Schwartz v. Lawende

[Lewis C]

Perhaps Yaffa also took offence at the man shouting 'Lipski' at him. We could suppose it was not Krantz's intention to kill her - only to retrieve the stolen items and give her a good scare - unfortunately Yaffa took things too far. Is it still too much of a stretch? How does the motive compare to the man described by Schwartz - why didn't he just shove her to the ground and go and find another prostitute?

Regarding the Echo report, I'm wondering how people suppose Wess came to be told the name of the pursuing man?

I also find it interesting that Krantz makes no mention of Yaffa, at the inquest. This is the relevant section in Der Arbeter Fraint ...

From excitement he [Comrade Louis Dimshits] jumped off the cart, ran through the back door into the club and raised an alarm. Immediately Comrade Gilyarovsky ran into the printing shop and editor’s office that are located in the same building as the club, but separated in the back by the yard.
There was no one in the printing shop. Comrades Krants and Yaffa were busy in the editor’s office.
“Don’t you know that a murdered woman is lying in the yard?” Gilyarovsky breathlessly called out. At first the two comrades did not want to believe him. “What, don’t you believe me?” Gilyarovsky quickly asked: “I saw blood.” Yaffa and Krants immediately ran out and went over to the gate. The gate was open and it was very dark near the gate. A black object was barely discernable near the brick building. Once they got very close, they could notice that it was the shape of a woman that was lying with its face to the wall, with its head toward the yard and with its feet pointing to the gate. Comrades Morris Eygel, Fridenthal and Gilyarovsky were standing around the body. Eygel struck a match and shouted to the figure lying there: “Get up!” “Why are you waking her?” asked Yaffa, who noticed that the woman was lying in a liquid. “Don’t you see that the woman is dead?”

Gilyarovsky's immediate reaction is to run into the printing and editor's offices. Why there and not upstairs, where Eygel and many others are?

Another point is the paper's estimate of the murder time ...

The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one.

What was the source of that knowledge?

I would say that it's enough of a stretch that I would think it not especially likely, but not so much of a stretch that I would reject it entirely as a possibility. As for BS man, I would say that if he existed, and I think he probably did, it's more likely that either he didn't kill Stride, or he killed her for some other reason than the motive that you mentioned.

The estimate given by the paper may have just been a rough estimate. It couldn't have been too far from 12:45.

[c.d.]

I'm not holding him responsible for things that happened after he left, but I am holding him responsible for telling a story that is compatible with the known facts. Perhaps you could tell us what you suppose happened after he left, that is compatible with those facts?

Ah, the polite snarkiness. You gotta love it. Why does that feature in so many of your posts? Are you incapable of discussing the case without it being adversarial and in your face?

But since you asked...my personal view is that Schwartz simply witnessed a street hassle and that Jack came along after he left and that Stride voluntarily went with him back into the yard where he killed her.

Can I account for all facts? No, but I have never seen a scenario that does. By the way, you seem very reluctant to put forth your own version of events but instead seem to prefer tearing down what others post. Is there a reason for that?

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But Schwartz never said he saw Stride being murdered. He only described what he saw take place when he was at the scene. How can he be held responsible for things that took place after he left?

c.d.

I'm not holding him responsible for things that happened after he left, but I am holding him responsible for telling a story that is compatible with the known facts. Perhaps you could tell us what you suppose happened after he left, that is compatible with those facts?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We could also divide the killer's movements moments before he cut Stride's throat into the following...


1) He had just left the club by the side door to leave for home

2) He had just left the side door to get some air before returning inside the club

3) He had just returned back to the club

4) He had just arrived at the club

5) He was walking south past the kill site and noticed her

6) He was walking North past the kill site and noticed her

7) He has been with Stride for a longer period of time outside, having arrived at the club with her

8) He was looking for her specifically

9) He was heading to a residence in the yard and noticed her

10) He was leaving a residence in the yard and noticed her

11) She was outside, waiting for him to leave the club


The question then becomes...where do all of the known witnesses/persons of interest/suspects fit?


RD

I would consider adding possible movements in and out of the Arbeter Fraint offices, but this is a commendable effort at enumerating the possibilities.

[Scott Nelson]

Curiously, the Pall Mall Gazette dated 7 May 1895 reported that Grainger had been unhesitatingly identified by the one person whom the police believe saw the murderer with a woman a few moments before her mutilated body was found.

