The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Lave is reported as saying he saw nothing unusual. He doesn't say he saw no-one, or nothing, only that what he did see was what he usually sees.
I would presume then that he saw people, both men & women doing what they always do.
It is also reasonable to assume he saw no argument, no pushing or shoving, nothing violent because the report does say all was quiet. Which does not mean the street was empty. He is quoted as saying - "....while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions."
So, nobody "moving about" in such a way as to draw attention to themselves.

Lave does not say he saw no-body, only that the activity in the street was normal - which is not what you are trying to say.

I understand the difference between seeing nothing and seeing nothing unusual. I've made that point before, when discussing "why didn't X see Y" issues.

I can't of course say with certainty what Lave did and did not see. However, had Lave stated to the police that he was at the gates at a time they ascertained he should have been able to see the soon to be victim, they would be thinking the sort of things you and I and others think - where did Stride go so that no one sees her on the street again? The obvious (though not necessarily correct) answer is, Dutfield's Yard.

[Fiver]

By Schwartz claiming that Stride's audible reaction wasn't loud, ergo, she didn't just typically scream out after being thrown to the ground, he is able to give an excuse as to why nobody heard the assault by BS man.

It could be said that her alleged reaction is rather odd because it does beg the question; why didn't she just scream or shout?

Now if I was Schwartz creating a story, I would know that nobody else saw or heard anything because I would know it wasn't true. I would also need a way to explain why nobody else heard anything. By claiming Stride's audible reaction to being assaulted wasn't very loud, it covers his back because it can then explain why nobody heard anything.
But that doesn't alter her fact that her lack of volume to having been assaulted is not consistent with how a typical person would react.

I were creating a story I wouldn't add Pipeman. I wouldn't include an assault. If I did, I would have the woman gasp or moan, and only once.

Of course Schwartz may have meant to say that the woman gasped or moaned. Screaming, but not very loudly shows a bad translation, not proof of deception.

Just to put it into context...

Nobody saw or heard Schwartz
Nobody saw or heard any of what Schwartz claimed he saw or heard
Nobody has been able to definitively identify who he was outside of the events of the night of the murder.

All of these points are just as true of George Hutchinson. And likely of other people if we dig far enough. It took over 100 years to figure out who Charles Cross was. We still don't know who Mary Kelly was.

Schwartz might have been a false name, but he's far more likely to be a real person that was barely noticed by history.

[Wickerman]

So, presumably he didn't claim to be at the gates at the time Smith gave for when last in Berner St, as he could hardly have failed to see Stride.

Lave is reported as saying he saw nothing unusual. He doesn't say he saw no-one, or nothing, only that what he did see was what he usually sees.
I would presume then that he saw people, both men & women doing what they always do.
It is also reasonable to assume he saw no argument, no pushing or shoving, nothing violent because the report does say all was quiet. Which does not mean the street was empty. He is quoted as saying - "....while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions."
So, nobody "moving about" in such a way as to draw attention to themselves.

Lave does not say he saw no-body, only that the activity in the street was normal - which is not what you are trying to say.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Like the Schwartz account, any of these uncorroborated claims could be false, but it doesn't prove that they are false. And far too often, they are accepted or rejected based on whether they fit a theory.

Fine, but let's be honest about this. If evidence were discovered that unambiguously demonstrated that either or both of the men described by Schwartz had been identified by the police, Schwartz believers the world over would waste no time in uncorking champagne bottles.

Because the account makes Schwartz look bad. He sees a soon-to-be murder victim being assaulted and says or does nothing. Then he runs away from a man armed with a pipe. People looking for 15 minutes of fame don't give accounts that portray themselves as callous or cowardly.

Then he runs away from a man armed with a pipe - I admire your ability to say this with a straight face.

Callous or cowardly? Perhaps, but by the standards of the day, would it have been expected that Schwartz would intervene? If yes, why didn't Pipeman?

