The Stride Murder

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Am I correct when I say that the following cast of characters/scenes...


BS Man
Pipeman
The Stride Assault including the 3 screams
The term "Lipski" being shouted
The following of Schwartz by Pipeman


...only exist through the words of Israel Schwartz?


A man who nobody else saw
A man who nobody else knew
A man whose observed sequence of events was not seen by anyone else
A man who gave a statement that potentially resembles/coincides with the giving of a statement by Leon Goldstein; the man was seen moving at pace down Berner St close to the time of the murder.
A man who can't be conclusively identified
A man who hasn't been found or traced?

Tens of threads, hundreds of pages, and thousands of posts about men who cannot even be guaranteed to have existed. Fascinating, isn't it?

If we were to omit Bs man, Pipeman, the screams and shouting of Lipski...PLUS everything and everyone mentioned by Packer, who was told what to say by Le Grand...where does that leave us?

The sighting made by Mortimer of Goldstein
...and the Policeman in Berner Street who saw her with a man holding the parcel.

James Brown's sighting is also questionable BUT still worth consideration.

That pretty much sums up it up.

The reason why Schwartz was created, was to confuse the police as to the course of events and move focus away from the club.

If the story was concocted, the primary and perhaps only fault lies with Schwartz. He was the one who went to the police. Positively associating Schwartz's actions with the club would require some evidence, or at least a strong argument.

Looking at Lave, Diemschultz, Eagle and Co... has a higher probability of success because we at least know they were there.

All their timings clash and when you map out their combined versions of timings relative to each other, then Lave was there when Stride had her throat cut, yet saw nothing...unless he was lying, was wrong about his timings by a country mile, or he killed her.

We don't know exactly when Lave, Eagle and Diemschitz were there - that is the problem. Eagle's stated timing and movements, for example, are close enough to the time approximated by Schwartz, to wonder if he could have been the man with broad shoulders. I'm not first to suggest so, either.

We have spent so much time and energy on Bs Man and Pipeman...and they almost certainly didn't even exist.

If Eagle came face to face with Liz Stride, at the gates, and told her to push off before going inside, was he BS-man? What is the definition of BS-man? If Lave heard Eagle call 'Lipski' at a nosey stranger passing by, and then watched him walk away without following him, is he Pipeman? What is the definition of Pipeman?

Stride wasn't assaulted prior to her murder...she was preparing to kiss a man she was already with, in the dark of the inside of the gateway. A man who she had been waiting for and who had come out of the club after the main discussion had finished. The man came out of the club door and just as she was handed Cachous to sweeten her breath to kiss him, he drew his knife, grabbed and pulled her neckerchief so tight and with such force, that he had severed her windpipe before her brain had even realized what had happened to her...and then went back inside the club, hid the knife and then waited for her body to be found.

What was the motive for the murder?

He never left the scene prior because nobody saw anyone leave the yard...

What happened when Fanny Mortimer got into conversation with a man on the street, later that day, who seemingly unknown to her was a reporter for the Evening News? What did she really say to him about the man with the black bag?

That's because his entire physical journey was from the club to the yard and back into the club.

The steward's wife said: It was just one o'clock when my husband came home. Some twenty minutes previously a member of the club had entered by the side door, but he states that he did not then notice anybody lying prostrate in the yard.

Sounds to me like she was referring to Eagle. Assuming the above to be true, I would suggest having a look at the men who were in the editor's office at the time of the discovery - Eagle and Yaffa. We know Eagle, but who was Yaffa?

The idea that a man was chased down the road, or that the killer exited the yard, is unlikely; because the couple on the corner saw and heard nothing.

If a man quietly left the yard, and walked north towards Commercial Road, would the "sweethearts" have noticed?

A useful divergent counter-surveillance tactic is to incorporate the use of misdirection and keep people guessing and looking in all the wrong places, whereas in reality, the killer didn't go anywhere and it took under a minute to go out, feign to kiss her, cut her throat and then reenter the club...less than the time it takes to go out and get a bit of fresh air from all that smoke inside the club.


