Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Stride Murder

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

  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    Imagine if everything was the same, except that the man who went to Leman St on the evening following the murder, gave the name Leon Goldstein. So, a member of the club does nothing about an assault on a woman at the gateway leading to the side door of the club. He implicates a gentile as being the probable murderer and waits many hours to go to the police. At least 'Israel Schwartz' had an excuse for hesitating to go to the police - the poor chap was terribly frightened! Leon Goldstein couldn't use that excuse.

    There is another big problem with Schwartz using his real name. Wess had already told the Echo reporter that a chase had occurred down Fairclough St at about 12:45, and that he had been told the name of the man who did the chasing, that is, Pipeman. How would it look if Goldstein said he was the man being chased? How could it be that Wess was informed of Pipeman's name and knew this man was not a club member, but by the time he is talking to the Echo that afternoon, he still is not aware that the man he was chasing was Goldstein, someone he surely knew personally?

    Having decided to go to the police, Leon Goldstein had to go using a pseudonym. Why this decision was made is a further debate, but the theory that Goldstein used a pseudonym when he went to the police fits well with the evidence.

    I don't follow all of the above, in particular the very first sentence!

    I have a feeling of déjà vu.

    Someone suggested previously that Goldstein and Schwartz were the same person.

    I remember replying that the police would surely have realised that a deception had taken place.

    I am sceptical about Wess' story about witnessing a chase at a time when, according to his testimony, he was not even around.

    I do not see any evidence that Pipe Man was involved in the chase.

    Why would Goldstein disguise himself as Schwartz and on the very same evening present himself as Goldstein at the same police station and how could the police have failed to realise that they were the same person?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
      Didn't you suggest Goldstein went to police twice, once as Schwartz, then as Goldstein, and the police didin't recognize the same man?
      Isn't that making things more complicated?
      Hi Jon,

      I have the same reservation. How could Goldstein have anticipated that there wouldn't be a single police officer in attendance at his two appearances at the station? What if they had both been summonsed to the inquest?

      Cheers, George
      Last edited by GBinOz; 11-19-2023, 04:23 AM.
      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 Jon,

        I have the same reservation. How could Goldstein have anticipated that there wouldn't be a single police officer in attendance at his two appearances at the station? What if they had both been summonsed to the inquest?

        Cheers, George

        Do we know that Goldstein and Schwartz were not seen by the same policeman at the station (and not necessarily the one conducting the interview)?

        Comment


        • There are some very interesting points raised in this thread.

          Let's start with Israel Schwartz.

          One of the key questions regarding Schwartz; why has it been so hard to trace him?

          The wealth of official data, including census, BMD's, electoral rolls, workhouse records, etc... and yet after all this time no one has been able to find him with any significant degree of certainty.

          And so what does that suggest?

          It suggests that Israel Schwartz wasn't his real name.


          Regarding Schwartz's story, there is a subtle but significant error.

          Schwartz claimed to have crossed the road after witnessing BS man throwing Stride to the floor (footway) and that BS man subsequently shouted "Lipski" over to Pipeman who had just stepped out of a doorway.

          This doorway has been suggested as the doorway on the corner of Berner St and Fairclough St, namely; the doorway to the Nelson Beer House.

          The Nelson Beerhouse would have been closed no later than 12.30am

          The issue with Pipeman having stepped out of the doorway of the Nelson Beer House is that is that he is on the wrong side of the road in relation to Schwartz's statement, which clearly mentions him having crossed the road to avoid BS man, in additon to the shout of "Lipski" being made towards Pipeman.

          And so how can this be explained?

          Let's not forget that Schwartz couldn't speak English and needed a translator. How much did this translation impact on the actual facts of what Schwartz had actually witnessed?
          Something doesn't ring true about Schwartz's statement, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's incorrect.

          Truth and fact are very different and it could also be a case of Schwartz having told the truth within the context of what he believed he saw, but him having got the actual facts of what transpired incorrect, through misreading the situation or his words were literally mistranslated by the interpreter.

          I know it has been suggested by NBFN that Schwartz may have been the same man in Leon Goldstein, and I find that a particularly interesting idea because their relative paths down Berner Street and beyond are strikingly similar.

          There's also the fascinating story of a certain Nathan Shine, who claimed privately to his family that he had seen a man standing over a woman wielding a long bladed knife. His witness account is virtually identical to Israel Schwartz's statement but without any mention of Pipeman whatsover.

