The Stride Murder

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why would he lie knowing that the police could easily check his story?

[S.Brett]

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.

Hello again NotBlamedForNothing!

At first Pipeman was a "suspect" who did not go to a police station (see Schwartz and Goldstein) and his statement did not convince the officers (" I didn´t follow Schwartz after the woman was attacked, I did not run away, it did not happen around 12.45am, it must have been earlier, yes, I did light my pipe but could not see anything because the smoke bit into my eyes). In the end he was not suspected. He was "cleared". It seems clear that Schwartz´s observations were more important than those of Pipeman. It is possible that Pipeman was not able to describe the woman and the man he noticed (but yes, the woman was lying on the pavement).

My thoughts:

After inquiries made by the police it was clear that it was at 1.00am when he arrived home and went to bed at 1.45am (his wife) and that he was wrong with the time.

Karsten.

[Fiver]

Hi Herlock,

I tend to agree that it seems unlikely, but are we too close to the story. You might recall me saying that my daughter has spent part of her career as a theatre nurse. She has no interest or ideas about the JtR case. I asked her to have a look at the autopsy reports and she came back and asked if there was any theory that two murderers were involved as, to her, the injuries to Chapman and Eddowes were by a different hand, which surprised me, to say the least.

Cheers, George

That's very interesting. Did she articulate why she thought the the injuries to Chapman and Eddowes were by a different hand? And did she make comparisons with other possible victims?

[Herlock Sholmes]

How likely or unlikely do we think it is that Schwartz was just mistaken about his time and passed before 12.30 and saw a short incident involving a woman who resembled Stride? Similar age and build, similarly dressed (after all, women’s fashions weren’t that varied especially for women of Stride’s class in society)

[Fiver]

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.

Ironic. You assume that it would take 5 to 10 minutes from discovery to contacting PC Lamb. Yet you assume zero minutes for Diemshutz to call together a couple dozen club members from two different floors of the building, some of whom did not speak English, and convince all of them to engage in a criminal conspiracy to falisify evidence and commit perjury.

And that's before we considering that this alleged conspiracy would risk prison and gain them nothing.

[Michael W Richards]

That's very interesting. Did she articulate why she thought the the injuries to Chapman and Eddowes were by a different hand? And did she make comparisons with other possible victims?

Eddowes: Dr Sequeria: "I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill."
Chapman: Dr Phillips: "I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge." also..."The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body."

Not really any surprise then that Georges daughter, having training, would notice those differences also. Catherines injuries appeared to be a slash and grab, but Annie injuries...a targeted extraction.

[S.Brett]

A few thoughts on Israel Schwartz:

(I always see Schwartz over Lawende)

When they moved he was not at home, a man who like going out, "the appearance of being in the theatrical line", "knew next to nothing about how watches work"...

It is possible that he had more of a "histrionic" person...theatrical, dramatically... than many other people (Pipeman, Lawende)

25 years of age, immature. A poser?

If so he would have loved to take center stage, if he was able to identify a murderer he would have felt like a hero, a highlight of his life, admired from other people, interesting, did repress that he was running away when the woman was attacked...

It is only a feeling but I think Lawende was exactly the opposite...

Would a man like Schwartz "refuse to give evidence" (Anderson)? A man who does use words lightly? Hard to believe but not impossible.

But in dealing with religion it would be possible, I think.

I know it´s far-fetched...

Karsten.

[New Waterloo]

I have been using this site for some time and doing a little research but totally overlooked something which I am sure you all know but worth mentioning. I was amazed to see how quickly the inquests took place after the time of the murders. In Strides case if I am not mistaken the inquest commenced on the 1st October. The day after the murder!! Is that correct? well we might as well give up on why some witnesses were called and others not, the investigation had only just started. I am more amazed as to how the authorities managed to communicate with all these people to get their attendance at such short notice. Statements, reports, names and addresses of the witnesses. Just seems unbelievable. With all our technology today I don't believe we could put an inquest together the day after a murder. There is however a massive problem. The inquest totally lacks any information obtained after the inquest has concluded. But the good news is it is so close to the time of the murder that memories will be significantly fresher and presumably more accurate. (well not if there are lies of course).

Now a more interesting thought. I have been reading Michael Kidneys testimony and there is definitely more to him. This insistence that the police should provide him with a young "strange" officer and he will find the murderer is clearly saying that he has an idea as to who the murderer is or roughly who the murderer is and that an unknown new officer to the neighborhood could be used to get information from people who as he says knows him and older police officers and will not speak to them.

This seems to suggest a certain community like the members of the club. I am beginning to wonder if Kidney was BS Man out looking for Stride. He displays some annoyance in the inquest stating that she had entered his room and taken things (well that's how I understand it) He was annoyed about her getting through the padlock and entering his room when he was out.

He finds Stride near the club, she has gone there because he is after her. There is an altercation/domestic somebody tells him to push off which he does.

Now it doesn't work because why would somebody in the yard decide to kill her after all this carry on.

