Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Absence Of Evidence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    Right. How open was it? All we can go on is what Sarah (Mrs D) said:

    The door had been, and still was, half open, and through the aperture the light from the gas jets in the kitchen was streaming out into the yard.

    She appears to have been cooking up a storm at one in the morning.
    I think we can infer that the door had been open for at least this period...

    When my husband examined the body he found that life, so far as he could tell, was quite extinct. He at once sent for a policeman. He is positive that before entering the yard he did not see any man about the street. It was just one o'clock when my husband came home. Some twenty minutes previously a member of the club had entered by the side door, but he states that he did not then notice anybody lying prostrate in the yard. It was, however, very dark at the time, and he might, in consequence, have failed to see any such object on the ground.



    It doesn't seem from the above quotes that any of these would have been the case. On the other hand, the passageway ran right through the club (inside that is, not the laneway), so there seems to have been a backdoor. So three doors in total. Who might have used the backdoor, unknown to Sarah?
    Note that in the previous quote, the member referred to is Eagle. Why doesn't she see Lave?
    I think Eagle left though the front door, which is why he tried that door on his return.



    Someone going to the loo, like the little boy in the Irish Times report...?

    About five minutes to one o'clock this morning a youth about twenty years of age named Joseph Koster was accosted by a little boy who came running up to him as he was passing on the opposite side of 40 Berner street, used by the International Socialist Club, and told him that a woman was lying in the gateway next to the club, with her throat cut. Koster immediately ran across the road and saw a woman lying on her side in the gateway leading into Dutfield's stabling and van premises.

    The report would make some sense if the little boy had lived in one of the tenements, but PC Lamb tells us that these people did not appear to know what had happened.
    Thus we would seem to have a someone giving a bullshit discovery story.
    Isn’t it reasonable to infer that the side door must have been closed at 12.45 when Mortis Eagle returned as he commented how dark the yard was therefor the door must have been opened between 12.45 and 1.00. Sarah D only mentions someone returning at 12.45 (which we can assume to have been Eagle.) Maybe she didn’t see anyone pass the kitchen to go to the back door after Eagle had returned. Or, as I said before, maybe she just opened the door herself for air. There’s no way of getting any further with this of course.

    How do you get to 3 doors as opposed to 2?
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
      Most rooms came furnished back then, if you move house you're typically carrying your clothes that's about it.

      Are we questioning where Swanson got this info from?
      "12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen (Ellen) street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at that hour."..etc.

      Did anyone ever find conclusive proof Israel Schwartz lived at the addresses claimed by Swanson? I am unaware we can even safely declare him as Hungarian
      Last edited by erobitha; 05-07-2021, 05:52 PM.
      "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
      - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by erobitha View Post


        Did anyone ever find conclusive proof Israel Schwartz lived at the addresses claimed by Swanson? I am unaware we can even safely declare him as Hungarian
        No, not at all. All we have is the Star report and Swanson's later report. Anything else is speculation.
        Thems the Vagaries.....

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

          No, not at all. All we have is the Star report and Swanson's later report. Anything else is speculation.
          So if Swanson had not referenced Schwartz at a later date, how reliable a witness would people on here make him?
          "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
          - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post

            Hi Frank,

            Tower Bridge was still under construction in 1888 and not finished until 1894. So I think Louis D would have needed to use London Bridge, further west, but no doubt I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            Thanks for that, Caz!
            "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
            Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by erobitha View Post


              Did anyone ever find conclusive proof Israel Schwartz lived at the addresses claimed by Swanson? I am unaware we can even safely declare him as Hungarian
              I'll tell you what, here's the thread on JTRForums:
              https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...ew-information

              I don't think there is any further info - this is likely the most up to date.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                I'll tell you what, here's the thread on JTRForums:
                https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...ew-information

                I don't think there is any further info - this is likely the most up to date.
                Thanks for the heads up Jon.
                "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Isn’t it reasonable to infer that the side door must have been closed at 12.45 when Mortis Eagle returned as he commented how dark the yard was therefor the door must have been opened between 12.45 and 1.00. Sarah D only mentions someone returning at 12.45 (which we can assume to have been Eagle.) Maybe she didn’t see anyone pass the kitchen to go to the back door after Eagle had returned. Or, as I said before, maybe she just opened the door herself for air.
                  That would be reasonable to infer, its just that there is also this to consider...

                  SD: Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs.

                  Okay, but how long had she been there? The MA report also states...

                  Mila, the servant at the club, strongly corroborates the statement made by her mistress, and is equally convinced there were no sounds coming from the yard between 20 minutes to one and one o'clock.

                  So it would seem Sarah and Mila had been in the kitchen for the period spanning Eagle's entrance, to the discovery.
                  That interpretation would also make sense of Fanny Mortimer's astonishment.

