The Stride Murder

[New Waterloo]

Hello RD,

Thank you for your comments. You are certainly are stimulating some thought. I don't think we should ignore the obvious. I do fully accept that sometimes the obvious is not correct but I guess chance wise it may be our best route. Again I agree there may be something in Blackwells comment that she wasn't wet with rain. he is providing the clue here to the investigators. Its not his role to investigate the crime its his role to tell us about why and how she died and any other medical clues. So we are reminded once more of a major a major undisputed fact. Her clothes were dry. What that tells us is that she was not exposed to any long period of rain certainly in the hour before she died. Obviously her clothes would be wet. They are muddy (fact) after the attack. (I am sounding like that idiot Clouseau now). So it follows that she has been inside or under cover during the period when it rained. (I dont know the timings for the rain, help) I think its a long shot to say that she had been in the club but perhaps she had and was leaving. Perhaps she entered the yard with somebody a bit earlier to shelter from the rain if there was shelter in the yard and he killed her. Perhaps BSM was pulling her out because he saw she was having some difficulty with someone in the yard but it calmed a bit he went away and she was then killed when she got up and walked back into the yard. It could even be her earlier date in the Bricklayers pub who seemed a bit odd to the witnesses. Perhaps she was with him all night and they sheltered from the rain in the yard. Got the urge, killed her and quickly realised that there were to many comings and goings and made a fast exit.

All probably rubbish. But yes a good point. Her clothes were not wet from the rain!

[Michael W Richards]

There’s no point in trying to discus the case with someone who blatantly cherrypicks. Not once have you responded when it’s been shown to you that only once in 6 newspaper reports is Lamb reported as saying ‘just before 1.00.’

One out of six. Please let that sink in for a change.

Perhaps one who takes unverifiable statements over ones that can be verified shouldnt throw stones. But I do know that stone throwing is your passion. What youve neglected to respond to despite many attempts to answer it is this......if Diemshitz doesnt arrive until 1am, because you say so...then what time would be the earliest time to send out men for help? He gets off his cart, lights a match, goes to check on his wife, then calls for help. They come down from upstairs. Issac K is sent out then Eagle goes then Louis with Issac[s] or perhaps Jacobs? 5 minutes? 5-10 minutes? When would Eagle have met Lamb if Eagle didnt even leave for help until 1:05-1:10?Hmm?

Thats right bucko. It doesnt work. You have Lamb there...lets say at 1, ok? Just for your sake. Then Johnson at 1:10, who hears about this from a call made by the PC that Lamb sends to alert him. So Louis and Lamb arrive together then? You are so blinded by the desire to be correct that you would rather just denigrate other suggestions than actually do the math yourself.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps one who takes unverifiable statements over ones that can be verified shouldnt throw stones. But I do know that stone throwing is your passion. What youve neglected to respond to despite many attempts to answer it is this......if Diemshitz doesnt arrive until 1am, because you say so...then what time would be the earliest time to send out men for help? He gets off his cart, lights a match, goes to check on his wife, then calls for help. They come down from upstairs. Issac K is sent out then Eagle goes then Louis with Issac[s] or perhaps Jacobs? 5 minutes? 5-10 minutes? When would Eagle have met Lamb if Eagle didnt even leave for help until 1:05-1:10?Hmm?

Thats right bucko. It doesnt work. You have Lamb there...lets say at 1, ok? Just for your sake. Then Johnson at 1:10, who hears about this from a call made by the PC that Lamb sends to alert him. So Louis and Lamb arrive together then? You are so blinded by the desire to be correct that you would rather just denigrate other suggestions than actually do the math yourself.

Does everything have to be spelled out for you Michael. One suggestion…

Diemschitz sees a clock which tells him it’s 1.00 but the clock is actually fast. So in reality he gets to the yard at more like 12.55 and by the time that Eagle reaches Lamb it’s around 1.00 (or even 12.59 as you’re so obsessed with ‘just before 1.00)

But of course this couldn’t be true because according to your reasoning all clocks were spot-on accurate and perfectly synchronised (especially ones in a Victorian slum)

[The Rookie Detective]

Rookie, the far end of the yard was unused stables with a small office in it. As far as cigarette factories, there were men that lived in the cottages on the left side of the passageway as you enter the gates and they were awake apparently at the time of the murder. Also, Goldsteins black bag contained empty cigarette cartons.

Thank you kindly for clarifying that Michael and great post as always.

I have wondered whether the killer fled, or accessed one of the buildings or flats to make his escape and head off towards the City of London for Eddowes.

We tend to focus on what occurred in Berner Street, but unless the yard was definitely a cul-de-sac with only Berner St as an exit, then i'm inclined to wonder whether the killer may have exited through the far end of the yard and didn't exit back out into Berner Street.

IF he was disturbed (and not suggesting her was) then he would have had no choice but to move back further into the yard.
Are we certain that there's no point of exit through the yard without needing to walk out and back past the body of Stride?

I do appreciate you taking the time to acknowledge my post. For me, it's not necessarily about agreeing or disagreeing, it's all about the discussion and the journey we share to try and unravel this endless quest.


RD

[Wickerman]

Failing that, the police gave the Star man the address.

Actually no, they would be open to liability if anything was to happen to that witness.
The police never give the address out of a witness.

[Wickerman]

12:30 is wishful thinking. That's Le Grande talking through Packer.

There's no evidence of Le Grands involvement in creating any story - wishful thinking.
12:30 is in writing, in Packer's press statement.

There's no way that huge parcel wrapped in newspaper is for a hand of grapes. PC Smith said nothing about the man and Stride eating grapes. What were they waiting for?

