Suspect Witnesses?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I must be missing something ... What exactly is the purpose of delving into Schwartz's domestic and lodging arrangements? How does that affect his evidence?

There is no purpose or merit in it whatsoever Doc. Andrew is forever trying to read between the lines to spot any hints and a lie or a plot. Schwartz wife did the moving whilst he was out during the day. The fact that he gave his address as Ellen Street is proof that he too had moved to the new address. We can file this point away in the ‘strange’ file alongside the idea that Cross wearing his apron to the inquest was somehow indicative of guilt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, the lodging arrangement at 22 Ellen St was as informal as the arrangements at Miller's Court?

If yes, then why was the move said to be expected? If the move has been agreed to and the arrangement is informal, we move from expectation to virtual certainty. If no move has been agreed to, then how could Schwartz know where his new lodgings were located?

If no, then the implication is that Mrs Schwartz signed the lease.

Two questions for you..

1) Why has the subject of Schwartz house move become a source of such endless fascination for you?

2) Why do you never just “spit it out”? What I mean by that is why don’t you just say outright, in plain English and without hints, what you think occurred with Schwartz and the move and, while you’re at it, why won’t you answer the question that I asked a while ago when I asked you to tell us openly what you think occurred in Berner Street.

You clearly think that there was more than meets the eye in Berner Street and yet you won’t explain what you think that it was.

[FrankO]

I had considered that, but when Brown left the Chandler's shop less than 5 minutes later (he said 4 minutes) there was a couple he walked past and saw standing bear the board school in Fairclough St, who don't appear to have been there when Brown was on his way to the Chandler's shop 4 minutes earlier.

That means that the couple he saw arrived in Fairclough Street when Brown was in the shop.

And yet this couple (if they're the same couple that spoke to Mortimer) after the murder, didn't see or hear the assault that Schwartz claimed happened.

On that basis, I find it unlikely that the assault occurred after Brown.

Hi RD,

I still think it's quite possible that the assault took place while Brown was in the shop. As he crossed the street, there's a good chance that he wouldn't notice Mr BS coming down Berner Street with Schwartz some distance behind him. After all, they would be more or less behind him (over his right shoulder).

At that point, the couple may still have been not too far away, but still far away enough not to see or hear the assault. For instance, they could have been in Queen's Court, Batty's Court or Hampshire Court, off Batty Street. Or even in Christian Street, near the Beehive Pub.

The assault needn't have consisted of more than the initial scuffle between Mr BS & the woman and then Schwartz running away almost immediately followed by Pipeman. Schwartz could be out of sight from the intersection near the club by turning right or left when reaching Ellen Street (if he fled all the way down Berner Street or by turning left (south) on Backchurch Lane (if he fled westwards along Fairclough Street. Both possibilities would not have taken more than 1 minute. If we'd add half a minute for good measure to have Mr BS get away from the scene and turn into either Batty's Gardens or Hampshire Court, off Berner Street, then there would still have been 1.5 to 2.5 minutes time for the couple to arrive at the corner of the board school.

Now, Brown said he heard the screams about a quarter of an hour after he had got back home and from the shop to his home would have taken him a litlle less than a minute. At that point, the couple would have been standing at the corner for some 17 or 18 minutes, which they might very easily have been estimating as about 20 minutes.

But if this is not what happened, then I'd still agree that the assault must have taken place before the couple arrived at the corner.

Cheers,
Frank

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It had been raining, so I don't doubt that there were puddles of water to dilute the blood. Johnson, Blackwell and Phillips were there, and saw no problem with the blood flow, neither did the police, so it is reasonable to accept that there was no issue. If we are determined to look for problems, we can always find them, even when they don't exist.

At no time have I said that there was a problem with the blood flow. You are implying I have said something I have not said.

What I have said is that the extent of blood flow and pooling, suggests the murderer was long gone by the time Diemschitz arrived. Obviously, this is a troubling scenario for some members. Gets in the way of what they want to believe.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I must be missing something ... What exactly is the purpose of delving into Schwartz's domestic and lodging arrangements? How does that affect his evidence?

I think I've explained my point fairly well, and on more than one occasion, including in reply to yourself.

I can see what's going to happen with this - members will oscillate between claiming this issue is of no importance, and strenuously denying what I'm suggesting.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Lamb’s time and Diemschitz time weren’t synchronised.

Unless of course you are suggesting that all clocks were perfectly in line with each other (which you probably will because it’s more helpful for propping up fantasies)

I made no reference to Lamb's estimate of the time, or what clock or clocks he may have used in making that estimate. Your point is irrelevant.

It's hard to tell if you don't understand the logic of what I'm saying, or don't want to understand. Possibly both.

There was no mystery in Berner Street. Everything can, and has been, explained.

So, why do you need to keep building timelines, hoping for a better result each time?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There is no purpose or merit in it whatsoever Doc. Andrew is forever trying to read between the lines to spot any hints and a lie or a plot. Schwartz wife did the moving whilst he was out during the day. The fact that he gave his address as Ellen Street is proof that he too had moved to the new address. We can file this point away in the ‘strange’ file alongside the idea that Cross wearing his apron to the inquest was somehow indicative of guilt.

The issue of Schwartz's wife moving, and the collective but false belief that both he and her were moving, reminds me of the Mandela Effect - a phenomenon of many people remembering an event or detail differently from what actually occurred. The classic movie example of this phenomenon is Dolly - the cute blond who befriends Jaws in Moonraker. Everyone 'remembers' her wearing braces.

... his wife had expected to move, during his absence ...

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

I take this literally. You're seeing braces that aren't there.