[Michael W Richards]

Because the account makes Schwartz look bad. He sees a soon-to-be murder victim being assaulted and says or does nothing. Then he runs away from a man armed with a pipe. People looking for 15 minutes of fame don't give accounts that portray themselves as callous or cowardly.

I dont recall anyone suggesting that Israels story was so he could gain fame. I do recall people suggesting that his story was intended to place the most probable killer of Liz from among the great unwashed public out on the street. So, NOT from the club property..whereas before Israels story, ALL the men nearest to the murder site were from the club.

[Fiver]

Neither of the men described by Schwartz were ever identified, and no known witness account even hints at corroborating his claims.-

* In the Nichols murder, watchman Patrick Mulshaw was informed of the murder by a stranger who he found suspicious. No known witness account even hints at corroborating his claims
* Elizabeth Long saw a man with Annie Chapman before her death. No known witness account even hints at corroborating her claims
* John Gardner saw Stride with a man before her death. No known witness account even hints at corroborating his claims.
* J Best saw Stride with a man before her death. No known witness account even hints at corroborating his claims.
* William Marshall saw Stride with a man before her death. No known witness account even hints at corroborating his claims.
* PC Smith saw Stride with a man before her death. No known witness account even hints at corroborating his claims.
* James Brown saw Stride with a man before her death. No known witness account even hints at corroborating his claims.
* Mary Anne Cox claimed to have seen a man with near Kelly's lodging. No known witness account even hints at corroborating her claims.
* George Hutchinson claimed to have seen a man with Kelly. No known witness account even hints at corroborating his claims.
* Sarah Lewis claimed to have seen a man with near Kelly's lodging. No known witness account even hints at corroborating her claims.

Like the Schwartz account, any of these uncorroborated claims could be false, but it doesn't prove that they are false. And far too often, they are accepted or rejected based on whether they fit a theory.

What is the best reason you can offer for supposing that the men described by Schwartz, actually existed?

Because the account makes Schwartz look bad. He sees a soon-to-be murder victim being assaulted and says or does nothing. Then he runs away from a man armed with a pipe. People looking for 15 minutes of fame don't give accounts that portray themselves as callous or cowardly.

[Michael W Richards]

Your statement is still incorrect.
* Fanny Mortimer contradicts a 12:45 discovery and gives a time of around 1am.
* PC Lamb gives a time of around 1am.
* Edward Spooner gives times of 12:35 am and 1am, both of which contradict a 12:45 discovery.
* Dr Blackwell supports a time of around 1am.
* Edward Johnson supports a time of around 1am.
* James Brown contradicts a 12:45 discovery.
* Leon Goldstein contradicts a 12:45 discovery.
* Florence Letchford contradicts a 12:45 discovery.

The only witnesses to support a time of 12:40 to 12:45 are Hershberg and Kozebrodsky, one of whom was a member of the club.

So, you believe my post needed corrections...

1. For those paying attention, in no way does Fanny ever contradict a 12:45 discovery or an Israel Schwartz presentation, nor does she say the discovery was around 1. She said she heard noise after being inside a few minutes from 1am.
2. PC Lamb said at the Inquest that he saw Eagle at "just before 1"
3. Edward Spooner said he left the pub at midnight with his lass, they walked to the Beehive and stood outside it for about 25 minutes. He said at the Inquest that "I think there were too many people about. I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard." Those 2 statements are not incompatible, the walk to the Beehive and the 25 minutes there could have him arriving in the yard around that time. I personally believe he was off a bit, because 2 people at the club said they were alerted to the body at, or shortly after, 12:40.
4. Dr Blackwell said that he believed the cut was made "From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived", and he also says he arrived at 1:16am. That puts the cut perhaps as early as 12:46. Phillips said at 1:30 when he arrived it had been within the hour, making his cut estimate potentially as early as 12:30.
5. Edward Johnson supports a time of his first learning of the murder around 1am, because he is physically there at 1:10. You fall into a trap almost everyone does here. An earlier discovery time doesnt neccesarily infer an early posse gets help time. In fact, times like Lambs are just fine with a discovery around 12:40. The discovery times isnt the issue there, its when they went for help. And how long were they out there before Lamb saw Eagle.
6. Ill let you in on a secret...James Browns sighting was almost certainly of the young couple that a witness establishes was on that street between 12:30 and 1am, and the young lady did not have any flowers on her jacket.
7. Leon Goldstein passing by at around 12:50-55 in no way contradicts anything, it helps corrobrate Fanny, and whether he actually saw anything when he looked into the passageway or not we have no way of knowing for certain at this time.
8. Interesting that you would try that one, in many ways Mr L is one witness we should listen to regarding the clubs reputation.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That Lave's story was not suspicious?

