The Stride Murder

[Wickerman]

... 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?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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?

[Lewis C]

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

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?

[Lewis C]

Yes RD Lave does seem to be more of an unknown. I still think some of us me included need to narrow our thoughts a bit. We have witnesses and loads of information. Lave is a good example where we need to know more about him. (I know thats easier said than done). 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

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Excellent work by all but so complicated.

Are we missing the point. What reason is there for Stride to be killed outside/just inside the yard of a very well attended social club in the East End where even the supposed 'cunning' JTR would find it almost impossible to operate. People are in and out of the yard like a fiddlers elbo. The question is why there?

Either the murderer is an outsider making a point/statement by killing somebody to discredit the Jews/socialists or it is spur of the moment. But killing somebody in the spur of the moment in that very violent attack is not like punching someone on the nose. The murderer would have to be well worked up, very annoyed to do this. Owed money like modern day drug dealers, previous problems etc. I think this could be an avenue of thought when we are trying to suggest suspects.

I just cannot see why a member of the club would chose there own ground to carry out this murder unless the person cannot control his own behavior. Is there a member who fits that bill. It surely wouldn't be any member with any common sense.

NW

I tried to get a feel for how many people remained at the club by the time Wess went home (~12:15 in most papers), compared to how many were still there when the gates were closed by the police, about an hour later.

This is Wess (paraphrased) in the Times:

On Saturday night a discussion was held in the large room among some 90 or 100 persons. The discussion ceased between 11:30 and 12 o'clock. The bulk of the people present then left the premises by the street door entrance, while between 20 and 30 members remained behind in the large room, and about a dozen were downstairs. Some of those upstairs had a discussion among themselves, while others were singing.

If we include Krantz and Yaffa in the editor's office, that's about 40 people in the club when Wess leaves to go home.
Now in the coroners summing up, he says ...

Although there might have been some noise in the club, it seemed very unlikely that any cry could have been raised without its being heard by some one of those near. The editor of a Socialist paper was quietly at work in a shed down the yard, which was used as a printing office. There were several families in the cottages in the court only a few yards distant, and there were 20 persons in the different rooms of the club. But if there was no cry, how did the deceased meet her death?

So, 40 is now 20. How many of the difference left before the discovery?

According to comments by the steward's wife, it seems no one entered (or re-entered) the club after Eagle did about 20 minutes before the discovery. Within this 20 minute period, Stride and her murderer must enter the yard and the murderer must leave it, seemingly unnoticed. How do you think this could have occurred?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You think she had been smoking?

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

I thought the paper was newspaper, from holding a few grapes so as not to stain her fingers.

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.

[New Waterloo]

Yes RD Lave does seem to be more of an unknown. I still think some of us me included need to narrow our thoughts a bit. We have witnesses and loads of information. Lave is a good example where we need to know more about him. (I know thats easier said than done). 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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I take her to mean she didn't know him.

Perhaps he was a recent arrival to England, like Israel Schwartz.

Here's a question for you - How can she think he came from the club if she also said he passed coming from Commercial Rd. end of the street?

Regarding the man possibly coming from the club, we get a rough sense of the time ...

I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in.

How long before is "just before"? I think we get a slightly better sense with this comment ...

I should think I must have heard it if the poor creature screamed at all, for I hadn't long come in from the door when I was roused, as I tell you, by that call for the police.

As "Mr Lewis" must arrive in between, my sense is that she sees Goldstein very soon before locking up - like a minute or two.

For the man walking south however, the timing is much more ambiguous - it was just some time prior to her 'turning in' for the night.

Going back to the first quote, which of these does it mean?...

I only noticed one person passing, and that was just before I turned in.

Just before I turned in, I only noticed one person passing.

The former aligns with the traditional interpretation of ...

... 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.

The later opens the door to the possibility that Mortimer had seen Goldstein walking south, at an earlier point in time.

The problem with the former is that it doesn't answer your question. What is the problem with later, which does seem to provide an answer?

