Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[The Rookie Detective]

More likely he was a paranoid schizophrenic, like Sutcliffe and Robert Mann, who both evaded capture for a long time.
Or do you have a particular reason for your psychopath diagnosis ?

Sutcliffe wasn't a Schizophrenic; he used that as a posthumous excuse and played the mental health card that the public believed so as to give some faux sense of understanding as to why he did what he did.

He was a clinical psychopath who killed women because he could and because he wanted to. He felt no remorse and was indifferent as to his actions.

He had the clarity of mind to alter his choice of weapon accordingly and the power he exhibited over his victims is what gave him the kick.

Paranoid Schizophrenics lack the capacity to maintain a "normal" facade.

Sutcliffe was able to lead a relatively "normal" life with no indication of any mental ill health that would be associated with a disorder like Schizophrenia.

All to often in today's society we choose to accept that mental health is the reasoning behind such atrocities. We crave meaning and understanding for everything.

In the case of both Sutcliffe and the Ripper; why did they kill?

Because they could, and nobody stopped them.

Both men were completely aware of what they were doing, controlled, focused and determined.

[Jon Guy]

Sutcliffe wasn't a Schizophrenic; he used that as a posthumous excuse and played the mental health card that the public believed so as to give some faux sense of understanding as to why he did what he did.

Ah, okay Rd
Thanks for clearing that up.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You're quite right, but my point is that Stride did not move over to the gateway from where she had been seen standing with Parcelman by PC Smith, until AFTER Eagle had gone back into the club.

That indicates that when Eagle returned to the club; presumably only a minute or so after Pc Smith had left; that Parcel man and Stride were still talking in the same spot as Eagle walked past them without noticing them.

Eagle tries the front door and then finding it locked, then walks into the yard.

It is from THIS point that Stride walks over to the gateway either with OR without Parcelman.

Then, when Mortimer comes to her door and sees nobody motion towards the yard; then that indicates that Stride needed to have moved to the gateway BEFORE Mortimer looks down the street.

From the visual line of sight that Mortimer would of had, she would have seen Stride walk over to the gateway, but she didn't.

That shows that Stride had to have moved over to the gateway between Eagle going into the yard and Mortimer looking out from her position at her door.

This is all far enough and similar to what I've being saying about the same things. My point though, is that although supposing Parcelman just goes away at this point is convenient, there is no good evidence for it. Schwartz wants to introduce two men onto the street. Well, we already have one, not long before. Why not keep him there?

Now the anomaly is Lave.

Lave wasn't seen by Pc Smith, unless Lave was also Parcelman.

As for whether Parcelman was Lave or not; If he was, then it gives an explanation of where Parcelman went; ergo, back into the club.

That's not to say that Parcel man was the killer

But if Parcelman was Lave, it supports the fact that Parcelman was not seen leaving Berner Street by anyone.

As I've suggested in the past, Mrs Diemschitz' comments to the press hint that it was Eagle who was last to enter the club, prior to the discovery. That would place Lave in the yard and as far onto the street as we suppose him to have gone, prior to Eagle's return. Should or would he have therefore caught a glimpse of Stride and Parcelman, across the road? Definitely maybe!

Of course, we also have Schwartz's statement.

It is pretty clear from all of the combined witness evidence that the assault described by Schwartz didn't take place; and if it did, then Bs Man was most likely the killer, and almost certainly not the Ripper.

But why would a man come forward (Schwartz).and place himself at the scene of the crime and within a time frame consistent with the time a woman was murdered?

Seems unlikely.

Goldstein places himself at the scene of the crime, right when it might be supposed that an interrupted killer was leaving the yard. Why would he do that? Well, according to Wess, only because he persuaded and accompanied him to the station. Schwartz went to the police with company. Did his trip also require persuasion?

But what if there was another reason for a man coming forward under the guise of a witness to an assault outside the club?

Well, let's just say, I have another idea for his reasoning that I am currently formulating and will present in a separate thread in due course.

Looking forward to it.

But let's not forget the positive sighting of Goldstein.

What if there is an explanation for the distinct 2 different timelines that Mortimer appears to give?

Perhaps initially she was standing at her door for the majority of the half an hour between 12.30am-1am.

But then was persuaded to reduce that timing to just 10 minutes.

What if Mortimer's sighting of Goldstein wasn't as it seemed and rather than him walking past and looking up at the club before going around the corner of the board school, that she witnessed him instead coming out of the yard?
Mortimer's sighting of Goldstein walking down Berner Street serves to prove it couldn't have been Goldstein.

