Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    It seems you are confused about Hearsay. It is not admissible in a criminal trial, but it is admissible in an investigation. This is an investigation.

    Secondly, Mortimer said:
    "A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound."

    Mortimer did not say she saw anyone "pass down the street", which is consistent with your quote.
    Mortimer only saw a couple standing at the corner, not walking or doing anything else. At some point this couple spoke to Mortimer telling her they did not hear a sound.
    She doesn't actually say she saw the couple herself, Jon. She could just as easily have been told by the couple that they had been stood at the corner as seen them herself.
    ​​​​​Given that Fanny was of the opinion that Louis had interrupted the murderer, if there had been a couple stood on the corner then they surely would have seen anyone leaving the yard, including Louis and Koz, and so would be important witnesses.
    The only couple we know they came across were Spooner and sweetheart.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
      Schwartz's testimony is supported in part by Fanny Mortimer and James Brown. It's contradicted by nothing. BS Man pulled Stride from the gateway and pushed her into the street, probably because she solicited him and she was in his way. This was 15 minutes before she was murdered.

      Yours truly,

      Tom Wescott
      this sounds about right. 15 minutes is about an hour and a half in Ripper time. So if the Ripper did happen to come along, then he's the man. I think Stride and BS man had a an altracation, but he did not kill her.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

        She doesn't actually say she saw the couple herself, Jon.
        Joshua.
        Mortimer's entire statement to the press is given in the first person; - I saw, I heard, my opinion, I must have seen, the woman appears to me, etc. The only time in her complete statement when Mortimer provides a third person is at the end when she says: "..they told me.."
        So I must disagree with you here Joshua, even though quotation marks are omitted it is quite clear the press are quoting Mortimer's own words. So yes, she does say she saw the couple at the corner.


        Article, given in the first person singular:

        Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy, says: I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the yard with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. 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 round the corner by the Board School. I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
          .........Given that Fanny was of the opinion that Louis had interrupted the murderer, if there had been a couple stood on the corner then they surely would have seen anyone leaving the yard, including Louis and Koz, and so would be important witnesses.
          You've never been in love?
          C'mon, a world war could have broken out around them and they wouldn't have noticed a thing!



          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #50
            >>It seems you are confused about Hearsay. <<

            Au contraire, you seem confused about "hearsay."

            It is an expression derived outside of any legal context and it means exactly what I meant it to mean:

            Hearsay:

            1. That which one hears or has heard someone say; report, tradition, rumour, a piece of gossip.

            2. Founded upon what one has heard said, but notwithin one’s direct knowledge.

            “Thou speakest by hearsaye rather then by anye experience” Sir T.Brown 1577


            Source Oxford English Dictionary.



            >>I must disagree with you here Joshua, even though quotation marks are omitted it is quite clear the press are quoting Mortimer's own words. So yes, she does say she saw the couple at the corner.<<

            What Joshua is saying is that Mortimer didn't see the couple before the murder, which is correct. where the couple were standing when she claims to have spoken to them after the murder is unknown and not important.
            dustymiller
            aka drstrange

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
              >>It seems you are confused about Hearsay. <<

              Au contraire, you seem confused about "hearsay."

              It is an expression derived outside of any legal context and it means exactly what I meant it to mean:

              Hearsay:

              1. That which one hears or has heard someone say; report, tradition, rumour, a piece of gossip.

              2. Founded upon what one has heard said, but notwithin one’s direct knowledge.

              “Thou speakest by hearsaye rather then by anye experience” Sir T.Brown 1577


              Source Oxford English Dictionary.
              Ah, so you seem to think hearsay is not permitted in an investigation?
              So a killer confessed to you and you tell a policeman, but he tells you he can't investigate because that is hearsay???
              Every godforsaken investigation would grind to a halt.
              Hearsay & speculation are the starting points for investigation, but you of course have your own beliefs.


              >>I must disagree with you here Joshua, even though quotation marks are omitted it is quite clear the press are quoting Mortimer's own words. So yes, she does say she saw the couple at the corner.<<

              What Joshua is saying is that Mortimer didn't see the couple before the murder, which is correct. where the couple were standing when she claims to have spoken to them after the murder is unknown and not important.
              You're telling mean what Joshua meant, then why did he say something different?
              She doesn't actually say she saw the couple herself, Jon.
              Mortimer does not say when she saw the couple, before or after, that's all.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • #52
                >> Ah, so you seem to think hearsay is not permitted in an investigation? <<

                Er ... no?

