Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[rjpalmer]

For what it's worth....

Scotsman, 2 Oct. 1888

The Scotsman article is evidently referring to this report from 29 September in the London Evening Standard. The description sounds more like Lawende's man, than Schwartz's.

[JeffHamm]

Oh, those are two interesting reports. The incident in the Standard sounds much like the presumed sequence that is discussed (ability to interact and gain sufficient trust to go somewhere together, and a sudden attack involving strangulation (grabbing the throat) intending to prevent noise, etc. Clearly, in this case that didn't work, but there's no guarentee it will work every time. The description is fairly generic for the times (as are all of them), we again get someone late 20's early 30s, average height, mustached (very common), and commonly dressed; basically, if this is JtR, it once again describes someone who doesn't stand out in a crowd. The scarf is interesting, and could reflect the "appearance of a sailor" description given by Lawende? I'm not familiar enough with Victorian Men's Fashion to know if scarfs would be common, but presumably at that time of year, they would not be uncommon.

Anyway, good stuff. Do we know if there are any confirming reports to go along with what's reported in the Standard? I can't say I recall seeing anything in the files covered in "the Ultimate" about this, but I could easily have a failure of memory.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Haven't you noticed how hard Dave is trying to steer everyone back to Mitre Square?


Ok, then, just briefly...
There's a little too much conspiracy in this post for my liking.



To my mind, calling a witness a liar is a cheap cop-out.
Here, you are not understanding the way postal addresses were referenced in the late 19th century.

Ellen street does not abut (meet up with) a major road like Commercial Rd., so the Post Office will give the next adjacent road as part of the address.
This is why we read Ellen street, Backchurch Lane. However, it is just as accurate to say Ellen street, Berner street, especially as the actual number 22, is nearer to the Berner street junction (intersection). Then again, if Schwartz lived at the east end of Ellen Street we could read Ellen street, Christian street. The general rule was to identify the target address with the next & nearest most well known adjoining street. If Backchurch Lane was better known in the East End than either Berner St. or Christian St. then Backchurch Lane would be the most common reference.
Thats all we are dealing with here.

Couple that with the fact we do not know if Mrs Schwartz moved that Sunday (30th), the day he gave 22 Ellen street as his address to police.
They may have moved the next day (1st), which could be why the Star reporter have to 'track him down'. On the Monday he may have been found at an address in Backchurch Lane.
The press account seems to suggest Schwartz originally lived in Berner street and moved to Backchurch Lane, but 22 Ellen street is not in Berner street nor Backchurch Lane. So, did the reporter mean he moved from Ellen street Berner street, to Backchurch Lane. Or, from Berner street to Ellen street Backchurch Lane?
It could be either, but until something definitive is found it is not acceptable to simply call Schwartz a liar.

Multiple paragraphs on a single point, while evading the wider issues.

Firstly though, if Schwartz' address is appropriately given as 22 Ellen street, Backchurch Lane, then why does the Star reporter refer to finding Schwartz in Backchurch Lane, and not Ellen street?
The Star reporter is not also a postman - he would consider these to be distinct streets.
If Schwartz lives in Backchurch Lane, then he should give his address as ## Backchurch Lane, Commercial Road, which he doesn't, so he must now live in Ellen street, so how does the Star man manage to find Schwartz in Backchurch Lane, without an inside tip?
And who would provide this tip to the Star? The Leman street police?
Don't think so.
What about William Wess, or maybe Schwartz himself?
Yeah, that sounds more like it.
The only other alternative is for the Star to do their own door-to-door search, until they find the slippery character, which is a remote possibility.

So now back to the bigger picture, if you don't mind.
An essential question that must be answered, is:

How does Wess know of the Schwartz incident, independently of an association between himself and Schwartz, and in time to be referred to in the Oct 1 edition of the the Echo?

According to Wess, someone at the club witnessed enough of the incident, to perceive that a man was being chased away from the vicinity of the Dutfield's Yard gateway, and up Fairclough street in the direction of Grove, who that witness regarded as being the murderer.
If the man (Schwartz) is chased in that direction, the incident would surely have been witnessed by Edward Spooner, while standing outside the Beehive with his lady friend, and Spooner would surely have referred to this, both at the inquest and to the police.
However, this does not occur, and so the only possibilities for the chase that may avoid detection by Spooner, are down Berner street further, or in the opposite direction than that told to Wess by the club witness - that is, toward Backchurch Lane.
Given this constraint, a critical question now presents itself, which I have never seen discussed:

From what vantage point does this witness view the Schwartz incident, given that it starts on the Berner & Fairclough street intersection, and either proceeds further down Berner street, or heads in the direction of Backchurch Lane?