RD

Although staying at #40 at the time, I don't think Lave was a club member. Rather than being the villain, I would suggest it more likely that he was thrown under a hansom cab.

[The Rookie Detective]

Why is it a ""big "IF" that we believe Schwartz?

Can you show any evidence that any other person witnessed what Schwartz claim to have seen that contradicts his version of that event.?

Respectfully, that's exactly the point of why Schwartz is challenged...it's not what other witnesses saw; it's what they DIDN'T see.
His version of events don't add up because of what other witnesses didn't see or hear.

There were allegedly no other witnesses to the assault on Stride; meaning the couple on the corner, the Policeman, Mrs Mortimer, Joseph Lave, Packer, James Brown, Goldstein etc... Failed to see or hear the assault on Stride.

Why is that?

More often than not it's what multiple witnesses don't see or hear that raise questions about a person who makes a claim he witnessed an assault shortly before the same woman was murdered.


BUT....

and here's an interesting nugget to throw into the mix...

When referring to the alleged assault that took place on Stride... the newspapers often quote "THOSE" instead of "The man" or "The person"....

Which would imply that there WERE Multiple witnessed to the assault...but witnesses were too scared to come forward and admit it.

"Those" is plural and hence in context of "Those" who witnessed the assault, strongly suggests that others saw it and were too scared to come forward.

The couple heard and saw nothing
Lave heard and saw nothing
Mortimer heard nothing and only saw Goldstein
Eagle returned and saw or heard nothing

Etc... Etc...

It's more likely that there were those who lied for reasons unknown, maybe to get their name in the press, than to accept everyone was right and truthful.

Lave and Schwartz are in complete contrast and so they can't both be right or truthful.

The rules of math (time) and Science (space) need to be applied, ergo, you can't have an assault place at the same time and space that another witness claims to have seen or heard nothing. It's impossible.

So we have to route out the liar and discover the reasons why they lied.


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

The rules of math (time) and Science (space) need to be applied, ergo, you can't have an assault place at the same time and space that another witness claims to have seen or heard nothing. It's impossible.

So we have to route out the liar and discover the reasons why they lied.


RD

Why do you assume lies RD?

Schwartz said that he saw the incident at 12.45 - but we have no way of confirming this so we have to consider the possibility of an error in timing.

Mortimer is impossible to assess. On one hand she says that she went onto her doorstep just after a Constable passed - that Constable has to have been Smith who estimated that he passed at around 12.30/12.35. And on the other hand she said that she went onto her doorstep at 12.45. She said that she was on her doorstep for around 10 minutes before going back inside. So the incident could easily have occurred either before she went onto her doorstep or just after she went back inside.

Eagle estimated that he returned to the club at around 12.35 so the incident could easily have happened after he’d returned.

Lave gives us:

Daily New, Oct 1st.

Joseph Love, a man just arrived in England from the United States, and who is living temporarily at the club until he can find lodgings, says:-I was in the club yard this (Sunday) morning about twenty minutes to one. I came out first at half-past twelve to get a breath of fresh air. I passed out into the street, but did not see anything unusual. The district appeared to me to be quiet. I remained out until twenty minutes to one, and during that time no one came into the yard. I should have seen anybody moving about there.

So 12.30 to 12.40


Evening News, Oct 1st

Our next informant was Joseph Lave, a man just arrived in England from the United States. Lave is now living at the club, till such time as he can find permanent lodgings. What he tells us is this: "I was in the yard of the club this morning about twenty minutes to one. At half-past twelve I had come out into the street to get a breath of fresh air. There was nothing unusual in the street. So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions."

So he was in the yard at 12.40 - he’d come into the yard at 12.30 and was in the street until around 1.00.

How does this make sense?

Evening Standard, Oct 1st.

