The Stride Murder

[Herlock Sholmes]

Looking back at the Kelly case, we might recall Maxwell said she had been for some milk to a shop in Bishopsgate. The press reported that 'they' checked with the shop who confirmed her story.
We are just left thinking who checked?, did 'they' mean the police, or the press?

Yeah, nothing’s straightforward with such huge gaps in information Wick. Especially when we’re reliant on the Press.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have you tried Imgur?

https://imgur.com/

I've never had a minutes problem with it.

Cheers Wick. I hate new stuff.

[Elamarna]

This is what I am trying to describe - red line.

Not a route I have considered before, going via the club.
I will add it for the work on Berner Street Jon.

Thanks

[S.Brett]

Of course, this is all hypothesis and conjecture...but I think it's good to think outside the box sometimes...

Thoughts?

RD

Hi RD,

Thanks for your thoughts. "Thinking outside the box sometimes" is a good thing.

I don´t think that Kidney and Le Grand had something to do with the killing of Liz Stride. But it is possible that she knew her attacker.

I rather think, just a feeling, that she did not want to have sex with a drunkard that night (drunkard like a "drunk Michael Kidney").

We are looking for a connecting thread to our theories. I´m interested in Anderson´s suspect ("Kosminski"/ Aaron Kozminski) and I try to find some sense in the happenings on the night when Liz Stride was murdered in Berner Street.

I have a problem with BS Man´s "Lipski". If he was "Kosminski", a Jew, would he have shout it?

It is clear, Schwartz was a Jew of strong Jewish appearance but what about "Pipeman"? The same night, at Mitre Square, if true, a policeman had seen a man of Jewish appearance. Of course, it was not Israel Schwartz but possibly the man with the pipe, seen by Schwartz in Berner Street. And, of course, Schwartz did not say anything about a Jewish appearance with the men he described. We don´t know if he changed his mind when confronting with Pipeman... if a confrontation did actually take place.

Aaron Kozminski´s family lived in the area, Berner Street (Batty Gardens), Providence Street and Greenfield Street around the corner. The other murders occurred north of the High Street. For many "Kozminskiites" it is clear, the attacker of Stride was "Kosminski". I am not convinced.

It would be interesting to know:

If Pipeman was "Kosminski" did he see the body of Stride in the mortuary? The woman he had killed? Probably yes. How did he react?

Was the idea born (by the police) to show (see Le Grand & Batchelor/ Packer) him the body of Eddowes before she was buried? How did he react?

His strange behaviour, the fact that he was seen in Berner Street, possibly seen by a PC near Mitre Square (only in Height&Build and of Jewish appearance) did not make him the murderer.

There were press reports in October: "a foreigner in an East End Infirmary", "a woman who lived some time ago with him", the Batty Street Lodger-story, in it a man "cutting his corn". Not far from the crime scene at the corner of Hooper Street, 63 Back Church Lane there was a tailor & corn grocer, Isaac Green. The same Green mentioned by Booth (notebook “Tailors”).

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/morning_advertiser/18881015.html

Pipeman may have been a person of interest.

Is it possible that the mysterious Seaside Home ID took place in October 1888? The fact that police reports only mentioned a man with a pipe (Swanson) and a description of him (Abberline) might be explained by "refusing to give evidence" by Schwartz.

I often wonder whether Swanson´s "And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London" refers to Anderson´s "However the fact may be explained, it is a fact that no other street murder occurred in the "Jack-the-Ripper " series" (after the Double Event, see Chapter 9/ TLSOMOL).

Anderson´s

"The last and most horrible of that maniacs crimes was committed in a house in Miller's Court on the 9th of November. And the circumstances of that crime disposed of all the theories of the amateur Sherlock Holmeses of that date".

I don´t know what it could mean but "the circumstances of that crime" could indicate that the murderer was able to fool the police and that they made a big mistake. Possibly they did not watch him by day and night as they did it later (Swanson: "On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night"). Ergo: The Kelly murder took place after 6 a.m.

I attached two press reports, 17&18 October 1888.

Karsten.

[S.Brett]

Hi Karsten.

