Whistling on Berner Street

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't think we will ever know. It could be that Leman Street thought he was lying through his teeth. But I think the more plausible explanation is that because of the language barrier and his short time on the scene they couldn't be sure of just what the hell he saw.

c.d.

I don't see this "give the poor guy a break" attitude, anywhere. For example:

Anderson: I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. 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.

Does "the name Lipski which he alleges was used" sound like Anderson just thinks Schwartz could have been a bit confused, or that he is skeptical of Schwartz?

Does "the supposed accomplice" sound like Anderson had confidence in Schwartz?

I find it odd that all the following seem to be true:

* Almost all modern researchers believe Schwartz' story

* Schwartz was insistent that the assaulting man had an accomplice

* Almost no modern researchers agree with Schwartz, that the assaulting man had an accomplice

The attitude seems to be that Schwartz is believed, except for the bits that don't sound realistic.

[c.d.]

You seem to be completely glossing over the fact that Schwartz didn't speak English and was only on the scene for a very short while. It's like you have some sort of personal vendetta with him. If you don't want to believe his story at all that is fine with me. I believe him but take his story with a grain of salt. To each his own.

And again, he only saw a woman being pushed.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Little room for doubt about Swanston's opinion, and he never met Schwartz. So the doubt must have come from someone else. Quite possibly the duty officer at Leman street, when Schwartz visited. Whoever it was, someone has expressed doubts about Schwartz, and the Star reporter who met him seems to have been dubious also. The normally curious would want to know why these doubts existed.

I agree. But we have to accept that, in the absence of any newly discovered documents, there’s no way that we can ever know.

Wouldn't you consider it important that Swanson opinion came from officers like Abberline?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't see this "give the poor guy a break" attitude, anywhere. For example:

Anderson: I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. 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.

Does "the name Lipski which he alleges was used" sound like Anderson just thinks Schwartz could have been a bit confused, or that he is skeptical of Schwartz?

Does "the supposed accomplice" sound like Anderson had confidence in Schwartz?

I find it odd that all the following seem to be true:

* Almost all modern researchers believe Schwartz' story 1

* Schwartz was insistent that the assaulting man had an accomplice 2

* Almost no modern researchers agree with Schwartz, that the assaulting man had an accomplice 3

The attitude seems to be that Schwartz is believed, except for the bits that don't sound realistic. 4

1. Why odd. They’ve all looked into events in depth and come to that conclusion. Why are their opinions odd? The vast majority would say “why, after looking at everything as a whole, would you think that Schwartz lied when there’s no evidence for it?” Could you consider that the majority might be correct and that you and Michael (I know that you don’t like being ‘paired up’ but you’re the two that think that he lied, or might have lied) might be wrong?

2. Why do you say that Schwartz believed Pipeman an accomplice

3. This is linked to 2 of course. So I repeat the above.

4. No, the attitude is, witnesses in general are truthful. Schwartz in particular had no reason to falsely place himself at the scene of a murder. And the fact that no one saw him can easily be explained very, very plausibly. And so we have zero reason to believe that he lied.
To show that he lied you need strong evidence. Fanny Mortimer and a mysterious unnamed couple are not by any stretch of the imagination strong evidence.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You seem to be completely glossing over the fact that Schwartz didn't speak English and was only on the scene for a very short while.

On the contrary, I think it's you and the other Schwartz believers, who are ignoring this.

... but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

Aside from the audibility of the shouting, how do you suggest our non-English speaker understood who the shouting was intended for, and that it consisted of a warning? I don't recall ever coming across any discussion of this anomaly, and I cannot fathom why that would be.

It's like you have some sort of personal vendetta with him.

In contrast to those around me, I take a hard-headed approach to analyzing Schwartz.

If you don't want to believe his story at all that is fine with me. I believe him but take his story with a grain of salt. To each his own.

Wess clearly implicated Schwartz in the Echo report, and Arbeter Fraint stuck to the quarter to one murder time, implicitly backing Wess. Had this rather obvious point ever been mentioned, before I mentioned it? I cannot fathom why it would not have been.

And again, he only saw a woman being pushed.

There was nothing about Stride's final condition, state of clothing, content of hand(s), position, or location, that suggests she were pushed or thrown to the ground, shortly before her murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
On the contrary, I think it's you and the other Schwartz believers, who are ignoring this.

