A Whip and a Prod

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Not only does Schwartz fail to make any pro club/Jewish statement to Abberline, given the golden opportunity to spread a conspiracy story to the wider public via the Star, he fails to make any mention of a "Lipski" exclamation in that article.

It's not even obvious which of the two men would have said 'Lipski', even if one of them had done so.

Not only must we be aware that Schwartz' testimony has gone through interpreter to Abberline to Swanson, before it reaches us, we also have to remember that, during the incident, Schwartz was listening in Hungarian (so to speak), whereas the speakers were talking in English (we presume).

When we compare The Star quote to the official account, and see how much difference there is between the two, it is far from outlandish to suppose something like this was shouted:

knifeman (Irish accent): Let go!

The Hungarian hears "Lipski!".

I would suggest that the probability of the word 'Lipski' having being spoken in that incident, is no more than 50%, and probably less.
The probability of the woman in the incident being Liz Stride, is higher, but by no means 100%.
Why do people regard the identity of this woman as being Liz, to be a definitely ascertained fact, when we are dealing with a problematic eyewitness account, regarding a nighttime event?
To put it bluntly, all the debate about who stood where, who moved where and when they did, who was pushed or pulled, who was frightened off or appeared to be behaving with intent, is pretty much a waste of time.
As for Schwartz' supposed identification of Stride at the mortuary, I find this difficult to take seriously.
Did he ever have a non-obstructed frontal view of her face, for more than a few tenths of a second, while she was standing relatively still and under reasonably strong and even lighting? Probably not!

[Michael W Richards]

Ok, lets take a few individuals on for the moment....

1:02 - Hears a commotion outside, and goes outside to see
1:03 - Joins the growing crowd of people around the body
1:04 - Hears Diemschutz' pony and cart pass her place

There is nothing in any statement that identifies Louis's cart and horse as the one she hears, she does not see it nor the direction it came from. It was her guess. Ergo, she was indoors. As she says. I suspect she heard the cart and horse being taken away if anything.

Okay, so what happens next?
Does she and everyone else in the lane, cooperatively line up single file along the wall opposite the club, to allow Louis to drive in and discover the body?

The body has been discovered, at what time is a big question, but the cart and horse she hears isn't related to the passageway at this point, it may well have been leaving. That's when she goes out, is with the others around thee body, and if there is a minute or 2 out in either story it doesn't really factor in here, Louis did not arrive at 1 as per Fanny, and she only heard a cart and horse shortly after going in at 1.

In the first quote, at what time, or how long after hearing the pony and cart, does the commotion occur?

The commotion might have been a bunch of club attendees standing around using hushed voices, so who knows when they were actually aware of and around the dying woman. 4 people say that was 12:45

What do you suppose Fanny meant when she used the word 'commotion'?

When you have a bunch of people muttering there it seems an appropriate term.

Ill get back to you on the rest shortly, at work right now.

[JeffHamm]

>>Oh, do you have a source for that? I've not spotted Anderson's statement on this before.<<

Ultimate jtr, page 127.

Brilliant. I've overlooked that, obviously, as I've gone through the Ultimate a few times (which is where the Warren letter comes from). I'll have to check that out once I get back (I'm in London at the moment, so don't have my books with me).

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

>> ... how long after hearing the pony and cart, does the commotion occur?<<

"I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife."
Fanny Mortimer

Seeing 2 or 3 people in the gateway, when exiting No 36, is exactly what one would suppose to be the case, if there were a commotion caused by people gathering around a body laying about 5 to 10ft inside the gates.
The other 7 or 8 (or more) are within the lane, and not visible from outside No 36.
Simple. However, this occurs, according to the direct quote from Fanny "just after one o'clock".
From the point in time that Diemschutz supposedly sees the street clock - exactly 1:00 - several things must occur before 10 or more people are around the body, including Louis, and immediately after, Fanny.
One of these things is ...

[Coroner] Did you touch the body?
[Diemschutz] No, I ran off at once for the police. I could not find a constable in the direction which I took, so I shouted out "Police!" as loudly as I could. A man whom I met in Grove- street returned with me, and when we reached the yard he took hold of the head of the deceased. As he lifted it up I saw the wound in the throat.

How did Louis get back from his excursion so soon?
He didn't strike the match until 1:01, and yet here he is at 1:03, back at the body after two trips away from it. Amazing!

