Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Stride Murder

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

  • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


    If your hunch is correct and the public house was really closed by that time, then does that increase the likelihood that Pipe Man was a lookout for the assailant?
    I would say yes, it increases the likelihood, but from a very low level. If Schwartz had actually seen Pipe Man come out from inside a public house, I would think it very unlikely that Pipe Man was a lookout. If he were a lookout, I'd think he would have already been outside.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

      I would say yes, it increases the likelihood, but from a very low level. If Schwartz had actually seen Pipe Man come out from inside a public house, I would think it very unlikely that Pipe Man was a lookout. If he were a lookout, I'd think he would have already been outside.

      inspector Abberline was convinced that the assailant shouted Lipski, which was an anti-Jewish insult, at Schwartz.

      Schwartz himself was unsure whether it was directed at him or at Pipe Man.

      Maybe he sensed that it was shouted for Pipe Man's benefit, as a way of drawing his attention to Schwartz.

      That would explain why Schwartz suspected that Pipe Man was following him.

      And if Pipe Man did not come out of a pub or some other premises, then why would he suddenly have started walking in the same direction as Schwartz?
      Last edited by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1; 10-10-2023, 07:11 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by New Waterloo View Post
        ... Another character who is bugging me is Pipeman. If we are to believe that the Nelson pub was closed at 12 and he came from there then who lived in the pub at the time. Or as I suggested Schwartz was mistaken about which door he came from (was pipeman coming out of Packers door) then was it Packer himself or one of his lodgers. Lots to go on I think.

        NW
        I find it intriguing that Swanson makes no mention of the pub on the corner (Nelson), Pipeman is just 'there', somewhere.
        We should keep in mind someone changed the pipe (police statement), into a knife (press statement).
        I don't think we can rule out the press being responsible for this to make the story more exciting. So if they did, what else did they insert?
        Perhaps they placed Pipeman at the Nelson, and they had him coming out of a door, or doorway?
        At the end of the day, can we trust the press version of his statement?

        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          To not stain her fingers? Who holds grapes in paper, while eating them?
          The handkerchief was stained with fruit, it was thought to be blood, but turned out to be fruit stains.
          I can't think of another reason for her holding a piece of paper in her fingers unless it was to keep her fingers dry, or unstained.


          Another problem is this comment 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.

          How can a hand be holding grapes while tightly clenched, without squashing the grapes and making a mess?

          So, I'm still curious about that piece of paper.
          Any grapes would be squashed if the fingers were clenched tight, yes, I agree. Regardless of their condition the doctors say they found no grapes.
          But.......if the grapes came out of her hand they would fall between her chest and the wall, in the darkness. Her face & knees were close to the house wall. So everybody in the yard was standing behind her.
          Once they come out of her fingers, they fall into darkness, and out of sight of everyone, until the body is moved As they were black then they were likely trodden into the mud and the blood as they gather round to lift the body onto the Ambulance, that was about 4:00am.
          The yard was swilled down about 5:00am.

          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


            inspector Abberline was convinced that the assailant shouted Lipski, which was an anti-Jewish insult, at Schwartz.

            Schwartz himself was unsure whether it was directed at him or at Pipe Man.

            Maybe he sensed that it was shouted for Pipe Man's benefit, as a way of drawing his attention to Schwartz.

            That would explain why Schwartz suspected that Pipe Man was following him.

            And if Pipe Man did not come out of a pub or some other premises, then why would he suddenly have started walking in the same direction as Schwartz?
            One possibility is that the assault made him feel he should get out of the area. Another is that in any case, he wasn't going to stand there forever, and that happened to be the time that he decided to move on. Another is that he really was following Schwartz, for one reason or another.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              I find it intriguing that Swanson makes no mention of the pub on the corner (Nelson), Pipeman is just 'there', somewhere.
              We should keep in mind someone changed the pipe (police statement), into a knife (press statement).
              I don't think we can rule out the press being responsible for this to make the story more exciting. So if they did, what else did they insert?
              Perhaps they placed Pipeman at the Nelson, and they had him coming out of a door, or doorway?
              At the end of the day, can we trust the press version of his statement?
              I agree, and the press version also has the man with the knife rush toward BS man, which sounds like another element that may have been added to make the story more exciting.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                No, because there was no burnt or fresh tobacco, presuming it didn't blow away.



                To not stain her fingers? Who holds grapes in paper, while eating them?

                Another problem is this comment 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.

                How can a hand be holding grapes while tightly clenched, without squashing the grapes and making a mess?

                So, I'm still curious about that piece of paper.
                Hi Andrew,

                She would have been holding tightly to the stalk with the grapes still attached but outside of her grip.

