Suspect Witnesses?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And I’ll add that Wick is correct.



The fact that Schwartz is late getting back is neither here nor there. People are sometimes late. We could speculate 100 reasons and it still might have been something else.

“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…Schwartz has gone out during the days for reasons unknown to us. While he’s out his wife is moving their belongings from their lodgings in Berner Street to their new lodgings in Backchurch Row. While he’s in Berner Street, on his way to his ‘old’ lodgings he sees the incident. Where is his wife? At their new lodgings presumably.

At no point have I made Schwartz's reason for being on the street, the issue. I've repeatedly said that he was there to ascertain if her move had taken place. You're and Jon's framing of the issue in this manner, is misleading.

As you have already conceded, a literal reading of the Star report suggests that she, not they are moving address. This is a critical point and could help to understand why the Leman St police expressed doubts about Schwartz's story.

The evidence is there to be explained - that's my attitude. Not swept under a mental carpet.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It’s not though. If you combed through true crime stories you would find thousands and thousands of examples of a particular incident only being seen by one person. This was a very short incident and would have required an empty street for a very short time.

A very short time? Other than ignoring how long Stride might have been standing in the gateway, you must be assuming that once Schwartz runs off, everyone else must also leave the street very quickly. You cannot possibly know this, but to suppose this was the case surely implies that BS was the killer. What will c.d. have to say about that, I wonder?

[c.d.]

What will c.d. have to say about that, I wonder?

I am quite delighted to see that you value my opinion so highly.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

At no point have I made Schwartz's reason for being on the street, the issue. I've repeatedly said that he was there to ascertain if her move had taken place. You're and Jon's framing of the issue in this manner, is misleading.

As you have already conceded, a literal reading of the Star report suggests that she, not they are moving address. This is a critical point and could help to understand why the Leman St police expressed doubts about Schwartz's story.

The evidence is there to be explained - that's my attitude. Not swept under a mental carpet.

It’s not a critical point by any means. It’s an insignificance which you are constantly trying to load with meaning. She was moving whilst he was elsewhere doing who knows what. Why should that have made the police suspicious?

[Wickerman]

Or the greatest mystery is how the entire story relies on Schwartz alone.

It's statistically more likely that the entire account given by Schwartz never even happened.

But then you are heading down the 'lying witness' rabbit hole where anything is possible. As soon as we adopt that view, we've lost the argument.

Witnesses are more often mistaken than intentionally lying.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A very short time? Other than ignoring how long Stride might have been standing in the gateway, you must be assuming that once Schwartz runs off, everyone else must also leave the street very quickly. You cannot possibly know this, but to suppose this was the case surely implies that BS was the killer. What will c.d. have to say about that, I wonder?

As long as we know that it’s a possibility this is all that we need. You, on the other hand, need to stretch out this incident to try and make it sound unlikely. We have no reason to suspect this was the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But then you are heading down the 'lying witness' rabbit hole where anything is possible. As soon as we adopt that view, we've lost the argument.

Witnesses are more often mistaken than intentionally lying.

Exactly Wick.

[c.d.]

Or the greatest mystery is how the entire story relies on Schwartz alone.

Except that Schwartz never claimed to have witnessed a murder.

c.d.

[FrankO]

Letchford is right on 12:30, so that's cutting it a bit fine,...

Agreed, no problem.

Her not mentioning Brown is neither here nor there by the standards of "nothing unusual".

I’ll give you that one, too.

Eagle didn't pass through the street, strictly speaking.

Strictly speaking or not, when he turned back to the club, he first tried the front door, which was some 12 meters from where Mortimer stood and in Berner Street, and then he entered the yard. Didn’t Mortimer say “and I did not observe anyone enter the gates”?

Lave didn't go beyond the gateway.

Actually, Lave did say that he go beyond the gateway.

Daily News & Evening Standard of 1 October:
“I passed out into the street, but did not see anything unusual. The district appeared to me to be quiet.”

Evening News of 1 October:
“At half-past twelve I had come out into the street to get a breath of fresh air. There was nothing unusual in the street.”

