The Stride Murder

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Michael,

I think that she had already had her date with Parcelman since 11:00. But she may have said goodnight to him and been standing waiting for the time to start a clean up of the club premises.

Cheers, George

George,
a cleaning job at the club implies she would have been known and therefore recognised by at least a few of the club members who were there that night. Do we not therefore have a conspiracy of silence?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

For a morning pick-up/delivery would be the normal expectation.
Wess doesn't even say if it was a few leaflets or a big package of newspapers.
It may have been reference material for Krantz to quote from for an upcoming article they are about to publish.
The possibilities are numerous.
One of thee least likely possibilities is that someone is expected to come by in 30 minutes, especially as this is after-hours so the office is essentially closed, but the club is still open - just leave it there.

For now, I'll leave it at; Goldstein was a traveller, and he was travelling that night.

Right size?
Says who?

Tom Wescott

The man was not coming from the printing office, the man was just standing out in the street, he could have come from anywhere.
Don't you see a massive degree of wishful thinking here?

He could have come from anywhere, including the printing office.
I'll admit that solving the parcel mystery is difficult and requires a degree of creative thinking to come up with ideas. I think George's suggestion is a good one, even more so when pickup is substituted for delivery.

The man was with Stride, he was carrying a parcel, the time was around 12:30-35.
Packer shut his shop up at 12:30, his last customer was Stride with a man who bought something that Packer put in a package.
The two circumstances match perfectly with respect to the people involved, the timing & the article the man was carrying.
There's no wishful thinking here, we are just using statements that exist today, we don't have to create a conspiracy, just read the material for what it says.
Keep it simple...

12:30 is wishful thinking. That's Le Grande talking through Packer.

Better?, in what way?
You prefer to jump through hoops & over hurdles to invent a scenario?
How could that conceivably be viewed as 'better'?

There's no way that huge parcel wrapped in newspaper is for a hand of grapes. PC Smith said nothing about the man and Stride eating grapes. What were they waiting for?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I get what you're saying, it likely depends on how we choose to view the incident.

Imagine a sheet of paper with fifty dots on it, and we must join the dots.
I'll bet we all join the dots a different way. But how many lines already exist between a number of dots - those existing lines are what I see as evidence.
The only rule to the game is, in order to draw any new lines there must be some indication a line is missing between those particular dots.

So now, in your case "she was dragged", ok - is there any evidence in the mud, or on the cobbles, or on her shoes, that she might have been dragged?
That is an example of a missing line in our game.
Do you get my point?

Then we might ask if her clothes are hunched up or loose in anyway as they might be if the body was dragged?

There is also the question of, was she resisting being dragged, or was her body limp, unconscious?
If resisting, then what indication do we have of her resistance, noises of kicking & screaming?
Or perhaps if unconscious, are there any indications of a bad bruise on her head, or a smell of chloroform around her nose & mouth?

So, if we are going to create an explanation for anything.....the rule we should observe is that there must be some indication of that explanation. Not something we simply pull out of a hat.

So, no evidence for any dragging. Therefore, what does this suggest?...

... he turned her round & threw her down on the footway ...

It suggests that where her she goes down on the footway, is where she stays. The word 'footway' is being used to describe part of the passageway. For people leaving or entering the club by the side door, as Eagle did on his return, the passageway was indeed a footway.

Schwartz was effectively telling Abberline that he saw the whole thing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well......Baxter for one (Stride Inquest): "There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator;"

He suggested a possibility in his opinion George. I don’t think that there’s the remotest possibility of these murders being committed by different men (imo of course)

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Where is there evidence that Goldstein was a member of the club?

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-crime-scenes/590923-wess-and-goldstein-1890

[Herlock Sholmes]

Was there only one L. Goldstein in London?

[New Waterloo]

Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
So let's say a maximum of 10 feet from the footway to the place her body was found... So IF Schwartz is correct, then Stride is laying on the footway (the little path between the street and the gateway?) but is found within 15 minutes or so laying dead up to 10 feet away?

So would it be likely; and gain this depends entirely if Schwartz is telling the truth/accurate with his observations, if after Stride was thrown down onto the footway and was alleged to have shouted "Lipski!" that in the time it took for Schwartz to "Run" off; potentially followed by Pipeman, that BS man simply dragged/pulled her 10 feet from her landing position on the footway and then moved her back into the darkness of inside the gateway and THEN cut her throat?

From BS man shouting "Lipski" and Schwartz exiting the scene, BS man would would needed only a few seconds to drag Stride into the darkness and cut her throat AFTER moving her.

How long would it take to drag/pull a relatively small woman already laying on the floor a matter of 10 feet and then cutting her throat in the manner the killer did?

