Suspect Witnesses?

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is not a fact, it's your opinion.

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.

She is moving. The report says nothing about them both moving.

When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

In the 21st century, that sort of behaviour would be referred to as stalking.

Of course it wouldn’t. What is also ‘not a fact’ is your assumption that the Schwartz’s had separated. Maybe they had? It’s not relevant unless you’re weaving a fantasy around it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How do you account for:

* the women in the kitchen not even hearing a whisper from outside?

a) The sounds from outside weren’t loud. b) those in the kitchen were talking and not straining their ears to hear what might have been occurring outside. c) There was singing going on upstairs which was loud enough to be heard from outside. d) There was another room downstairs with members in who were probably not sitting in funereal silence.

* the blood trickling down the yard all the way to the side door, so soon after the murder?

Liquid trickles.

[Geddy2112]

Liquid trickles.

No it oozes....

[New Waterloo]

I realise its probably an interpretation confusion/error but I remain uncomfortable with the fact that every time we look at what Schwartz says the word used for the yard is ‘alley’ this appears a strong indication that Schwartz was not a member of the club or very much aware of it. I believe Schwartz existed and was genuine. His statement fairly detailed so would have said the altercation took place at the entrance to the club. I have no doubt that he would have said that.
any thoughts please
NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

No it oozes....

[Doctored Whatsit]

I believe Schwartz existed and was genuine. His statement fairly detailed so would have said the altercation took place at the entrance to the club. I have no doubt that he would have said that.
any thoughts please
NW

Actually, Schwartz's statement taken by Abberline probably was "fairly detailed", possibly very thoroughly detailed, but we don't have it, we only have a brief summary of the key points quoted by Swanson, and an alternative, and different version, reported in The Star.

One aspect of Schwartz's account that intrigues me is the "Lipski" reference. As Schwartz had only recently arrived in the UK, it is extremely unlikely that he would have known of the Lipski murder and that "Lipski" itself was used as a slur against Jews. Accordingly, when he mentions it, two things seem possible. Either the story was true, as he was unlikely to have known about the Lipski slur, or he was fed the story as his "script" by those who wanted the lie to be told as some sort of protection. If he was given a "script" to learn, he seems strangely to have got it wrong, because he believed that the shout of "Lipski" was directed not at himself but at Pipeman in the police version. The Star version, among its other deviations, has Pipeman calling it to B S man. I think that the Abberline version is the more likely.

There seems to be a suggestion on this thread that Mr and Mrs Schwartz were not living together. This is never stated or even hinted at in the known evidence. His wife was said to be moving from "their lodgings in Berner Street to others in Backchurch Lane." Swanson quotes Schwartz's new address as "Ellen Street, Backchurch Lane" and not still at Berner Street without his wife, and The Star reporter also traced him to Backchurch Lane. There is no evidence suggesting a domestic split.

[c.d.]

One aspect of Schwartz's account that intrigues me is the "Lipski" reference. As Schwartz had only recently arrived in the UK, it is extremely unlikely that he would have known of the Lipski murder and that "Lipski" itself was used as a slur against Jews.

Hello Doc,

If he has Jewish friends who have resided in the area for any length of time and the discussion turns to the discrimination they face on a regular basis I can imagine someone saying something to the effect of some jerk the other day called out Lipski as I walked past. Schwartz responds called out what and it is explained to him.

Ok, maybe a bit of a stretch but I think putting "extremely" in front of unlikely is a stretch as well.

c.d.

[Doctored Whatsit]

One aspect of Schwartz's account that intrigues me is the "Lipski" reference. As Schwartz had only recently arrived in the UK, it is extremely unlikely that he would have known of the Lipski murder and that "Lipski" itself was used as a slur against Jews.

Hello Doc,

If he has Jewish friends who have resided in the area for any length of time and the discussion turns to the discrimination they face on a regular basis I can imagine someone saying something to the effect of some jerk the other day called out Lipski as I walked past. Schwartz responds called out what and it is explained to him.

Ok, maybe a bit of a stretch but I think putting "extremely" in front of unlikely is a stretch as well.

c.d.

Quite possible, c.d. I withdraw the "extremely"!

[c.d.]

Quite possible, c.d. I withdraw the "extremely"!

And this is why you have the reputation of being one of the more reasonable posters on the boards, Doc.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As Schwartz had only recently arrived in the UK, it is extremely unlikely that he would have known of the Lipski murder and that "Lipski" itself was used as a slur against Jews.