Irish Times & Morning Advertiser of 1 October:
“went down into the court about twenty minutes before the body was discovered, and walked about in the open air, and for five minutes or more he strolled into the street, which was very quiet at the time…”

You know all this Frank, so what is the argument?

As shown above, I don't know all this as they're neither relevant nor facts, so my argument still stands in that if Mortimer, as she said, “was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock”, then it’s, at least, odd that she didn’t mention seeing Eagle, Lave and Stride & Parcelman. So, it’s clearly arguable that the ‘half-hour-proposition’ is preferable to the ‘10-minute one’. If that’s not clear to you, then I cannot help you.

As for Stride and Parcelman, well who is that the biggest problem for, those who believe a report that claims she went to her door immediately on hearing a policeman's plod, or those who are inclined to ignore that report?

I have no idea who that is the biggest problem for, Andrew. The way I see it, is that she should have seen the couple if she was actually at her door nearly the whole time between half past twelve and one o’clock. They were standing more or less directly opposite Mortimer’s door, on the pavement on the other side of the street. As to the ‘10-minute story’, it’s not a fact that it must have been policeman’s tramp that she heard – after all, she didn’t say that she saw a policeman pass; and, furthermore, the same goes for the ‘immediately’ you mention. If it really was immediately, she would have seen Smith some yards to her left up Berner Street and it seems unlikely that the couple on the opposite side of the street had just vanished at that point. After all, they were standing there talking when Smith passed.

The murderer seems to have departed well before Diemschitz turns into the street. When then, does this 10-minute vigil begin and end? A while back on this thread, a number of posters stated they did not believe BS was the killer - another man came along. Really? When?

Well, I’m not one of those posters. But if another man did come along, I think it's most likely that he did so almost directly after Mr BS left and the Schwartz account was over, which could have happened in a minute or so.

[The Rookie Detective]

Agreed, no problem.


I’ll give you that one, too.


Strictly speaking or not, when he turned back to the club, he first tried the front door, which was some 12 meters from where Mortimer stood and in Berner Street, and then he entered the yard. Didn’t Mortimer say “and I did not observe anyone enter the gates”?


Actually, Lave did say that he go beyond the gateway.

Daily News & Evening Standard of 1 October:
“I passed out into the street, but did not see anything unusual. The district appeared to me to be quiet.”

Evening News of 1 October:
“At half-past twelve I had come out into the street to get a breath of fresh air. There was nothing unusual in the street.”

Irish Times & Morning Advertiser of 1 October:
“went down into the court about twenty minutes before the body was discovered, and walked about in the open air, and for five minutes or more he strolled into the street, which was very quiet at the time…”


As shown above, I don't know all this as they're neither relevant nor facts, so my argument still stands in that if Mortimer, as she said, “was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock”, then it’s, at least, odd that she didn’t mention seeing Eagle, Lave and Stride & Parcelman. So, it’s clearly arguable that the ‘half-hour-proposition’ is preferable to the ‘10-minute one’. If that’s not clear to you, then I cannot help you.


I have no idea who that is the biggest problem for, Andrew. The way I see it, is that she should have seen the couple if she was actually at her door nearly the whole time between half past twelve and one o’clock. They were standing more or less directly opposite Mortimer’s door, on the pavement on the other side of the street. As to the ‘10-minute story’, it’s not a fact that it must have been policeman’s tramp that she heard – after all, she didn’t say that she saw a policeman pass; and, furthermore, the same goes for the ‘immediately’ you mention. If it really was immediately, she would have seen Smith some yards to her left up Berner Street and it seems unlikely that the couple on the opposite side of the street had just vanished at that point. After all, they were standing there talking when Smith passed.


Well, I’m not one of those posters. But if another man did come along, I think it's most likely that he did so almost directly after Mr BS left and the Schwartz account was over, which could have happened in a minute or so.

Mortimer couldn't have come to her door until after Parcelman, Smith, Eagle, Lave, Letchford, the couple who met at the corner of the Commercial Road, and of course Stride, had all gone.

That means the earliest that she could have come to her door was 12.41am.

We then have a maximum of 18 minutes before it gets to 12.59am when Mortimer had to have gone back inside.

