Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    But the important point is that if, as you suggest, that Schwartz was simply a pawn in a plan with a very specific aim and one where his part in it was simplicity itself how could he have failed so miserably? All that he had to do was to say, in effect, “I saw a man attacking the woman that I’ve identified in the mortuary just outside the gates of Dutfield’s Yard. As I looked across the man yelled ‘Lipski’ at me so I became worried for my safety and moved on.” Thus placing the initial attack on the street and showing, with the anti-Semitic insult toward the Jewish Schwartz, that the man was obviously a gentile and so not a club member.

    ....
    I would think a concocted story would leave out "Lipski" altogether, and Schwartz's tale, if shouting by B.S. was considered necessary, would have just said something like "He yelled at me, but as my English is poor, I don't know what he said but it was angry and I left ..." type thing. Also, the inclusion of Pipeman seems an unnecessary complication, as it's just one more potential area aspect to slip up about.

    In the end, Schwartz's story is too complex for a false story motivated by the club, there's too many people being made up if all it is suppose to do is serve the purpose of misdirecting the police away from the Jewish club members. Moreover, his original telling does exactly the opposite and draws attention to the involvement of a Jewish offender. In short, as I've been pointing out for years, Schwartz's statement, as he originally presented it to the police, refutes the idea that his story was told to divert attention away from the Jewish club members. He did the exact opposite, and implicated the involvement of at least one Jewish offender. The explanation for his going to the police with the story he told is refuted by the very evidence it is supposed to explain.

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • Good points there Herlock and Jeff. I concur.

      c.d.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        But the important point is that if, as you suggest, that Schwartz was simply a pawn in a plan with a very specific aim and one where his part in it was simplicity itself how could he have failed so miserably? All that he had to do was to say, in effect, “I saw a man attacking the woman that I’ve identified in the mortuary just outside the gates of Dutfield’s Yard. As I looked across the man yelled ‘Lipski’ at me so I became worried for my safety and moved on.”
        Hi Herlock,

        Schwartz was at the NE corner of Berner and Fairclough when he looked back at the argument. He was far enough away from BS Man that he posed no immediate threat. So if he was a pawn he needed Pipeman to explain why he left without observing the outcome of the argument between Stride and BS Man. If genuine then he felt threatened by someone he perceived could have been an accomplice. In his statement to the Star there was no mention of "Lipski".

        I agree with Jeff's interpretation of the argument. BS Man tried to pull Stride from the yard, she pulled away, overbalanced and fell down. Hence the "not very loud" screams. She probably got up and at some stage walked towards the side door of the club and was grabbed from behind and murdered. But was her attacker BS Man, Pipeman or Parcelman?

        Cheers, George
        Last edited by GBinOz; 10-14-2021, 01:40 AM.
        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          Hi Herlock,

          Schwartz was at the NE corner of Berner and Fairclough when he looked back at the argument. He was far enough away from BS Man that he posed no immediate threat. So if he was a pawn he needed Pipeman to explain why he left without observing the outcome of the argument between Stride and BS Man. If genuine then he felt threatened by someone he perceived could have been an accomplice. In his statement to the Star there was no mention of "Lipski".

          I agree with Jeff's interpretation of the argument. BS Man tried to pull Stride from the yard, she pulled away, overbalanced and fell down. Hence the "not very loud" screams. She probably got up and at some stage walked towards the side door of the club and was grabbed from behind and murdered. But was her attacker BS Man, Pipeman or Parcelman?

          Cheers, George
          Hi George,

          Whatever his thinking it points to this event actually occurring. If he as simply following a script then he didn’t need a Pipeman figure. I forgot to add to my last post that of all of the people that they could have chosen to lie about seeing this scuffle they ‘chose’ a man that couldn’t speak English. Whichever way you look at it the idea of this being a plan doesn’t work.

          Comment


          • Why would BS interfere with Stride? He is walking ahead of Schwartz,then is seen to place his hands on Strides shoulders at the entrance to the yard.What prompted him to do this?Why would this placing his(BS) hands on the shoulders be construed as an assault?

