The Stride Murder

[Wickerman]

Fishy makes a good point. Why the big IF with Schwartz. Well personally I think he is genuine and that is partly because the story he tells is so odd that nobody would make it up. He witnesses unusual behavior by different people. The problem is interpreting what he saw. (who and what the people were doing) He cannot add to this. He just sees what he sees. The big IF is that as an infrequent poster I am aware that there are many on the site who have researched this for years and there may be information about the event that I am unaware of if that makes sense. So my approach is to resist forming a theory and then making it fit but trying to look at the statements/reports openly and see where they take us. Fishy is correct there is no evidence that Schwartz is not genuine (that I am aware of)

Agreed, we have no reason to doubt him.
Yet, people do make honest mistakes.
It's not often a man will come forward to describe a woman being assaulted, only to admit he made no effort to help her. Especially as she ends up dead at that same location. Everyone hearing that story is going to look on him with shame, that if he had not been so self absorbed he may have been able to save her life.
His story just doesn't read like a typical witness account.
So, if his story is true, if he witnessed an assault, then is it possible it was a different gateway, in a different street?
If we accept he doesn't appear to be lying, then there must be a simple mistake somewhere.

[Wickerman]

...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.

Isn't "lying" a conclusion?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "we should look for the reasons their stories are different"?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

Strictly speaking, we don't have a quote of what Schwartz actually said, but I see you're not happy with me making fun of dear Israel, so let's consider that quote/snippet of report.

... [on] 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.

How far down Berner St had Schwartz got when he saw a man stop and speak to a woman?

The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

"On crossing to the opposite side of the street" implies that Schwartz was on what side of the street when the assault occurred - club or school side?

Given the above, what can we say about Schwartz's proximity to Stride when the assault occurred?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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?

I just screamed "bingo, bingo, bingo", but not very loudly

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

How important are these engineering distinctions, on that dark street?

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.

The problem is that we have Schwartz virtually standing next to the BS-man, who has nothing in his hands, and by 1am there is a long trail of blood. Schwartz claims to have walked and then run away. Something is amiss ... the knife!

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?"

To what extent? Wait, didn't they leave out the throwing to the ground, the nearness of Schwartz, the call of 'Lipski', the second man's apparent pursuit of Schwartz, and the running all the way to a railway arch?

Perhaps the press report is more about Schwartz correcting his 'mistakes'.
By avoiding the quarrel, which is only heard and not observed (press version), Schwartz avoided his extreme proximity, in the police account.
By crossing the road (police version) for no reason, and then running to the railway arch, he betrayed his real destination. This was 'fixed' by having the man coming from the Nelson corner in a menacing manner, brandishing a knife. Schwartz now has his excuse to run east along Fairclough St.
Schwartz makes it clear in the press account that the two men are known to each other. This is left an open question in the police version.

[New Waterloo]

Hi Wickerman. Yes fully accept what you are saying about evidence of dragging. I am sorry to keep going on. Will stop this idea after this.

am not saying she was dragged I am saying it has to be considered because of the statement made by Police Surgeon Phillips who says "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" and also he states "Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side". This is evidence of a movement between the area plastered (jacket) and matted (hair).

He makes a comparison with the right hand side of the jacket where there is a slight amount of mud which does indicate contact with the right side of her jacket and the left side which is well plastered indicating a different type of contact. From this we could say that she has had contact with a muddy surface on both sides but different types of contact or perhaps quantity of mud.

When he talks of her face and hair he makes a similar comparison saying there was mud on face and left side of head but emphasizes matted on hair and left side. If he didn't think it was significant he would just say mud on face hair and jacket.

This evidence from Phillips seems to suggest (even if we accept no dragging) of a different type of contact with the floor on the left side. There is no confusion as to the word plastered. It is heavily spread, or thickly spread.

I have no evidence that she was dragged but Phillips does produce evidence that mud was plastered on the left side of her jacket and matted left side of hair. perhaps he struggled whilst laying on left side. still alive long enough to push her hair into the mud and spread it onto her jacket.

Perhaps when she was pulled down in the yard by the murderer she was pulled down landing on her left side.

Also that side of the yard couldn't have been thick with mud on the floor because the blood was apparently flowing quite well down that side. (mystery)

Oh interesting article you found about the young couple being near the club at some point. Wasn't them who had the disagreement witnessed by Schwartz was it. They probably wouldn't say they had a row. No perhaps going to far.

[Wickerman]

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.

This club had been a regular house.

