Stride..a victim?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
It's definitely possible you just contradicted the Evening News report - It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so.

What are you Herlock, some sort of conspiracy theorist?

As was the case a couple of days ago, you're having two bites at the cherry.
You and friends can try to explain that away the contradiction of both believing and disagreeing with the EN report, and I will continue to see through the contradiction.

You haven't seen through any contradiction as you well know. You made a mistake but refused to acknowledge it.

I cited the EN report with absolutely no attempt to hide the fact that she'd said that she'd heard the policeman's tread at just before 12.45. The point that I made, very openly and explicitly, was to question who would have been more likely to have been correct on this particular issue, Mortimer or Smith himself.

If Mortimer was correct then yes we would have to ask why she didn't see the Schwartz episode. If however Smith was correct then Mortimer would have been inside during the Schwartz episode.

So the question is, as we cannot know for certain, who was the likelier to have been correct?

Did Smith have a watch? We don't know.

Did Mortimer have a clock? We don't know.

Did Smith have any reason to be aware of, or make a mental note of, the time? Yes. He was on a regulated beat and would have been expected to report incidents with times quoted.

Did Mortimer have any reason to be aware of, or make s mental note, of the time? No. Before the murder this was a very normal night.

If Smith didn't own a watch could he have seen a clock by which to gauge the time? Yes. The one that Diemschutz saw.

If Mrs Mortimer didn't own a clock could she have seen a clock by which to gauge the time? No. She didn't leave her doorstep until after the body had been discovered.

So although not an absolute certainty any unbiased assessment would have to conclude that Smith is the likelier of the two to have been correct as to the time that he passed. This therefore raises the very real possibility that she was actually inside when the Schwartz incident occurred.

I fail to see how anything that I've said above can be construed as in any way biased or controversial. I'm certainly not the one here with any fixed perceptions. I accept the possibility of being right or wrong. I accept that there are differing versions to consider. I accept that witnesses can be mistaken or lie. I'm not the one being guilty of over-confidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. identifications.
Whereas in your case, you tend to believe Israel Schwartz' story (or at least one of them), but you're really not sure he was telling the truth, and are happy to admit as much

You just can't get it right can you? You see everything in terms of an ego-driven competition about who knows the most of who has to be right. You appear think that it's weak to admit to not knowing something? I'm afraid that not only are there things that we all don't know but there are things that we will never know no matter how much we analyse and discus and using selective quotations will get us nowhere.

Where have I said that I believe Schwartz? All that I've said in the past few posts is that we can't simply dismiss him based on Fanny Mortimer. That's all. And we can't. Certainly not based on anything factual. He might have been telling the truth; he might not.

But what counts against him? The fact that no one else saw an incident which might have taken all of a minute (or even less) to occur? Or the fact that he didn't appear at the Inquest even though Sugden suggests a few reasons why this might have happened. And Fanny Mortimer who might very well have been inside when he appeared. Still enough to base a conspiracy on though.

[c.d.]

Israels story is in no way attached to the formal Inquest, and by that omission one can safely assume that his story could not be proven, or was proven to be false. So.... why are you using him?

Well if that is the criteria we should go by then why do you put so much faith in Fanny's story? It seems you are trying to have it both ways.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Israels story is in no way attached to the formal Inquest, and by that omission one can safely assume that his story could not be proven, or was proven to be false. So.... why are you using him?

Well if that is the criteria we should go by then why do you put so much faith in Fanny's story? It seems you are trying to have it both ways.

c.d.

Fannys didnt see anything that has a relationship with how Liz Stride dies, Israels story however, if believed, was about the victim being assaulted a few feet and minutes from her throat being cut. It would be very important to How Liz Dies, in fact it suggests a killer in BSM.

I dont have it both ways, I have it the only way that is logical and within known evidence...again.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fannys didnt see anything that has a relationship with how Liz Stride dies, Israels story however, if believed, was about the victim being assaulted a few feet and minutes from her throat being cut. It would be very important to How Liz Dies, in fact it suggests a killer in BSM.

I dont have it both ways, I have it the only way that is logical and within known evidence...again.

But she had something to say about timings.

William West contributed nothing to do with how she died but he was called. Likewise Eagle. And Spooner. And Tanner. And Lane. And Preston....all called.

