Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Stride Murder

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    Who supposed the second man was an accomplice? Swanson's report states "Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other". It's almost as though Schwartz gave further evidence at some point.​
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

    That is an interesting suggestion.
    When doubts were raised about the story, perhaps the police requestioned Schwartz in an attempt to obtain additional information.

    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.

    It would seem that one man was arrested based on his appearance (I guess he must have been wearing a peaked cap), but the other man was arrested "on that furnished from another source". I take that to mean a description that did not come from Schwartz. How is that possible? Schwartz told Abberline that he and the two men were the only men on the street. So, who was the other source? Perhaps it was Fanny Mortimer's description of black bag man.​

    Leave a comment:


  • Sunny Delight
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

    Yes, Fashion Street (or Court?) is more important a location than we realize.

    Both Stride and Eddowes mention it...and they were both murdered on the same night (morning)


    Did Stride have a new lover, and if so, did her new lover (post-Kidney) live in Fashion Street?


    Fashion Street connects both victims, but not just in the typical "lodging house" way.


    There's more to uncover here.


    RD

    I very much doubt whatever is uncovered will help in any way solve the 135 year old mystery

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by New Waterloo View Post
    Why would Stride tell Elizabeth Tanner the deputy at 32 Flower and Dean Street that she has been living with her man at Fashion Street and not Dorset street. Tanner says that she often saw her in the 3 months before her murder. (Inquest evidence)

    This seems to be evidence that Stride was a liar

    OR

    there is a connection to Fashion Street that needs exploring.

    NW
    Yes, Fashion Street (or Court?) is more important a location than we realize.

    Both Stride and Eddowes mention it...and they were both murdered on the same night (morning)


    Did Stride have a new lover, and if so, did her new lover (post-Kidney) live in Fashion Street?


    Fashion Street connects both victims, but not just in the typical "lodging house" way.


    There's more to uncover here.


    RD

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Thank you for highlighting this link.

    I find it rather compelling and intriguing.

    Excellent research!

    RD

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    That is an interesting suggestion.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

    I have to state that the opinion reached in this department upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself.

    (Sir Robert Anderson)
    Who supposed the second man was an accomplice? Swanson's report states "Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other". It's almost as though Schwartz gave further evidence at some point.​

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

    Exactly my point.

    This only works IF BS man shouts LIPSKI at Schwartz and NOT Pipeman.
    But that's not necessarily what Schwartz implies.

    He suggests that BS man may have shouted over to his accomplice standing across the road, but the point is that Schwartz and Pipeman couldn't have been standing on the same side of the road.

    The only way it works is if Schwartz is the ONLY person on the opposite side of the road; because Pipeman was on the SAME SIDE of the road as BS Man.

    RD
    Shouting 'Lipski' right outside the IWMEC, with no response, suggests that BS Man is aptly named.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
    There are some very interesting points raised in this thread.

    Let's start with Israel Schwartz.

    One of the key questions regarding Schwartz; why has it been so hard to trace him?

    The wealth of official data, including census, BMD's, electoral rolls, workhouse records, etc... and yet after all this time no one has been able to find him with any significant degree of certainty.

    And so what does that suggest?

    It suggests that Israel Schwartz wasn't his real name.
    Or alternatively, another name. This might have been quite common at the time. For example, the 'real' name of Philip Krantz (Der Arbeter Fraint Editor) was Jacob Rombro, but I'm not sure it would be correct to say that 'Philip Kantz' wasn't his real name.

    Regarding Schwartz's story, there is a subtle but significant error.

    Schwartz claimed to have crossed the road after witnessing BS man throwing Stride to the floor (footway) and that BS man subsequently shouted "Lipski" over to Pipeman who had just stepped out of a doorway.

    This doorway has been suggested as the doorway on the corner of Berner St and Fairclough St, namely; the doorway to the Nelson Beer House.

    The Nelson Beerhouse would have been closed no later than 12.30am

    The issue with Pipeman having stepped out of the doorway of the Nelson Beer House is that is that he is on the wrong side of the road in relation to Schwartz's statement, which clearly mentions him having crossed the road to avoid BS man, in additon to the shout of "Lipski" being made towards Pipeman.

    And so how can this be explained?
    I think 'doorway' was a mistranslation of the Berner St entry/exit to Hampshire Court, which was "on the opposite side of the street", was not closed unlike the Nelson, and would have been an ideal spot to light up. This interpretation also challenges the meaning of the following.

    ... but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off ...

    ​As he steps from the kerb, there is no public house a few doors off from Schwartz. However, Hampshire Court is a few doors off from Schwartz. Now there is no conflict between the police and press accounts.

    Let's not forget that Schwartz couldn't speak English and needed a translator. How much did this translation impact on the actual facts of what Schwartz had actually witnessed?
    I think it might have been difficult to translate "the man stepped out of the entranceway a few doors off, that leads to a public house".

    Israel Schwartz was described as being theatrical in appearance.

