Suspect Witnesses?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And I mean why would they, or even Abberline and Swanson, not have some doubt when Schwartz did not understand English and couldn't have understood what he saw in the brief time he was there. Doubt in this case would seem normal. But it seems they got past any doubt they might have had initially.

c.d.

I can only guess but my guess would be because Schwartz never said he saw Stride being murdered and so the police could not be certain that he simply might have witnessed a little street hassle and therefore B.S. man was not her killer.

c.d.

I'm a little confused - did Schwartz not understand what he saw, because interpreting what he saw required a good command of English, or did he just witness "a little street hassle", that could be understood by any witness of any background?

Did the witness(es) to the following report understand what they seeing?

The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Could it be that those who saw it thought it was a man and wife quarrelling, because it was a husband and wife quarrelling? If yes, who was the man, and who was the wife?

[c.d.]

I'm a little confused - did Schwartz not understand what he saw, because interpreting what he saw required a good command of English, or did he just witness "a little street hassle", that could be understood by any witness of any background?

Schwartz might have been able to interpret what he thought he was seeing but it would have been very difficult to be certain. He would have no way of knowing what or who instigated the altercation or what it was all about. Nor could he ascertain the B.S. man's intention.

Take a look at the A Modern Day BS Man/Liz encounter thread I started. Had I not understood English my interpretation of what I thought I was seeing would have been completely wrong.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

. . . The police seemingly had reason for giving the Star man the relevant tip. They possibly even supplied the interpreter who was conveniently at hand. Evidently, they wanted to see if Schwartz would tell the same story twice and possibly provide any extra important detail.

For what its worth, I doubt the police gave the name of the witness away, but the journalist may have asked for the name of the interpreter. Which they would naturally track down, thereby getting the name of the witness.

[GBinOz]

That Smith arrived back in Berner Street after Lamb is an established fact.
Agree

The fact that Lamb arrived in Berner Street after Diemschitz found the body at around 1.00 (meaning that he got there at approximately 1.05) is also established.

Not so fast my friend. Established by whom, and on what clock synchronisation? My estimations based on Police Time are five to seven minutes earlier than those to which you refer to as 'established".

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm a little confused - did Schwartz not understand what he saw, because interpreting what he saw required a good command of English, or did he just witness "a little street hassle", that could be understood by any witness of any background?

Did the witness(es) to the following report understand what they seeing?

The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Could it be that those who saw it thought it was a man and wife quarrelling, because it was a husband and wife quarrelling? If yes, who was the man, and who was the wife?

I think the answer is quite simple if Stride was soliciting, as she may have been the man who threw her to the ground could simply have been someone she propositioned who didn't want to know and simply pushed her aside, and she fell over.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

I'm a little confused - did Schwartz not understand what he saw, because interpreting what he saw required a good command of English, or did he just witness "a little street hassle", that could be understood by any witness of any background?

Did the witness(es) to the following report understand what they seeing?

The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Could it be that those who saw it thought it was a man and wife quarrelling, because it was a husband and wife quarrelling? If yes, who was the man, and who was the wife?

''''
Im a little confused also. Who else witnessed the attack on Stride at 12.45am ? ........ '' Those who saw it '' who are these '' Supposed ''Those''

[FISHY1118]

I think the answer is quite simple if Stride was soliciting, as she may have been the man who threw her to the ground could simply have been someone she propositioned who didn't want to know and simply pushed her aside, and she fell over.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Prior to that tho , the man was witnessed trying to drag Stride into the street , which implies that he was trying to take her somewhere does it not ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Prior to that tho , the man was witnessed trying to drag Stride into the street , which implies that he was trying to take her somewhere does it not ?

The whole scenario is open to interpretation as to how the witnesses perceived what they saw.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

When she goes somewhere else, the 10-minute doorstep vigil must start. There is not enough remaining time for these things to occur consecutively.

The other issue is that by supposing she goes somewhere else, after standing in the gateway, Stride's gateway vigil is left unexplained. Not only that but the BS man's motivation for acting violently to her, is also left unexplained.