Joseph Lave, an American living temporarily at the club, said - "I was in the Club yard this morning about twenty minutes to one. I came out first at half-past twelve to get a breath of fresh air. I passed out into the street, but did not see anything unusual. The district appeared to me to be quiet. I remained out until twenty minutes to one, and during that time no one came into the yard. I should have seen any body moving about there."

So 12.30 to 12.40


Morning Advertiser (London) Oct 1st

A Russian named Joseph Lave - feeling oppressed by the smoke in the large room, went down into the court about twenty minutes before the body was discovered, and walked about in the open air for five minutes or more. He strolled into the street, which was very quiet at the time, and returned to the concert room without having encountered anything unusual

So twenty minutes before the body was discovered (which everyone accepted at 1.00) therefore 12.40 to approx 12.45/12.50.


The Times, Oct 1st

Another member of the club, a Russian named Joseph Lave, went down into the court about 20 minutes before the body was discovered. He strolled into the street and returned to the concert room without having encountered anything unusual.

So 12.40 to who knows?


Woodford Times (Essex) Oct 5th

Another member of the club, a Russian named Joseph Lave, feeling oppressed by the smoke in the large room, went down into the court about 20 minutes before the body was discovered, and walked about in the open air for about five minutes or more. He strolled into the street, which was very quiet at the time, and returned to the concert-room without having encountered anything unusual

So 12.40 to approx 12.45/12.50

All of these, apart from the one which makes no sense, allows for Lave to have missed seeing an incident if it occurred at 12.45. And of course, as Wick has suggested, we can’t take Schwartz 12.45 to the bank because we have no way of knowing how he arrived at his estimation.


So we’re left with a group of witnesses who’s testimony allows for no cast-iron timeline. Plenty of unknowns. But as Jeff, FrankO and George have shown these events could easily have occurred without any suggestion of anything dodgy (as per their suggested timelines). And before anyone says it I’m not suggesting you RD) yes, of course we can’t assume that the times were in error but equally we can’t assume that they weren’t either. When a body is found murdered in the street how often do the police find that there was some kind of plot going on involving things like planted witnesses? In novels….perhaps quite often, but in real life? There’s ‘always’ a prosaic explanation and in a situation where times are so ‘fluid’ I’d say that’s what happened here.

Who killed her and why? That’s another question.

[FISHY1118]

Respectfully, that's exactly the point of why Schwartz is challenged...it's not what other witnesses saw; it's what they DIDN'T see.
His version of events don't add up because of what other witnesses didn't see or hear.

There were allegedly no other witnesses to the assault on Stride; meaning the couple on the corner, the Policeman, Mrs Mortimer, Joseph Lave, Packer, James Brown, Goldstein etc... Failed to see or hear the assault on Stride.

Why is that?

More often than not it's what multiple witnesses don't see or hear that raise questions about a person who makes a claim he witnessed an assault shortly before the same woman was murdered.


BUT....

and here's an interesting nugget to throw into the mix...

When referring to the alleged assault that took place on Stride... the newspapers often quote "THOSE" instead of "The man" or "The person"....

Which would imply that there WERE Multiple witnessed to the assault...but witnesses were too scared to come forward and admit it.

"Those" is plural and hence in context of "Those" who witnessed the assault, strongly suggests that others saw it and were too scared to come forward.

The couple heard and saw nothing
Lave heard and saw nothing
Mortimer heard nothing and only saw Goldstein
Eagle returned and saw or heard nothing

Etc... Etc...

It's more likely that there were those who lied for reasons unknown, maybe to get their name in the press, than to accept everyone was right and truthful.

Lave and Schwartz are in complete contrast and so they can't both be right or truthful.

The rules of math (time) and Science (space) need to be applied, ergo, you can't have an assault place at the same time and space that another witness claims to have seen or heard nothing. It's impossible.

So we have to route out the liar and discover the reasons why they lied.


RD

Just to put Schwartz in perspective, the whole Stride attack could well have lasted all of 30 to 40 seconds .

It wouldn't be unusual for any one else to have witnessed the event if they weren't in that same vicinity at that "precise" time .

