Whistling on Berner Street

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Caz,

No arguments from me on that point. We’re regularly asked why Mortimer didn’t see the Schwartz incident and this, to some, points to him not being there, but we know for an absolute certainty that Stride arrived at the gates as did her killer and yet Mortimer didn’t see them. Yet still it’s Schwartz the liar vs Fanny the reliable.

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...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Herlock,

We can't even be sure that no one did see Schwartz. If Pipeman did, he may have confirmed it, in order to clear himself of any suspicion.

But to extend this further, no one saw anyone engaging with Stride in the yard either, but there she was with her throat cut, so the killer was definitely there all by himself when it was done - unless it was the boot scraper wot dunnit.

So the idea that nothing can be believed if there was only one witness to it is patently absurd. Maybe this is why so many victims of abuse choose to suffer in silence, because there will always be a Doubting Thomas ready to put the boot in.

Love,

Caz
X

This is a strawman argument. Who is claiming that no one else witnesses anything related? Is that the impression you get of me, after reading this post?

Too often members forget (or perhaps, 'forget') what other members have said on topics, from one day to the next. The gaps are then filled in in a way to make out that someone is a half-wit.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If the general suspicion had been that Schwartz invented the incident, what would have been the point of putting any interpretation on what he described?

So Schwartz witnessed nothing, but the opinion arrived at based on his 'evidence' is that the name "Lipski" was addressed to him, and not to any supposed accomplice. That makes sense - not. Surely the opinion arrived at would have been that Schwartz was an attention-seeking fantasist.

I think the general opinion was the opinion of Swanson - that Schwartz is to be believed. General, but not universal. Anderson's words hint at skepticism of Schwartz, but the skepticism is his.

Isn't this a simple case of a general acceptance that Schwartz did indeed witness an assault on the deceased, but that he most likely misunderstood why the assailant called out "Lipski", and he misinterpreted the role of Pipeman - who, in case anyone needs reminding, may have come forward to give his own account of the same incident?

Indeed it is plausible that 'Lipski' was called out to Schwartz, and not the man Schwartz first stated it was aimed at - obviously because Schwartz was the man of Jewish appearance. But plausibility can be a trap, and I think it's a trap that Abberline fell into. Don't you think it would have occurred to Schwartz; "Hey, I'm the Jewish guy, and 'Lipski' is a epithet directed at Jews, so the man that said that word must have been saying it to me". I think Schwartz knew exactly what he intended to convey.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I was once interviewed by a reporter for a local newspaper, regarding my thoughts on a local murder case, because my name must have come up as a recently published 'ripper author'.

Now both of us had a good command of the English language, so there were no excuses for misunderstandings or misinterpretations, but the resulting article managed to misquote me and misrepresent what I'd said, to an extent where anyone taking it all literally, word for word, would have been misled. It just wasn't my voice. There was nothing bad enough to complain about, but it was a lesson everyone should learn and take on board when analysing newspaper reports, especially where the interviewee is not quoted directly and speaks little or no English.

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.

Love,

Caz
X

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

The fact of these differences in various Press reports should leave us prepared with plenty of salt to take pinches from methinks.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

This is an important point Caz. He was very clearly pre-warning that his estimate might not have been too accurate. As you said, if he’d checked a clock 5 minutes or so before why didn’t he say exactly that? Diemschutz wasn’t a Police Officer but he was clear in saying that he knew the time because he’d just seen a clock and it was therefore the job of investigators to do the very simple task of checking that clocks accuracy. Lamb’s estimate is clearly one that he himself exhibits very little confidence in. This is why I don’t have any issue with the time that Eagle met him being a little after 1.00.

Although we have no written evidence for this isn’t it at leat possible that the police did check the clock and found it fairly accurate? As a general rule I have no problem agreeing that in general the police would have been more likely to have been aware of the time but this can’t be 100%. Louis saw a clock but Lamb makes no mention of it and is at pains to mention that he has no watch and so no way of being sure. I go for Diemschutz at 1.00 and Eagle/Lamb around 1.05. Approximates of course.