Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • >>She did see the young couple, which she later talked to, and thats the couple Brown likely saw...<<

    Show everybody the evidence that Mortimer "saw" the couple from her door at the time in question as opposed to merely relating to the reporter a story they told her and we might believe you.
    I think you are making that up.

    We can all read where Mortimer said the couple told her they heard nothing, that is obvious to everybody. but where does Mortimer say this couple told her anything else?

    I've already been over this interview with Mortimer several times, and you still get it wrong!

    This, is the tail end of her interview, where we still see she is talking in the first person, singular, indicated by the use of "me" twice.
    Then, underlined by me, is the only part where the couple told Mortimer something.

    ".....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. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.
    London Evening News, 1st Oct. 1888.

    Are we good?
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • 131 years later ...What have I done

      Comment


      • Such as regards the inherent doubt as accompanies a witness statement or newspaper report. It is indeed a can of worms.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          I think you are making that up.

          We can all read where Mortimer said the couple told her they heard nothing, that is obvious to everybody. but where does Mortimer say this couple told her anything else?

          I've already been over this interview with Mortimer several times, and you still get it wrong!

          This, is the tail end of her interview, where we still see she is talking in the first person, singular, indicated by the use of "me" twice.
          Then, underlined by me, is the only part where the couple told Mortimer something.

          ".....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. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.
          London Evening News, 1st Oct. 1888.

          Are we good?
          So we're good with the grapes again ?
          You can lead a horse to water.....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post

            Well either BSM was the killer and the cachous stayed in her grasp, or someone else was the killer and the cachous stayed in her grasp...so what does that prove?

            Cheers

            Dave
            Hello Dave,

            I think it is much more likely that she did not have the cachous in her hand during her encounter with the B.S. man but took them out later after he left. In other words, they show the B.S. man was not her killer.

            c.d.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
              [B]

              So, you don't think it was not mandatory for a journalist to be able to read and write with a certain degree of competence? As opposed to witnesses who do not have to have any kind of educational requirements?
              Ah, so your idea of "training" is to have the ability to read and write?
              And here's me thinking he had been trained to identify a woman from a girl.


              Are we to take it, you don't know about Stead's Babylon article, kids working in coal mines, flower girls, Dicken's books, the prevalence of incest, the Sally Army etc etc?

              Yeah, Victorian social standards all right!
              My mistake, I didn't realize she was delivering coal.

              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Hello Abby,

                >>she was only cut in one place-how else would blood get on her hand if not that the natural reaction be to put her hand to the cut?<<

                I'm pleased to say, I agree with Wickerman on something. Post #165 makes valid points. I'm not saying that's what happened, but it is the most logical answer.
                dustymiller
                aka drstrange

                Comment


                • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                  Hello Dave,

                  I think it is much more likely that she did not have the cachous in her hand during her encounter with the B.S. man but took them out later after he left. In other words, they show the B.S. man was not her killer.

                  c.d.
                  OK, but why do you think so?

                  Dave

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                    >> Abberline could have only meant 'no other person the word Lipski could have been aimed at' ...<<

                    We read a lot of tall stories to justify the unjustifiable, but that is up there with the best!

                    Abberline apparently knew there were a street full of witnesses, but didn't think it worth mentioning???!!!
                    Why is it relevant?



                    >> you wrote "over 100 feet", not "150ft"<<

                    Correct 100 feet past the corner as I've already explained.
                    This is what you wrote:
                    "50 yards = 150 feet, the distance from the club gateway is about 15 yards, 45 feet, ergo the couple told the reporter they were about 100 feet from the corner of Berner and Fairclough."

                    But it was really only 20 yds = 60 ft.
                    Like many of your arguments, based on incorrect information.


                    >>Couples are not interested in who else is coming and going in the street, they are only concerned with each other.<<

                    But, somehow remember a man heading towards Aldgate.
                    Right, they were walking in Commercial St., not standing on a corner.