Hello RD

I personally believe there is some strength to what you are saying. The whole matter is very confusing and this appears to be because everybody, well not everybody but many are trying to fit pieces together when with all the best will in the world we cannot. There are discrepancies, gaps, and viewpoints. BUT we really are quite fortunate with the Stride case because we have so much information. The murderer was so close to being captured. We really have a great chance of getting somewhere if we take a deep breath and go with what people are saying not what we as individuals think.

I cannot see how the encounter incident between Stride and BSM took place in the yard. It would not have been seen by Schwartz. It may have been in the gateway or further out onto the footpath/street but not in the yard so Stride has to move from where she falls to the ground into the yard some 9/10 feet from the gateway I believe. (which is a fair distance).

There is evidence of her being dragged or at least moving her body significantly whilst being on the floor. I am not saying she was dragged into the yard, she may have walked, been pulled, pushed whatever but there are statements made by George Baxter Phillips which are not ambiguous and clearly stated as being important. They are;

" Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side".

" Examining her jacket I found that although there was a slight amount of mud on the right side, the left was well plastered with mud ".

What are these statements saying. Well surely all must agree that on contact with the ground however made, mud has attached itself to Strides clothing. This in itself suggests that the main contact was not on the right side, or her back but on the left side.

However I would suggest that mere contact with the floor would not result in mud being "Well plastered with mud"

To "well plaster" something requires movement between the plastered item and the mud. It is a choice of word which has been emphasized by the "well" which suggests this. Not my words but those chosen by the most professional and learned person to examine the body. Maybe dragged or not dragged but sufficient movement in the mud to "plaster" the left side of her jacket and to "matt her hair" with mud.

The other surgeon Blackwell also makes and interesting observation that her clothes were "Not wet with rain" not sure about the timings of when it was raining but she obviously was not standing in the rain for long before all of this.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So, you think all three of them were almost in touching distance at the gateway?

Okay, let's all read it together ...

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & 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.

Like it or not, that's touching distance. Apparently almost all discussion of Schwartz proceeds based on this assumption ...

Sure, Swanson's report implies the three were at touching distance, but that doesn't make sense, so let's assume the evidence is other than what it is, and proceed from there.

How about...? Let's not do that, and instead accept the evidence as it is, and if that is unfavourable for Schwartz, tough luck.

But then you interpret footway as gateway?
Yet, the gateway is separated from the street by the footway, which is technically part of the street, but for this exchange the witness is making a distinction.
She was not found in the gateway, thats your problem above. She was found in the yard/passage.

The gateway is typically a line between the yard & the footway. So you are dealing with four designations; yard, gateway, footway, street. In some cases we have the yard described as a passage, in reality it is neither one nor the other. It is an entrance to a yard.
But, the body was for sure found in the yard, a good 9-10 ft from the edge of the property. Yet, she was described as thrown down on the footway outside the yard/passage.
I can't see how your interpretation works.

The first line of my post ...

Unless the difference between passageway and footway was lost in translation.

I'm not talking about technical distinctions. Rather, I'm talking about Schwartz and his understanding of the world, and his interpreters understanding of him.

The club windows were partially open, as was the side door. No one heard a thing, and yet she supposedly "screamed three times, but not very loudly". The only way this can be made to work, is by having Schwartz so close that he can hear those stifled squeals, but no one in the kitchen can.

Schwartz was very, very close. When this is accepted, his portrayal of the event almost feels like an out-of-body experience.

[GBinOz]

He suggested a possibility in his opinion George. I don’t think that there’s the remotest possibility of these murders being committed by different men (imo of course)

Hi Herlock,

I tend to agree that it seems unlikely, but are we too close to the story. You might recall me saying that my daughter has spent part of her career as a theatre nurse. She has no interest or ideas about the JtR case. I asked her to have a look at the autopsy reports and she came back and asked if there was any theory that two murderers were involved as, to her, the injuries to Chapman and Eddowes were by a different hand, which surprised me, to say the least.

Cheers, George

[Michael W Richards]

I wonder why the police didn’t say “hold on…..a couple of these foreign chappies appear to be saying that the body was discovered earlier. Something’s afoot “

Is it because they reviewed the evidence as a whole after interviewing each suspect, gauging their reliability that they came to the only conclusion possible…. that Koz and Hosch were just mistaken. And so those with the fullest access to all of the information came to what overall conclusion? That the body was discovered by Diemschitz at 1.00.

As it clearly was.

Simply put, the only people in this mix that had a mandate to know what the time was are the beat PC's. Lamb said he saw men running just before 1am. They could not have left for help before Louis even arrived to discover the body and send men out for help. I thought by now you would have considered that fact.

[S.Brett]

I believe in the Schwartz- story and the chances are pretty good that BS Man was the killer of Stride.

But who was Israel Schwartz?