          I therefore put it to you all a hypothetical suggestion; could Israel Schwartz have actually been Nathan Shine?

          Nathan told his family in private that he saw the killer's face. He eludes to having seen him in close proximity; as though he had walked past the gateway at the exact time the killer had just cut Stride's throat.

          What's interesting is that Nathan Shine's description of the man he saw..is essentially describing BS man.

          Could Nathan have gone to the police as Schwartz for fear of reprisal and told a partly true story of him having seen the killer's face; and possibly recognized him, but then needed to justify running away and so invented Pipeman, who never actually existed.
          Did Nathan see the killer and then run for fear of his own life and essentially abandon Stride, but felt a degree of guilt and so needed to add Pipeman into the mix in order to justify having to run away?

          Of course, Nathan's story is open to scrutiny and he was in his late teens in 1888.

          Israel Schwartz was described as being theatrical in appearance.

          To me, that suggests Schwartz came across as someone putting on an act.


          Just another hypothesis thrown into the mix



          RD
          ​​​​​​​
          "Great minds, don't think alike"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

            The issue with Pipeman having stepped out of the doorway of the Nelson Beer House is that is that he is on the wrong side of the road in relation to Schwartz's statement, which clearly mentions him having crossed the road to avoid BS man, in additon to the shout of "Lipski" being made towards Pipeman.


            Can you please explain what you mean?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post
              Very intrigued at the map produced by Richard on the threads. Amazing work and it has give me lots of food for thought on the following sighting after Stride's murder:

              "From two different sources we have the story that a man, when passing through Church Lane at about half past one, saw a man sitting on a doorstep and wiping his hands. As everyone is on the look-out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, whereupon he tried to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and sailor's hat."

              Is there any more information on this sighting?
              Many years ago, there was an entire article about this story in Ripper Notes, but it's all based on the same single source, so no, there's no further information.

              'Fisherman' (Christer Holmgren, now a proponent of the Lechmere theory) mentions it at the end of a long dissertation on the Stride murder, and he seems to be implying that the man seen may have been Michael Kidney, as Church Lane would have been Kidney's route to 38 Dorset Street, where he was then staying.

              Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Piecing it Together - A Possible Scenario of the Death of Elizabeth Stride

              I would be surprised to learn that Christer still adheres to that theory. ​

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                Many years ago, there was an entire article about this story in Ripper Notes, but it's all based on the same single source, so no, there's no further information.

                'Fisherman' (Christer Holmgren, now a proponent of the Lechmere theory) mentions it at the end of a long dissertation on the Stride murder, and he seems to be implying that the man seen may have been Michael Kidney, as Church Lane would have been Kidney's route to 38 Dorset Street, where he was then staying.

                Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Piecing it Together - A Possible Scenario of the Death of Elizabeth Stride

                I would be surprised to learn that Christer still adheres to that theory. ​
                Do I still ”adher to the theory” that Church Lane was part of the fastest route from Dutfields Yard to 38 Dorset Street? Yes, I do. And that is because this WAS always so.

                If you instead are asking if I ever entertained the theory that Kidney killed Stride, then I can only say that at the time I wrote the dissertation, I would not exclude the possibility. Actually, nor can I do so today, for the simple reason that it is impossible to do so.

                Since I found Lechmere and the many pointers to guilt in his case, I think that the fact that Lechmere was brought up in the Berner Street area and still had his mother and daughter staying there, at 1 Mary Ann Street, sits quite well with the suggestion that the carman was the killer of Stride, as well as of a good many other victims.

                So much for that attempt to make me look like a turncoat, R J. But by all means, don´t let that stop you!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  Since I found Lechmere and the many pointers to guilt in his case, I think that the fact that Lechmere was brought up in the Berner Street area and still had his mother and daughter staying there, at 1 Mary Ann Street, sits quite well with the suggestion that the carman was the killer of Stride, as well as of a good many other victims.


                  Some of us are curious to know why you think it likely that after a gruelling week of 14-18 hour shifts, and having gone home and eaten dinner, Lechmere would have been able to summon up the energy to visit his mother's house, commit a murder in Berner Street, walk a mile westwards to the City, commit another murder there, and then make a detour to Goulston Street, before making his way home, arriving home about 24 hours since he set out for work, possibly without having had any sleep during that period.

