The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[Lewis C]

Thanks for referencing fivers post.

Kinda makes my point doesn't it. ?

As for whether Schwartz eyewitness account is tru or false it can't be dismissed or called dishonest on the nonsensical arguments been battered around here on this thread .

Albert Cadosch gave his testimony of what he heard ,no one came forward to" claim they heard the "No " and the "thud" against the fence yet we don't seem to have the same debate about that as we do with Schwartz!!!.

Or any other witnesses for that matter do we ?.

I agree that Schwartz's story can't be dismissed, but I'm OK with raising questions about it. It's a different case from Cadosch's testimony in that for him, there's no reason to believe that anyone else should have witnessed that - there was no one else that we know of in either of the 2 yards in question. In Schwartz's case, neither Eagle, Smith, Mortimer, Goldstein, or Brown said they saw it. It could well have happened anyway, but lack of corroboration is more meaningful in this case than in Cadosch's.

My sense is that in general, there's more general skepticism about George Hutchinson's account than about Schwartz's.

[Lewis C]

It is rather crowded, however, none of the witnesses need to be dismissed. A while back I put together some simulations that show how the testimony as given might tie to the events. I factored in information regarding general accuracy of estimating a duration of time (we tend to overestimate short intervals, so if someone estimates they waited 5 minutes, the true waiting time is generally a bit less than that, something like 3 minutes and change, but I don't have the table to hand to double check at the moment). Also, given the issue of different witnesses would have based their estimate of the time in reference to different clocks, I did my best to link events based upon people's movements, work out the distance they travelled, using average speeds for walking and running depending upon their testimony, and through a combination of the estimated durations and estimated travel times, I was able to link together a chain of events and work out the time in reference to a common clock (specifically, Dr. Blackwell's watch, as he noted the time as 1:16 upon his arrival at the scene - and lucky for us he did!). I then went back and compared the Dr. Blackwell time to the time estimated by the witnesses, and the difference between them fell well within the margins of error one would expect. So that made me pretty confident about the "core chain" that emerged.

After that, there were some events that really couldn't be tied to the core, the Schwartz event for example. So I looked at the core simulation events to see if there was a period of time within which that event could occur in the vicinity of 12:45, and there was. While I can't place it exactly, I just slotted it in a s a rough guess (sort of like doing a jig-saw puzzle, when you have a big bit completed, and you have another small set of pieces connected, you can roughly place those pieces inside the completed frame. You will have to adjust it if more information comes along, but you'll probably get it close to it's proper location.

Anyway, I'm not saying I've perfectly recreated the events of the night, and given the multiple statements and versions we have, to put together a simulation I did have to make some judgement calls. That's always the case. I have no doubt some will disagree with the ones I made, and I can't say their concerns are unfounded, which is why I always emphasize viewing the simulations as a possibility and not as a certainty.

With that in mind, I'm pretty pleased with the result, and I'm rather impressed that, with so many witnesses, anything at all coherent was even possible. Witness testimony can be fraught with errors of detail to the point that one would not be at all surprised to find it's hard, or even impossible, to fit them all together.

If you're interested, and can stand my ramblings, you can find the simulations I've put together for Buck's Row, Mitre Square, and Berner Street in the Scene of the Crimes area.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I think I found the estimated timeline. The event that I didn't see mentioned was Eagle's return to the club. Where would you fit that into the timeline?

If there's any part of your timeline that seems to me like a stretch, it would be Diemshutz arriving back over 11 minutes after Mortimer closes her door. It could be that Mortimer's door closing time could be made 3 minutes later, reducing the above interval to 8+ minutes, which I find more acceptable. That would mean that either James Brown's sighting would have to be a little later, or it happened while Mortimer was still at her door. Does the latter seem like a realistic possibility?

Your timeline mentions "Mortimer goes outside" and "Mortimer goes inside", which brings me back to a question that I've had for awhile about this. When Mortimer was at her door, did she go outside, or did she stay inside with the doorway just in front of her? The latter seems more likely to me, because I believe that she went to her door for the purpose of closing it, which one would normally do from the inside. The reason it matters is that she would have a broader field of vision if she went outside, enabling her to see more.

