Who has the goods?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No. 2 Spital-square is 15 minutes walk to Lehman St PS. So from the time Lamb is first standing over the body add 6 minutes for the "young man" to reach Lehman St PS, add 30 minutes for someone to walk to Phillip's house and for Phillips to proceed to Lehman St PS, add another 6 minutes to Dutfields. This has Phillips arriving at Dutfields at about 1:41, which agrees with Reid seeing him there at 1:44, and has Lamb standing over the body at about 1AM, which fits his times. It also fits Smith's time of 1AM at the corner of Commercial and Berner. Blackwell's pocket watch was out of sync and Diemshitz was either mistaken or lying, I don't know which.

George,
from Lloyd's Weekly News, Sep 30:

Dr. Phillips was sent for, who came at 1.30 in a cab. Other medical gentlemen subsequently arrived.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Simple wording. When you’re explaining what someone did it’s quite normal it use “it seems like he ….” It’s similar to saying “Apparently he……” We have to remember that he was speaking through an interpreter. Can we be certain the the interpreter spoke fluent Hungarian too or wasn’t it his first language and so spoke it imperfectly?

Okay, I accept it could just be a question of wording, but you also say...

If Schwartz did work in the entertainment business I’m guessing that the work situation would have been pretty precarious, so might this explain him and his wife moving from room to room. Maybe they kept getting chucked out for non-payment? And so if this was the kind of existence that he had is it unlikely that his name didn’t appear on any records? Was everything always above board in Whitechapel 1888? Could using other names be something that he did regularly to avoid debtors?

Im not claiming the above as fact by the way. I’m just suggesting it as a possible explanation for our inability to find Schwartz in the records.

If Mr & Mrs Schwartz were near destitute, would Israel have really left his wife (and kid?) alone all day, not returning until early the next morning? That sounds very odd to me, even without considering the expected move.

Maybe the move should have taken place on a previous day but the occupier hadn’t moved out in time so it had been cancelled? So on the day of the murder he was saying that he expected to the move to happen but he was thinking “as long as x has finally moved out?”

Maybe we should see this expected move thing for what it really is; an excuse to be on briefly on Berner street, but not need to return after fleeing the scene, without having done what he claims to be there for. It's all so contrived.

Maybe he had to do something work-related. Times were tough, people couldn’t afford to turn down chances of earning.

That is not the information we have, but mention of some work-related thing might have made his story sound more convincing. However, if he does mention work, that could be checked by the police.

Maybe they had just been staying with friends temporarily so their name didn’t appear on any record?

Which reminds me of someone. DN, Oct 1:

Joseph Love, a man just arrived in England from the United States, and who is living temporarily at the club until he can find lodgings, says:

No one can ‘find’ Mary Kelly but we know that the person that died in Miller’s Court was a real one. Maybe Schwartz didn’t want his real name in the papers so he gave a false name?

To the police?

Again, much is made of a word used by a journalist. Do we really think that this was the exact word that he tried to get across? I find that pretty difficult to believe.

I'm not referring to the word 'incontinently'. I'm referring to the convenience of it all.

None of this is evidence of lying except for the name which could point to Schwartz giving a false name.

Schwartz seems to have not mentioned the pursuit, to the Star man. Why do suppose he kept that back?

[c.d.]

Schwartz seems to have not mentioned the pursuit, to the Star man. Why do suppose he kept that back?

It seems like all you do is cast aspersions on Schwartz. Over and over. You are beating a dead horse. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are correct. Please tell us once and for all why Schwartz lied?

c.d.

[GBinOz]

George,
from Lloyd's Weekly News, Sep 30:

Dr. Phillips was sent for, who came at 1.30 in a cab. Other medical gentlemen subsequently arrived.

Thanks for that information Andrew.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Mr & Mrs Schwartz were near destitute, would Israel have really left his wife (and kid?) alone all day, not returning until early the next morning? That sounds very odd to me, even without considering the expected move.

But this is a time when people really couldn’t afford to turn down work or even the opportunity of getting future work. If they were moving because they hadn’t been regular payers or they just needed cheaper accommodation then it’s perhaps unlikely that they would have owned many possessions; clothes etc. Not too difficult for his wife and kid to move. Maybe a friend or neighbour had offered help?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe we should see this expected move thing for what it really is; an excuse to be on briefly on Berner street, but not need to return after fleeing the scene, without having done what he claims to be there for. It's all so contrived.