[caz]

Fannys didnt see anything that has a relationship with how Liz Stride dies, Israels story however, if believed, was about the victim being assaulted a few feet and minutes from her throat being cut. It would be very important to How Liz Dies, in fact it suggests a killer in BSM.

I dont have it both ways, I have it the only way that is logical and within known evidence...again.

If Schwartz fled 'incontinently' from the scene, he was arguably terrified when he learned the woman had been murdered shortly after his departure. For all he knew, Pipeman and BS Man could have been in cahoots, and one or both could be after his own blood if he turned up at the inquest. Would he have been forced to attend, if there were genuine concerns about his and his family's safety if he did so? I don't know the answer, I'm merely curious. But the idea that he saw nothing and nobody, because he wasn't there, and lied through his teeth as part of some unlikely conspiracy to cover for the club members, is not something I could entertain without some really strong evidence. If that's why he didn't attend the inquest, because the police had reason to believe he'd made the whole thing up, he'd have been facing a tougher interrogation than Hutchinson did.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Schwartz fled 'incontinently' from the scene, he was arguably terrified when he learned the woman had been murdered shortly after his departure. For all he knew, Pipeman and BS Man could have been in cahoots, and one or both could be after his own blood if he turned up at the inquest. Would he have been forced to attend, if there were genuine concerns about his and his family's safety if he did so? I don't know the answer, I'm merely curious. But the idea that he saw nothing and nobody, because he wasn't there, and lied through his teeth as part of some unlikely conspiracy to cover for the club members, is not something I could entertain without some really strong evidence. If that's why he didn't attend the inquest, because the police had reason to believe he'd made the whole thing up, he'd have been facing a tougher interrogation than Hutchinson did.

Hi Caz,

If Schwartz had felt threatened by his encounter with BS Man and Pipeman might he not just have layed low at a friend's house or somewhere out of town until it all died down?

[FrankO]

If Smith originally passed the scene between 12.30 and 12.35, as he'd said, wouldn't this just mean that before he appeared in Dutfield's Yard he'd done another circuit of his beat Frank?

If this was the case then wouldn't this strengthen Smith's statement that he originally passed at 12.30/5 as a half an hour circuit would return him to the scene at just the right time?

Hi Herlock,

I agree that, as far as the math goes, Smith was correct, as he knew his round would take him 25 to 30 minutes from start to finish. So, if he was close to the club at 12:30-12:35, then he must have been at the top of Berner Street some 25 minutes later. Or the other way around, if he was at the top of Berner Street around 1 am, then he must have been passing the yard at 12:30 to 12:35.

But the thing is - for me at least - that if you start counting back from Blackwell's timing (who checked his watch when he arrived in the yard), then you end up with Smith arriving at the crime scene close to 1:10 am. Having him arrive there at 1:02-1:03, to me, seems like a rather long stretch. And besides, as I've said before, if Smith really was at the top of Berner Street at around 1 a.m., then why didn't Eagle find him instead of Lamb and why didn't he see PC 426 H going for Dr. Blackwell, whose house was at the top of Batty Street?

Between about 1 am and 1:16, when Blackwell arrives at the scene:
- Diemshutz discovers the body
- Diemshutz & Kozebrodski/Isaacs go searching for a PC running along Fairclough Street
- Diemshutz returns to the yard with Spooner
- Eagle goes searching for a PC in the direction of Commercial Street and finds PC Henry Lamb & PC 426 H
- The PC's arrive at the crime scene after Diemshutz & Spooner arrive
- Lamb after seeing the severity of the situations send PC 426 H to get the doctor and Eagle to get the Inspector at the Leman Street station
- Lamb then blows his whistle for additional assistance
- PC 12 H, Albert Collins, responds to the whistle
- Then Smith arrives and sees 2 constables (Lamb & Collins)
- After what seems to be a very short while Smith is sent for the ambulance
- As he leaves the scene, Edward Johnson, Blackwell's assistant, arrives with PC 426 H at the yard

So maybe Blackwell's watch was some 6 or 7 minutes ahead of the clock in Commercial Road, but that would push back the discovery of the body by some 6 or 7 minutes, too.

All the best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Israels story is in no way attached to the formal Inquest, and by that omission one can safely assume that his story could not be proven, or was proven to be false. So.... why are you using him?

Well if that is the criteria we should go by then why do you put so much faith in Fanny's story? It seems you are trying to have it both ways.

c.d.

