The Stride Murder

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ridiculous how daft you 2 are on this point. Issac Kozebrodski says that he was sent, he looked for help, he saw Eagle, and he and Eagle and Lamb returned to the gates. Not once does he say "we" until he meets Eagle, nor does he say that anyone accompanied him. Also Louis doesnt say Issac Kozebrodski accompanied him, he says Issac[s]. You and others assume that he meant Issac K. But as is clear as glass, Issac does not say he went out with anyone. Eagle says he went down the stairs with Issac to see the body, and Jacobs and some other member went out for help. I suggested, based on the references to both Issac[s] and someone named Jacobs, that there may well have been a member named either Issac Jacobs or Jacob Issacs that went out with Louis, but of course you 2 know thats impossible because what Louis meant was...or what Eagle meant was....or that Issac Kozebrodski uses first person singular but he meant that....

That you want to imagine that Issac Kozebrodski is with Eagle and Lamb and ALSO with Louis and THEY come back to the gates with Spooner is beyond my comprehension. I know you both like to offer explanations that include" what he really meant is", or "what the actual time was"...like you know better than the witnesses giving the statements,.. but in actuality you dont. Issac said Louis or some member sent him and then he uses only first person singular until he meets up with Eagle and Lamb, Louis says he went out with Issac[s], not Issac Kozebrodski, Eagle says he saw Jacobs and some member go out for help...(I believe that Wick suggests that Jacobs and Diemshitz are just interchangeable names was pretty comedic actually), and you insist that this is all well and good and fits with an arrival time by Louis of 1am.

That cannot be. The world has physical laws, use them. If after 1am Issac K goes out, Eagle goes out, and Louis with whoever you will next suggest he meant he was with, and none of them found immediate help, they would not be coming back to the gates in less than 5-10 minutes. You suggest this is fine even while you know that a PC said he was there just before or at 1 because Eagles summoned him, and Johnson is there at 1:10 after hearing about this from a call for the PC sent by Lamb to notify the station of what was discovered. Did Louis arrive to make the discovery before or after Eagle arrives at the gates with Issac K and Lamb? Before, right? Then if they are there at around 1, the what approximate time must the discovery have taken place? Just use the little plastic play clock they have at the daycare you spend your days at.

I know you like the fantasy of everything happening when it makes sense to you, or interpreting english incorrectly when it doesnt support your theorizing, or having people suddenly appear or disappear without anyone seeing or hearing a thing...but grownups should know that life doesnt work that way.

You have times given. Stop pretending you know what the real time actually was. You have events stated. Stop questioning what people say, or dismissing what they say, and try and recreate, (not create anew) the situation based on the evidence given as is. You have data, just use it. If it doesnt work then someone or something is wrong or intentionally misleading. Just Stop changing witness statements and times please. You do not know better than any witness what they actually "meant".

Garbage from beginning to end.

[S.Brett]

Hi Karten,

It is difficult to think of any person of interest to which these descriptions apply more than Kosminski. Great research.

Cheers, George

The question, George, is:

Do we talk about Aaron Kozminski?

Swanson "died shortly afterwards" could refer to a "septic wound".

Nonetheless, it is possible that Aaron Kozminski belonged to the criminals.

We know reports on an Aaron Abrahams (1887/1889) and we know the "Kosminski- letter" (if not a fake). To me it seems that it has more to do with girls (under-age) than with adult women. On the other hand, it is possible that the suspect "Kosminski (Pipeman?) was related to Aaron Kozminski´s family.

(Aaron Davis) David Cohen? Another man?

Cox (City Police) "I was on duty in this street for nearly three months" might have been the months October, November, December 1888.

Macnaghten´s "was removed to an asylum about March 1889" may refer to Monro...

("15th March, 1889. Sir, In reply to your letter… of the 12th ultimo on the subject of the Police employed on special patrol duty in Whitechapel, I have to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State, that this duty has now ceased")

... and had nothing to do with the date when the suspect was admitted to Colney Hatch.

Karsten.

[Michael W Richards]

Garbage from beginning to end.

You cant argue facts. I asked you to recreate your nonsense using KNOWN times. Instead you post the above. When you cant change the times or what people actually said or did, you are lost.