Unless we have a different version of that event from another source, then Schwartz statement should remain accepted evidence by his account of the attack on Stride.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Just to put Schwartz in perspective, the whole Stride attack could well have lasted all of 30 to 40 seconds .

It wouldn't be unusual for any one else to have witnessed the event if they weren't in that same vicinity at that "precise" time .

Unless we have a different version of that event from another source, then Schwartz statement should remain accepted evidence by his account of the attack on Stride.

She screamed three times, but unfortunately no one else heard it, and then a man with a lit pipe came running after me.

I don't care if "that event" lasted 30 to 40 seconds, or 3 to 4 seconds - Schwartz's story stinks.

[New Waterloo]

I am going off track again with my thoughts but I have just spotted something that Michael W says about Wess and his inquest testimony. Wess appears to have made an unintentional comment. In fact the more I read it the more important it becomes. He has slipped up. It happens to all of where we say something we don't want to. He appears to be floundering a bit

Q: "Did you look towards the yard gates"?

A "Not so much to the gates as to the ground, but nothing unusual attracted my attention."

WHY SHOULD HE EMPHASISE LOOKING AT THE GROUND. THE GATES WERE OPEN AND OUTSIDE THE GATES WE KNOW THERE WAS SUFFICIENT LIGHT FOR THE VARIOUS WITNESS TO OBSERVE LOTS EVEN FROM A DISTANCE. HE SEEMS TO BE SAYING AT THIS POINT THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON THE GROUND. IF HE IS LOOKING AT THE GROUND AND WALKING TOWARDS THE GATES THEN YES GOOD ANSWER BUT;

Q "Can you say that there was no object on the ground"? -

A "I could not say that."

WESS NOW SEEMS TO EDGE HIS BETS AND CHANGES DIRECTION BY SAYING "I COULD NOT SAY THAT" HE HAS JUST CLEARLY SAID , "NOTHING UNUSUAL ATTRACTED MY ATTENTION" COME ON WESS THE YARD ISNT THAT WIDE, HAVE YOU SEEN SOMETHING AND DONT WANT TO SAY.

Q "Do you think it possible that anything can have been there without your observing it"

HE NOW SWINGS IT TOTALY AND HIS EVIDENCE GOES FORM NOTHING UNUSUAL TO ITS POSSIBLE. FLOUNDERING HE GOES FOR THE ACE CARD. HE IS SHORT SIGHTED.

A "It was dark, and I am a little shortsighted, so that it is possible."

Just reads like somebody who wished he had never mentioned the word ground. He contradicts himself in 3 answers. Why was he looking more at the ground. There are no obstacles walking out of the gates, nobody else has had a problem walking out. He knew the yard well. he has slipped up mentioning that he was looking at the ground.

OR

He has seen something outside the gates in the light but is not saying and stating that he was looking at the ground. You know like "No I didnt see anything I was looking the other way" confused evidence.

NW

[Elamarna]

She screamed three times, but unfortunately no one else heard it, and then a man with a lit pipe came running after me.

I don't care if "that event" lasted 30 to 40 seconds, or 3 to 4 seconds - Schwartz's story stinks.

I suggest you reread Abberline's internal memo 1st November. Ref. MEPO 3/140/221/A49301C, ff. 204–6


"Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away."

Steve

[FISHY1118]

She screamed three times, but unfortunately no one else heard it, and then a man with a lit pipe came running after me.

I don't care if "that event" lasted 30 to 40 seconds, or 3 to 4 seconds - Schwartz's story stinks.

Try quoting what Schwartz actually said as reported by the home office files .



12:45 AM (approximately): Quoting Home Office File:

"Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, turning into Berner Street from Commercial Road, and having gotten as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, ''but not very loudly''. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road, "Lipski", and then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran as far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far.


but unfortunately no one else heard it,....... this is the part that stinks


Schwartz was clearly giving his opinion that according to him her screams werent very loud .