The Scotsman story, which was in the Echo the day before, is a story told by the club secretary - we think William Wess.
As we know he left the club about 12:15 that night, then we know he saw nothing himself. This is what he was told by someone. So a second or third-hand story at best. Likely with errors.
First point, he says it happened at a quarter-to-one because that is the time his source (whoever it was) believed it happened, not because that was a fact.
There were, we are told, approx. 20 or so people in the yard, so any one of them could be his source. Or, Wess may have put the story together from what several people told him.
We do have statements from a few at the scene who did think the murder happened at 12:45, so perhaps we should start with them?

After all is said and done, the details of the story, in my view, better fit what Diemshutz & Kozebrodski say. That they went running eastward looking for a policeman, however the fact they are both club members appears to conflict with the story. But, Kozebrodski did not return to the yard with Diemshutz, they picked up Spooner, who was not a club member, and it was Diemshutz with Spooner who came back to the yard.
It was naturally assumed the two men who returned to the yard are the same as the two who left, but they were not.
Whoever told Wess what happened did not know who Spooner was, because he was not a member.

Yes Jon!

Anything is possible.

Karsten.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I think that we must consider the first article, "Have they got him", to be pure speculation - a desire to publish some news of JtR when they don't actually have any. It contains the mysterious suggestion that the police are confident that they know the identity of JtR, but don't want him to realise they are on to him, so they tell the press who will then inform everyone .... er ... not very likely!

Also, Swanson wrote a very detailed report to the Home Office on 19th October which contained all up-to-date information about the investigation, and there is no talk of any suspect. He mentioned extensive enquiries of sailors at the London docks, asiatics, butchers and slaughterers, Greek gypsies and touring cowboys from some American exhibition, but not any suspect.

[S.Brett]

I´m not sure...

if the City Police did investigate "Kosminski" (Pipeman?) he was a City Police "suspect". The MET/SY witness Schwartz could have said:

"Yes, he is the man with the pipe"!

-learned he is a Jew-

"But no, the man I had seen was taller, he had brown hair, he isn´t" (the police knowing that Pipeman knew he was identified)

[Wickerman]

The reality of the story would be determined by locating and questioning Chasing Man:

... the secretary of the club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

Surely the police came asking questions about this story - demanding to know the man's name and possible whereabouts.
Did the man confirm or deny the chase?
Is he the prisoner being held for inquires to be made?
Is he responsible for the police coming to doubt the Hungarian's story?
If the police believed this man to be Schwartz's second man (Pipeman), was the running/chasing away real? Difficult to see how it was, given Edwards Spooner's position on Fairclough St.

Spooner's location (at the intersection of Fairclough & Christian) from 12;30 would suggest the chase did not come eastward on Fairclough.
Spooner definitely saw Diemschutz & Kozebrodski, and no other chase.

Well, if he is talking about Schwartz, then he learnt of this before the police did.

If it was Schwartz, and Wess was his interpreter, then why does Wess think Schwartz was the murderer, and that he got away?
Wess knows this story is not true - IF, the story is the Schwartz encounter.
So lets say Wess was not his interpreter, we are left with the fact there was a witness to the chase.
Perhaps this person is the 'other source' the police refer to?

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.
Star, 2 Oct. 1888.

The above suggests Schwartz either ran south on Berner, or west on Fairclough, but not east because of Spooner.

[Wickerman]

Not a route I have considered before, going via the club.
I will add it for the work on Berner Street Jon.

Thanks

The red line passes through a property identified as 670, which may or may not allow access into the yard behind it.
Also, such a route would suggest the murderer had an intimate knowledge of those back yards.
All things considered it may be too much to expect.

[Elamarna]

The red line passes through a property identified as 670, which may or may not allow access into the yard behind it.
Also, such a route would suggest the murderer had an intimate knowledge of those back yards.
All things considered it may be too much to expect.

Indeed, but in my books, I look at all possible escape routes even the unlikely.

Steve

[Michael W Richards]

Spooner definitely saw Diemschutz & Kozebrodski, and no other chase.

Youve said this numerous times Wick, and I would recommend reading what Issac Kozebrodski says himself and who Eagle says he saw leaving , " Jacobs and some other member". Issac said he went out" at the request of Louis or some other member". And since Issac K meets up with Eagle and Lamb, and Louis meets Spooner, it would seem Eagles "Jacobs" and Diemshitz went out.

That is the only 2some that was sent,... Issac went alone, Eagle went alone, and someone left with "Jacobs". Guess who that might be? The only person who claimed he went with someone, Diemshitz... said he went with "Issac[s]". We dont know if a member there was named some variation of Issac Jacobs or Jacob Issacs, but we do know Issac K went out alone...as he said clearly....the Issac[s] Diemshitz said he went with might be the "Jacobs" that Eagle referred to.

