The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[Lewis C]

It is rather crowded, however, none of the witnesses need to be dismissed. A while back I put together some simulations that show how the testimony as given might tie to the events. I factored in information regarding general accuracy of estimating a duration of time (we tend to overestimate short intervals, so if someone estimates they waited 5 minutes, the true waiting time is generally a bit less than that, something like 3 minutes and change, but I don't have the table to hand to double check at the moment). Also, given the issue of different witnesses would have based their estimate of the time in reference to different clocks, I did my best to link events based upon people's movements, work out the distance they travelled, using average speeds for walking and running depending upon their testimony, and through a combination of the estimated durations and estimated travel times, I was able to link together a chain of events and work out the time in reference to a common clock (specifically, Dr. Blackwell's watch, as he noted the time as 1:16 upon his arrival at the scene - and lucky for us he did!). I then went back and compared the Dr. Blackwell time to the time estimated by the witnesses, and the difference between them fell well within the margins of error one would expect. So that made me pretty confident about the "core chain" that emerged.

After that, there were some events that really couldn't be tied to the core, the Schwartz event for example. So I looked at the core simulation events to see if there was a period of time within which that event could occur in the vicinity of 12:45, and there was. While I can't place it exactly, I just slotted it in a s a rough guess (sort of like doing a jig-saw puzzle, when you have a big bit completed, and you have another small set of pieces connected, you can roughly place those pieces inside the completed frame. You will have to adjust it if more information comes along, but you'll probably get it close to it's proper location.

Anyway, I'm not saying I've perfectly recreated the events of the night, and given the multiple statements and versions we have, to put together a simulation I did have to make some judgement calls. That's always the case. I have no doubt some will disagree with the ones I made, and I can't say their concerns are unfounded, which is why I always emphasize viewing the simulations as a possibility and not as a certainty.

With that in mind, I'm pretty pleased with the result, and I'm rather impressed that, with so many witnesses, anything at all coherent was even possible. Witness testimony can be fraught with errors of detail to the point that one would not be at all surprised to find it's hard, or even impossible, to fit them all together.

If you're interested, and can stand my ramblings, you can find the simulations I've put together for Buck's Row, Mitre Square, and Berner Street in the Scene of the Crimes area.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I think I found the estimated timeline. The event that I didn't see mentioned was Eagle's return to the club. Where would you fit that into the timeline?

If there's any part of your timeline that seems to me like a stretch, it would be Diemshutz arriving back over 11 minutes after Mortimer closes her door. It could be that Mortimer's door closing time could be made 3 minutes later, reducing the above interval to 8+ minutes, which I find more acceptable. That would mean that either James Brown's sighting would have to be a little later, or it happened while Mortimer was still at her door. Does the latter seem like a realistic possibility?

Your timeline mentions "Mortimer goes outside" and "Mortimer goes inside", which brings me back to a question that I've had for awhile about this. When Mortimer was at her door, did she go outside, or did she stay inside with the doorway just in front of her? The latter seems more likely to me, because I believe that she went to her door for the purpose of closing it, which one would normally do from the inside. The reason it matters is that she would have a broader field of vision if she went outside, enabling her to see more.

[Lewis C]

Thanks for referencing fivers post.

Kinda makes my point doesn't it. ?

As for whether Schwartz eyewitness account is tru or false it can't be dismissed or called dishonest on the nonsensical arguments been battered around here on this thread .

Albert Cadosch gave his testimony of what he heard ,no one came forward to" claim they heard the "No " and the "thud" against the fence yet we don't seem to have the same debate about that as we do with Schwartz!!!.

Or any other witnesses for that matter do we ?.

I agree that Schwartz's story can't be dismissed, but I'm OK with raising questions about it. It's a different case from Cadosch's testimony in that for him, there's no reason to believe that anyone else should have witnessed that - there was no one else that we know of in either of the 2 yards in question. In Schwartz's case, neither Eagle, Smith, Mortimer, Goldstein, or Brown said they saw it. It could well have happened anyway, but lack of corroboration is more meaningful in this case than in Cadosch's.

My sense is that in general, there's more general skepticism about George Hutchinson's account than about Schwartz's.

[FISHY1118]

I agree that Schwartz's story can't be dismissed, but I'm OK with raising questions about it. It's a different case from Cadosch's testimony in that for him, there's no reason to believe that anyone else should have witnessed that - there was no one else that we know of in either of the 2 yards in question. In Schwartz's case, neither Eagle, Smith, Mortimer, Goldstein, or Brown said they saw it. It could well have happened anyway, but lack of corroboration is more meaningful in this case than in Cadosch's.

My sense is that in general, there's more general skepticism about George Hutchinson's account than about Schwartz's.

