The Absence Of Evidence

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No one would choose to use a false witness that needed an interpreter.

Actually, a witness requiring an interpreter is a clever idea. Nuances of speech that Abberline would have picked up in an English speaker, become obfuscated.
Also, the interpreter can do a bit more that interpret - like filling in gaps.

He didn’t speak English.

Could Goldstein?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Answered by Dusty. You are trying to create a mystery where none exists....as usual.

I don't think you understand the nature of the issue

[NotBlamedForNothing]

With the information that we have there is no margin for error other than any the might come from the clock being out. He got to the yard at 1.00.

Weighing up all the evidence I'm aware of, I'd place Diemschitz' arrival time at ~12:52.

Any alternative to that has Diemschutz lying and he had absolutely no reason for doing so. Any theory involving him arriving at 12.35 or 12.40 is baseless nonsense which can, and should be, discarded.

No, not that early. However, I think Smith went by about 12:40, or a touch earlier.
Fanny remerged shortly after, and was locking up just as Diemschitz turned into the top of Berner St. So there's the 10 minute period - for a total period of about 12:30-12:52 (with a gap in the middle).
I think Fanny was later mislead about the time being 1am, when she was locking. She was mislead by Diemschitz ... as you are.

By the way, there is an interesting snippet in the Evening News, Oct 1:

Charles Letchford, living at 30, Berner-street, says: I passed through the street at half-past 12 and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual, and my sister was standing at the door at ten minutes to one, but did not see any one pass by. I heard the commotion when the body was found, and heard the policeman's whistles, but did not take any notice of the matter, as disturbances are very frequent at the club, and I thought it was only another row.

Which sounds a lot like Fanny, but apparently it isn't.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. You left out; similar age, same height (with a 1" margin of error), and arguably similar looks (clerk/fair complexion).
There is an uncanny similarity between the two descriptions, and considering this is night-time, they are about as close as could be expected of the same man

As I said, this might or might not have been the same man. We can deduce nothing further from it because it’s no more than 50-50. We just have no way of saying either way. The description was hardly Sherlock Holmes was it?

If it was Stride and BS Man they might have parted company and he then saw her outside Dutfield’s Yard. It might have been Stride and another man. It might have been another woman entirely. The point is that we have no way of knowing and I don’t understand why I need to say this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Marshall: There was no lamp near and I did not see the face of the man she was talking to.

You don't read quotes super carefully, do you

And you appear to be very uncritical of witnesses that you like. In one sentence (above) he doesn’t see his face.

And then....

The CORONER. - Did you see whether he had any whiskers? - From what I saw of his face I do not think he had

He sees enough of his face to say this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
It is also worth considering that a man with no English - whether 100% true or otherwise - is not going to be as certain about the intentions of an English speaker as you or I. Schwartz seemed fairy sure it were aimed at Pipeman. Abberline should have recognised this and moved on. I guess he was 'hung up' about who was Jewish and who wasn't, whereas the critical issue is, where did the culprit come from; the club or the street? Schwartz' tale suggests the later.

You don't read posts super carefully, do you?


A nonsense answer of course. No one would choose to use a false witness that needed an interpreter. And I was correct to point out that you continue to imply that he might have spoken some English by your use of ‘whether 100% true or otherwise.’ He didn’t speak English. You have zero basis for suggesting otherwise. You are simply trying create doubt where none exists.....as usual.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Then you should be able to explain why, at around 10pm on the Tuesday, Wess suddenly found it necessary to take Goldstein off to Leman street to identify him as the man seen walking down Berner St. That information had already appeared in the papers of Monday morning!
What information had just come to Wess's attention, that he felt he needed to act on immediately? Not only did he go to the police, he then went to the Morning Advertiser. Did Goldstein go to the MA office also, I wonder?
Stranger still, why did Wess have to persuade Goldstein to go? One might suppose it to have been the other way around - Goldstein persuading Wess - it was his name that had to be cleared. But, cleared of what? Walking down a street carrying a black bag is not an offence. The Home Office asked a pertinent question ...