Given that there are no reports of any club person being in the passageway after ~12:40 (Eagle, Lave), and before 1:00, and as I have been reliably told that everyone inside the club was upstairs and singing in this period, then the only possible answer to this question is:

A club member witnessed a man being chased down either Berner street, or Fairclough street in the Backchurch Lane direction, who mistakenly supposed and/or reported to Wess that the chase had actually gone in the opposite direction along Fairclough street, and that this witnessing occurred through one of the windows on the first floor of the club, by a person who happened to be looking in just that direction, at just the right time, rather than participating in the singing, as was everyone else.

From that location, the window frame would have blocked most of the intersection, which from behind the window, would appear very dark indeed.
Yet this supposed witnessing forms the basis for understanding how Wess comes to know of the Schwartz incident.

At this point, we have truly entered the theatre of the absurd, but the alternative is to admit that there is a very real and substantial connection between Israel Schwartz and William Wess, but to do so would be to invite the opening of a Pandora's Box, and we don't want that to happen, do we?

The questions unfortunately, go on and on (in contrast to the efforts being made to answer them).

For example, why does Arbeter Fraint not mention this witnessing, or indeed anything about the Schwartz incident at all, and leave the readership of AF wondering how the hell they know what time the murder took place?
I have been reliably informed that those involved with the content of that publication, are 'full of it', which may answer the question as to how they could possibly state that the murder occurred 15 minutes prior to the discovery of the body - they just made it up, and the correspondence with the 12:45 time give by Schwartz to Abberline, was just coincidental.
However, that leaves me to wonder; why would those involved with the double event edition of AF - men like Wess and Lave and Diemschitz - talk $h!t to their own comrades, but adopt an attitude of total respect and honesty, when it comes to Gentile justice?

Another question is; how could Schwartz have ended up running toward Backchurch Lane, if Pipeman is standing at or very near the corner on which the Nelson beer house exits onto?
The logical direction to run away from the terrifying man who comes menacingly toward him, wielding a clay pipe, is up Fairclough in the direction of Grove street.
Spooner sees him.
So the only real alternative is Berner street.
Spooner possibly still sees or hears something, as might many others further up Berner street, such as William Marshall.
So at best, Schwartz' tale is a 50/50 chance of being true, on that point alone.
On the other hand, maybe Pipeman stood on the board school side.
In that case, why does Pipeman not chase Schwartz straight back up Berner street, toward Commercial Road?
Could it actually be that Schwartz' tale is load of old cobblers?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Regarding Schwartz' claimed 22 Ellen street address, there is thread with some info on the subject, started by Paddy...

Finding Israel Schwartz

Here is a summary of the relevant posts (all Paddy except 4th)...

#1 In 1891, a Samuel Aaronson and his first wife Amelia were living at 22 Ellen street.

#9 After the apparent death of Amelia in 1885, Samuel got a new partner who had a son named Alexander, in 1886.
Alexander started school in Berner street in 1890 - his address listed as 22 Ellen street.
Need birth cert to see what address he was born at...

#28 Alexander's birth cert gave address of 45 Boyd street.
So family moved from Boyd street to Ellen street, between 1886 and 1890.
Can't pin down any further - frustrating.

#29 [Debra A] A family named SHEROTSKY or KARETSKY are living at 45 Boyd street, by Feb 1888.

#30 'So it is possible the Aaronsons had moved to Ellen Street between October 1886 and February 1888. Also possibly living at 22 Ellen Street after feb 1888'


Okay, so this doesn't prove that the Schwartz' did not move into 22 Ellen street on Oct 1, but a man, woman and child of another family name do appear to be at that address for at least some of that year.
On the other hand, is there any evidence that Mr & Mrs Israel Schwartz did live at 22 Ellen street?

More generally, is there any surviving newspaper report, court record, or possibly school admissions record of this couple and any children they may have had, from any time after October 1?
Does anyone have any idea at all, what may have become of Israel Schwartz after this date?
Anyone that is, other than myself.

[Michael W Richards]

There is another example of an incident that might have included an accomplice Jeff, an obvious one. With the Pardon being issued an all.

