Suspect Witnesses?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Was he? I cant recall that being confirmed but it was in a paper? Makes me comment above obsolete.

From The Star, "...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,"

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Perhaps someone could explain why our non-English speaker was able to interpret the following ...

... but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

Perhaps we can turn to the immortal words of Bob Dylan -- "You don't need a weatherman to know which way wind blows."

Exactly my point - you don't need to be a professional linguist to understand an assault when you see one.

I would say there are certain experiences which everyone pretty much agrees on. For example, "it sounded like an argument", "he seemed to be really drunk", "he seemed very angry", "he seemed to be spoiling for a fight", "it looked like he was flirting with her", "it looks like it is going to rain" etc.

Even children can give evidence in court.

As for the above example you picked out, notice he said "some sort" of warning. He couldn't say what it actually was. And "as if" to attack the intruder not he attacked the intruder. Everything else in the sentence would be obvious to anyone not visually impaired which apparently Schwartz was not.

c.d.

The reference to some sort of warning could mean the warning was coded or used terms familiar only to locals, and not that language per se was the barrier. Use of the term 'Lipski' would fit that hypothesis. If that is rejected, we are still faced with Schwartz grasping that a warning has been shouted, and that the man is the intended recipient, not the woman in close proximity.

The phrase "as if to attack the intruder" I take to mean that the man is advancing towards the intruder (Schwartz) but does proceed with the attack, likely because Schwartz flees before he reaches him.

Presumably you have noted the contrast between this scenario - in which the two men seemingly are together and known to each other - with the police summary; Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Your other claim is that this was a little street hassle. What practical difference does an understanding of English make to 'interpreting' that?

I never claimed that this was a little street hassle. Obviously I have no way of knowing with absolute certainty. My opinion is that this was just a little street hassle.

And I am not aware of Schwartz ever definitively describing what he saw as in I witnessed a murder/domestic argument/street hassle. Which is why Swanson allowed for the possibility of a second man being Stride's murderer and not the B.S. man.

c.d.

Okay, you may never have claimed this was a little street hassle, but you have been suggesting this interpretation for many years. Presumably, anything more violent fits uneasily with the notion of an annoying drunkard, who is not her murderer. So, was Schwartz correct that the woman was thrown on the footway, or did his lack of English lead him to misinterpret the situation?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

A witness lying isn't the same thing as a potential witness keeping his mouth shut.

See my response to c.d. for the 1st paragraph, For the 2nd, those 2 things are unexplained in any case.

Hi c.d.,

When I say somewhere else, I don't mean that it would have needed to be far away. I'm saying that if BS Man didn't kill her, that doesn't mean that she went back to standing in the gateway. If she was even 10 feet away from standing in the gateway, then she wouldn't have been standing in the gateway. If Brown really saw Stride, and if that was after the Schwartz incident, the couple that Brown saw wasn't standing in the gateway.

I see what you mean - Stride could have left the gateway to get away from the big guy, and come across a much nicer fellow named Jack, as little as 10 feet away. Quite possibly Jack was actually a boarder at the Mortimer residence. Sure, Fanny didn't mention him going out for a walk around a quarter to one, but that doesn't mean she lied. A witness lying isn't the same thing as a potential witness keeping her mouth shut, right?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What time did Smith pass - we don’t know. Was the woman across the road Stride - we don’t know. What time did Fanny Mortimer come onto her doorstep - we don’t know. What time did Lave come out - we don’t know. What time did Lave go back inside - we don’t know. What time did Eagle return - we don’t know. What time did Leon Goldstein pass - we don’t know. What time did Fanny Mortimer go back indoors - we don’t know. What time did Stride arrive at the gateway - we don’t know. What time did BS man enter Berner Street (followed by Schwartz - we don’t know. What time did Brown go for his supper - we don’t know. Who was the couple that he saw - we don’t know. What time did he return home - we don’t know. Where idi Pipeman arrive from - we don’t know. What time did Schwartz exit Berner Street - we don’t know. Where did Pipeman go - we don’t know. Did BS man kill Strode - we don’t know. What time did Diemschitz discover the body - we don’t know. What time did Diemschitz return to the yard with Spooner - we don’t know. What time did Lamb arrive at the yard - we don’t know. What time did Smith arrive - we don’t know.

I take it the revised timeline has struck an insurmountable issue.

That’s a reasonable list of unknowns and we know that more could be added and yet we constantly see people asking incredulously how it’s possible that certain people could have missed seeing each other or how an incident of a very few seconds went unseen or unheard. We get free reign for conspiracy theories. Utterly bizarrely we get people expressing disbelief that a woman (probably with help from family/friends) could move a few, probably, meagre possessions from one lodging to another a short distance away while her husband is out (possibly working)

A few, probably, meagre possessions? This overlooks Israel's appearance at the police station.

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

Now why wouldn't Mrs Schwartz be of similarly impressive dress and appearance, suggesting that the couple were of above average means? I don't understand the disbelief that the marriage is on the rocks, and she is moving out. However, why she has to move and not him, remains to be explained. I'm currently working on the theory that Mrs Schwartz was a cabaret dancer, and Israel kicked her out when he discovered she'd been having an affair with Bram Stoker.

