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 GBinOz View Post

    When I said I am not concerned with time, I phrased that comment badly. I meant that my comments regarding Letchford were concerned only with his non relationship with Mortimer.
    Okay fine, but further on you say...

    The Schwartz incident would have been all over minutes before Diemshitz's pony shied at around 12:50.
    So you suppose the discovery was at ~12:50, and Charles Letchford just happened to mention the street being observed at that time. Not a timespan that encapsulated that time, but just that time. How odd, don't you think? Did Letchford's sister witness the arrival of pony & cart then? Anything else? You go on to say...

    If Schwartz arrived a little after 12:45, FM missed seeing him.
    Did the sister see him, or was that another near miss? The elusive Israel Schwartz. LOL

    I am currently of the opinion that Schwartz was genuine in his statement, but the prevailing criticism is that nobody saw him.
    That is a criticism, not the criticism. For example, surely you don't believe he ran away from a man smoking a pipe?

    I adopt Smith's times and believe that Mortimer's clock was running 10 minutes slow. As Frank suggested, she had heard Smith pass often enough to recognise his footfall. This would mean that, if Stride crossed into Dutfields after Smith passed, FM would not have seen her. If Schwartz arrived a little after 12:45, FM missed seeing him. FM said that she heard Diemshitz's cart 4 minutes after leaving her door, and that supports Schwartz's times. The Schwartz incident would have been all over minutes before Diemshitz's pony shied at around 12:50.
    So you have Stride in the yard at about 12:35. Correct? You also have Diemschitz arriving at 12:50. So here is your first problem...

    Joseph Lave: I am a Russian, and have recently arrived from the United States. I am residing temporarily at the club. About twenty minutes before the alarm I went down into the yard to get a breath of fresh air. I walked about for five minutes or more, and went as far as the street. Everything was very quiet at that time, and I noticed nothing wrong.

    Twenty minutes before the alarm would be about 12:30. Five minutes or more outside (including on the street), takes us past 12:35. Did he see Stride? No, unless he lied. Yet according to your model, he should not only have seen Stride, but likely the parcel man as well. Now what happens when Eagle's return is added to the mix?

    It should be noted that Schwartz was at the tobacconist corner, on foot, so may have had an opportunity to view the time even if the clock was small and badly lit, but he didn't say he saw the clock, and wasn't on the opposite side of the road in a moving cart in traffic at an oblique angle, so such a suggestion will be discounted.
    How can we know exactly what Schwartz told Abberline about his knowledge of the time?

    Going back to your ~12:50 discovery time, you suppose that the Mortimers' clock was running 10 minutes slow (or should that be fast?). Okay, so how do you account for this timing...

    Mrs. Deimschitz, the stewardess of the club, has made the following statement:-"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. Then suddenly I saw my husband enter, looking very scared and frightened."

    Why "just about one o'clock", and not "about ten minutes to one"? Was the club clock reading the same erroneous time as the clock at #36?

    I believe that Lamb was standing over the body at around one o'clock and Smith was at the Commercial Rd/Berner St intersection at about that time. I find the suggestion that Lamb could easily have been out by 6 minutes in order to fit Eagle's guess of time based on a starting point that he could only guess within a 15 minute period over an hour before to be logically flawed. The same applies to the time guesstimates of Brown and Spooner. Hoschberg and Kozebrodski were at least in the club at the time of the discovery of the body, and we know there was at least one clock in the club because Eagle specifically stated that he did not look at it, yet their times are dismissed in favour of wild guesses by others.
    I mostly agree with this, but it is not at all certain the Herschburg was in the club at the time of the discovery. Yes there is a press report to that affect, but that is not what he told the press. It seems likely though, that Abraham did discuss the murder with some members of the club - he knows too much not to have. It's also a little odd that we have AH guessing a time of 12:45 for hearing a whistle, and in the evening Schwartz decides to pick a time for his story that, unfortunately for him, coincides with James Brown fetching his supper and seeing nothing suspicious, but which just happens to be the same time as supposed by Herschburg - 12:45.

    I am aware that you started the thread " A closer look at Leon Goldstein". I was the final poster on that thread, and I know that new evidence does not sit well with those who are rusted on to traditional theories.
    It sure doesn't, but what's this "final poster on that thread"? That thread will go on terrorizing the traditionalists for years to come! LOL

    The tradition of doorway viewing was common in those days, as was sitting on the front verandah in later years. We don't know how many women stood in doorways that night, only that there were at least two around 12:30 to 1:00. We know that one was Fanny Mortimer, another was Letchford's sister, who was not Fanny Mortimer, and one was the wife of a well to do artisan, which was not Fanny Mortimer, but may have been Letchford's sister.
    That is, if Charles Letchford is to be believed.