Who saw this man go down Berner St. or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions might be asked

Did he come forward to pre-empt any suspicion

Answered by Dusty. You are trying to create a mystery where none exists....as usual.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That margin of error isn't going to have Diemshitz arriving significantly after 1am, is it? Only earlier. Yet that suggests there is something wrong with that time - a latter time should make just as much sense and an earlier time, but it doesn't.
In the much more likely case of an earlier time, the period between Smith on his beat, and Diemschitz arriving home, gets less, and therefore the probability of a four person incident going unnoticed, just yards from Fanny's doorstep, shrinks accordingly.
This, by the way, is the reason Mortimer has to be constantly denigrated as a hopelessly unreliable witness. She is a threat to the Old Established Theories

With the information that we have there is no margin for error other than any the might come from the clock being out. He got to the yard at 1.00. Any alternative to that has Diemschutz lying and he had absolutely no reason for doing so. Any theory involving him arriving at 12.35 or 12.40 is baseless nonsense which can, and should be, discarded.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

>> Then you should be able to explain why, at around 10pm on the Tuesday, Wess suddenly found it necessary to take Goldstein off to Leman street...<<

Victorian East End, no television, no radio, no internet, no phones, etc.

If you're implying that Wess heard it on the grapevine, that would actually make things worse for Goldstein.
It would further suggest that Fanny actually did see a man appearing to have just left the club, that the man was carrying a black bag, and that it was the same man she had seen ... cough, cough ... previously.

And, of course,

"The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller."

Morning Advertiser 3 Oct 1888

I have no doubt Goldstein was a traveller, but what was he doing travelling after midnight?
Perhaps he thought he could duck up to the Spectacle Alley coffee house, pick up a bagful of leftover cigarette boxes at a bargain price, and then head back to Dutfield's Yard and make a quick killing?
Yet why did feel it necessary to go there via his home on Christian street? Had he left something there he needed to take with him when he left the yard?

[drstrange169]

>> Then you should be able to explain why, at around 10pm on the Tuesday, Wess suddenly found it necessary to take Goldstein off to Leman street...<<

Victorian East End, no television, no radio, no internet, no phones, etc.

And, of course,

"The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller."

Morning Advertiser 3 Oct 1888

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'd suggest that that would have been the fact that PC 426 H had just come off his fixed point duty when he & Lamb were called by Eagle & Kozebrodski and that this is why PC 426 H could follow him down to the yard. Fixed point duty PC's went off-duty at 1 o'clock.

At the risk of sounding arrogant, I knew the answer to my own question when I wrote it, and I knew you would know the answer too

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And by the time that Israel Schwartz saw him he’d apparently put on a false moustache?

Marshall: There was no lamp near and I did not see the face of the man she was talking to.

You don't read quotes super carefully, do you?

A stocky man in dark clothing and wearing a cap.

You left out; similar age, same height (with a 1" margin of error), and arguably similar looks (clerk/fair complexion).
There is an uncanny similarity between the two descriptions, and considering this is night-time, they are about as close as could be expected of the same man.

I’m not saying that it couldn’t have been the same man but I’d say that we can’t assume it.

According to the first Echo report...

It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it.

Yet Schwartz did take a fair bit of notice of it, and gave the man's age as 30, not 35-40.
So someone else has apparently seen the assault incident. Yet according to Schwartz, Pipeman was the only other person on the street at the time, who then chases him away.

So now consider what is said about the man and woman in the Echo report, with this...

Marshall: I was first attracted by their standing there for some time, and he was kissing and cuddling her.

Was the man trying to patch up an altercation, and get back on good terms with her?

I can’t see how this helps in any way or what you are deducing from it>

As a defender of the Old Established Theories, that kinda goes without saying

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You start from the viewpoint that ‘discrepancy’ equates to lies and conspiracy. I come from a starting point that genuine errors are far a more likely explanation and that they are inevitable.

No. A discrepancy is just that. It doesn't mean two or three other things, unless there is good other evidence to suggest so.