                I haven't mentioned the word "investigation" or how hearsay relates to it!

                I merely corrected your belief that the word is only a legal definition.

                What I am saying, quite correctly, is that Mortimer's comments about the couples whereabouts is hearsay and should be viewed as such, e.g.
                "Founded upon what one has heard said, but not within one’s direct knowledge."




                >>You're telling mean what Joshua meant, then why did he say something different?<<

                I told you what Joshua wrote, I'll leave it to him to tell you what he meant.



                >>Mortimer does not say when she saw the couple, before or after, that's all.<<

                Commonsense tells us that Mortimer didn't mean to say the couple told her they were standing at the corner after the murder before ithappened. So, we can definitely rule out before.

                And since the reporter asked,

                " I suppose you did not notice a man and woman pass down the street while you were at the door?"

                and she answered,

                "No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had."

                We can rule out the period during the time she claimed to be standing at the door.

                Which leaves us with after, surely, does it not?

                We can refine the timing slightly more, to a time after the murder, but before the reporter spoke to her.

                But, I don't understand what you are trying to get at, surely we all agree that Mrs Mortimer did not see any couples during the time she was standing at the door?


                dustymiller
                aka drstrange

                Comment


                • #53
                  Just to clarify.

                  According to the police reports, Schwartz saw other no couples during his trip down Berner Street.

                  According to Fanny Mortimer's story to the reporter, she saw no couples during the time she stood at her door.

                  According to Brown's testimony, he saw one couple, the woman of which he identified as Mrs Stride.

                  According to Goldstien's story, he makes no mention of seeing couples in Berner Street as he passed down it.

                  According to Diemshitz's testimony, he makes no mention of couples in Berner Street as he drove down it.

                  dustymiller
                  aka drstrange

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    And lastly,

                    If Brown saw the couple at 12:45 at the corner of Fairclough and Schwartz entered Berner Street at 12:45, Mrs Stride could not get to the yard gates unseen by Schwartz.

                    If Brown left his house at 12:45 and Schwartz entered Berner Street at 12:45, Brown should have arrived at the crossroad as all the action described by Schwartz was happening and he should have seen Pipeman.

                    Either way you cut it, it does add up. Somebody is either making something up or their times are wrong.
                    dustymiller
                    aka drstrange

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                      Schwartz's testimony is supported in part by Fanny Mortimer and James Brown. It's contradicted by nothing. BS Man pulled Stride from the gateway and pushed her into the street, probably because she solicited him and she was in his way. This was 15 minutes before she was murdered.

                      Yours truly,

                      Tom Wescott
                      Schwartz's testimony isn't corroborated by anyone. No one else witnessed or heard the supposed assault on Liz.

                      It stretches credulity that Liz could've been assaulted by two different men in a matter of minutes. Either BS Man was the killer (which poses more questions than answers!) or Schwartz was telling porkies.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                        >> Ah, so you seem to think hearsay is not permitted in an investigation? <<

                        Er ... no?

                        I haven't mentioned the word "investigation" or how hearsay relates to it!

                        I merely corrected your belief that the word is only a legal definition.

                        What I am saying, quite correctly, is that Mortimer's comments about the couples whereabouts is hearsay and should be viewed as such, e.g.
                        "Founded upon what one has heard said, but not within one’s direct knowledge."
                        I never said the word was only a legal definition. I said it is only inadmissible at a trial in a criminal court.
                        You have provided nothing to counter that.
                        Secondly, Mortimer saw the couple herself, so that is not hearsay.
                        What the couple said to Mortimer, that they, "did not hear a thing", is hearsay, but so what?

                        >>You're telling mean what Joshua meant, then why did he say something different?<<

                        I told you what Joshua wrote, I'll leave it to him to tell you what he meant.



                        >>Mortimer does not say when she saw the couple, before or after, that's all.<<

                        Commonsense tells us that Mortimer didn't mean to say the couple told her they were standing at the corner after the murder before ithappened. So, we can definitely rule out before.
                        Are you actually reading these news reports?
                        Mortimer's interview, taken in the first person, shows she saw & heard what she is telling us. And, she continues with: "A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street..."
                        Mortimer saw them standing at the corner, they didn't tell her they were there, she saw them there herself.