Perhaps Louis actually first reached the body at closer to 12:55?
You know, when Fanny was on her doorstep. No?

>> What do you suppose Fanny meant when she used the word 'commotion'?<<

"I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door... "
Fanny Mortimer

So again, this is the commotion scenario, except now defined by calls for police, rather the noise of the hubbub around the body.
This occurs just after 1:00. Fine.
So when does the pony and cart go by?
Around 1:04, or a couple of minutes before she hears the calls, when she was just ending her doorstep vigil?
Or was it more than a couple of minutes before, given that multiple people set off for police at different times, and in opposite directions?
Louis actually said he didn't call out until he had already been searching without success.
Maybe then, it was whoever went toward Commercial Rd (and therefore past Fanny's place)? So what time was that?

PC Lamb: Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting. I went to meet them, and they called out, "Come on, there has been another murder." I asked where, and as they got to the corner of Berner-street they pointed down and said, "There." I saw people moving some distance down the street.

Shortly before 1:00? That can't be right!
It's not as though Lamb would have been in sight of at least one clock on Commercial Rd, is it?
So anyway, what about the people Lamb could see at the gates, several times further way from them than Fanny was at No 36?
Is this the commotion Fanny speaks of? Surely not! Lamb must have the time wrong!
So why did PC Smith say he never heard cries of "police!", when on Commercial Rd at 1:00?
Was it because Lamb and Collins had already heard the cries, seen the men, and made it to No 40?
Or did Smith also get the time badly wrong?

>> Is Fanny still preparing for bed by this point, or has she tucked in?<<

"I was just about going to bed,"
Fanny Mortimer

... when I heard a pony and cart go by, or was it ?...

The essence of the issue is:

1. Fanny's direct quote is incompatible with the described statement
2. The direct quote should be preferred, because it is a direct quote, and not an interpretation, and because it jibes better with the times given in other witness statements, and is therefore more likely to be accurate.
3. A consequence of accepting #2, is that the idea of Louis' pony and cart entering Dutfield's Yard, on or after 1 am, becomes tenuous at best

[Michael W Richards]

Not be blamed, I appreciate you taking the time to dissect what was said to see how it fits with the overall scheme of things. As you've noted, there are some discrepancies that cannot be reconciled by changing a few minutes here or there, and some claims that directly contradict others who are establishing the timelines that people are still using. I made a timeline post years back here, with every sighting and event claimed from 12:35 until just after 1am. The times given and the stories given do not marry, they contrast, the do not fit together.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Not be blamed, I appreciate you taking the time to dissect what was said to see how it fits with the overall scheme of things. As you've noted, there are some discrepancies that cannot be reconciled by changing a few minutes here or there, and some claims that directly contradict others who are establishing the timelines that people are still using. I made a timeline post years back here, with every sighting and event claimed from 12:35 until just after 1am. The times given and the stories given do not marry, they contrast, the do not fit together.

Thanks Michael.
Find me that timeline post if you can, please.
I just read an interesting post by yourself, from '13.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Re the Schwartz interview with The Star

It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

Why has Schwartz gone out for the day (a Saturday), when on that day his wife is expecting to move from their shared address, to another address?

After midnight, he still doesn't know if she has moved, so he sets off for the first address to see if she is still there. Weird!

In case I'm missing a part of the know picture, Schwartz' behavior surely indicates a big problem with the marriage.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Although the Telegraph reported Louis as saying "I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street", the Daily News says "I noticed the time at a tobacco shop in the Commercial-road", with the Morning Advertiser even going as far as saying "I noticed the time at Harris's tobacco shop at the corner of Commercial-road and Berner-street"

Harris' shop was at 84 on the NE corner. There was another tobacco shop at no.80, next door to the shop on the NW corner. So therefore, if correct, Louis did indeed pass Fanny at no.36 before entering the club gateway. It seems possible to me that the confusion may have arisen if Louis had actually said "'baccy shop" rather than "baker's shop".

Are all 3 quotes based on inquest testimony?