... but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

Aside from the audibility of the shouting, how do you suggest our non-English speaker understood who the shouting was intended for, and that it consisted of a warning? I don't recall ever coming across any discussion of this anomaly, and I cannot fathom why that would be.

We have discussed this before because you tried to claim, or suggest, that Schwartz spoke more English than he let on. The obvious point is that the above quote isn’t a quote from Schwartz. If that person knew that ‘Lipski’ was called then he deduced the threat from that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. In contrast to those around me, I take a hard-headed approach to analyzing Schwartz.

You’re entitle to your opinion of course. I’d say that you are constantly looking for lies and cover-ups. It’s an active desire to find them IMO.

A hard headed approach is to keep saying “error rather than lie” until you have real evidence of a lie.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Wess clearly implicated Schwartz in the Echo report, and Arbeter Fraint stuck to the quarter to one murder time, implicitly backing Wess. Had this rather obvious point ever been mentioned, before I mentioned it? I cannot fathom why it would not have been.

No one mentioned it because it didn’t happen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
There was nothing about Stride's final condition, state of clothing, content of hand(s), position, or location, that suggests she were pushed or thrown to the ground, shortly before her murder.

Proves absolutely nothing.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We have discussed this before because you tried to claim, or suggest, that Schwartz spoke more English than he let on. The obvious point is that the above quote isn’t a quote from Schwartz. If that person knew that ‘Lipski’ was called then he deduced the threat from that.

Are you suggesting that 'the Hungarian' who spoke to the Star, was not Israel Schwartz?
That sounds like something a conspiracy theorist would say. Are you preparing to come out of the conspiracy closet?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No one mentioned it because it didn’t happen.

Are you suggesting that Wess did not talk to the Echo reporter, and that the reporter must have made up the whole thing? This is good conspiracy stuff, Michael. Keep it up!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Proves absolutely nothing.

The possible exception being that BS Man is aptly named

[c.d.]

On the contrary, I think it's you and the other Schwartz believers, who are ignoring this.

... but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

Aside from the audibility of the shouting, how do you suggest our non-English speaker understood who the shouting was intended for, and that it consisted of a warning? I don't recall ever coming across any discussion of this anomaly, and I cannot fathom why that would be.

I think the implication is that this is merely Schwartz's interpretation of what took place. I don't think he was stating this as an absolute fact. Take witnessing an argument for example. I think most people could ascertain what was taking place even if they couldn't hear or understand what was being said.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I think the implication is that this is merely Schwartz's interpretation of what took place. I don't think he was stating this as an absolute fact. Take witnessing an argument for example. I think most people could ascertain what was taking place even if they couldn't hear or understand what was being said.

He probably could ascertain what was taking place when the man rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. Thus our interpretation of what took place has to include the assaulting man having an accomplice. If that just doesn't seem plausible, then the spotlight has to fall on Schwartz.

[GBinOz]

You want to quote where you got the Lamb line from, cause I know I use the Inquest transcripts here, Daily Telegraph Oct 2nd, and in that transcript he says "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."

Since he cannot have seen these men unless they went for help before that point in time, you can track back their departure for help to around 12:45ish. Meeting him around 12:55ish. What do you know about that, that fits exactly with the 3 witnesses who said they were by the body at around 12:40-12:45. Small world huh?

And how many times do you need to read this before it sinks in......police times were the ones to count on, they are the ONLY men in these stories whose job it was to know the time.

Hi Michael,

I agree with adopting the Daily Telegraph account for Lamb, and their account for Johnson as it fits Lamb's times.
Mr. Edward Johnson: I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kaye and Blackwell. On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H.

I have been wondering how you were accounting for the disputed ten minutes, whether it was a delay in their going for help or a delay in their finding help, and you indicate the latter. While there were reports that there was a considerable delay in finding a Police Constable, 10 minutes seems to be a little too long. Even if Koze went with Diemshitz to Grove St and back, at running pace that shouldn't have taken more than about 3 minutes. If Koze then left with Eagle to Commercial road, another 2 minutes to find Lamb, has a time of about 12:50. I seem to recall you thought "shortly before one" would equate to about 12:56, which would also be ok for "about one o'clock".
Throw in some clock calibration errors and you're nearly there, except for Diemshitz and Schwartz.

I am glad that I am not the only one to rate police times as the benchmark.

Cheers, George