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.

[The Rookie Detective]

You make some excellent points.

You are of course correct in that timings are all estimations.

But it's not the timing, it's the chronology and sequence of events that's the key.

The point is that regardless of timings, Schwartz and Brown can't occupy the same space at the same time.

So if the assault occurred at 12.45am and Brown passed the junction at 12.45am, then we can be sure that one of them at least must be slightly out on their timings.

So who then corroborates who?

Well, Mortimer actually said "most of the time" and was never quoted as saying "10 minutes" so if we choose to believe her judgement and integrity, we need to work out the longest period of time that Mortimer could have been at her door between 12.30am--1am

So if we take a 30 minute time period, then mathematically 16 minutes out 0f 30, is "most of the time" ergo, more than half.
However, we also need to factor in exaggeration and poor awareness of time, and thus; what is the least amount of time from 30 minutes that someone could stand at a door and still feel that they were there "most of the time?"

I would suggest that 12 minutes out of 30 is pushing that boundary, however it is still possible that if Mortimer was wrong, then 12 minutes is the very least amount of time that she could have been at her door and still feel she was the most of the time.

So we need to allocate at least 12 minutes for Mortimer.

So if Mortimer goes inside just before Diemschitz passes by (she never mentions seeing him) at around 1am, then we can use 12.59am as the latest that Mortimer went inside.

And then we work back 12 minutes to 12.47am

That's the absolute latest that Mortimer could have come to her door.

She also saw Goldstein, so we know that he passed down the street when she was standing at her door at some point between 12.47am to 12.59am

Mortimer also states that there was a couple standing at the corner who were there both before and after the murder was discovered.

This is because the female from the couple Mortimer claimed spoke to her after the body had been found.

It was also reported that the couple on the corner were there for around "20 minutes."

This 20 minutes must include the time after Stride is found.

And again, the couple may have exaggerated and been wrong about 20 minutes.

Like Mortimer, it may have been as little as 12 minutes, rather than 20.

So that puts the couple on the corner at 12.50am at the very latest, based on a 12 minute period rather than 20 as the couple stated and the body being found at 1.02am

So we have Mortimer corroborating a couple and a couple standing in the corner around "20 yards away" who are there by 12.50am at the very latest.

But who can corroborate a couple standing on the corner at 12.50am?

Well...Brown.

He estimates 12.50am based on the fact he saw the couple on his way back from the Chandler's shop, after he had been in there for "4 minutes".

So again, why 4 minutes?

Well 4 minutes is another way of saying LESS than 5 minutes. Brown felt it was 4 minutes so its likely it wasn't longer than 5, and possibly as little as 3 minutes.

So let's use 3 minutes as a minimum.

Brown doesn't mention seeing the couple on his way to the shop, so the couple arrive AFTER Brown has gone into the shop.

The couple get to the corner no later than 12.50am, meaning that Brown has to be in the shop by 12.49am at the latest.

12.49am minus 3 minutes, takes us back to 12.46am.

Brown gets into the Chandler's shop at 12.46am at the very latest.
Plus the 1 minute walk from his house, then takes us to him leaving his house at 12.45am.

Which is precisely the time he stated.

So that means that we have Brown leaving his house and waking towards Berner Street at 12.45am.

That means the assault must have taken place between 12.43am to 12.44am

This is based on an assault lasting just 60 seconds and Brown just missing Schwartz run away.

So the assault could have taken place no later than 12.43am or 12.44am at the very VERY latest.

So where did the couple who Brown sees on the corner at 12.50am come from?

Well, we know that Mortimer is at her door no later than 12.47am and doesn't mention seeing the couple, so it seems almost certain that the couple seen by Brown at 12.50am arrived at the corner from the east and walked west towards the junction, and therfore were always out of sight of the northern section of Berner Street.

The coupe may have been a minute or so behind Br9wn as he made his way to the Chandler Shop.

So let's look at the other end 9f the timescale.

Eagle claimed he arrived around 12.40am and though he alludes to people being around, Stride isn't in the yard then.
Meaning she is still alive at 12.40am

However, let's assume that Eagle is also wrong on timings. It's unlikely he can be pushed later than 12.42am, because of the assault needing to take place by 12.43am or 12.44am at the latest.

So realistically Eagle could have got back to the yard anytime between 12.35am to 12.42am.

But because of Bs man being ahead of Schwartz, and Pipeman loitering in a doorway, it would seem that 12.42am is also too late.

