The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Fanny's 4 minutes is just a reporter's notion, not what she said? You seem to have changed your position on this, considering #892:

I just listed the "4 minutes as a reporter thing" as one of the things someone could argue, and included that because you mentioned it before.

I have no idea if she said it, if the reporter shortened what she said, or if a reporter even just made it up, etc. None of us know as we weren't there, and we do know the press was a bit dodgy at times. All I know is that is what it says in the papers. Given that is one of the times that ends up furthest off the estimated interval (but within the acceptable margin of error), it looks like it could be some fudging by the reporter but not necessarily.

The ~4-minute gap is worth thinking about, especially given it a concreted-in element of the Berner St murder, for some of us. So, just for reference:

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.

How does the reporter arrive at "about 4 minutes", other than supposing this is literally what Fanny said to him? It seems to me (and apparently to yourself) that the reporter has added 10 minutes to a time immediately after Smith has passed by her place - apparently 12:45/6. This time is then subtracted from 1am to arrive at the 4-minute interval. However, the report says nothing about the time 1am, so where does it come from? As the reporter goes on to imply that he is aware of Diemschitz story, should we necessarily assume that mention of 1am came from Fanny?

Assuming Fanny mentioned 1am to this reporter, then the situation is that her timings line up closely with that of Diemschitz. Therefore, if Diemschitz' timings are regarded as being close to the truth (as some of us do), then Fanny was at her doorstep from between the time of Smith's witnessing of Stride, and a few minutes prior to Diemschitz arrival. Apparently, nothing along the lines described by Schwartz was observed.

Alternatively, if Fanny did not mention hearing the pony and cart at 1am, to this reporter, then the 4-minutes determined by subtraction notion, goes out the window. The implications of this could be serious. For example, the ~4-minute interval could in reality have been ~30 seconds - that is, Mortimer may have heard the sound of the pony and cart entering Berner St, as she was locking-up. In Walter Dew's memoir, that is exactly what says occurred. When, in that case, did the murderer leave the yard?

Just to be clear, in your timeline, how much time are we talking about?

I forget exactly, but I know there's time still unaccounted for, and more than a minute or two, which would be enough for someone to argue that another person could show up. It wouldn't require a lot of time, so unless we can account for absolutely every minute, that idea can always be put forth as a possibility. Doesn't make it probable, and unaccounted for time isn't evidence anyone did show up, but the possibility being there will mean someone will argue for it. That's how things go.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

All I'm getting at is that when there isn't any evidence of another person, only a potential period of time for which we don't know what happened, one can creatively fill it with anything. The lack of restraints allows the imagination to run wild.

But, at the same time, such arguments are just that - imagination running wild due to our lack of sufficient information to draw conclusions as to what happened. They just point out possibilities that the void of ignorance we face cannot rule out, but that is a far cry from arguing "so someone must have come along". No, just because we can imagine how someone could have come along is not the same as demonstrating someone did come along.

I don't think we know enough to remove the possibility, but at the same time, I see nothing that demonstrates that possibility is anything more than that - a possibility we can't rule out, there's nothing to indicate someone actually did come along.

The problem then becomes that for some members, the BS man does not look at all like being the killer. Over to you, c.d...

It's like saying Schwartz lied - sure, people lie, it's possible, but from what we know everything points to Schwartz relating an actual incident. He went to the police, they questioned him carefully, they were not convinenced Schwartz got all the details right (with regards to whom Lipski was shouted at - Schwartz initially thinks it was shouted as a warning to Pipeman, but later concedes he may have been mistaken, etc), but the observable events themselves the police found no fault in. And, in attempting to rebuild the sequence of events, it looks to me that it isn't difficult for his events to have occurred between 12:45 and 1:00 in such a way that it doesn't conflict with other things we know. Given that I think we need direct evidence before concluding someone lied, I see nothing that indicates Schwartz lied - though I think there is good reason to suspect he was mistaken about some things (particularly the relationship between BS and Pipeman).

