The Stride Murder

[Mark J D]

It's hard to say if the packet had already been opened and was being gripped closed at the time of the attack, or if it had never been opened.

What kind of 'packet' is being imagined as 'never opened' here?

Wouldn't a few cachous sold loose most likely be handed over in a simple twist of tissue paper?

M.

[Wickerman]

Very annoyingly, there are just as many mentions of a box of cachous as there are in a piece of paper.

Blackwell: - In her hand she held a box of cachous;...

Heshburg: - In her hand there was a little piece of paper containing five or six cachous....

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I accept that, but Abberline isn't asking him "are you sure you were in Berner Street?", thats a given. Schwartz has already told them where he was, yet the police statement oddly contains no references to location, he doesn't even name Dutfields Yard. He just says he passed a gateway, no mention of a pub to police, or the Board School.

I don't understand why it's a given. How do you know Leman St and Abberline didn't make absolutely sure that the location was correct? Because 'Dutfield's Yard' doesn't appear in Swanson's summary? I'll concede that it would be nice to have more details in there.

I think Schwartz 'could' have learned about a woman being murdered last night in some gateway a few streets away and him thinking 'I saw a woman assaulted last night in a gateway, I wonder if that was her', so he goes to police. The whole story evolves from that, because the circumstances were similar to what he witnessed he naturally assumes he saw the murder.

So, if he tells police he saw it, who are they to question where he was.
They will have realized no other witnesses mention him, and neither he them - so what is going on here?
Which is what we're all thinking too.

What do you make of this report, Star, Oct 1:

The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

I'm suggesting the police took a while to investigate his story, and discovered he saw a different assault in a nearby street.

Discovered, when? Is that why we never hear about Schwartz after 1888?

Perhaps erobitha has a point here ...

History has been kind to Israel Schwartz by accepting his version of events, seemingly without much contest, despite being uncorroborrated by any other available witness. Sorry, a peak cap and a moustache being the only link.

I think a lot of that kindness is due to the police, and their general belief in his story. Now you're saying the event he described, occurred in the next street. So, is the kindness still justified?

[Wickerman]

I don't understand why it's a given.

What I mean is, as a witness if you tell the police you saw an assault in a gateway last night, but you feared for your own safety, so you ran off.
The police might ask where were you and what time was this, so you think you are in Berner Street, and it was about 12:45.
The police will just write it down.
It's not open to question at that point.

How do you know Leman St and Abberline didn't make absolutely sure that the location was correct? Because 'Dutfield's Yard' doesn't appear in Swanson's summary? I'll concede that it would be nice to have more details in there.

The police must have checked into his story and asked many of the same questions we are asking.
We do read the Leman Street police had reason to doubt his story. Schwartz makes no mention of any other people in the street, and none of the other witnesses mention him. So naturally, there's an element of doubt.

What do you make of this report, Star, Oct 1:

The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

You think this is a separate account to the story Schwartz told them?

Discovered, when? Is that why we never hear about Schwartz after 1888?

Perhaps erobitha has a point here ...

I think a lot of that kindness is due to the police, and their general belief in his story. Now you're saying the event he described, occurred in the next street. So, is the kindness still justified?

Discovered, quite early on, very soon after the murder. Which is why we hear no more about him in the press.
Abberline does mention Schwartz on 1st Nov. but also says no further information was to be found in the case. Which likely means your quote from the Star was not a separate witness, but a vague summary of Schwartz's tale.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What I mean is, as a witness if you tell the police you saw an assault in a gateway last night, but you feared for your own safety, so you ran off.
The police might ask where were you and what time was this, so you think you are in Berner Street, and it was about 12:45.
The police will just write it down.
It's not open to question at that point.

What about checking on the Berner St address he is claiming to move from? Would that not have confirmed he was talking about Berner and not Batty St? There is still the issue of his interpreter friend knowing where he lived/lives.

The police must have checked into his story and asked many of the same questions we are asking.
We do read the Leman Street police had reason to doubt his story. Schwartz makes no mention of any other people in the street, and none of the other witnesses mention him. So naturally, there's an element of doubt.

Those doubts seem to center around one of the arrested men, who Leman St does not wholly believe. Is that because he said?...

Yeah, I chased a Jewish man after seeing a woman assaulted in a gateway at about 12:45 last night, but it was in Batty St, not Berner St.