            Comment


            • It was the fact this she ended up on the ground Harry. Although one line of thought is ‘what are the chances of this incident being unconnected to the murder of a woman who’s body was discovered 15 minutes later’ I don’t think that we can just assume that they were connected. They might have been but, as you say, this might not have been a murderous attack but just an altercation with a drunken man and Stride ended up falling to the ground. As she shouted out three times but ‘not very loudly’ it makes me consider the possibility that she might have known this man? Perhaps she was just a local nuisance that she wanted nothing to do with for whatever reason? Schwartz couldn’t speak English of course so he wouldn’t have known what was being said.

              Comment


              • There are a bunch of factors that might have led to the construct of a less than watertight storyline, but it is clear from the contrasting accounts for certain times and actions that there were mistakes made in that regard, so perhaps thats the evidence that a construct was used by the senior members and didnt mesh easily with other eyewitness accounts. There are contrasting accounts for the time of 12:40 to 12:45. Eagle says he arrived then, and yet many members say they were by a dying woman at that time. Israel says Liz was alive at 12:45 and on the street, yet multiple witnesses say they were inside the passage at that time by that same dying woman. Israel says that he saw 2 men and Liz, yet a witness to the street activity "almost the whole time" between 12:30 and 1am saw no-one after 12:35 but a young couple and Leon Goldstein at 12:55ish. Louis insists he arrived at 1am precisely because he took his time from the local clock, yet Fanny says she was at her door at that same time, and the minutes leading up to that, and she saw or heard no arrival of anyone at 1. Lave says he was at the gate until almost 12:45, and hee didnt seem to see Eagle arrive, and the multiple accounts of far different scenarios just indie the gate at 12:40-12:45 still loom.

                What is clear is that no-one substantiates what Eagle, Lave or Schwartz or Diemshitz says...yet there are multiple corroborative accounts by people that did not have any direct responsibilities with the club that suggest far different activities. This is where you can see the poor planning. This is where a story is needed far quicker than one they might have come up with given the time that Schwartz has.

                Which brings up his story, which was given by a translator. Im not debating whether he represented the call from BSM to Pipeman as conspiratorial between the 2 and a personal reference at one point, but as is clear senior investigators and later Israel himself put together a more likely scenario. Lipski was either a warning off to Israel himself by an antisemite, or it was a warning to Pipeman that a "Lipski" was there.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                  There are contrasting accounts for the time of 12:40 to 12:45. Eagle says he arrived then, and yet many members say they were by a dying woman at that time.
                  Remind me...which members said that Liz was still alive?

                  Comment


                  • But it’s not just a case of being ‘less than watertight.’ It’s a case of this being an incredibly bad plan, with a highly implausible motive that achieved nothing. For a start the murder still took place in Dutfield’s Yard and so whoever was the murderer it still occurred right next to their premises. So if the police considered it a ripper killing then very obviously no one could have expected the police to have blamed the club for the murder occurring where it did and if they hadn’t seen it as a ripper killing then the body was in a location which would have raised the possibility that the killer might have come from inside the club. The only thing that they could have done to remove all potential connection to the club would have been to have either put the body onto Diemschutz cart and dumped it elsewhere or taken the risk of checking that there was no one in the street and dumping the body in the street a door or two away.

                    As far as any plan would go how could they not have realised that they would require the great good fortune of no one seeing Diemschutz return at 1.00 (if he’d actually returned earlier) plus having no one looking out of their window at the time and seeing no incident. Another point not mentioned is is that wouldn’t they have checked to see if the street was empty before coming up with Schwartz 12.45 time? Wouldn’t someone have seen Fanny Mortimer if she was indeed on her doorstep at 12.45? Why when coming up with the plan didn’t Eagle mention seeing Mortimer on her doorstep as he returned and the fact that she would have been able to say that nothing happened at 12.45?

                    Another question of course is why is it so unbelievable that Fanny Mortimer didn’t see the Schwartz incident as she was on her doorstep ‘almost the whole time’ but it’s apparently entirely plausible that she completely missed Diemschutz on his cart returning considerably before 1.00. You can’t have it both ways. We know that FM also told the EN that she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed and for around 10 minutes so why is this version ignored?

