'clock on Saturday night until one of the members of the club came and told me there was a woman lying in the yard.

Krantz is only saying he was in the editor's office until told about the woman. He does not say the person who informs him was the only person to come in after 9pm. Likewise, he doesn't mention Yaffa, but that does not mean Yaffa was not there at that time, or that he was there with him the entire time.

Right, Yaffa was there all the time, only Wess came then left but to the printroom, not the Editors Office, if I recall. And this was before the murder, but you can't use Krantz to confirm Wess going to the printroom because he doesn't mention him coming or going.
But, if I understand you, didn't you suggest Leon Goldstein came by the office, or was that just a joke?

Krantz doesn't confirm anyone's movements.

Krantz and Yaffa, it would seem. Why didn't Krantz mention Yaffa was there, and that they both went to look at the victim? Perhaps he didn't consider these to be important details, just the like the detail of someone picking up a stack of Arbeter Fraint's, half an hour earlier?

Thats how I read it, the important point was if anyone came by the office around the time of the murder - Krantz says he saw nobody came, which doesn't help anyone's theory.

[Wickerman]

Is there a chance that IF Schwartz's statement is true, the reason why Stride screamed "3 times, but not very loudly" was because she had caucous in her mouth and it was the intermittent sound of her trying not to choke that sounded like 3 screams?

What would cause the suppression of a constant loud scream which could raise an alarm for help and alter it to sound like 3 smaller ineffective screams?

Did BS man slice her throat as he threw her to the ground, all in one motion? And therefore, she attempted to scream but she couldn't physically get out the sound of a typical scream because she was struggling with her throat having been cut?

Sometimes what we think we see isn't actually what's occurred.

Could Schwartz have seen the actual murder?

RD

If what Schwartz saw took place, as he says on the footway, then no, he didn't see the murder.
There's about 9-10 feet difference from the Schwartz assault to the Diemshutz discovery.

[Wickerman]

It’s staggering that after all that’s been written on this subject there are still a few that are in complete denial. Try reading instead of assuming something that you think ‘sounds right.’

Some will cling to an idea regardless of the evidence, or legal procedures, that indicate otherwise.

[Wickerman]

What actual evidence is there that Israel Schwartz was outside the gates of the club at 12:45am the night in question and saw Liz Stride, and 2 other men?

NONE.

And Herlock thinks that anyone who believes he wasnt there is missing the real evidence.

Well, we all have theories that are debatable.
We just talked about Liz being thrown down, and how would anyone know that if Schwartz was not there?
Yet the cause is right there in the testimony if we only look for it, regardless of Schwartz.

Clearly, the killer was the cause of Liz being on the ground, but it doesn't have to be BS-man. In my scenario Parcel-man is just as likely to have been the cause of her falling to the ground.
I'm reasonably sure Scotland Yard were not satisfied with Schwartz story so I see no need to include him as a witness.
The only other man seen with her in her final minutes was Parcel-man, so in my book she wasn't assaulted twice in 15 minutes, but there is no need for me to speculate on whether Schwartz was lying or if he was part of some club-house conspiracy.
I don't need him in my scenario, and apparently neither did the coroner.

[GBinOz]

I wonder how many times this has to be repeated Wick?

To be fair Herlock, what would be the answers if these questions were applied to Marshall and Brown?

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Right, Yaffa was there all the time, only Wess came then left but to the printroom, not the Editors Office, if I recall. And this was before the murder, but you can't use Krantz to confirm Wess going to the printroom because he doesn't mention him coming or going.

I'm not using Krantz to confirm Wess going into the print room, but Wess told the coroner that he did go in there, just before going home, and that contradicts your claim that no one went into the print room after 9pm and before Krantz was alerted.

But, if I understand you, didn't you suggest Leon Goldstein came by the office, or was that just a joke?

Wess: Before leaving I went into the yard, and thence to the printing-office, in order to leave some literature there, and on returning to the yard I observed that the double door at the entrance was open.

Who did he leave the literature for? At about 12:40, a man is seen near the club with Liz, holding a parcel wrapped in newspaper that would be about the right size for a stack of Workers' Friend's. Cut a carry hole in the top and it would be just about perfect. Goldstein was a club member who seems not to have attended the ~100 strong event that night, yet he was in the area and seen by a witness not long before the discovery.

Krantz doesn't confirm anyone's movements.

So what? As you said, Wess went into the print room. Krantz doesn't mention this because he wasn't asked about it.

Thats how I read it, the important point was if anyone came by the office around the time of the murder - Krantz says he saw nobody came, which doesn't help anyone's theory.

Perhaps the problem here is that this a better theory than one involving grapes and Packer.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Well, we all have theories that are debatable.
We just talked about Liz being thrown down, and how would anyone know that if Schwartz was not there?

Well not by observing any corresponding injuries, because there weren't any.

I'm reasonably sure Scotland Yard were not satisfied with Schwartz story so I see no need to include him as a witness.
The only other man seen with her in her final minutes was Parcel-man, so in my book she wasn't assaulted twice in 15 minutes, but there is no need for me to speculate on whether Schwartz was lying or if he was part of some club-house conspiracy.

If you're reasonably sure Scotland Yard were not satisfied with Schwartz's story, do you suppose they thought he was lying, or part of some club-house conspiracy?

[GBinOz]

I'm not using Krantz to confirm Wess going into the print room, but Wess told the coroner that he did go in there, just before going home, and that contradicts your claim that no one went into the print room after 9pm and before Krantz was alerted.

