The Stride Murder

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is some controversy over Schwartz's statement, and you are aware Schwartz did not appear at the inquest. The mystery is, why?
One reason that I favor is, that his statement was not forwarded to the coroner because the police were still investigating it.

Swanson writes:
"On the evening of the 30th the man Schwartz gave the description of the man he had seen ten minutes later than the PC, and it was circulated by wire, & by authority of Commissioner it was also given to the press."
This line confirms the newspaper account that he went to Leman-street on Sunday afternoon.

Swanson continues...
"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows...etc...etc.

I think the context of that line has been misunderstood, Swanson is saying the investigation is still ongoing, because the police report of their investigation into his story has not been completed yet. It would have helped if he had included a second "if", but it is common enough in conversation to use only one "if" and omit the second.

What he meant was:
"If Schwartz is to be believed, and if the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows...", which means they are investigating his story and, at the time of writing this, we are still waiting for the police report to see if it confirms his story.

This, I believe, is the reason Schwartz was not called to the inquest, his statement taken by Abberline, was still under investigation when the inquest was underway.

Abberline wrote:
"I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely, at the time he made the statement, as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say"

A plausible suggestion Wick.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This suggestion was first made 20 years or more ago (I can’t recall who by though) and I still find it a ‘possible’……what if BS man knew Stride and Schwartz simply heard one word slightly louder than the rest (and perhaps said while he was looking in Schwartz’ direction) and that word was Lizzie. Schwartz was a non-English speaker remember.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

I was fairly confident, but I've just scanned your thread "A closer look at Leon Goldstein" and found that in that thread I suggested he was Treasurer, and later that he was Vice Chairman, so I now wondering if my memory is playing tricks on me, and concede that I am indeed not sure.

I also noticed that in your above named thread we discussed the Goldstein/Parcelman possibility quite comprehensively.

Cheers, George

I think the important thing with Goldstein is that he appears to have been a speaker of English. Yet he still required Wess to go with him to the station. Why? Could Wess see that Goldstein wasn't going to go of his own accord?

The purpose of the parcel is a real tricky one.

Smith: I noticed he had a newspaper parcel in his hand. It was about 18in. in length and 6in. or 8in. in width. He was about 5ft. 7in. as near as I could say. He had on a hard felt deerstalker hat of dark colour and dark clothes.

I presume the 18" length to be in the vertical dimension, and the 6-8" width to be in the horizontal dimension. So roughly like this bag, but without the strap and held on one of the short edges.

[Elamarna]

This was discussed on the John Richardson thread, ad nauseam, Steve.

Dr Phillips left us three very important pieces of information which when put together suggest an entirely different scenario to the one you have in mind.

Anyway, we went round the houses with this for what must have been 50 pages.

I suggest that anyone wanting to continue that discussion should post on the John Richardson thread.

Cheers.

Yes it as been discussed ad nauseam FM.

That people still believe the fantasy that 19th century Doctors could establish TOD to within 60 minutes periods is both amusing to those who have some degree of scientific/medical background or knowledge, and annoyingly misleading.

But as you say let's not open the debate again here.


Steve

[Wickerman]

You are quite wrong in your assumptions

There is nothing to suggest that the police cannot use the information provided to them whether it be from an informant or a witness if either chooses to not make or sign a statement.

There is nothing wrong in a witness being interviewed and the police taking down what he said in the form of a witness statement or in note form, but the witness doesn't have to sign it. so if that happened there would be an unsigned statement in existence. or the notes of the interview in existence.

Either could explain why he was not called at the inquest

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The point of my post to you was to counter the fact that there are several official accounts confirming that Schwartz gave a statement to police.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The point of my post to you was to counter the fact that there are several official accounts confirming that Schwartz gave a statement to police.

I know how you feel Wick.

[Wickerman]

I've seen this theory of yours before, Wick, and it seems to have some merit. But what were the rules? If a witness's statement was still under investigation, would the police still be obliged to forward the statement to the coroner, regardless?

That is a judgement call. Not all witness statements need to be investigated. Some are more critical to confirm than others. The police expect that all statements, even though they are not sworn to, are given in good faith.