Everything can be explained. You just don’t like the answers because they don’t point to some kind of plot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not so fast my friend. Established by whom, and on what clock synchronisation? My estimations based on Police Time are five to seven minutes earlier than those to which you refer to as 'established".

Cheers, George

I’m only going on approximations George. Perhaps I should have put it as….Lamb would have arrived at the club approximately 5 minutes or so after Diemschitz had discovered the body (which, by the Harris clock at least occurred at 1.00 or 1.01)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Note the double-standard here. Maybe Smith went beyond regulation and didn't mention it to the coroner. On the other hand, pointing out that several convenient minutes has been tacked on to Smith's beat, amounts to "tireless nitpicking". So, this unexplained delay in Smith reaching the yard is both significant, and trivial.

The truth is that you have no evidence for Smith being significantly outside regulation, but you're going to assume he was regardless. The reason being that you need those extra minutes, and we all know why.

Ok…Smith first passed at around 12.35 and then again at around 1.05. As George (I believe) said previously, the best way to approach this is by ‘order of events’ first without times. Because of the absolute fact of poor clock synchronisation and of fallible humans estimating periods of time then we cannot go around dismissing events by “tireless nitpicking.” Nothing that occurred in Berner Street can’t be given an entirely reasonable explanation. Usually more than one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Her moving out is not suspicious. You're implying that I've said something that I have not.

The report states that the move was from Berner St to Backchurch Lane (probably meaning Ellen St). Schwartz gave his address as Ellen St, to the police. The wording of the report is not "a little murky". It says that she is moving in his absence. If Schwartz is living at Ellen St on Sunday evening, she has left him, and the only other address mentioned is on Berner St, then it's reasonable to suppose that she might have moved to Berner St, not the other way around.

Now if the police found out about this, having read the Star report, would doubt fall on "the Hungarian"? Yes, it would. According to the Star, his name and address were withheld, and that seems to be true. Yet the Star man managed to "run him to earth". The police seemingly had reason for giving the Star man the relevant tip. They possibly even supplied the interpreter who was conveniently at hand. Evidently, they wanted to see if Schwartz would tell the same story twice and possibly provide any extra important detail.

Schwartz spoke to the police after the murder (I assume that you accept this) by which time his wife would have completed the move to Ellen Street. So he gives his address to the police as Ellen Street. Therefore the move was from Berner Street to Ellen Street.

Im at a loss to understand why you should think otherwise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is how the report begins, in the Star Oct 2:

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

At that point, no one else has been referred to except the Hungarian. The doubts refer to him. It is unambiguous.



They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

The arrests are owing to Schwartz's statement, and neither of them are owing to another arrest, especially of a man whose story is not wholly believed! No, they did not ignore the prisoner, why on earth would I suggest that? He was questioned, but now that doubts have fallen on Schwartz, he has been cleared. We can assume that the shifting of doubt from prisoner to Schwartz was not just a matter of one man's word against another. Something much more significant must have occurred.



There was no one else to be seen on the street, according to Schwartz. Why would the police suppose someone else might come along, if they have absolute faith in Schwartz, as you suppose?



Nice try, but I've already posted on this, and the last time was in reply to yourself ...

As far as I can recall Andrew you have never stated openly and clearly what you believe occurred in Berner Street that night. So without hints and implications why don’t you do that? Tell us what you think and we can discuss it.

[New Waterloo]

The only logicals reason I can see that Stride would be pulled away from the gateway into the street would be

• That BS man is drunken Kidney. He knows she is friendly with and works for some Jewish people and he is agitated by this and her so goes to the club or comes across her in his wanderings

OR

• The man is a bit drunk and fancies his chances with Liz, pulling her away from the Jewish club which he does not frequent, to encourage her to go with him. She sends him on his way before she wanders into the club either to see Parcelman or to enjoy the music and singing, who wouldn't. She was after a nice time out, hence her making the effort with the way she dressed that evening.

In other words BS man seems to be a pain in the backside half drunk. Surely JTR wouldn't expose himself to potential witnesses with his behaviour.

NW