The Stride Murder

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Because her claim of being on her doorstep ‘nearly the whole time’ is very clearly thrown into doubt. It’s too vague to be used specifically. And it certainly can’t be used to dismiss Schwartz.

The unquoted report helps to clarify what she was doing after 12:40. That is the important part. Having said that, the unquoted report only takes us to about 12:55, when it claims she locked up, but she is quoted as saying...

I had just gone indoors and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' club close by.

Which sounds close to 1am, not 5 to 1, because ...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out....

It was closing in on 1am when she saw Goldstein. Swanson's report agrees with this.

Might? How can you dismiss Schwartz on the basis of a ‘might?’ She said ‘about 12.45’ but she also said just after a Constable passed. So which do we go for? If she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed then, if Smith was fairly accurate, then the 12.45 flies out of the window.

You're oversimplifying my arguments against Schwartz, but if you prefer Smith's timings, that's fine. Just be aware that he places himself at the top of Berner street at 1am. That is early when compared to other witness accounts, most notably Diemschitz.

No it doesn’t. We even have two possibles.

a) Smith passed at, let’s say 12.33 (between his estimates of 12.30 and 12.35) and then Fanny comes onto her doorstep (let’s say 12.33/12.34) She stays on her doorstep for around 10 minutes, so until around 12.44, then goes back inside with Schwartz passing at around 12.45.

b) she comes onto her doorstep at around 12.45. With the Schwartz incident occurring at around 12.43/12.44 before she came out and after Smith and Eagle.

How can it be impossible, strange or somehow fantastic that an incident that could have taken as little as 30 seconds to a minute wasn’t witnessed. This is called everyday life. Things happen that don’t get witnessed. It was a relatively minor scuffle it wasn’t an Iron Maiden sound check.

a) You have Fanny locking up when the unquoted report has her deciding not to do just that. So, what do you make of her saying she goes outside just after 1am?

b) You have the Schwartz incident occurring when she supposedly hears Smith passing. How does that work?

The sound check takes a lot less time than all the transport and setting up. The equivalent here is getting everyone into position for the event to occur, then clearing the 'stage'. That all takes time - time that I don't think you're allowing for.

Im not fussy. Lave is unimportant. Stride and parcel man were there although they could have move just around the corner out of sight when Lave emerged. The Schwartz incident occurred. Morris Eagle returned to the club. Diemschitz arrived at around 1.00. So either Lave lied or he simply went out for a period of time which allowed for him not seeing any of the above. In one report he’s out there for 5 minutes so I favour that he went out after Eagle returned and went back inside before the incident.

That would be this version.

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.

It seems Pipeman went outside for fresh air, and not to smoke.

[Elamarna]

Steven my friend!

You know, I sign all the ideas you have, it is easy to agree with you, and so I like BS Man being Strideīs killer, he probably was...

We both are "Kozminskiites" and we know that Aaron Kozminskiīs brother Woolf Abrahams once lived next to Dutfieldīs Yard and, when the Stride murder occured, around the corner in Providence Street. The Abrahams moved away after the murder in Berner Street in October 1888.

I donīt know if we agree but I think "Kosminski", if he was Jack the Ripper, was paranoid. Before attacking a prostitute he had checked out all directions. In the case of Stride he didnīt.

It is possible that something happened to him that night, been beaten up or has had a serious argument with a (female) family member so he lost the control for a moment.

If BS Man was the killer, Jack the Ripper, he killed, half an hour later, Eddowes in the usual manner. It is possible that BS Man was "Kosminski", Jack the Ripper, but his behaviour, in the case of Stride, is different to all the other murders.

There were some people who passed through Berner Street, probably more than we think... if passing through the courts leading to Batty Street/ Batty Gardens, people, in Berner Street, appeared like a shade quickly moving.

The man Brown saw may have been "Kosminski"/ Pipeman (coming from the home of his brother in Providence Street, maybe coming from the homes of Matilda or Isaac in Greenfield Street, maybe coming from his "own home"- remember Charlotte Street-)

Jack the Ripper was paranoid, a stalker maybe he asked Stride to go with him to a location more away from the place where they were standing and she refused ("No, not tonight, some other night"). The "attack" on Stride by another man, suddenly, maybe triggered him and he did what he did.

