The Stride Murder

[GBinOz]

Hey Herlock,

You asked earlier about my timeline. I found it on page 164 here:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/751019-if-schwartz-lied/page164#post760653

I also found one of your timelines on page 148, and one by Dusty on page 124. I'm pretty sure the one that Jeff did was on a different thread.

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

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

Hi George/Jon,

Whilst I agree with the general discussion - there being a technical specific distinction in the meanings of street, footpath, pavement, road etc, I think that these differences could easily be lost in translation.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

That's an interesting explanation for Schwartz's non-appearance at the inquest.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

George,
if I were onboard with Schwartz's story I would probably accept this scenario, but still have a few questions. Like, why the effort to dress up and get a flower, then stand in the gateway of rowdy men's club, or wait until told to start doing the dishes? Seems a bit incongruous. I agree that "Any closer and he would have just stepped up his pace and hurried by", but the evidence we have suggests that he was indeed a lot closer than 5 to 10 yards. Also, what provokes BS-man to shout at him at that point and at that distance?

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

Huh? Who are the two men? Eagle and Lave did nothing wrong. There was only one other man.

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

A little unnerving? Mission accomplished!

[Elamarna]

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.

No one apparently heard the attack on Nichols, unless you count Lilley.
On Cadosch standing a few feet away heard Chapman's attack, and no one heard the attack on Eddowes
All had people who could have heard an attack c.d. But no one did.
We make the assumption that the attack would make a noise someone must hear, it's always our assumptions that lead us astray.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hey Herlock,

You asked earlier about my timeline. I found it on page 164 here:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/751019-if-schwartz-lied/page164#post760653

I also found one of your timelines on page 148, and one by Dusty on page 124. I'm pretty sure the one that Jeff did was on a different thread.

Cheers, George

Thanks George.

[Elamarna]

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.

Schwartz could not know if the attack had resulted in her death, he moved on.
However, he saw a woman attacked at the approximate time and location tgat Stride was killed.
19th century jury members took witnessa ccounts far more seriously than today.
It is I suggest inconceivable that they would not have convicted on such a report.
Sorry c.d. But your approach is a touch naive.

Steve

[Elamarna]

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?

We have 2 separate reports, both required translation and both may contain mistakes.
In addition it is probably the press trying to sell a story that turns a pipe into a knife.

No he didn't change his story, I suggest you read Abberline's internal memo from late October.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does anyone else think that this case attracts a desire for over-complication? Or a reluctance to accept that witnesses make timing errors?

And how often, when someone is found murdered virtually in the street does the following investigation uncover plots and false witnesses? Why do we have an aversion to the prosaic?

[FISHY1118]

No one apparently heard the attack on Nichols, unless you count Lilley.
On Cadosch standing a few feet away heard Chapman's attack, and no one heard the attack on Eddowes
All had people who could have heard an attack c.d. But no one did.
We make the assumption that the attack would make a noise someone must hear, it's always our assumptions that lead us astray.

Steve

Its yet to be determined that Cadosch actually heard Chapman being attacked ,its only a presumption based on a 5.30 am t.o.d which also is yet to be determined.

Off topic thread i know, however relevant to c.d post . Ill post on John Richardson thread for further discussion if required.

[The Rookie Detective]

This is a fascinating thread, and there's lots more to unravel.


A thought came to me regarding BS Man who was alleged to have shouted the word "Lipski" over toward Pipe-man, just after throwing Stride to the floor.

It is often discussed whether this anti-Semitic word was aimed at Schwartz, but what if the potential recipient of the word isn't the relevant point?

What if BS man was making a statement out of frustration and Schwartz and Pipe-man just happened to be in the way?

The murder of Stride has always divided opinion as to whether she was a victim of JTR, or whether her killing was related to something else entirely.

That something else entirely could be the murder of Miriam Angel over a year earlier, which as we all know was said to have been committed by Lipski at 16 Batty Street.

As we also know, Batty Street runs parallel to Berner Street.

16 Batty Street is under a minute's walk away from the site of Stride's murder and is accessed directly by walking down the alley situated just north of the boarding school that runs between 16 Batty Street and the Public House on Batty Street situated behind the boarding school just north of the playground.