So, presumably he didn't claim to be at the gates at the time Smith gave for when last in Berner St, as he could hardly have failed to see Stride.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi NBFN,

That is what I did with the time line reconstruction, but I factored in the empirically based finding that people tend to over estimate short time intervals (so when they say "4 minutes", the true interval is generally somewhat less than that). That resulted in 12:58:24: Diemshutz’s arrival, which is only roughly 3 1/2 minutes off your 1:55. Given I factored in that "shortening" all the way through, and also given that the 12:58:24 is in reference to Dr. Blackwell's watch (not Deimshutz's clock on the corner of Berner and Commercial), I would be surprised if you thought the timeline estimated time is unreasonable.

Hi Jeff,

If that empirical finding is reliable (has it been replicated?) the 4-minutes would more likely be 2 or 3 minutes, than longer. Would I be correct to say that the "recreation has an 11 m 24 gap"?

And as a result, I think it follows that Fiver's point, is therefore not unreasonable (because it leads to a non-adjusted time that is close to the estimated time on Dr.Blackwell's watch, which is likely similar, if not identical, to other clocks that witnesses might have access to; like the one Deimshutz says he referenced).

What Fiver succeeded in doing, was to show that if the report that contains the reference to the about 4 minutes is taken literally, Fanny Mortimer is at doorstep right when Schwartz claims to have turned into Berner St. This remains the case if Fanny was 5 minutes ahead of time, or even 10.

Times and durations that do result in bizarre conflicts, which make us question the reliability of the statements, are things like Lave's statement of being in the yard from 12:40 to 1:10, and during that time, nothing happened. That is clearly wrong and not useful for determining what happened on the night. And you can't solve a case if you don't know what happened in the first place.

- Jeff

1:10 was clearly journalistic error.

[JeffHamm]

How can Schwartz and Lave both be reliable accounts?

They essentially occupy the same space at the same time

But one tells us nothing, sees nobody and hears nothing

The other tells us a great dramatic violent scene unfolded followed by an audible anti-Semitic slur.

Either one is wrong, both are wrong, or one is right and the other wrong.

The only way in which BOTH Lave and Schwartz can be correct and truthful, is if one or both of them made a mistake with their timings.

How convenient.


RD

Hi RD,

Well, despite the fact that the exact time of the murder and/or discovery is not agreed upon, everyone does agree that the murder and discovery, with the emptying of the club members, etc happen between say 12:40 and 1:00 (ish). It's where in that range of time that is considered contentious.

Lave, however, contradicts everyone. His statement is that he's in the yard of the club for half an out starting at 12:40 (so until 1:10). And he says basically "nothing happened during that time". Yet during that time Stride is murdered, and the body is discovered, the club go looking for police, the police show up, etc. Clearly, Lave's mistaken about the time he went outside, or the duration of his time outside, or both.

Lave, of course, is independent of Schwartz, so showing that Lave's statement must contain some errors around time does not make Schwartz more, or less, reliable. His statement must be assessed independently.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

The other tells us a great dramatic violent scene unfolded followed by an audible anti-Semitic slur.

That seems a tremendous exaggeration of what Schwartz said he saw.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

How can Schwartz and Lave both be reliable accounts?