                        And since the reporter asked,

                        " I suppose you did not notice a man and woman pass down the street while you were at the door?"

                        and she answered,

                        "No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had."
                        Mortimer may not have seen any couple walk down the street, but she never said she did.
                        What Mortimer says is, she saw a couple standing (not walking) at the corner of the street.

                        We can rule out the period during the time she claimed to be standing at the door.

                        Which leaves us with after, surely, does it not?

                        We can refine the timing slightly more, to a time after the murder, but before the reporter spoke to her.

                        But, I don't understand what you are trying to get at, surely we all agree that Mrs Mortimer did not see any couples during the time she was standing at the door?
                        How can you say she didn't, when she says she did?

                        She even says this couple were standing there, "before and after the time of the murder".
                        Thats the reason I posted her entire interview, to demonstrate her use of the first person singular. Have you even read it?

                        Mortimer stood at her doorway before the murder, right? (about 12:30)
                        She also describes a noise and that she went out again after the murder (just after 1:00).

                        The woman who was standing at the corner, was interviewed:
                        "When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty-minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises."

                        You're getting the same story from both sources (Mortimer & The Woman), yet you still fight it, why?

                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                          Just to clarify.

                          According to the police reports, Schwartz saw other no couples during his trip down Berner Street.
                          Seeing as how everybody has a copy of this police report, can you show me where Schwartz says "there were no other couples in the street"?

                          According to Fanny Mortimer's story to the reporter, she saw no couples during the time she stood at her door.
                          This is just outright false. Her interview in the press tells us that she saw them, the woman at the corner even admits to being there.

                          According to Brown's testimony, he saw one couple, the woman of which he identified as Mrs Stride.

                          According to Goldstien's story, he makes no mention of seeing couples in Berner Street as he passed down it.

                          According to Diemshitz's testimony, he makes no mention of couples in Berner Street as he drove down it.
                          Well, we know Spooner was with a woman, we also know Eagle was with his sweetheart, so there is two couples in the area.
                          Diemschitz also ran along Fairclough street looking for a policeman, he was with Kozebrodski, the two of them ran togather, they both met Spooner, yet Diemschitz doesn't mention Kozebrodski at all.
                          So, the fact Diemschitz makes no mention of any couples doesn't mean there weren't any, as with Kozebrodski, he just didn't mention them.

                          There is just no case to stand on that this couple were not on the corner, everything point to them being there.
                          I don't get this 'fabricated' resistance, they were there, both Brown & Mortimer saw them. The woman admits she was there.
                          What is the point of this?


                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                            And lastly,

                            If Brown saw the couple at 12:45 at the corner of Fairclough and Schwartz entered Berner Street at 12:45, Mrs Stride could not get to the yard gates unseen by Schwartz.

                            If Brown left his house at 12:45 and Schwartz entered Berner Street at 12:45, Brown should have arrived at the crossroad as all the action described by Schwartz was happening and he should have seen Pipeman.

                            Either way you cut it, it does add up. Somebody is either making something up or their times are wrong.
                            No, you are simply talking about two different couples. Brown did not see Stride, it was some other female.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                              Schwartz's testimony isn't corroborated by anyone. No one else witnessed or heard the supposed assault on Liz.

                              It stretches credulity that Liz could've been assaulted by two different men in a matter of minutes. Either BS Man was the killer (which poses more questions than answers!) or Schwartz was telling porkies.
                              Hello Harry,

                              But what did this first assault consist of? According to Schwartz, Stride was simply pushed. Hardly a major league assault. Could easily have been a run of the mill street hassle. Nothing more.

                              Swanson obviously didn't feel that two assaults stretched credulity or he wouldn't have allowed for that possibility in his report. He certainly must have know what the streets of Whitechapel were like at night after the pubs closed.

                              It is certainly not the fault of Schwartz that his testimony was not corroborated. He might have been the only one who saw what took place.

                              c.d.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Brown saw Stride. Fanny Mortimer did not see a couple. Wishing it different won't make it so, Wick. Look at the various Mortimer articles in my book as well as the interview with the young woman. It ain't rocket science.

                                Harry. I'm not suggesting that Stride was attacked by two different men. I'm suggesting one man removed her from a passageway, albeit rudely. Another man murdered her.

                                Yours truly,

                                Tom Wescott

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X