The repeating of the value of Israel Schwartz.....(my apologies for my misinformed assignation of source of any Wess/Schwartz data Debra)..assumes not only was the press manipulated but that crucial evidence in this case was withheld and also not recorded in any formal document relating to the investigation into the death of Liz Stride. Its also an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated story. One that involves a specific time when 4 witnesses say they were around a dying woman in the passageway. And one that at the Inquest is on record for that 12:45 time slot as well.

Liz Stride was last seen alive at 12:35 talking to someone, perhaps Wess, by PC Smith. She is then seen dying inside the passageway between 12:40 and 12:45, with multiple witnesses giving corroborating times and general descriptions that match exceedingly well. All mentioned several people around the body at that time. So, hunt away using Israel as some kind of marker for that last half hour, based on some comments in notes, but the evidence strongly suggests that he didn't give evidence that was either trustworthy or seen to be of value in the question of how Liz Stride dies. Because that kind of evidence is what is supposed to be at an Inquest, and in no other case in the Ripper crimes or others of that period do we see complete absence in all records pertaining to the respective inquests, no notation, no submissions, no open declaration of withholding evidence. Like in Eddowes case. No sequester evidence. Nothing to legitimize this sort of position.

That's a trademark of Ripperology I believe, long held beliefs must trump modern reviews. Even when its faith based rather than on any evidence.

[Wickerman]

Multiple paragraphs on a single point, while evading the wider issues.

Firstly though, if Schwartz' address is appropriately given as 22 Ellen street, Backchurch Lane, then why does the Star reporter refer to finding Schwartz in Backchurch Lane, and not Ellen street?
The Star reporter is not also a postman - he would consider these to be distinct streets.

More than anyone, a reporter is possibly the best person to understand how the address system works. He is one who spends much of his time tracing sources and finding people to interview. Of all people he needs to know how to find his way around.

So now back to the bigger picture, if you don't mind.
An essential question that must be answered, is:

How does Wess know of the Schwartz incident, independently of an association between himself and Schwartz, and in time to be referred to in the Oct 1 edition of the the Echo?

Time wasn't such an issue. The Star was an evening paper, we have examples of a Star reporter leaving an inquest around 2:00pm to get his story in the early edition. So we can use that as a guide.
Schwartz gave his story on the night of the 30th, the reporter had all the next morning until 2:00pm to seek him out.

According to Wess, someone at the club witnessed enough of the incident, to perceive that a man was being chased away from the vicinity of the Dutfield's Yard gateway, and up Fairclough street in the direction of Grove, who that witness regarded as being the murderer.
If the man (Schwartz) is chased in that direction, the incident would surely have been witnessed by Edward Spooner, while standing outside the Beehive with his lady friend, and Spooner would surely have referred to this, both at the inquest and to the police.

Yes, that is reasonable.

However, this does not occur, and so the only possibilities for the chase that may avoid detection by Spooner, are down Berner street further, or in the opposite direction than that told to Wess by the club witness - that is, toward Backchurch Lane.
Given this constraint, a critical question now presents itself, which I have never seen discussed:

From what vantage point does this witness view the Schwartz incident, given that it starts on the Berner & Fairclough street intersection, and either proceeds further down Berner street, or heads in the direction of Backchurch Lane?

Many years ago this was discussed.
I'm pretty sure Stewart Evans was on the boards when this was being debated. The topic at the time was the note by Swanson, and his use of "opposite side". What did "opposite side" mean?

"On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road “Lipski” & then Schwartz walked away,"

I recall opinion was divided at the time as to whether Schwartz was on the Board School side, or in the road but nearer to the Club side. Which contributes to what direction Schwartz may have run, either east along Fairclough or, south down Berner. I still think it can't be decided with any certainty.

Given that there are no reports of any club person being in the passageway after ~12:40 (Eagle, Lave), and before 1:00, and as I have been reliably told that everyone inside the club was upstairs and singing in this period, then the only possible answer to this question is:

A club member witnessed a man being chased down either Berner street, or Fairclough street in the Backchurch Lane direction, who mistakenly supposed and/or reported to Wess that the chase had actually gone in the opposite direction along Fairclough street, and that this witnessing occurred through one of the windows on the first floor of the club, by a person who happened to be looking in just that direction, at just the right time, rather than participating in the singing, as was everyone else.

We know from press accounts that the police did a door-to-door survey of Berner street so they had far more statements than we have from the inquest. So it isn't just Marshall, Brown & Spooner, there could have been others.

[rjpalmer]

Do we know if there are any confirming reports to go along with what's reported in the Standard? I can't say I recall seeing anything in the files covered in "the Ultimate" about this, but I could easily have a failure of memory.