But what if it wasn't a case of Goldstein coming forward after being seen by Mortimer, but more a case of Mortimer was seen by Goldstein as he left the yard and Fanny was later convinced to alter what she saw through fear of reprisal hanging over her head.

What if "the witness" who was the only person to see the killer...was Mortimer?

Schwartz Is then brought in by the club to give a false statement of a random street thug assaulting the victim shortly before she was found dead.
This added with a little playing the "race card" by having a man shout "Lipski!" and all of a sudden we have a perfect diversion from any potential focus on a club member being involved.

Schwartz's timing of 12.45am was perhaps giving in a bid to bring the timing of the murder forward from circa 12.55am

The amended and reduced timing of Mortimer, combined with the vindication of Goldstein and the inclusion of a random street thug assault, all come together to throw a shadow over proceedings.

The notion of Fanny 'playing down' what she had seen for fear of reprisals from the club has crossed my mind. Presumably it's a notion that would be thrown into the conspiracy theory bin, however, how many times have you read that Pipeman did not come forward for fear of reprisals from the BS man? Is that any different?

Of course, Goldstein was said to have an alibi, by having been at a coffee house shortly beforehand.

Imagine if there was some circumstantial evidence to link the Berner Street club with the goings-on at the coffee house in which Goldstein claimed to have been?

Now that could be a game changer

As close as you will get here...

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/general-help-request-items-for-sale-forum/600731-the-berner-street-club?p=608745#post608745

[FISHY1118]

So, no motive and no identification of the man by the police. What then, is the reason for your belief?



If Pipeman's behaviour is inexplicable, it is possible that Schwartz did not give the full story.

That B.S killed Stride ? well simply this , Schwartz gave a police statement that he witnessed B.S man assault Srtide at 12.45am, around 10 mins later she was murdered. . No one saw anyone else with stride after 12.45 am untill her body was discovered at 1.00am .

Lets not forget, Schwartz was taken to the mortuary where he identified the dead body of Stride as the women he saw B.S assault . Which begs the question , If he indeed lied and made the whole story up as some have suggested, how and why then did he identify a person he never met ?






Whats so inexplicable about Pipemans behaviour that is relevant to Strides assault as far as B.S man later being her killer . ?

[Abby Normal]

Except, the behaviour exhibited by BS Man is far removed from all his other kills as it could possibly be.

Attacking his victim in the street with at least 1 witness within a few yards?

If BS man was the Ripper, then we are dealing with nothing more than an aggressive street thug/gang member, with an unhealthy addition to cutting up women.

Perhaps that's the mystery right there.

All this time we've been considering the Ripper was a cold calm psychopath; when all along we should have been looking for a random thug, who got lucky.


Hmmm...


Really?

hi rd
youre overthinking it. he was probably both. he wasnt a robot. on this occasion it appears he lost his temper with a reluctant victim.

the annals of serial crime are rife with examples of killers whos different kills look radically different. for example bundys first and last crimes are nothing like the majority if his normal cunning planned out mo.

and if the ripper was bury (who imho is one of the least weak suspects) then it fits his personality to a t. a conman who sometimes lost his temper and was acted like a violent thug.

[FISHY1118]

You're quite right, but my point is that Stride did not move over to the gateway from where she had been seen standing with Parcelman by PC Smith, until AFTER Eagle had gone back into the club.

That indicates that when Eagle returned to the club; presumably only a minute or so after Pc Smith had left; that Parcel man and Stride were still talking in the same spot as Eagle walked past them without noticing them.

Eagle tries the front door and then finding it locked, then walks into the yard.

It is from THIS point that Stride walks over to the gateway either with OR without Parcelman.

Then, when Mortimer comes to her door and sees nobody motion towards the yard; then that indicates that Stride needed to have moved to the gateway BEFORE Mortimer looks down the street.

From the visual line of sight that Mortimer would of had, she would have seen Stride walk over to the gateway, but she didn't.

That shows that Stride had to have moved over to the gateway between Eagle going into the yard and Mortimer looking out from her position at her door.

Now the anomaly is Lave.

Lave wasn't seen by Pc Smith, unless Lave was also Parcelman.

As for whether Parcelman was Lave or not; If he was, then it gives an explanation of where Parcelman went; ergo, back into the club.

