Whistling on Berner Street

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How is 10 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00 ‘nearly the whole time?’

By being the last 10 minutes, and not the entire 30 minutes.

However, it is conceivable that Mortimer saw more than she was willing to admit to the police, and so truncated about 20 minutes, down to 10. She may have been rather like Matthew Packer was initially - adamant that she had seen nothing suspicious, to avoid the possibility of any adverse reaction to herself or her family.

There are several scenarios with key witnesses that are never discussed, usually because people are too focused on protecting Schwartz.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How is 10 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00 ‘nearly the whole time?’

[Herlock Sholmes]

If they had gotten it from the police, then there was obviously a reason for telling the Star, and no one else. Or as the Star says, they "got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane." Presumably the police also mentioned the fact that Schwartz could not speak English, so the Star man could come prepared. This suggests the reason for telling the Star, and not a smaller paper - it was more likely that a paper with the Star's financial resources, could afford to obtain an interpreter for the interview.

The fact is that the Star did not print his name, so this must have been due to an agreement with Schwartz, or the police, or both. Even if Schwartz could not be sure his name would not be printed then - assuming he cares because Israel Schwartz is his real name - then you are back to arguing that the pipe becomes a knife because he was concerned the pipe man story would look lame. If that is the case, he was right.



And that's just how you want it stay - forever.

As ever you’re reading far too much into things and are claiming to know what you can’t possibly know.

This wasn’t some cheap thriller. Silly plots aren’t real. Murders are. This was a murder. There was no plot or cover up.

You’re utterly obsessed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No I don't. Was she lying or on the toilet?



If you want her locking up by 12:45 (which you do), then the cart is being heard at about 12:48. Either that or you're cherry-picking.

However, sticking with 12:48 raises a number of issues, other than that you're now starting to sound a bit like MWR. Goldstein was seen just before Fanny turned in, so we could make that 12:43, to fit the scenario. I think it is fair to say there is about 5 minutes of blood flow, by the time Louis is observing the victim by candlelight. That would place the murder at very close to 12:43 - right when Goldstein should be hurrying by toward Fairclough street. So that means Goldstein should have seen Stride standing in the gateway, right before she died, but apparently he said nothing about this. Is that because Schwartz lied, or was it because...?

He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

The other big issue is that Schwartz is now arriving, after the murder.



Nor can Schwartz be used to prove that Fanny was on the loo, Brown was in the chandlers shop, and the couple had gone down to Spectacle Alley Cafe, to get takeaway cappuccinos.

Its not a case of what I want and it’s certainly not a case of cherry-picking.

She gave 2 ‘times.’

12.45 and just after Smith passed.

How can we 100% disprove Schwartz on this basis? If she went onto her doorstep at 12.45 how can we know that the Schwartz incident didn’t occur at 12.44. If she went on just after Smith passed then she could indeed have been back inside at 12.45. The gap before she heard the cart might just have been a misjudgment.

We don’t know what time Goldstein passed.

How can you use so many unknowns to disprove something?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Did Schwartz know that they weren’t going to print his name? Did he know that they hadn’t already gotten it from the police?

If they had gotten it from the police, then there was obviously a reason for telling the Star, and no one else. Or as the Star says, they "got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane." Presumably the police also mentioned the fact that Schwartz could not speak English, so the Star man could come prepared. This suggests the reason for telling the Star, and not a smaller paper - it was more likely that a paper with the Star's financial resources, could afford to obtain an interpreter for the interview.

The fact is that the Star did not print his name, so this must have been due to an agreement with Schwartz, or the police, or both. Even if Schwartz could not be sure his name would not be printed then - assuming he cares because Israel Schwartz is his real name - then you are back to arguing that the pipe becomes a knife because he was concerned the pipe man story would look lame. If that is the case, he was right.

Simple explanations over any that hint at cover up or conspiracy because none took place. This was a simple murder. By an unknown person.

And that's just how you want it stay - forever.

[GBinOz]

Such as why Lamb mentioned that he didn't have a watch. If he regularly checked the time by one or more of the local clocks, why not just say so, and give the exact time when he had last passed one and checked?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Lamb testified that he was at the intersection of Commercial and Berner 6-7 minutes before he arrived at the yard. Diemshitz had already testified that he saw a clock at that location, the first time he had ever mentioned seeing a clock. Do you consider it reasonable that Lamb would not have checked the clock as he passed. He didn't have a pocket watch, so how was he to determine times if he ignored local clocks as he passed them. What reason would you put forward for his averting his eyes to avoid seeing the clock as he passed?

