The Stride Murder

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So how can we know which is true?

Was she correct when she said that she heard the Constable (Smith) pass?

Can we be sure what she meant by the inexact “shortly before a quarter to one o’clock”?

What time exactly did Smith pass when he estimated 12.30 - 12.35?

Would, for example, a time for Smith of 12.35 or 12.36 or 13.37 have been in line with FM’s ‘shortly before 12.45”?

How can we know that the source by which FM got her ‘just before 12.45’ time was correct?

All good questions.

Other that Mortimer's witnessing of Goldstein, the only real dispute regarding Berner St timelines, is the arrival of PC Smith versus the arrival of Diemschitz. Both are claiming to have been at the top of Berner St at 1am, and they can't both be right. If you go with Diemschitz, then Smith's 12:35 last time in Berner St would appear to be out, given his stated beat timespan (25-30 minutes), as that would have Smith arriving at the yard no later than 1:05, and as early as 1:00. Pushing Smith back in time several minutes, has the effect of aligning Smith with the heavy tramp of a policeman heard passing the Mortimer's house, shortly before 12:45. If not perfectly then quite closely. Fanny then sees nothing suspicious between about 12:45 and 12:55.

Alternatively, if you go with Smith's timing, then when is Fanny getting to her doorstep? 12:38 perhaps? Add 10 minutes to that and we're at 12:48. Remember she must see Goldstein toward the end of that period. In either scenario, where are you placing the Schwartz incident?

How can we know that her source was synchronised with Smith’s source?

Fanny tells us "It was just after one o'clock when I went out...", which is pretty much exactly what would be expected if Diemschitz timing was correct, or at least that her timing is effectively in sync with the steward's. Her timing does not align with Smith's, but nor does anyone else's.

How can we corroborate the accuracy of Schwartz time and how can we know that his source for his time was synchronised with FM’s source?

We don't know how either arrived at their timing, but we do know that if Fanny's timing was not aligned with Louis' timing, she might have said "It was ten minutes after one o'clock when I went out...", or "It was just before one o'clock when I went out...". Doesn't what she did say increase the chance of the shortly before 12:45 thing being correct? As for Schwartz, what happens when his time estimate is moved around a bit? Going back in time just a few minutes, and Morris Eagle would appear to be the half-tipsy man, returning to a club that had been serving alcohol. The effect of moving forward in time a few minutes would depend on the timing scenarios discussed above.

And this is without mentioning the variations in reports of what Lave said.

So, as you say, how can we know which is true? In one report Lave is out on the street, not going anywhere, right on 12:45. Doesn't that make him Pipeman?

Or how Spooner thought that, on one hand, he got to the yard around 12.35, while on the other he claimed to have arrive 5 minutes before Lamb?

That's Spooner contradicting himself versus conflicting reports in different papers. Apples and oranges.

…..

So yet again I’ll bring up the perils of estimated times and estimated time periods and the need for applying a margin for error on all times (even for those who specifically claim to have looked at a clock or to have owned a watch….if a Doctor owned a good watch and says that it’s 3.00 do I take 3.00 as spot on? No I don’t. I’d consider a fairly high chance of accuracy but nothing set in stone).

Okay, so let's see you put your money where your mouth is, and apply a margin of error to the timing of Schwartz & co.

[Trevor Marriott]

So could the Stride incident have occurred without anyone else seeing it? Without a shadow of a doubt. Would Schwartz have lied to place himself at the scene of a murder? About as likely as Tyson Fury joining the Royal Ballet.

Everyone seems to rely on Schwartz but the reality is that his evidence that some here rely heavily on is nothing more than hearsay. An official police statement was never obtained from him and I have to ask why, They had ample opportunity to obtain one and I would have thought that his testimony was important not only to the Stride murder but to the whole Ripper police investigation they would have obtained that statement as a matter of course.

I believe it is not known when he first came forward to say what he had seen

I believe there is no corroboration to Schwartz being where he said he was and as to what he saw.

As to why a statement wasn't obtained there can be a number of reasons

The police didn't believe him although that should not have prevented him from making a statement

He wasn't where he said he was or saw what he said he saw and realised the police might find that out or had found out

He genuinely didn't want to make a statement or get further involved for his own reasons but of course, we see no evidence of that in any of the information on the case left to us.

However he could have been served a witness summons to appear at the coroner's court, but that would be reliant on him being found to have it served on him

In my opinion, Michael Kidney must be considered as a prime suspect for killing Stride the police never fully interviewed him about his movements the night of the murder and his coroner's court testimony was in conflict with another witness. This conflict was also never expanded upon. I think that when Eddowes was killed later they wrongly suspected the same killer for both which took the heat of off Kidney. Don Rumbellow also suggests Kidney as a suspect

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Was she really? So why does the only report we have, apparently regarding Mortimer, that mentions the 12:45 point, say this...?

It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so.

Schwartz's story would be a lot more believable if there was any evidence that either of the men he placed on Berner street, actually existed outside of his imagination.