                  Is it not much likelier that Lechmere took a rest and that if any visiting was done, it was his mother visiting him and not the other way round?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



                    Some of us are curious to know why you think it likely that after a gruelling week of 14-18 hour shifts, and having gone home and eaten dinner, Lechmere would have been able to summon up the energy to visit his mother's house, commit a murder in Berner Street, walk a mile westwards to the City, commit another murder there, and then make a detour to Goulston Street, before making his way home, arriving home about 24 hours since he set out for work, possibly without having had any sleep during that period.

                    Is it not much likelier that Lechmere took a rest and that if any visiting was done, it was his mother visiting him and not the other way round?
                    Yes, it is always likely that somebody who has worked a long day will prioritize rest.
                    And no, it is never likely that a family man with a steady job is a serial killer.

                    And still, what we have on record is family men with steady jobs being serial killers. Prioritizing murder over rest.

                    Glad to have stilled your curiosity!

                    And goodnight.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                      Many years ago, there was an entire article about this story in Ripper Notes, but it's all based on the same single source, so no, there's no further information.

                      'Fisherman' (Christer Holmgren, now a proponent of the Lechmere theory) mentions it at the end of a long dissertation on the Stride murder, and he seems to be implying that the man seen may have been Michael Kidney, as Church Lane would have been Kidney's route to 38 Dorset Street, where he was then staying.

                      Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Piecing it Together - A Possible Scenario of the Death of Elizabeth Stride

                      I would be surprised to learn that Christer still adheres to that theory. ​
                      Thanks for the link. Interesting reading although not sure I would agree on it being Michael Kidney. It is an interesting sighting and probably one of those where the Police would have done well to follow up a possible clue unearthed by the media. It was on viewing Richards fantastic map on another thread that this sighting began to become more significant to me. I must be honest and admit that it was one I was vaguely aware of but hadn't paid it much attention. It was just too vague and obscure for someone just beginning to assess the case.

                      On looking at the map it is a perfect place to clean up, much like Goulston Street and it would then be a short journey on to Mitre Square. I am also minded of the Rachel Nickel case where there were various sightings of a man now believed to be Robert Napper cleaning his hands in a stream in Wimbledon Common. These type of killers seem to be somewhat indiscreet at times and a sighting like Church Lane may well have been an interesting lead to follow.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post

                        I am also minded of the Rachel Nickel case where there were various sightings of a man now believed to be Robert Napper cleaning his hands in a stream in Wimbledon Common. These type of killers seem to be somewhat indiscreet at times and a sighting like Church Lane may well have been an interesting lead to follow.
                        Agreed.

                        Peter Sutcliffe was sat in a car with a mate, got out of that car, banged a woman over the head and went back to that car. He attacked women in residential areas at times nowhere near midnight. Times when anyone could have walked 'round the corner. In fact, he was disturbed quite a few times because of that.

                        Yet, 13 murders on and the police were none the wiser.

                        'Nothing special, clever or particularly thoughtful about these people. 'Luck and circumstance conspire to help them evade capture.

                        Studies of serial killers demonstrate that generally these are people with an average or below average IQ.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



                          Can you please explain what you mean?

                          Yes of course, no worries.

                          So... according to Schwartz...

                          Schwartz is walking south down Berner Street circa 12.45am.

                          Just ahead of him, he sees a man walking in the SAME DIRECTION and on the SAME SIDE of the road...
                          This man (who we call BS Man) APPROACHES Stride, who is already standing in the gateway.

                          This confirms that the BS Man ISN'T already standing with Stride, because he actively walks TOWARD her.

                          So, we have Stride in the gateway, BS man approaching Stride and Schwartz walking behind BS man.

                          All 3 are on the WESTERN side of the road, ergo, the SAME SIDE as the club.

                          As Schwartz gets to the gateway he claims to witness BS man assault Stride by first grabbing her and trying to pull her into the road, but then swinging her around and throwing her to the floor and her landing on the footway, i.e. the path leading into the gateway.

                          That would indicate that Stride doesn't actually move far from her initial position in the gateway, prior to being attacked i.e. she is pulled toward the street, spun around and thrown back down toward the gateway.

                          Moving on...

                          Schwartz then states very clearly that he then CROSSES THE ROAD to avoid the attack, meaning he is now on the OPPOSITE side of the road to Stride and BS Man, placing him almost certainly directly outside the Board School on the Eastern side of Berner Street.

                          It's at this point Schwartz notices another man; Pipeman, who he observes (allegedly) stepping out from a doorway and lighting a pipe. This doorway has been suggested as being the doorway to the Nelson Beer House situated on the corner of the street at the junction of Berner Street and Fairclough Street, which is located on the WESTERN side of Berner Street.