That's not to say that Parcel man was the killer

But if Parcelman was Lave, it supports the fact that Parcelman was not seen leaving Berner Street by anyone.

Of course, we also have Schwartz's statement.


''It is pretty clear from all of the combined witness evidence that the assault described by Schwartz didn't take place; and if it did, then Bs Man was most likely the killer, and almost certainly not the Ripper.''

But why would a man come forward (Schwartz).and place himself at the scene of the crime and within a time frame consistent with the time a woman was murdered?

Seems unlikely.

But what if there was another reason for a man coming forward under the guise of a witness to an assault outside the club?

Well, let's just say, I have another idea for his reasoning that I am currently formulating and will present in a separate thread in due course.

But in terms of physical location, Schwartz's claim that Stirde was standing in the gateway when she was assaulted by BS Man, is at least consistent with the idea that Stride was certainly not standing in the same place she was seen in when observed by PC Smith, because Mortimer would have seen her and the fact remains that Stride had to move from the Board School side of the road and over to the gateway at some point between Eagle going into the yard and Mortimer coming to her door.


But let's not forget the positive sighting of Goldstein.

What if there is an explanation for the distinct 2 different timelines that Mortimer appears to give?

Perhaps initially she was standing at her door for the majority of the half an hour between 12.30am-1am.

But then was persuaded to reduce that timing to just 10 minutes.

What if Mortimer's sighting of Goldstein wasn't as it seemed and rather than him walking past and looking up at the club before going around the corner of the board school, that she witnessed him instead coming out of the yard?
Mortimer's sighting of Goldstein walking down Berner Street serves to prove it couldn't have been Goldstein.

But what if it wasn't a case of Goldstein coming forward after being seen by Mortimer, but more a case of Mortimer was seen by Goldstein as he left the yard and Fanny was later convinced to alter what she saw through fear of reprisal hanging over her head.

What if "the witness" who was the only person to see the killer...was Mortimer?

Schwartz Is then brought in by the club to give a false statement of a random street thug assaulting the victim shortly before she was found dead.
This added with a little playing the "race card" by having a man shout "Lipski!" and all of a sudden we have a perfect diversion from any potential focus on a club member being involved.

Schwartz's timing of 12.45am was perhaps giving in a bid to bring the timing of the murder forward from circa 12.55am

The amended and reduced timing of Mortimer, combined with the vindication of Goldstein and the inclusion of a random street thug assault, all come together to throw a shadow over proceedings.

Of course, Goldstein was said to have an alibi, by having been at a coffee house shortly beforehand.

Imagine if there was some circumstantial evidence to link the Berner Street club with the goings-on at the coffee house in which Goldstein claimed to have been?


Now that could be a game changer

Ive yet to see a witness statement or any evidence that contradicts what Schwartz claimed he saw at 12.45 am , therefor we must accept his testimony given to the police at the time, which as evidence suggest they had no reason to to disbelieve him .

[Abby Normal]

Ive yet to see a witness statement or any evidence that contradicts what Schwartz claimed he saw at 12.45 am , therefor we must accept his testimony given to the police at the time, which as evidence suggest they had no reason to to disbelieve him .

bingo.
theres also no evidence of stride being alive after her encounter with bs man nor any other suspect present who could have been her killer.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That B.S killed Stride ? well simply this , Schwartz gave a police statement that he witnessed B.S man assault Srtide at 12.45am, around 10 mins later she was murdered. . No one saw anyone else with stride after 12.45 am untill her body was discovered at 1.00am .

So, the assault and murder occurred over about a 10-minute period - from about 12:45 to 12:55. In this period, both murderer and victim went unnoticed by club attendees, neighbours, and street passers-by. Okay.

Lets not forget, Schwartz was taken to the mortuary where he identified the dead body of Stride as the women he saw B.S assault . Which begs the question , If he indeed lied and made the whole story up as some have suggested, how and why then did he identify a person he never met ?

Swanson's summary of the incident states, Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen...

For the sake of argument, suppose it said, Before being taken to the mortuary Schwartz described the appearance of the woman he had seen, and this description was acceptably close to the appearance of the deceased.

What would that imply? Suppose that Israel Schwartz killed Stride and made up the story of the two men. As you say, there was no one else around to contradict Schwartz.

Whats so inexplicable about Pipemans behaviour that is relevant to Strides assault as far as B.S man later being her killer . ?

