The Stride Murder

[c.d.]

Sorry we disagree.

That the wife heard nothing, in no way diminishes the Schwartz account.

Steve

It doesn't diminish Schwartz's account because he only witnessed a woman thrown to the ground. Now if the B.S.man continued to attack her leading to her death then the fact that no one heard an argument or screams for help does become significant. Since nothing was heard I think the B.S. man simply moved on.

c.d.

[Elamarna]

Oh dear Trevor.

I must apologise for the misleading statement regarding the dates it was written in a hurry I was on my way out

And I disagree on making his statement public if he ever made one, There was no reason why he should not have been called his so-called evidence was material to the murder and no reason for it not to be made public, It's not as if he witnessed that actual murder, or identified the perpetrator by name. and we see no other examples of material witnesses being withheld, and there is nothing anywhere to show he made a statement or why he was not called.

It was for Baxter to decide if he was called to the inquest. We cannot second guess why he was not.
But as I suggested if it was decided not to call him at the request of the police, then why in earth would a statement be made public at the inquest.
That you state as fact that if he made a statement he would have been called to the inquest is not only unrealistic, it shows a surprising lack of understanding of procedures from a former police officer, it's astounding.

Not as if he saw the actual murder?

Really?
If he saw the start of the attack that lead to the murder, that's good enough to withhold until trial. It would in 1888 ensure conviction.

I notice you chose to ignore other reasons for his no-show in my previous post

I think not, I answered the point that the police did not believe him, or he feared he would be found out in one section, the police very clear did believe him. To suggest otherwise is fantasy, ignoring the evidence.

The point about not wanting to get involved i answered in my next point. I asked if that was so why did he then talk to the press.
You might not like the answers Trevor, but please do not say I don't answer you.

You really must do better Trevor.

As to hearsay any statement made by Schwartz unless exhibited or later found by researchers must be hearsay if the contents are later referred to, or an uncorroborated verbal account, if there ever was a statement or nothing more than a verbal account and Abberline referred to it in his memo then in my opinion its hearsay especially if there was ever a statement the original could have accompanied the memo or a draft prepared for submission.

Hearsay evidence is 'second-hand' evidence. It is: A statement. A statement covers any representation of fact or opinion made by a person by whatever means with the purpose of causing another person to believe a matter or to act on the basis that it is true

If Abberline had taken the statement from Schwartz then it would not be hearsay

Really desperate stuff Trevor.

One must ask have you actually read what Abberline wrote?

He clearly says he was at the interview of Schwartz, and he could not shake him.

Are you suggesting the interview took place and no statement was made?
Or are you suggesting the interview was invented?
What is your evidence for either?

And of course I refer again to Swanson.
He quotes what appears to be a statement by Schwartz. It is significantly different from the press report to show it's not based on that.
What on earth do you suggest he based his report on?
His imagination, in an official report?
Come on Trevor be serious

Your explanations are nothing more than conjecture and lack corroboration. You and others should stick to the facts as known, far to many personal opinions on here in an attempt to change the original facts and evidence which contain "what if`s, "maybe`s". "I think" and many more.

No I am using the known facts.

Once again we see you, reject as evidence anything you do not agree with.
It is you as usual who uses conjecture and gives misleading information on issues.
Some of your comments are frankly embarrassing.

All the facts and evidence in these murders have been discussed hundreds of times if not more over the last few decades, with very few new facts forthcoming that change or add to the original facts and evidence

That you can say that, just demonstrates how out of touch you are with real research, rather than so called "New ideas".

Steve

[Elamarna]

Presumably if she had said "I heard a woman screams three times, but not very loudly", you would not say that that bolsters Schwartz's account?

No, if she said that, I would assume she had read the press report.

Steve

[Elamarna]

(Steve)
You realize "the footway" is what Victorians called the sidewalk, or pavement in UK today.
The assault happened outside the gates.

Please Jon, born and bred in London.

As to where the attack took place, this is disputed, as you well know. And mention below yourself.

This is from Swanson's report.

"....had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly."