Ok sure I get your point, but in general we still have the similarities of the two eyewitness accounts if one want to claim dishonesty and lies ?. One could just as easily say Cadosch was dishonest and lied ,Richardson was dishonest and lied , long etc etc etc .

Its just silly to pick out Schwartz's statement over all others .imo

[The Rookie Detective]

I agree that Schwartz's story can't be dismissed, but I'm OK with raising questions about it. It's a different case from Cadosch's testimony in that for him, there's no reason to believe that anyone else should have witnessed that - there was no one else that we know of in either of the 2 yards in question. In Schwartz's case, neither Eagle, Smith, Mortimer, Goldstein, or Brown said they saw it. It could well have happened anyway, but lack of corroboration is more meaningful in this case than in Cadosch's.

My sense is that in general, there's more general skepticism about George Hutchinson's account than about Schwartz's.

Has anyone ever considered that George Hutchinson and Israel Schwartz... were the same man?

Schwartz was supposedly theatrical in his appearance.

It is possible for someone to disguise themselves.

Could the Ripper have been connected with the theatre; a master of disguise?

What is the height differential between Schwartz and Hutchinson?

It seems to me that if there's a chance they were the same man; then he was the killer playing games.


It would be possible for a man to dye his hair and moustache and play the part.

Has anyone ever considered that the 2 elusive witnesses with the most fantastical stories; could have been the same man?


Thoughts?

RD

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks for referencing fivers post.

Kinda makes my point doesn't it. ?

As for whether Schwartz eyewitness account is tru or false it can't be dismissed or called dishonest on the nonsensical arguments been battered around here on this thread .

Albert Cadosch gave his testimony of what he heard ,no one came forward to" claim they heard the "No " and the "thud" against the fence yet we don't seem to have the same debate about that as we do with Schwartz!!!.

Or any other witnesses for that matter do we ?.

There is a difference of course, 1 of those witnesses we know lived where he said this happened and used that backyard for the privy. The other, well, we dont even know for certain where his poor wife had to move what was surely a few bags from...therefore we dont really know why he is there. Add to that the number of potential witnesses to the street at that time who saw or heard no-one in front of the gates at that time, a second witness who claims to see Liz on the street with a young man...sans flower arrangement...at that same time, plus Eagle just passing that spot a minute or 2 earlier and Lave is supposedly still there looking out, you have the young couple...who are almost certainly James Browns Liz and beau, and maybe Fanny. She is at the door and away from it off and on that half hour. And no-one can say which applies at any given time, we only know that she saw Leon Goldstein.

Despite claims that all the witness accounts can be reconciled under one cohesive time line, they cannot be. There are some that when integrated with marker type accounts...ones from a local authority, trustworthy...do make a singular story. They allign almost perfectly, if you plus/minus a minute or 2 either way, they are acceptably validating. But that leaves many accounts still outside that acceptable status, and in a curious coincidence, all by almost the exact same 20 minutes off the reasonable and cohesive story/time line.

Interesting again that all of those accounts come from people directly connected to that club with varied levels of responsibilities or debt. They derive income from its continuing operation. One might say that on that site on that night at that time, they are the only people who who have something tangible to lose if the police suspected a club attendee as the culprit. They would have been expected to react to this murder with quick action seeking authorities and perhaps verify, by pulse or lack thereof, if she is beyond help. The responsible reaction by law abiding occupants.

Are anarchists by definition law abiding? Do we have evidence of a darker side to these same men...yes we do, at that same location within 6 months.

These crimes were committed by and witnessed by individual people, if you believe you can cut and paste their stories and/or timelines to fit a more accepted overview that you share, you might want to consider their humanity as well as the data and statistics.

[c.d.]

Has anyone ever considered that the 2 elusive witnesses with the most fantastical stories; could have been the same man?

No, I haven't.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Ok sure I get your point, but in general we still have the similarities of the two eyewitness accounts if one want to claim dishonesty and lies ?. One could just as easily say Cadosch was dishonest and lied ,Richardson was dishonest and lied , long etc etc etc .

Its just silly to pick out Schwartz's statement over all others .imo

One could also easily say that Cadosche and Richardson gave their evidence at the Inquest, whereas Israel was not asked to do so. I believe its becoming more and more accepted that Israels story is likely constructed, not recited from memory.

[c.d.]

I believe its becoming more and more accepted that Israels story is likely constructed, not recited from memory.

Accepted by whom?

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

Has anyone ever considered that the 2 elusive witnesses with the most fantastical stories; could have been the same man?

No, I haven't.

c.d.

I feel there may be countless others with the same answer.
That may go some way to explain the lack of progressive thinking that could help evolve the case, for the next generation of Ripper enthusiasts.

I appreciate you being the only one to take the time to respond to my question.

Respect to you for that.

The fact that nobody has proved my question invalid; by showing evidence that Hutchinson and Schwartz couldn't have been the same man, leads me to believe it could be possible.