                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • While I think it is highly unlikely that Stride would have gone back into the yard with the B.S. man after he threw her to the ground and threatened Schwartz I don't think it completely out of the question. If her being pushed was an accident and unintentional and if he had calmed down and offered her an extra amount of money then maybe. But again it seems unlikely.

                      As for her going into the yard with the B.S. man if she knew him I would really wonder why they would do so. I hardly think she would be in the mood for sex after what happened and the odds were probably good that she would be getting a beating. A private conversation maybe but why?

                      c.d.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post

                        OK, but why do you think so?

                        Dave
                        Because the cachous were simply wrapped in tissue paper. People tend to break their fall with their hands when thrown to the ground. In getting up, the tendency is to open your hands and put your weight on them and push yourself up. If she was trying to prevent the B.S. man from pulling her into the passageway, you would expect that she would have her palm open trying to push him away.

                        It is possible that the cachous were able to remain in her hand unspilled but to me it seems quite unlikely. My conclusion is that she did not have them in her hand during the encounter with the B.S. man but rather took them out after he had left and that her real killer came on the scene very shortly after the B.S. man left.

                        c.d.

                        Comment


                        • Re post #166.

                          You used "I" twice in that post, following your logic are we to assume you saw Mrs Mortimer?


                          Mrs Mortimer expressly tells us the couple told her things, however she does not expressly say she saw the couple from her door.

                          On the other hand she does expressly say,

                          "...the only man whom I had seen pass through the street..."

                          and

                          " I suppose you did not notice a man and woman pass down the street while you were at the door?"
                          "No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had. Particularly if they'd been strangers, at that time o' night. I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in."

                          Nowhere does she say "I saw "a couple whist standing at my door, which is what you keep, unsuccessfully trying to claim.

                          And that sums up all I need today on the matter, end of story.
                          dustymiller
                          aka drstrange

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                            Because the cachous were simply wrapped in tissue paper. People tend to break their fall with their hands when thrown to the ground. In getting up, the tendency is to open your hands and put your weight on them and push yourself up. If she was trying to prevent the B.S. man from pulling her into the passageway, you would expect that she would have her palm open trying to push him away.

                            It is possible that the cachous were able to remain in her hand unspilled but to me it seems quite unlikely. My conclusion is that she did not have them in her hand during the encounter with the B.S. man but rather took them out after he had left and that her real killer came on the scene very shortly after the B.S. man left.

                            c.d.
                            Who says she made much effort to push him away, (difficult if he's got her from behind and has tightened the scarf round her neck), and who says she got up afterwards at all? Somebody put her down there finally with the cachous in her grip...and one or two may well've spilled before Johnston spilled some more...

                            It sounds to me as if you're reasoning in a circle - if she had the cachous in her hand, BS man couldn't have put her down, else the cachous must've spilled, therefore she must've got up, so that she could've fetched out the cachous later ready for someone else to put her down with the cachous in her hand...

                            Dave

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post

                              Who says she made much effort to push him away, (difficult if he's got her from behind and has tightened the scarf round her neck), and who says she got up afterwards at all? Somebody put her down there finally with the cachous in her grip...and one or two may well've spilled before Johnston spilled some more...

                              It sounds to me as if you're reasoning in a circle - if she had the cachous in her hand, BS man couldn't have put her down, else the cachous must've spilled, therefore she must've got up, so that she could've fetched out the cachous later ready for someone else to put her down with the cachous in her hand...

                              Dave
                              You seem to be talking about her murder and conflating it with Schwartz's description of events. I am talking about what Schwartz said he saw. He simply saw her being pushed. She was alive when he left. She wasn't killed where Schwartz saw her so either she went voluntarily into the passage or was was dragged. If dragged, you would think she would try to fight him off. Attempting to loosen the scarf would be done with an open palm. Very tough on the cachous.

                              c.d.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                                So we're good with the grapes again ?
                                You want to start a thread about grapes?
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X