Or was it because he said something similar to what Joseph Lave told the press?

You think this is a separate account to the story Schwartz told them?

I'm not sure what to make of it.

Discovered, quite early on, very soon after the murder. Which is why we hear no more about him in the press.
Abberline does mention Schwartz on 1st Nov. but also says no further information was to be found in the case. Which likely means your quote from the Star was not a separate witness, but a vague summary of Schwartz's tale.

Why wouldn't Abberline just be admitting the error at that point, rather than just saying they have no further information, which would be misleading to anyone not knowing the street error?

[Wickerman]

What about checking on the Berner St address he is claiming to move from? Would that not have confirmed he was talking about Berner and not Batty St?

Fair question.
How is that question working for you with the conventional theory?
I don't think anyone has explained why he doesn't go to any address in Berner St. So perhaps that too is another detail in the press version that is erroneous?

I'll offer this though, if Schwartz was walking from the east on Commercial Rd. he had several choices to get to Ellen Street, if that was his intended goal. He could have turned down Grove, Christian, or Batty, why wait until he gets to Berner?

Alternately, if he came from the west on Commercial then Berner is a better choice than Back Church Lane, if he is headed for 22 Ellen. It would also rule out the logic of going down Batty Street.

He also could have crossed Commercial Rd. from some place further north.

Where was he heading?
I don't think anyone can say with any certainty - I don't need to remind anyone this detail was not recorded by police. So I don't have that problem of finding an answer. Only those who think the press version is accurate need to solve that problem.

For me, getting to 22 Ellen st. via Batty then Providence is just as convenient, depending on where he was coming from.

There is still the issue of his interpreter friend knowing where he lived/lives.

He likely did, and I imagine the police knew also.
We also don't know how familiar Schwartz was with the area, how long he had been at his current address.
At night these streets may look the same.

Funny, I was in Whitechapel in 1970 or 72, and intentionally walked around at night to get a feel for the place. So from experience, from someone not familiar with the place, I mean not a resident, I can say those streets all look the same at night.

Those doubts seem to center around one of the arrested men, who Leman St does not wholly believe. Is that because he said?...

Yeah, I chased a Jewish man after seeing a woman assaulted in a gateway at about 12:45 last night, but it was in Batty St, not Berner St.

Or was it because he said something similar to what Joseph Lave told the press?

You may be right, the police do seem to have found cause to check on something. We have no suggestion the police re-interviewed him at any time.

Why wouldn't Abberline just be admitting the error at that point, rather than just saying they have no further information, which would be misleading to anyone not knowing the street error?

Have you read of any officers admitting errors?
The police, like doctors, tend to use a reserved vocabulary. It's likely a British thing I guess.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Fair question.
How is that question working for you with the conventional theory?
I don't think anyone has explained why he doesn't go to any address in Berner St. So perhaps that too is another detail in the press version that is erroneous?

Right, the old and new address thing is only evident in the press report. Perhaps Schwartz realized he needed to explain to the Star man why he was in Berner St at all. Having walked east along Commercial Rd., would he not turn down Backchurch Lane, to get to 22 Ellen St?

I'll offer this though, if Schwartz was walking from the east on Commercial Rd. he had several choices to get to Ellen Street, if that was his intended goal. He could have turned down Grove, Christian, or Batty, why wait until he gets to Berner?

Isn't that a westerly direction? Didn't Schwartz say he turned into Berner St on the club side?

Alternately, if he came from the west on Commercial then Berner is a better choice than Back Church Lane, if he is headed for 22 Ellen. It would also rule out the logic of going down Batty Street.

He also could have crossed Commercial Rd. from some place further north.

Can you please pinpoint on a map where #22 was?

Where was he heading?
I don't think anyone can say with any certainty - I don't need to remind anyone this detail was not recorded by police. So I don't have that problem of finding an answer. Only those who think the press version is accurate need to solve that problem.

For me, getting to 22 Ellen st. via Batty then Providence is just as convenient, depending on where he was coming from.

Why did Schwartz cross the road? No joke.

You may be right, the police do seem to have found cause to check on something. We have no suggestion the police re-interviewed him at any time.

If the police "are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts", what might those additional facts consist of?

Have you read of any officers admitting errors?
The police, like doctors, tend to use a reserved vocabulary. It's likely a British thing I guess.

So, if Schwartz is to be believed because the police believed him, and those police made unadmitted errors, where does that leave us?