I donīt want so say Pipeman was the killer... I wonīt believe it... I would say 5% he was, 80% BS Man... 15% another man...

10 Minutes, between 12.50 a.m. and 01.00 a.m., is what we should expect from Jack the Ripper, speaking to her, creating a relaxed atmosphere, checking out the place and location etc.

This would be the man we call "Jack the Ripper" and what we see in Berner Street, the BS Man didnīt act like the Ripper unless the Ripper had a bad day, acting like a robber. Half an hour later BS Man killed Eddowes as though nothing had happened before.

Sometimes it is hard to believe. But anything is possible.

Karsten.

This is one of the very few points we disagree on Karsten.
The nature of the killer.
You see him checking out routes, I on the other hand do not think he planned in the slightest.
For me he simply reacts to a given situation.
We assume the Berner Street attack is different, but we do not know that do we Karsten?

But disagreeing is fine , it's the only way of advancing debate and understanding.


Steve

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The opening sentence of the newspaper account tells us in plain English that Sunday afternoon a Hungarian gave a statement at the Leman St. police station.

"Information which may be important was given to the Leman Street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian".
The reporter who was present writes, he "came to the police station accompanied by a friend, who acted as interpreter".
The Star, 1 Oct. 1888.

It is known as a matter of course that journalists loitered at police stations waiting on the latest word so they could follow detectives if there was a sudden break in the case. The above is one example of this.

Schwartz gave a statement to police.

No problem, Jon. I just thought that if an ex-cop was suggesting that a police interview did not necessarily imply the giving of a statement, he probably knows what he is talking about.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The unquoted report helps to clarify what she was doing after 12:40. That is the important part. Having said that, the unquoted report only takes us to about 12:55, when it claims she locked up, but she is quoted as saying...

I had just gone indoors and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' club close by.

Which sounds close to 1am, not 5 to 1, because ...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out....

It was closing in on 1am when she saw Goldstein. Swanson's report agrees with this.

Which sounds? So an interpretation of an unknown.

What ‘unquoted report’? Are you reading between the lines again?

We have no time attached to the sighting of Goldstein. Only more assumptions.


You're oversimplifying my arguments against Schwartz, but if you prefer Smith's timings, that's fine. Just be aware that he places himself at the top of Berner street at 1am. That is early when compared to other witness accounts, most notably Diemschitz.

Smith was estimating.


a) You have Fanny locking up when the unquoted report has her deciding not to do just that. So, what do you make of her saying she goes outside just after 1am?

You’re over-complicating. She went outside after Diemschitz returned….so sometime just after 1.00.

b) You have the Schwartz incident occurring when she supposedly hears Smith passing. How does that work?

Goes on her door then back inside around 12.45. The gap between this and her hearing the commotion was longer than she estimated.

“I had just gone indoors and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' club close..”


The sound check takes a lot less time than all the transport and setting up. The equivalent here is getting everyone into position for the event to occur, then clearing the 'stage'. That all takes time - time that I don't think you're allowing for.

From the time BS man first speaks to Stride to the time that Schwartz fled Id say a minute tops. That no one saw it just isn’t surprising or mysterious.


That would be this version.

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.

So….”about” again. So he’s estimating. He went out after Eagle but before Schwartz. Where is the problem?

It seems Pipeman went outside for fresh air, and not to smoke.

As he didn’t see the Schwartz incident he couldn’t have been Pipeman.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Which sounds? So an interpretation of an unknown.

What ‘unquoted report’? Are you reading between the lines again?

We have no time attached to the sighting of Goldstein. Only more assumptions.

According to Walter Dew, Mortimer's locking up was coincident with Diemschitz entry into Berner street. There was no 4 minute gap between.

The unquoted report is the "measured, heavy tramp" report. In other words, the report in which Fanny is not quoted.

Swanson's report states:

about 1 a.m. 30th Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street Commercial Road, called at Leman St. & stated that he was the man that passed down Berner St. with a black bag at that hour, that the bag contained empty cigarette boxes & that he had left a coffee house in Spectacle Alley a short time before. [Here there is a marginal note. – “Who saw this man go down Berner St. or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions might be asked."]