We only know of either man through Schwartz. If Pipeman's behaviour is inexplicable, then perhaps the described behaviour of the BS man is not accurate.

[The Rookie Detective]

Ive yet to see a witness statement or any evidence that contradicts what Schwartz claimed he saw at 12.45 am , therefor we must accept his testimony given to the police at the time, which as evidence suggest they had no reason to to disbelieve him .

Except Mortimer.and Brown and therefore the other couple standing on the corner of the board school were all within earshot and/or visual sightline of the alleged assault at approximately the same time.

And Packer...

Ah okay, forget Packer (sorry Jon)


The point is that you can't have at least 4 other witnesses all located wiithin a proximal radius of the gateway and not one of them HEARS or sees anything OR anyone that Schwartz claims occurred at the same time.


That is unless we delay Mortimer coming to her door by several minutes to allow for Schwartz, Bs man and Pipeman to all leave, place Brown's sighting 5 minutes later than he stated and negate the fact hat there was another couple who were seen by Brown and validated by Mortimer, who were situated within earshot of the murder site for almost the entire duration of the possible kill time, ergo, 12.41am - post 1am.

But at least when Stride was assaulted by an uncharacteristically quiet drunken thug with all the silent grace of a street mime artist who threw her to the floor, she was able to scream several times, but "not very loudly" for anyone (apart from Schwartz) to hear her; even Mortimer who had the ability to hear footsteps but not Stride screaming...and at least when Bs Man shouted "Lipski!" nobody heard it except Schwartz, and then when Schwartz ran off, at least he wasn't seen or heard running by the other couple. Perhaps he had learnt to run silently, unlike the stomping policeman who had walked past Mortimer's door. And of course, when Pipeman appeared, he managed to remain unseen the entire time, and Bs Man was likewise able to walk off without being seen or heard by anyone.


When the question is asked; well why didn't Schwartz appear at the inquest and why haven't we been able to identify who he actually was...the above may give us some reason as to why.


The fact that everyone else's timings has to rotate around Schwartz's 12.45am timing, speaks volumes.

[c.d.]

theres also no evidence of stride being alive after her encounter with bs man nor any other suspect present who could have been her killer.

True, but to be fair there is also no evidence of Stride being dead after her encounter with the B.S. man. According to Schwartz she was alive when he left the scene. And the above statement does not rule out the possibility of another suspect (and her killer) arriving later.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Except Mortimer.and Brown and therefore the other couple standing on the corner of the board school were all within earshot and/or visual sightline of the alleged assault at approximately the same time.

And Packer...

Ah okay, forget Packer (sorry Jon)


The point is that you can't have at least 4 other witnesses all located wiithin a proximal radius of the gateway and not one of them HEARS or sees anything OR anyone that Schwartz claims occurred at the same time.


That is unless we delay Mortimer coming to her door by several minutes to allow for Schwartz, Bs man and Pipeman to all leave, place Brown's sighting 5 minutes later than he stated and negate the fact hat there was another couple who were seen by Brown and validated by Mortimer, who were situated within earshot of the murder site for almost the entire duration of the possible kill time, ergo, 12.41am - post 1am.

But at least when Stride was assaulted by an uncharacteristically quiet drunken thug with all the silent grace of a street mime artist who threw her to the floor, she was able to scream several times, but "not very loudly" for anyone (apart from Schwartz) to hear her; even Mortimer who had the ability to hear footsteps but not Stride screaming...and at least when Bs Man shouted "Lipski!" nobody heard it except Schwartz, and then when Schwartz ran off, at least he wasn't seen or heard running by the other couple. Perhaps he had learnt to run silently, unlike the stomping policeman who had walked past Mortimer's door. And of course, when Pipeman appeared, he managed to remain unseen the entire time, and Bs Man was likewise able to walk off without being seen or heard by anyone.


When the question is asked; well why didn't Schwartz appear at the inquest and why haven't we been able to identify who he actually was...the above may give us some reason as to why.


The fact that everyone else's timings has to rotate around Schwartz's 12.45am timing, speaks volumes.

Wouldn’t I be within reason to make the following claim if I decided to?:

”I would suggest that we treat anything that Fanny Mortimer said with a fairly sizeable pinch of salt? If she was actually on her doorstep for most of the time between 12.30 and 1.00 why didn’t she see Joseph Lave who at least came to the gateway according to him? Why didn’t she see the couple standing across the street that PC Smith saw? Why didn’t she see Morris Eagle walk past her door at around 12.40 on his way back to the club? Why didn’t she see James Brown go for his supper and then return? Or the couple that he saw on the corner? Why didn’t she see the Schwartz incident? Did none of the above events occur? Or…was it simply an exaggeration on Fanny’s part…or was she making it all up?”

