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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I’m trying to get through to you about times, timings, estimates, synchronicity and the issues pertaining to all of these and I’m doing it because you keep going on about PC. Smith when there’s no issue with him apart from with someone that rigidly adheres to stated times - something that you claim that you don’t do.

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

We could build twenty timelines but it still won’t sink in with you that everything that was said to have happened could easily have happened. Indeed they did happen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Nope…I haven’t a clue what you are seeing that’s strange or suspicious. It might help if you just told us. But that’s too simple of course. Not conspiratorial enough.

Friend of the family were you?

Or have you discovered some previously unseen family documents

Or…are you making the huge and completely unfounded assumption that his wife was moving house and that he wasn’t.

I’d suggest the latter but hey…I’m the boring non-conspiracy theorists. The follow-on problem though of course is that even if Schwartz and his wife were about to live separately it still doesn’t cast any suspicion on his actions in Berner Street but of course you’ll no doubt create something. The fact that he gave his address as Ellen Street won’t bother you of course. Probably a forgery.

I’ll ask you again - why don’t you just tell us what you believe was happening and while you’re at it, tell us what you think happened in Berner Street last night. You are very quick with the pointless nitpicking and yet you appear strangely reluctant to reveal your hand. Why is that?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Ah, the old ‘defending the orthodoxy’ argument. Or what I call The Marriott Defence. And the evidence gets in the way of your conspiracies (which you appear not to feel confident enough to state openly)

Another assumption by you.

You yourself set a minimum time of 3 minutes although I’m unsure of your qualification to make such a statement. I pointed out that from the time that the killer cut Stride’s throat (with him hearing Diemschitz, hiding, cart arriving, body prodded with whip, Diemschitz going inside, wife giving him a candle, returning to the yard and seeing the blood) around 3 minutes might easily have elapsed. Or maybe 2 minutes was enough for the blood to pool or 90 seconds.

That is reason.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Once again, if Smith passed at 12:35, he is back at the top of Berner St, at 1am, as he told the coroner

”My beat was past Berner- street, and would take me twenty-five minutes or half an hour to go round.”

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

The couple referred to in this post was said to be young, whereas James Brown was almost certain the woman he saw was the woman he was later shown at the mortuary, who was neither young nor alive. Other than that problematic issue, the notion of the board school couple being the young couple who spoke to Fanny Mortimer, results in another serious issue.

During his summing up, Coroner Baxter said:

A quarter of an hour afterwards James Brown, of Fairclough-street, passed the deceased close to the Board school. A man was at her side leaning against the wall, and the deceased was heard to say, "Not to-night, but some other night." Now, if this evidence was to be relied on, it would appear that the deceased was in the company of a man for upwards of an hour immediately before her death, and that within a quarter of an hour of her being found a corpse she was refusing her companion something in the immediate neighbourhood of where she met her death. But was this the deceased?

Why would the coroner be speculating on the identity of the woman seen by Brown, as late as October 23, when the police would have spoken to the couple weeks before, thus determining their identity? Compared to Brown, this couple were situated much closer to the murder for much longer, were outside for all the relevant period, rather than inside for most of it, and possibly remained at the scene after the alarm was raised, for a significant period. Why would the coroner not summon one or both of this couple, instead of or in addition to Brown? By stating they were at the board school corner leading up to the murder, they would have removed the need to speculate on the woman's identity.

Even after failing to summon this couple, Inspector Reid had the opportunity during Brown's testimony, to explain to the coroner that both the man and woman Brown referred to had been identified. Reid did not take that opportunity.

It seems we must suppose that although the couple had been very close to the murder in both time and space, hung around long enough to speak to Fanny Mortimer, and received anonymous mention in the press, the police were never able to identify them.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I’m trying to get through to you about times, timings, estimates, synchronicity and the issues pertaining to all of these and I’m doing it because you keep going on about PC. Smith when there’s no issue with him apart from with someone that rigidly adheres to stated times - something that you claim that you don’t do.

As you know, we are discussing times suggested by yourself, not me. I'm commenting on your suggestions and pointing out the some of the logical absurdities they result in.

We could build twenty timelines but it still won’t sink in with you that everything that was said to have happened could easily have happened. Indeed they did happen.

This means you are starting with a conclusion in mind, rather than reaching one after considering all available evidence. A common mistake.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Friend of the family were you?

Or have you discovered some previously unseen family documents

Or…are you making the huge and completely unfounded assumption that his wife was moving house and that he wasn’t.

As previously noted, your initial response to this was to agree that a literal reading does indeed have his wife moving out on her own. Evidently you soon after realised that agreeing with me on that point was a terrible mistake.

I’d suggest the latter but hey…I’m the boring non-conspiracy theorists. The follow-on problem though of course is that even if Schwartz and his wife were about to live separately it still doesn’t cast any suspicion on his actions in Berner Street but of course you’ll no doubt create something. The fact that he gave his address as Ellen Street won’t bother you of course. Probably a forgery.

Spelling this out, you would be saying that for Schwartz to remain living in Ellen St after his wife moved out, it is not odd that he is looking for evidence of his wife's move while on Berner St after midnight, and just happens to see a woman assaulted at a gateway to a passage that leads to temporary or longer-term accommodation, used mainly by young Jewish immigrants.

By the way, what might have prompted her move - domestic violence perhaps?

I’ll ask you again - why don’t you just tell us what you believe was happening and while you’re at it, tell us what you think happened in Berner Street last night. You are very quick with the pointless nitpicking and yet you appear strangely reluctant to reveal your hand. Why is that?

I've already stated that my best guess is that Brown's man was the murderer and if true was probably the Ripper.

As for Schwartz, I think Wess knew that something had occurred and exploited it. This placed Schwartz at risk, so he went to the police to tell them his side of the story.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Another assumption by you.

You yourself set a minimum time of 3 minutes although I’m unsure of your qualification to make such a statement. I pointed out that from the time that the killer cut Stride’s throat (with him hearing Diemschitz, hiding, cart arriving, body prodded with whip, Diemschitz going inside, wife giving him a candle, returning to the yard and seeing the blood) around 3 minutes might easily have elapsed. Or maybe 2 minutes was enough for the blood to pool or 90 seconds.

That is reason.

So, I'm not qualified but you are?

All we know for sure was that Stride's left side was heavily muddied. Therefore, I suppose the blood is not going to flow quickly and will take quite a while to start pooling at a significant distance from the body. I'm not imagining streams or puddles of water for which we have no evidence.

In an important sense, the slow pooling of blood is good news, as it means the Deimschitz interruption theory is out, thus cutting down the number of possible scenarios we have to consider.