[The Rookie Detective]

Nothing wrong with long posts as long as they are at least fairly well written. However, if you end a post with "thoughts please" and someone replies, I would consider replying to the reply. In #1200 you have a long post that I replied to in #1201, but I don't think you said anything specific regarding my post, after having asked for thoughts. In #1213 you wrote what you say is a clarifying post, but whose points is it addressing? Of course, you can pick and choose who you reply to, but so can I and everyone else.

You're quite right NBFN, my apologies for having not responded to that particular post. I'm not sure why I haven't but I believe I missed your response in post1231
Genuine error, my apologies for that.


RD

[Wickerman]

Going back to the smoking of cigars/cigarettes, in #1231 I linked to page with this description of papirosa cigarette tubes.

Papirosa cigarette tubes actually consist of two pre rolled tubes inserted one into the other: one tube, is called a shirt, is made of tissue rolling paper and crushed tobacco is poured into it, and the second is made of thicker paper and has several functions - it allows you to hold the papirosa tube in your hands, prevents tobacco from getting into your mouth, and most importantly - is a mouthpiece of papirosa cigarette tubes that cools smoke well and retains a large amount of harmful substances and tar on its walls.

This reminded me of Edward Spooner's reference to paper in Stride's right hand ...

I could see that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand, and a red and white flower pinned on to her jacket.

What sort of paper was it?

You think she had been smoking?

I thought the paper was newspaper, from holding a few grapes so as not to stain her fingers.

[Wickerman]

"I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand."

"Did you observe him closely, or notice anything in his appearance?"

"No, I didn't pay particular attention to him. He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club., A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially."

How far away was Goldstein from Fanny when she could see he was a stranger to her?

I take her to mean she didn't know him.
Here's a question for you - How can she think he came from the club if she also said he passed coming from Commercial Rd. end of the street?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman, George, Lewis, NBFN etc...

My apologies for submitting long posts and I accept that they're too long.

I will endeavor to be more concise from now on

RD

Hi RD.

No need for apologies, there's no easy way of pointing it out. I was not going to fake it and pretend I had read your post, even though I noticed some points of interest.
I wasn't sure I might have misunderstood a context because I had not read the entire post.
I'm sure the problem lies with my own short span of attention, a paragraph or two are about my limit
I will say this, I do like the fact you are searching for solutions by not letting convention get in the way.

[Wickerman]

Excellent work by all but so complicated.

Are we missing the point. What reason is there for Stride to be killed outside/just inside the yard of a very well attended social club in the East End where even the supposed 'cunning' JTR would find it almost impossible to operate. People are in and out of the yard like a fiddlers elbo. The question is why there?

Either the murderer is an outsider making a point/statement by killing somebody to discredit the Jews/socialists or it is spur of the moment. But killing somebody in the spur of the moment in that very violent attack is not like punching someone on the nose. The murderer would have to be well worked up, very annoyed to do this. Owed money like modern day drug dealers, previous problems etc. I think this could be an avenue of thought when we are trying to suggest suspects.

I just cannot see why a member of the club would chose there own ground to carry out this murder unless the person cannot control his own behavior. Is there a member who fits that bill. It surely wouldn't be any member with any common sense.

NW

Right, I can't see anyone even staying at the club bringing such unwanted attention to the club, when it was totally unnecessary.
The club did not want attention.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Wickerman, George, Lewis, NBFN etc...


My apologies for submitting long posts and I accept that they're too long.


I will endeavor to be more concise from now on


RD

Nothing wrong with long posts as long as they are at least fairly well written. However, if you end a post with "thoughts please" and someone replies, I would consider replying to the reply. In #1200 you have a long post that I replied to in #1201, but I don't think you said anything specific regarding my post, after having asked for thoughts. In #1213 you wrote what you say is a clarifying post, but whose points is it addressing? Of course, you can pick and choose who you reply to, but so can I and everyone else.