You’re over-complicating. She went outside after Diemschitz returned….so sometime just after 1.00.

I don't think I am. "I had just gone indoors..." is not compatible with her locking up by 12:45. She locked up just after seeing Goldstein, which was at about 1am.

Goes on her door then back inside around 12.45. The gap between this and her hearing the commotion was longer than she estimated.

Talk about interpretations. This one takes the cake.

From the time BS man first speaks to Stride to the time that Schwartz fled Id say a minute tops. That no one saw it just isn’t surprising or mysterious.

Considering all persons involved, those times mark neither the start nor the end of the event.

So….”about” again. So he’s estimating. He went out after Eagle but before Schwartz. Where is the problem?

The problem is that you keep telling us about margins of error in timing estimates. Lave is within the margin of error for Pipeman. Doesn't prove anything, but well worth considering.

As he didn’t see the Schwartz incident he couldn’t have been Pipeman.

There was no incident, as described by Schwartz. He was just covering for his buddy Leon Goldstein.

[Abby Normal]

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.

i suppose its possible but think about it.
point 1 she seemed to be with one man a long time. she was especially concerned with her appearance that night and had recently split with her guy. she dosnt appear to be out turning tricks as fast as she can is she?
point 2. She was just roughed up by bs man, is she gonna likity split try to find another man to jump right into a dark alley with ??
point 3. the liklihood of a woman being assaulted twice by two unrelated men/ incidents right after each other, is close to nil. we have police officers on here who back that up.

yes swanson could be right he had all the info, but he wasnt a boots on the ground, know the lay of tje land, the people and their habits kind of cop.

[Wickerman]

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.

I know Steve, I know.
We can't possibly know if the times are correct, but the alternative is to come up with our own, which is equally wrong.

My approach in the previous post is to use the stated times and make allowances for inaccuracies of a minute or two either way.
It still is not going to be correct, but what is the alternative?

I much prefer following a sequence of events, so the sequence begins with Schwartz passing the gateway, and ends with Deimschutz discovery of the body. Roughly speaking this occurred within 15 minutes, 12:45 to 01:00 am, give or take a minute or two.
I don't think it's possibly to apply accurate times to any event that happens between 12:45 and 1:00 am, the best we can do is try decide which people came and which leave, in sequence.

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

Do you mean laying there dead for 10 or 15 minutes?

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.

Perhaps you might need to read what Swanson wrote again:

The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway

If he tried to pull the woman into the street, regardless whether the 'street' begins at the property line, or at the kerb, she must be in the yard at the start of that activity.
The next action is that he turns her around - which must suggest she was not facing the street at that moment.
Finally, he threw her down on the footway - so the footway is part of the street which implies (as George made clear) that the 'street' begins at the property line. Therefore, the footway is part of the street.

Which way was she facing at the start?
Well, it hardly makes any sense to suggest she was facing the street, for him to turn her around to look at the back of her head?
Logically, Stride had her back to the street, she was facing the yard, or (preferably) facing someone in the yard.
BS-man pulls her backward, turns her around to face him, and he somehow casts her down on the footway/footpath.

This is how the encounter goes down, in my opinion.

BS-man walks passed, a woman is stood just within the yard but on the edge, not quite on the footpath. He makes some comment to her. She tries to ignore him, she has her back to the street, she's talking with someone.
BS-man grabs her (arm?) and pulls her out, spinning her around to face him, and she loses her balance and ends up on her knees on the footway/footpath.

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

Of course it is Steve, I've said so many times. It is necessary to come up with a reason for Stride being there, when she has never been seen alone that night, she has always been with someone.
Everyone thinks she was alone, contrary to all the police warnings and press coverage of a murderer on the loose and for no women to be out alone.

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?

You have an issue with terminology?
The police published his description on 1 Oct., again on 19 Oct., and again 12 Nov.