I would issue a challence to anyone to find ONE interview with Diemshitz on 30 Sep 1888 where he mentioned a clock sighting. Just one. But the next day he has suddenly remembered looking at a clock (one account said the Baker's clock) and everyone wants to ignore police times and adopt this newly reviewed one time only you beaut exact and precise time of one o'clock rather than his multiple statements on the day before of his usual time of about one o'clock.

AFAIK the Star report of Schwartz's story didn't include the word "Lipski".

"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.".

I agree with the points made about errors in translation that may have occurred and the effect they could have on the interpretation. For instance, changing one word here gives a completely different meaning: "and shouting out some sort of warning at the man who was with the woman". I doubt that, when Schwartz was talking to the Star reporter, he meant to portray himself in the role of "the intruder.". What if Pipeman was interviewed by police afterwards, as you suggest, thus validating Schwartz's presence, and Pipeman said he threatened BS to stop bothering Stride and that BS departed as a result?

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

A complete invention on your part. Why the 3 minute gap? Why not a 30 second gap or a 4t second gap or a minute gap or a minute 15 seconds gap. Etc….?

Ask Frank

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You know what I mean about Fanny.

No I don't. Was she lying or on the toilet?

She supposedly went onto her doorstep at 12.45.

But she said just after Smith passed.

Smith said that he passed at 12.30-12.35.

Can we say that Smith was definitely accurate on time….no.

Can we say that Fanny was definitely accurate on time…..no.

Can we say that Schwartz was definitely accurate on time….no.

If you want her locking up by 12:45 (which you do), then the cart is being heard at about 12:48. Either that or you're cherry-picking.

However, sticking with 12:48 raises a number of issues, other than that you're now starting to sound a bit like MWR. Goldstein was seen just before Fanny turned in, so we could make that 12:43, to fit the scenario. I think it is fair to say there is about 5 minutes of blood flow, by the time Louis is observing the victim by candlelight. That would place the murder at very close to 12:43 - right when Goldstein should be hurrying by toward Fairclough street. So that means Goldstein should have seen Stride standing in the gateway, right before she died, but apparently he said nothing about this. Is that because Schwartz lied, or was it because...?

He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

The other big issue is that Schwartz is now arriving, after the murder.

And so I’ll say for the 1000th time, Fanny Mortimer cannot be used to prove that Schwartz wasn’t there. And that’s a fact.

Nor can Schwartz be used to prove that Fanny was on the loo, Brown was in the chandlers shop, and the couple had gone down to Spectacle Alley Cafe, to get takeaway cappuccinos.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ironic that you take that part of the report literally. If the police had not released Schwartz' name and address, then clearly something has been arranged, or leaked. So the Star man had every opportunity to come prepared.



Or perhaps Schwartz realized it was not a pipe that the man had in his mouth, and decided to sex things up himself.



In other words, running from a man smoking a pipe, was not going to sound realistic, so the pipe had to morph into a knife, and now it does sound realistic?

The other problem with that argument is that Schwartz' name does not appear in the report, so how would anyone be able to point the finger at him? At least those falsely accused of being Leather Apron, were supposedly in the habit of wearing a leather apron. How would it work in the case of Schwartz?

"Look at that man who appears to be in the theatrical line! He was the one who left a defenseless woman at the mercy of Jack the Ripper!"

Did Schwartz know that they weren’t going to print his name? Did he know that they hadn’t already gotten it from the police?

Simple explanations over any that hint at cover up or conspiracy because none took place. This was a simple murder. By an unknown person.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That would mean Smith at 1:08, and therefore last on Berner street at around 12:40. Approximates of course.

A complete invention on your part. Why the 3 minute gap? Why not a 30 second gap or a 4t second gap or a minute gap or a minute 15 seconds gap. Etc….?

[Herlock Sholmes]

By 'Fanny the reliable', in which sense are you (sarcastically) using the word reliable...?

* she can be relied on to have been in a position to witness Schwartz & co.