So you accept the 12.45 part but dismiss the policeman part? Ok.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Everyone seems to rely on Schwartz but the reality is that his evidence that some here rely heavily on is nothing more than hearsay. An official police statement was never obtained from him and I have to ask why, They had ample opportunity to obtain one and I would have thought that his testimony was important not only to the Stride murder but to the whole Ripper police investigation they would have obtained that statement as a matter of course.

I believe it is not known when he first came forward to say what he had seen

I believe there is no corroboration to Schwartz being where he said he was and as to what he saw.

As to why a statement wasn't obtained there can be a number of reasons

The police didn't believe him although that should not have prevented him from making a statement

He wasn't where he said he was or saw what he said he saw and realised the police might find that out or had found out

He genuinely didn't want to make a statement or get further involved for his own reasons but of course, we see no evidence of that in any of the information on the case left to us.

However he could have been served a witness summons to appear at the coroner's court, but that would be reliant on him being found to have it served on him

In my opinion, Michael Kidney must be considered as a prime suspect for killing Stride the police never fully interviewed him about his movements the night of the murder and his coroner's court testimony was in conflict with another witness. This conflict was also never expanded upon. I think that when Eddowes was killed later they wrongly suspected the same killer for both which took the heat of off Kidney. Don Rumbellow also suggests Kidney as a suspect

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Does the fact that a statement hasn’t survived mean that it never existed?

Was Abberline just making things up?

[Herlock Sholmes]

All good questions.

Other that Mortimer's witnessing of Goldstein, the only real dispute regarding Berner St timelines, is the arrival of PC Smith versus the arrival of Diemschitz. Both are claiming to have been at the top of Berner St at 1am, and they can't both be right. If you go with Diemschitz, then Smith's 12:35 last time in Berner St would appear to be out, given his stated beat timespan (25-30 minutes), as that would have Smith arriving at the yard no later than 1:05, and as early as 1:00. Pushing Smith back in time several minutes, has the effect of aligning Smith with the heavy tramp of a policeman heard passing the Mortimer's house, shortly before 12:45. If not perfectly then quite closely. Fanny then sees nothing suspicious between about 12:45 and 12:55.

Alternatively, if you go with Smith's timing, then when is Fanny getting to her doorstep? 12:38 perhaps? Add 10 minutes to that and we're at 12:48. Remember she must see Goldstein toward the end of that period. In either scenario, where are you placing the Schwartz incident?



Fanny tells us "It was just after one o'clock when I went out...", which is pretty much exactly what would be expected if Diemschitz timing was correct, or at least that her timing is effectively in sync with the steward's. Her timing does not align with Smith's, but nor does anyone else's.



We don't know how either arrived at their timing, but we do know that if Fanny's timing was not aligned with Louis' timing, she might have said "It was ten minutes after one o'clock when I went out...", or "It was just before one o'clock when I went out...". Doesn't what she did say increase the chance of the shortly before 12:45 thing being correct? As for Schwartz, what happens when his time estimate is moved around a bit? Going back in time just a few minutes, and Morris Eagle would appear to be the half-tipsy man, returning to a club that had been serving alcohol. The effect of moving forward in time a few minutes would depend on the timing scenarios discussed above.



So, as you say, how can we know which is true? In one report Lave is out on the street, not going anywhere, right on 12:45. Doesn't that make him Pipeman?



That's Spooner contradicting himself versus conflicting reports in different papers. Apples and oranges.



Okay, so let's see you put your money where your mouth is, and apply a margin of error to the timing of Schwartz & co.

Im just heading out. I’ll respond to this a bit later. Although the last part should be obvious to all.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Everyone seems to rely on Schwartz but the reality is that his evidence that some here rely heavily on is nothing more than hearsay. An official police statement was never obtained from him and I have to ask why, They had ample opportunity to obtain one and I would have thought that his testimony was important not only to the Stride murder but to the whole Ripper police investigation they would have obtained that statement as a matter of course.

I believe it is not known when he first came forward to say what he had seen

I believe there is no corroboration to Schwartz being where he said he was and as to what he saw.

As to why a statement wasn't obtained there can be a number of reasons

The police didn't believe him although that should not have prevented him from making a statement

He wasn't where he said he was or saw what he said he saw and realised the police might find that out or had found out

He genuinely didn't want to make a statement or get further involved for his own reasons but of course, we see no evidence of that in any of the information on the case left to us.

However he could have been served a witness summons to appear at the coroner's court, but that would be reliant on him being found to have it served on him

Regarding Schwartz having made a statement or not, I think the comments of Robert Anderson in a draft letter to the Home Office, might shed light on the matter. Anderson refers to "the supposed accomplice", but in Swanson's report we read;

Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

Did Schwartz make a statement after the Abberline interview, which Anderson mistakenly believed to be inquest testimony?

Regarding when Schwartz first came forward, if you can believe The Star, we are told when at the start of this report.