    The reports sound similar because they are about the same event. One says she came from the door and prepared for bed, the other didn't relate her door stoop viewing to her bedtime. The third interview was quite different - was there a mistake in the door count?
    The interview report begins...

    Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, and formed a strong contrast to many of those around her. I got into conversation with her and found that she was one of the first on the spot.

    Number 36 was 3 doors from the gateway of number 40 (the club). It was also 2 doors from number 40, by address. The interview occurred right at the Mortimer's front door. The wife of a well-to-do artisan bit is something I cannot explain. Perhaps it had something to do with how the woman was dressed? Similar to...

    This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.

    The woman who saw Goldstein headed north did not quote times so we can't deduce anything other than it was before the discovery of the body and, with a 12 minute return trip to the Spectacle coffee house, presumably before the sighting of his journey south.
    Before? How does that make sense? She says:

    I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.

    So it was just before she turned in, and not long after that...

    ... I hadn't long come in from the door when I was roused, as I tell you, by that call for the police. But that was from the people as found the body.

    So this must have been the later sighting. This was the earlier one...

    FM: It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went around the corner by the Board School.

    That was previously. Think about that word George - it is redundant if Fanny only saw him once.
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • I assume the phrase "BS Man" is not referring to Dr Phillips?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

        Yes, are you proposing that car men were well-to-do artisans?

        Cheers, George
        Fanny Mortimer might simply have dressed slightly better than her neighbours. She might also have done a bit of Hyacinth Bouquet-type exaggeration about her husbands occupation. Then….“Some three doors from the gateway……chatting with one or two neighbours.” Of course the wording here is vague but she appears to be talking to neighbours 3 doors from the club and as someone who lived 2 doors from the club then she would indeed have had neighbours living 3 doors from the club. It’s far more that this was Fanny especially as she claimed to have been one of the first on the spot.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          Herlock....maaate,

          What would you like to present as absolute fact? Police reports? Anderson, McNaughten, Swanson and Aberline were not unified in their opinions or statements. Press reports? Conflicting reports of inquest statements? If you just assemble the "facts" that agree with your opinion, that does not represent an offical version, it's cognitive bias.

          I will allow a Victorian Constable leeway of a minute or two, a Victorian clock owner a leeway of 10 minutes or so, and guesstimators of times of an hour or so a leeway of +/- 20 or more minutes.

          Cheers, George
          When I talk about the ‘official version’ George I simply mean Stride killed between 12.45 and 1.00 and discovered by Diemschutz as the police believed based on their assessment of the witnesses and the evidence.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
            Hi Caz,

            Could it be that you are being a little harsh in your description "a doorstep dwelling busybody"? It was a common practice at the time, before radio. In Australia my grandparents often sat on their front porch, as did their neighbours on their's, to watch the goings on in the street and to gossip.
            A juryman: How long were you standing at the door?
            William Marshall: From 11:30 to 12.

            Billy the doorstep dwelling busybody. LOL

            I thought it may be helpful to group together in one post the three articles dealing with "doorstep busybodies" from the Evening News of Oct 1 1888:

            If anyone knows of reports in other publications, please share.

            Traditionally it has been thought that all these interviews were with Fanny Mortimer. The red account reads like a report and the green reads like an interview.
            Why would the press have interviewed Mortimer 3 times? Yet if the source of the red report was a police statement, and not a first-hand account, how did the Daily & Evening News papers come to know about it? The green report seems to have come about by chance...

            Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. ... I got into conversation with her and found that she was one of the first on the spot.

            In the green account she arrives at the yard after Spooner, but the blue account has her arriving with only 2 or 3 people in the yard, including Diemshitz and his wife.
            Yard or gateway...?

            I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway.

            Same as Herschburg...

            [I] came down to see what was the matter in the gateway. Two or three people had collected...

            Presumably he meant, "had collected in the gateway", and that many more were in the yard. Either that, or the story given by Mrs Diemschitz of all the remaining members hurtling pell-mell down the stairs, was false.
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

              I am in the minority of those who believe that Lamb is more likely to have looked at that clock on one or both occassions that he passed it than did Diemshitz.

              Cheers, George
              All the we can say George is that Diemschutz specifically said that he looked at the clock whereas Lamb might or might not have looked at the clock. He might have seen a clock earlier on his beat and was estimating the time from that.