                    We know that the ‘witnesses’ that you use cannot be trusted. This is very obvious especially when we consider that one of them even gives 2 different times within the same statement. Then how could he and Diemschutz have returned to the yard at 12.35 also unseen by the apparently all-seeing Fanny Mortimer? How come she didn’t see Abraham Hoschberg? None of these witness are reliable. They were very obviously mistaken. How could Diemschutz and Kozebrodski have been heard running and shouting for a police officer around 1.00 if he’d got back to the yard at 12.35 as per Spooner?

                    Who substantiates Eagle? Well Gilleman would have done because he called him to the body at around 1.00. The police saw no issues with these timings because they obviously saw your 4 witness for what they were. Very, very obviously mistaken.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      The police saw no issues with these timings because they obviously saw your 4 witness for what they were. Very, very obviously mistaken.
                      I respectfully disagree. I think that the police acknowledged that clocks were unsycronised and that estimates of time could be highly inaccurate. Let us just for the moment ignore all clock times (not time intervals) except those quoted by the police.

                      Smith sees Stride and Parcelman between 12:30 and 12:35 and Mortimer hears him pass and comes to her door at about 12:34. Stride has crossed to the yard and is not visible to FM. We don't know where Parcelman has gone. FM stays at her door for 10 minutes until 12:44 and thus just misses Schwartz, who turned into Berner St at 12:45 and would have been crossing the road to avoid the Stride/BS Man incident at around 12:47. FM hears Diemshitz pass about 4 minutes after leaving her door, so Schwartz and Pipeman have departed and Stride is being murdered. The witness reports of a body at 12:40 to 12:45 are well within the margin of error for clock sync and time estimates . I did a re-enactment of Diemshitz actions from pony shy to departure from the yard to raise alarm and it took about 2 minutes. So there are men running through the streets raising the alarm a little after 12:50 which fits with the estimates of times of witnesses.

                      Lamb's testimony at the inquest:
                      [Coroner] Do you think that a person might have got away before you arrived? - I think he is more likely to have escaped before than after.
                      Detective-Inspector Reid: How long before had you passed this place?
                      Witness: I am not on the Berner-street beat, but I passed the end of the street in Commercial-road six or seven minutes before.


                      Lamb had passed the tobacconist's clock only six to seven minutes before arriving at the yard, but he is already acknowledging that he didn't have a watch so was estimating. "Shortly before one o'clock" is the time PC Lamb gave for when he was contacted. This is an even shorter time from when he passed the tobacconist clock. I remain unconvinced that Lamb's estimate could be around five minutes out on a time of six to seven minutes or less.

                      Mr. Edward Johnson: I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kaye and Blackwell. On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H. After informing Dr. Blackwell, who was in bed, of the case, I accompanied the officer to Berner-street
                      I had no watch with me, but Dr. Blackwell looked at his when he arrived, and the time was 1.16 a.m. I preceded him by three or four minutes.


                      The "few minutes past one o'clock" fits with Lamb's time. Johnson was up at the time. Why did it, according to Blackwell's pocket watch, take Johnson about ten minutes to get to the yard when Blackwell arose, dressed and got to the yard in three or four minutes. Answer is that Blackwell's pocket watch was unreliable, being more than five minutes out of sync with his house clock, which appears to have been more closely in sync with the tobacconist clock, and the tobacconist clock itself.

                      Detective-Inspector Reid said: I received a telegram at 1.25 on Sunday morning last at Commercial- street Police-office. I at once proceeded to No. 40, Berner-street, where I saw several police officers, Drs. Phillips and Blackwell

                      Commercial St PS is a 19 minute walk from Dutfields, so the earliest Reid could have arrived is 1:44, and Phillips was already there.

                      Constable Henry Lamb I turned my light on, when I found that the object was a woman, with her throat cut and apparently dead. I sent the other constable for the nearest doctor, and a young man who was standing by I despatched to the police station to inform the inspector what had occurred.

                      Lehman St PS is 6 minutes walk from Dutfields.