Then we would have to assume some kind of plot. I keep returning to - why would Schwartz have been selected in the first place? It the idea of a plot/plan/cover-up that seems totally contrived to me. We can’t come up with anything like a plausible motive. Why choose a non-English speaker? Why the enormous risk of some witness conclusively proving that he want actually there? I don’t see why we should be suspicious of Schwartz. If we could somehow see snapshots from simple events of the past with fairly limited background information I’d suggest that for every one we would be able to ask “well if he was doing that why didn't he….?” Or “isn’t it strange that he took that route?”

Id say that the simplest answer is the correct one. Schwartz was doing exactly as he said but we have a combination of missing background information and problems related to interpretation (possibly slightly inaccurate?) and Press reporting (again possibly slightly inaccurate)

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is not the information we have, but mention of some work-related thing might have made his story sound more convincing. However, if he does mention work, that could be checked by the police.

But why would he have bothered about giving much background information to the Press? All that they were interested in were events in Berner Street and not his domestic situation.

Perhaps he did mention details to the Police though that they did check out and proved correct and this is why they continued to consider him a very valid witness all through October and in to November. Something that they would hardly have done if he’d been caught out in a pack of lies. We also have to note that they continued to see him as a very important witness despite Fanny Mortimer (who is being used 130 years later to try and disprove him.) Clearly the Police, there on the scene and after speaking to witnesses face to face and in detail, believed that Fanny Mortimer was indoors when Schwartz passed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one can ‘find’ Mary Kelly but we know that the person that died in Miller’s Court was a real one. Maybe Schwartz didn’t want his real name in the papers so he gave a false name?

To the police?

Eddowes gave an incorrect name to the Police.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Schwartz seems to have not mentioned the pursuit, to the Star man. Why do suppose he kept that back?

Because there was no chase. At first he thought hat he was being followed but he realised that he wasn’t.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It seems like all you do is cast aspersions on Schwartz. Over and over. You are beating a dead horse. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are correct. Please tell us once and for all why Schwartz lied?

c.d.

To protect the identity of the murderer

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But this is a time when people really couldn’t afford to turn down work or even the opportunity of getting future work. If they were moving because they hadn’t been regular payers or they just needed cheaper accommodation then it’s perhaps unlikely that they would have owned many possessions; clothes etc. Not too difficult for his wife and kid to move. Maybe a friend or neighbour had offered help?

Not many possessions = a quick move

Consequently the story does not work without the move being expected, as opposed to definite - Schwartz needs the excuse to be briefly on Berner street.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Then we would have to assume some kind of plot. I keep returning to - why would Schwartz have been selected in the first place?

Selected? Wess threw Schwartz under a hansom cab. At least that is one valid interpretation. If true, then it is likely that Schwartz selected himself.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But why would he have bothered about giving much background information to the Press? All that they were interested in were events in Berner Street and not his domestic situation.

It takes no longer to say "I was at work all day", than to say "I went out for the day". Contrast the situation with that of Goldstein...

W. Wess, secretary of the International Club, Berner-street, called at our office at midnight, and stated that, it having come to his knowledge that the man who was seen by Mrs. Mortimer, of 36, Berner-street, passing her house with a black, shiny bag, and walking very fast down the street from the Commercial-road at about the time of the murder, was a member of the club, he persuaded him last night, between ten and eleven o'clock, to accompany him to the Leman-street station, where he made a statement as to his whereabouts on Saturday evening, which was entirely satisfactory. The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller.

We get his occupation. Why not the same with Schwartz, from either report? The closest we get is the intriguing phrase...

This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.

...which probably has nothing to do with his occupation, anyway. However, how many near destitute men would have had the appearance of being in the theatrical line? More than zero?

Perhaps he did mention details to the Police though that they did check out and proved correct and this is why they continued to consider him a very valid witness all through October and in to November. Something that they would hardly have done if he’d been caught out in a pack of lies. We also have to note that they continued to see him as a very important witness despite Fanny Mortimer (who is being used 130 years later to try and disprove him.) Clearly the Police, there on the scene and after speaking to witnesses face to face and in detail, believed that Fanny Mortimer was indoors when Schwartz passed.

So all the police had total faith in Schwartz?
When Abberline interviewed Schwartz, was he aware of people like Mortimer, Brown, Spooner, and others, and their locations at around 12.45?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Because there was no chase. At first he thought hat he was being followed but he realised that he wasn’t.

Where does it say that?

Abberline: Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.

Anderson's later reference to "the supposed accomplice", suggests the opposite - that he went from being unsure to being quite sure.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Eddowes gave an incorrect name to the Police.

But not as a statement signing witness, so that is hardly equivalent