[Wickerman]

Right, the old and new address thing is only evident in the press report. Perhaps Schwartz realized he needed to explain to the Star man why he was in Berner St at all. Having walked east along Commercial Rd., would he not turn down Backchurch Lane, to get to 22 Ellen St?

It's probably not the best route as Backchurch Lane is like a dogs-leg, it curves back further away from the way he is going, so Berner St. might make more sense.

Isn't that a westerly direction? Didn't Schwartz say he turned into Berner St on the club side?

Westerly?, yes, I said "from the east", but neither version says which side of Berner St. he walked. Though if he came from the east he would need to cross Berner to the west Side (club side) - assuming he was headed for 22 Ellen St.

Can you please pinpoint on a map where #22 was?

If the police "are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts", what might those additional facts consist of?

To me they are obviously waiting for some confirmation to surface that confirms Schwartz's story.
And to me that says a great deal, because as has been pointed out. He mentions no other witnesses, and none of them mention him.
Something is amiss.

So, if Schwartz is to be believed because the police believed him, and those police made unadmitted errors, where does that leave us?

Swanson, in my view wrote that if the police report confirms his story, then...etc., but until they finish the report they are not about to confirm his story.
Which suggests to me they were still investigating his story. Unfortunately there is no date on that note.

I think the weakest argument is the one that suggests Schwartz was lying.
Such a lie involves three people, I know one is dead, but if the other two cannot be found then he is not going to be believed, because there will obviously be other witness statement that conflict with his. That only stands to reason, so the lying argument fails at the first hurdle.
Alternately, if the other two he speaks about are found, he didn't invent them, so he can't be lying.

There was a young couple standing on the corner of Berner & Fairclough - I think these are the two seen by James Brown, but anyway...

"A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises".

Mortimer saw them, and she said:

"A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound".

Independent witnesses, apparently standing there before & after the time Schwartz says he came down the street. If they did not see him nor any assault on the street, and they do say they did not hear a sound, then the police are going to query Schwartz's story.

I'm no fan of Mortimer, but if she claims to have been awake and pottering about to the front door and back between 12:30 - 1:00 am, and she could hear the heavy tramp of footsteps, she should have heard the assault from barely 30ft away, in my view - if it happened.

[GBinOz]

There was a young couple standing on the corner of Berner & Fairclough - I think these are the two seen by James Brown, but anyway...

"A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises".

Mortimer saw them, and she said:

"A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound".

Hi Jon,

I wonder if the latter of these statement refers to the young couple observed by Mortimer, and Brown, and the former to Spooner and his girlfriend standing outside the Beehive?
Possible?

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

Does this not suggest that Stride had gone with her killer into the yard towards the side of the club and she was attacked and murdered in the darkness of the yard while all the other witnesses were standing in Berner Street? including the couple on the corner, Mrs Mortimer etc...

The killer would have escaped west through the yard, either through the stables or one of the cigar factories or perhaps he was a resident in one of the flats?

Is there a scenario where the killer doesn't exit via Berner Street?

RD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It's probably not the best route as Backchurch Lane is like a dogs-leg, it curves back further away from the way he is going, so Berner St. might make more sense.

This is an interesting question. The Star:

When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

To me, it sounds like Berner St is a detour from the route he would otherwise have taken. So, having left his wife at home the prior morning, and having been out all day and half the night, he just needed to quickly duck down Berner St, to see if his wife had finally finished moving house for the two of them. That quick detour just happened to result in him having a close encounter with a serial killer. What a rotten bit of luck!

Westerly?, yes, I said "from the east", but neither version says which side of Berner St. he walked. Though if he came from the east he would need to cross Berner to the west Side (club side) - assuming he was headed for 22 Ellen St.

The problem with arriving from the east is that Schwartz sees the man with the pipe on crossing to the opposite side. It would it be very odd if the man who calls 'Lipski' "to the man on the opposite side of the road", was actually calling to a man on the same side. Therefore, I think it highly likely that Schwartz walks down the club side of the street.

Thanks for the map!

To me they are obviously waiting for some confirmation to surface that confirms Schwartz's story.
And to me that says a great deal, because as has been pointed out. He mentions no other witnesses, and none of them mention him.
Something is amiss.

It sure is.