(And 16 Batty Street just a few houses south of the alleged; and well-documented "Mystery Lodger" who resided with the German landlady)

My point is... What if Stride was murdered as some kind of statement, a retaliatory attack for the events that transpired the previous year? (outside a working men's club full of German, Russian and Polish individuals)

What if we have been looking at this from the wrong angle and it's not about trying to prove that Stride was a victim of JTR, it's more as a result of the murder of Miriam Angel the year before?

Miriam was 22...and 6 months pregnant when she was murdered and her husband was working when she was killed in her bed.

Now while I appreciate this is NOT a Lipski thread, the fact that it's alleged that the man who assaulted Stride minutes before she was found murdered and that man had shouted the word "LIPSKI"...i think that there may be a valid and justifiable connection to the murder of Miriam Angel.

Is the murder of Stride LINKED to the previous murder of Miriam Angel?

At the time virtually everyone believed Lipski was innocent and even Lipski himself declared he was innocent, right up until the point when he hear that there would be no official reprieve from his death sentence. He then confessed and accepted his fate...


However, there were 2 other men who were around at the time of the murder who worked for Lipski and who themselves were accused by Lipski of having murdered Miriam and attempted to murder him.

One of those men was a German called Schmuss, who shortly after the murder had left the area and traveled to Birmingham. The man who defended Lipski, a Mr Hayward tried everything to find Schmuss so that he could question him about the murder...

But here's where it gets interesting and of particular relevance to the case of Stride...

Hayward it seems may sought the help of others to try and locate the elusive Schmuss and it's at this point we can make a definitive link BETWEEN the murder of both Miriam and Stride...


Now let's jump to the witnesses in the Stride case...If we recall, the witness Matthew Packer who initially told the police he hadn't seen anyone or anything because he had closed his shop early due to the heavy rain, then suddenly changed his story to remember selling grapes to a couple who stood in the rain for over half an hour across the road from his shop (meaning the couple he sold grapes to stood outside the Boarding School) before walking back over the road towards the club.

Well this alleged witness only changed his story AFTER he had been interrogated by the "private detectives" Batchelor and Le Grand, and supposedly on behalf of the Whitechapel Vigilance committee run by George Lusk and subsequently the fantasist Albert Bachert.

At the time of interviewing Packer the fruit seller, Le Grand was already a convicted criminal. He was later sent to prison for blackmail, extortion, fraud and for threatening women of wealth with threats of violence.

Le Grand was proven to have sent a number of letters to various women demanding payment of monies to him and if payment wasn't received he would seek to murder them in various ways, from explosion to "Poisoning."

Not forgetting that Miriam Angel was poisoned with Nitric Acid

And here's where it gets interesting... Le Grand has been considered a ripper suspect in the past and he is proven to have inserted himself into the murder of Stride by approaching Packer and managing to draw a statement out of him from thin air...by whatever means necessary.

BUT...Le Grand's real name was of course Charles Grant.

And it seems that Charles Grant had previously inserted himself into a previous case; the case of Miriam Angel.

I found a newspaper report that states that a man named "Grant" had burst into the home of a man who was a "witness to the murder of Miriam Angel."
The witness was so scared by Grant's actions, that he applied to the Thames Police Court to try and get a warrant for the apprehension of Grant who had burst into his office.
Grant's actions had also frightened the man's daughter to the point she had a fit and had to be taken to the London Hospital.

And the reason for Grant bursting into the man's house... he was looking for a man named SCHMUSS.


Now while there's no first name given, I would bet that the man who burst into the home of a witness to a murder, to look for a man (Schmuss) who was a suspect in the murder of Miriam Angel, is almost certainly none other than Charles Grant...or Le Grand, the same man who interrogated Packer.

There is no proof that Grant was hired by Hayward (the defense lawyer of Lipski who was adamant of his innocence) in the search for Schmuss, and it may be the case that Grant acted on his own.

Schmuss himself was always considered one of two men who murdered Miriam in her bed, robbery being their motive and Lipski interrupted them and they also tried to poison him also, but failed. The reason for Schmuss quickly leaving for Birmingham is unclear.

