The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Screaming would be made all the more difficult if Stride had Cachou in her mouth at the time

RD

Let me explain why I think that would not have been possible, even in theory.

Phillips: The left arm was extended from the elbow, and a packet of cachous was in the hand. Similar ones were in the gutter.

Blackwell: I can confirm Dr. Phillips as to the appearances at the mortuary. I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand.

That would seem to explain the cachous in the gutter. However, when Phillips was recalled, he was asked...

Does the presence of the cachous in the left hand indicate that the murder was committed very suddenly and without any struggle?

...and replied...

Some of the cachous were scattered about the yard.

Cachous scattered about the yard is very different from cachous in the gutter. So, what accounts for this scattering?

Foreman: Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted?
Phillips: That is an inference which the jury would be perfectly entitled to draw.

Imagine, for the sake of argument, that the foreman was referring to the victim's throwing to the ground by the BS man. If we infer that this would result in Stride dropping the cachous packet, we should expect to see cachous scattered about on the footway, outside the line of the gates, but there is no evidence for this. On the contrary, the evidence is for a momentary altercation in the yard, just prior to Stride being forced to the ground, in which some of the cachous are scattered around.

All the above suggests that the cachous packet does not make an appearance until Stride is in the yard. So, why then?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I can see your point, but in all probability the combination of all the above goes a long way to counter the laws of physics and space time.

Lave was clear that he didn't see anyone, despite going as far as the street. This was at a time when Stride was either there in the gateway, talking with another man, or already dead, and so his account is questionable.

Lave and Schwartz are the polar opposite and can't both be correct, because Lave didn't see any of the following...
BS Man
Pipeman
Schwartz
Grapeman
Parcelman
The other couple
PC Smith
Eagle
Goldstein
Stride

Based on his own account, he would have seen at least one of them.

Lave is certainly an interesting character, and in sense he is the anti-Schwartz, which explains why almost all Schwartz believers are very reluctant to discuss him, other than to dismiss him.

Mrs Diemschitz: Some twenty minutes previously a member of the club had entered by the side door, but he states that he did not then notice anybody lying prostrate in the yard. It was, however, very dark at the time, and he might, in consequence, have failed to see any such object on the ground.

If this is a reference to Eagle, then Lave must have gone back inside before this. How could he have missed Stride? Perhaps Lave, in saying he went as far as the street, actually wandered around Berner St, and missed seeing Stride and her companion go into the yard. Sound a little far-fetched but that's all that I can think of right now. This still would not explain why Lave does not see them when he returns to the club, unless they have gone down to the back of the yard. Hello, Yaffa?

It would be interesting for someone to C.G.I recreate the murder site, not just the bricks and mortar, but also the inclusion of every individual who claimed to have been there or witnessed something at the times they claimed to have been there..and then run it in real time, and then observe the chaos that follows.

Yes, that would be interesting.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

NBFN,

Why has seemingly everything suddenly become "convenient?" When is it appropriately used and when is it not?

It is appropriately used when referring to a theory that supposes something to be true, not because evidence suggests as much, but because the theory requires that something to be so, to remain coherent or complete. It might also be appropriately used when referring to a fortunate element in the circumstance of a witness.

Conveniently, Fanny Mortimer was at her door at just the right time and was able to hear and see what she did as opposed to being inside tending to her sick husband and five children.

I would call that an accidental situation, rather than a convenient one.

Conveniently, Diemschutz just happened to have some matches with him so he could see Stride's body.

Unless he was carrying a packet of Bryant and May's just in case he came across a body in the dark, then his matches were convenient in enabling him to illuminate the body. Having said that, I'm sure a costermonger carrying matches would not have been unusual.

Conveniently, Dr. Blackwell was not delayed en route to the club. Conveniently, he had remembered to bring his watch with him. Conveniently, he had remembered to wind it.

Well, he did have to get dressed first, so in that regard he was delayed. Carrying an accurately timed watch to the crime scene was not a convenience when he needed to record the time, rather it was his professional habit. Being a professional, Blackwell would not have sent Johnston to the crime scene on his own, without having confidence in his ability. It is convenient to blame Johnston for the blood smeared on the right hand, but I doubt he was responsible.