* she can be relied on to tell the truth

If the former, why are you so keen to squeeze Fanny in before 12:45? Her own words and Goldstein's timing, do not support this interpretation. If the later, then it would be ironic of you to suggest otherwise, because you love saying things like "Diemschitz had no reason to lie". So tell us how you know that doesn't apply to Fanny...

You know what I mean about Fanny.

She supposedly went onto her doorstep at 12.45.

But she said just after Smith passed.

Smith said that he passed at 12.30-12.35.

Can we say that Smith was definitely accurate on time….no.

Can we say that Fanny was definitely accurate on time…..no.

Can we say that Schwartz was definitely accurate on time….no.


And so I’ll say for the 1000th time, Fanny Mortimer cannot be used to prove that Schwartz wasn’t there. And that’s a fact.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Exactly Caz. Another minor point is that when he went to the police an interpreter was taken and so time was probably taken to find someone with a good enough command of both languages. For The Star interview however he was taken by surprise by a reporter just turning up so they had to make do with the nearest person to hand. That person’s English or Hungarian might have been far less than perfect resulting in errors.

Ironic that you take that part of the report literally. If the police had not released Schwartz' name and address, then clearly something has been arranged, or leaked. So the Star man had every opportunity to come prepared.

And of course the Press would never ‘sex things up’ would they? Is that how a pipe became a knife?

Or perhaps Schwartz realized it was not a pipe that the man had in his mouth, and decided to sex things up himself.

Or did Schwartz suddenly realise that he was about to be the subject of a newspaper story of a man leaving a defenceless woman to the mercy of the ripper so he decided to add the knife as justification for him doing his Usain Bolt impersonation?

In other words, running from a man smoking a pipe, was not going to sound realistic, so the pipe had to morph into a knife, and now it does sound realistic?

The other problem with that argument is that Schwartz' name does not appear in the report, so how would anyone be able to point the finger at him? At least those falsely accused of being Leather Apron, were supposedly in the habit of wearing a leather apron. How would it work in the case of Schwartz?

"Look at that man who appears to be in the theatrical line! He was the one who left a defenseless woman at the mercy of Jack the Ripper!"

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I go for Diemschutz at 1.00 and Eagle/Lamb around 1.05. Approximates of course.

That would mean Smith at 1:08, and therefore last on Berner street at around 12:40. Approximates of course.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I do find it extraordinary - and sad - that anyone would be so naive as to think they could get Schwartz's own, untangled and unadulterated thoughts directly from an English newspaper story, and then seek to discredit him as a witness. It's a bad show.

Possible errors of interpretation were anticipated by the reporter, who seems to have taken some care in getting things right...

The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand...

It is just too convenient to write-off the differences in the accounts, as poor interpretation or dramatic license. Besides, which account is the most dramatic, the one that includes the use of the word 'Lipski', the throwing down on the footway, and the apparent pursuit and running as far as the railway arch, or the one that doesn't?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The fact is, Abberline shows us that Schwartz clearly didn't understand what was going on, and therefore could not have been expected to give a perfectly coherent account to whoever was tasked with interpreting and then translating it into English, before the journalist concerned got his eager paws and dramatic licence to work on it. Schwartz could hardly have known if what he thought he had seen and heard was faithfully reproduced in the Star, could he?

What Abberline shows us is that his style was too intrusive. He should have just let the witness speak for himself, rather than leading him in a certain direction - a direction that made sense to Abberline, but which contradicted the impressions of Schwartz.

Schwartz could hardly have known that people would be silly enough to suppose that the man with a knife, who speaks differently, acts differently, is positioned differently, and holds a different object, was the same man as the man lighting a pipe.

If Schwartz could have witnessed the immediate prelude to murder at around 12.45, then a 12.45 murder time was a reasonable assumption to make. The Arbeter Fraint couldn't have known for sure as nobody saw the actual murder, but they accepted Louis D's discovery time of 1am.

If Schwartz had witnessed the immediate aftermath of the murder, then it is reasonable to assume that 'Lipski!' meant something entirely different to what is almost always supposed, and that Schwartz' initial impression of who it is was directed at, was correct.

How many people are meant to have lied for Louis?

I said nothing about Louis. It is Goldstein and Schwartz who I regard as suspicious.