Swanson, in my view wrote that if the police report confirms his story, then...etc., but until they finish the report they are not about to confirm his story.
Which suggests to me they were still investigating his story. Unfortunately there is no date on that note.

If the police report was indeed still pending, then presumably Swanson's words cannot be taken as him endorsing Schwartz's story. So, what is the basis for the seemingly overwhelming belief in Schwartz?

I think the weakest argument is the one that suggests Schwartz was lying.
Such a lie involves three people, I know one is dead, but if the other two cannot be found then he is not going to be believed, because there will obviously be other witness statement that conflict with his. That only stands to reason, so the lying argument fails at the first hurdle.
Alternately, if the other two he speaks about are found, he didn't invent them, so he can't be lying.

Isn't it the case that the two men were not found? At best, one of them was, and he possibly led Leman St to doubt the truth of Schwartz's story. I don't see how this makes a false story an impossibility.

There was a young couple standing on the corner of Berner & Fairclough - I think these are the two seen by James Brown, but anyway...

"A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises".

Mortimer saw them, and she said:

"A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound".

Independent witnesses, apparently standing there before & after the time Schwartz says he came down the street. If they did not see him nor any assault on the street, and they do say they did not hear a sound, then the police are going to query Schwartz's story.

I'm no fan of Mortimer, but if she claims to have been awake and pottering about to the front door and back between 12:30 - 1:00 am, and she could hear the heavy tramp of footsteps, she should have heard the assault from barely 30ft away, in my view - if it happened.

In my case, this amounts to preaching to the converted.

[GBinOz]

Does this not suggest that Stride had gone with her killer into the yard towards the side of the club and she was attacked and murdered in the darkness of the yard while all the other witnesses were standing in Berner Street? including the couple on the corner, Mrs Mortimer etc...

The killer would have escaped west through the yard, either through the stables or one of the cigar factories or perhaps he was a resident in one of the flats?

Is there a scenario where the killer doesn't exit via Berner Street?

RD

Hi RD,

I agree that the actual murder took place in the dark where the body was found, but no-one but Schwartz and Pipeman reported seeing the dispute in the gateway.

The killer could have escaped in the ways that you describe, but I would think that he concealed himself in the toilet recess and slipped away when Diemshitz went into the club or mingled with crowd of spectators after and slipped away in the crowd.

Cheers, George

[S.Brett]

Hi Jon!

2 October 1888 (Scotsman?):

"In the course of conversation the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had, no doubt, been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen - or, at least, a man whom some persons regard as the murderer - being chased by another man along Fairclough Street, which runs across Berner Street, close to the club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence Street, Brunswick Street and Christian Street, and on the left by Batty Street and Grove Street, the two latter running up into Commercial Road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body".

"The secratary of the club cannot remember the name of the man who gace chase" could imply that the identity of that man (Pipeman?) was known.

Star, 1 October 1888:

"The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it".

"Some persons" & "Those who saw it" these phrases might confirm that both of the men (Schwartz and Pipeman) were in Berner Street.

Schwartz claimed he was followed by the man with the pipe, "Pipeman" may have claimed he had chased BS Man. In the end it is possible that the police did believe Schwartz more than Pipeman (did doubts remain?).

Of course, no official police report did mention the name of the man with the pipe, only his description is stated, "he is not suspected". But is this true?

Swanson:

"The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew"

Abberline:

"Schwartz has a strong Jewish appearance..."

"He -Pipeman- may have been alarmed the same as himself (Schwartz) and ran away"... by BS Manīs "Lipski"?

Was "Pipeman" of Jewish appearance but not that strong?

Iīm wondering if "Pipeman" could have been a suspect, not metioned with his name in official reports... for tactical reasons.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts about Batty Street.

I think it is quite possible that the police did not know what really happened in Berner Street for a long time afterwards.

Karsten.

[Mark J D]

... The killer would have escaped west through the yard, either through the stables or one of the cigar factories...

What would be the point of fitting the eastern end of the yard with a lockable barrier and incorporated doorway, if anyone at all could go in and out of the yard at the western end?

M.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I wonder if the latter of these statement refers to the young couple observed by Mortimer, and Brown, and the former to Spooner and his girlfriend standing outside the Beehive?
Possible?

Cheers, George

I don't think I follow you George, the reference to a 'bisecting thoroughfare' I take as bisecting Berner St. The Beehive is two streets away, no-one could be expected to hear anything from that distance.