Now despite his last-minute confession, which was given AFTER he knew he had no chance of reprieve, there's always been an argument that the wrong man was hanged and that Schmuss and his accomplice were the real culprits...so let's apply that to the murder of Stride...

Was Stride simply the victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
The husband of Miriam came home to find his wife and unborn baby murdered... did that play a part in subsequent events?
When BS man shouted "LIPSKI"...was it the actions of a man who supported Lipski and was angry that Schmuss had escaped conviction?

And of course...let's look at the double event...Eddowes was murdered and after the piece of her apron being dropped underneath the GSG...

But what if that graffiti was written by a supporter of Lipski who was essentially saying that he was a Jew who was killing women because he felt that the Jews were always being blamed...and IF the Jews are to be blamed, then they might as well be blamed for actually doing something guilty.
A statement against the hanging of Lipski.

BUT...the graffiti was said to be older and written before the night of the double event...and so by the killer of Eddowes (JTR) deliberately leaving a torn piece of her apron underneath the graffiti which may have supported Lipski, which was previously shouted by a man assaulting Stride around the corner of the murder of Miriam Angel over a year earlier...

IS that the REASON why JTR chose to drop the apron by the graffiti and form a link between the murders of Eddowes, Stride and potentially Miriam Angel?

In other words, the GSG wasn't in reference to Eddowes, it was in reference to the killing of Angel...and Stride was murdered in Berner Street in connection with Lipski being seen as wrongly convicted.

Going back to Le Grand briefly, another member on this site asked me for any evidence to connect Le Grand to any of this aside from him talking to Packer. well i belive that I have now found that link and Le Grand AKA Grant was actively looking for Schmuss.

But why?

Was he looking to apprehend Schmuss as a good citizen or did he have a different agenda?

So we have Charle Le Grand who is directly involved with the case of Stride by getting Packer to concoct a story.
And we have Grant (the same man) aggressively entering the home of a witness to the murder of Miriam Angel a year earlier, looking for Schmuss who some believe was the real murderer of Miriam Angel.


Did the killer/JTR start his killing spree because Miriam Angel was murdered and the wrong man went to the gallows?

Miriam was 6 months pregnant and her husband lost everything.

One thing is certian, BS MAN was NOT Le Grand...

Le Grand was taller, around the same height as Pipeman...

Let's not forget that Le Grand was later convicted and sent to prison shortly after the murders stopped and he was proven to have sent various letters to women with threats of murdering them in various ways if they did not give him money.

I believe I have now made a connection between the murder of Stride and the murder of Miriam Angel and that connection comes in the form of Charles Grant aka Charles Le Grand.


Now I'm anticipating that there will be some who will say that Grant and Le Grand aren't the same man, but I would disagree with that entirely.


Lots to ponder



Thoughts please?


RD

[Fleetwood Mac]

The problem with BullShit Man, is that the medical evidence does not support the type of attack described by Schwartz.

Poor Liz had no defence wounds which suggests she didn't know what hit her and didn't have time to put her hands up.

And then of course we have a few people on the street around that time, and Fanny awake two doors down, and yet nobody saw or heard Schwartz's commotion.

On balance, I'm going to say that the said event did not happen.

Which begs the question: why was this statement given? was it to take attention away from Leon Goldstein?

It's all falling into place. Leon with his cachous intended to distract. Serial killers tend to have a little ruse, something to distract and manipulate, designed to catch the victim off guard. Bag open, hands Liz the cachous, Liz looks down at her hands but doesn't have time to get one out, Leon's bag is already open in the interests of speed.

Was Leon Anderson's 'low class Polish Jew"? Were 'the protectors' the club members? Was PC Smith the City PC? By the way, I don't like Anderson one bit with his prejudice.

The book on this will be in the shops next week: "Introducing The Whitechapel Murderer: Cachous Man" by Fleetwood Mac.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve asked this question on previous threads but I’ll ask it again….why do we place so much weight on Fanny Mortimer’s version of events?