There's nothing in the existing MEPO files, but then that's not especially alarming, all things considered. The Standard's description was also published in a lot of other papers (Western Mail, Leeds Mercury, Aberdeen Free Press, etc.) so I'm sure it's the incident the journalist from the Scotsman has in mind, beyond that, your guess is as good as mine.

The description is, of course, vague. Lawende suggested a handkerchief, the woman a scarf. As for age, 30 and 33 are pretty close, so I can see why The Scotsman felt there were similarities.

[JeffHamm]

There's nothing in the existing MEPO files, but then that's not especially alarming, all things considered. The Standard's description was also published in a lot of other papers (Western Mail, Leeds Mercury, Aberdeen Free Press, etc.) so I'm sure it's the incident the journalist from the Scotsman has in mind, beyond that, your guess is as good as mine.

The description is, of course, vague. Lawende suggested a handkerchief, the woman a scarf. As for age, 30 and 33 are pretty close, so I can see why The Scotsman felt there were similarities.

Yah, not surprising that it is missing as a lot of information once documented by the police has been lost over the years, but a shame nonetheless. And as for age, for an adult, the estimation of age is associated with a pretty wide margin of error, so really, anything like 25-35 is probably similar enough to consider as possibly the same. And of course, clothing change details don't mean much when dealing with sightings on different days, though one might be more prone to consider jackets and hats as these are more likely (I would think) to be worn consistently. Trousers and other accessories perhaps more prone to change?

But I think you're right that this is the story the Scotsman is referring to.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

There is another example of an incident that might have included an accomplice Jeff, an obvious one. With the Pardon being issued an all.

The repeating of the value of Israel Schwartz.....(my apologies for my misinformed assignation of source of any Wess/Schwartz data Debra)..assumes not only was the press manipulated but that crucial evidence in this case was withheld and also not recorded in any formal document relating to the investigation into the death of Liz Stride. Its also an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated story. One that involves a specific time when 4 witnesses say they were around a dying woman in the passageway. And one that at the Inquest is on record for that 12:45 time slot as well.

Liz Stride was last seen alive at 12:35 talking to someone, perhaps Wess, by PC Smith. She is then seen dying inside the passageway between 12:40 and 12:45, with multiple witnesses giving corroborating times and general descriptions that match exceedingly well. All mentioned several people around the body at that time. So, hunt away using Israel as some kind of marker for that last half hour, based on some comments in notes, but the evidence strongly suggests that he didn't give evidence that was either trustworthy or seen to be of value in the question of how Liz Stride dies. Because that kind of evidence is what is supposed to be at an Inquest, and in no other case in the Ripper crimes or others of that period do we see complete absence in all records pertaining to the respective inquests, no notation, no submissions, no open declaration of withholding evidence. Like in Eddowes case. No sequester evidence. Nothing to legitimize this sort of position.

That's a trademark of Ripperology I believe, long held beliefs must trump modern reviews. Even when its faith based rather than on any evidence.

Hi Michael,

Not sure the issuing of the pardon really would be an incident that points to an accomplice, rather, it points to the investigation covering possibilities. The pardon seemed to be geared towards potential family members who might suspect someone in the family, but afraid to come forth for fear of being prosecuted for "aiding and abetting after the fact" type thing.

As for the confusion around timing of events with regards to the Stride case, well, that's the nature of time estimations. With the Stride case we have a large number of people being interviewed by the press and their stories being reported on. The more people who get to estimate time, the more one can see just how variable people are on that type of detail. We don't see as much variation in some of the other cases simply because there are fewer people guessing the time for the same event, rather, we tend to have one, maybe two in some cases (i.e. Lawende & Levy), estimating times of different events in an ongoing sequence. But note, even Lawende and Levy differ on their estimations of how much time they waited. The specific times given by people are often nothing more than guesstimates, and trying to work out what the real time was from a bunch of guesses requires working from the other statements and using the sequence of events as a guideline.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

..And as for age, for an adult, the estimation of age is associated with a pretty wide margin of error, so really, anything like 25-35 is probably similar enough to consider as possibly the same......

True, if the culprit was about 30, five years either way is perhaps an acceptable margin of error.
Kozminski was only 23 in 1888.

With the exception of Mary Kelly at about 25, the age of each of the other victims was underestimated by witnesses, not over estimated. That is, until their identity was established. The killer was likely between 30 - 40 years old, going by a number of witness descriptions.

[JeffHamm]

True, if the culprit was about 30, five years either way is perhaps an acceptable margin of error.
Kozminski was only 23 in 1888.

