Arbeter Fraint's Take

[Debra A]

Thank you Cris. So there goes Wick's and Debs' theory about the media-savy witness.

What?!!!
I asked if anyone on the thread knew if legally, a witness could be used as a witness again if they had identified a police suspect, known or later proven to be innocent.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

I contend Schwartz and the whole two-man incident just didn't happen...see above

Dave

I seem to recall someone else made a similar suggestion, I've no opinion either way until I hear a good reason for the story.
Schwartz could not speak English, right?
What he told the press/police came through an interpreter, right?

So, was this story largely the product of the interpreter?, if so, why?

I am also concerned about the differences between the press version & the police (Swanson) version. Perhaps the press spiced it up a little?, seeing as we are dealing with The Star, I would not be at all surprised.
I even tried to find the German/Hungarian/Yiddish name for "pipe" & "knife" to see if they were remotely similar, no joy.

What concerns me is that no-one seems to have seen Schwartz, and Schwartz does not mention anyone else we know from Berner St.
So much trust has been put in Schwartz's story, yet, it is most unsatisfactory with respect to complementing the rest of the evidence.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi Rob

I agree...from Berners Street he can't see a clockface, and when the last strike of the nearest clock (was Christ Church the nearest striking tower?), took place, why should he have taken particular notice of it...

In terms of time estimate, without being previously briefed, I was half an hour out...

Dave

I'd need to look, but Diemschitz came down from Commercial Rd. the same direction as Schwartz. Didn't Diemschitz make reference to a clock at a tobacconists window in Commercial Rd.?
Maybe this was the same clock Schwartz saw?

On the other hand, as he was dressed up (in theatrical garb), perhaps he carried a timepiece?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi Rob

Again havn't looked at a clock for over an hour, guessed 10:45 p.m. Actual time 10 :36 p.m.

See what you mean, it seems we guess to the nearest quarter.

Regards

Observer

Which demonstrates quite admirably why we cannot put absolute trust in stated times by witnesses who make no reference to a clock of any kind.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

I may be missing something here, but Schwartz did provide confirmation of a rumoured 'chase' seen at 12.45, even if other details don't tally.

Unfortunately not “confirmation“ Caz, his story is just a claim. Uncorroborated, though apparently believed by the Police (according to Swanson vs. the Star report.) As you might have noticed, I suspect that Wess was involved in Schwartz' testimony, as (circumstantially) evidenced by the Echo/Scotsman report and by other circumstantial evidence.

Hi Maria, How do you square the notion of 1.00 am Ripper interruptus with the Stride inquest medical evidence? {...} My expert was the LA County Coroner. Does he count?

Mr. Wood, is your coroner a medical examiner or a voted representative of the state? Hope the former. TOD is always elusive and an approximation, so I'm fine with what the medics said at the inquest.

Hi Maria, No, I don't believe Coroner Wynne Baxter would negate calling a witness simply because that person had talked to the press. It didn't make a difference in the Nichols or Chapman inquiries. In fact, Cadosch had been located by the press before either the police or Baxter's officer evidently knew about him. Both he and Mrs. Long testified near the end of the Chapman inquest. We know that as late as Oct. 19th, the police considered Schwartz's 'police statement' viable and Abberline's Nov. 1st report gives no indication that police opinion of Schwartz's testimony had changed by then either. I believe Schwartz was not called by Baxter for the reason I stated on the other thread.

Thank you Cris. So there goes Wick's and Debs' theory about the media-savy witness. So your explanation for Baxter not calling Schwartz at the inquest is cuz of Warren's fear of a Jewish upheaval (compare this to the erased graffito on GS). Still, not enough for me. My personal suspicion is that Schwartz got scarce prior to the inquest, and I'll be looking into this for more evidence if possible.

The murder was clearly "interrupted" by Schwartz and Pipeman at 12:45... not by Diemshitz at 1am. It amazes me that people fail to realize this.