Exactly c.d. It appears that St Fanny is immune from criticism.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I agree that, as far as the math goes, Smith was correct, as he knew his round would take him 25 to 30 minutes from start to finish. So, if he was close to the club at 12:30-12:35, then he must have been at the top of Berner Street some 25 minutes later. Or the other way around, if he was at the top of Berner Street around 1 am, then he must have been passing the yard at 12:30 to 12:35.

But the thing is - for me at least - that if you start counting back from Blackwell's timing (who checked his watch when he arrived in the yard), then you end up with Smith arriving at the crime scene close to 1:10 am. Having him arrive there at 1:02-1:03, to me, seems like a rather long stretch. And besides, as I've said before, if Smith really was at the top of Berner Street at around 1 a.m., then why didn't Eagle find him instead of Lamb and why didn't he see PC 426 H going for Dr. Blackwell, whose house was at the top of Batty Street?

Between about 1 am and 1:16, when Blackwell arrives at the scene:
- Diemshutz discovers the body
- Diemshutz & Kozebrodski/Isaacs go searching for a PC running along Fairclough Street
- Diemshutz returns to the yard with Spooner
- Eagle goes searching for a PC in the direction of Commercial Street and finds PC Henry Lamb & PC 426 H
- The PC's arrive at the crime scene after Diemshutz & Spooner arrive
- Lamb after seeing the severity of the situations send PC 426 H to get the doctor and Eagle to get the Inspector at the Leman Street station
- Lamb then blows his whistle for additional assistance
- PC 12 H, Albert Collins, responds to the whistle
- Then Smith arrives and sees 2 constables (Lamb & Collins)
- After what seems to be a very short while Smith is sent for the ambulance
- As he leaves the scene, Edward Johnson, Blackwell's assistant, arrives with PC 426 H at the yard

So maybe Blackwell's watch was some 6 or 7 minutes ahead of the clock in Commercial Road, but that would push back the discovery of the body by some 6 or 7 minutes, too.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

At the the Inquest Smith said " At 1 o clock I went to Berner Street in my ordinary round." This is a strange way of putting it. It sounds like he's saying - 'I was somewhere else then at 1.00 I went to Berner Street.'

Might he not have got there at just after 1.05 say? He also said " Dr Blackwell's assistant came just as I was going away." Johnston said that he got to the scene at 5 or 10 past.

Blackwell's Inquest testimony doesn't add up though. How could he have been called to Berner Street by a PC at 1.10 then after getting dressed and walking to Dutfield's Yard he manages to arrive at just 1.10.

Dr Blackwell or Dr Who?

[Joshua Rogan]

At the the Inquest Smith said " At 1 o clock I went to Berner Street in my ordinary round." This is a strange way of putting it. It sounds like he's saying - 'I was somewhere else then at 1.00 I went to Berner Street.'

Hi HS,
I think PC Smith is (not so) simply saying that he arrived back at the top of Berner Steeet by following his beat as normal, rather than being attracted there by whistles or shouts.

Blackwell's Inquest testimony doesn't add up though. How could he have been called to Berner Street by a PC at 1.10 then after getting dressed and walking to Dutfield's Yard he manages to arrive at just 1.10.

This seems to be an error, most reports have Blackwell saying he arrived at 1:16

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS,
I think PC Smith is (not so) simply saying that he arrived back at the top of Berner Steeet by following his beat as normal, rather than being attracted there by whistles or shouts.



This seems to be an error, most reports have Blackwell saying he arrived at 1:16

Thanks Joshua.

Both seem the likeliest explanations.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If Schwartz fled 'incontinently' from the scene, he was arguably terrified when he learned the woman had been murdered shortly after his departure. For all he knew, Pipeman and BS Man could have been in cahoots, and one or both could be after his own blood if he turned up at the inquest.

As neither of these men were ever identified by the police, their very existence is in doubt.
Without at least proving that both men existed, let alone their actions on Berner street that night, the excuse Schwartz gave for fleeing the scene is null and void.
Having placed himself at the scene of the crime, and close in time to it's occurrence, and having subsequently identified the victim at the mortuary, it is not valid for Schwartz to rationalize his own running away from that scene, by conjuring up a pursuer.
The pursuer must be identified, otherwise Schwartz' behaviour must be regarded as suspicious.

Would he have been forced to attend, if there were genuine concerns about his and his family's safety if he did so? I don't know the answer, I'm merely curious.