The East London Observer (Oct 6):

Lewis Dienischitz [Diemschutz], who is the steward of the club, found the body, and this is his version of the discovery:
"On Saturday," he says, "I left home about half-past eleven in the morning and returned home exactly at one a.m. Sunday morning. I noticed the time at a tobacco shop in the Commercial-road. I was driving a pony harnessed to a costermonger's barrow. I do not keep the pony in the yard of the club, but in George-yard, Cable-street. I drove the barrow home in order to leave my goods there. I drove into the yard. Both gates were open - wide open. It was rather dark there. I drove it in as usual, but as I came into the gate my pony shied to the left, and that made me look at the ground to see what the cause of it was. I could see that there was something unusual on the pavement, but I could not see what it was. It was a dark object. I tried to feel it with the handle of my whip to discover what it was. I tried to lift it up with it. As I could not I jumped down at once and struck a match. It was rather windy, and I could not get a light sufficient to show that it was the figure of some person, whom by the dress I knew to be a woman. I took no further notice of it, but went into the club and asked where my missus was."

That sounds quite different to the Daily Telegraph inquest text (Oct 2):

On Saturday I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street. I had been to the market near the Crystal Palace, and had a barrow like a costermonger's, drawn by a pony, which I keep in George-yard Cable-street. I drove home to leave my goods. I drove into the yard, both gates being wide open. It was rather dark there. All at once my pony shied at some object on the right. I looked to see what the object was, and observed that there was something unusual, but could not tell what. It was a dark object. I put my whip handle to it, and tried to lift it up, but as I did not succeed I jumped down from my barrow and struck a match. It was rather windy, and I could only get sufficient light to see that there was some figure there. I could tell from the dress that it was the figure of a woman.
[Coroner] You did not disturb it? - No. I went into the club and asked where my wife was.

Is the ELO quote actually based on an interview, rather than the inquest?

[Michael W Richards]

Re the Schwartz interview with The Star



Why has Schwartz gone out for the day (a Saturday), when on that day his wife is expecting to move from their shared address, to another address?

After midnight, he still doesn't know if she has moved, so he sets off for the first address to see if she is still there. Weird!

In case I'm missing a part of the know picture, Schwartz' behavior surely indicates a big problem with the marriage.

Couple of responses, Ive looked through some old Stride threads for that timeline one, cant recall if it was Gen Discussion or Stride...or even a Locations posting. Ill poke around a bit for it, it can be recreated pretty easily though. Take all the statements, chart them. See what happens. You cannot use them all, that's the first thing youll find.

On the above, that is for me the weakest part of his story, someone like him would have very little in the way of belongings...immigrant, small cramped spaces to live in, I would think rentals like Marys room most places would have a ramshackle bed and a chair. So she would likely have been moving clothes, maybe some dishes. He left her 12 hours earlier, moving from what precise address we do not know, to move a small amount of goods.

Now its just after a large meeting had ended outside a club that was likely full of immigrants Jews just like him..just happening to be passing by, in time to see a soon to be murder victim being accosted. Coincidental timing all over the place there.

[Wickerman]

Re the Schwartz interview with The Star



Why has Schwartz gone out for the day (a Saturday), when on that day his wife is expecting to move from their shared address, to another address?

After midnight, he still doesn't know if she has moved, so he sets off for the first address to see if she is still there. Weird!

In case I'm missing a part of the know picture, Schwartz' behavior surely indicates a big problem with the marriage.

We are talking about a time when the man was expected to go out to work while the woman looked after the home. Younger generations today might not appreciate that. The times were different, it doesn't mean anything was amiss.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Couple of responses, Ive looked through some old Stride threads for that timeline one, cant recall if it was Gen Discussion or Stride...or even a Locations posting. Ill poke around a bit for it, it can be recreated pretty easily though. Take all the statements, chart them. See what happens. You cannot use them all, that's the first thing youll find.

Thanks for having a look.
I realize there can be no single thorough timeline, with no contradictions.
However, given a reasonable margin of error, a couple of main timelines should be able to fight for dominance.
At the moment, the reasoning seems to be; Diemschutz arrives at 1 am, and any statement from any individual that contradicts that, must be in error.
It's as though there's an unwritten law - Thou shall not contradict the Louis

On the above, that is for me the weakest part of his story, someone like him would have very little in the way of belongings...immigrant, small cramped spaces to live in, I would think rentals like Marys room most places would have a ramshackle bed and a chair. So she would likely have been moving clothes, maybe some dishes. He left her 12 hours earlier, moving from what precise address we do not know, to move a small amount of goods.

In other words, 12 hours should be plenty.
Therefore, logic would dictate he should actually be going to the new address, but he doesn't, so ....

Now its just after a large meeting had ended outside a club that was likely full of immigrants Jews just like him..just happening to be passing by, in time to see a soon to be murder victim being accosted. Coincidental timing all over the place there.