So when she says most of the time between 12.30 and 1am, it's clear it was only her perception of the time she spent.
But if we accept that she did spent most of the time at the door, then what would be deemed a reasonable perception of time within a 30 minute time period where someone believed they had spent "most of the time?"

Well I'd say that 12 minutes is the absolute minimum and still possible depending on the individuals perception of that time frame.

So, which 12 minute time slot can be allocated to Mortimer that falls after 12.40am?

Well it can't be too late, as working back from 1am, then 12 minutes from 1am, means that the latest Mortimer came to her door was no later than 12.48am

So she must have come to her door anytime between 12.41am and 12.48am.

But considering that the Schwartz account takes place at circa 12.45am, it then causes Mortimer problems.


If Schwartz did indeed witness an assault, then we also need to postpone Mortimer coming to her door.

That means that Bs man, Schwartz and Pipeman also need to be gone before Mortimer gets to her door.


And considering Brown never saw or heard the assault circa 12.45am on his way to the Chandler Shop, and the couple on the corner didn't see or hear anything circa 12.50am when Brown saw them on the corner, then it seems to suggest that the assault must have taken place before the couple arrived on the corner of Fairclough St and before Brown got to the Chandlers Shop.

Therefore, only time that the assault could have possibly happened was between 12.41am and 12.44am.

it's the only time frame that could possibly fit into everyone else's statements.

Mortimer then stands at her door from 12.47am to 12.59am which is around 12 minutes and could be perceived by her (incorrectly) as being "most of the time" in the half hour period of time.

12 minutes out of 30 is possible.

Of course, if the assault didn't take place at all, then the parameters can be loosened considerably.

The only time that...

Eagle
Smith
Lave
Mortimer
Letchford
Brown
The Commercial Road couple
The couple on the corner of Fairclougglg St


...were all absent from the street, was 12.41am to 12.44am.

But we also need to have Bs Man, Parcelman and Schwartz gone before Mortimer gets to her door.

So I'd say that the 12.41am - 12.44am is more likely to have been 12.42am - 12.43am.

An assault that took no more than 90 seconds.

Any more, and it simply didn't happen.

Because nobody saw or heard anything that Schwartz claimed.

Where did Bs man and Pipeman go?

90 seconds between Bs Man walking down Berner Street to the point when both Bs Man and Pipeman had left... and Schwartz of course.

Again, any longer and it never happened.

[Lewis C]

Except that the only report written in the first person and from Fanny herself, she does say that she was at her door for almost the whole time.

The 10 minute claim was written in a syntex that clearly didn't come from Fanny herself.

In other words, Fanny never said only 10 minutes.

Just because the journalist didn't give his report of what Fanny said in the form of a direct quote doesn't mean that the reporter is misrepresenting what Fanny said.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I wonder whether "most of the time" was not one continuous period, but was a longish but interrupted spell with two or three shorter periods of a few minutes indoors for some household matters. She could then have missed brief events.

[Lewis C]

Or ...

... I did not notice anything unusual.

The fact remains that "nearly the whole time" affords flexibility. Those who prefer the continuous 10-minute period could at least answer the most obvious question; did the murder occur before or after this period?

I say that there's more flexibility the other way. As for your question, it could have happened either before or after she was at her door, but I think after is more likely.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What will c.d. have to say about that, I wonder?

I am quite delighted to see that you value my opinion so highly.

c.d.

Yes, we are in agreement about BS not being the killer. However, I'm still trying to get a handle on how the BS incident was real, but he was not the murderer scenario is supposed to play out. Do you have a proposal for how Stride manages to stay at the gateway, unwitnessed, effectively waiting for her killer to come along?

[FISHY1118]

Yes, we are in agreement about BS not being the killer. However, I'm still trying to get a handle on how the BS incident was real, but he was not the murderer scenario is supposed to play out. Do you have a proposal for how Stride manages to stay at the gateway, unwitnessed, effectively waiting for her killer to come along?

Here my proposal, B.S man killed Stride and Schwartz witnesses the assault on her by him . Anything else is made up speculation and evidence tampering. End of.