Has anybody ever found another source for this story (that wasn't copied from the PMG)?

[c.d.]

How do people suppose Stride was thrown down on the footway, yet ended up inside the gates without being dragged and without her making audible screams for help? That alone is enough to suppose that Schwartz might have lied.

But Schwartz never said he saw Stride being murdered. He only described what he saw take place when he was at the scene. How can he be held responsible for things that took place after he left?

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

We could also divide the killer's movements moments before he cut Stride's throat into the following...


1) He had just left the club by the side door to leave for home

2) He had just left the side door to get some air before returning inside the club

3) He had just returned back to the club

4) He had just arrived at the club

5) He was walking south past the kill site and noticed her

6) He was walking North past the kill site and noticed her

7) He has been with Stride for a longer period of time outside, having arrived at the club with her

8) He was looking for her specifically

9) He was heading to a residence in the yard and noticed her

10) He was leaving a residence in the yard and noticed her

11) She was outside, waiting for him to leave the club


The question then becomes...where do all of the known witnesses/persons of interest/suspects fit?


RD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That could be. Another possibility is that the killer came along just after she was thrown down. He may have even seen it, and acted like he wanted to console her, and so she went through the gates with him voluntarily.

The Just-in-Time-Jack consoles damsel in distress theory is a bit too Hollywood for my liking.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The only question that I have about this theory is, why would Krantz and Yaffa kill Stride? Because they're so angry with her for stealing that they lose control of themselves?

Perhaps Yaffa also took offence at the man shouting 'Lipski' at him. We could suppose it was not Krantz's intention to kill her - only to retrieve the stolen items and give her a good scare - unfortunately Yaffa took things too far. Is it still too much of a stretch? How does the motive compare to the man described by Schwartz - why didn't he just shove her to the ground and go and find another prostitute?

Regarding the Echo report, I'm wondering how people suppose Wess came to be told the name of the pursuing man?

I also find it interesting that Krantz makes no mention of Yaffa, at the inquest. This is the relevant section in Der Arbeter Fraint ...

From excitement he [Comrade Louis Dimshits] jumped off the cart, ran through the back door into the club and raised an alarm. Immediately Comrade Gilyarovsky ran into the printing shop and editor’s office that are located in the same building as the club, but separated in the back by the yard.
There was no one in the printing shop. Comrades Krants and Yaffa were busy in the editor’s office.
“Don’t you know that a murdered woman is lying in the yard?” Gilyarovsky breathlessly called out. At first the two comrades did not want to believe him. “What, don’t you believe me?” Gilyarovsky quickly asked: “I saw blood.” Yaffa and Krants immediately ran out and went over to the gate. The gate was open and it was very dark near the gate. A black object was barely discernable near the brick building. Once they got very close, they could notice that it was the shape of a woman that was lying with its face to the wall, with its head toward the yard and with its feet pointing to the gate. Comrades Morris Eygel, Fridenthal and Gilyarovsky were standing around the body. Eygel struck a match and shouted to the figure lying there: “Get up!” “Why are you waking her?” asked Yaffa, who noticed that the woman was lying in a liquid. “Don’t you see that the woman is dead?”

Gilyarovsky's immediate reaction is to run into the printing and editor's offices. Why there and not upstairs, where Eygel and many others are?

Another point is the paper's estimate of the murder time ...

The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one.

What was the source of that knowledge?

[Lewis C]

Thanks for the compliment, but please also try to pick holes in the theory - that should be easy enough....



Some of these relate to why Stride ended up near the club, whereas I'm focused on the murder right at this moment. However, I agree these are important points to consider. How do people suppose Stride was thrown down on the footway, yet ended up inside the gates without being dragged and without her making audible screams for help? That alone is enough to suppose that Schwartz might have lied.

That could be. Another possibility is that the killer came along just after she was thrown down. He may have even seen it, and acted like he wanted to console her, and so she went through the gates with him voluntarily.

[Lewis C]

Thanks for the info.

Here's a theory for you to ponder. The short version is; The Juwess is the man who will not be blamed for nothing.

The long version...

After Smith passes, Stride and Parcelman go down the passageway and into the backyard. Their probable purpose is theft of costermonger goods, and whatever they can get their hands on. He has a bag to put things in - she will hold whatever she can in her hands. Krantz and Yaffa hear the theft occurring, and confront the man and woman, who attempt to retreat from the yard. The man manages to escape - the woman does not. Remember Stride's bad leg. Stride's is captured and killed by Yaffa, with the aid of Krantz. The man is pursued by another club attendee, who is on the street at the time. Probably it's Joseph Lave. Lave returns to learn of the murder and forms the impression that the man he pursued was the killer.