[FISHY1118]

All of the issues with Schwartz's accounts have been discussed in this forum, by me and many others, many times. I'm not about to summarize everything for your benefit, only to see you forget it all by next week. If you're really interested, I'd suggest reading some of the many older threads on the subject.

Yer I thought so , you can't.

I too have posted many times and and discussed the Schwartz topic to death ,so spare me the lecture on how you think your some sort of expert on the subject .

The fact is you can't , and have no evidence what so ever that Schwartz lied or was dishonest in his eye witness account of the assault on liz stride.

Its just your opinion nothing more , so please refrain from make such an outlandish statement without backing it up with at least some form of evidence or proof.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Sorry but I still don't think you've cover the bit about why think Schwartz was dishonest or lie in your opinion ? You seemed to skipped that bit .

All of the issues with Schwartz's accounts have been discussed in this forum, by me and many others, many times. I'm not about to summarize everything for your benefit, only to see you forget it all by next week. If you're really interested, I'd suggest reading some of the many older threads on the subject.

[FISHY1118]

It doesn't prove it, any more than you can prove that Schwartz didn't kill Stride himself. However, it's one of several issues that raise doubts.



You seem to have a very peculiar understanding of what witnesses do. Witnesses explain what they did and saw, as individuals. They do not in general dispute other witnesses, especially if they know nothing of them. James Brown did not dispute what Schwartz claimed to have occurred at about 12:45. Instead, he answered the coroners' questions about what he did, and what he saw at the time.



I'll quote one of those people...

... the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view.

- Frederick Abberline

Israel Schwartz got a front view. Evidently Abberline did not include him amongst those he considered had seen the Ripper.

Sorry but I still don't think you've cover the bit about why think Schwartz was dishonest or lie in your opinion ? You seemed to skipped that bit .

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Your first point . So what ? How does that prove he lied or was dishonest?

It doesn't prove it, any more than you can prove that Schwartz didn't kill Stride himself. However, it's one of several issues that raise doubts.

Your second point. Again wheres the evidence that someone disputed Schwartz version of events, your making assumptions and speculating without any proof !!!

You seem to have a very peculiar understanding of what witnesses do. Witnesses explain what they did and saw, as individuals. They do not in general dispute other witnesses, especially if they know nothing of them. James Brown did not dispute what Schwartz claimed to have occurred at about 12:45. Instead, he answered the coroners' questions about what he did, and what he saw at the time.

IMO The only reason people want to dismiss Schwartz as a credible eyewitness for the assault on stride is that BS man doesn't fit the description of there preferred suspect .

I'll quote one of those people...

... the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view.

- Frederick Abberline

Israel Schwartz got a front view. Evidently Abberline did not include him amongst those he considered had seen the Ripper.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

* In the Nichols murder, watchman Patrick Mulshaw was informed of the murder by a stranger who he found suspicious. That man was never found.

Claiming to have heard "Old man, I think a woman has been murdered", is in a different league to claiming to have seen violent interaction with the deceased shortly before her death, so it need not reflect poorly on Mulshaw that the man was not found.

* Another man passed down Bucks Row while Nichols' body was being examined by the doctor. That man was never found.

Was he specifically searched for?

* Elizabeth Long saw a man with Annie Chapman before her death. That man was never found.

Of course he wasn't.

* John Gardner, J Best, William Marshall, Matthew Packer, PC Smith, and James Brown all saw Stride with a man before her death. None of those men were ever found.

How do you know this was true for all of them?

* Lawende, Levy, and Harris saw Eddowes with a man shortly before her death.That man was never found.

We probably wouldn't be having this discussion if he had been.

* Mary Anne Cox, George Hutchinson, and Sarah Lewis all claimed to have seen a man with Kelly or near her lodging. None of those men were ever found.

Fair enough, if these are accepted as reliable witnesses.

Some of those men may have never existed. Some may have been the actual killer. But the majority were probably just people who didn't want to get involved in the murder investigation and who were never identified.