[Wickerman]

Youve said this numerous times Wick, and I would recommend reading what Issac Kozebrodski says himself and who Eagle says he saw leaving , " Jacobs and some other member". Issac said he went out" at the request of Louis or some other member". And since Issac K meets up with Eagle and Lamb, and Louis meets Spooner, it would seem Eagles "Jacobs" and Diemshitz went out.

I've come to the conclusion you do not read posts that reply to you.
I've read every press article on here where Kozebrodski's name is mentioned, but you don't seem to have made the effort.

In the Evening News, 1 Oct. just to quote one example:

"Isaac M. Kozebrodsky. Kozebrodsky was born in Warsaw, and can only speak English very imperfectly. His information, which we are obliged to give very shortly, is this: "I came into the club about which you are asking me at half-past twelve o'clock. Shortly after I came in Diemschitz asked me to come out into the yard, as he saw there was something unusual had taken place there. So I came out with him, and he then pointed out to me a stream of blood, which was running down the gutter in the direction of the gate, and flowed from the gate to the back-door. The blood in the gutter extended to between six and seven yards. I immediately went for a policeman, and ran in the direction of Grove-street, but could not find one."

I've also posted what Diemshutz says in the Evening News, more to the point where he says "we" in reference to Kozebrodski, that "we" went for a policeman. He corroborates Kozebrodski, known by his mates as Isaacs.

Diemshutz.
One of the members named Isaacs came out with me. We struck a match, and then a horrible sight came before our eyes: we saw a stream of blood flowing right down to the door of the club. We sent for the police without delay, but it was some time before an officer arrived; in fact we had some difficulty in finding one. A man called Eagle, also a member of the club, went out to find a policeman; and going in a different direction to what we did, found a couple in Commercial-road.

I think the "we sent for police" is a spelling mistake for "we went for police", but the end result is the same.
There is only two directions, down Berner, then east on Fairclough towards Grove.
Or up Berner and into Commercial Rd.
Diemshutz & Kozebrodski went towards Grove, and Eagle went up into Commercial Rd.

All witnesses are supposed to say "I", this is just your lack of knowledge about legal matters.
Any lawyer or journalist wants to know what "you" did, what "you" saw, or what "you" heard.
If you ever find yourself in court, don't ever say "we", you'll be abruptly cautioned, you have to say "I did", "I saw", "I heard", regardless how many people are with you.

[Wickerman]

That is the only 2some that was sent,... Issac went alone, Eagle went alone, and someone left with "Jacobs". Guess who that might be? The only person who claimed he went with someone, Diemshitz... said he went with "Issac[s]". We dont know if a member there was named some variation of Issac Jacobs or Jacob Issacs, but we do know Issac K went out alone...as he said clearly....the Issac[s] Diemshitz said he went with might be the "Jacobs" that Eagle referred to.

I'm intrigued why you select the one typing mistake in the Times 2 Oct. where Eagle mentions "Jacobs", that name is not used by Eagle in any other newspaper.
In fact you can't be bothered to compare the testimony of Eagle, from the Times, with his same testimony given in other newspapers.
It is the Times that is at fault here.

In the Times the coroner asked: - Did you see if her clothes were disturbed?
Eagle replied - I could not say. When I got outside I saw Jacobs and another going for the police in the direction of Fairclough-street,...

Yet, that same exchange in the Daily Telegraph has a different name
When the coroner asked: - Were the clothes of the deceased disturbed?
Eagle replied - I cannot say. I ran towards the Commercial-road, Dienishitz, the club steward, and another member going in the opposite direction down Fairclough-street.

Jacobs is Dienshutz, it's a typing mistake.
The other member in both reports is Kozebrodski.

[The Rookie Detective]

Why are there so many contrasting and contradictory witness accounts of the murder of Stride?

What are the possible reasons for so many inconsistencies and irregularities?