She claimed to have been on her doorstep ‘nearly the whole time’ between 12.30 and 1.00 but then flatly contradicts herself by saying that she went onto her doorstep around 12.45 (or after a Constable passed her front door) So clearly if she went onto her doorstep around 12.45 then she was inside for a period before that. It seems unlikely that this period would have been a very short one as it would have meant her first coming onto her door at 12.30 and going back inside without seeing Smith pass (12.30-12.35) So did she she come onto her step just after 12.35, stay there for 5 minutes or so then go back inside only to return to her doorstep 10 minutes later where she remained for 10 minutes before going back inside again?

Yet her ‘evidence’ is used, as if her timings are absolute gospel, to dismiss Schwartz. How?

Its like Spooner. His totally way-off estimate of being at the yard at 12.35 is used. He was quite obviously mistaken. And yet his estimate of being at the yard a mere 5 minutes before Lamb got there is ignored. Why?

Then we have the different versions of what Lave said.

The versions that have come down to us aren’t consistent or particularly reliable and yet they are clung onto like a leaking raft.

[Elamarna]

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.

Why do people still attempt to base arguments on the times quoted to the minute, as if they are set in stone?

I am sorry Jon, but the use of such times is bound to lead to flawed arguments in my view.
But let's move on using your times.

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.

Given your start time, that's reasonable, suggests walking just under 3 mph.

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.

And here is where the use of absolute times leads us astray.
Unless both Schwartz and Diemschutz give exact times( not estimations, and no rounding up or down) and use the same source for the time, we cannot compare the times as you suggest my friend.
But even then, using your figures we have 12.45 and 1.00
Even if we assume the cart goes faster than the man, that's still say a 14 minute gap, not 10.

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?

Putting aside the timing issues for the moment, why could she not have been there for 10 or 15 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.

Sorry that's simply your interpretation of one of the two reports.
George has suggested that she was in the gateway, when the attack started, and so if it really is pushed back, her final position is in keeping with that.
Claiming it's established she was pulled onto the pavement, when it is not, leads us nowhere.

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.

Yes, but that's is pure speculation Jon about a man being in the shadows.

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?

First point, the absolute times you use, which are assumptions, lead you to make further flawed assumptions.

Second point, yes of course there is ample time for a 2nd attacker, I have NEVER suggested otherwise, but is it probable that a women is attacked twice, at approximately the same location within minutes?
I suggest that is highly improbable, but not impossible.

Parcel man was a genuine police suspect?
Really?
He was certainly a person of interest, a possible witness, someone who needed to be explained, but a genuine suspect?

Given the lack of records who knows just who was eventually traced, and spoken to in the following days.
It seems to me Jon, that we take the inquest testimony and press reports in each of the cases and assume there was no more.
That if someone did not appear at the inquest they were NEVER traced and questioned.

In short, I fully agree there was plenty of time for a second attacker, but consider it highly improbable.
Just like those who argue for a domestic involving Kidney, this appears to be to me, anything but accept or even consider that BS man was the killer of Stride.
I won't even say he might have been JTR.
Why do people find that so hard to consider as possible Jon?


Steve

[FISHY1118]

The problem with BullShit Man, is that the medical evidence does not support the type of attack described by Schwartz.

Poor Liz had no defence wounds which suggests she didn't know what hit her and didn't have time to put her hands up.

And then of course we have a few people on the street around that time, and Fanny awake two doors down, and yet nobody saw or heard Schwartz's commotion.

On balance, I'm going to say that the said event did not happen.

Which begs the question: why was this statement given? was it to take attention away from Leon Goldstein?

It's all falling into place. Leon with his cachous intended to distract. Serial killers tend to have a little ruse, something to distract and manipulate, designed to catch the victim off guard. Bag open, hands Liz the cachous, Liz looks down at her hands but doesn't have time to get one out, Leon's bag is already open in the interests of speed.

Was Leon Anderson's 'low class Polish Jew"? Were 'the protectors' the club members? Was PC Smith the City PC? By the way, I don't like Anderson one bit with his prejudice.

The book on this will be in the shops next week: "Introducing The Whitechapel Murderer: Cachous Man" by Fleetwood Mac.

So am i getting this right Mac , for Leon Goldstein to be Strides killer then Schwartz didnt see B.S attack Stride, thus he made the whole thing up ?