The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[Wickerman]

>>There is just no case to stand on that this couple were not on the corner, everything point to them being there.<<

You mean like Brown I.D'ing Mrs Stride?

You mean like Brown describing Mrs Strides clothes?

You mean like Mrs Stride being in her 40's and the young girl being a "young girl"?

You mean like the sweethearts being "sweethearts" and Brown describing Mrs Stride rejecting the man.

You mean like the young girl and Brown living within a couple of hundred yards of each other, walking the same streets every day, shopping at the same shops, maybe even going to the same pubs?

You mean like the "young girl" claiming she was nowhere near the corner of Berner and Fairclough at the time Brown walked past?

You mean like the "young girl" claiming nobody past them except a man in Commercial Road?


>>What is the point of this?<<

Following the evidence not the guesswork.

It looks like you make the same error as Tom has. The 'walking couple' who passed along Commercial Rd., are not the same as the 'standing couple', seen by Mortimer & Brown on the corner of Fairclough & Berner.
Once you accept that, the picture begins to clear up.
Then you will also see that Brown did not see Stride. Brown says he was "almost certain" it was the deceased, which only means he wasn't certain, no matter how you try to polish it.

[Wickerman]

so to sum up

Brown and Mortimer saw the "young sweetheart" couple and did not see stride and her man.

Marshall, smith, and Schwartz saw stride and the ripper (BS man/peaked cap man).

Get that man a drink!!!

I'm glad someone is paying attention.

[Wickerman]

bingo wick
not sure why people are even trying to debate this.

I don't think they would be if Tom hadn't thrown Mortimer, Brown & his 'walking couple' into the mix.
The only point I remember Tom making that was correct is, this is very simple.

[Wickerman]

Fanny Mortimer is a very valuable resource here. "I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half past 12 and 1 o'clock this morning".....and the only people she sees are the young couple. No Eagle returning at 12:40-45, no Israel Schwartz, no Pipeman, no cart and horse arriving "precisely" at 1am, as was stated by Louis. And most importantly, she didnt see Liz. She saw no-one enter via the gates.

So Liz was likely already in the passageway, (thanks for your time Mr Brown),..with her killer. Where is the most likely place he would have come from? The club property.

Fanny indicated that she spoke with the young "sweethearts" she saw, so that's kind of a wrap on that issue.

Hi Michael.

I know you've championed Mortimer for many years, normally I say very little about her. In this case though the solution couldn't be clearer, especially for those who recognize that replies given in the first person singular are normally accepted as the words of the witness, verbatim.
Anyone who argues different is required to provide some extraordinary reasoning, which we have not seen yet.

[JeffHamm]

All the while Stride grasps those blasted cachous

To be precise, we don't know for sure she was ever holding the cachous. We only know when she was found they were between her thumb and forefinger. It is possible she just kept them tucked up under the cuff of her shirt sleeve (it's something my grandmother used to do, which is why I think of this possibility and probably why it seems more reasonable to me than it might to others; also, she tucked things, like tissues, under her left sleeve because she was right handed and that's the hand that both places and retrieved things stored there). If she did that, though, then they only come out when she's put to the ground in the final, and probably most violent, part of the entire confrontation. No holding throughout, no placement by JtR, no chance falling upon them, just them dislodging from her sleeve.

- Jeff

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Michael.

I know you've championed Mortimer for many years, normally I say very little about her. In this case though the solution couldn't be clearer, especially for those who recognize that replies given in the first person singular are normally accepted as the words of the witness, verbatim.
Anyone who argues different is required to provide some extraordinary reasoning, which we have not seen yet.

Hi Jon

It's interesting that you haven't yet made the same observation you quite astutely made on 21st July 2013...It was the "Mrs. Fanny Mortimer, Time wrong?" thread...I assume you were saving it up for a rainy day:-

"A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. 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 for ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. 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 the pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband. 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-and presuming also that the assassin and his victim did not enter the yard while the woman stood at the door, it follows that they must have entered it within a minute or two before the arrival of the pony trap. If this be a correct surmise, it is easy to understand that the criminal may have been interrupted at his work. The man who drove the cart says he thinks it quite possible that after he had entered the yard the assassin may have fled out of it, having lurked in the gloom until a favourable moment arrived."
Daily News, 1st Oct. 1888.

If Mortimer stood at her door for 10 minutes between 12:40-45 until 12:50-55, then, after that she heard the approach of the cart about four? minutes later, there is a slim window of time when this murder could have happened.

The article suggests that Stride may have arrived at the yard in those four? minutes, however, as I have conjectured previously, Stride may have already been in the yard, in the shadows with a client, while Mortimer stood at her door.
Was the "measured heavy tramp" not a policeman but the Broad-shouldered man staggering passed Dutfields Yard?

We might question her subsequent claim: "Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door", as Mortimer makes no claim to seeing anyone, constable or citizen, in the street when she opened her door.

The shorter reported duration of Fanny's observations makes a considerable difference to what she might or might not have observed. There are two sets of timings attached to Fanny Mortimer's vigil, one, as above, reported in some earlier papers, the other, which I believe may be a syndicated News Agency report, appearing in all the later editions...to which, if any, do you give credence?


Cheers

Dave

[c.d.]

Hi Michael.

I know you've championed Mortimer for many years, normally I say very little about her. In this case though the solution couldn't be clearer, especially for those who recognize that replies given in the first person singular are normally accepted as the words of the witness, verbatim.
Anyone who argues different is required to provide some extraordinary reasoning, which we have not seen yet.