Wess: Before leaving I went into the yard, and thence to the printing-office, in order to leave some literature there, and on returning to the yard I observed that the double door at the entrance was open.

Who did he leave the literature for? At about 12:40, a man is seen near the club with Liz, holding a parcel wrapped in newspaper that would be about the right size for a stack of Workers' Friend's. Cut a carry hole in the top and it would be just about perfect. Goldstein was a club member who seems not to have attended the ~100 strong event that night, yet he was in the area and seen by a witness not long before the discovery.

So what? As you said, Wess went into the print room. Krantz doesn't mention this because he wasn't asked about it.

Perhaps the problem here is that this a better theory than one involving grapes and Packer.

Goldstein doesn't need to go to the printer's office to deal with Wess regarding publications. He could have met him in the club and delivered pamphlets that Wess then went and left in the printing office as he said.

Did Packer say that the man he saw was carrying a parcel?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Goldstein doesn't need to go to the printer's office to deal with Wess regarding publications. He could have met him in the club and delivered pamphlets that Wess then went and left in the printing office as he said.

That would be like taking coals to Newcastle

Did Packer say that the man he saw was carrying a parcel?

PC Smith estimated the newspaper wrapped parcel to be nearly half a metre in vertical length. Do we really believe it was just for this?...

[GBinOz]

That would be like taking coals to Newcastle

Hi Andrew,

Would you be happier had I said "literature"? Perhaps literature from a another printer or publisher with views sympathetic to those of Arbeter Fraint. Parcelman and Stride are seen in the street and Parcelman has a package that could possibly be described as resembling some sort of publication. They cross the street and Stride is left in the gateway, possibly waiting for Parcelman to conduct his business with Wess, and possibly pick up his shiny black tobacco tin bag.

[Trevor Marriott]

Clearly, the killer was the cause of Liz being on the ground, but it doesn't have to be BS-man. In my scenario Parcel-man is just as likely to have been the cause of her falling to the ground. .

I have to disagree, if Stride was prostituting herself then it is likely that she would have propositioned men who were walking by or men who were leaving the club, who is to say that one of these men took exception to her advances and simply pushed her aside causing her to fall to the ground.

To say that she was pushed by her killer is without foundation

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

Would you be happier had I said "literature"? Perhaps literature from a another printer or publisher with views sympathetic to those of Arbeter Fraint. Parcelman and Stride are seen in the street and Parcelman has a package that could possibly be described as resembling some sort of publication. They cross the street and Stride is left in the gateway, possibly waiting for Parcelman to conduct his business with Wess, and possibly pick up his shiny black tobacco tin bag.

George,
it's not what you're calling the material, that's my problem. Rather it's that by making the literature a delivery instead of a pickup, you're unnecessarily complicating things. The scenario requires another printer/publisher, politically aligned with the Workers' Friend. We need Parcelman to pick up Stride and leave her at the gates, and while he's inside she's getting killed - so perfectly bad timing plus all the usual issues with the BS killer. Then there is the huge issue of Parcelman conducting business with Wess, who told the coroner he left to go home at 12:15. Parcelman is spotted nearly half an hour later. How will you reconcile the timing issue?

I say, keep it simple. Wess leaves the material to be picked up that night, by someone trustworthy. Presumably a club member, but not one who attends that night's event (otherwise he could just hand the material to them, in the club). Leaving the material in the printing office means the recipient can avoid getting caught up in the singing and dancing inside the club.

[The Rookie Detective]

If what Schwartz saw took place, as he says on the footway, then no, he didn't see the murder.
There's about 9-10 feet difference from the Schwartz assault to the Diemshutz discovery.

So let's say a maximum of 10 feet from the footway to the place her body was found... So IF Schwartz is correct, then Stride is laying on the footway (the little path between the street and the gateway?) but is found within 15 minutes or so laying dead up to 10 feet away?

So would it be likely; and gain this depends entirely if Schwartz is telling the truth/accurate with his observations, if after Stride was thrown down onto the footway and was alleged to have shouted "Lipski!" that in the time it took for Schwartz to "Run" off; potentially followed by Pipeman, that BS man simply dragged/pulled her 10 feet from her landing position on the footway and then moved her back into the darkness of inside the gateway and THEN cut her throat?

From BS man shouting "Lipski" and Schwartz exiting the scene, BS man would would needed only a few seconds to drag Stride into the darkness and cut her throat AFTER moving her.

How long would it take to drag/pull a relatively small woman already laying on the floor a matter of 10 feet and then cutting her throat in the manner the killer did?


Surely that's a more likely scenario than ANOTHER man arriving AFTER she is already on the floor and then cutting her throat?

I see no reason to discount Schwartz, unless Le Grand got to him like he got to Packer.

I think Schwartz was telling the truth BUT may have been wrong about what he thought he saw. A false truth, meaning his intention was honest and he did see certain events unfold, but maybe his interpretation of what transpired may have been perceived incorrectly.

Of course, if Schwartz made it all up, then why would he do that?

If he lied, then BS man and Pipeman don't exist anyway.

Let's not forget that the killer would NOT have spent any considerable amount of time or be SEEN to be spending time with Stride, kissing, eating grapes etc... because JTR was an opportunist who was an engage, entice, kill, mutilate and go kind of killer (not including MJK of course)

I would suggest that IF her killer was a man seen talking with her for a while, kissing her, buying grapes with her and standing in the rain for over half an hour etc...that her murder was not ripper related.


RD