Conveniently, Mary Kelly had her own apartment so her killer had time with her undisturbed.

From her killer's point of view, yes.

Conveniently, there were materials available so that he could start a fire.

That would be speculation. It could also be speculated that he planned the fire, to remove evidence, and so carried a packet of Bryant and May's when he went out looking for a victim. However, that would imply he went looking for a particular type of victim - one with her own room.

The list goes on and on. Are there criteria we should use to determine when it is appropriate to use "conveniently" and when it is not or is it determined by the viewpoint of the poster?

c.d.

I believe you suppose the BS man went away, and JtR came along a few minutes later. What is it about the man's behaviour that suggests he would have gone away quietly? I regard his going away so that Jack can come along, unimpeded by his presence, as convenient supposition, because it sits uneasily with Schwartz's account of the man, in the police report.

[The Rookie Detective]

Why not? I think people trying to reconstruct the events in Berner Street tend to envision a slow-moving stage play where actors enter the stage, do their bits and the leave the stage in a timely choreographed manner. Where, in fact, things may have happened very quickly and very few people were paying close attention to the actual times or took notice of others.

I can see your point, but in all probability the combination of all the above goes a long way to counter the laws of physics and space time.

Lave was clear that he didn't see anyone, despite going as far as the street. This was at a time when Stride was either there in the gateway, talking with another man, or already dead, and so his account is questionable.

Lave and Schwartz are the polar opposite and can't both be correct, because Lave didn't see any of the following...
BS Man
Pipeman
Schwartz
Grapeman
Parcelman
The other couple
PC Smith
Eagle
Goldstein
Stride

Based on his own account, he would have seen at least one of them.


We also have the following who as some point are confirmed to have walked past the murder site...

Lave
Eagle
Diemschultz
Schwartz
Goldstein
PC Smith

The following still cant be corroborated as having been there...

Grapeman
Bs Man
Pipeman
Schwartz


It would be interesting for someone to C.G.I recreate the murder site, not just the bricks and mortar, but also the inclusion of every individual who claimed to have been there or witnessed something at the times they claimed to have been there..and then run it in real time, and then observe the chaos that follows.


RD

[Scott Nelson]

Schwartz saw Stride, BS Man & Pipeman & assault.
Pc Smith saw Stride with Parcel Man
Brown saw Stride with Not tonight Man
Marshall saw Stride with Prayers Man
Packer saw Stride with Grape Man
Gardner & Best previously saw Stride with Kissy Hug man
Mortimer saw Goldstein
Diemschultz saw nobody
Eagle saw nobody
Lave saw nobody
The other couple were spotted and weren't spotted

Scores of club members who left the club between midnight to 12.30am saw nothing and nobody.

Who saw Pc Smith?
Who saw Eagle?
Who saw Lave?
Who saw Packer?
Who saw Schwartz?
Who saw Brown?
Who saw Mortimer?
Who saw Marshall?

Mortimer is only witness to not see Stride, but only witness to see a man pass the murder site around the time of the murder.

Nobody sees Stride in Berner Street before the club closes between midnight to 12.30am, except Packer.



When you combine all the above, what is truth and what is fiction?

The only certainty is that they can't ALL be true, because that's physically impossible

Why not? I think people trying to reconstruct the events in Berner Street tend to envision a slow-moving stage play where actors enter the stage, do their bits and the leave the stage in a timely choreographed manner. Where, in fact, things may have happened very quickly and very few people were paying close attention to the actual times or took notice of others.

[The Rookie Detective]

I did. Shame on me.

I'm curious about how not very loud screams actually sound. Would you mind going to the trouble of uploading a recording of your interpretation of these screams?

If screaming not loudly is actually a thing, why do suppose Stride let out three of them? Do you suppose she continued to scream not loudly after Schwartz left the scene? After all, the BS man has to get her off the footway and into the yard - surely, she didn't go quietly. So, perhaps in your recording include a few more screams after a delay, with a man shouting 'Lipski' in between, but not very loudly.