                  There’s no way of getting any further with this of course.
                  Perhaps look at the issue in a different way. Okay, so there was light streaming out into the yard. So what exactly? Why are we being told this? Is the implication that anyone just outside the door would have been seen? Recall that the kitchen was behind the passageway, which ran the length of the building. Could she have seen anyone out there, from the kitchen? If not, why mention the light streaming outside?
                  It sort of bothers me, in a curiosity sense. Was it a sort of Freudian Slip?
                  The door seems to have lined up with the WC's...

                  Baxter: There is one thing I have forgotten to ask. Is there a w.c. opposite your doorway?
                  Wess: Yes; by the side of the house divided into tenements. There are two w.c.'s.

                  How do you get to 3 doors as opposed to 2?
                  Front, back and side - although I'm not 100% about the back. The Times:

                  The witness, continuing, said he was not sure that the gardens of the houses in Batty-street faced the yard. The club premises ran back a long way into the yard. The front room on the ground floor of the club was occupied as a dining-room. At the middle of the passage there was a staircase leading to the first floor. At the back of the dining-room was a kitchen. In this room there was a small window over the door which faced the one leading into the yard. The remainder of the passage lead into the yard. Over the door in the passage was a small window, through which daylight came. At the back of the kitchen, but in no way connected with it, was a printing office. This office consisted of two rooms. The one adjoining the kitchen was used as a composing-room and the other one was for the editor.

                  More on the layout - https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...865#post749865
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    Most rooms came furnished back then, if you move house you're typically carrying your clothes that's about it.
                    I don't think the workload is the issue. It's more the oddity of leaving such an important step as moving address, to his wife.
                    What the Star says is intriguing ...

                    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.

                    So Mr Schwartz had apparently gone out all day, all evening, and well into the night, and then detoured into Berner street, just to check if Mrs Schwartz had completed the move she had expected to make. Fascinating!
                    What does 'expected to move' suggest? Did Mrs Schwartz not only change address on her own, but go house hunting on the day also?
                    Are we simply to assume that, having run as far as one of the railway arches, Mr Schwartz then cautiously makes his way to the new lodgings, finds his wife there, thus avoiding any need to return to Berner street?
                    If yes, then we are saying; Israel Schwartz had to check out an address on Berner street at a quarter to one in the morning, but having been chased away from the area, found that he didn't need to go back, oh and, this was occurring right when JtR was putting away another victim, who Schwartz had gone within yards of, right before fleeing the scene.
                    Is it that seriously what people believe?

                    Are we questioning where Swanson got this info from?
                    "12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen (Ellen) street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at that hour."..etc.
                    Not me, yet there is something about Israel Schwartz that leaves people seriously wondering ...

                    Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                    Hi Rob

                    Bearing in mind the total lack of reference to him, in what is after all the most contemporary and relevant work, and in the following issue too, did Schwartz even exist?

                    Dave
                    People do not say things like that, of Hutchinson.
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                      So if Swanson had not referenced Schwartz at a later date, how reliable a witness would people on here make him?
                      Probably about as reliable as Wynne Baxter thought he was
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                        Thanks for the heads up Jon.
                        Hi again.
                        I see you joined the group.

                        I'm not altogether sure I understand your question about Swanson.
                        Lets assume, for arguments sake, Swanson was not endorsing Schwartz, in fact the comments he made were more neutral. Then we would have no conflict between how the press viewed Schwartz, and how Swanson viewed Schwartz.
                        Personally, I don't think Swanson is endorsing Schwartz. Though I admit this has been the traditional view.

                        If Swanson was not endorsing Schwartz, does your problem go away?
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                          Probably about as reliable as Wynne Baxter thought he was
                          Since we don't know how reliable Baxter thought he was it's hard to evaluate what level of reliability your statement implies.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                            I imagine journalists placing fake news in papers in order to get the 'scoop' never happened back then. Still, he became quite a convenient witness that never was from the police perspective.
                            I wasn't sure if this was sarcasm, or whether you were genuinely unaware of such deceptions.

                            Here is one example:
                            "Ever since the day of the murder, the whole neighbourhood has been more or less alarmed, nor was the alarm decreased by a story published in one or two newspapers this week, describing how a woman, on leaving the Forester's Music Hall, was accosted by a man who, when near the scene of the murder, hustled her down a turning, where she was stripped of all her money and jewellery by a gang who came up, and was threatened with the same fate as Mrs. Nicholls. Inquiries made into the accuracy of the story have proved it to be absolutely false and groundless."
                            https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...elo880908.html

                            There's no need to accuse all the press of employing deception, but cases did exist. I've written many times on the Star newspaper who employed dubious tactics purely to sell newspapers. 1888 was their first year, and their editor T. P. O'Connor was not above printing misinformation or exaggerating a story to grab the readers attention.
                            Truth never stood in the way of a good story with O'Connor.
                            The Star narrowly avoided being sued by John Pizer for false accusations, that case was settled out of court. The Evening News & Pall Mall Gazette were also involved.