Yes, it does seem a little too convenient!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We are talking about a time when the man was expected to go out to work while the woman looked after the home. Younger generations today might not appreciate that. The times were different, it doesn't mean anything was amiss.

Oh I see, he was just on his way home from a hard day's work!
So that's what the reporter meant by 'gone out for the day'

Here's me thinking; all these characters - broad shouldered man, tipsy man, pipeman and knifeman - are just the fictional creations of a troubled man with major marriage problems, when in truth we have a solid, hard working and honest citizen, making his way home after doing more hard work in one day than I would do in a month.

Thanks for clearing that up

[Michael W Richards]

However, given a reasonable margin of error, a couple of main timelines should be able to fight for dominance.
At the moment, the reasoning seems to be; Diemschutz arrives at 1 am, and any statement from any individual that contradicts that, must be in error.

Let me put your conclusion above into perspective..... for Louis to be correct, about arriving at precisely 1, means that Fanny either lied or wasn't correct, and that 4 witnesses gave incorrect times, 3 of which had just arrived at that spot from inside the club where Im sure clocks were readily available.

Not one witness claimed to see or heard Louis arrive, Fanny's the only witness that even heard a cart and horse, after 1am, and she didn't know which way it was going, who was on the cart, or whether it belonged to Louis.

Louis is the only person who can verify his own account. Like Israel. Dangerous to accept them as the most probable stories, when you have 4 conflicting statements that all agree with each other.

[c.d.]

I think the stage needs to be set a little bit more before we can conclude that witnesses were lying and that there was a Club conspiracy.

Whtechapel residents must have been on edge from the previous murders. It's night time and 1:00 in the morning and a woman is discovered dead with her throat having been cut. People in that era were not time obsessed like we are today and many did not have a watch. Is it really surprising that witnesses gave conflicting statements? Look at all that went on when Kelly's body was found. Fear and adrenaline do not make for good witnesses.

And even if we can conclude with absolute certainty that witness statements were incorrect can we conclude that they therefore must have been lying? No, that still has to be proved.

And finally, what seems to be overlooked in this attempt to cast doubt on Schwartz is that Schwartz never said he saw Stride being killed. If it was a conspiracy and he was willing to lie to protect the club why not go all the way and say he saw her being killed by the B.S.man.

All in all my vote is more for human failings than it is for a conspiracy.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hey cd,

Not surprised your still hoping to find Jack in here somewhere, ...but....

Whitechapel residents must have been on edge from the previous murders. It's night time and 1:00 in the morning and a woman is discovered dead with her throat having been cut. People in that era were not time obsessed like we are today and many did not have a watch. Is it really surprising that witnesses gave conflicting statements? Look at all that went on when Kelly's body was found. Fear and adrenaline do not make for good witnesses.

Don't miss the distinctions here cd, not all people gave times that are unprovable, 4 gave the exact same times and 3 of them came from inside that same club. A fourth offsite witness gave the same time as they did. And a witness to the street from 2 doors down from the club did not see Louis arrive anytime between 12:50 until 1am. The club witnesses certainly had access to clocks, as did Fanny when in her home, so the people you really describe above are Louis, Morris, and Joseph. No-one saw Louis arrive, and even though Joseph and Morris gave the same time for being by the gates to the passageway, neither saw each other apparently. neither was Eagle sure a "body wasn't there" when he passed the murder site at 12:40-45. Louis must have arrived either earlier or later than 1, using Fannys recollection of hearing a cart and horse proves nothing but a cart and horse were passing by her doo, form one direction or the other. One cannot conclude that the unseen must have ben Louis, and even if one did, that means he arrived after 1, not at 1, like he said.

And even if we can conclude with absolute certainty that witness statements were incorrect can we conclude that they therefore must have been lying? No, that still has to be proved.

If someone said they arrived "precisely at 1" and another witness who had a clear view of that are should it have happened says no-one arrived at 1, nor was anyone seen approaching at 1, either the witness who was sure it was 1 lied or was incorrect. The word "precisely" is used here however, which tilts the scale towards a lie.

On the last point Schwartz doesn't have to put himself on the spot as someone who witnessed a murder, that's high profile. Too much scrutiny. As it is he can come forward, create a club friendly "truth", and then just slip back into the shadows. Which he apparently did. I suspect he was chosen by Wess because of his inability to communicate in English.