With the exception of Mary Kelly at about 25, the age of each of the other victims was underestimated by witnesses, not over estimated. That is, until their identity was established. The killer was likely between 30 - 40 years old, going by a number of witness descriptions.

Hi Wickerman,

Yes, I think 30-40 is a reasonable suggestion, so favoring someone who appeared to be in that age range over someone who appeared outside of it would be one thing to consider when ranking suspects with regards to fitting the descriptions. Note, it's the "age the suspect appears to be" that would be more important than the "age they actually were". I doubt, however, that information is recorded anywhere, and it would be hard to determine from photographs, given the change in the times, and also the nature of photos from that era.

But, if we generally go with the idea that most people "look to be about their actual age", then actual ages would be the best information we have to work with. If information about a suspect were to emerge that "X looked much older/younger" though, that would be important to take on board for that individual.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

Not sure the issuing of the pardon really would be an incident that points to an accomplice, rather, it points to the investigation covering possibilities. The pardon seemed to be geared towards potential family members who might suspect someone in the family, but afraid to come forth for fear of being prosecuted for "aiding and abetting after the fact" type thing.

As for the confusion around timing of events with regards to the Stride case, well, that's the nature of time estimations. With the Stride case we have a large number of people being interviewed by the press and their stories being reported on. The more people who get to estimate time, the more one can see just how variable people are on that type of detail. We don't see as much variation in some of the other cases simply because there are fewer people guessing the time for the same event, rather, we tend to have one, maybe two in some cases (i.e. Lawende & Levy), estimating times of different events in an ongoing sequence. But note, even Lawende and Levy differ on their estimations of how much time they waited. The specific times given by people are often nothing more than guesstimates, and trying to work out what the real time was from a bunch of guesses requires working from the other statements and using the sequence of events as a guideline.

- Jeff

I would think that a Issuance of a Pardon for Accomplices constitutes a belief there was one, but that's just me I guess. I also think the pardon is almost exclusively due to Wideawake Man, who was known about on Saturday.

The "confusion" in the Stride case has always been about who is to be believed Jeff, because as Im sure your aware one cannot build any kind of legitimate timeline of events for that last half hour if one chooses to believe everyone. I choose to use corroborated accounts myself over any singular ones. As Ive pointed out numerous times, 4 witnesses in this case cited 12:40-12:45 as the time they were by the dying woman. Clocks, watches, incorrect estimates, these all were a part of all the investigations. But find another investigation with 4 witnesses giving the same times and activities at the same location. That fact that what would be the single most valuable account when pondering how Liz Stride dies is an uncorroborated one, that directly refutes the 4 witnesses for the time of 12:40-12:45, and is completely absent in any record concerning the Inquest, I feel ok about that choice.

[Wickerman]

Michael.
I think the crux of the 'time' issue depends on which witnesses referenced a time-piece.

How many of your four witnesses said they knew the time because they looked at a clock, or heard the chimes of a local church?
Any witness who wore a watch goes to the top of the list, next would be the witness who saw a clock close-by (Diemschutz), the rest who are just guessing the time are listed below.

Who would you believe?

This isn't a numbers game. It's four people guessing against one person seeing the time.
A detective knows by instinct who is the more likely to be reliable.

[JeffHamm]

I would think that a Issuance of a Pardon for Accomplices constitutes a belief there was one, but that's just me I guess. I also think the pardon is almost exclusively due to Wideawake Man, who was known about on Saturday.

The "confusion" in the Stride case has always been about who is to be believed Jeff, because as Im sure your aware one cannot build any kind of legitimate timeline of events for that last half hour if one chooses to believe everyone. I choose to use corroborated accounts myself over any singular ones. As Ive pointed out numerous times, 4 witnesses in this case cited 12:40-12:45 as the time they were by the dying woman. Clocks, watches, incorrect estimates, these all were a part of all the investigations. But find another investigation with 4 witnesses giving the same times and activities at the same location. That fact that what would be the single most valuable account when pondering how Liz Stride dies is an uncorroborated one, that directly refutes the 4 witnesses for the time of 12:40-12:45, and is completely absent in any record concerning the Inquest, I feel ok about that choice.

Hi Michale,

Yes, there was a belief to some degree, that is clear. But, a pardon may be offered even if the belief is low (meaning, since it might be possibe JtR was suspected by family members, issue a pardon to draw out those leads).