Identifying the victim is compatible with multiple scenarios, including lying that he was there, and him being the murderer.



MA, Oct 2: Mila, the servant at the club, strongly corroborates the statement made by her mistress, and is equally convinced there were no sounds coming from the yard between 20 minutes to one and one o'clock.

It would seem both Mrs Diemschitz and Mila were in the kitchen, in the 20 minutes or so leading up to the discovery.

Mrs Diemschitz: The door had been, and still was, half open...

The exact time of the assault is a meaningless notion - Schwartz had left the scene, leaving Stride to the mercy of the BS man. How long does he go on assaulting her, unseen and unheard by any witness? Two minutes? Five minutes, perhaps?

Screaming would be made all the more difficult if Stride had Cachou in her mouth at the time

RD

[c.d.]

So, belief in Schwartz requires us to conveniently move all possible witnesses out of visible and audible range. There's your problem.

NBFN,

Why has seemingly everything suddenly become "convenient?" When is it appropriately used and when is it not?

Conveniently, Fanny Mortimer was at her door at just the right time and was able to hear and see what she did as opposed to being inside tending to her sick husband and five children.

Conveniently, Diemschutz just happened to have some matches with him so he could see Stride's body.

Conveniently, Dr. Blackwell was not delayed en route to the club. Conveniently, he had remembered to bring his watch with him. Conveniently, he had remembered to wind it.

Conveniently, Mary Kelly had her own apartment so her killer had time with her undisturbed.

Conveniently, there were materials available so that he could start a fire.

The list goes on and on. Are there criteria we should use to determine when it is appropriate to use "conveniently" and when it is not or is it determined by the viewpoint of the poster?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

If Israel Schwartz's story had been from the perspective of his leaving the club via the side door to the passageway and seeing the altercation he claims he saw on the spot where Liz is about to die, there would be far less push back on him. We dont know what address he moved from that day, so we have no explanation for why he is there at all at 12:45am. The move would have been a few bags at the most, checking to see if it was completed 12 hours later isnt believable. And we know he knows Wess. Isnt it far more plausible that he attended the meeting and was one of the stragglers after it ended? So Fishermans shock imaging that Israel would lie about the identification isnt required at all, he may well have seen her and been there, but we have enough witnesses that stated the street was deserted when they looked upon it. So Israel could have just placed the scene outside the gates and added the "Lipski" touch as his own statement about what sort of antisemitism he experiences. Whatever the actual facts are about this time.....(we have multiple witnesses that say they were by the body around 12:40-12:45 with Louis....and James Brown who says he saw her up the street with a young man), it seems clear that interactions with Liz were out of street view after Smith continues on his beat.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

''but not very loudly.''[ you left this out ]

I did. Shame on me.

I'm curious about how not very loud screams actually sound. Would you mind going to the trouble of uploading a recording of your interpretation of these screams?

If screaming not loudly is actually a thing, why do suppose Stride let out three of them? Do you suppose she continued to scream not loudly after Schwartz left the scene? After all, the BS man has to get her off the footway and into the yard - surely, she didn't go quietly. So, perhaps in your recording include a few more screams after a delay, with a man shouting 'Lipski' in between, but not very loudly.

Question..... Why did Schwartz then identify Liz Stride at the mortuary as the women he saw being assaulted ? Did he lie about that too ? was he dishonest ? why even identify the victim if he hadnt actually seen her? .

Identifying the victim is compatible with multiple scenarios, including lying that he was there, and him being the murderer.

Your problem still, as you havent shown or are able to prove the other witnesses were in the same area/ spot as schwartz at the ''exact'' time of the assault !!!

MA, Oct 2: Mila, the servant at the club, strongly corroborates the statement made by her mistress, and is equally convinced there were no sounds coming from the yard between 20 minutes to one and one o'clock.

It would seem both Mrs Diemschitz and Mila were in the kitchen, in the 20 minutes or so leading up to the discovery.

Mrs Diemschitz: The door had been, and still was, half open...