                Cheers, George
                Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

                All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

                  Hi NW,

                  Another possibility is that Schwartz didn't see Pipeman come out of any building. I don't think there's anything in Swanson's report that would indicate Pipeman exiting a building. I'm skeptical about the newspaper account, but even if we can trust it, it says that Pipeman "came out of the doorway of a public house a few doors off", which I find ambiguous. It's possible that he had been standing in a doorway of a place that was closed.
                  Hi LC,

                  Pipeman "came out of the doorway of a public house a few doors off".

                  A doorway is different to a door. It is a small sheltered enclosure just outside the door that would present a prefect refuge for a pipe smoker to attend to the re-lighting of his pipe out of the wind. He could have been thus engaged when he heard the dispute at the gateway and stepped out to see what was going on.

                  Cheers, George
                  Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

                  All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                    inspector Abberline was convinced that the assailant shouted Lipski, which was an anti-Jewish insult, at Schwartz.

                    Schwartz himself was unsure whether it was directed at him or at Pipe Man.

                    Maybe he sensed that it was shouted for Pipe Man's benefit, as a way of drawing his attention to Schwartz.

                    That would explain why Schwartz suspected that Pipe Man was following him.

                    And if Pipe Man did not come out of a pub or some other premises, then why would he suddenly have started walking in the same direction as Schwartz?
                    Hi PI,

                    I think you are pretty close to the mark. Pipeman is sheltering from the wind in the Nelson doorway relighting his pipe. He hears the dispute at the gateway and steps out to see what is happening. He sees a woman on the ground with a man (BSM) standing next to her shouting at another man (Schwartz) who appears to be trying to making an escape. He reacts by making a move towards Schwartz, but then thinks that he had better find out what actually transpired. What happens after that is anyone's guess.

                    Cheers, George
                    Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

                    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

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

                    Comment


                    • Yes GB I think the sheltering is a good suggestion. Even if the rain has stopped sheltering would aid his pipe smoking I guess. The photo of the Nelson Pub on Berner Street does clearly show that the corner double door has an 'overhang' which would give some shelter to a person tucking himself in that doorway when the pub was closed.

                      NW

                      Comment


                      • Moving back to Packer again could I suggest this. When Sgt White goes to number 44 Berner Street to obtain statements Packer decides not to get involved (for whatever reason) and says that he saw and heard nothing and only heard about the murder later in the morning.

                        Can we really accept this. Even if we believe the street was relatively quiet earlier it certainly would not have been quiet after the discovery of Strides body and the arrival of the police. There must have been quite a lot of noise, voices, hob nail boots on cobbles, all sorts.

                        In any case the two so called 'Private Detectives' arrive on the scene a couple of days later and say they found a grape stalk in the yard. Why would this be fabricated. Even if they are scheming con artists it would take a huge stretch of the imagination to thing they could somehow make a story out of that. So lets suppose grape stalk in hand they knock on the door of the obvious person. Packer the grape seller.

                        Packer now has a problem. He is the only grape seller close to the club. Well very close. He has no option but to come clean and with a bit of persuasion admit that he sold the grapes.

                        His later story seems quite convincing. For example he describes the man with Stride as wearing a 'frock coat' and the witnesses Best and Gardiner who saw Stride earlier in the pub say that the man was wearing a 'morning coat' which I believe is very similar to a 'frock coat'. How would Packer have known about the description given by Best and Gardiner.

                        Was it in the Press before Packer makes his statement. I will have a look. Thoughts and help please.

                        NW

                        Comment


                        • Best & Gardner were in the press 1st Oct., Packer changed his story about the 4th.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by New Waterloo View Post
                            Moving back to Packer again could I suggest this. When Sgt White goes to number 44 Berner Street to obtain statements Packer decides not to get involved (for whatever reason) and says that he saw and heard nothing and only heard about the murder later in the morning.

                            NW
                            Hi NW,

                            Packer was in the business of selling fruit and vegetables from his little shop. Why would he see selling some grapes to a customer as anything unusual, or in any way related to the murder. He probably thought nothing of it until the grapes became a focal point afterwards.

                            Cheers, George
                            Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

                            All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

                              One possibility is that the assault made him feel he should get out of the area. Another is that in any case, he wasn't going to stand there forever, and that happened to be the time that he decided to move on. Another is that he really was following Schwartz, for one reason or another.
                              Comments from Swanson and Abberline considered together, suggest that the second man walked then ran, but didn't run as far as the railway arch. A man fleeing in fear would run initially before slowing to a walk, would he not? A man who decided to move on would not run at all. That leaves your third possibility - the man was pursuing Schwartz with intent. Given Schwartz, by his own account, is only guilty of leaving a woman in distress to her own devices, what could be the motivation for the second man's pursuit? I would suggest - money.
                              Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

                                I would say yes, it increases the likelihood, but from a very low level. If Schwartz had actually seen Pipe Man come out from inside a public house, I would think it very unlikely that Pipe Man was a lookout. If he were a lookout, I'd think he would have already been outside.
                                Perhaps they were looking out for each other? I'd suggest the two men were as thick as thieves.
                                Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X