However, some statements are far more critical than others. Take for instance the statement by Lawende. His statement was confirmed by his two friends, so investigation was not the most crucial aspect. Statements like what Lawende gave, and Schwartz, if taken correctly, and if confirmed in all it's detail 'could' potentially be used in a criminal trial. This is what the police will have foremost in their mind.
Lawende was sequestered in a hotel for his protection, but the press knew nothing about it. It is just by pure chance we find a passing reference to his sequestration.

I had wondered if this was the case with Schwartz, he was sequestrated, but he would still have been brought to the inquest, if under police protection.
The alternate is that the police could not confirm his story in time for his appearance at the inquest. Which I now think is the most likely reason for his none-appearance.
We know he gave a statement, we know the officials like Warren & Anderson fully expected Schwartz to be called to the inquest - so it seems that all the i's have been dotted, and the t's have been crossed. The official paperwork was in place so why did he not appear?

I think Swanson alludes to the reason, being that the statement Schwartz gave was still being investigated at the time this note was written in the file.
Swanson was just copying notes from the file, that specific note is undated. The whole account begins with the date 30th Sept. so that note may have been written on that date, or the next day - we simply do not know.

In this case the police must have held back Schwartz's statement from the coroner pending the police report of the investigation into his story.

As for Schwartz's non-attendance at the inquest, what do you make of the coroner's summing-up statement?...

The CORONER, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time.

Why would the inquest have to be adjourned again, to possibly ascertain something new? Are the police looking for Schwarz, but can't find him?

It fits, the coroner may have been told to expect a later statement, but he decided not to adjourn any further.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Which would explain why Fanny does not see them when going to her door "immediately" on hearing Smith's footsteps.

Aye, I think these are easily our two best witnesses.

PC Smith is paid to take notice of people.

Fanny gives her statement and part of it is verified, which is a good start and cements Fanny as being reliable.

The medical evidence suggests that it was quick and decisive, no defensive wounds on Liz, not enough time for the natural reflex of raising her arms.

The most reasonable explanation is that poor Liz was in that yard not long after PC Smith passed, which is why Fanny didn't see them when she went to her door.

In fact, the most reasonable explanation is that the 'heavy tramp' was Jack, which would explain why Fanny didn't see anyone go into or leave the yard.

Dr Phillips, the most experienced doctor, leaves room for a murder around 12.35/12.40 in his testimony.

If Parcelman is the villain - Goldstein or otherwise - the question is; what's he doing so exposed on the street, with intended victim? Perhaps he had already been in the yard, talking to Stride, but was 'encouraged' to leave by another member - possibly Eagle, on his return. So, when Smith sees him, the parcel has been removed from the bag, which is sitting on the ground in the passageway.

That was a very dark spot, mate. Louis Diemshutz had passed Liz's body before his pony, with a much better sense of smell and sight, veered to the side. Louis drove past and didn't see her.

Serial killers tend to select a victim, watch for a while from a distance, nothing special but just size things up; and then approach and engage. That would fit in very much with Parcel Man stood talking not long at all before Liz's murder. As said, there's usually a ruse after engaging, something to distract.

I don't think that particular spot was the risk that people often assume, when compared with other options, and the proof is in the pudding: nobody saw anything; nobody heard anything.

Anyway mate, I'm curious as to what was in the newspaper. I'll post something else on that.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The newspaper/parcel:

Here's a link discussing Victorian practice.

The Development of Victorian Postal Stationery 5 newspaper Wrappers (collectgbstamps.co.uk)

It includes:

As a consequence of this regulation it was the practice to wrap newspapers in a band of paper so that not only were both ends of the newspaper exposed but so was the tax stamp.

There are pictures included of what these Victorian newspaper wrappers looked like, including the tax stamp on them.

PC Smith states:

He had a parcel wrapped in a newspaper in his hand.

Not a parcel with a newspaper wrapper (as included in the link above) but wrapped in newspaper.

Given Victorian regulation, that would suggest to me that whatever the parcel was, it is unlikely to have been a few newspapers.