              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                I asked Monty the question: how important was correct time to police constables. His reply was very important. I think it is time to determine an answer for the question: How did police constables keep an accurate track on time without pocket watches. I suspect that perhaps the overseeing seargent would set a pocket watch to GMT from the telegraphed time at the local police station and then provide clock corrections for clocks on the PC's rounds, but I'll follow that up.

                Cheers, George
                But George you surely can’t be trying to deny the possibility that a Constable on his beat when asked at any point in time might not have been 5 minutes out? That’s basically the only question that’s required. “Is it possible that Lamb might have been 5 mins or so out?”

                What if he’d seen another clock 5 minutes earlier on his beat that was 5 minutes slow? And that was the clock that he regularly used me not the one Diemschutz saw? Perhaps something distracted him when he passed Diemschutz’ clock?

                All that I’m saying George is that many things are possible. Of course Diemschutz might have been slightly out if the clock was wrong. But we have no reason to suspect him of a) lying, or b) being out by any great length of time (I realise of course that you are suggesting a or b)

                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                Comment



                • If Schwartz arrived a little after 12:45, FM missed seeing him.

                  Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                  Did the sister see him, or was that another near miss? The elusive Israel Schwartz. LOL

                  Was she on her doorstep at exactly 12.50?

                  How long was she on her doorstep?

                  …….

                  Letchford’s sister proves absolutely zero. The Schwartz incident would have taken 30 seconds or so. It could occurred at 12.48 and Letchford’s sister would still have missed it.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  Comment


                  • And Mortimer only saw Goldstein once btw.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Was she on her doorstep at exactly 12.50?

                      How long was she on her doorstep?
                      These are some of the reasons I find Letchford's comments so interesting. Mortimer said she were at her door for nearly the whole period of 12:30 to 1am. Marshall said he was at his doorstep for the entire period 11:30 to midnight. Yet Letchford's sister was at her doorstep for ... 1 minute?
                      Or was there something significant about 12:50 - hence CL's reason for mentioning that particular time?

                      ... my sister was standing at the door at ten minutes to one, but did not see any one pass by.

                      Pass by? Surely the more relevant issue was; did she see anyone enter or leave the yard?

                      Fanny: There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates.

                      The phrase 'pass by' seems a little beside the point.

                      Letchford’s sister proves absolutely zero. The Schwartz incident would have taken 30 seconds or so. It could occurred at 12.48 and Letchford’s sister would still have missed it.
                      The 'Schwartz incident' begins from the point that Stride first stands in the gateway, and ends either when Schwartz reaches the railway arch, or Stride leaves the scene, whichever comes last. The initial point is indeterminate, relative to the last, and the last in unknowable. Thus the claim, "the Schwartz incident would have taken 30 seconds or so", is false.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                        The 'Schwartz incident' begins from the point that Stride first stands in the gateway, and ends either when Schwartz reaches the railway arch, or Stride leaves the scene, whichever comes last. The initial point is indeterminate, relative to the last, and the last in unknowable. Thus the claim, "the Schwartz incident would have taken 30 seconds or so", is false.
                        No it doesn’t. The ‘incident’ is purely what occurred in Berner Street. We can’t stretch it out just to make it more unlikely to have been missed. After Schwartz turned out of Berner Street no one saw him or took notice of him.

                        Interesting you say that it begins from the point that Stride stands in the gateway because Fanny didn’t see her arrive there. And if Fanny went onto her doorstep at 12.45 this gives the lie to her statement of being on her doorstep for nearly the whole of the 30 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00. It’s half of that time wiped away straight away.

                        Again, if she went onto her doorstep at 12.45 for 10 minutes (so until 12.55) why didn’t she see Stride. If the murder took place earlier Stride must have been there.

                        Fanny is a useless witness.



                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          And Mortimer only saw Goldstein once btw.
                          So your issues with Mortimer can be boiled down to:

                          A. She didn't see enough
                          B. She saw too much

                          You're a hard man to please, Herlock!
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            So your issues with Mortimer can be boiled down to:

                            A. She didn't see enough
                            B. She saw too much

                            You're a hard man to please, Herlock!
                            My only issue is that she can’t be used to prove or disprove anything. None of us can prove when she was or wasn’t on her doorstep only that it’s entirely possible and plausible that she missed seeing the Schwartz incident because she’d gone back inside.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post

                              Wrist watches were almost exclusively made for women until well into the 1880s, when military men decided they needed to tell the time quickly without having to whip out their pocket watches while fighting. For most men, wrist watches did not become commonplace until the early 20th century. But that's a minor point.