But let's keep it between 12.35am - 12.42am regardless.

But we have Pc Smith who claims to see Stride with Parcelman sometime between 12.30am to 12.35am

We could also say that he was out on his timings, but being a police officer, it would seem more likely that he would be accurate on his timings.

So let's say that 12.35am is the latest that PC Smith saw Stride.

That means that Eagle has to have got back to the Yard no earlier than 12.36am.

But we also then have Joseph Lave.

He is recorded as stating various things, but the general consensus is that he went "as far as the street" and stayed there for around 10 minutes.

But let's again suggest that he also exaggerated, it would take him timings down to as little as 7 minutes.

Lave needs at least 7 minutes.

But crucially, it was also reported that Eagle was the last person back into the club via the yard, meaning that Lave had to be gone BEFORE Eagle walks into the yard.

So if Eagle is as late as 12.42am, then Lave needs to be gone by 12.41am at the very latest.

That places Lave in the street at 12.34am at the very latest.

But PC Smith doesn't mention Lave, and so unless Lave is also Parcelman, then Lave needs to come out into the street after or before PC Smith sees Stride.

That means that Pc Smith sees Stride between 12 30am- 12.33am and then Lave arrives at 12.34am, goes in at 12.41, then Eagle arrives and goes into the yard at 12.42am, at which point Stride THEN goes over to the gateway at 12.43am just moments before she's assaulted.

Or...

Lave has gone back into the club by 12.32am, after having been out there since 12.25am, PC Smith then sees Stride between 12.33am to 12.37am, who then stands talking with Parcelman at the same time Eagle returns to the club and enters the yard sometime between 12.37am to 12.42am.

Regardless, Stride has to go over to the yard AFTER Eagle has gone through the yard.

Which means that Stride has to go over to the yard sometime AFTER the earliest possible time that Eagle can go into the yard AFTER Lave.

PC Smith doesn't observe Eagle try the front door, so based on their relative timings, Eagle almost certainly got back to the yard AFTER PC Smith had passed by.

12.30am being the earliest that PC Smith observes Stride, to 12.42am being the latest that Eagle can go through the yard for the assault to then take place at 12.43am or 12.44am at the very latest.

There is also the courting couple who took a walk along Commercial Road and then BACK DOWN Berner Street, plus Charles Letchford and his sister Miss Letchford at no.30 Berner St to factor in, all of whom seem to have been present BEFORE PC Smith saw Stride.


So we have Eagle's earliest time going into the yard as 12.37am
and his latest as 12.42am

This is because of both Lave and Pc Smith parameters being added into the equation.

That means that the very earliest that Stride could have easily gone over to the yard was 12.37am, directly after the earliest time that Eagle could have walked through the yard.

So where does Parcel man go?

And why does the description given by Schwartz not match Parcel man?

We need to allocate time for Parcleman to go.

He isn't with Stride when she is assaulted by BS man.

Furthermore, if the earliest time that Stride can be standing over in the yard is 12.37am, then the assault must have taken place sometime between 12.38am to 12.43am.

12.44am doesn't give time for Bs Man to arrive and Schwartz to walk down the road to witness the assault

So we have Schwartz witnessing the assault sometime between 12.38am and 12.43am

But this is based on Eagle's time being put by a couple of minutes and Lave's time being reduced, and Mortimer exaggerating.

If we take the 12.40am at face value, it supports both Eagle's claim and then gives Lave those extra few minutes to also support his claim.

And so while 12.38am is possible, it's unlikely.

That means the most probable time for the assault to have taken place was 12.41am to 12.43am

That's the most likely time for the assault to have taken place.

It means Eagle has just gone and Brown just misses seeing Schwartz run off.

This is then only 2 to 4 minutes difference with Schwartz's timings, but far more likely based on all other viable parameters.

So this 2 to 3 minute window only exists because all other witnesses need their perceived timings questioned.

It doesn't work at face value, ergo 12.45am, but is possible based on my theory above at 12.41am to 12.43am

Of course, the question as to where Parcelman went is crucial. He wasn't BS man because his description is way off.

So was Parcelman Lave?

And of course, if the assault could have only taken place between 12 41am to 12.43am...then WHEN was Stride actually MURDERED?

The killer can't have left the yard AFTER 12.46am, because Mortimer was at her door by 12.47am at the latest.

This proves that the murder had to have occurred sometime between 12.41am to 12.45am

This is based on Eagle or Lave not being the killer.