                          This means that Pipeman was standing on the SAME SIDE OF THE ROAD as BS Man and Stride.

                          However, Schwartz is also very clear that BS Man shouts towards Pipeman just as Schwartz WALKS PAST Pipeman.
                          However, if BS man shouted "LIPSKI" at Pipeman, then how could Schwartz have thought the slur was directed at him, when Schwartz was on the opposite side of the road to where Pipeman was standing?

                          It's also important to know that the Nelson Beer House had closed BEFORE this incident was alleged to have taken place. The closing time at midnight, possibly 12.30am at the very latest. Beerhouses like the Nelson weren't the same as pubs in the sense that they were only licensed to sell beer and not other alcohol.

                          The other point that's also important, is that there were NO OTHER DOORWAYS on the EASTERN side of the road, from which Pipeman COULD have stepped out from apart from the board school itself.
                          That practically confirms that Pipeman was on the same side of the road as BS Man and Stride.

                          The fact that the beerhouse was closed also implies that Pipeman was just standing in the doorway and only moved out to light up just as Schwartz walked across the road to the opposite side.

                          The other interesting point is that BS man was heading south when Schwartz noticed him, confirming that BS man was located NORTH of the murder site, but Pipeman was standing SOUTH of the murder site.

                          This is important because IF the 2 men were accomplices, then ONE of them had to walked past Stride PRIOR to the assault..

                          In other words... BS man and Pipeman were at the corner, BS man then walks NORTH PAST STRIDE, but then WALKS BACK to attack Stride just as Schwartz sees him.

                          OR

                          BS Man and Pipeman are BOTH walking SOUTH, but Pipeman walks ahead of him. Pipeman then reaches the corner as BS Man notices Stride and walks up to her to attack her (witnessed by Schwartz)

                          In terms of their location relative to each other, it would seem that Pipeman and BS man weren't accomplices...however...and here's another fascinating aspect to consider...

                          the descriptions of BS Man and Pipeman are almost identical to the description given to the police by the witness who saw 2 men talking with Rose Mylett shortly before her murder in late 1888 (post Kelly)

                          In fact, although the idea of accomplices isn't popular, the murders of Stride, Mylett, Tabram, Smith and Kelly ALL suggest that an accomplice WAS involved.

                          That's 5 murders.

                          Nichols and Chapman are impossible to determine in terms of an accomplice being involved.

                          Eddowes it seems is the only murder where the idea of an accomplice doesn't fit.


                          Is Eddowes the exception to the rule? Does her murder in the City of London have any bearing on the killer working alone?


                          But i digress...

                          So to summarize..

                          By Schwartz claiming he crossed the street and that BS man shouted "Lipski" over to Pipeman as he passed him, doesn't fit with the practical and literal positions that Pipeman and Schwartz were in relative to each other and so dilutes Schwartz's reason to run from the scene.


                          Hope that explains my point to some extent.


                          RD




                          Last edited by The Rookie Detective; 11-19-2023, 08:43 PM.
                          "Great minds, don't think alike"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            Do I still ”adher to the theory” that Church Lane was part of the fastest route from Dutfields Yard to 38 Dorset Street? Yes, I do. And that is because this WAS always so.

                            If you instead are asking if I ever entertained the theory that Kidney killed Stride, then I can only say that at the time I wrote the dissertation, I would not exclude the possibility. Actually, nor can I do so today, for the simple reason that it is impossible to do so.

                            Since I found Lechmere and the many pointers to guilt in his case, I think that the fact that Lechmere was brought up in the Berner Street area and still had his mother and daughter staying there, at 1 Mary Ann Street, sits quite well with the suggestion that the carman was the killer of Stride, as well as of a good many other victims.

                            So much for that attempt to make me look like a turncoat, R J. But by all means, don´t let that stop you!
                            It's not a putdown to say that you have likely changed your mind about something. Most of us have changed our minds about one thing or another. I certainly have.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                              the man seen may have been Michael Kidney, as Church Lane would have been Kidney's route to 38 Dorset Street, where he was then staying.
                              Interesting that 38 Dorset Street was the place that Kidney was staying at the time...

                              Was that common knowledge at the time? I.e. was his address printed in the press?

                              I ask, because it may be of relevance to something else I am working on concurrently.


                              RD
                              "Great minds, don't think alike"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post


                                Yes of course, no worries.

                                So... according to Schwartz...

                                Schwartz is walking south down Berner Street circa 12.45am.