As for the 2nd paragraph, well, all I can say, is that truth is not based upon majority vote. If most of the witnesses are giving estimates, then it doesn't matter if there's a large group that agrees if the smaller group has more reason to be believed. Many of the times given by the newspaper accounts are times that fall into the latter category. They may only exist as stated times because the reporter pressed them to pick a time rather than write "'sometime that night this happened".

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

As for the 2nd paragraph, well, all I can say, is that truth is not based upon majority vote. If most of the witnesses are giving estimates, then it doesn't matter if there's a large group that agrees if the smaller group has more reason to be believed. Many of the times given by the newspaper accounts are times that fall into the latter category. They may only exist as stated times because the reporter pressed them to pick a time rather than write "'sometime that night this happened".

- Jeff

I think your wrong Jeff. 3 people witnessing a spacecraft over a field isnt about to bring in the big guns, 400 people seeing it at the same time is. Numbers matter a great deal, the fact Im talking about only 4 accounts here isnt the point. The point is that of the accounts that do not match these accounts in a number of areas have no other witnesses to corroborate anything that they say happened, and when. Yet, all of the accounts one would consider the least validated are in fact the ones that the Inquest uses. Except for Israel.

Think about who would appear, and in what likely order during an inquest into how this particular woman dies. Logically. Who found..Last person seen with. Closest known relative/Friend. Think about this Inquest.

We have William Wess first up, who says he left and saw no-one at 12:15, and adds.."
[Coroner] Did you look towards the yard gates? - Not so much to the gates as to the ground, but nothing unusual attracted my attention.
[Coroner] Can you say that there was no object on the ground? - I could not say that.
[Coroner] Do you think it possible that anything can have been there without your observing it? - It was dark, and I am a little shortsighted, so that it is possible."

We next have Morris Eagle, who says he returns at 12:40 and goes round to the gates. He sees no-one. Yet Lave is standing there at the same time, according to his own statement. He curiously adds..."

[Coroner] Did you pass in the middle of the gateway? - I think so. The gateway is 9 ft. 2 in. wide. I naturally walked on the right side, that being the side on which the club door was.
[Coroner] Do you think you are able to say that the deceased was not lying there then? - I do not know, I am sure, because it was rather dark. There was a light from the upper part of the club, but that would not throw any illumination upon the ground. It was dark near the gates.
[Coroner] You have formed no opinion, I take it, then, as to whether there was anything there? - No.
[Coroner] Did you see anyone about in Berner-street? - I dare say I did, but I do not remember them.
[Coroner] Did you observe any one in the yard? - I do not remember that I did."

Next is Who Found...."

"On Saturday I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street." Fanny Mortimer was interviewed within an hour of the discovery and stated that she had been at her door "off and on" between 12:30 and 1am, but that around 12:50 she was at her door continuously until 1am, with a complete and unobstructed view of Berner Street. She saw Leon Goldstein and his black bag pass by the gates at around 12:55-12:56 (which is 10 minutes after the time Blackwell estimates was the earliest), and she went back in just after 1. Its impossible that Fanny would not have seen or heard a cart and horse arrive at the gates to the club at "exactly" 1.

Theres the leading men as witnesses at this Inquest...1 that left 45 minutes before she is alleged to have been found by Diemshutz (disputed by the corroborated statements of 4 people and disputed by Fanny Mortimers account), someone who couldnt be sure a body was there at 12:40, and finally a man whose statements concerning his role in the Discovery are directly and dramatically refuted by the statements of 3 club members and 1 person from outside the club, and Fanny Mortimer at her door, a few doors down.

If thats not enough for you, where is this guy.... that Last Person seen With....."Id like to call Mr Schwartz to the stand please. Ahem.Would Mr Schwartz please come forward? Is Israel Schwartz here in attendance?"

He was a home run for the Inquest if believed, he would have made a verdict of Wilful Murder not only probable but most likely. Problem is the only evidence they had any confidence in his story are unofficial comments made later...and for some reason a lingering wish to believe from many Ripperologists. He not only did not appear, he wasnt in any way mentioned, referenced, excused, validated or referred to in any Inquests records known to exist.

Once you set him aside you still have a lot to explain why Louis has his account put into serious question by many other accounts, who, in great part, are in agreement with the specific time and activity details contained in each.

Thats when this murder, which is quite frankly just a simple 2 second throat cut, gets interesting. Because sorting out why those variances and conflicts are there is what will answer most of this murders questions. Maybe even with a name. And without any great surprises for anyone who has been in these trenches for some time. Gotta go up and over the wall at some point lads.