                      Mr. George Baxter Phillips: I live at No. 2, Spital-square, and am surgeon of the H Division of police. I was called on Sunday morning last at twenty past one to Leman-street Police-station, and was sent on to Berner-street, to a yard at the side of what proved to be a club-house.

                      No. 2 Spital-square is 15 minutes walk to Lehman St PS. So from the time Lamb is first standing over the body add 6 minutes for the "young man" to reach Lehman St PS, add 30 minutes for someone to walk to Phillip's house and for Phillips to proceed to Lehman St PS, add another 6 minutes to Dutfields. This has Phillips arriving at Dutfields at about 1:41, which agrees with Reid seeing him there at 1:44, and has Lamb standing over the body at about 1AM, which fits his times. It also fits Smith's time of 1AM at the corner of Commercial and Berner. Blackwell's pocket watch was out of sync and Diemshitz was either mistaken or lying, I don't know which.

                      If have have made an error with my times I will stand corrected, but can we refrain from the usual reply of "Diemshitz saw the tobacconist clock at 1AM, and that is the only reliable time"?

                      These times leave only minutes between the departure of Schwartz and Pipeman and Stride's death. So either BS Man was the killer, or he departed almost immediately after Schwartz, and Parcelman was hiding in the shadows and he killed her. There would not seem to be enough time for Pipeman to briefly follow Schwartz and then return and warn off BS Man and then kill Stride before the arrival of Diemshitz. Either way, it adds additional creedence to the interruption by Diemshitz theory.

                      Cheers, George
                      “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                      Comment


                      • Folks, is there a good place to start reviewing the problems there may or may not be with the Berner Street situation? I'd like to see the fullest possible examination of the testimony and scene of crime issues. Anyone remember a good thread that'll start me off?

                        Thanks.

                        Mark D.

                        Comment


                        • Sorry George but no I can’t refrain from that. We can’t keep dismissing someone that specifically saw a clock and wasn’t simply estimating like everyone else except Blackwell. Diemschutz and Blackwell’s times should carry more weight than the estimators. The starting point should be Diemschutz arriving and finding the body at 1.00. He was absolutely certain that he’d passed the clock at 1.00. So he arrived at 1.00 give or take a minute or 2. He wasn’t estimating and he had no reason to lie.

                          Lamb, who was estimating, was obviously out in his time estimate. It was shortly after 1.00 when Eagle found him (Eagle himself said that he first saw the body at 1.00)

                          So……Diemschutz at 1.00……Eagle just after…..Lamb after that at around 1.05 ish.

                          Johnson living nearby said that he saw 436H a few minutes past 1.00…..which ties up with the above.

                          It didn’t take Johnson 10 minutes to get to the yard because we don’t know the exact time that 436H got to his door.

                          Johnson said that he arrived 3 or 4 minutes before Blackwell. Blackwell got there at 1.16 so Johnston must have arrived around 1.12/1.13. So if 436H got to his door at around 1.07 this means that he got to the yard in 5 or 6 minutes. So no problem there.

                          The people that claimed to have been at the yard with the body before 1.00 can and should be dismissed. They were wrong.

                          ……

                          Fanny Mortimer didn’t see Stride arrive at the gates because she was inside her house at the time. How could she not have seen her otherwise? She didn’t hear Diemschutz 4 minutes after going inside because Diemschutz arrived at 1.00 and she went back inside before 12.45. Mortimer is unreliable and should be taken with a pinch of salt.

                          Errors of timing have caused far too much complication IMO. There is absolutely no mystery here. Just a few understandable human errors. Diemschutz and Koz are heard after 1.00. Spooner arrived ‘5 minutes’ before Lamb and so after 1.00. Eagle first saw the body at 1.00.

                          It’s very obvious that the body was discovered at 1.00 and everything follows on from that unassailable fact.

                          Comment


                          • Rather than using what the witnesses themselves are recorded as saying many attempt to re-write the events of that night to suit one particular story, or one particular set of timing. The fact that other stories suggest far different circumstances and activities are enough to make anyone pause before being certain about what did really happen, when, and by whom. Taking just one small piece of a lone statement and presuming accuracy isnt just bad investigation, it makes for bad conclusions overall.