They essentially occupy the same space at the same time

But one tells us nothing, sees nobody and hears nothing

The other tells us a great dramatic violent scene unfolded followed by an audible anti-Semitic slur.

Either one is wrong, both are wrong, or one is right and the other wrong.

The only way in which BOTH Lave and Schwartz can be correct and truthful, is if one or both of them made a mistake with their timings.

How convenient.


RD

[Wickerman]

Lave places himself in the gateway at about 12:45. If the coroner did not regard that as suspicious, what does that tell us?

That Lave's story was not suspicious?

[Fiver]

Im not sure that suggesting subjective interpretation of how reliable anyone was here will get you anywhere Scott, what needs to be sorted out is the fact that the majority of witness statements, of those unaffiliated financially with the club, suggest a deserted street that last half hour and and being alerted to a body being in the passageway between 12:40 and 12:45.

Your statement is still incorrect.
* Fanny Mortimer contradicts a 12:45 discovery and gives a time of around 1am.
* PC Lamb gives a time of around 1am.
* Edward Spooner gives times of 12:35 am and 1am, both of which contradict a 12:45 discovery.
* Dr Blackwell supports a time of around 1am.
* Edward Johnson supports a time of around 1am.
* James Brown contradicts a 12:45 discovery.
* Leon Goldstein contradicts a 12:45 discovery.
* Florence Letchford contradicts a 12:45 discovery.

The only witnesses to support a time of 12:40 to 12:45 are Hershberg and Kozebrodsky, one of whom was a member of the club.

[Fiver]

Another example is from the Eddowes case, where Lawende estimates they waited 5 minutes for the rain, but one of the other men estimated the wait to be 3 or 4 minutes.


- Jeff

Good point. That would be Joseph Levy.

Checking, those aren't the only examples.

"I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards." "It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church." - Albert Cadoche, Chapman Inquest

"I stood by the side of the body for four or five minutes, until the last witness arrived." - Edward Spooner, Stride Inquest

"I preceded him by three or four minutes." - Edward Johnson, Stride Inquest

"I stayed there three or four minutes, and then went back home, when I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of the Board School." - James Brown, Stride Inquest

Other examples of not rounding times to a multiple of 5 are:

"She stood in the door two or three minutes..." - Timothy Donovan, Chapman Inquest

"About two minutes at most." "I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came." - John Richardson, Chapman Inquest

"As I was passing 29, Hanbury-street, on my way to work in Chiswell-street, at about eight minutes past six on Saturday..." - Henry Holland, Chapman Inquest

"Dr. Blackwell was the first doctor to arrive; he came ten or twelve minutes after myself, but I had no watch with me." "I am not on the Berner-street beat, but I passed the end of the street in Commercial-road six or seven minutes before." - PC Lamb, Stride Inquest

"That beat takes twelve or fourteen minutes." - PC Watkins, Eddowes Inquest

"From Berner-street to Mitre-street is three-quarters of a mile, and a man could walk the distance in twelve minutes." - Frederick Foster, Eddowes Inquest

"I dispatched a constable to Dr. Gordon Brown, informing him, and proceeded myself to Mitre-square, arriving there about two or three minutes past two." - Inspector Collard, Eddowes Inquest

"About two minutes to one o'clock, when I was taking her out of the cell, she asked me what time it was." - PC Hutt, Eddowes Inquest

"I do not think my door had been ajar more than two or three minutes when he knocked. - George Morris, Eddowes Inquest

"At two minutes to two o'clock on the Sunday morning, when near Aldgate Church, in company with Detectives Outram and Marriott, I heard that a woman had been found murdered in Mitre-square." - DC Halse

"I then blew my whistle, and between two and three minutes Sergeant Badlam came up." "After he came out I went in some two or three minutes later." - PC Andrews, Mackenzie Inquest

"About 12 minutes to 1 this morning I was in Old Castle-street and saw Constable Andrews." - PC Badham, Mackenzie Inquest