We're accustomed to thinking of the assault taking place between the gates, when the report actually says it was further forward, on the footpath where she was assaulted, but her body is found 9 ft (Blackwell) inside the yard.

The press version says the man pushed her back into the passage, but nothing else, no details of an assault.

This difference may very well be a translation issue, which is correct is anyone's guess.

As you say no details of assault, so I would suggest it is impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions.

Steve

[Elamarna]

I should have ended that last post by making the point, I see sufficient time (10-15 mins?) and distance (from the initial assault to where the body was found), to account for some activity or some other person's involvement that we are not aware of.

I accept there is sufficient time to allow for another individual, I agree with you timing.

However, I consider such improbable Jon.
I see little to support such, other than a desire for BS man not to be the killer.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Well I think there was more to it than simply the time aspect. I think Swanson was alluding to the possibility that Schwartz simply witnessed a little street hassle and not a prelude to a murder.

c.d.

It's always interesting how we all interpret documents so differently c.d.
I see it as Swanson just being cautious, when he wrote the report.

Steve

[c.d.]

If he saw the start of the attack that lead to the murder, that's good enough to withhold until trial. It would in 1888 ensure conviction.

Whoa, whoa. Easy there, cowboy. Schwartz said he only saw a woman thrown to the ground nothing more. And since Swanson allowed for the possibility of another killer besides B.S. man, he had to have been told by Schwartz that Stride was still alive when he left the scene. I see no way that could lead to a conviction at a trial.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No, if she said that, I would assume she had read the press report.

Steve

The press report doesn't mention the nonsensical not very loud screams. However, it does clearly portray the second man as an accomplice of sorts, which aligns with Anderson's reference to "the supposed accomplice". How do we get from ...

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

... to a definite accomplice? Did Schwartz change his story?

[GBinOz]

(Steve)
You realize "the footway" is what Victorians called the sidewalk, or pavement in UK today.
The assault happened outside the gates.

This is from Swanson's report.

"....had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly."

We're accustomed to thinking of the assault taking place between the gates, when the report actually says it was further forward, on the footpath where she was assaulted, but her body is found 9 ft (Blackwell) inside the yard.

The press version says the man pushed her back into the passage, but nothing else, no details of an assault.

Hi Jon,

You're off the mark here my friend. I used to be a registered land surveyor and we did many property surveys in areas established in the Victorian era. There was a dedicated vehicular area of set width and a dedication footpath on either side, also of fixed width. In that era the kerbs were made of stone and the property lines were defined from their distance from the stone kerbs. The footpath was also subdivided into service dedicated areas for water and electricity.
The street is between property lines, not between kerb lines, so when Swanson says "the man tried to pull the woman into the street" and "she was standing in the gateway" he means she is actually in the yard. Were the gates closed, the street would be on the outside of the gates and the gateway (and Stride) would be on the inside.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

I accept there is sufficient time to allow for another individual, I agree with you timing.

However, I consider such improbable Jon.
I see little to support such, other than a desire for BS man not to be the killer.

Steve

In both accounts (police & press) the timing appears to begin as Schwartz turns into Berner St. from Comm. St.
I measured the distance as shown on Insurance maps, Dutfield Yard is 360 feet from Commercial Rd. So, if Schwartz turns the corner at 12:45 it will not still be 12:45 by the time he reaches Dutfields Yard, a minute or two will have passed.

We cannot know how fast he was walking, so we may debate what the time would be, but I think we might agree with 12:47.
Not that it matters a whole lot, Diemschutz also turned this same corner about 1:00 am, so whatever occurred between Schwartz passing the yard and Diemschutz pulling into the yard happened at least within 10 minutes, not 15.

Why this matters to me is because I believe Schwartz walked passed at this estimated 12:47, and describes the beginning of an assault.
But, there is still 10 minutes to be accounted for, unless you think she laid there dead for 10 minutes?



As we can see if an assault takes place on that footway/footpath outside the gates, someone approaching down the street from the right cannot see up the yard and especially at night.
And, if he runs off diagonally across the street from the gateway towards the Board School he still cannot see up the yard. The gateway was only 9 feet wide, so if there was anyone 10 feet inside the gateway, and in the shadows, he is to all intents and purposes, invisible.