                              The major one to make is that 1 o'clock is one of the easiest times to note and remember when looking at a clock face. Both hands close to each other pointing skywards. Hard for even a child to be completely mistaken. It's not as if it could have been five past midnight, for example.

                              So if Louis noted the time by the clock, mere seconds before turning into the yard, I see nothing remotely suspicious or dishonest in stating that it was "precisely one o'clock". While the clock could have been wrong, that wouldn't have made Louis either mistaken or a rotten liar.

                              And where is the evidence that Fanny was definitely, without a doubt, still on her doorstep when the clock Louis referred to showed the time to be "precisely one o'clock"?

                              How could she have known exact times while still out on her doorstep, or the exact time she decided to call it a night, even assuming there was a clock keeping perfect time somewhere in the house, so her carman husband didn't need the services of a knocker upper on work days? Did she normally stand on her doorstep, clock in hand to check the time when nothing was happening? She saw Goldstein pass by as she was locking up for the night, then a little while later she remarked to her husband that she could hear the pony and cart, shortly after which she opened up again to see what the commotion was.

                              You scoff at Louis for noting the time on a clock as he passed it, but then insist that Fanny would have known she was out on her doorstep at precisely 1am. That would mean she heard the pony and cart between going back in and hearing the commotion, and yet you expect us to believe this was some other pony and cart, which nobody else thought to mention.

                              Although I didnt insinuate wristwatches were widely used, it is also true that they were used by British military as early as 1885. The issues with the time settings will always be an issue in any criminal case because we dont all wake up and make sure were synchronized with Greenich Mean time or any point to establish universal consistency. So you got the estimates, and the references to timepieces which are not synchronized. If a reference is made shortly after establishing a time then its likely to be off at most a few seconds or minutes. If a reference is made without any recently prior established time reference, you have situations like Spooner. But if men who were inside come out of the club they would have been exposed to a timepiece which all could easily see. This was, on Saturday nights, essentially a semi private town hall meeting. A main reference would be available in that building. Which is why when Issac K says he returned at 12:30 and about 10 minutes later he was summoned it carries more weight than a Spooner. But you can still validate a Spooner, if what he claims, based on his own estimates, roughly matches sources whom you have been able to qualify by virtue of using the same time piece. Like the club members that all said they were there by the woman at 12:40, based on the clock all would be able to use in the club.

                              Fanny was at her door throughout that half hour, when the specific intervals were we dont know for sure, but we do know that it was her belief she was there "nearly the whole time". There are events that are claimed around 12:40 that no-one else sees...likely Louis and Eagle returning, you would have Liz and BSM near the spot where the approaching Schwartz witnesses his assault....( this isnt my validation of his story at all, but just to make the point),.... you have Spooner coming into the yard, you have a few things that Fanny doesnt see and yet happened..but they happen within maybe a third of that 30 minutes period. So, if she is out of sight for 10 minutes of 30, might she feel that she was at the door most of that time?
                              Last edited by Michael W Richards; 10-29-2021, 11:31 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                No it doesn’t. The ‘incident’ is purely what occurred in Berner Street. We can’t stretch it out just to make it more unlikely to have been missed.
                                That is just funny

                                After Schwartz turned out of Berner Street no one saw him or took notice of him.
                                Unlike the part in Berner street, witnessed by dozens?

                                Interesting you say that it begins from the point that Stride stands in the gateway because Fanny didn’t see her arrive there. And if Fanny went onto her doorstep at 12.45 this gives the lie to her statement of being on her doorstep for nearly the whole of the 30 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00. It’s half of that time wiped away straight away.
                                She went to her door to shoot the bolts. She had been previously been on her doorstep, and had left the door unlocked. There is no explicit indication that she not previously been on her doorstep, and the unlocked door supports the notion that she were on her doorstep most of the half hour, as she claimed. So that gives the lie to your claim.

                                It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so.
                                Guess who she saw the second time ... again?

                                Again, if she went onto her doorstep at 12.45 for 10 minutes (so until 12.55) why didn’t she see Stride.
                                Because she was not there to be seen. The whole "standing in the gateway", is a pile of garbage.

                                If the murder took place earlier Stride must have been there.
                                That is brilliant logic!

                                Fanny is a useless witness.
                                She is obviously a problem for the traditionalists.
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X