For some reason events in Berner Street are only seen from the point of view of having a question mark over Schwartz? I think that it’s Fanny Mortimer that some people seem determined to make excuses for. She saw Goldstein at some unconfirmed time and Goldstein confirmed that he’d walked along Berner Street on his way home but did he see Fanny on her doorstep as he passed? We have no record of him mentioning it. How do we know that Fanny didn't just see him pass through her window?

We have zero evidence that Fanny spent a single second on her doorstep. Now…I’m not saying that she wasn’t on her doorstep at some point and for an unknown length of time but I find it strange that Schwartz is painted as this almost mythical figure who can’t be trusted and yet Fanny is treated like Catholic’s treat the Pope..as infallible. Why?

And let’s not forget another important point. Just because the Victorian police weren’t a CSI Unit it doesn’t mean that they were the Keystone Cops either. They had local knowledge, experience and a fair measure of common sense and, as they were all local men, they couldn’t have had a stronger motivation to get this man off the streets so that their wives and sisters and girlfriends could feel safe again. Abberline was a highly respected officer who, unlike us, spoke to Schwartz face to face. He looked him in the eye and he believed him. Could he have been wrong? Of course he could, he was human, but he was no easily fooled sap who took in everything that he was told uncritically. The police also interviewed neighbours and locals giving them snippets of information that we aren’t privy to. No police officer that Im aware of suggested that Schwartz was never there. Or that there were plots and plans afoot.

We have no good reason to doubt Schwartz. He could have lied…very little is impossible. He could certainly have been mistaken in some way. But we have no reason to think him a liar. And we have to ask ourselves…have we ever heard of a murder taking place in the street where a man falsely claims to have seen an attack where he can only give a rough description of the attacker…so that we can’t even say that he was trying to implicate a specific person. So even the suggestion in itself is on the extreme ends of the unlikeliness chart.

[Lewis C]

When Mortimer states she had just come in and was preparing to go to bed, before hearing a commotion outside and going out etc... it seems likely that the "preparing to go to bed" (paraphrasing perhaps) COULD have entailed spending some time on said preparation.

In other words; she may have been speaking figuratively.

However, when she states she went to the door immediately after hearing the footsteps pass outside, this would seem to denote that there was very little time that had passed.

There is more eense of urgency just after hearing footsteps than there was for when she was preparing for bed.

On that basis, it would support the idea that Mortimer spent LESS than 4 minutes from when she heard the footsteps,, to when she went "immediately" to her door.

This is because the time frame for when she was subsequently preparing for bed; she doesn't use the same term of "Immediately."

In other words; Mortimer must have gone to her door LESS than 4 minutes AFTER she heard the footsteps pass by her door.

I wouldn't say that it had to have been less than 4 minutes, but I'll agree that most likely it was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wouldn’t I be within reason to make the following claim if I decided to?:

”I would suggest that we treat anything that Fanny Mortimer said with a fairly sizeable pinch of salt? If she was actually on her doorstep for most of the time between 12.30 and 1.00 why didn’t she see Joseph Lave who at least came to the gateway according to him? Why didn’t she see the couple standing across the street that PC Smith saw? Why didn’t she see Morris Eagle walk past her door at around 12.40 on his way back to the club? Why didn’t she see James Brown go for his supper and then return? Or the couple that he saw on the corner? Why didn’t she see the Schwartz incident? Did none of the above events occur? Or…was it simply an exaggeration on Fanny’s part…or was she making it all up?”

For some reason events in Berner Street are only seen from the point of view of having a question mark over Schwartz? I think that it’s Fanny Mortimer that some people seem determined to make excuses for. She saw Goldstein at some unconfirmed time and Goldstein confirmed that he’d walked along Berner Street on his way home but did he see Fanny on her doorstep as he passed? We have no record of him mentioning it. How do we know that Fanny didn't just see him pass through her window?

We have zero evidence that Fanny spent a single second on her doorstep. Now…I’m not saying that she wasn’t on her doorstep at some point and for an unknown length of time but I find it strange that Schwartz is painted as this almost mythical figure who can’t be trusted and yet Fanny is treated like Catholic’s treat the Pope..as infallible. Why?