                                Just ahead of him, he sees a man walking in the SAME DIRECTION and on the SAME SIDE of the road...
                                This man (who we call BS Man) APPROACHES Stride, who is already standing in the gateway.

                                This confirms that the BS Man ISN'T already standing with Stride and walks toward her.

                                So, we have Stride in the gateway, BS man approaching Stride and Schwartz walking behind BS man.

                                All 3 are on the WESTERN side of the road, ergo, the SAME SIDE as the club.

                                As Schwartz gets to the gateway he claims to witness BS man assault Stride by first grabbing her and trying to pull her into the road, but then swinging her around and throwing her to the floor and her landing on the footway, i.e. the path leading into the gateway.

                                That would indicate that Stride doesn't actually move far from her initial position in the gateway, prior to being attacked i.e. she is pulled toward the street, spun around and thrown back down toward the gateway.

                                Moving on...

                                Schwartz then states very clearly that he then CROSSES THE ROAD to avoid the attack, meaning he is now on the OPPOSITE side of the road to Stride and BS Man, placing him almost certainly directly outside the Board School on the Eastern side of Berner Street.

                                It's at this point Schwartz notices another man; Pipeman, who he observes (allegedly) stepping out from a doorway and lighting a pipe. This doorway has been suggested as being the doorway to the Nelson Beer House situated on the corner of the street at the junction of Berner Street and Fairclough Street, which is located on the WESTERN side of Berner Street.

                                This means that Pipeman was standing on the SAME SIDE OF THE ROAD as BS Man and Stride.

                                However, Schwartz is also very clear that BS Man shouts towards Pipeman just as Schwartz WALKS PAST Pipeman.
                                However, if BS man shouted "LIPSKI" at Pipeman, then how could Schwartz have thought the slur was directed at him, when Schwartz was on the opposite side of the road to where Pipeman was standing?

                                It's also important to know that the Nelson Beer House had closed BEFORE this incident was alleged to have taken place. The closing time at midnight, possibly 12.30am at the very latest. Beerhouses like the Nelson weren't the same as pubs in the sense that they were only licensed to sell beer and not other alcohol.

                                The other point that's also important, is that there were NO OTHER DOORWAYS on the EASTERN side of the road, from which Pipeman COULD have stepped out from apart from the board school itself.
                                That practically confirms that Pipeman was on the same side of the road as BS Man and Stride.

                                The fact that the beerhouse was closed also implies that Pipeman was just standing in the doorway and only moved out to light up just as Schwartz walked across the road to the opposite side.

                                The other interesting point is that BS man was heading south when Schwartz noticed him, confirming that BS man was located NORTH of the murder site, but Pipeman was standing SOUTH of the murder site.

                                This is important because IF the 2 men were accomplices, then ONE of them had to walked past Stride PRIOR to the assault..

                                In other words... BS man and Pipeman were at the corner, BS man then walks NORTH PAST STRIDE, but then WALKS BACK to attack Stride just as Schwartz sees him.

                                OR

                                BS Man and Pipeman are BOTH walking SOUTH, but Pipeman walks ahead of him. Pipeman then reaches the corner as BS Man notices Stride and walks up to her to attack her (witnessed by Schwartz)

                                In terms of their location relative to each other, it would seem that Pipeman and BS man weren't accomplices...however...and here's another fascinating aspect to consider...

                                the descriptions of BS Man and Pipeman are almost identical to the description given to the police by the witness who saw 2 men talking with Rose Mylett shortly before her murder in late 1888 (post Kelly)

                                In fact, although the idea of accomplices isn't popular, the murders of Stride, Mylett, Tabram, Smith and Kelly ALL suggest that an accomplice WAS involved.

                                That's 5 murders.

                                Nichols and Chapman are impossible to determine in terms of an accomplice being involved.

                                Eddowes it seems is the only murder where the idea of an accomplice doesn't fit.


                                Is Eddowes the exception to the rule? Does her murder in the City of London have any bearing on the killer working alone?


                                But i digress...

                                So to summarize..

                                By Schwartz claiming he crossed the street and that BS man shouted "Lipski" over to Pipeman as he passed him, doesn't fit with the practical and literal positions that Pipeman and Schwartz were in relative to each other and so dilutes Schwartz's reason to run from the scene.


                                Hope that explains my point to some extent.


                                RD




                                "On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far."

                                I think this couldn't be any clearer. When Schwartz crossed the road he saw Pipeman. BS man called out to the man on the opposite side of the road to him.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X