[S.Brett]

Re: Public Houses

Last night I came across this JtRForums thread. May be of interest, Public Houses & Beer Retailers:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/victoriana/10454-public-houses-beer-retailers-in-whitechapel-1888#post140095

Karsten.

[Wickerman]

Why are we so determined to resist the suggestion that Stride was dragged even if just a little bit. If we believe schwartz and yes it is a big IF. Then the altercation takes place right by the gates but NOT in the yard proper. Stride falls/is pushed onto the ground manhandled/dragged into the gateway and throat cut. If a person is five feet tall and falls then the persons head is already 5 feet from their feet. Obvious I know but that then only requires movement/dragging of say 4 feet and the body is in position. Blimey that's not unreasonable at all. What is unreasonable is to think that Stride is on the ground then gets up walks 4 feet and then is pulled to the ground again. Yes big IF but I repeat. If Schwartz is to be believed the he witnessed the start of the assault in my view. BUT we need to know lots more about who schwartz was for this to work

The witnesses were asked if her clothes were disarranged in any way.
I can't imagine dragging a woman without her screaming the place down, not like a simple "cry, but not very loud", and her clothes would be stretched or pulled out of order depending on how she was dragged.
Was she dragged by her hair?, as that wasn't messed up either.
It's all very well to make suggestions, we all do, but where is there any indication she might have been dragged?
You mentioned the mud, anything else?
And, how far do you think she was dragged, in relative silence?

[Elamarna]

Re: Public Houses

Last night I came across this JtRForums thread. May be of interest, Public Houses & Beer Retailers:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/victoriana/10454-public-houses-beer-retailers-in-whitechapel-1888#post140095

Karsten.

Nice find Karsten

[Wickerman]

True, so we know what Schwartz was getting at, which is therefore little different to the press report ...

The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage ...

Losing the distinction between footway and passageway, in translation, would be far easier than confusing screams with calling out. The first is a technical distinction while the latter is the difference between noise and language. Perhaps Schwartz picked up on the technical distinction between talking to Abberline and talking to the Star man. Whatever the case, I'm not sure how you can claim that 'footway' could not have meant 'passageway', having just finished arguing that Schwartz may have got the street wrong.

I don't see the problem, but a footway is made of paving slabs, like 2ft x 3ft rectangular slabs of sandstone slate, whereas the passageway, especially for wagon wheels is made of harder stone to withstand the iron shod cart wheels.
There is a physical difference in the materials used. In this case there may be a technical argument to be made due to the entry that cuts through the footway/footpath to the road was still cobbles, or I think 'sets' is the correct terminology. But this is a technical distinction because outside the gate is still the public footway regardless of the construction.

So, regarding Schwartz being no more than a few scant feet from the victim when these low decibel screams occurred, what do we suppose the (first) man was doing at the time? Cutting Stride's throat? Well, there is a slight problem with that:

age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

Having given this description, only the second man could later be said to have been equipped with a weapon of violence ...

The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more.

Was Schwartz starting to feel pressured, by the time he spoke to the press?

He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

Leon must have just moved in.

Yes, it's just that I think there's more than a slight problem, all of a sudden we have a knife, yet in the police version it's a pipe.
As you know there are several differences between the two statements.
So, Schwartz tells the press the same thing, that the man pulled her and spun her around, throwing her down on the footway. But the journalist knows she was found several feet back in the yard.

How does the journalist reconcile this difference? - he says to Schwartz:
"...are you sure he pulled, did he push her and pull her?, did she stumble back, as he pushed her?"
So Schwartz, not able to speak English just agrees, and the journalist writes she was pushed back, which he needs to do to make Schwartz a witness to the murder.
It's just that I think the Star journalist has added certain details that are missing in Swanson's version that place the incident in Berner st. and specifically in Dutfields Yard.

Someone, many years back suggested the Hungarian for Pipe sounded similar to the English 'knife', or was it Hungarian for 'knife' sounded like the English 'pipe'?
I can't be sure right now. Mind you, I've never seen anyone lighting a knife before.
My point being it looks like Schwartz statement to the press was coloured, or tampered with, to be blunt. Which raises the question - "to what extent?"

