The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Jesus!

For a start we have Eagle returning at 12.35 according to the Times version.

Forget times!!!!

Fanny said that she went onto her doorstep just after Smith. Forget 12.45. Just after Smith.

Was she telling the truth?

Fanny didn’t see Eagle because she was indoors. She didn’t see Stride because she was indoors. She didn’t see Schwartz because she was indoors.

So is the following a big lie...?

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this morning, and did not notice anything unusual.

And so Smith passed, followed by Eagle, then Fanny goes to her doorstep then she goes back inside, then Stride arrives, then Schwartz. Or maybe Eagle returned at 12.35 and Smith passed at 12.36.

Forget times!!!!

No conspiracy. No cover up.

Who lied? Was it the neighbour on her doorstep, or the man who ran from a murder scene?

[GBinOz]

So did Eagle return at pretty much the same time as Smith passed? Presumably you mean Eagle returns just before this, so about 12:30.

Eagle: I came back about twenty minutes to one...

So out by about +10 minutes. Coincidently it would seem, the same +10 minutes that Fanny was out in her estimate of Smith passing.

I had been there about 20 minutes when the man I mentioned-Gigelmann-came and said, "There is a dead woman lying in the yard."

So that would be at about 12:50. Is that what he said...?

When I first saw the body it was about one o'clock, as near as I could judge.

No. So was the 20 minutes really 30 minutes? Did Eagle add 10 minutes to his estimates so that he could agree with Diemschitz' 1am? Why would he do that? Was it part of some conspiracy?

Andrew, "was the 20 minutes really 30 minutes". It doesn't matter. The twenty minute estimate was being added to the estimate for the round trip to the girlfriend's which on 1 Oct he said started at 12 midnight and at the inquest he said started between 11:30 and 11:45, so by his own admissions he could be +/- 15 minutes out plus any estimating errors. Why do people keep quoting Eagle? His times are rubbish and his perceptions questionable:-
From the Daily Telegraph account of Eagle's testimony at the inquest:
[Coroner] Did you see anyone about in Berner-street? - I dare say I did, but I do not remember them.
[Coroner] Did you observe any one in the yard? - I do not remember that I did.

Eagle is being offered up as a timescale benchmark but no one even knows how long before his starting point guesses that it was that he had actually sighted a clock. The same can be said of Brown and Spooner and Lave. If the times of the police are adopted and other's time interval estimates are applied to police times we will derive a far more accurate picture.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

No it’s because we can ask what is likelier. That Fanny missed things because she’d gone indoors (the very thought!) or that Israel Schwartz lied to place himself at the scene of a murder for absolutely no reason.

The former, I should think!

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Andrew, "was the 20 minutes really 30 minutes". It doesn't matter. The twenty minute estimate was being added to the estimate for the round trip to the girlfriend's which on 1 Oct he said started at 12 midnight and at the inquest he said started between 11:30 and 11:45, so by his own admissions he could be +/- 15 minutes out plus any estimating errors. Why do people keep quoting Eagle? His times are rubbish and his perceptions questionable:-
From the Daily Telegraph account of Eagle's testimony at the inquest:
[Coroner] Did you see anyone about in Berner-street? - I dare say I did, but I do not remember them.
[Coroner] Did you observe any one in the yard? - I do not remember that I did.

Eagle is being offered up as a timescale benchmark but no one even knows how long before his starting point guesses that it was that he had actually sighted a clock. The same can be said of Brown and Spooner and Lave. If the times of the police are adopted and other's time interval estimates are applied to police times we will derive a far more accurate picture.

Cheers, George

You're missing my point, George. I'm saying that Eagle estimated he had been back at the club for 20 minutes when the alarm went off. By your own theory that takes us to about 12:50. So I'm pointing out that in Eagle saying that he first saw the body at ~1am, he is out by the same amount, and in the same direction as you suppose Fanny Mortimer was. Was that really the case or is your theory out by 10 minutes?

In my opinion, this Fanny locked up before 12:45 theory is motivated by a desire to make sense of Schwartz. It is not a neutral theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Forget times!!!!



Was she telling the truth?



So is the following a big lie...?

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this morning, and did not notice anything unusual.



Forget times!!!!



Who lied? Was it the neighbour on her doorstep, or the man who ran from a murder scene?

No one lied. They had no reason to lie. Errors were made. Rumours occur. Things get exaggerated by ‘Chinese whispers.’