"This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line"

... and if we have the right Israel Schwartz he was about 25 years of age in 1888

"...that he also 'repaired' watches. I use inverted commas because my father was convinced that Israel knew next to nothing about how watches work" (a descendant of Israel, via reaseacher Chris Phillips).

Smith about Lawende (age41):

"The German was a strange mixture, honest apparently, and intelligent also. He "had heard of some murders," he said, but they didn't seem to concern him".

The photographs of Joseph Lawende suggest that he was a trustworthy person.

People are different and it seems to me, Schwartz and Lawende were two most different personalities. Schwartz certainly also was honest but maybe a bit strange, too, I guess.

"They arrested one man on the description thus obtained" this could be "Pipeman". In mid-October the police were still looking for Parcelman, BS Man & the man described by Lawende. No Pipeman.

If Pipeman was found, this witness must have seen the attack described by Schwartz at least in part. Did his statement agree with what Schwartz had claimed?

Schwartz would have expected that the police would find the man with the pipe. Again, if it happened, did his statement agree with what Pipeman had witnessed? I don´t think so.

There might be many reasons why. I suspect that Pipeman could not describe the woman and the man he had seen. Maybe he was short- sighted and/or drunk, too frightened etc. If Pipeman wasn´t the murderer he, probably, was a bad witness.

Like Leon Goldstein, Israel Schwartz knew that he was seen by a witness (Pipeman) when walking through Berner Street and went to the police.

After the Leather Apron- thing it was a good descision to go to the police in the cases of Goldstein & Schwartz, I guess.

It is possible, without witnesses like Mortimer and Pipeman, that we would never have heard the names of Goldstein & Schwartz until today.

If Schwartz was a little bit strange it would not mean he was a liar. But it would be possible that he, acting from necessity, did describe the Stride/ BS Man- scene with more emphasis than Pipeman did. Anyway, Schwartz and Pipeman could (each other) testify that they left the scene.

What is left: Schwartz certainly did see more than Pipeman did.

Lawende, who was with friends, could testify without any fear, Schwartz´s situation, under more pressure than Lawende, is completely different to the sighting at Mitre Square.

We don´t know whether Lawende´statement would have been the same without his friends.

Lawende:

"The woman had her hand on the man's chest, but not as if to push him away. They did not appear to be quarrelling, but conversing quietly - Lawende did not hear a word they said. He did not look back to see where they went".

Lawende without his friends:

"The woman had her hand on the man's chest, as if to push him away. They did appear to be quarrelling - Lawende did not get a word they said. He did look back to see where they went... probably into the passage".

Of course, it is pure speculation.

I think for Schwartz it was important to make clear:

"It wasn´t me, the other man did it. The man with the pipe can confirm it".

Karsten.

[Michael W Richards]

George,
a cleaning job at the club implies she would have been known and therefore recognised by at least a few of the club members who were there that night. Do we not therefore have a conspiracy of silence?

If she was there to clean the club after the meeting, which I believe is one of 2 more probable answers to why she was there, she may have been hired by one of the Jewish men or women who she had been working for the weeks leading up to that night. I think its possible one reason she might have been killed is because someone didnt know that was arranged, and thought she might be spying on the club. Like other street women were conscripted to do by the police. It also seems the club was thought to have been making and selling cigarettes from that location, so its interesting to note that Leon Goldstein had a black bag full of empty cigarette cartons and there were cigarette makers staying in the cottages opposite the club wall who were awake at that time. Maybe someone knew that the police were watching them because of that issue and also knew that someone was bringing cigarette cartons that night.

Leon Goldstein is a curious witness. Fanny saw him look into the passageway and up at the club and he then hurried past. Did he see something that dissuaded him from dropping off those cartons to the makers in the passageway. People had questioned whether Goldstein was a member or not, I dont know, I have never seen a membership roster for that club in 1888, but I do know Woolf Wess translated for him when he came in Tuesday night. So, perhaps.

[The Rookie Detective]

Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
So let's say a maximum of 10 feet from the footway to the place her body was found... So IF Schwartz is correct, then Stride is laying on the footway (the little path between the street and the gateway?) but is found within 15 minutes or so laying dead up to 10 feet away?

So would it be likely; and gain this depends entirely if Schwartz is telling the truth/accurate with his observations, if after Stride was thrown down onto the footway and was alleged to have shouted "Lipski!" that in the time it took for Schwartz to "Run" off; potentially followed by Pipeman, that BS man simply dragged/pulled her 10 feet from her landing position on the footway and then moved her back into the darkness of inside the gateway and THEN cut her throat?

From BS man shouting "Lipski" and Schwartz exiting the scene, BS man would would needed only a few seconds to drag Stride into the darkness and cut her throat AFTER moving her.

How long would it take to drag/pull a relatively small woman already laying on the floor a matter of 10 feet and then cutting her throat in the manner the killer did?

