The Stride Murder

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If she was there to clean the club after the meeting, which I believe is one of 2 more probable answers to why she was there, she may have been hired by one of the Jewish men or women who she had been working for the weeks leading up to that night. I think its possible one reason she might have been killed is because someone didnt know that was arranged, and thought she might be spying on the club. Like other street women were conscripted to do by the police. It also seems the club was thought to have been making and selling cigarettes from that location, so its interesting to note that Leon Goldstein had a black bag full of empty cigarette cartons and there were cigarette makers staying in the cottages opposite the club wall who were awake at that time. Maybe someone knew that the police were watching them because of that issue and also knew that someone was bringing cigarette cartons that night.

Leon Goldstein is a curious witness. Fanny saw him look into the passageway and up at the club and he then hurried past. Did he see something that dissuaded him from dropping off those cartons to the makers in the passageway. People had questioned whether Goldstein was a member or not, I dont know, I have never seen a membership roster for that club in 1888, but I do know Woolf Wess translated for him when he came in Tuesday night. So, perhaps.

Leon possibly didn't drop off the cartons, because he intended to back to #40, later on. I think Fanny probably first spotted him at around 12:35.

[Fiver]

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...goldstein-1890

Thank you for the link.

I have also found this.

Morning Advertiser, Oct 3:

W. Wess, secretary of the International Club, Berner-street, called at our office at midnight, and stated that, it having come to his knowledge that the man who was seen by Mrs. Mortimer, of 36, Berner-street, passing her house with a black, shiny bag, and walking very fast down the street from the Commercial-road at about the time of the murder, was a member of the club, he persuaded him last night, between ten and eleven o'clock, to accompany him to the Leman-street station, where he made a statement as to his whereabouts on Saturday evening, which was entirely satisfactory. The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller.

[Wickerman]

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

Why would Wess have Schwartz's address?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Thank you for the link.

I have also found this.

Morning Advertiser, Oct 3:

W. Wess, secretary of the International Club, Berner-street, called at our office at midnight, and stated that, it having come to his knowledge that the man who was seen by Mrs. Mortimer, of 36, Berner-street, passing her house with a black, shiny bag, and walking very fast down the street from the Commercial-road at about the time of the murder, was a member of the club, he persuaded him last night, between ten and eleven o'clock, to accompany him to the Leman-street station, where he made a statement as to his whereabouts on Saturday evening, which was entirely satisfactory. The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller.

Yeah, that report is quoted in the closer look at Goldstein thread. I presume "was a member of the club", means he is a member, and hasn't recently had his membership rescinded.

Goldstein's name also shows up here and here.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why would Wess have Schwartz's address?

Because it's on the membership roll, albeit against his real name

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There is evidence of her being dragged or at least moving her body significantly whilst being on the floor. I am not saying she was dragged into the yard, she may have walked, been pulled, pushed whatever but there are statements made by George Baxter Phillips which are not ambiguous and clearly stated as being important. They are;

" Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side".

" Examining her jacket I found that although there was a slight amount of mud on the right side, the left was well plastered with mud ".

What are these statements saying. Well surely all must agree that on contact with the ground however made, mud has attached itself to Strides clothing. This in itself suggests that the main contact was not on the right side, or her back but on the left side.

However I would suggest that mere contact with the floor would not result in mud being "Well plastered with mud"

To "well plaster" something requires movement between the plastered item and the mud. It is a choice of word which has been emphasized by the "well" which suggests this. Not my words but those chosen by the most professional and learned person to examine the body. Maybe dragged or not dragged but sufficient movement in the mud to "plaster" the left side of her jacket and to "matt her hair" with mud.

The other surgeon Blackwell also makes and interesting observation that her clothes were "Not wet with rain" not sure about the timings of when it was raining but she obviously was not standing in the rain for long before all of this.

Consider the difference between dragging through the mud and dragging over the mud. The first suggests a horizontal force only, being applied. The second suggests a horizontal and vertical (upward) force being applied, which would tend to result in the lower part of the body being muddied, much more than the top half. The opposite of what we see. This of course assumes her being dragged from around her shoulders and not feet, but feet last matches her orientation when the discovery was made.

[GBinOz]

Because it's on the membership roll, albeit against his real name

Oh oh - there you go being all inscrutable again.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

"They arrested one man on the description thus obtained" this could be "Pipeman". In mid-October the police were still looking for Parcelman, BS Man & the man described by Lawende. No Pipeman.

If Pipeman was found, this witness must have seen the attack described by Schwartz at least in part. Did his statement agree with what Schwartz had claimed?

Schwartz would have expected that the police would find the man with the pipe. Again, if it happened, did his statement agree with what Pipeman had witnessed? I donīt think so.

Neither do I, but I think Pipeman was the other guy mentioned by the Star...

They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Who is this other source, though?

There might be many reasons why. I suspect that Pipeman could not describe the woman and the man he had seen. Maybe he was short- sighted and/or drunk, too frightened etc. If Pipeman wasnīt the murderer he, probably, was a bad witness.