So is the following a big lie...?

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this morning, and did not notice anything unusual

An error. A piece of careless recollection. It doesn’t have to be sinister every time we encounter an error. But if she went onto her doorstep just after Smith, so let’s say 12.35, and stayed there for around 10 minutes, so let’s give her 12.45, then it’s reasonable to suggest that the time before this period (12.30-12.35) and the time after (12.45-1.00) when she came back after hearing the disturbance, then she certainly wasn’t on her doorstep most of the time. More like 10 minutes out of 30. So yes, she was wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're missing my point, George. I'm saying that Eagle estimated he had been back at the club for 20 minutes when the alarm went off. By your own theory that takes us to about 12:50. So I'm pointing out that in Eagle saying that he first saw the body at ~1am, he is out by the same amount, and in the same direction as you suppose Fanny Mortimer was. Was that really the case or is your theory out by 10 minutes?

In my opinion, this Fanny locked up before 12:45 theory is motivated by a desire to make sense of Schwartz. It is not a neutral theory.

Eagle said 12.35 in The Times version. 20 minutes takes him to 12.55.

Its close enough when it comes to estimating.

Where’s the issue?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No one lied. They had no reason to lie. Errors were made. Rumours occur. Things get exaggerated by ‘Chinese whispers.’

No one lied, although...

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.

LOL

An error. A piece of careless recollection. It doesn’t have to be sinister every time we encounter an error. But if she went onto her doorstep just after Smith, so let’s say 12.35, and stayed there for around 10 minutes, so let’s give her 12.45, then it’s reasonable to suggest that the time before this period (12.30-12.35) and the time after (12.45-1.00) when she came back after hearing the disturbance, then she certainly wasn’t on her doorstep most of the time. More like 10 minutes out of 30. So yes, she was wrong.

FM: I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out...

She had just gone indoors. It wasn't 20 minutes ago. Your theory is based on wishful thinking.

[GBinOz]

DN, Oct 1: A young Russian Pole named Isaac M. Kozebrodski, born in Warsaw, who speaks the English language imperfectly, gave the following information:-I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening.
The only person who might have been turning up for work after midnight, was Liz Stride.


No she didn't say that. That was the reporter doing sums...
... and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard the pony cart pass the house ...

You're missing my point, George. I'm saying that Eagle estimated he had been back at the club for 20 minutes when the alarm went off.

From the Evening News 1 Oct 1888:-
Kozebrodsky was born in Warsaw, and can only speak English very imperfectly. His information, which we are obliged to give very shortly, is this: "I came into the club about which you are asking me at half-past twelve o'clock.

More contradictions in press reports - the bane of ripperology. Poster comment seems to be gratuitous unkindness.


Nice try Andrew. You left a little bit off that quote:-
Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

I don't think that I am missing the point Andrew. The 20 minute estimate was being added to a time derived from another estimate that was derived from a guessed starting time. My point is that Eagle's times should be ignored.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Eagle said 12.35 in The Times version. 20 minutes takes him to 12.55.

Its close enough when it comes to estimating.

Where’s the issue?

Herlock, at last, you've budged a little from your 1am for Eagle. It's nearly Noon in Australia, but you must be burning the midnight oil? Buoyed up by England's comprehensive wacking of the colonials in the T20?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Why is this adjustment of Mortimer's times actually necessary? It is of course, to save Israel Schwartz.

No, to calibrate Mortimer's time intervals with the more reliable police time given by Smith.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

From the Evening News 1 Oct 1888:-
Kozebrodsky was born in Warsaw, and can only speak English very imperfectly. His information, which we are obliged to give very shortly, is this: "I came into the club about which you are asking me at half-past twelve o'clock.

More contradictions in press reports - the bane of ripperology.

Other than the time, that quote contains a very interesting phrase - "His information, which we are obliged to give very shortly..."

Obliged to give? Was there an insistence that at least one reporter take Kozebrodsky's statement, regardless of his poor English? Why bother though? Is it just a coincidence that IK alone, speaks of a significantly earlier discovery time?

Poster comment seems to be gratuitous unkindness.

I'm sorry George, I didn't realize JR had already posted on this. Sometimes I start writing a post and leave it unfinished, while I do other things.