Diemshutz drives into the gateway shortly after 1:00 am, so what happened between 12:47 & about 1:01, roughly.
Swanson knew this was ample time for someone else to appear, commit murder and leave. Though Swanson makes no reference to Parcel-man, yet the police have him as a suspect.
Both BS-man & Parcel-man were genuine police suspects, so Swanson must also have asked himself - what happened to this man with Stride seen by PC Smith?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

You're off the mark here my friend. I used to be a registered land surveyor and we did many property surveys in areas established in the Victorian era. There was a dedicated vehicular area of set width and a dedication footpath on either side, also of fixed width. In that era the kerbs were made of stone and the property lines were defined from their distance from the stone kerbs. The footpath was also subdivided into service dedicated areas for water and electricity.
The street is between property lines, not between kerb lines, so when Swanson says "the man tried to pull the woman into the street" and "she was standing in the gateway" he means she is actually in the yard. Were the gates closed, the street would be on the outside of the gates and the gateway (and Stride) would be on the inside.

Cheers, George

Hi George.

I absolutely agree, if you had written that report you would have described the scene technically correct, but you didn't write it.
The ordinary layperson, or press man, even a policeman, when they refer to a footway they mean the raised portion from the kerb to the property line. And this is where Swanson writes that the assault took place, not in the alley or yard.

[GBinOz]

Hi George.

I absolutely agree, if you had written that report you would have described the scene technically correct, but you didn't write it.
The ordinary layperson, or press man, even a policeman, when they refer to a footway they mean the raised portion from the kerb to the property line. And this is where Swanson writes that the assault took place, not in the alley or yard.

Hi Jon,

I have to admit that I have had many a discussion with layman who considered the street to be the paved vehicular portion between kerbs, but they did refer to "the raised portion from the kerb to the property line" as a footpath (in Australia), they just thought the footpath was part of their property. While I appreciate the point you are making, I'm a little apprehensive about whether a man of Swanson's education would suffer from this misapprehension.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The street is between property lines, not between kerb lines, so when Swanson says "the man tried to pull the woman into the street" and "she was standing in the gateway" he means she is actually in the yard. Were the gates closed, the street would be on the outside of the gates and the gateway (and Stride) would be on the inside.

Interesting George. Schwartz could not have seen a man stop and talk to a woman who was inside the line of the gates, unless he too had reached the gates. So, what does Swanson's report say?

... having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

So, Schwartz is claiming to be right there when the manhandling supposedly starts. But what was Stride doing standing in the darkness, if not talking to someone? The BS-man would surely have noticed another person - he more or less interrupts their conversation. So, in what scenario is BS indifferent to the presence of this other person, and vice-versa? How about; two club members - one named Morris and the other named Leon?

Coroner: Did you observe any one in the yard?
Eagle: I do not remember that I did.
Coroner: If there had been a man and woman there you would have remembered the circumstance?
Eagle: Yes; I am sure of that.

If Eagle had seen the couple, then what is their next movement? Well, assuming Diemschitz/Mortimer timing, PC Smith may well have passed after this point. That means the couple move out of the yard, and onto the street. Unfortunately for the man, that results in him being spotted with the intended victim, by a policeman. However, the man is aware of the presence of both Eagle and Lave (aka BS-man and Pipeman), and these men form the basis of a convenient story.

Just a point on Joseph Lave. In one report he is outside from 12:30 to 12:40 and goes onto the street. In another report he is outside from 12:40 to at least 12:45 and goes as far as the street. Do you suppose he must have witnessed Stride at some point?

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh dear Trevor.

It was for Baxter to decide if he was called to the inquest. We cannot second guess why he was not.

But he could only be called if he had made a statement and if there was no statement how could a coroner then decide, and we have no evidence of a statement all we have is a verbal account

But as I suggested if it was decided not to call him at the request of the police, then why in earth would a statement be made public at the inquest.
That you state as fact that if he made a statement he would have been called to the inquest is not only unrealistic, it shows a surprising lack of understanding of procedures from a former police officer, it's astounding.