Assault 12.41am to 12.43am
Murder 12.41am to 12.45am

Of course, Stride may have been standing in the gateway from after Eagle went into the yard and stayed there with her killer right up until just before Mortimer goes inside at 12.59am at the latest.

in that case, the murder could have happened any time from 12.41am to 12.59am

But IF it happened AFTER 12.46am, then Stride must have been standing in the shadows of the yard with her killer for as much as 18 minutes before he chose to cut her throat.

Which interestingly is within the same time frame that Goldstein passes by the kill site.


Make of that what you will.

You make some excellent points there Chris.



Thanks Chris!



You're welcome, Chris.



You're a beautiful man...



Oh stop it

[Herlock Sholmes]

The question of whether the killer was disturbed by Diemschitz or not applies whether BS man was or wasn’t the ripper, so if we for a moment assume that he was disturbed then our timeline changes. It allows for Fanny Mortimer spending longer on her doorstep plus it more closely aligns with the period of time before she came back out after hearing the commotion. By using a sensible approach to times (as opposed to the ridiculously rigid application that we often see) we can come up with an even more acceptable timeline in my opinion.


Smith passes and sees the couple (who move off after he’s gone.)

Eagle returns just after Smith has left (maybe he returned via Fairclough Street?)

Fanny Mortimer goes onto her doorstep (between 12.35-12.40)

Lave goes into the yard and to the gates but Mortimer doesn’t see him.

Goldstein passes, seen by Fanny.

Brown passes and returns (around 12.45). Either Fanny doesn’t see him or she doesn’t bother mentioning a random passer-by who never enters Berner Street.


Fanny goes indoors at 12.55.

Stride arrives at the gateway 12.56/7

BS man enters Berner Street (followed by Schwartz) at 12.59

The incident occurs, Schwartz and Pipeman flee the scene

Diemschitz arrives just after BS man has cut Stride’s throat.

….


This means Fanny had 15-20 minutes on her doorstep which is closer to her “nearly the whole time..”

It tallies with Fanny not being inside for long before returning to her doorstep.

It gives us a possible 13 minutes or so with an empty street.

[c.d.]

You make some excellent points there Chris.



Thanks Chris!



You're welcome, Chris.



You're a beautiful man...



Oh stop it

Keep those fantasy scenarios coming, R.D. Always entertaining.

[FrankO]

Not sure if I agree with this. You seem to be implying that Smith would go up and down Berner St twice each beat.

Sorry if I didn't express myself clear enough. But, of course, I wasn't implying that; I was trying to say he would go up & down Berner Street only once each beat.

This would place Lave on the street at least as late as 12:45. If he is not on the street when the couple are there, and you think Mortimer ought to have seen him for her claim to be taken seriously, then when was Lave on the street? To answer my own question - right when Stride ought to have been seen standing in the gateway.

I shouldn't have quoted from those newspapers, because they offer a timing that can't have been correct. I believe Lave was out roughly between 12:30 & 12:40, although not necessarily for a whole 10 minutes.

Someone who knows more about police beats than I do, might want to comment on this?

During the 20+ years I've spent here on Casebook, I've learned that it was normal practice for beat PC's to walk the internal streets of their beats up & down/down & up. If you don't believe that/me, ask poster Monty or look for his posts.

So, you agree with the interview, except for the possibility of her being at her door at 12:30, 12:35, 12:40, and 12:45. Why would she state this, and then say something entirely different to another reporter?

If we're to believe every statement made to the letter, then we'd get absolutely nowhere. Even, there's not always congruency between the different statement versions of one person - as you well know. For example, Lave. And if we'd follow your preferred statement of Mortimer, then we have no choice but to say that she wasn't at her door when Lave came out into the street, when Eagle got back from bringing his lady friend home, when Smith passed through the street and when Stride & Parcelman were there - at whatever time they were actually there (not necessarily the times you mention, because we simply can't know them). Furthermore, we'd have to conclude that Brown was off on his timing by 10 minutes (he must have went for the chandler shop 10 minutes earlier).

A minute or two prior to 12:47 takes us back to 12:45. Do you mean you don't have any problem with Smith passing at that time?

We don't and can't know that it was Smith, because, after all, the woman in the article did't see him, but just heard him. May have been someone who simply didn't come forward, it may have been the killer.

So, where is Lave during the gap, and who does Mortimer hear passing by?

Lave is then already back inside - see above.