                            You do know?, that the most likely candidate who wrote the Dear Boss letter was a Star journalist named Fred Best, his handwriting was even tested against the actual letter.
                            Another one of their deceptions was very likely the accusation of a witness being "discredited" leveled against George Hutchinson. It was proven to be wrong merely four days after they published the accusation, and no other paper repeated the charge.

                            So yes, we must be careful when accepting controversial stories which find no corroboration elsewhere.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              I wasn't sure if this was sarcasm, or whether you were genuinely unaware of such deceptions.

                              Here is one example:
                              "Ever since the day of the murder, the whole neighbourhood has been more or less alarmed, nor was the alarm decreased by a story published in one or two newspapers this week, describing how a woman, on leaving the Forester's Music Hall, was accosted by a man who, when near the scene of the murder, hustled her down a turning, where she was stripped of all her money and jewellery by a gang who came up, and was threatened with the same fate as Mrs. Nicholls. Inquiries made into the accuracy of the story have proved it to be absolutely false and groundless."
                              https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...elo880908.html

                              There's no need to accuse all the press of employing deception, but cases did exist. I've written many times on the Star newspaper who employed dubious tactics purely to sell newspapers. 1888 was their first year, and their editor T. P. O'Connor was not above printing misinformation or exaggerating a story to grab the readers attention.
                              Truth never stood in the way of a good story with O'Connor.
                              The Star narrowly avoided being sued by John Pizer for false accusations, that case was settled out of court. The Evening News & Pall Mall Gazette were also involved.

                              You do know?, that the most likely candidate who wrote the Dear Boss letter was a Star journalist named Fred Best, his handwriting was even tested against the actual letter.
                              Another one of their deceptions was very likely the accusation of a witness being "discredited" leveled against George Hutchinson. It was proven to be wrong merely four days after they published the accusation, and no other paper repeated the charge.

                              So yes, we must be careful when accepting controversial stories which find no corroboration elsewhere.
                              It is clear to me that newspapers did publish false stories and engaged with interferring with the case. The Dear Boss letter & Saucy Jack postcard are cases in point. There was a war to sell papers, each one looking to gazzump the next.

                              How do we know this was not one such time? Readers must ask that question. Examine the language and detail in the article. We should be questioning the authenticity. No-one has been able to locate an israel Schwartz at the address Swanson gave. Or a Hungarian-Austrian Israel Schwartz. How very odd that a Hungo-Austrian girl was assualted in 1885 and lived at that exact adress Swanson mentioned whose name was Shwartz. Yet, it appears she emigrated. Where they related? Was it not very handy an intepreter was on hand when the journalist called?

                              We accept Schwartz because Swanson does. If Swanson did not, I doubt anyone would believe his account. In fact other reports around the time did cast doubt.

                              This is not exclusively my problem.

                              I cannot draw to an ultimate conclusion that Schwartz is a made-up character using a mix of different stories and names, because Swanson endorses him. Everything about Schwartz screams wrong to me. The fact we even question whether Stride is a JTR victim or not boils down to Schwartz's statement muddying the waters.

                              1) No other reports corroborate his account. No reports of men chasing other men. No reports of hearing "small screams". Pretty sure Fanny would have heard something - she was clsoe enough
                              2) No railway arch ever existed at the end of Berner Street, where was this railway arch exactly?
                              3) His name and testimony was not used at the inquest. Curiously neither was Fanny Mortimer's or Matthew Packer's
                              4) We only know his name after 19th October and it comes endorsed by Swanson

                              Take him out of the equation, then the chain of events make much more sense.
                              Last edited by erobitha; 05-08-2021, 06:30 AM.
                              "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                              - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                What does 'expected to move' suggest? Did Mrs Schwartz not only change address on her own, but go house hunting on the day also?
                                Are we simply to assume that, having run as far as one of the railway arches, Mr Schwartz then cautiously makes his way to the new lodgings, finds his wife there, thus avoiding any need to return to Berner street?
                                If we assume that Schwartz did gingerly make his way back from the rail arch to the new lodgings on Ellen street, then the notion of Mrs Schwartz house hunting during the day, does not make sense - how would Israel have known were to go if he had gone out for the day, as the Star states?
                                So either Schwartz returned to the Berner street address, and found his wife still there, or, the new address was known to Schwartz at the start of the day. In that case, the reason for an expected move, as opposed to a definitely established one, could only be guessed.

                                When Schwartz stopped near gates of the yard, to watch some of the altercation, he was on the club/yard side of the street. So the Berner street address seems to have been beyond the Fairclough intersection, and probably on the same side as he had been walking. That would narrow things right down - he lived fairly near William Marshall. So it's a tiny bit ironic that when Marshall sees Stride and Rather Stout Man walking off (with his arm around her neck), the pair head in the direction of Ellen street!
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X