I keep thinking that if you just did the math and used the information as is, you would see that Louis could not have arrived to first discover the body at the same time Lamb, Eagle and Issac are returning to the club. Its not possible. Instead of doing that you play dumb...although Im not sure its play with you anymore.

[Wickerman]

... Issac said Louis or some member sent him and then he uses only first person singular until he meets up with Eagle and Lamb, Louis says he went out with Issac[s], not Issac Kozebrodski,..

According to you, but I've shown why Isaacs & Isaac K are the same, but you have not shown why they are different.
It's not as simple as you saying they are different, I posted a quote explaining they are the same, it's in print for everyone to read.
The ball is now in your court to do the same.

Eagle says he saw Jacobs and some member go out for help...(I believe that Wick suggests that Jacobs and Diemshitz are just interchangeable names was pretty comedic actually), and you insist that this is all well and good and fits with an arrival time by Louis of 1am.

I didn't say "interchangeable", those are your words.
I said the name Jacobs is a printing mistake. If you were paying attention you would understand Eagle cannot give two different answers to the same question from the coroner. Every other paper has Eagle talking about Diemshutz, but no, you choose the one single erroneous sentence in the Times.
Attaboy Michael, good to form as usual, can't see the wood for the trees.

[Wickerman]

You cant argue facts. I asked you to recreate your nonsense using KNOWN times. Instead you post the above. When you cant change the times or what people actually said or did, you are lost.

I keep thinking that if you just did the math and used the information as is, you would see that Louis could not have arrived to first discover the body at the same time Lamb, Eagle and Issac are returning to the club. Its not possible. Instead of doing that you play dumb...although Im not sure its play with you anymore.

We've already identified at least three potential 'time' sources:
- a possible clock in Commercial Rd. opposite Grove street.
- the clock in the tobacconist at 64 Commercial Rd.
- doctor Blackwell's watch
and a clock in the club, would be four, which makes it highly unlikely all four had the same time. Therefore it is pointless arguing about accurate times within a minute or two this way or that.

Can't you for once take the path of least resistance, and go with the obvious rational explanation?
All the characters that refer to "1:00" are only estimating, even if they saw an actual clock (Diemshutz or PC Lamb?) we cannot possibly know if the clocks were accurate to the same minute.

[Trevor Marriott]

No it doesn’t.

Of course, it does, but because again you have your head buried in the sand and without question, you readily accept all the evidence in these murders as being the gospel, what is wrong with you,? Do you argue for the sake of arguing or were you born an argumentative person?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You cant argue facts. I asked you to recreate your nonsense using KNOWN times. Instead you post the above. When you cant change the times or what people actually said or did, you are lost.

I keep thinking that if you just did the math and used the information as is, you would see that Louis could not have arrived to first discover the body at the same time Lamb, Eagle and Issac are returning to the club. Its not possible. Instead of doing that you play dumb...although Im not sure its play with you anymore.

[S.Brett]

What individuals have ever been named as suspects, who are known to have lived within a few hundred yards of 40 Berner St?
Does that limit hint that the suspect implicitly referred to lived close to that limit, as opposed to say, 50 or 100 yards away?

No idea, NBFN

"having lived within a radius of a few hundred yards from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy" could mean between Leman Street, Whitechapel Road/Street, New Road/ Cannon Street Road and Cable Street, so the western parts of Mile End Old Town/ St. George- in- the- East and half of Whitechapel. His brother´s house, I guess, was in Whitechapel, on or south of Whitechapel Street/ Road.

Karsten.

[Scott Nelson]

How about 254 Whitechapel Road, Karsten? The woman he lived with was Gertrude Smith? One of the "letters" written to the MET from a brothel keeper who would not give her name or address described a man living there who was seen with blood on him the morning of the murder (Chapman). She described where he might be seen and when detectives came near, he bolted and got away. (HO/144/220/A49301.C)

This suggests that the man loitered somewhere else, much like a street vagabond would do from time to time.

[S.Brett]

How about 254 Whitechapel Road, Karsten? The woman he lived with was Gertrude Smith? One of the "letters" written to the MET from a brothel keeper who would not give her name or address described a man living there who was seen with blood on him the morning of the murder (Chapman). She described where he might be seen and when detectives came near, he bolted and got away. (HO/144/220/A49301.C)

This suggests that the man loitered somewhere else, much like a street vagabond would do from time to time.

Hi Scott!