Actually, and if Schwartz told the truth, the murder might have been interrupted TWICE: By Schwartz around 00.45, then by Diemshitz around 1.00 a.m..

All it would need is for Schwartz timing to be a few minutes out and/or Stride lingering onto life for a few minutes longer than we assume to make it plausible her blood was flowing at 1.05 and that Schwartz had interrupted the attack.None of the above assumptions are unreasonable.

PRECISELY, and this is my own take on the matter.

If Kozebrodsky and Gilyarovsky are one and the same (as would seem likely by many of the similarities as alleged of their movements) why do you suppose that particular pseudonym?

Not a pseudonym, simply a garbled transliteration.

[Observer]

Observer,

Apologies for interrupting, I know you addressed the question to rob.

Would'nt Schwarz's mistaking the time by a few minutes be a more reasonable assumption than assuming Stride was attacked twice in 15 minutes? Or that the Ripper's usual lightning attack lasted 10-15 minutes in Berner Street?

All it would need is for Schwartz timing to be a few minutes out and/or Stride lingering onto life for a few minutes longer than we assume to make it plausible her blood was flowing at 1.05 and that Schwartz had interrupted the attack.

None of the above assumptions are unreasonable.

Hi Jason

No need for an apology. I'd agree none of the above assumptions are unreasonable. I'd also say that the likelyhood of another assailant attacking Stride after BS man's assault is remote. However it is a possibility.

Regards

Observer

[Wickerman]

Please read my dissertation "Blackwells Testimony – An Estimation of How Stride Was Lying in the Yard". It´s amongst the dissertations here on Casebook, and it will show you exactly how I think here.

Hi Christer.

Yes, you speak to the primary witnesses (Spooner, Lamb, Johnston, Blackwell and Phillips), who in order speak of the position of her body/limbs.

You must notice though that by the time Phillips arrived, her right arm had slipped down to her belly, assuming Phillips is being precise.

Your 1st witness, Spooner saw her right hand, so presumably within close proximity to the flower on her right breast.

2nd witness, PC Lamb only noticed her left arm was "under her", while her right arm was also "across her breast".

3rd witness, Mr Johnston, rather vaguely observed "her right arm was across her body", yet it was Mr Johnston who described how he unfastened the front of her dress to feel her chest. This action could cause the right hand/arm to slide further down away from the chest.

4th witness, Blackwell, noted that her "neck & chest (& heart) were warm", so he also opened her dress. He observed: The right hand was open and on the chest, and was smeared with blood.

Then Phillips arrived and observed her right arm was now across her belly.

I can see how the right hand/arm has moved away from the chest as each witness came and touched the body in some way.
I think the photo you included in your dissertation showed where the right arm came to rest, but not where it began.

Regards, Jon S.

[Observer]

Per an account I've recently seen on google, fresh bleeding may emerge from an arterial wound between two minutes and an hour from the wound having been inflicted. The likelihood of bleeding an hour after the wounding is low, but if the body is moved/messed around with, it's possible...

Hi Dave

Interesting

Observer

[Observer]

Spooner never saw her left hand.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon

I never said he did. I said he was the first to spot the cachous.

He said he saw a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand, in my opinion the cachous. I'd say he either mistook the right hand for the left, or simply forgot which hand the cachous were in by the time the inquest came around

Regards

Observer

[robhouse]

Hello Tom,

Well your explanation is more clear, and entirely plausible. But this Echo report still raises several questions.

First of all, as you say it is "garbled." That is one way of looking at it... assuming that this is a garbled account of the Schwartz incident. OK, certainly possible. However, I am still not entirely convinced. This account has the murderer being chased, and in my opinion, chased East, down Fairclough St. Schwartz, as far as I can tell, was not even necessarily chased at all, but ran away from a frightening incident after feeling intimidated. It is entirely possible that the pipeman was neither intimidating Schwartz intentionally, nor chasing him. And in any case, Schwartz ran towards "the railway arch"(?) or back to his residence on Backchurch St.

Is it not at least possible that this is recounting some incident that we do not know of as yet.