[c.d.]

Okay, you may never have claimed this was a little street hassle, but you have been suggesting this interpretation for many years.

Yes, that is correct. I never denied it.

So, was Schwartz correct that the woman was thrown on the footway, or did his lack of English lead him to misinterpret the situation?

The basic premise at work here is that a part of the picture or even most of the picture is not necessarily the same as the entire picture. Schwartz never gets the entire picture due to the language barrier. So yes, while he can say I saw a woman being thrown on the footway, he has no way of knowing what instigated that. He has no clue to the B.S. man's intention. He would have no way of knowing if the B.S. man had said "oh sorry, miss. I didn't mean to pull so hard. My apologies." Or he might have missed Stride saying "that is okay, I should not have mouthed off to you or it was an accident, I think our legs got tangled up." Or the B.S. man saying "I'm Jack the Ripper and I am going to cut your throat."

Can you see how additional information or part of the situation not being clear can change perception?

Schwartz never got the whole picture.

I mean how much mileage do you intend to squeeze out of this point? Perhaps as an experiment you could try to put yourself in Schwartz's shoes. Rent a movie that is in Hungarian with no English subtitles. Fast forward it to the middle of the movie, watch for two minutes and then turn it off. Then see if you can give a detailed synopsis of the plot and the characters' motivation. If you are successful you will get a tip of the ole' fedora from me and you will have made all of us citing the problem with Schwartz not understanding English all look very foolish.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I see what you mean - Stride could have left the gateway to get away from the big guy, and come across a much nicer fellow named Jack, as little as 10 feet away. Quite possibly Jack was actually a boarder at the Mortimer residence. Sure, Fanny didn't mention him going out for a walk around a quarter to one, but that doesn't mean she lied. A witness lying isn't the same thing as a potential witness keeping her mouth shut, right?

Maybe it's just me but I am getting some sarcasm here.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

I don't understand the concept that "he had no idea which street he was passing through" as he was said to have been living in Berner Street.

Yes, if you recall we touched on that a few pages back. Nowhere are we given an address in Berner St., the press gave us "from Berner St. to Backchurch Lane".

The police, likely the more trusted source gave us "Ellen St., Backchurch Lane", which indicates the "Backchurch Lane" offered by the press was actually an abbreviation for the same, - "Ellen St., Backchurch Lane".

Yet, when Schwartz relates his story to police, he tells them he turned into Berner St. from Commercial Rd., but made no indication he stopped at or was headed for any address in Berner St., in fact he ran clear through and down towards the railway arch.

Him moving from an address in Berner St. came from the press, we have no reliable confirmation that this was factually correct.

When we compare the police version with the press version, we find the press have padded out several details not officially provided to police. Yet we have assumed those details are correct. Perhaps this is our first mistake.

[Wickerman]

So was he just wandering aimlessly around Whitechapel with no clue what street he was on or where he was going? I think that is far fetched to say the least but even if it were the case- he would have known where the club was or we would assume he did as it was well known. So if he heard of the murder beside the club then he goes to Police as he remembers seeing an incident take place there at about 12:45am.

You might appreciate this forum has debated Schwartz for decades, the same witnesses, the same details, the same circumstances, for roughly 30 years - yet every time 'we' seem to think 'we' can come up with a different solution.
You've heard the definition of madness, right?

What I'm doing (as detailed in my reply to Doc.), is try find some detail that has been overlooked. It must be something so obvious that it has never been questioned.
Somewhere in what we have read there is a fault, likely something we have all taken for granted, and I am suggesting the fault lies in the press version, and this whole story did come via an interpreter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I take it the revised timeline has struck an insurmountable issue.

No, it’s an attempt to yet again drill home the fact that we can’t go around dismissing suggestions because of a matter of a few estimated minutes. Most people should be pretty tired of wasting words on this issue Andrew. It’s just so fundamental and yet I keep finding myself having to keep re-stating it.

A few, probably, meagre possessions? This overlooks Israel's appearance at the police station.

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

So just because he appeared better dressed than most we assume that he had van loads of furniture? Or should we remind ourselves of the locations that he was moving from and where he was moving to?

Now why wouldn't Mrs Schwartz be of similarly impressive dress and appearance, suggesting that the couple were of above average means? I don't understand the disbelief that the marriage is on the rocks, and she is moving out. However, why she has to move and not him, remains to be explained. I'm currently working on the theory that Mrs Schwartz was a cabaret dancer, and Israel kicked her out when he discovered she'd been having an affair with Bram Stoker.

The fact that Schwartz was out and about while his wife was at home doing the moving suggests that he was doing something work-related so possibly he was expected to dress smartly. It maybe that the couple were a little better off than most but they were still living in a very poor area.

[Wickerman]

Was he? I cant recall that being confirmed but it was in a paper? Makes me comment above obsolete.

All we can reasonably accept is, that Schwartz gave 22 Ellen St. Backchurch Lane, to police when he spoke with them at Leman St. on the day of the murder.
Whether this was his new address, or his old address, is debatable.