    To me, that suggests Schwartz came across as someone putting on an act.
    Right, and that acting suggests exaggerations and embellishments to what he had seen. Sans that, and we may have no more than a man overhearing a quarrel just behind the line of the gateway, similar to what we see in the press report. However, then we have something with an uncanny similarity to Fanny Mortimer's witnessing of a man "who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the board school."​​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

    I am sceptical about Wess' story about witnessing a chase at a time when, according to his testimony, he was not even around.
    Wess did not suggest or imply he had witnessed a chase. He said it was witnessed by unknown members of the public, but also that he was given the name of the man who did the chasing*. This is the only report that conceivably gives Schwartz's tale any corroboration, if second-hand accounts even count as corroboration. However, as the chase along Fairclough St, apparently to the east (south on Berner and then left into Fairclough) would very likely have been witnessed by Edward Spooner, who makes no mention of seeing it, this evidence has to be rejected by those who believe Schwartz. You couldn't make this up.

    * An internal police report stated that the second man (Pipeman) was not suspected. Seems like he was never identified by the police, yet Wess was apparently told his name and was told it before Schwartz made it to Leman St! It seems like the Schwartz story originated from within the club and underwent a few 'revisions'.

    I do not see any evidence that Pipe Man was involved in the chase.
    I'm not sure I understand this. Who pursued Schwartz, if not Pipeman?

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Didn't you suggest Goldstein went to police twice, once as Schwartz, then as Goldstein, and the police didin't recognize the same man?
    Isn't that making things more complicated?
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Hi Jon,

    I have the same reservation. How could Goldstein have anticipated that there wouldn't be a single police officer in attendance at his two appearances at the station? What if they had both been summonsed to the inquest?

    Cheers, George
    This issue has already been raised and responded to. In #1228, in regard to it being noticed that the same man had gone to the police twice but giving a different name, I said ...

    They probably would have noticed, and so for the theory to work, two men must go to the police.

    The theory is that 'Israel Schwartz' was a pseudonym used by Goldstein. Up until 'Leon Goldstein' goes to the police station, there is no issue. Then a man must accompany Wess to Leman St, state his name as being 'Leon Goldstein', and sign a piece of paper. Easy done. That man could have been anyone, but I'll take a guess that it was a J. Goldstein, who did exist.
    So, Sunday September 30, Leon Goldstein goes to the police in the evening, giving his name as Israel Schwartz.
    On Tuesday, October 2, a report in the Star ​states:

    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.

    Late that Tuesday, Wess accompanies a man giving the name Leon Goldstein, to the Leman St police station. The following day's edition of the Morning Advertiser reports:

    W. Wess, secretary of the International Club, Berner-street, called at our office at midnight, and stated that, it having come to his knowledge that the man who was seen by Mrs. Mortimer, of 36, Berner-street, passing her house with a black, shiny bag, and walking very fast down the street from the Commercial-road at about the time of the murder, was a member of the club, he persuaded him last night, between ten and eleven o'clock, to accompany him to the Leman-street station, where he made a statement as to his whereabouts on Saturday evening, which was entirely satisfactory. The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller.

    The theory makes it obvious enough why 'Leon Goldstein' had to be persuaded to go to the police and help clear himself of suspicion - he wasn't Leon Goldstein.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    So much for that attempt to make me look like a turncoat, R J. But by all means, donīt let that stop you!
    A turncoat in a murder inquiry? I don't think there is such a thing, Christer. As new information comes to light, or when we are confronted with moments of clarity, one's ideas can change, or one's suspicions can decrease or increase. No shame in that.

    I suppose it may have come across as if I was 'poking the bear,' so I apologize for that.

    Leave a comment:


  • jmenges
    replied
    Please see this thread about a leading candidate to be the witness Israel Schwartz.



    JM

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    Or that Schwartz later anglicized his name. Or that the records for Schwartz haven't been properly transcribed online. Or that he died. Or that he moved.

    An Israel Schwartz married an Annie Schenstein in Mile End in 1893 and had the following three children:

    Elizabeth Mary Schwartz, born in Mile End in 1893

    Emma Annie L Schwartz, born in Mile End in 1895

    Charles Albert L Schwartz, born in Mile End in 1898


    If it is the same Israel Schwartz, then he seems to have been using the same surname ten years after the murders, although there seems to be no further trace of the family under that name unless Israel's wife was either of the Annie Schwartzes who died in 1930 and 1933 respectively.


    P.S. I have just remembered that Israel Schwartz was already married in 1888.
    Last edited by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1; 11-19-2023, 11:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
    There are some very interesting points raised in this thread.

    Let's start with Israel Schwartz.

    One of the key questions regarding Schwartz; why has it been so hard to trace him?

    The wealth of official data, including census, BMD's, electoral rolls, workhouse records, etc... and yet after all this time no one has been able to find him with any significant degree of certainty.

    And so what does that suggest?

    It suggests that Israel Schwartz wasn't his real name.
    Or that Schwartz later anglicized his name. Or that the records for Schwartz haven't been properly transcribed online. Or that he died. Or that he moved.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
    I have to state that the opinion reached in this department upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself.

    (Sir Robert Anderson)
    That's a brilliant point to emphasize and I concur with the idea that Schwartz must have been the intended recipient of the slur.

    RD

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X