Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Stride Murder

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

    I think that the point on the Schwartz incident lasting as little as 30-40 seconds isn't that it was so brief that she could have missed it even though it happened while she was watching. I think that the point is that its brevity means that it wouldn't be as hard for it to fit into a timeline as it would be if it had taken longer.
    What do you mean by "it happened while she was watching"?

    The problem is that as described, it did take longer. Where is Stride just before Schwartz enters Berner St, and one minute before, and two minutes before, etc? Then where is she one minute after Schwartz leaves Berner St, two minutes, etc? What about the BS-man? Does Pipeman return to Berner St? How is the beginning and end of the incident defined?

    I still think that if the Schwartz incident happened, and I think most likely it did, the most likely time for it to have happened is right before Mortimer came to her door.
    Given the assumptions of #1084, the "measured, heavy tramp" of Smith's boots would be passing #36 at about 12:39. There is very little opportunity for Mortimer to have heard this, and then arrive at her doorstep without seeing Stride being thrown on the ground.

    Note that in this timeline, Mortimer goes to her door "with the intention of shooting the bolts" at about 12:40, or slightly later. So, around the time Eagle supposed he returned to the club, and the time most reports have Lave re-entering to the club. We have Brown returning from the chandler's shop and seeing a couple at the board school corner - probably the young sweethearts - who claimed to have been there about 20 minutes before becoming aware of the situation. We have Spooner further to the east on Fairclough St, and we have people in the kitchen behind a half-closed door. All of them oblivious to what Schwartz describes.
    Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      You ever met anyone who never told a lie?


      This was the East End, I have to wonder if some think these crimes took place in Vatican City.

      I've heard Stride characterized as a liar, but not any of the other victims. There aren't many people that never lie, but some lie more than others.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        You ever met anyone who never told a lie?


        This was the East End, I have to wonder if some think these crimes took place in Vatican City.

        I thought the suggestion that Schwartz lied was uncalled for?
        Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          What do you mean by "it happened while she was watching"?

          The problem is that as described, it did take longer. Where is Stride just before Schwartz enters Berner St, and one minute before, and two minutes before, etc? Then where is she one minute after Schwartz leaves Berner St, two minutes, etc? What about the BS-man? Does Pipeman return to Berner St? How is the beginning and end of the incident defined?


          Given the assumptions of #1084, the "measured, heavy tramp" of Smith's boots would be passing #36 at about 12:39. There is very little opportunity for Mortimer to have heard this, and then arrive at her doorstep without seeing Stride being thrown on the ground.

          Note that in this timeline, Mortimer goes to her door "with the intention of shooting the bolts" at about 12:40, or slightly later. So, around the time Eagle supposed he returned to the club, and the time most reports have Lave re-entering to the club. We have Brown returning from the chandler's shop and seeing a couple at the board school corner - probably the young sweethearts - who claimed to have been there about 20 minutes before becoming aware of the situation. We have Spooner further to the east on Fairclough St, and we have people in the kitchen behind a half-closed door. All of them oblivious to what Schwartz describes.
          In the context of what Mortimer saw and didn't see, the incident can be defined as over as soon as Schwartz, BS Man, Pipeman, and Stride are all where Mortimer can't see them. Schwartz was out of there quickly, so he's easily accounted for. We know that Stride was in the area somewhere, apparently where Mortimer couldn't see her, and we don't need Schwartz to know that that's the case. BS Man could have gone in the club, gone home, or gone into the gateway with Stride. Pipeman could have continued in the direction of Schwartz, or come back to kill Stride. If it's the latter, he would have either had to have done so before Mortimer came to her door, or returned via a route by which Mortimer wouldn't have seen him.

          If you assume that Smith passed at 12:39 and that Mortimer came to her door at 12:40, I don't see how Schwartz could fit into that timeline.

          I believe Mortimer's statement about the young couple being on the corner for 20 minutes must be mistaken. Either that, or they were already there when Brown was on his way to get dinner, and he failed to notice them. I think the former is much more likely. I agree that it's unlikely that a couple standing on the corner for 20 minutes and the Schwartz incident both happened.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            Given the assumptions of #1084, the "measured, heavy tramp" of Smith's boots would be passing #36 at about 12:39. There is very little opportunity for Mortimer to have heard this, and then arrive at her doorstep without seeing Stride being thrown on the ground.

            Note that in this timeline, Mortimer goes to her door "with the intention of shooting the bolts" at about 12:40, or slightly later. So, around the time Eagle supposed he returned to the club, and the time most reports have Lave re-entering to the club. We have Brown returning from the chandler's shop and seeing a couple at the board school corner - probably the young sweethearts - who claimed to have been there about 20 minutes before becoming aware of the situation. We have Spooner further to the east on Fairclough St, and we have people in the kitchen behind a half-closed door. All of them oblivious to what Schwartz describes.
            Had this incident been claimed to occur while the club event was still on, it would make much more sense, as there would have been much more background noise, including the sounds of people in the yard. Divorce the incident from the murder, and the behaviour of the two men also becomes clearer. It's similar to this ...

            Robert Paul: Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot.

            So, the incident may well have occurred, it's just that the man who turned into Berner St from Commercial Rd., crossed the street when reaching the gates and then turned back to see what the matter was, before continuing on around the board school corner, did not do this just before the murder. He did it previously.