Not as if he saw the actual murder?

Really

If he saw the start of the attack that lead to the murder, that's good enough to withhold until trial. It would in 1888 ensure conviction.

Rubbish, if he saw the attack that would be material that a coroners jury should hear and there could be no trial without a perpetrator and at that time there was no prime suspect

You really must do better Trevor.

So must you in trying to justify the conjecture in your posts

One must ask have you actually read what Abberline wrote?

What Abberline wrote is not the issue here

He clearly says he was at the interview of Schwartz, and he could not shake him.

But does he say a written statement was taken?

Are you suggesting the interview took place and no statement was made?

That's a possibility it is not unusual for Witnesses to be interviewed by the police and refuse to make a written statement

And of course I refer again to Swanson.
He quotes what appears to be a statement by Schwartz. It is significantly different from the press report to show it's not based on that.
What on earth do you suggest he based his report on?

What Abberline reported to him

Come on Trevor be serious

I am deadly serious

Once again we see you, reject as evidence anything you do not agree with.

The evidence from 1888 had time and time again proved to be unsafe

It is you as usual who uses conjecture and gives misleading information on issues.

I do not state as fact issues that cannot be proven

Some of your comments are frankly embarrassing.

As are your replies

That you can say that, just demonstrates how out of touch you are with real research, rather than so called "New ideas".

There is a difference between research and its results and inventing scenarios to fit the facts which you continue to do

Steve

[GBinOz]

Interesting George. Schwartz could not have seen a man stop and talk to a woman who was inside the line of the gates, unless he too had reached the gates. So, what does Swanson's report say?

... having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

So, Schwartz is claiming to be right there when the manhandling supposedly starts. But what was Stride doing standing in the darkness, if not talking to someone? The BS-man would surely have noticed another person - he more or less interrupts their conversation. So, in what scenario is BS indifferent to the presence of this other person, and vice-versa? How about; two club members - one named Morris and the other named Leon?

Coroner: Did you observe any one in the yard?
Eagle: I do not remember that I did.
Coroner: If there had been a man and woman there you would have remembered the circumstance?
Eagle: Yes; I am sure of that.

If Eagle had seen the couple, then what is their next movement? Well, assuming Diemschitz/Mortimer timing, PC Smith may well have passed after this point. That means the couple move out of the yard, and onto the street. Unfortunately for the man, that results in him being spotted with the intended victim, by a policeman. However, the man is aware of the presence of both Eagle and Lave (aka BS-man and Pipeman), and these men form the basis of a convenient story.

Just a point on Joseph Lave. In one report he is outside from 12:30 to 12:40 and goes onto the street. In another report he is outside from 12:40 to at least 12:45 and goes as far as the street. Do you suppose he must have witnessed Stride at some point?

Hi Andrew,

I would think that Stride would have been standing just inside the property line and looking in towards the street while waiting for someone (Parcelman?) or something (the start of a cleaning job?). I think that Schwartz was 5 to 10 yards behind BSMan when he heard angry tones of voice between the latter and Stride, and an attempt by the man to pull the woman out of the yard. Any closer and he would have just stepped up his pace and hurried by. I think he crossed the road and didn't look back until he had reached the Fairclough intersection when he heard the not-loud screams. He then notices Pipeman on the south east corner and hears BSman shout at him. Just as Schwartz is stepping off the kerb to cross Fairclough, Pipeman makes a move towards him and Schwartz bolts.

If you are suggesting a two man operation here, I wouldn't dismiss the idea, but acknowledge that it would be speculative. But at Bucks Row a witness (whose name escapes me) heard whispering (two slaughtermen?), Rob Hill has speculated on two men at Mitre Square (Morris and Hardiman), and it has been suggested that Hutchinson could have been a lookout at Millers Court. And of course the two men at the scene of the Mylett murder.

I have no problems with speculation, but with the caveat that it can only be conjecture unless further proof is found.

Cheers, George

P.S. I find your new avatar a little un-nerving, rather preferring your old version. JMO.