Yes, about three weeks ago I wrote to Steven Blomer, via Facebook, the following:

"Sometimes I think Gertrude Smith could be the woman,the brothel keeper who did not give her name (September 1888) and "the woman who had lived some time ago with him" (October 1888)"



Maybe Warren´s "brothel keeper" is the same woman who contacted James Ludovic Lindsay (The Crawford letter/ Anderson). Although Anderson was in France in September 1888, it was certainly possible to receive information from The Earl of Crawford.

Anderson:

"The second of the crimes known as the Whitechapel murders was committed the night before I took office, and the third occurred the night of the day on which I left London. The newspapers soon began to comment on my absence. And letters from Whitehall decided me to spend the last week of my holiday in Paris, that I might be in touch with my office. On the night of my arrival in the French capital two more victims fell to the knife of the murder-fiend ; and next day's post brought me an urgent appeal from Mr. Matthews to return to London ; and of course I complied".

Figuratively speaking:

Anderson: What´s up mate? Nice here in France. Who is the woman?
Lindsay: A brothel keeper. A man living in her house was seen with blood on him on morning of murder. She described his appearance & said where he might be seen.
Anderson: Ok. I will inform Warren & my officers.

I don´t know if it works.

Karsten.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

To this we could add ...

Sarah Diemschitz: I am positive I did not hear any screams or sound of any kind. Even the singing on the floor above would not have prevented me from hearing them, had there been any. In the yard itself all was as silent as the grave.

How could all the above be so, and yet, "the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly"?
How many inches separated Schwartz and Stride, when these screams were heard, that went unheard by people 30 or 40 feet away?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The Star, Oct 2:

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

How likely is it that Schwartz would have been called in to identify the two arrested men?

What would occur if the calling in to the station conflicted with an inquest summons?

How might these hypothetical identifications have resulted in the police having reason to doubt Schwartz's story?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s a problem of wording in my opinion (at least, in part) I can’t imagine anyone who has English as a first language talking in terms of a ‘not very loud scream.’

Definitions:

“a long, loud, piercing cry expressing extreme emotion or pain.”

“a loud sharp penetrating cry or noise.”

“a loud and high cry or sound.”

“a loud high sound you make when you are frightened, excited, or angry.”

So by definition ‘scream’ and ‘loud’ are inseparable and a ‘not very loud scream’ is an oxymoron.

So I think that we might be allowing ourselves to be misled by a poor choice of wording coming from a man that couldn’t speak English and who was communicating via an interpreter. ‘Scream’ makes us assume ‘loud.’ If we replace ‘screamed’ with ‘called’ (simply as an example) it doesn’t appear so contradictory.

[Wickerman]

The Star, Oct 2:

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

How likely is it that Schwartz would have been called in to identify the two arrested men?

What would occur if the calling in to the station conflicted with an inquest summons?

How might these hypothetical identifications have resulted in the police having reason to doubt Schwartz's story?

As an answer to your first question - perhaps the police couldn't find him?
As to the second - there would be no conflict, a summons comes on a piece of paper, he only needs to show this at the station.
And the third, I think there's a valid reason the police version has no identifiable locations, no pub, no school, the yard is not even identified, is because he was not where he thought he was - the police had their doubts.
However, the press located his experience from the street he thought he passed through - Berner St. by adding the necessary details - it improves the story when the reader can visualize familiar structures.

[GBinOz]

It’s a problem of wording in my opinion (at least, in part) I can’t imagine anyone who has English as a first language talking in terms of a ‘not very loud scream.’

Definitions:

“a long, loud, piercing cry expressing extreme emotion or pain.”

“a loud sharp penetrating cry or noise.”

“a loud and high cry or sound.”

“a loud high sound you make when you are frightened, excited, or angry.”

So by definition ‘scream’ and ‘loud’ are inseparable and a ‘not very loud scream’ is an oxymoron.

So I think that we might be allowing ourselves to be misled by a poor choice of wording coming from a man that couldn’t speak English and who was communicating via an interpreter. ‘Scream’ makes us assume ‘loud.’ If we replace ‘screamed’ with ‘called’ (simply as an example) it doesn’t appear so contradictory.

Hi Sherlock,

Agreed. Scream suggests someone who feels threatened. "Protested" might be another alternative suggestion

Cheers, George