1 - Misinterpretation (Honest intent but inaccurate perception leading to inaccurate account)
2- Inaccuracy (Honest intent but Incorrect analysis of what transpired)
3 - Forgetfulness (Honest intent but incomplete and incorrect analysis of what transpired)
4 - Embellishment (Dishonest summary of events with partial elements of truth)
5 - Exaggeration - (Honest/Dishonest with both elements of truth and untruth, but with an inflated account for effect)
6 - Bias (Dishonest and/or Pre-conceived mindset leading to inaccurate account)
7 - Ulterior Motive - (Dishonest and deliberately misleading to serve another purpose)
8 - Shielding - (Dishonest intent and deliberately covering for another)
9 - Untruthful - (Deceitful and deliberately creating untruth for unknown purpose)
10 - Truthful - (Honest intent and account BUT with scope incorrectness - a "false truth")
11 - Truthful and Correct (Honest Intent and an accurate account of events - truth and reality combined
12 - Deceitful - (Dishonest and untruthful account of events for malicious reasons)
13- Guilt - (Dishonest and Untruth due to being the killer or complicit in the murder)

The question is...which numbers relate to which witnesses?

One thing is for sure, Stride was murdered and someone murdered her in the yard.
We know the time frame from the absolute earliest and absolute latest that she could have been killed.

Anything and everything else is up for scrutiny.

Another FACT is that not ALL the witnesses were correct; because when there are so many contrasting witness accounts, the only thing that is certain is that someone was either incorrect, lying, misleading, dishonest etc...

So, who can we trust?

Who had an ulterior motive?

Some questions...

Why is Schwartz account a solitary affair and why don't we know who he was? (a ghost, just like Hutchinson was in the MJK case)

Why did Packer change his story after a convicted criminal blackmailer interviewed him?

Why did Joseph Lave spend the entire time-frame in which Stride could have been murdered, getting fresh air and standing around in the dark and yet see nobody?

Why was Goldstein seen walking in such a hurry close to the time of the murder?

Why were items found in each of the victim's hands, and were they placed there by the killer?

Why did some of the residents of Berner Street and members of the club say they saw and heard nothing and yet other transient witnesses state seeing various different men talking to Stride?

It's clear that not everyone was telling the truth and not everyone was accurate in their statements.


It's of course rather commonplace to have contrasting witness accounts in most crimes that take place in public; because as humans we all have subjective perceptions through the use of our senses.
It would actually be more alarming if everyone's account was identical, as that would suggest a cover-up to shield events that occurred.

But there is a line when it comes to contrasting witness accounts, and in the case of Stride it's very apparent that the many inconsistencies result in an overview that defies all logic and goes against rigid scientific principals and mathematical parameters (ergo, we can't be in 2 places at the same time and we can't go back in time)

So, where do we start?

Who can we trust the most as being honest, truthful, correct and reliable?


Aside from knowing that Stride was murdered at a certain time at a certain place, everything else needs to be stripped back and re-assessed because the truth is there to be found.


RD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Spooner's location (at the intersection of Fairclough & Christian) from 12;30 would suggest the chase did not come eastward on Fairclough.
Spooner definitely saw Diemschutz & Kozebrodski, and no other chase.


If it was Schwartz, and Wess was his interpreter, then why does Wess think Schwartz was the murderer, and that he got away?
Wess knows this story is not true - IF, the story is the Schwartz encounter.
So lets say Wess was not his interpreter, we are left with the fact there was a witness to the chase.
Perhaps this person is the 'other source' the police refer to?

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.
Star, 2 Oct. 1888.

The above suggests Schwartz either ran south on Berner, or west on Fairclough, but not east because of Spooner.

Wess's words do suggest that he knows the story is not true, but in claiming to have been told the name and club membership status of the man who did the chasing, he was trying to have it both ways.

There cannot have been both a real and misconstrued chase at ~12:45, along a street which is compatible with both stories. The odds are about the same as an innocent witness tracing a path through the neighbourhood and ending up a stone's throw from the address of another man who minutes apart traced exactly the same path. Spooner's location from ~12:30 would therefore suggest there was no chase at all. As for the chase going down Berner or west on Fairclough, how does that gel with your Batty St theory?

I can't see how Wess could have been the interpreter, without arousing suspicion. However, the "other source" reference is tricky, because it's ambiguous. Was the second source furnished from another description, one not coming from Schwartz? That seems to be a valid interpretation. Who else was in a position to give a description? Otherwise, we are probably looking at someone tipping off the police about the presence of someone on the street, at the right time. That someone could conceivably have been Lave, or perhaps someone on patrol for the vigilance committee.