            Fanny Mortimer: It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road. He looked up at the club and then went round the corner by the Board School.
            Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

              I've heard Stride characterized as a liar, but not any of the other victims. There aren't many people that never lie, but some lie more than others.
              Stride told everyone she was on the Princess Alice when it sank, researchers found this to be untrue. All these women likely told false background stories, like Kelly and her trip to France, it may be just a means of elevating her status among the poor, but it's harmless, these people need a story, something to talk about. They get their 15 minutes of fame round any barroom table.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                I thought the suggestion that Schwartz lied was uncalled for?
                Yes, personally, I think it is necessary to recognise the difference between someone who was known to have lied (telling exaggerated stories about themselves), and a modern theorist who invents a story that a witness lied in order to promote their theory.
                I can't accept you do not see the difference.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

                  In the context of what Mortimer saw and didn't see, the incident can be defined as over as soon as Schwartz, BS Man, Pipeman, and Stride are all where Mortimer can't see them. Schwartz was out of there quickly, so he's easily accounted for. We know that Stride was in the area somewhere, apparently where Mortimer couldn't see her, and we don't need Schwartz to know that that's the case. BS Man could have gone in the club, gone home, or gone into the gateway with Stride. Pipeman could have continued in the direction of Schwartz, or come back to kill Stride. If it's the latter, he would have either had to have done so before Mortimer came to her door, or returned via a route by which Mortimer wouldn't have seen him.
                  I think your definition of the end of the incident is much better than just equating the whole incident to Schwartz's transit of Berner St.

                  Is Schwartz easily accounted for? Many posters have supposed that Woolf Wess was the man who translated for Schwartz at the police station. Wess was also the man who told a reporter about a man being chased in an easterly direction along Fairclough St, possibly being misidentified as the murderer. Interestingly, there is no BS man in that story, but what is more relevant to the current conversation is that we have a witness who places himself on Fairclough St, at and around 12:45 - Edward Spooner.

                  It is true that Mortimer gave no indication of having seen Stride at any time before Fanny enters the yard. However, we do know pretty much exactly where she was at about 12:39 - across the road from the Mortimer residence, talking to a man holding a parcel. To me, fitting this picture to that of Stride standing soon after in the gateway, seemingly alone, always feels like a kid trying to force two jigsaw puzzle pieces together, that don't quite fit.

                  Having BS-man go into the club, or Pipeman returning to kill with Stride conveniently waiting at the gates, are notions I find difficult to accept. Had BS-man walked off, and Pipeman not returned, what happens next? Is that when we say, "and that's when JtR came along"?

                  If you assume that Smith passed at 12:39 and that Mortimer came to her door at 12:40, I don't see how Schwartz could fit into that timeline.
                  That is just what one report suggests (with timing a little different). However, that report is open to query.

                  I believe Mortimer's statement about the young couple being on the corner for 20 minutes must be mistaken. Either that, or they were already there when Brown was on his way to get dinner, and he failed to notice them. I think the former is much more likely. I agree that it's unlikely that a couple standing on the corner for 20 minutes and the Schwartz incident both happened.
                  It is the couple who mentioned 20 minutes, not Mortimer. Fanny spoke to the couple after the discovery, but it's not clear she had line of sight to the couple, where they had been standing.
                  Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    Yes, personally, I think it is necessary to recognise the difference between someone who was known to have lied (telling exaggerated stories about themselves), and a modern theorist who invents a story that a witness lied in order to promote their theory.
                    I can't accept you do not see the difference.
                    ... the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.
                    Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      ... the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.
                      Right, and that doubt could include the suggested location.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        Right, and that doubt could include the suggested location.
                        Presumably then, they were able to obtain additional facts and act further on the same information.
                        Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          The fact she appears to have had this piece of (news)paper in her hand, where others saw grapes, suggests to me that by the time Spooner had arrived the grapes had fallen out onto the ground in the darkness. By the time the whole incident was over these black grapes would have been well trodden into the ground, in the blood, and 'mud', becoming oblivious to anyone left in the yard.
                          Hi Jon,

                          I think you have the right idea, but according to the Daily News and The Evening News of 1 Oct Diemshitz said:

                          Her hands were clenched, and when the doctor opened them I saw that she had been holding grapes in one hand and sweetmeats in the other.

                          As you know, Diemshitz (and Smith) mistook Johnson for Blackwell, so if the above is to be accepted, Spooner and Smith failed to see grapes in her hand, but one would imagine that Johnson might have commented on seeing grapes, but he testified that he did not notice at the time that one of the hands was smeared with blood, so he may have also missed the grapes. Alternatively, Diemshitz was mistaken on his timing.

                          Cheers, George
                          They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                          Out of a misty dream
                          Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                          Within a dream.
                          Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

                          ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                            Alternatively, Diemshitz was mistaken on his timing.
                            I think this. Someone opened her hands prior to Spooner's arrival.
                            Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                              I think this. Someone opened her hands prior to Spooner's arrival.
                              Hi Andrew,

                              So Diemshitz and Koze saw the grapes before they left the yard to search for a PC? I recall one theory that the horse ate the grapes, and another that Spooner ate the grapes.

                              Cheers, George
                              They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                              Out of a misty dream
                              Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                              Within a dream.
                              Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

                              ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                                Hi Andrew,

                                So Diemshitz and Koze saw the grapes before they left the yard to search for a PC? I recall one theory that the horse ate the grapes, and another that Spooner ate the grapes.

                                Cheers, George
                                Hi George,

                                Yes, I think they did. We have to get from:

                                Diemschitz: Her hands were tightly clenched, and when they were opened by the doctor I saw immediately that one had been holding sweetmeats and the other grapes.

                                To:

                                Spooner: ... she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand ...

                                and

                                Blackwell: I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view.

                                The grape eating theory can call on the discovered grape stalk, for support. Otherwise, had they been there they were trodden into the mud, as Jon suggested.
                                Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X