You don't know if it was huge, Tom is a theorist, he told you it fit his theory.

Remember Abberline estimating distance?
First he said "about 16 yards", then he changed it to "25 yards".
Your same witness PC Smith first said the suspect had a hard felt hat, then he changed it to a deerstalker, which is soft.

Estimations, especially at night, are often unreliable.

[Wickerman]

So, no evidence for any dragging. Therefore, what does this suggest?...

... he turned her round & threw her down on the footway ...

It suggests that where her she goes down on the footway, is where she stays. The word 'footway' is being used to describe part of the passageway. For people leaving or entering the club by the side door, as Eagle did on his return, the passageway was indeed a footway.

Schwartz was effectively telling Abberline that he saw the whole thing.

Thats your interpretation, twisting the evidence to suit your theory.
The witnesses make a distinction between footway, gateway, and passagway.
The side door opened into the yard/passage, there was no footway into the yard.

[Fleetwood Mac]

You don't know if it was huge.

It certainly wasn't huge. PC Smith gave us approximate measurements and we are told he carried it in a hand.

On the other hand, it absolutely was too big for grapes, as per PC Smith's testimony.

In fact, the measurements PC Smith leaves us is pretty much what you'd expect from fish and chips.

Like you Jon, I grew up during a time when fish and chips were wrapped in newspaper, during the 80s, and the measurements PC Smith gives is about right.

[Wickerman]

Okay, let's all read it together ...

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having 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.

Like it or not, that's touching distance. Apparently almost all discussion of Schwartz proceeds based on this assumption ...

Sure, Swanson's report implies the three were at touching distance, but that doesn't make sense, so let's assume the evidence is other than what it is, and proceed from there.

How about...? Let's not do that, and instead accept the evidence as it is, and if that is unfavourable for Schwartz, tough luck.



The first line of my post ...

Unless the difference between passageway and footway was lost in translation.

I'm not talking about technical distinctions. Rather, I'm talking about Schwartz and his understanding of the world, and his interpreters understanding of him.

The club windows were partially open, as was the side door. No one heard a thing, and yet she supposedly "screamed three times, but not very loudly". The only way this can be made to work, is by having Schwartz so close that he can hear those stifled squeals, but no one in the kitchen can.

Schwartz was very, very close. When this is accepted, his portrayal of the event almost feels like an out-of-body experience.

Everyone at the time who comments on how dark it was say it was totally dark at that spot where she was found. Wasn't it Eagle who said he had to stumble down the side of the passage holding on to the wall?
Diemshutz couldn't see the body either.

Schwartz saw a struggle in the open where it was light enough, so not pitch darkness where she was found.

[Wickerman]

If it was raining and she wasn't wet with rain, what does that suggest? That she had sheltered indoors prior to her murder? Underneath an archway to the boarding school? Was there an overhang in the yard?

RD

That phrase by Blackwell has been quoted by many, yet the other witness who describes her wet clothes never gets a mention.

I have the feeling I'm making a rod for my own back by pointing this out, but it does exist, I'll have to go back and find it now.

There's also an observation that her clothes were not disheveled, indicating she had not been in a physical altercation, or dragged from somewhere else.

[Wickerman]

Stroke of luck.... 1st Oct. press reports.

Here is part of Diemshutz statement.
"The body was still warm, and the clothes enveloping it were wet from the recent rain..."
Irish Times.

He also added:
"Both the jacket and the bodice were open towards the top, but in other respects the clothes were not disarranged."
Daily News.

And again:
"It seemed to me that her clothes were in perfect order."
Daily News.

Mortimer is reported to have said:
"The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible."
Daily News.

Diemshutz statement is widely published and he says her clothes were wet from rain, but otherwise her clothes were in perfect order, or not disarranged, as we might expect if she had been dragged any distance.
Only Mortimer says "slightly disarranged", but then makes reference to her legs being partly exposed. Which to a women of that period was something to be avoided - so that detail apparently mattered to Mrs Mortimer.

So why does Blackwell later say, "not wet with rain". Does he mean they were wet with something else, not rain? Or that her clothes were not soaking wet?
I still think his words will get more attention than Diemshutz

[c.d.]

Diemshutz statement is widely published and he says her clothes were wet from rain, but otherwise her clothes were in perfect order, or not disarranged, as we might expect if she had been dragged any distance.

Not just dragged (as in on the ground) but also if pulled standing to where she was killed.Throw in the cachous unscattered and it sounds like she went voluntarily. Would she have done so with the B.S. man after being thrown to the ground? Possible, but seems unlikely to me. I think it speaks to another killer other than B.S. man.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Actually no, they would be open to liability if anything was to happen to that witness.
The police never give the address out of a witness.

So, they got it from Wess, which would explain the conveniently at hand interpreter.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Thats your interpretation, twisting the evidence to suit your theory.
The witnesses make a distinction between footway, gateway, and passagway.
The side door opened into the yard/passage, there was no footway into the yard.

So, how do you explain the footway-passageway gap? Was she dragged there? No screams? No dropped cachous packet? It seems inconceivable. On the hand, assume that Schwartz/interpreter made no verbal distinction between footway and passageway, and these problems almost go away.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Everyone at the time who comments on how dark it was say it was totally dark at that spot where she was found. Wasn't it Eagle who said he had to stumble down the side of the passage holding on to the wall?
Diemshutz couldn't see the body either.

Schwartz saw a struggle in the open where it was light enough, so not pitch darkness where she was found.

Yes, it was dark. Evidently not too dark for someone, though.