The following is a description of a man stated to have been seen in company with the woman murdered in Berner-street, and for whom the police are looking:-Age 28; height 5ft. 8in.; complexion dark; no whiskers; black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; carried a newspaper parcel; was of respectable appearance.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18881001.html

19 Oct. - Apprehension sought:

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/police_gazette/police881019.html

12 Nov. - "Apprehensions sought. Murder. Metropolitan Police District"

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881112.html

He was wanted by police, so he is no figment of my imagination and his importance was of the highest according to Scotland Yard.
So I'm not inventing someone to complicate matters. Scotland Yard know Parcel-man is not BS-man, they are both 'wanted' in connection with the Stride murder.
This suggests to me Parcel-man was a genuine police suspect - or if you prefer - Person of Interest, not someone who I have elevated out of nowhere

In short, I fully agree there was plenty of time for a second attacker, but consider it highly improbable.

Yet Swanson did not, shouldn't that concern you that he might know something that we don't?

[S.Brett]

We assume the Berner Street attack is different, but we do not know that do we Karsten?


Steve

Yes Steven! Thatīs true, we donīt know. Itīs just a theory.

Killing Stride close to the house he, probably, once lived, close to the home of his brother Woolf and possibly also close to the home of Isaac Lubnowski in Batty Gardens (it seems that this branch of family lived there in 1887) behind the Dutfields Yard would be unusual but possible. It also is possible that "his people" were living near some of the other crime scenes ("occupied several shops", "certain premises after night-fall"). I have the idea he would have taken a special care when stalking in Berner Street. I may be wrong... but if he would not have it could have been the beginning of his end.

Karsten.

[Trevor Marriott]

The opening sentence of the newspaper account tells us in plain English that Sunday afternoon a Hungarian gave a statement at the Leman St. police station.

"Information which may be important was given to the Leman Street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian".
The reporter who was present writes, he "came to the police station accompanied by a friend, who acted as interpreter".
The Star, 1 Oct. 1888.

It is known as a matter of course that journalists loitered at police stations waiting on the latest word so they could follow detectives if there was a sudden break in the case. The above is one example of this.

Schwartz gave a statement to police.

So we are accepting a newspaper report as being a reliable source come on get real

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Perhaps you might need to read what Swanson wrote again:

The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway

If he tried to pull the woman into the street, regardless whether the 'street' begins at the property line, or at the kerb, she must be in the yard at the start of that activity.
The next action is that he turns her around - which must suggest she was not facing the street at that moment.
Finally, he threw her down on the footway - so the footway is part of the street which implies (as George made clear) that the 'street' begins at the property line. Therefore, the footway is part of the street.

Which way was she facing at the start?
Well, it hardly makes any sense to suggest she was facing the street, for him to turn her around to look at the back of her head?
Logically, Stride had her back to the street, she was facing the yard, or (preferably) facing someone in the yard.
BS-man pulls her backward, turns her around to face him, and he somehow casts her down on the footway/footpath.

This is how the encounter goes down, in my opinion.

BS-man walks passed, a woman is stood just within the yard but on the edge, not quite on the footpath. He makes some comment to her. She tries to ignore him, she has her back to the street, she's talking with someone.
BS-man grabs her (arm?) and pulls her out, spinning her around to face him, and she loses her balance and ends up on her knees on the footway/footpath.

Of course it is Steve, I've said so many times. It is necessary to come up with a reason for Stride being there, when she has never been seen alone that night, she has always been with someone.
Everyone thinks she was alone, contrary to all the police warnings and press coverage of a murderer on the loose and for no women to be out alone.

You have an issue with terminology?
The police published his description on 1 Oct., again on 19 Oct., and again 12 Nov.

The following is a description of a man stated to have been seen in company with the woman murdered in Berner-street, and for whom the police are looking:-Age 28; height 5ft. 8in.; complexion dark; no whiskers; black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; carried a newspaper parcel; was of respectable appearance.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18881001.html

19 Oct. - Apprehension sought:

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/police_gazette/police881019.html

12 Nov. - "Apprehensions sought. Murder. Metropolitan Police District"

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881112.html

He was wanted by police, so he is no figment of my imagination and his importance was of the highest according to Scotland Yard.
So I'm not inventing someone to complicate matters. Scotland Yard know Parcel-man is not BS-man, they are both 'wanted' in connection with the Stride murder.
This suggests to me Parcel-man was a genuine police suspect - or if you prefer - Person of Interest, not someone who I have elevated out of nowhere

Yet Swanson did not, shouldn't that concern you that he might know something that we don't?