If he is called to the inquest - which he surely was - he is legally obliged to attend.
If there were concerns over safety, there is a mechanism for dealing with this - appearance in camera.
There is no evidence that this mechanism was used, and therefore it is highly likely that Israel Schwartz dodged the inquest.
If every witness called to an inquest or court case could simply refuse to turn up on safety grounds, the entire legal system would pretty much collapse.

Given that Schwartz was happy to give an anonymous interview to the Star, the day after the murder, Schwartz himself could hardly have too many concerns about his or his family's (assuming there was one) safety - an anonymous daytime interview by a newspaper reporter, on a Whitechapel street, is hardly a high-security arrangement - either physically or in privacy terms. Compare that to an in camera appearance at an inquest, with the sort of protection available as was placed around Lawende, and any excuse for Schwartz' non-attendance simply evaporates.

But the idea that he saw nothing and nobody, because he wasn't there, and lied through his teeth as part of some unlikely conspiracy to cover for the club members, is not something I could entertain without some really strong evidence. If that's why he didn't attend the inquest, because the police had reason to believe he'd made the whole thing up, he'd have been facing a tougher interrogation than Hutchinson did.

This depends on what you mean by 'the police'. Does it mean the Met, H-division, Leman street, or Scotland Yard?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Caz,

If Schwartz had felt threatened by his encounter with BS Man and Pipeman might he not just have layed low at a friend's house or somewhere out of town until it all died down?

How many more excuses are going to be made for this bloke?

Is there any other witness or suspect in this case who benefits from continual excuse making, to anything like the extent that Schwartz does?

What would happen if everyone in this forum stopped making excuses for Israel Schwartz?

[Herlock Sholmes]

How many more excuses are going to be made for this bloke?

Is there any other witness or suspect in this case who benefits from continual excuse making, to anything like the extent that Schwartz does?

What would happen if everyone in this forum stopped making excuses for Israel Schwartz?

Was Philip Sugden an excuse maker? Or Paul Begg or Martin Fido? No? What these knowledgeable writers also aren't (in common with most Ripperologists) is conspiracy theorists. People for whom every error, discrepancy, disagreement or omission is a sign of something sinister. This kindergarten approach does the subject no favours especially when selectivity is used to bolster those theories (like the convenient omission of Fanny Mortimer's version of events in the Evening News.) A woman who also wasn't called to the Inquest by the way despite the fact that she could confirm the time that the body was discovered and (at least partially) confirm the time of Diemschutz arrival not to mention who was around in the street and the yard at the time of the discovery of the body. Perhaps she'd seen a high ranking Freemason at the scene? Or perhaps the police were worried that the man with the bag was actually was Prince Eddy?

So what's being used to show that Schwartz was a fantasist? That no one else saw the BS Man/ Pipeman incident? An incident that might have taken as little as 30 seconds in a pretty deserted street? Apparently we can dismiss Mortimer explaining in detail what she'd done (where it's likely that she was inside when Schwartz passed) in favour of a general statement where she said that she was on her doorstep pretty much the whole time from 12.30 until 1.00. Selectivity rules.

And so we have the 'fantasist' Schwartz who was so unbelievable that the police arrested a man on the strength of what he'd told them? He lied about being in a street that he'd every reason to walk down at that time just so that he could place himself at the scene of a brutal murder that was bound to be at least considered as a ripper murder. Risking just one person claiming to have been at the scene at that time or leaving a pub or a house leaving Schwartz firmly in suspect territory. Yes he didn't appear at the Inquest. So yes the police might have lost faith in him (it still doesn't make him wrong or a liar) or, as Sugden says, there might have been another explanation. As I suggested in an earlier post perhaps he was scared that BS Man or Pipeman might seek him out and so he did a runner until things died down. Nothing 'proves' Schwartz a liar. It doesn't mean he couldn't have lied of course but nothing approaches proving it. But that's the difference between a reasoned approach and conspiracy thinking isn't it?

With so many unknowns and discrepancies conspiracy thinking will remain the curse of any true crime. Again i'll stress just so that I'm clear I'm not saying that people don't lie or conspire or cover things up and there may have been some of that in this case. I don't know. But we shouldn't keep assuming it when a reasonable, rational explanation exists. We're all familiar with Sagan's "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." What's being presented in favour of Schwartz lying isn't extraordinary. It's not even strong. It's disputed and debatable and is being presented by some with breathtaking over-confidence.