On the ground floor level, there was a front door and a front room (dining-room), at the back of the front room was a kitchen.
There seems to have been a passage from the front door towards the back along the sidewall adjoining the yard.
Which means there must have been two doors in the passage, the first into the front room, the second into the kitchen.
Directly facing the internal kitchen door is the side door to the yard.
Between the two internal doors was a staircase that led upstairs.
Behind the kitchen, totally walled off, was the printing office, divided into two rooms.

The club premises ran back a long way into the yard. The front room on the ground floor of the club was occupied as a dining-room. At the middle of the passage there was a staircase leading to the first floor. At the back of the dining-room was a kitchen. In this room there was a small window over the door which faced the one leading into the yard. The remainder of the passage lead into the yard. Over the door in the passage was a small window, through which daylight came. At the back of the kitchen, but in no way connected with it, was a printing office. This office consisted of two rooms. The one adjoining the kitchen was used as a composing-room and the other one was for the editor.


I'm having trouble seeing how "The remainder of the passage lead into the yard", if the printing office is built across the back wall of the house. There is no back door into the yard.

Anyway, Wess told the inquest:
"Before leaving the club he had occasion to go to the printing office to put some literature there, and he went into the yard by the passage door, thence to the printing office. He then returned to the club by the same way."

Isn't that the side door, from the internal passage to the yard?

[Elamarna]

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.

Why do you presume you are better placed to judge Schwartz than the man who questioned him?

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

We still see it being assumed by some that - discrepancy = lies. And we see it far too often. It’s almost second nature in some quarters. As Wick says, people make mistakes; especially in unusual and stressful circumstances. We also have language interpretations to consider plus the vagaries of various Press reports. This isn’t a spy thriller. It’s a simple case of murder where we don’t know the perpetrator. As I’ve said before, how often do we see a murder in the street and then find out there was some kind of conspiracy going on with a planted witness? What really is the likelihood? About as likely as someone asking Donald Trump onto their quiz team I’d say.

[S.Brett]

Ok, thankyou for those, I notice most extracts are dated in the 2nd & 3rd week of Oct., however the police seem to be aware of this "other source" on the 1st or 2nd day.
Do you have anything that bridges the gap?

Hi Jon!

Here some press reports of 1&2 October 1888 I´ve found so far. I don´t see anything in them that bridges the gap. I will take a look at the other days. "The two men arrested" (mid- October 1888), regarding the Batty Street Lodger- story", explained by Rob House in his book.

Echo, London 1 October 1888

"A man was brought to the Leman-street Station last night, under circumstances which gave the police hopes at first that they had made an important capture. He was arrested, it seems, near Mitre-court, and could not give what the police deemed a satisfactory account of himself. He is a short, thickset man, of about thirty, close shaven. Upon him was found 1s. 4½d. in money and a razor, and round his throat was a woolen scarf of a violet colour. In reply to the Inspector he said that he had walked from Southampton, and belonged to the Royal Sussex Regiment (the very regiment, it will be remembered, whose cognisances was on the envelope found in the pocket of the Buck's-row victim). An examination of his boots was not, so the police at first said, at all confirmatory of this statement, and he was taken to the cells for inquiries to be made about him. No blood was found upon his clothes, so far as could be ascertained then. He protested his innocence, and the police now attach no importance to his arrest. He will, no doubt, be discharged. There was another arrest made during the night in the Commercial-road. Nothing, however, was discovered concerning him, and the man was discharged".

The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, 2 October, 1888

"Up to the present about half-a-dozen people have been arrested and released. As we intimated yesterday, the man who was questioned in a Southwark lodging-house on Sunday was not even taken into custody. Early yesterday morning a constable noticed a stranger in Commercial-road whose appearance and evident desire to avoid notice was suspicious. The constable spoke to him, and receiving what he deemed unsatisfactory answers, took the person to Leman-street Police-station, where he gave his name and address, and furnished ample particulars about himself. These were found to be accurate, and he was accordingly released. Another man was apprehended at Norwood, the incriminating symptoms about him being several scratches on his face, but these he accounted for domestically, and he also was released from suspicion. It is stated that two men were arrested early yesterday near the Commercial-road, but their detention was only temporary, their explanations exonerating them from any suspicion of complicity in the crime. In addition to these a man was, later in the day, brought to the Leman-street Police-station by a constable who found him prowling about not far from Mitre-street. His face was haggard, and he seemed unable to give any account of himself. Upon him were found 1s 4½d in money and a razor, and round his throat was a woollen scarf of a violet colour, upon which were several long hairs, supposed to be those of a woman. At the station he said, in reply to the inspector, that he had walked from Southampton, and belonged to the Royal Sussex Regiment. An examination of his boots was not confirmatory of his statement about his travels, and he was detained that inquiries might be made. No blood was found upon his clothes, nor any weapon likely to have inflicted the wounds. No importance is attached to this arrest, and the man has since been liberated. The only curious thing about this incident is that the mark of the Royal Sussex Regiment, to which he said he belonged, was upon the torn envelope found on the body of the Hanbury-street victim, Annie Chapman".