The most important disagreement could only have been the pursuit or running away.

Why was this man seemingly disbelieved (or not wholly believed) one day, and the next day doubts have moved to Schwartz, and the prisoner is released?

"It wasnīt me, the other man did it. The man with the pipe can confirm it".

You suggested that the man with the pipe could not confirm Schwartz, but you started the post by saying you believed the story. What gives?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Oh oh - there you go being all inscrutable again.

Given a mention of the harbour bridge, and you and I would probably think of the Sydney harbour bridge. Other people around the world would tend to think of a harbour bridge much closer to home. The railway arch is a similar thing.

[S.Brett]

They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Who is this other source, though?

Hi NotBlamedForNothing,

No idea who this other source is but arrests were made... police were looking for Pipeman, BS Man and the Parcelman... it seems that Pipeman is the only one who could be found... this quote ("a second on...") seems to refer to a supposed BS Man, just guessing. It would be possible that Schwartz and Pipeman said: No, not the man we have seen.

Star, 1 October 1888:

"The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted".

"The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it".

"At a late hour last night an arrest was made in the neighborhood of Whitechapel, and the man taken to Leman-street, where he is still detained. At a quarter past three this morning a second man was arrested and likewise brought to Leman-street Police-station. He remains under detention. The police, presumably acting under instructions from head-quarters, decline to state either the names given by the prisoners or the circumstances which led to their arrests. There is, however, good reason to believe that so far not the slightest tangible clue has been obtained".

The most important disagreement could only have been the pursuit or running away.

Why was this man seemingly disbelieved (or not wholly believed) one day, and the next day doubts have moved to Schwartz, and the prisoner is released?

Star, 2 October 1888:

"In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts"

Maybe they had different views on what they have watched. It is possible that Schwartz was more convincing than Pipeman. It does not mean that Pipeman was not telling the truth. It is possible that Schwartz thought he is the man who can really help, help to find the murderer, more cooperative, very convinced of himself and, on the other hand Pipeman, maybe more defensive than Schwartz. As police you have to deal with two witnesses who were probably very different. Who knows, one witness a "little bit too much" the other, shall I say, "lackadaisically"/ "fed up with it".I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

You suggested that the man with the pipe could not confirm Schwartz, but you started the post by saying you believed the story. What gives?

Yes, I believe the story, Pipemanī statement (if he was found) we donīt know.

What they saw could have led to different interpretations. Pipesmoker are often more relaxed than other people, forming an opinion lasts longer. I donīt think that Schwartz belonged to that category of people.

He saw (and heard) what he wanted to see (hear). He believed in it. Nothing wrong with it.

Karsten.

[GBinOz]

Given a mention of the harbour bridge, and you and I would probably think of the Sydney harbour bridge. Other people around the world would tend to think of a harbour bridge much closer to home. The railway arch is a similar thing.

Bridge, Smidge. What's this all about?

"Because it's on the membership roll, albeit against his real name"

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes, I believe the story, Pipemanī statement (if he was found) we donīt know.

What they saw could have led to different interpretations. Pipesmoker are often more relaxed than other people, forming an opinion lasts longer. I donīt think that Schwartz belonged to that category of people.

He saw (and heard) what he wanted to see (hear). He believed in it. Nothing wrong with it.

Hi Karsten.

The problem I have with the 'different interpretations' interpretation, is that it doesn't really explain what we see. The prisoner was not wholly believed, and later on they let him go. Why? It's one man's story versus another. Did they get more information at some point? Presumably not from the BS-man. Perhaps it was just a matter of giving him the benefit of the doubt. Okay, so why not do the same for Schwartz? That is, "they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts", because one account was a bit more dramatic than the other? That seems an overreaction. It's as though we are missing a crucial element of the story.

By the way, I agree that the 3:15am arrest is the crucial one.

[Michael W Richards]

Why would Wess have Schwartz's address?

In fact no-one knows to this day where Israel Schwartz moved from that day. I have suggested since he said he was checking to see if his wife had finished moving at 12:45...in Berner Street and in front of the club, he may have lived in one of the cottages in the passageway. I dont believe that the cottagers have all been identified.

His claim about seeing how the move went seems disingenuous, he left his wife around noon and it almost 13 hours later that he checks on her? They would have had very little to actually move, likely just clothes and perhaps a stick or 2 of furniture.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Bridge, Smidge. What's this all about?

"Because it's on the membership roll, albeit against his real name"

I'm not sure, to be honest. Furthermore, I can't see why Schwartz would have taken such a risk in lying to the police, when only Goldstein stood to benefit. That just seems irrational.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

His claim about seeing how the move went seems disingenuous, he left his wife around noon and it almost 13 hours later that he checks on her? They would have had very little to actually move, likely just clothes and perhaps a stick or 2 of furniture.

You're spot on Michael. Schwartz was full of it.