The Stride Murder

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

Just to be clear, I don't mean to say that Eagle and Lave acted as Schwartz's first and second man did. They did not, but their movements on the street at that time formed the basis of a convenient story, for someone.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

What do you suppose was Kidney's motive?

It has to be domestically orientated we don't know what led to the argument they had a day or two before her murder or what words were exchanged between them at that time, he could have been out drinking and came across her prostituting herself and he could have been the one who pushed her over, he could have lured her into the yard on the pretence of "having a word" with her. As I said we can only speculate and that is fraught with danger

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Was Abberline just making things up?

Abberline was not involved in any of the murders until the Nichols murder so anything he later says is hearsay

If Schwartz had made a statement he would have been called if they couldn't find him they could have read his statement at the inquest

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

stride didnt apear to be actively soliciting the night of the murder. but even if she was, times too tight for her to find another punter go to the yard and be murdered, so soon after being roughed up by bs man.

bs man was obviously her murderer. no need to invent nebulous suspects, peripheral witness killers or phantom rippers.

[Abby Normal]

Abberline was not involved in any of the murders until the Nichols murder so anything he later says is hearsay

If Schwartz had made a statement he would have been called if they couldn't find him they could have read his statement at the inquest

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

anything Abberline says is hearsay?!?! lol another gem trevor.

[Wickerman]

...

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

But why would he show up as a witness at the inquest?
Kidney doesn't know if another witness will show up who saw him with Stride.
By the time Kidney showed up at the inquest on Wednesday the police had been investigating Schwartz's story, anyone could have been in that courtroom, or witness room, who could identify him.
Too risky, I don't think he was involved.

[c.d.]

stride didnt apear to be actively soliciting the night of the murder. but even if she was, times too tight for her to find another punter go to the yard and be murdered, so soon after being roughed up by bs man.

bs man was obviously her murderer. no need to invent nebulous suspects, peripheral witness killers or phantom rippers.

Swanson disagrees with you in his report. He obviously allows time for a killer other than the B.S. man.

c.d.

[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?

It makes him one of the least important witnesses in the case. An unreliable nobody.

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

No. His 12.35 is so massively wrong that it can be dismissed without a second thought. He arrived at the yard not long after 1.00 with Diemschitz.

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.

Schwartz arrived at whatever time fits in with Mortimer not seeing him. We can’t verify Mortimer’s time and we can’t verify his and as the suggestion that Schwartz would lie to place himself at a murder scene is just silly then we can ignore it. As I do. Schwartz arrived whenever he did. The incident couldn’t have taken any more than a minute. The fact that no one saw it is about as surprising as it is for Donald Trump to say stupid things.

[Herlock Sholmes]

anything Abberline says is hearsay?!?! lol another gem trevor.

You heard it here Abby. Who needs comedy clubs.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Abberline was not involved in any of the murders until the Nichols murder so anything he later says is hearsay

???? You mean…he wasn’t involved until after the murder that’s considered by many to have been the first in the series???

If Schwartz had made a statement he would have been called if they couldn't find him they could have read his statement at the inquest

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He wasn’t required at the Inquest.

Trevor, do all of the records of the police interviews during this case still exist?

[Abby Normal]

Swanson disagrees with you in his report. He obviously allows time for a killer other than the B.S. man.

c.d.

you have to take alot of what anderson, swanson and mcNaughton say with a grain of salt.

[Lewis C]

stride didnt apear to be actively soliciting the night of the murder. but even if she was, times too tight for her to find another punter go to the yard and be murdered, so soon after being roughed up by bs man.

bs man was obviously her murderer. no need to invent nebulous suspects, peripheral witness killers or phantom rippers.

Hi Abby,

I agree that there wouldn't have been time for her to find another punter, but there would have been time for someone who was already there to have killed her.

[Elamarna]

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.

Pray tell me why you say no official police statement was obtained?

Please don't say because one does not exist today. How many police statements from the case are known to exist?
Come on Trevor.

Abberline openly speaks in an internal memo of having interviewed him.

Swanson includes the substance of the statement in an official report.

I assume they simply invented these statements?

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.

Given the report, what do you actually expect, there was only him, BS man , Pipeman and Stride in the Street.

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

Clearly the police did believe him, as confirmed by Abberline, Anderson and Warren, this was a month after the murder, after the inquest
Swanson's report throws no doubt on the account either.

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.

In which case we need to explain why he after talking to the police, gave a statement to the Press.

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

I thought we were talking of an official POLICE statement, NOT his apparent non appearance at the inquest.

It's not the same thing as you well know.

For whatever reason, Baxter decided not to call him.
Unless Baxter interviewed him personally, and had extra evidence the police did not have, it would seem that being considered unreliable was the least probable of reason.

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

Again I see you very plainly claiming a witness was not fully interviewed, can I ask for the source for that please.
Better still can I ask how you know exactly what he was asked?
You portray the police as being fools. you really think.they didn't do their job and check?

There is no actual evidence to even suggest Kidney was the killer of Stride.
Yes it's been suggested often, but never any evidence.
To me the idea of a domestic, is yet another example of people LOOKING for a reason to attempt to exclude Stride.


Sorry, Trevor but you have surpassed even yourself with some of the claims made here.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Abberline was not involved in any of the murders until the Nichols murder so anything he later says is hearsay

Pardon?
Stride is after Nichols, Abberline was clearly involved .
And it's NOT hearsay, it's in an internal memo which was clearly used to write a letter to the Home office, how on earth is that Hearsay Trevor.

If Schwartz had made a statement he would have been called if they couldn't find him they could have read his statement at the inquest

Again pardon?

Because he was not called to the inquest it does not mean he did not given a statement. Coming from.a former police officer that's astounding.
If he was not called, maybe it was at the request of the police. It would of course be entirely Baxter's decision; but if that were the case, it's highly unlikely his statement would be made public.
I find the lack of apparent knowledge here astounding.

Steve

[c.d.]

you have to take alot of what anderson, swanson and mcNaughton say with a grain of salt.

I would agree with that with respect to Anderson and McNaughton. But Swanson was writing an official report within days of the incident with all the facts at his fingertips. If he didn't believe the timeline allowed for another killer other than the B.S. man why would he mention it as being possible?

c.d.