Had Pipeman existed and run away in fear, do you not think he would have a story to tell? If not to the police, then wife/family/friends?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Clearly the "screaming, but not loudly" is a flawed translation, though we can only speculate what Schwartz meant.

We can only speculate why Abberline accepted that translation, if it was clearly flawed.

Broad shouldered doesn't mean well-coordinated, especially if he had been drinking. Stride was known as Long Liz, which implies she was not small. I understand some sources put her at 5 foot 5, the same height as BS man The doctor examining the body described it as fairly nourished, which does not imply thin.

While Schwartz could have been lying, the described scuffle seems possible. If Schwartz told the truth, then Stride probably wasn't killed by the Ripper.

What do you suppose was more likely - that Stride and the BS man were of about equal strength, and the odds of either of them being thrown on the ground were about 50/50, or that the man used his superior strength to physically assault Stride? Given the lack of unambiguous evidence for the throwing down claim, perhaps the correct answer is "neither".

[JeffHamm]

....
One doesn't have to dismiss Schwartz to doubt that BS man killed Stride. One could also take the view that the killer came along after BS man departed. If one takes all the witness testimony together, the timeline before the Stride murder is rather crowded. One is tempted to dismiss at least one of the witnesses to find a timeline that seems more realistic.

It is rather crowded, however, none of the witnesses need to be dismissed. A while back I put together some simulations that show how the testimony as given might tie to the events. I factored in information regarding general accuracy of estimating a duration of time (we tend to overestimate short intervals, so if someone estimates they waited 5 minutes, the true waiting time is generally a bit less than that, something like 3 minutes and change, but I don't have the table to hand to double check at the moment). Also, given the issue of different witnesses would have based their estimate of the time in reference to different clocks, I did my best to link events based upon people's movements, work out the distance they travelled, using average speeds for walking and running depending upon their testimony, and through a combination of the estimated durations and estimated travel times, I was able to link together a chain of events and work out the time in reference to a common clock (specifically, Dr. Blackwell's watch, as he noted the time as 1:16 upon his arrival at the scene - and lucky for us he did!). I then went back and compared the Dr. Blackwell time to the time estimated by the witnesses, and the difference between them fell well within the margins of error one would expect. So that made me pretty confident about the "core chain" that emerged.

After that, there were some events that really couldn't be tied to the core, the Schwartz event for example. So I looked at the core simulation events to see if there was a period of time within which that event could occur in the vicinity of 12:45, and there was. While I can't place it exactly, I just slotted it in a s a rough guess (sort of like doing a jig-saw puzzle, when you have a big bit completed, and you have another small set of pieces connected, you can roughly place those pieces inside the completed frame. You will have to adjust it if more information comes along, but you'll probably get it close to it's proper location.

Anyway, I'm not saying I've perfectly recreated the events of the night, and given the multiple statements and versions we have, to put together a simulation I did have to make some judgement calls. That's always the case. I have no doubt some will disagree with the ones I made, and I can't say their concerns are unfounded, which is why I always emphasize viewing the simulations as a possibility and not as a certainty.

With that in mind, I'm pretty pleased with the result, and I'm rather impressed that, with so many witnesses, anything at all coherent was even possible. Witness testimony can be fraught with errors of detail to the point that one would not be at all surprised to find it's hard, or even impossible, to fit them all together.

If you're interested, and can stand my ramblings, you can find the simulations I've put together for Buck's Row, Mitre Square, and Berner Street in the Scene of the Crimes area.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Also, what Fiver said in post #813.



I think that what Schwartz described is most likely essentially true, but if it were the case that his story is fiction, then there wouldn't be anyone else giving an alternative version of events that didn't happen.



One doesn't have to dismiss Schwartz to doubt that BS man killed Stride. One could also take the view that the killer came along after BS man departed. If one takes all the witness testimony together, the timeline before the Stride murder is rather crowded. One is tempted to dismiss at least one of the witnesses to find a timeline that seems more realistic.

Thanks for referencing fivers post.

Kinda makes my point doesn't it. ?

As for whether Schwartz eyewitness account is tru or false it can't be dismissed or called dishonest on the nonsensical arguments been battered around here on this thread .