Oh and also I think he turned up at Strides lodgings the Sunday according to the Deputy and how did he know it was Stride who had been killed so early after the event, went to the police station and before any proper identification had yet to be made. Was it because he knew she had gone into the club yard and someone in there killed her. He didn't know exactly who but he was asking for an undercover young new officer to find out. Cant remember when he viewed the body, probably got that bit wrong

NW

[Wickerman]

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

Inadmissible, unless you can show Schwartz used whatever name you are talking about.

[Wickerman]

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.

Her clothes were not disorganised in any way indicative of being dragged, and where does all this mud come from in a cobbled yard?

[Michael W Richards]

Ironic. You assume that it would take 5 to 10 minutes from discovery to contacting PC Lamb. Yet you assume zero minutes for Diemshutz to call together a couple dozen club members from two different floors of the building, some of whom did not speak English, and convince all of them to engage in a criminal conspiracy to falisify evidence and commit perjury.

And that's before we considering that this alleged conspiracy would risk prison and gain them nothing.

I can only assume that you either A) didnt read the post, B) that you didnt understand the post, or C) you cant read. I suggested that it might have taken Louis and his pals approximately 5-10 minutes to arrange and execute the search parties. So.....if math isnt also an issue for you......if it takes the club staffers as much as 5-10 minutes to raise a search party, ( I think thats conservative but achievable).. and then head out eventually finding Lamb, .... if Louis arrived at 1 like you and Sholmesy insist, then at what time would they first find Lamb? Thats correct...if you did the math, roughly 10 minutes after 1.

So thats 10 minutes after Lamb is already there with Eagle according to Lamb...(Eagle, who was one of the searchers sent out supposedly after Louis discovers the body at 1), and at the same time as Johnson arrives.....having heard of this from the PC that Lamb sent to notify the station.

So now what....Issac K is wrong, Heschberg is wrong, Spooner is wrong, PC Lamb is wrong, Johnson is wrong, Fanny somehow just missed seeing Louis arrive at 1, Blackwell is later than he says he was...who else do we have to disregard to make you and others happy?

If you want Louis to have arrived at 1 and then discovered the body, sure...fine. Then how long would it have taken to get off his cart, light a match to see the face, head inside to check on his wife, summon help, send Issac K out, then Eagle, then Jacobs and I presume Louis himself, they all look but cannot find someone immediately until Eagle gets Lambs attention, who then tells the other PC to inform the station and head to the club with Eagle and now Issac who joined them....how long? I suggested 5-10 minutes... generously. It is probably longer. So that makes Eagle first meeting with Lamb at 1:10, not 1 as he said, arriving at the club around 1:12-1:15, only to find that Johnson has been there for 5 minutes already.

You and the other crap thrower argue for something that quite obviously leaves you without any reasonable explanation about Issac K, Heschberg, Spooner, Lamb and Johnson, not to mention Fanny....your answer seems to be is EVERYONE else is wrong but Louis is correct. Nice work. And this Im told is how the "majority" of Ripperologists see this? I think your polling is suspect also.

Youve fought against me and for something that cannot be. I hope you werent planning on a career as a Detective or Criminologist.

[Michael W Richards]

Ironic. You assume that it would take 5 to 10 minutes from discovery to contacting PC Lamb. Yet you assume zero minutes for Diemshutz to call together a couple dozen club members from two different floors of the building, some of whom did not speak English, and convince all of them to engage in a criminal conspiracy to falisify evidence and commit perjury.

And that's before we considering that this alleged conspiracy would risk prison and gain them nothing.

One last pointer, because you may yet learn something, if Louis arrives when Issac K, and Heschberg and Spooner suggest he did, then ALL the other people I mentioned can have their times left alone. I never suggested this was some deep dark conspiracy plot...you and Sholmesy have, Ive suggested that anyone reasonable and logical would see this as a potential disaster for the club and wouldnt be shocked if some damage control was hastily managed.

I know that reasonable and logical are not yours or Sholmesy's strong suits, but that doesnt mean you have to be the polar opposite.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One last pointer, because you may yet learn something, if Louis arrives when Issac K, and Heschberg and Spooner suggest he did, then ALL the other people I mentioned can have their times left alone. I never suggested this was some deep dark conspiracy plot...you and Sholmesy have, Ive suggested that anyone reasonable and logical would see this as a potential disaster for the club and wouldnt be shocked if some damage control was hastily managed.

I know that reasonable and logical are not yours or Sholmesy's strong suits, but that doesnt mean you have to be the polar opposite.

We do appreciate your comic interludes.

No response on the clock issue of course. Doh!

[Abby Normal]

Read your own theory in print. I put it down down so everyone can see your impeccable logic. I could care less what the majority of anyone thinks, since the majority of the students of these cases thinks they are looking for a serial killer of five instead of just trying to solve individual murders, I dont share much with the "majority" anyway.

And this is where your rationale goes off the rails from the very start. Even the police and pretty much everyone else knew they were dealing with a single serial killer eventhough there was little to no experience with this type of crime before, and the term hadn’t even been coined yet. You’re going about it arse backward. You’re trying to twist the evidence to support multiple killers when you should be trying to analyze various evidence that points to a single suspect.

[Michael W Richards]

We do appreciate your comic interludes.

No response on the clock issue of course. Doh!

How could you respond negatively, since the post is based on your own beliefs about timing. Which... fairly clearly, are misplaced.