                            The witnesses that came from inside the club had access to a clock in the club, the witnesses that lived on the street almost certainly had a clock in their homes, the policemen would be accustomed to having to account for specific times. The doctors coming from home certainly accessed timepieces. So when a policeman says he saw men calling for help just before 1am, hes likely giving an educated time. When Issac K says he returned to the club at 12:30 and about 10 minutes later he was summoned out to the passageway to see about a woman lying inside the gates, he likely had checked a club clock to give him his arrival time. A guesstimate about how long before he is summoned, sure, but to imagine he was off by 25 minutes because someone else claimed to see a clock on the street and by using that time estimated his arrival time some 25 minutes later than Issacs recollections is just poor investigative technique. Obviously you have 2 conflicting stories. So who gets the support? Its at that point in time where corroboration rules. If other peoples stories match the details of one or the other of these stories then its worth considering strongly. If many people gives independant stories that match each other and one of those accounts, then its far more likely to be that you have sound ground to make determinations.

                            Lamb says he saw men looking for help just before 1. Louis says he only arrived at one, which would put his going for help minutes later. Eagle too. How could Eagle get the attention of Lamb before 1am then? Well, he cant. So someones way off in the times.

                            The majority of the witness accounts cumulatively suggest that Louis was there by the body at around 12:40-12:45, that nothing was happening on the street at that time other than Brown seeing the young couple, and that the search parties were actually Issac K by himself, and Eagle and Louis and someone named Issacs going in different directions for help. Issac sees Eagle with Lamb on the way back and joins them. All before 1am or at the latest, just after.

                            To say this guy was accurate and all others werent, that Fanny just missed things and the majority of the witnesses were off on their times by approx 20-25 minutes....all of them, having that same timing, is just incorrect thinking. What are the odds of having 4 people agree on events and times then be wildly off in their estimates by exactly the same amount of time?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post
                              Folks, is there a good place to start reviewing the problems there may or may not be with the Berner Street situation? I'd like to see the fullest possible examination of the testimony and scene of crime issues. Anyone remember a good thread that'll start me off?

                              Thanks.

                              Mark D.
                              Mark there have been many discussions along this line, I would suggest you do what I did...chart the times and events. Use the Inquest witnesses and the ones that dont appear. Starting point of 12:35, when most people agree Smith sees Liz, and run it to 1am. This period of that night cannot be accurately reconstructed using those statements. they conflict, in some cases, dramatically. Some would have you believe the ones seemingly historically accepted are the ones that are to be followed, I would urge you to look at corroborative elements. If more than 1 person sees the same thing...thats suggestive. If 4 people see the same thing at the same time, thats compelling.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                                Rather than using what the witnesses themselves are recorded as saying many attempt to re-write the events of that night to suit one particular story, or one particular set of timing. The fact that other stories suggest far different circumstances and activities are enough to make anyone pause before being certain about what did really happen, when, and by whom. Taking just one small piece of a lone statement and presuming accuracy isnt just bad investigation, it makes for bad conclusions overall.

                                Its not a lone piece. Again, Diemschutz said that he saw a clock therefore he wasn’t estimating. So the only thing that can be questioned is, a) was he telling the truth, or b) how accurate was the clock. His time of 1.00 is backed up by Gilleman who then informed Eagle and others about the presence of the body, and Eagle himself who said that this happened around 1.00. Then we have Sara Diemschutz and the club servants who apparently confirmed this time too. This is confirmed by James Brown who heard the men running and shouting for the police around 15 minutes after he’d seen Stride (which he estimated at 12.45) so that again is around 1.00.

                                The witnesses that came from inside the club had access to a clock in the club,

                                Yes but it doesn’t mean that they had to have specifically noted the time.

                                the witnesses that lived on the street almost certainly had a clock in their homes,

                                We can’t say that. How do you get ‘almost certainly?’ Most people in that area were dirt poor. Contable’s had to knock people up partly because many people had no way of knowing what time it was.