The exact time of the assault is a meaningless notion - Schwartz had left the scene, leaving Stride to the mercy of the BS man. How long does he go on assaulting her, unseen and unheard by any witness? Two minutes? Five minutes, perhaps?

[FISHY1118]

So let's have a look...



Schwartz saw Stride, BS Man & Pipeman & assault.
Pc Smith saw Stride with Parcel Man
Brown saw Stride with Not tonight Man
Marshall saw Stride with Prayers Man
Packer saw Stride with Grape Man
Gardner & Best previously saw Stride with Kissy Hug man
Mortimer saw Goldstein
Diemschultz saw nobody
Eagle saw nobody
Lave saw nobody
The other couple were spotted and weren't spotted

Scores of club members who left the club between midnight to 12.30am saw nothing and nobody.

Who saw Pc Smith?
Who saw Eagle?
Who saw Lave?
Who saw Packer?
Who saw Schwartz?
Who saw Brown?
Who saw Mortimer?
Who saw Marshall?

Mortimer is only witness to not see Stride, but only witness to see a man pass the murder site around the time of the murder.

Nobody sees Stride in Berner Street before the club closes between midnight to 12.30am, except Packer.



When you combine all the above, what is truth and what is fiction?

The only certainty is that they can't ALL be true, because that's physically impossible.

What do we know for certain?

The club had an after-hours lock-in
Some witnesses saw nobody and nothing, whereas some saw multiple people.
Stride only appears after the club closes, ergo, she arrives after hours for one reason or another, unless Packer is correct and the killer stood in full view of Packer for over half an hour in the rain.

Where do we start?



RD

''The official files show that the police accepted the statement made by Schwartz and found him to be a credible witness.'''


So if the ''Offical Files'' have the police accepting the Schwartz account of the attack on Stride, where then does that leave the rest of the witnesses in relation to posters trying to use them to discredit schwartz and claim he lied and was dishonest ?

[FISHY1118]

She screamed three times, but for less than 20 seconds, and that's why no one in the yard, club or street heard her. Ditto the calling out of 'Lipski'. Is that your reasoning?



So, belief in Schwartz requires us to conveniently move all possible witnesses out of visible and audible range. There's your problem.



Who did Brown see at the board school corner? Was it Stride and an unknown man, or the young couple who spoke to Fanny?

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, ''but not very loudly.''[ you left this out ] 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, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far. [Here there is a marginal note. 'The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew'.] Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

Second man age 35 ht. 5 ft 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand. ²

Question..... Why did Schwartz then identify Liz Stride at the mortuary as the women he saw being assaulted ? Did he lie about that too ? was he dishonest ? why even identify the victim if he hadnt actually seen her? .




So, belief in Schwartz requires us to conveniently move all possible witnesses out of visible and audible range. There's your problem.



Your problem still, as you havent shown or are able to prove the other witnesses were in the same area/ spot as schwartz at the ''exact'' time of the assault !!!


''Again, we have absolutely no reason to doubt Schwartz statement of his eyewitness account of liz strides assault, or that he lied, or was dishonest.''

[The Rookie Detective]

How long do you estimate the attack on stride lasted for at 12 .45 ?


I'll clue you in ,it could have lasted less than 20 seconds

Can you say with out doubt any of the above mentioned names they were there, at that time, on that spot !! ?

There's your problem.

Again, we have absolutely no reason to doubt Schwartz statement of his eyewitness account of liz strides assault, or that he lied, or was dishonest.

So let's have a look...



Schwartz saw Stride, BS Man & Pipeman & assault.
Pc Smith saw Stride with Parcel Man
Brown saw Stride with Not tonight Man
Marshall saw Stride with Prayers Man
Packer saw Stride with Grape Man
Gardner & Best previously saw Stride with Kissy Hug man
Mortimer saw Goldstein
Diemschultz saw nobody
Eagle saw nobody
Lave saw nobody
The other couple were spotted and weren't spotted

Scores of club members who left the club between midnight to 12.30am saw nothing and nobody.

Who saw Pc Smith?
Who saw Eagle?
Who saw Lave?
Who saw Packer?
Who saw Schwartz?
Who saw Brown?
Who saw Mortimer?
Who saw Marshall?