RH

[Cogidubnus]

Per an account I've recently seen on google, fresh bleeding may emerge from an arterial wound between two minutes and an hour from the wound having been inflicted. The likelihood of bleeding an hour after the wounding is low, but if the body is moved/messed around with, it's possible...

[Observer]

Hi Observer,

As blood cannot run uphill, Dutfields Yard must have been on a downward incline from the gates.

Dr. Blackwell mentioned a pound [16 ounces] of clotted blood and also running blood, which is awkward. But I guess he must have factored both these into consideration before determining Stride's time of death.

We either believe Dr. Blackwell, or we have good reason to ignore him.

The Ripper interruptus body of opinion chose to ignore him. A bit like Wynne Baxter ignoring Dr. Phillips' estimated time of Chapman's death.

And before you ask, no I cannot explain it. I wish I could.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon

Dr Blackwell's upper limit for TOD equates to 12:56 a.m. prime time for Ripper interruptus.

Regards

Observer

[Tom_Wescott]

The blood flow dilemma

I'm not following the blood debate on here, because I don't really think there's a whole lot to debate. But one important factor to keep in mind is that Schwartz did not claim to see Stride's throat cut at 12:45am, so there's no empirical evidence to suggest she was murdered at this minute. If in fact Spooner saw blood still coming from her wound at approx. 1:06am, there are two possible explanations.

1) What he saw was fresh flow, indication she must have been murder later than 12:45, but no later than 1am, when her body was discovered.

2) He adjusted her neck or moved her a little more than he intimated, causing a small pool of blood which had settled in her neck to move lose and flow out, giving the impression she was still bleeding.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Schwartz

Tom, you said:
"If someone else witnessed it, this person was not seen by Schwartz and was completely forgotten by Abberline and his superiors by the time of the Oct. 16th Swanson report and the ensuing exchange it inspired. "

What about Pipeman? Surely he also witnessed it.

Hi Rob. I’m not sure you followed the argument. I probably wasn’t clear enough. First, you must read the Echo Oct 1st report where Wess delivers to a reporter a garbled version of the Schwartz incident. One interpretation from this would be that Wess and therefore the police knew Pipeman’s identity. The other, and in my opinion the far more likely explanation, is that he knew Schwartz’s identity and the reporter confused the roles of the men. Of course Pipeman was a witness, but the Swanson report of Oct. 16th and the communications from Abberline which followed leave no doubt that Pipeman’s identity was not known. And a witness who doesn’t come forth is not a witness.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hi Christer.

Sampled the blood in the yard? Where is this mentioned?

P C Lamb was asked if the blood had congealed. In the dark, wet blood & congealed blood both look like oil.
Because Lamb answered the question then we know he had to have touched the blood to find out.
He could have said, "I don't know", but he told the Coroner that some had congealed, therefore he had to have felt the blood to be able to answer this.

felt Strides face and then her wrist (unknown which, but the left one would have been more easily accessible, palm up on the ground.

Actually Christer, her left hand was not easily accessible. Both her face & her knees were near to the wall. Therefore everyone was standing behind her. The left hand had to be next to the wall. They would have to reach over her body to grasp her left hand. But, her right hand was directly in front of them, across her right breast.

Because if there had been fingerprints in the blood on her hand, then reasonably Phillips would not have called the presence of the clots of blood a "mystery".

Smeared blood which had dried in lines (oblong) would be consistent with it being left there by fingers, would it not?

I believe this is a mistake - I think he saw the paper in Strides LEFT hand, the cachous paper. It was doubled up, he said, and if there had been grapes in her right hand, why would the paper have been doubled up? It makes no sense.

Spooner was seeing by matchlite, the range of which is measured in inches, you'd agree?
Spooner mentioned her "right" hand, and then the "flower" which was also on her right breast, beside her hand no doubt. So, in my opinion no mistake.

Yes, I'll go over your dissertation again, just to envisage your argument.

Regards, Jon S.