I think the key word here is "nearly" the whole time. What exactly does that mean? She also had a sick husband and I believe five children. I think the away time could have been longer than she thought.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Harry,

I am having trouble understanding your reasoning on this. We seem to be in agreement that the B.S. man was not Stride's killer. Why do you have Schwartz lying when the simplest explanation is that he simply witnessed a street hassle?

If the forensics of the killing don't equate with Schwartz's version of events could it be because he never saw Stride actually being killed and never said that he did?

c.d.

[Cogidubnus]

What if Fanny actually heard the heavy tread of Broad Shouldered man leaving Dutfields Yard after killing Liz Stride and scaring off our gruesome twosome, Schwartz and Pipeman? What if all the time of Fanny's vigil, Liz is laying dead in the shadows, even as Goldstein, our tobacco salesman goes by? In other words, making the usual allowance re accurate time recording in the LVP, what if Schwartz is 100% right and saw the killing? As the police appear to have given him credence right the way through, why wasn't he up at the inquest? Or was part of the Inquest partly held "in camera"? Or was a very early witness protection scheme in place? Interesting...total speculation, of course, but interesting...Kozebrodsky and Brown may've just missed all the action!

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hello Dave.

Mrs Mortimer is a troublesome witness, her times are all over the place. At least, times attributed to her are somewhat flexible.
Thankyou for the reminder, but who remembers what they wrote six years ago? I certainly don't.

In these recent exchanges I didn't see the importance of pinning Mortimer down to a precise time. You may wonder why....
We have a statement from the female of the 'standing couple' (at the corner of Fairclough & Berner), where she says they had been standing there for about 20 minutes, when the alarm was raised.
So, possibly 12:40 - 1:00am?

Mrs Mortimer says in one report, she stood there the whole time from 12:30 - 1:00am, but then in another she modifies this to "on hearing footsteps outside, she went to the door just before a quarter to one... (or words to that effect).
In both press reports she says she went to the door a second time at/about 1:00am. So, she did go twice, and the first time (after those footsteps), is within the time window given by the female of the 'standing couple' (12:40-1:00).

Which means this couple were on that corner when Mortimer said she went to the door, both times (12:40ish & 1:00am). Happily, my earlier post which you drew my attention to (from 2013) places Mortimer at her door for the first time from 12:40-45 to 12:50-55, which is still in agreement with my recent posts (how did that happen??). Then the second time is around 1:00 just after she heard the arrival of the cart.

So, even though she makes no mention of seeing this couple (given what has happened it's hardly important), she does place herself at her door twice, within easy sight of the corner of the street.

Do you see any conflict?

And, how did you manage to stumble across that post?....it wasn't by accident, was it



I forgot to add, the importance of Mortimer being in view of the couple on two occasions (12:45ish & 1:00am) is that she claimed to have seen them twice:

"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."

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Dave.

Mrs Mortimer is a troublesome witness, her times are all over the place. At least, times attributed to her are somewhat flexible.
Thankyou for the reminder, but who remembers what they wrote six years ago? I certainly don't.

In these recent exchanges I didn't see the importance of pinning Mortimer down to a precise time. You may wonder why....
We have a statement from the female of the 'standing couple' (at the corner of Fairclough & Berner), where she says they had been standing there for about 20 minutes, when the alarm was raised.
So, possibly 12:40 - 1:00am?

Mrs Mortimer says in one report, she stood there the whole time from 12:30 - 1:00am, but then in another she modifies this to "on hearing footsteps outside, she went to the door just before a quarter to one... (or words to that effect).
In both press reports she says she went to the door a second time at/about 1:00am. So, she did go twice, and the first time (after those footsteps), is within the time window given by the female of the 'standing couple' (12:40-1:00).

Which means this couple were on that corner when Mortimer said she went to the door, both times (12:40ish & 1:00am). Happily, my earlier post which you drew my attention to (from 2013) places Mortimer at her door for the first time from 12:40-45 to 12:50-55, which is still in agreement with my recent posts (how did that happen??). Then the second time is around 1:00 just after she heard the arrival of the cart.

So, even though she makes no mention of seeing this couple (given what has happened it's hardly important), she does place herself at her door twice, within easy sight of the corner of the street.

Do you see any conflict?

And, how did you manage to stumble across that post?....it wasn't by accident, was it

Believe it or not, I remembered the existence of both the thread, and the parallel one which you mentioned in the part of the post I didn't quote...and I recalled yours and my own participation quite clearly...I devoted a lot of time, back in those days, to calculating timelines in order to see whether all the statements could be sensibly pieced together...and I suppose those two must've stuck in my mind for some reason,(I was a public transport planner and spent my life working with time-graphs - so I guess I've got that sort of odd mind)...

Mrs M possibly went to the door the first time after hearing the footsteps, the second time after hearing (whilst she was undressing in the front bedroom) Diemschutz returning, approx four minutes after her leaving the doorstep the first time...

I expect we're going to differ from what we can deduce, (or more correctly, speculate about), from that position, but to my mind the period 1240 to 1245 ish looks interesting - as it eventually did (for me at least) back in 2013...

Cheers

Dave

[drstrange169]

>>Worth noting that there was another couple in the immediate area at that time, Spooner and his miss.<<

Who never went near Berner Street, so not really of any relevance from the "couples" point of view.

[drstrange169]

Duplicated post

[drstrange169]

>>uh no you conveniently left out the third option, which is obvious-Brown saw the other couple and did not see Stride.<<

See post #64. Not really an option if we look at the evidence available. Plus, where was Pipeman, why didn't Brown see him and why didn't the couple see him? No, I'm afraid it simply doesn't work.

[drstrange169]

>>Yes, but they meandered there. Maybe they were closer to the corner to Berner at one time.<<

Meandered? You've made that up.