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I am going off track again with my thoughts but I have just spotted something that Michael W says about Wess and his inquest testimony. Wess appears to have made an unintentional comment. In fact the more I read it the more important it becomes. He has slipped up. It happens to all of where we say something we don't want to. He appears to be floundering a bit

Q: "Did you look towards the yard gates"?

A "Not so much to the gates as to the ground, but nothing unusual attracted my attention."

WHY SHOULD HE EMPHASISE LOOKING AT THE GROUND. THE GATES WERE OPEN AND OUTSIDE THE GATES WE KNOW THERE WAS SUFFICIENT LIGHT FOR THE VARIOUS WITNESS TO OBSERVE LOTS EVEN FROM A DISTANCE. HE SEEMS TO BE SAYING AT THIS POINT THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON THE GROUND. IF HE IS LOOKING AT THE GROUND AND WALKING TOWARDS THE GATES THEN YES GOOD ANSWER BUT;

I presume Wess to have gone out a back door to get to the printing office. Not the side door that led to the passageway, but a door at the end of the inside passage that ran along the length of the building.

Now how are the rooms in your club used?-The room on the ground floor is used for meals. In the middle of the passage there is a staircase leading to the first floor, and at the back of the meal-room is a kitchen. The passage leads from the front room to the yard.

My understanding is that on leaving the printing office to return to the main building, Wess would have had no line of sight to the gateway, unless he walked in a sort of arc, so as to catch a glimpse of the area around the gateway. It does seem a slightly odd thing for Wess to have done and even more so to have mentioned to the coroner, under the circumstances, but perhaps he was just weary of the possibility of strangers lurking in the darkness there, just as he is about to leave.

Which way did you go out of the club?-I went out of the yard passage. I noticed the gates were open, so I went that way.
...
Have you ever seen a man and woman in the yard?-About twelve months ago I happened to go into the yard, and heard some chatting near the gate, and I at once went there and shut the gate.

Chatting near the gate - now what does that remind me of?

[Wickerman]

That would also be the SAME couple that were alleged to of bought the grapes....

Because after purchasing the grapes, Packer states they went and stood across the road almost opposite him at no.44. and stayed there for over half an hour before crossing the road and walking towards the club where they appeared to stop as if listening to the music.he then lost sight of them.

Almost opposite Packer is EITHER the corner of the street where the "sweetheart" couple were standing according to Mortimer and co.

OR

directly opposite the murder site.

Logic and reason would then determine that it's unlikely the couple who Packer claimed to have sold grapes to, would have stood opposite the yard and so by his account must have been standing on the same corner as the "sweetheart couple"


And so Mortimer, Packer and Brown must have seen the SAME couple...who had nothing to do with the murder...unless they did of course


RD

This "sweetheart" couple were stood at the corner before & after the murder - they never moved.

Packer described Stride buying grapes, then crossing over opposite to the shop, but that is not the corner. They then came back and stood in front of the club.

Packers press statement:
(Stride & Parcel-man) They then crossed the road and stood on the pavement almost directly opposite to the shop for a long time more than half an hour. It will be remembered that the night was very wet, and Packer naturally noticed the peculiarity of the couple's standing so long in the rain. He observed to his wife, "What fools those people are to be standing in the rain like that."
At last the couple moved from their position, and Packer saw them cross the road again and come over to the club, standing for a moment in front of it as though listening to the music inside. Then he lost sight of them. It was then ten or fifteen minutes past twelve o'clock, Packer, who was about to close his shop, noting the time by the fact that the public houses had been closed.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_news/18881004.html

Compared that, to the "sweetheart" couple, on the corner, who never moved.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I suggest you reread Abberline's internal memo 1st November. Ref. MEPO 3/140/221/A49301C, ff. 204–6


"Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away."

Steve

I reread it, and I still find the startled rabbit with pipe hypothesis even more implausible than the notion of the two men being together or known to each other.