[Wickerman]

Old newspaper, because it was free, was used by small businesses to wrap produce. Butchers, Fish & Chip shops, and market stallers all carried on the practice back when I was a kid.
Two accounts I found report that Packer put the grapes in a paper bag, but market stallers even today make these bags, more like pouches, from folded newspaper.

PC Smith's words are reported slightly different across the media.

He had a parcel done up in newspaper in his hand - Daily News.
He had a newspaper parcel in his hand - Times.
He had a parcel wrapped in a newspaper in his hand - Morning Advertiser.
(He) had a parcel covered in a newspaper in his hand - People.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It fits, the coroner may have been told to expect a later statement, but he decided not to adjourn any further.

So then how do we explain the following?...

The Foreman: Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted?
Dr. Phillips: That is an inference which the jury would be perfectly entitled to draw.

From who or where did the foreman get the notion of Stride being thrown to the ground?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Old newspaper, because it was free, was used by small businesses to wrap produce. Butchers, Fish & Chip shops, and market stallers all carried on the practice back when I was a kid.
Two accounts I found report that Packer put the grapes in a paper bag, but market stallers even today make these bags, more like pouches, from folded newspaper.

PC Smith's words are reported slightly different across the media.

He had a parcel done up in newspaper in his hand - Daily News.
He had a newspaper parcel in his hand - Times.
He had a parcel wrapped in a newspaper in his hand - Morning Advertiser.
(He) had a parcel covered in a newspaper in his hand - People.

It sounds to me that the parcel existed independently of the newspaper wrapping, unlike fish & chips wrapped in newspaper. What's the purpose of the extra layer?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Aye, I think these are easily our two best witnesses.

PC Smith is paid to take notice of people.

Fanny gives her statement and part of it is verified, which is a good start and cements Fanny as being reliable.

The medical evidence suggests that it was quick and decisive, no defensive wounds on Liz, not enough time for the natural reflex of raising her arms.

The most reasonable explanation is that poor Liz was in that yard not long after PC Smith passed, which is why Fanny didn't see them when she went to her door.

In fact, the most reasonable explanation is that the 'heavy tramp' was Jack, which would explain why Fanny didn't see anyone go into or leave the yard.

Dr Phillips, the most experienced doctor, leaves room for a murder around 12.35/12.40 in his testimony.

If Fanny heard the footsteps about when reports suggest, and they were not Smith's, then either they belonged to Eagle or he must have seen more than he testified to seeing.

I think the footsteps were Smith's, because the timing is about right, and people back then would have been very attuned to the sounds of the neighbourhood.

That was a very dark spot, mate. Louis Diemshutz had passed Liz's body before his pony, with a much better sense of smell and sight, veered to the side. Louis drove past and didn't see her.

Serial killers tend to select a victim, watch for a while from a distance, nothing special but just size things up; and then approach and engage. That would fit in very much with Parcel Man stood talking not long at all before Liz's murder. As said, there's usually a ruse after engaging, something to distract.

I don't think that particular spot was the risk that people often assume, when compared with other options, and the proof is in the pudding: nobody saw anything; nobody heard anything.

Anyway mate, I'm curious as to what was in the newspaper. I'll post something else on that.

If Diemschitz had passed the body, as well as being above it and beside it, then his whip handle must have been made using a fishing rod.

The issue with Parcelman approaching is Stride, is that it assumes she was on her own at that point.

[Wickerman]

So then how do we explain the following?...

The Foreman: Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted?
Dr. Phillips: That is an inference which the jury would be perfectly entitled to draw.

From who or where did the foreman get the notion of Stride being thrown to the ground?

If you follow the testimony you will see that it was Dr. Blackwell who suggested she went down as the result of an assault.

One juror asked:
"Can you say whether the throat was cut before or after the deceased fell to the ground?"

Blackwell - "I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground".

So the next question came from the Foreman of the Jury
"Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted?"

There you have it.
Nothing to do with Schwartz.

[Wickerman]

It sounds to me that the parcel existed independently of the newspaper wrapping, unlike fish & chips wrapped in newspaper. What's the purpose of the extra layer?

The newspaper descriptions are not clear, all we can say is something wrapped in newspaper.