Wess's comments to an Echo journalist resulted in this report:

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) 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 the public prefer to 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-st., 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.

So, this is not a 'garbled' version of the Schwartz incident. On the contrary the Echo report is quite close to the truth, and the account given by Schwartz is the heavily distorted version.

You might want to think about how many questions this theory has an answer for. For example, consider the various pressure marks on the victim's body, the very tight scarf, and the lack of audible screams. How many hands were involved in the murder?

The other obvious issue to consider is the switch from the man pursued being the supposed murderer, to him being an innocent passer-by. Why the switch?

The only question that I have about this theory is, why would Krantz and Yaffa kill Stride? Because they're so angry with her for stealing that they lose control of themselves?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I like the way your mind thinks, in that you are trying to look at things from as many different angles as possible and working through countless scenarios to try and make sense of what transpired.

Thanks for the compliment, but please also try to pick holes in the theory - that should be easy enough....

I think there are other elements that need to be included into the mix;


Stride could allegedly speak Yiddish, despite not being Jewish

Stride suffered from fits, just like her brother

Stride was multilingual and able to translate

Stride worked within the Jewish community (not including her life as an unfortunate)

Stride had only walked out of a tempestuous relationship with Michael Kidney just days before she was murdered.

Stride was present in the kitchen of the lodging house, when Dr Barnardo walked in and gave a speech to convince them to walk away from their life of vice. Stride was murdered a few days later.

Stride was witnessed being intimate with the man outside the Bricklayers Arms less than 2 hours before she was murdered. Her behaviour with this man does not suggest she was soliciting, but had more of a connection.
This man wasn't Kidney.

Stride's interaction with this man and the subsequent witness accounts all imply that on the night she was murdered, Stride was not soliciting.

Stride was murdered outside a club that comprised of relatively radical Jews; it is well documented how the club was not popular with the more orthodox or politically moderate Jews.

Stride was murdered in the dark by a solitary cut and placed down on the ground. The murder would have taken under 30 seconds.

Stride holding the Cachou without dropping them indicates her brain reacted instantaneously through seizing up her muscles. There is a scientific phenomenon that can explain why she didn't drop the Cachou.

Stride's likelihood as a Ripper victim relies entirely on whether the killer was disturbed. This is evidenced by the lack of cutting and mutilation. The Ripper's signature double cut to the throat was also absent.

Strides face was muddied and yet her clothes showed no signs of having been dragged or scuffed.

Stride was alleged to have been seen talking to at least 2 different men shortly before she was murdered.


These elements need to be taken into consideration.

RD

Some of these relate to why Stride ended up near the club, whereas I'm focused on the murder right at this moment. However, I agree these are important points to consider. How do people suppose Stride was thrown down on the footway, yet ended up inside the gates without being dragged and without her making audible screams for help? That alone is enough to suppose that Schwartz might have lied.

[Michael W Richards]

Curiously, the Pall Mall Gazette dated 7 May 1895 reported that Grainger had been unhesitatingly identified by the one person whom the police believe saw the murderer with a woman a few moments before her mutilated body was found.

Cheers, George

I had read that one George, Im wondering though where this "one person" came from, in another reports it says her screams brought the "first Constable" who catches the man still over Ms Graham. In an article he is referred to as " Police Constable Frazer". Yet in another report it says "some people" were first on that scene, having heard the screams.... "The screams of a woman attracted a crowd to a lonely thoroughfare, and the people arriving first upon the scene caught a man red handed in the act of butchering a woman of the unfortunate class."

Not that Im terribly troubled by the attribution to the PC Frazer instead of a group of people, its a little misleading as to who was the first to actually catch Grainger over the woman. Would this imply though that PC Frazer did the ID for the Graham crime but Lawende might have also been called in based on the Ripperesque style of the kill?

[The Rookie Detective]

Thanks for the info.

Here's a theory for you to ponder. The short version is; The Juwess is the man who will not be blamed for nothing.

The long version...