In my opinion, Michael Kidney must be considered as a prime suspect for killing Stride the police never fully interviewed him about his movements the night of the murder and his coroner's court testimony was in conflict with another witness. This conflict was also never expanded upon. I think that when Eddowes was killed later they wrongly suspected the same killer for both which took the heat of off Kidney. Don Rumbellow also suggests Kidney as a suspect

What do you suppose was Kidney's motive?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Im just heading out. I’ll respond to this a bit later. Although the last part should be obvious to all.

Would anyone like to respond to the last part, before Herlock returns home?

[Wickerman]

...

Assuming the two men existed, can you tell me why Pipeman could not possibly be...?

Joseph Lave says:- "I am a Russian, and have recently arrived in England from the United States. I am residing temporarily at the club. About twenty minutes before the alarm I went down into the yard to get a breath of fresh air. I walked about for five minutes or more, and went as far as the street. Everything was very quiet at the time, and I noticed nothing wrong."

Both the timing and location appear to be spot on.

Not following you here, Lave is saying he stepped outside the side door and took a walk up and down the yard. He says he went as far as the street, meaning the gates. He didn't leave the yard.
How does that fit anything?

In this theory, is BS-man the Ripper?

In this theory Stride wouldn't be a Ripper victim, two sailors were responsible.
I think including Eddowes is taking things a bit too far, she was a Ripper victim. And my suspect entered Mitre Sq with her about 1:30, seen by Blenkingsop.

[c.d.]

What do you suppose was Kidney's motive?

A hard drinking abusive man who felt he had been jilted. Does that require further explanation? (Not said sarcastically but just a statement of fact),

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Alternatively, JtR may have been a two man team. Rob Hills suggested that possibility here:

He proposed James Hardiman and George Morris as the two men involved. Do we know the height of Hutchinson?

Cheers, George

Thanks George, wasn't aware of that.
No height is given for Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

Hello all. You are all going to cringe when I mention PC Spicer but just bear with me. Whether we believe his tale of arresting somebody on the night of the double event what he says years later in the Daily Express newspaper may be very relevant. He states that he arrested a Doctor in a courtyard off of Heanage Street. I am working from memory now but I believe it was near some dustbins at the address of would you believe. James Hardiman. (I think it works out as 13 Heanage Street) Now its unlikely Spicer would have known that when he spoke with the Press in the 1930s. Blotchy Doctor arrested at James Hardimans adress on the night of Stride and Eddowes murders also James had a younger brother I believe lived at 29 Hanbury street. Just because Spicer is mentioned surely we cant ignore this. Maybe as George suggests its a two man team. Maybe I am talkin a load of rubbish which is not unusual. NW

This is your story..

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_express/310316.html

I don't dismiss Spicer but it's like all those other memoirs, how reliable is his memory nearly 50 years after the event?
If there is any truth to his tale then it may explain why the killer ran eastward after the 2nd murder, he was looking for a 3rd that night.

[c.d.]

In my opinion, Michael Kidney must be considered as a prime suspect for killing Stride the police never fully interviewed him about his movements the night of the murder and his coroner's court testimony was in conflict with another witness.

Since it wasn't a full interview, are we to believe that they didn't ask him where he was that night? If he had an alibi, they would have checked it. If he didn't, they would have had Schwartz look at him. I am unwilling to believe the police were complete idiots.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Not following you here, Lave is saying he stepped outside the side door and took a walk up and down the yard. He says he went as far as the street, meaning the gates. He didn't leave the yard.
How does that fit anything?

In the Daily News, the timing is a little earlier, but the quote includes "I passed out into the street, but did not see anything unusual."

If the 12:45 estimate is a little late, then:
Eagle = BS-man
and
Lave = Pipeman

If the estimate is correct, where are the young couple at that time?

In this theory Stride wouldn't be a Ripper victim, two sailors were responsible.
I think including Eddowes is taking things a bit too far, she was a Ripper victim. And my suspect entered Mitre Sq with her about 1:30, seen by Blenkingsop.

Okay, I thought you might have been suggesting the Ripper had an accomplice sort of thing.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What do you suppose was Kidney's motive?

A hard drinking abusive man who felt he had been jilted. Does that require further explanation? (Not said sarcastically but just a statement of fact),

Here is a quote from the Casebook Wiki on Kidney.

He did not believe she was seeing anybody else because in his own words, "she liked me better than any one else" and it was usually the drink that made her go off. He was not unduly concerned about her absence in the five days prior to her death.

That doesn't sound like a jilted lover to me.

[c.d.]

Here is a quote from the Casebook Wiki on Kidney.

He did not believe she was seeing anybody else because in his own words, "she liked me better than any one else" and it was usually the drink that made her go off. He was not unduly concerned about her absence in the five days prior to her death.

That doesn't sound like a jilted lover to me.

Sounds like denial to me. But even if what he said were true she still left him for whatever reason. That would seem to be a sufficient motive.

c.d.