Albert Cadosch gave his testimony of what he heard ,no one came forward to" claim they heard the "No " and the "thud" against the fence yet we don't seem to have the same debate about that as we do with Schwartz!!!.

Or any other witnesses for that matter do we ?.

[Lewis C]

Your first point . So what ? How does that prove he lied or was dishonest?

Also, what Fiver said in post #813.

Your second point. Again wheres the evidence that someone disputed Schwartz version of events, your making assumptions and speculating without any proof !!!

I think that what Schwartz described is most likely essentially true, but if it were the case that his story is fiction, then there wouldn't be anyone else giving an alternative version of events that didn't happen.

IMO The only reason people want to dismiss Schwartz as a credible eyewitness for the assault on stride is that BS man doesn't fit the description of there preferred suspect .

One doesn't have to dismiss Schwartz to doubt that BS man killed Stride. One could also take the view that the killer came along after BS man departed. If one takes all the witness testimony together, the timeline before the Stride murder is rather crowded. One is tempted to dismiss at least one of the witnesses to find a timeline that seems more realistic.

[drstrange169]

"How does a broad-shouldered man try to pull a thin, 44yo woman away from where she is, but fail?"

Pretty sure Mrs Stride would have been capable of standing up to most people posting on this site in a similiar encounter.

How serious was her assailant's attempt? So many unknown factors, so many opinions and guesses.

[FISHY1118]

Neither of the men Schwartz claimed were on the street when the victim was, were ever identified by the police. That's quite an achievement given this was the biggest manhunt in history.



Do you mean, who corroborated Schwartz's account, at least partially? You already know the answer. Let me guess - you count that as evidence of Schwartz's honesty?


To achieve what?



So, do you believe Schwartz's evidence has to be demonstrated to be beyond any doubt 100% accurate?

Your first point . So what ? How does that prove he lied or was dishonest?

Your second point. Again wheres the evidence that someone disputed Schwartz version of events, your making assumptions and speculating without any proof !!!

There really no point in covering the last two points for obvious reasons.

IMO The only reason people want to dismiss Schwartz as a credible eyewitness for the assault on stride is that BS man doesn't fit the description of there preferred suspect .

[Fiver]

The differences between the police and press accounts are often seen as reasons for doubting both. If Schwartz can't keep a straight story, why believe anything he said? There is another way of looking at this. If the story was purely fictional, why change it? Why not tell the same fictional story to the police and press? Perhaps what we see in the two accounts considered together, is Schwartz's changing concerns in regard to the two men. In the press account, gone is the violent, swearing, assaulter of the victim, in place of the much milder "half-tipsy man", who just pushes the victim before quarrelling with her. Also gone is the apparently fleeing man who only wanted to have a smoke in peace, in place of an aggressive, shouting man who rushes the "intruder" with a knife.

Why the almost complete reversal of roles? Surely this hints at something.

There are three versions of Fanny Mortimer's story. That could be due to her lying. It could also be due to the press getting details wrong or sensationalizing the story. The same applies to the variations in Schwartz' story, or Robert Paul, or other witnesses in the Ripper cases.

[Fiver]

Neither of the men Schwartz claimed were on the street when the victim was, were ever identified by the police. That's quite an achievement given this was the biggest manhunt in history.

* In the Nichols murder, watchman Patrick Mulshaw was informed of the murder by a stranger who he found suspicious. That man was never found.
* Another man passed down Bucks Row while Nichols' body was being examined by the doctor. That man was never found.
* Elizabeth Long saw a man with Annie Chapman before her death. That man was never found.
* John Gardner, J Best, William Marshall, Matthew Packer, PC Smith, and James Brown all saw Stride with a man before her death. None of those men were ever found.
* Lawende, Levy, and Harris saw Eddowes with a man shortly before her death.That man was never found.
* Mary Anne Cox, George Hutchinson, and Sarah Lewis all claimed to have seen a man with Kelly or near her lodging. None of those men were ever found.

Some of those men may have never existed. Some may have been the actual killer. But the majority were probably just people who didn't want to get involved in the murder investigation and who were never identified.