Hi Jon,

I'm am totally in agreement on your take, which I boldened, and your point that Stride had been with someone the whole night, probably Parcelman. As I've said, I don't see an attack having been observed by Schwartz, rather a dispute, and Stride overbalancing.

I am curious as to where Steve and Karsten think Parcelman was during the Schwartz incident. I agree that the odds are against two attacks in such a short time, but there where three men (apart from Schwartz) in the vicinity at the time, and IMO the location of Parcelman is critical. I hadn't previously thought of Goldstein being Parcelman, as suggested by Andrew, but think that suggestion worthy of some consideration.

Cheers, George

[c.d.]

i suppose its possible but think about it.
point 1 she seemed to be with one man a long time. she was especially concerned with her appearance that night and had recently split with her guy. she dosnt appear to be out turning tricks as fast as she can is she?
point 2. She was just roughed up by bs man, is she gonna likity split try to find another man to jump right into a dark alley with ??
point 3. the liklihood of a woman being assaulted twice by two unrelated men/ incidents right after each other, is close to nil. we have police officers on here who back that up.

yes swanson could be right he had all the info, but he wasnt a boots on the ground, know the lay of tje land, the people and their habits kind of cop.

You are viewing the "assault" by the B.S. man in light of what happened to her afterwards. If you have that mindset then it had to be a vicious assault with malicious intentions on the part of the B.S. man. But what did this vicious "assault" actually consist of according to Schwartz? Just Liz being thrown to the ground, nothing more. We don't know what proceeded it. We don't know if Liz had been the instigator. We don't know if it was an accident. Perhaps the B.S. man simply wanted to move her from that spot and simply pulled a little too hard. We don't know his intent. If it was just a common street hassle then yes Liz would have had no problem going with someone else (not B.S. man) into the alley. Street hassles were par for the course. Bad treatment of women didn't stop because the Ripper was about. Swanson knew this. I don't know why you want to portray him as some sort of bumbling Dr. Watson or a mere political appointment. He was Anderson's right hand man and knew what the streets of Whitechapel were like.

I agree that the likelihood of two "assaults" on the same woman in such a short amount of time is unlikely. But consider the circumstances. Liz is not standing in front of a church on Sunday morning surrounded by other people. No, she is a lone woman on the street late at night right when the pubs closed and there are rough, drunken men on the street. Is the possibility of the first "assault" being just a street hassle so hard to fathom? Yes, if you assume the two events had to be related. No, if you see them as separate incidents. Just too many red flags for me to believe the B.S. man was her killer.

Guess we will just have to disagree.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

According to Walter Dew, Mortimer's locking up was coincident with Diemschitz entry into Berner street. There was no 4 minute gap between.

The unquoted report is the "measured, heavy tramp" report. In other words, the report in which Fanny is not quoted.

Swanson's report states:

about 1 a.m. 30th Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street Commercial Road, called at Leman St. & stated that he was the man that passed down Berner St. with a black bag at that hour, that the bag contained empty cigarette boxes & that he had left a coffee house in Spectacle Alley a short time before. [Here there is a marginal note. – “Who saw this man go down Berner St. or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions might be asked."]


So Goldstein’s time is an approximation as I said. An unknown. And it’s difficult to see Dew’s relevance to be honest.

Would you concede that we have absolutely no way of knowing exactly when FM was on her doorstep or inside her house?

Would you further concede that we have absolutely no way of knowing exactly what time Schwartz arrived in Bucks Row?

Id say that both of the above are indisputable facts. Therefore we cannot use those witnesses to try and prove that the incident didn’t occur. Furthermore I’d say that there isn’t one iota of evidence that casts even a smidgeon of doubt as to the Schwartz incident. Added to that we have the experienced Abberline who had no doubt about it. Further added to that we have the sheer unlikeliness of a man lying about being present at the scene of a murder. Why go down the rabbit-hole? We have enough unknowns in the case without creating more.



I don't think I am. "I had just gone indoors..." is not compatible with her locking up by 12:45. She locked up just after seeing Goldstein, which was at about 1am.

No problem. She came onto her doorstep at around 12.45 then. Just after the Schwartz incident.

Talk about interpretations. This one takes the cake.