Nice try Andrew. You left a little bit off that quote:-
Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

I don't think that changes anything, George. The reporter is doing a sum. Yet if FM really did speak of '4 minutes', then she either has a super fine-tuned sense of time, or she keeps a fairly constant eye on a clock. If the later, do you suppose the accuracy of that clock would be important to her?

Keep in mind that there is some pre-inquest nonsense in that report, such as...

Thus, presuming that the body did not lay in the yard when the policeman passed-and it could hardly, it is thought, have escaped his notice...

The reporter doesn't even know that the policeman witnessed the soon to be victim - upright and breathing.

I don't think that I am missing the point Andrew. The 20 minute estimate was being added to a time derived from another estimate that was derived from a guessed starting time. My point is that Eagle's times should be ignored.

Okay fine. Then we can ignore Eagle as having got the time close to right, as a fluke, or he just overheard something first or second-hand, from the steward.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No, to calibrate Mortimer's time intervals with the more reliable police time given by Smith.

Yet you still accept the 4 minute thing. This leads to supposing that the steward arrived about 12:50. So that carries significant implications, which you have already posted on. Yet those posts raise important questions, some of which I have asked. So far, not many answers.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Picture the scene….

Louis Diemschutz: Don’t worry Koz old pal we’ve got this covered. All you have to do when the police talk to you is say that I found the body at 1.00. Ok?

Isaac Kozebrodski: I just say that you found the body at 1.00

Luois Diemschutz: That’s it. You’ve got it.

Isaac Kozebrodski: Ok mate. Thanks.

10 minutes later…..

Police Officer: Ok Mr Kozebrodski, when did you first see the body?

Isaac Kozebrodski: Around 12.45………damn!!!

Louis Diemschutz looks at the camera and lifts his arms and drops them to his side like Oliver Hardy.

The issue is not the time, but who found the body. You are obsessed with times.
Furthermore, no one has to agree to the 1am arrival time, when that is pretty much when Diemschitz arrived anyway...

As for Diemschitz, I don't believe he arrived well before 1am. Perhaps 5 minutes or so, but no more that that.

Kozebrodsky told the press...

About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was.

Yet in Der Arberter Fraint, the story is quite different...

From excitement he jumped off the cart, ran through the back door into the club and raised an alarm. Immediately Comrade Gilyarovsky ran into the printing shop and editor’s office that are located in the same building as the club, but separated in the back by the yard.
There was no one in the printing shop. Comrades Krants and Yaffa were busy in the editor’s office.
“Don’t you know that a murdered woman is lying in the yard?” Gilyarovsky breathlessly called out. At first the two comrades did not want to believe him. “What, don’t you believe me?” Gilyarovsky quickly asked: “I saw blood.”

This story contains a contradiction, which was noted long before I came to Casebook.

Mrs. Deimschitz tells yet another story. There is definitely something we are missing. Either that or there is something that you lot are missing.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Eagle said 12.35 in The Times version. 20 minutes takes him to 12.55.

Its close enough when it comes to estimating.

Where’s the issue?

Just tell me this; do you suppose both Eagle and Lave had returned to the building before Smith passed?
If it was soon before...

Eagle returns at 12.35. Smith passes at 12.36 and Fanny comes onto her doorstep immediately after him

...then one or both would probably have seen Liz Stride and Mr Parcel, and if it were between Smith passing and Fanny going to her door, then they surely would have seen them, and possibly even seen them in the yard.
So to avoid this possibility, you would probably want both men back inside by about 12:30. Yet this causes some friction...

Lave: I came out first at half-past twelve to get a breath of fresh air. I passed out into the street, but did not see anything unusual. The district appeared to me to be quiet. I remained out until twenty minutes to one, and during that time no one came into the yard.

Apparently 12:20 to 12:30 would be a better fit to your theory, and so Lave is 10 minutes 'ahead of time'. Same as Fanny Mortimer?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, at last, you've budged a little from your 1am for Eagle. It's nearly Noon in Australia, but you must be burning the midnight oil? Buoyed up by England's comprehensive wacking of the colonials in the T20?

Cheers, George

George,

I wouldn’t say that it’s a case of ‘budging’ George. I’ve always felt that the approx 20 minutes added to the 12.35 giving 12.55 is close enough especially when Michael suggests a discovery time of 12.45 or before.

Good win for England but our one day team is as good as any. We can’t say that about our test side unfortunately. I think that our fragile batting line up could be found seriously wanting against the Aussies. We rely too heavily on one batsmen of course. I’m preparing for the worst.