Mortimer is only witness to not see Stride, but only witness to see a man pass the murder site around the time of the murder.

Nobody sees Stride in Berner Street before the club closes between midnight to 12.30am, except Packer.



When you combine all the above, what is truth and what is fiction?

The only certainty is that they can't ALL be true, because that's physically impossible.

What do we know for certain?

The club had an after-hours lock-in
Some witnesses saw nobody and nothing, whereas some saw multiple people.
Stride only appears after the club closes, ergo, she arrives after hours for one reason or another, unless Packer is correct and the killer stood in full view of Packer for over half an hour in the rain.

Where do we start?



RD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How long do you estimate the attack on stride lasted for at 12 .45 ?


I'll clue you in ,it could have lasted less than 20 seconds

She screamed three times, but for less than 20 seconds, and that's why no one in the yard, club or street heard her. Ditto the calling out of 'Lipski'. Is that your reasoning?

Can you say with out doubt any of the above mentioned names they were there, at that time, on that spot !! ?

There's your problem.

So, belief in Schwartz requires us to conveniently move all possible witnesses out of visible and audible range. There's your problem.

Again, we have absolutely no reason to doubt Schwartz statement of his eyewitness account of liz strides assault, or that he lied, or was dishonest.

Who did Brown see at the board school corner? Was it Stride and an unknown man, or the young couple who spoke to Fanny?

[FISHY1118]

So, to drive your point home, how would this serious Ripperologist use the Schwartz account to dismiss the inquest testimony of James Brown?



No rest for the wicked.

Press accounts give a sense of how quiet the yard was, leading up to the murder.

Irish Times: The people residing in the cottages on the other side of the court were all indoors and most of them in bed by midnight. Several of these persons remember lying awake and listening to the singing, and the also remember the concert coming to an abrupt termination, but during the whole of the time from retiring to rest until the body was discovered no one heard anything in the nature of a scream or woman's cry of distress.

Fanny Mortimer: It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found.

Sarah Diemschitz: Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs. Up till then I had not heard a sound-not even a whisper.
...
I am positive I did not hear any screams or sound of any kind. Even the singing on the floor above would not have prevented me from hearing them, had there been any. In the yard itself all was as silent as the grave.

The more thoughtful believers of Schwartz read stuff like this and wonder how it can be reconciled with his account. So, what's your take on it?

How long do you estimate the attack on stride lasted for at 12 .45 ?


I'll clue you in ,it could have lasted less than 20 seconds

Can you say with out doubt any of the above mentioned names they were there, at that time, on that spot !! ?

There's your problem.

Again, we have absolutely no reason to doubt Schwartz statement of his eyewitness account of liz strides assault, or that he lied, or was dishonest.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Again, if if uses other witnesses testimony to try and dismiss Schwartz account then the reverse can also be done . Its a pointless exercise that in the end any serious ripperoligist must realize one thing, in the case of liz strides assault and who saw or didn't see it take place then all the evidence must be viewed equally.

So, to drive your point home, how would this serious Ripperologist use the Schwartz account to dismiss the inquest testimony of James Brown?

Theres not one shread of evidence that Israel Schwartz lied or was dishonest when he gave his statement to the police. So give it a rest.

No rest for the wicked.

Press accounts give a sense of how quiet the yard was, leading up to the murder.

Irish Times: The people residing in the cottages on the other side of the court were all indoors and most of them in bed by midnight. Several of these persons remember lying awake and listening to the singing, and the also remember the concert coming to an abrupt termination, but during the whole of the time from retiring to rest until the body was discovered no one heard anything in the nature of a scream or woman's cry of distress.

Fanny Mortimer: It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found.

Sarah Diemschitz: Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs. Up till then I had not heard a sound-not even a whisper.
...
I am positive I did not hear any screams or sound of any kind. Even the singing on the floor above would not have prevented me from hearing them, had there been any. In the yard itself all was as silent as the grave.

The more thoughtful believers of Schwartz read stuff like this and wonder how it can be reconciled with his account. So, what's your take on it?