Have you never estimated a period of time incorrectly? I certainly have.

Considering all persons involved, those times mark neither the start nor the end of the event.

Schwartz, BS man, Pipeman, Stride. No one else.

The problem is that you keep telling us about margins of error in timing estimates. Lave is within the margin of error for Pipeman. Doesn't prove anything, but well worth considering.

Why? If he didn’t see Schwartz he wasn’t there.

There was no incident, as described by Schwartz. He was just covering for his buddy Leon Goldstein.

You can’t prove that they knew each other.

Goldstein was just seen walking down the street. He could prove where he’d been and why he’d been there. As if he’d find someone willing to place themselves at the scene with an invented story. Come on, do we have to keep doing this? Is there anyone in this case that isn’t at some point being accused of murder.

My money is on Mrs Fiddymont as the killer btw. There’s more chance of that being true than any fantasy involving an invented Schwartz incident.

[S.Brett]

I am curious as to where Steve and Karsten think Parcelman was during the Schwartz incident.

Hi George!

Charles Letchford, 30 Berner Street:

"I passed through the street at half-past 12, and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual, and my sister was standing at the door at ten minutes to one, but did not see any one pass by. I heard the commotion when the body was found, and heard the policemen's whistles, but did not take any notice of the matter, as disturbances are very frequent at the club, and I thought it was only another row".

My gut feeling:

Shortly after Letchford closed the door, Parcelman entered the Berner Street, opposite the yard, Stride went across the street and spoke to him. If Parcelman did not walk off both of them went into the Dutfieldīs Yard. It is also possible that he gave her the cachous. At 12.50a.m. when Letchfordīsister was standing at the door, Stride and her killer were inside the yard. I do not want to exclude that parcelman was with her when she was attacked by BS Man.

"I would say 5% he (Pipeman) was, 80% BS Man... 15% another man" (see post 435)

Maybe Parcelman is "another man", maybe he was not in the yard but standing in the entrance of Batty Gardens or at the court leading to Batty Street.

The problem I have (Steven can tell you a thing or two about it) is the man of Jewish appearance seen near Mitre Square the same night. Either Schwartz (who was a Jew) nor PC Smith did describe a man of Jewish appearance. If there was another man other than these three he seemed to appear from nowhere.

Karsten.

[Wickerman]

No problem, Jon. I just thought that if an ex-cop was suggesting that a police interview did not necessarily imply the giving of a statement, he probably knows what he is talking about.

Well, with all due respect to Trevor, he's demonstrated time & time again, his better days are well behind him.

[Elamarna]

Hi Jon,

I'm am totally in agreement on your take, which I boldened, and your point that Stride had been with someone the whole night, probably Parcelman. As I've said, I don't see an attack having been observed by Schwartz, rather a dispute, and Stride overbalancing.

I am curious as to where Steve and Karsten think Parcelman was during the Schwartz incident. I agree that the odds are against two attacks in such a short time, but there where three men (apart from Schwartz) in the vicinity at the time, and IMO the location of Parcelman is critical. I hadn't previously thought of Goldstein being Parcelman, as suggested by Andrew, but think that suggestion worthy of some consideration.

Cheers, George

Hi George.
For a start, I do not believe Liz was neccessarily with one man for the whole evening.
I know that's a popular idea, and is possible, but it's also possible that she was seen with several different men.

Where was Parcel man?

He had departed the scene I suggest.

All of study of Berner Street is full of speculation, much of that appears to be directed at either Scwartz lied, or he told the truth, but BS man did not kill Stride, it must be someone else.
Alternatively she was not a Ripper Victim, but killed by her former partner.

The reasons for this, are i suggest many.
One is that we all appear to interpret the various reports very differently.

Another is how we value and rate the various reports. Some swear by Mortimer, others by Brown or Eagles or even Packer. And of course some accept Schwartz.

Another of the key issues for me is how much faith people appear to put in the various quoted times.
Many don't seem to accept that NONE of these times are exact, they are all estimates, very few, if any, can be shown to be syncronizied to any other time mentioned.
To still see absolute times being used in arguments, such as 12.37, 12.45, 12.52 or 01.01 just shows me that we have not moved on from basing minute exact scernos on these estimations.


Steve