                                the policemen would be accustomed to having to account for specific times. The doctors coming from home certainly accessed timepieces. So when a policeman says he saw men calling for help just before 1am, hes likely giving an educated time. When Issac K says he returned to the club at 12:30 and about 10 minutes later he was summoned out to the passageway to see about a woman lying inside the gates, he likely had checked a club clock to give him his arrival time.

                                He might have checked the clock at 12.30 but estimating 10 minutes is another thing. How many times have we all looked at the clock expecting to see 4.30 and saw that it’s 5.00 and that we’re late? It’s easily done.

                                A guesstimate about how long before he is summoned, sure, but to imagine he was off by 25 minutes because someone else claimed to see a clock on the street and by using that time estimated his arrival time some 25 minutes later than Issacs recollections is just poor investigative technique. Obviously you have 2 conflicting stories. So who gets the support? Its at that point in time where corroboration rules.

                                And Diemschutz is corroborated by around 5 people. He had no reason lie. Kozebrodski didn’t say that he’d specifically checked a clock while Diemschutz did so there’s no competition at all. Diemschutz is easily more reliable than Kozebrodski.

                                If other peoples stories match the details of one or the other of these stories then its worth considering strongly. If many people gives independant stories that match each other and one of those accounts, then its far more likely to be that you have sound ground to make determinations.

                                Considering yes but not just assuming that they were correct because it’s convenient. Especially when those people were categorically estimating with absolutely no mention of seeing a clock.

                                Lamb says he saw men looking for help just before 1. Louis says he only arrived at one, which would put his going for help minutes later. Eagle too. How could Eagle get the attention of Lamb before 1am then? Well, he cant. So someones way off in the times.

                                Again….Diemschutz saw a clock. Lamb admitted that he didn’t own a watch and so was only estimating. So Lamb was wrong. It must have been at least 1.05 when Eagle found him. This time also fits in nicely with the time that his colleague called on Johnston which, in turn, ties in with the arrival of Dr Blackwell who had a watch. It all fits.

                                If Eagle had found Lamb before 1.00 how do we explain the length of time that would have been taken by 436H to get to Johnson unless he’d taken a ridiculously circuitous route?


                                The majority of the witness accounts cumulatively suggest that Louis was there by the body at around 12:40-12:45, that nothing was happening on the street at that time other than Brown seeing the young couple, and that the search parties were actually Issac K by himself, and Eagle and Louis and someone named Issacs going in different directions for help. Issac sees Eagle with Lamb on the way back and joins them. All before 1am or at the latest, just after.

                                If you give weight to obviously mistaken estimates then you can weave any story. You also are well aware that it’s possible that Isaacs and Kozebrodski were one and the same.

                                To say this guy was accurate and all others werent, that Fanny just missed things and the majority of the witnesses were off on their times by approx 20-25 minutes....all of them, having that same timing, is just incorrect thinking. What are the odds of having 4 people agree on events and times then be wildly off in their estimates by exactly the same amount of time?

                                But they don’t agree Michael. How many times? Spooner said that he arrived 5 minutes before Lamb which can, in now way, equate to 12.35. Just for once will you please concede this point? And even if it was 12.35 (which it very obviously wasn’t) that’s still not the ‘same’ as Hoschberg who said ‘around’ 12.45 ‘I should think.’ Another estimator.
                                There’s also little point in making a criticism of any suggestion that Fanny Mortimer might have missed Schwartz because you yourself are doing exactly the same with exactly the same witness because, according to your theory, she also missed seeing Diemschutz arrive earlier on his cart. Just as she missed seeing Stride arrive at the gates (doubt Schwartz being there but you can’t doubt that Stride was) She also missed seeing Spooner and Diemschutz arriving back. She also missed Eagle twice! And she missed Hoschberg passing at 12.45. Why aren’t you claiming that these misses are suspicious?

                                And yet this woman is at the centre of your theory as an important witness. How can we take her seriously considering the fact that she gave 2 different versions of what she did last night. And yet you believe her after all of that and you dismiss a man who saw a clock and had absolutely no reason to lie.

                                How is this logical?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X