Hello RD

I personally believe there is some strength to what you are saying. The whole matter is very confusing and this appears to be because everybody, well not everybody but many are trying to fit pieces together when with all the best will in the world we cannot. There are discrepancies, gaps, and viewpoints. BUT we really are quite fortunate with the Stride case because we have so much information. The murderer was so close to being captured. We really have a great chance of getting somewhere if we take a deep breath and go with what people are saying not what we as individuals think.

I cannot see how the encounter incident between Stride and BSM took place in the yard. It would not have been seen by Schwartz. It may have been in the gateway or further out onto the footpath/street but not in the yard so Stride has to move from where she falls to the ground into the yard some 9/10 feet from the gateway I believe. (which is a fair distance).

There is evidence of her being dragged or at least moving her body significantly whilst being on the floor. I am not saying she was dragged into the yard, she may have walked, been pulled, pushed whatever but there are statements made by George Baxter Phillips which are not ambiguous and clearly stated as being important. They are;

" Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side".

" Examining her jacket I found that although there was a slight amount of mud on the right side, the left was well plastered with mud ".

What are these statements saying. Well surely all must agree that on contact with the ground however made, mud has attached itself to Strides clothing. This in itself suggests that the main contact was not on the right side, or her back but on the left side.

However I would suggest that mere contact with the floor would not result in mud being "Well plastered with mud"

To "well plaster" something requires movement between the plastered item and the mud. It is a choice of word which has been emphasized by the "well" which suggests this. Not my words but those chosen by the most professional and learned person to examine the body. Maybe dragged or not dragged but sufficient movement in the mud to "plaster" the left side of her jacket and to "matt her hair" with mud.

The other surgeon Blackwell also makes and interesting observation that her clothes were "Not wet with rain" not sure about the timings of when it was raining but she obviously was not standing in the rain for long before all of this.

Brilliant post!


It's very interesting that you mentioned what the surgeon Blackwell said; that Stride was "Not wet with rain"...

I believe there were several accounts confirming it was raining, or HAD been raining that night.

And so I ask this...

What if Stride was standing INSIDE the club by the exit prior to her being murdered?

We assume based on witness accounts that she was seen talking with at least 2 different men, but what if Stride was murdered as she came out of the club?

LE Grand forced a fake statement out of Packer because he was proven to have done that to other witnesses at other times and so I believe the story that Stride was just standing around talking to a man for over half an hour (Packer himself also said he closed early due to the rain) is a load of nonsense and it's more likely that Stride was NOT standing outside for very long before she was murdered.

What if the man seen with the parcel convinced her to go into the club?

What if Stride (after being assaulted by BS man) got up and went into the club and then her real killer was someone coming out of the club around that time? As they walked out he was behind her and then murdered her before she could reach the footway?

Did Stride arrive in Berner Street much later, perhaps just minutes before the policeman saw her talking with parcelman?


The fact she did have a mudded face...
mud on face and left side of head,
matted hair, on left side
her jacket was plastered with mud on her left side...

and she was found laying on her left side...

Now how did she get that mud on her face if the ground was cobbled?

What is the one thing that could explain how she got mud plastered onto her?

That would be WATER plus EARTH/DIRT

Well, I think the mud IS the evidence that proves that she WAS dragged backward as she was lying on the floor. If the killer dragged her back by the back of her clothing near her neck/neckerchief with great force, then that may explain how she wasn't able to cry out as she was dragged.

An adrenaline-fueled killer having just thrown her to the ground would take a few seconds to drag her back into the darkness of the yard.


How long would it have taken to drag backward 10 feet?

Do we have a physics expert on this forum?


We simply can't ignore the MUD.

If it was raining and she wasn't wet with rain, what does that suggest? That she had sheltered indoors prior to her murder? Underneath an archway to the boarding school? Was there an overhang in the yard?

Were there ANY domestic dwelling at the far end of the yard?

I know there were cigar factories on the left side, but is there anywhere she could have come out from and then walked out of the yard towards the street?

Was she standing under the exit door to the club?


RD

[Michael W Richards]

Rookie, the far end of the yard was unused stables with a small office in it. As far as cigarette factories, there were men that lived in the cottages on the left side of the passageway as you enter the gates and they were awake apparently at the time of the murder. Also, Goldsteins black bag contained empty cigarette cartons.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Simply put, the only people in this mix that had a mandate to know what the time was are the beat PC's. Lamb said he saw men running just before 1am. They could not have left for help before Louis even arrived to discover the body and send men out for help. I thought by now you would have considered that fact.

There’s no point in trying to discus the case with someone who blatantly cherrypicks. Not once have you responded when it’s been shown to you that only once in 6 newspaper reports is Lamb reported as saying ‘just before 1.00.’

One out of six. Please let that sink in for a change.