Irish Times Dublin, Ireland, Tuesday, 2 October 1888

"During last night and to-day no less than five men were arrested in the East End of London in connection with the murders. Three were at different times conveyed to Leman street Police Station, but one was immediately liberated. Another was detained until noon to-day, when he was set at liberty after giving a statement of his movements. He was found to have been in straitened circumstances and o have passed much of his time in common lodginghouses in Whitechapel, but there was nothing to show that he had anything to do with the murders. The third man was detained until the afternoon when he, after due inquiry, was also liberated. Of the two men detained at Commercial street, one was liberated soon after his arrest, but the other, named Frank Raper, was kept in custody. It appears he was arrested late on Saturday night at a publichouse known as "Dirty Dick's" near Liverpool street. He was standing in the bars while under the influence of liquor, and made a number of extravagant statements about the murder of Mrs Chapman and Mrs Nicholls. The bystanders sent out and obtained a constable, and when the policeman entered he was openly boasting of being the murderer, and complimenting himself on the means he had adopted to destroy all trace of his identity. He was removed to the police station, followed by a large and excited crowd. On being charged, Raper said he had no settled address, and inquiries have satisfied the police that he is not the man wanted, so eh was set free later in the day. There was a rumour early this morning that a man had been arrested in Southwark, but no intelligence of the fact was communicated to the City or Whitechapel police".

Maybe Nikaner Benelius had been questioned about the murder of Liz Stride. But I don´t know when.

Karsten.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Why do you presume you are better placed to judge Schwartz than the man who questioned him?

Steve

The appeal to authority isn't a legitimate argument, Steve. You see the same with Inspector Abberline and George Hutchinson. In large part, their statements should be judged on their merit.

To be fair, when historians look at primary source documents they do take into account the authority of the source. That does count for something.

But, it's not the be all and end all. The major concern is the veracity of the source, or in this case statement.

[Elamarna]

The appeal to authority isn't a legitimate argument, Steve. You see the same with Inspector Abberline and George Hutchinson. In large part, their statements should be judged on their merit.

To be fair, when historians look at primary source documents they do take into account the authority of the source. That does count for something.

But, it's not the be all and end all. The major concern is the veracity of the source, or in this case statement.

And in this case I see no reason to doubt the basic points of the statement, that Schwartz witnessed an attack on a woman.
That others see it differently is clear.
But for me just not liking something, is no reason to doubt it's veracity.

But we may disagree. So be it

[Fleetwood Mac]

But for me just not liking something, is no reason to doubt it's veracity.

There's more to it than 'just not liking something', Steve.

[Abby Normal]

Agreed, we have no reason to doubt him.
Yet, people do make honest mistakes.
It's not often a man will come forward to describe a woman being assaulted, only to admit he made no effort to help her. Especially as she ends up dead at that same location. Everyone hearing that story is going to look on him with shame, that if he had not been so self absorbed he may have been able to save her life.
His story just doesn't read like a typical witness account.
So, if his story is true, if he witnessed an assault, then is it possible it was a different gateway, in a different street?
If we accept he doesn't appear to be lying, then there must be a simple mistake somewhere.

no there dosnt need to be a simple mistake, of course unless your just talking about someone being off on their times a few minutes. The idea that schwartz was mistaken and had a completely different street, eventhough he describes the same club/gates, and sees a similar woman about the same being attacked is pretty far fetched stuff wick.

[Wickerman]

no there dosnt need to be a simple mistake, of course unless your just talking about someone being off on their times a few minutes. The idea that schwartz was mistaken and had a completely different street, eventhough he describes the same club/gates, and sees a similar woman about the same being attacked is pretty far fetched stuff wick.

You've heard worse, I know I have.
I don't expect it to be popular, but I've seen those streets at night and street signs were not well lit.
You could easily be in one street and think you're in another.
Schwartz doesn't mention a club, only passing some gates - which gates he doesnt say.
I'm talking about his police statement, not the press one.