I might have missed something or forgotten it (it wouldn’t be the first time) but how is it known that he’d only recently arrived?

And btw, I agree with what c.d. said about you above.

[Sunny Delight]

Street signs, unlit, high up on a house wall, and at 12:30 am, will not likely be easily readable anyway, assuming 'we' even read English - which apparently Schwartz didn't.
Which I think undermines the premise of your question.
The proposal has nothing to do with sense of direction, all the streets in that block ran N-S, whether he passed through Berner, Batty, Christian or Grove he is still heading south.

There may even be other factors we know nothing about, the pubs closed at 12:00 am, he passed this altercation about 12:45 am., had he been drinking somewhere?
Maybe that explains his immediate reaction to run away, instead of going to the woman's assistance, as many men would?

This also may explain him not being sure which street this altercation took place in?
In Batty St. there is also a pub (Red Lion), with a yard attached to the south-side, the same as with the Jewish Club and Dutfields Yard - the layout is similar enough.

Schwartz did not go to police until late Sunday afternoon, had he been sleeping something off, waiting until he was more sober?
Or maybe he thought nothing of what he saw, until he heard of the murder in Berner St.?
If he did live close by, he would surely have been wakened early by the excitement, so why the wait?



Yes, he may have halted momentarily, would we expect that to have been mentioned in the police report?

Claiming Schwartz simply followed a north/south direction when walking home, I think that is getting into silly thinking.... Schwartz obviously had to have known the area to be walking through. You often quote the Press but on this occasion when they tell us Schwartz lived on Berner Street, you dismiss this as it doesnt fit your narrative. He wasn't walking around aimlessly and indeed his interpreter was a member of the IWC when he went to the Police. So that says to me he was likely involved with the local Eastern European Community and maybe even knew a few people from the club. He knew where he was and what he saw.

Why did Schwartz not go immediately to the Police? We dont know. Lying drunk with a hangover somewhere. No I think that is unlikely. More likely is the fact that he didn't hear about the murder until sometime the next day, wasnt sure who to tell and eventually got a friend or acquaintance to accompany him to the Police Station..

[Doctored Whatsit]

I might have missed something or forgotten it (it wouldn’t be the first time) but how is it known that he’d only recently arrived?

And btw, I agree with what c.d. said about you above.

Hi Herlock,

You haven't missed anything, it is just what I believe is a generally accepted view based on Schwartz's total lack of English. I wouldn't like to try to define "recently" in this context! I guess what I meant was, as far as I can tell from the evidence, he apparently hadn't been in England long enough to grasp any understanding whatever of what was being said between Stride and BS man. So, I thought "recent" was a reasonable choice of word - but think of its use as quite flexible in meaning!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

You haven't missed anything, it is just what I believe is a generally accepted view based on Schwartz's total lack of English. I wouldn't like to try to define "recently" in this context! I guess what I meant was, as far as I can tell from the evidence, he apparently hadn't been in England long enough to grasp any understanding whatever of what was being said between Stride and BS man. So, I thought "recent" was a reasonable choice of word - but think of its use as quite flexible in meaning!

Hi Doc,

Tbh, I assumed that was your thinking and you’re likely to be correct of course. It would be difficult to accept someone that had lived in London for a year but hadn’t picked up any of the language. He might have had a few words but still couldn’t hold a proper conversation…like the Englishman in Italy who thinks that adding ‘o’ at the end of every word will make him understood.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Doc,

Tbh, I assumed that was your thinking and you’re likely to be correct of course. It would be difficult to accept someone that had lived in London for a year but hadn’t picked up any of the language. He might have had a few words but still couldn’t hold a proper conversation…like the Englishman in Italy who thinks that adding ‘o’ at the end of every word will make him understood.

Apparently he only knew a handful of words.

Including the word "not"


"... but not very loudly"

"...not be blamed for nothing"


You know, that sort of thing.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Argument by emoji. Well at least we could congratulate Michael on inventing a new form of fallacy.

The pooling of blood by the side door indicates that the murderer has not left the scene seconds before Diemschitz arrives. We are in the minutes range. Maybe 3, maybe 8, maybe 15. Whatever the case, this is going to cause difficulty for those who suppose Fanny Mortimer was at her door for a single, approximately 10-minute period. It would have be supposed that the murder occurred prior, and that really only leaves the BS man as a possibility. Good luck convincing anyone that he was the Mitre Square murderer.