There isn’t anything about your points that cannot be explained when we allow for a margin of error.

That margin of error isn't going to have Diemshitz arriving significantly after 1am, is it? Only earlier. Yet that suggests there is something wrong with that time - a latter time should make just as much sense and an earlier time, but it doesn't.
In the much more likely case of an earlier time, the period between Smith on his beat, and Diemschitz arriving home, gets less, and therefore the probability of a four person incident going unnoticed, just yards from Fanny's doorstep, shrinks accordingly.
This, by the way, is the reason Mortimer has to be constantly denigrated as a hopelessly unreliable witness. She is a threat to the Old Established Theories.

If we take every timing as a literal fact then we can create any amount of scenario’s on the flimsiest of bases.

Which is exactly what occurs with this ...

LD: 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.

To even consider some kind of cover-up we would need something completely inexplicable. It would also help if we had valid reasons why witnesses might have lied, but none exist.

Then you should be able to explain why, at around 10pm on the Tuesday, Wess suddenly found it necessary to take Goldstein off to Leman street to identify him as the man seen walking down Berner St. That information had already appeared in the papers of Monday morning!
What information had just come to Wess's attention, that he felt he needed to act on immediately? Not only did he go to the police, he then went to the Morning Advertiser. Did Goldstein go to the MA office also, I wonder?
Stranger still, why did Wess have to persuade Goldstein to go? One might suppose it to have been the other way around - Goldstein persuading Wess - it was his name that had to be cleared. But, cleared of what? Walking down a street carrying a black bag is not an offence. The Home Office asked a pertinent question ...

Who saw this man go down Berner St. or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions might be asked

Did he come forward to pre-empt any suspicion?

The idea that club members first concern was the potential closing of there club because the police might have blamed them for ‘hosting’ a ripper murder is nothing short of preposterous. That they would then have arranged for a ‘witness’ like Schwartz simply to imply that the killer wasn’t Jewish (leaving aside the suggestion that they would choose a ‘witness’ who couldn’t even speak English - despite your repeated efforts to imply that he might actually have been able to - is again, preposterous)

My last comments on the subject ...

It is also worth considering that a man with no English - whether 100% true or otherwise - is not going to be as certain about the intentions of an English speaker as you or I. Schwartz seemed fairy sure it were aimed at Pipeman. Abberline should have recognised this and moved on. I guess he was 'hung up' about who was Jewish and who wasn't, whereas the critical issue is, where did the culprit come from; the club or the street? Schwartz' tale suggests the later.

You don't read posts super carefully, do you?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im trying to imagine this cabal of Club Plotters discussing their fiendish cover up.


Isaac Plotski: The rozzers will definitely blame us for letting the ripper kill in our yard. We’re done for. We’ll never be able to overthrow the government now and I was really looking forward to it.

Jacob Coverupski: We have to do something. We Jews will not be blamed for nothing. I have a plan.

Isaac Plotski: Does it involve chalk?

Jacob Coverupski: No. Why chalk?

Isaac Plotski: It doesn’t matter. What we need is someone who will pretend that he saw someone who wasn’t Jewish with the woman that was killed.

Samuel Conspirashevsky: Brilliant Who shall we use?

Isaac Plotski: Well the police all speak English so why don’t we get someone that can’t speak English?

Samuel Conspirashevsky: Genius. Why don’t we get someone that’s blind too?

Isaac Plotski: Please take this seriously.

.....

It all makes sense

[rjpalmer]

It's worse than that, Herlock, because Schwartz himself implied the exact opposite, that Pipeman was addressed as "Lipski" and was an accomplice to the assault on Stride.

This might be overstating it, somewhat.

It's true that the Star made this claim, based on an interview with Schwartz, but Abberline later stated that he questioned Schwartz closely on the matter, and Schwartz didn't know who was being addressed.

Still, one would think that if Schwartz was trying to implicate an anti-Semite, he wouldn't have been ambiguous and uncertain. His very uncertainty suggests that he was being honest. At least that's how I see it.