And let’s not forget another important point. Just because the Victorian police weren’t a CSI Unit it doesn’t mean that they were the Keystone Cops either. They had local knowledge, experience and a fair measure of common sense and, as they were all local men, they couldn’t have had a stronger motivation to get this man off the streets so that their wives and sisters and girlfriends could feel safe again. Abberline was a highly respected officer who, unlike us, spoke to Schwartz face to face. He looked him in the eye and he believed him. Could he have been wrong? Of course he could, he was human, but he was no easily fooled sap who took in everything that he was told uncritically. The police also interviewed neighbours and locals giving them snippets of information that we aren’t privy to. No police officer that Im aware of suggested that Schwartz was never there. Or that there were plots and plans afoot.

We have no good reason to doubt Schwartz. He could have lied…very little is impossible. He could certainly have been mistaken in some way. But we have no reason to think him a liar. And we have to ask ourselves…have we ever heard of a murder taking place in the street where a man falsely claims to have seen an attack where he can only give a rough description of the attacker…so that we can’t even say that he was trying to implicate a specific person. So even the suggestion in itself is on the extreme ends of the unlikeliness chart.

By the way RD, I know that this post was a response to yours but I’m certainly not having a dig at you. It was meant as a general point about attitudes to one witness (Schwartz) compared to another (Mortimer.)

[Lewis C]

The 10-minute period is not 'set in stone'. Perhaps there was an uninterrupted 8-to-10-minute period, followed by a brief period in her own room (possibly to check on her ill husband), followed by a few more minutes at the door. We can never know for sure if that report faithfully captures Fanny's movements. We cannot even state with 100% certainty that she is the subject of that report.

Whatever the case, Fanny Mortimer was quoted as saying: There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe anyone enter the gates.

Would she be so confident that there was no suspicious noise made, had she been out of hearing range of the street for any significant period?

But I'm not saying that the period after Fanny locked up was definitely more than 5 minutes, only that it's a possibility, which fits with your first paragraph that there are various possibilities.

For your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, I believe that she means that there was no noise made during the time that she was standing at the door.

[Lewis C]

Except Mortimer.and Brown and therefore the other couple standing on the corner of the board school were all within earshot and/or visual sightline of the alleged assault at approximately the same time.

And Packer...

Ah okay, forget Packer (sorry Jon)


The point is that you can't have at least 4 other witnesses all located wiithin a proximal radius of the gateway and not one of them HEARS or sees anything OR anyone that Schwartz claims occurred at the same time.


That is unless we delay Mortimer coming to her door by several minutes to allow for Schwartz, Bs man and Pipeman to all leave, place Brown's sighting 5 minutes later than he stated and negate the fact hat there was another couple who were seen by Brown and validated by Mortimer, who were situated within earshot of the murder site for almost the entire duration of the possible kill time, ergo, 12.41am - post 1am.

But at least when Stride was assaulted by an uncharacteristically quiet drunken thug with all the silent grace of a street mime artist who threw her to the floor, she was able to scream several times, but "not very loudly" for anyone (apart from Schwartz) to hear her; even Mortimer who had the ability to hear footsteps but not Stride screaming...and at least when Bs Man shouted "Lipski!" nobody heard it except Schwartz, and then when Schwartz ran off, at least he wasn't seen or heard running by the other couple. Perhaps he had learnt to run silently, unlike the stomping policeman who had walked past Mortimer's door. And of course, when Pipeman appeared, he managed to remain unseen the entire time, and Bs Man was likewise able to walk off without being seen or heard by anyone.


When the question is asked; well why didn't Schwartz appear at the inquest and why haven't we been able to identify who he actually was...the above may give us some reason as to why.


The fact that everyone else's timings has to rotate around Schwartz's 12.45am timing, speaks volumes.

For Mortimer, Brown, and the couple on the corner to have seen the Schwartz incident, it's not enough for them to have been there at approximately the same time. They would have to have been there at exactly the same time. Also, you treat the fact that no witnesses that we know of having seen Schwartz, BS man, or Pipe Man as if that were 3 different things, each of them bolstering the idea that Schwartz' story is doubtful. But if they were all there at the same time, it's not surprising that if one weren't see, the others likely wouldn't be seen either. It just means that there were no witnesses at the time that we know of, so with no witnesses, the whole thing went unseen.