The argument that a man couldn't change appearance that drastically, is perhaps another mistaken assumption by all those who don't see the significance in the theatrical connection.

I know of one particular Victorian killer who changed his appearance to evade capture...and succeeded.


RD

[c.d.]

The fact that nobody has proved my question invalid; by showing evidence that Hutchinson and Schwartz couldn't have been the same man, leads me to believe it could be possible.

Of course it could be possible. Could Schwartz and Hutchinson both have been Queen Victoria in disguise? Can you prove why that is not possible?

Sorry, not being smart ass here but the one making an assertion is required to provide evidence for its validity. There is no requirement for me to disprove it.

Hitchens razor: Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor that serves as a general rule for rejecting certain knowledge claims. It states "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."^[1][2][3] The razor was created by and later named after author and journalist Christopher Hitchens (1949–2011). It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

The fact that nobody has proved my question invalid; by showing evidence that Hutchinson and Schwartz couldn't have been the same man, leads me to believe it could be possible.

Of course it could be possible. Could Schwartz and Hutchinson both have been Queen Victoria in disguise? Can you prove why that is not possible?

Sorry, not being smart ass here but the one making an assertion is required to provide evidence for its validity. There is no requirement for me to disprove it.

Hitchens razor: Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor that serves as a general rule for rejecting certain knowledge claims. It states "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."^[1][2][3] The razor was created by and later named after author and journalist Christopher Hitchens (1949–2011). It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it

c.d.

Hitchens sounds like he would be the life and soul of the party.

That's a fair point you make.

All I would say is that nobody on here can prove anything apart from the fact that Kelly didn't committ suicide.

That said, there's always going to be a smart a** somewhere (NOT YOU!)...with a philosophical razor, to argue that Kelly could have committed suicide by slitting her own throat after she sang the wrong words, and then was attacked post-mortem by blotchy, who just chose to cut her to pieces because he didn't like her singing either.

So on that basis, it's pointless asking questions on the case because it's a nonsensical continuum without a path to progress or evolve.

Interesting view though


RD

[c.d.]

Hitchens was one of a kind and if you are not familiar with him I encourage you to watch some of his videos. A brilliant man and incredibly witty.

My point is "could have" questions are fine to ask but the answer is always going to be yes if anything is possible.

c.d.

[c.d.]

The slang term "Hitchslap" was coined to describe Hitchens' awesome ability to obliterate his debating opponents, primarily on the topic of religion.

c.d.

[FISHY1118]

One could also easily say that Cadosche and Richardson gave their evidence at the Inquest, whereas Israel was not asked to do so. I believe its becoming more and more accepted that Israels story is likely constructed, not recited from memory.

The police at the time disagree with you and so i.

[FISHY1118]

There is a difference of course, 1 of those witnesses we know lived where he said this happened and used that backyard for the privy. The other, well, we dont even know for certain where his poor wife had to move what was surely a few bags from...therefore we dont really know why he is there. Add to that the number of potential witnesses to the street at that time who saw or heard no-one in front of the gates at that time, a second witness who claims to see Liz on the street with a young man...sans flower arrangement...at that same time, plus Eagle just passing that spot a minute or 2 earlier and Lave is supposedly still there looking out, you have the young couple...who are almost certainly James Browns Liz and beau, and maybe Fanny. She is at the door and away from it off and on that half hour. And no-one can say which applies at any given time, we only know that she saw Leon Goldstein.

Despite claims that all the witness accounts can be reconciled under one cohesive time line, they cannot be. There are some that when integrated with marker type accounts...ones from a local authority, trustworthy...do make a singular story. They allign almost perfectly, if you plus/minus a minute or 2 either way, they are acceptably validating. But that leaves many accounts still outside that acceptable status, and in a curious coincidence, all by almost the exact same 20 minutes off the reasonable and cohesive story/time line.

Interesting again that all of those accounts come from people directly connected to that club with varied levels of responsibilities or debt. They derive income from its continuing operation. One might say that on that site on that night at that time, they are the only people who who have something tangible to lose if the police suspected a club attendee as the culprit. They would have been expected to react to this murder with quick action seeking authorities and perhaps verify, by pulse or lack thereof, if she is beyond help. The responsible reaction by law abiding occupants.

Are anarchists by definition law abiding? Do we have evidence of a darker side to these same men...yes we do, at that same location within 6 months.

These crimes were committed by and witnessed by individual people, if you believe you can cut and paste their stories and/or timelines to fit a more accepted overview that you share, you might want to consider their humanity as well as the data and statistics.

Again, if if uses other witnesses testimony to try and dismiss Schwartz account then the reverse can also be done . Its a pointless exercise that in the end any serious ripperoligist must realize one thing, in the case of liz strides assault and who saw or didn't see it take place then all the evidence must be viewed equally.