After Smith passes, Stride and Parcelman go down the passageway and into the backyard. Their probable purpose is theft of costermonger goods, and whatever they can get their hands on. He has a bag to put things in - she will hold whatever she can in her hands. Krantz and Yaffa hear the theft occurring, and confront the man and woman, who attempt to retreat from the yard. The man manages to escape - the woman does not. Remember Stride's bad leg. Stride's is captured and killed by Yaffa, with the aid of Krantz. The man is pursued by another club attendee, who is on the street at the time. Probably it's Joseph Lave. Lave returns to learn of the murder and forms the impression that the man he pursued was the killer.

Wess's comments to an Echo journalist resulted in this report:

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) 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 the public prefer to 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-st., 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.

So, this is not a 'garbled' version of the Schwartz incident. On the contrary the Echo report is quite close to the truth, and the account given by Schwartz is the heavily distorted version.

You might want to think about how many questions this theory has an answer for. For example, consider the various pressure marks on the victim's body, the very tight scarf, and the lack of audible screams. How many hands were involved in the murder?

The other obvious issue to consider is the switch from the man pursued being the supposed murderer, to him being an innocent passer-by. Why the switch?

I like the way your mind thinks, in that you are trying to look at things from as many different angles as possible and working through countless scenarios to try and make sense of what transpired.
I think there are other elements that need to be included into the mix;


Stride could allegedly speak Yiddish, despite not being Jewish

Stride suffered from fits, just like her brother

Stride was multilingual and able to translate

Stride worked within the Jewish community (not including her life as an unfortunate)

Stride had only walked out of a tempestuous relationship with Michael Kidney just days before she was murdered.

Stride was present in the kitchen of the lodging house, when Dr Barnardo walked in and gave a speech to convince them to walk away from their life of vice. Stride was murdered a few days later.

Stride was witnessed being intimate with the man outside the Bricklayers Arms less than 2 hours before she was murdered. Her behaviour with this man does not suggest she was soliciting, but had more of a connection.
This man wasn't Kidney.

Stride's interaction with this man and the subsequent witness accounts all imply that on the night she was murdered, Stride was not soliciting.

Stride was murdered outside a club that comprised of relatively radical Jews; it is well documented how the club was not popular with the more orthodox or politically moderate Jews.

Stride was murdered in the dark by a solitary cut and placed down on the ground. The murder would have taken under 30 seconds.

Stride holding the Cachou without dropping them indicates her brain reacted instantaneously through seizing up her muscles. There is a scientific phenomenon that can explain why she didn't drop the Cachou.

Stride's likelihood as a Ripper victim relies entirely on whether the killer was disturbed. This is evidenced by the lack of cutting and mutilation. The Ripper's signature double cut to the throat was also absent.

Strides face was muddied and yet her clothes showed no signs of having been dragged or scuffed.

Stride was alleged to have been seen talking to at least 2 different men shortly before she was murdered.


These elements need to be taken into consideration.

RD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

A few months ago I highlighted that the name 'Yaffa' when used as a forename, is a girl's name meaning Beautiful, the equivalent of the name Bella.

However, as a surname, it applies to both male and female, so the individual named Yaffa, could have been either.

I would assume that Yaffa was a man. just with a feminine surname.


RD

Thanks for the info.

Here's a theory for you to ponder. The short version is; The Juwess is the man who will not be blamed for nothing.

The long version...

After Smith passes, Stride and Parcelman go down the passageway and into the backyard. Their probable purpose is theft of costermonger goods, and whatever they can get their hands on. He has a bag to put things in - she will hold whatever she can in her hands. Krantz and Yaffa hear the theft occurring, and confront the man and woman, who attempt to retreat from the yard. The man manages to escape - the woman does not. Remember Stride's bad leg. Stride's is captured and killed by Yaffa, with the aid of Krantz. The man is pursued by another club attendee, who is on the street at the time. Probably it's Joseph Lave. Lave returns to learn of the murder and forms the impression that the man he pursued was the killer.

Wess's comments to an Echo journalist resulted in this report:

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) 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 the public prefer to 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-st., 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.

So, this is not a 'garbled' version of the Schwartz incident. On the contrary the Echo report is quite close to the truth, and the account given by Schwartz is the heavily distorted version.

You might want to think about how many questions this theory has an answer for. For example, consider the various pressure marks on the victim's body, the very tight scarf, and the lack of audible screams. How many hands were involved in the murder?

The other obvious issue to consider is the switch from the man pursued being the supposed murderer, to him being an innocent passer-by. Why the switch?