I believe the support of the police that is usually supposed for Schwartz, is an exaggeration. When someone went to the police, claiming knowledge of the murders, the police would be obliged to take their statement unless that person was an obvious prankster. The Star report that alludes to the Leman St police having doubts over the Hungarian's story, says:

There are many people in that district who volunteer information to the police on the principle of securing lenient treatment for their own offences, and there are others who turn in descriptions on the chance of coming near enough the mark to claim a portion of the reward if the man should be caught, just as one buys a ticket in a lottery. Even where such information is given in good faith, it can rarely be looked upon in the light of a clue.

The duty officer who took Schwartz's original statement, would have been obliged to take the witness seriously, and then, given the nature of the witness's claims, he necessarily had to passed on to Aberline, for an interview. How low was the bar was set for incoming witnesses? Consider the following report - MA, Oct 2:

Yesterday morning a newspaper reporter, who had been on the look out for the murderer, thinking it quite possible that he might commit further atrocities yesterday morning shaved off his whiskers and moustache, and, dressing himself as a woman, walked from his home in Leytonstone to Whitechapel, and made the tour of the streets frequented by the assassin, passing several detectives and constables on the way. He was unmolested until after he had covered a good deal of ground. Upon getting into the Whitechapel-road again, however, he was pounced upon by Police-constable Ludwig, 278 H, who said, "Stop, you are a man." Seeing that it was useless to deny it, the reporter admitted the fact, upon which he was asked, "Are you one of us?" and was answered in the negative; and it was explained why the disguise had been adopted. The constable, however, said he must take the reporter to the station, and he was accordingly conveyed to Leman-street, where the inspector on duty, after several questions, said, "I must detain you until inquiries are made." After a delay of an hour and a half, the officer was satisfied of the reporter's bona fides, and he was liberated.

How seriously did the police regard Schwartz? I'd say slightly more so than this cross-dressing journalist.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi NBFN,

If the attack was very quick, there would be time for someone else to come along (i.e. one could argue someone from the club came out; or someone came from Fairclough, never passing Fanny's for her to hear; Fanny's 4 minutes is just a reporter's notion, not what she said, so she's doing stuff inside for longer and so lots of opportunity for her to not hear someone passing, particularly someone walking more quietly than a PC, etc).

Hi Jeff,

Fanny's 4 minutes is just a reporter's notion, not what she said? You seem to have changed your position on this, considering #892:

If the reporter made it up, then that would remove the concern. If, however, she did estimate it at around 4 minutes (either by 3-5 type thing, or did actually say 4), then the simulation value of 11m 24s falls within the range we might expect. As I mentioned, it is a bit on the long side but it is acceptable. Given there are so many time durations that are being dealt with, it is not all that surprising that one or two of them would be further in the tails of the acceptable range. What actually surprised me when I went over everything was how rarely that happened (I think this is largest discrepancy in the simulation, and even that wasn't outside of the error ranges we expect).

The ~4-minute gap is worth thinking about, especially given it a concreted-in element of the Berner St murder, for some of us. So, just for reference:

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.

How does the reporter arrive at "about 4 minutes", other than supposing this is literally what Fanny said to him? It seems to me (and apparently to yourself) that the reporter has added 10 minutes to a time immediately after Smith has passed by her place - apparently 12:45/6. This time is then subtracted from 1am to arrive at the 4-minute interval. However, the report says nothing about the time 1am, so where does it come from? As the reporter goes on to imply that he is aware of Diemschitz story, should we necessarily assume that mention of 1am came from Fanny?

Assuming Fanny mentioned 1am to this reporter, then the situation is that her timings line up closely with that of Diemschitz. Therefore, if Diemschitz' timings are regarded as being close to the truth (as some of us do), then Fanny was at her doorstep from between the time of Smith's witnessing of Stride, and a few minutes prior to Diemschitz arrival. Apparently, nothing along the lines described by Schwartz was observed.

Alternatively, if Fanny did not mention hearing the pony and cart at 1am, to this reporter, then the 4-minutes determined by subtraction notion, goes out the window. The implications of this could be serious. For example, the ~4-minute interval could in reality have been ~30 seconds - that is, Mortimer may have heard the sound of the pony and cart entering Berner St, as she was locking-up. In Walter Dew's memoir, that is exactly what says occurred. When, in that case, did the murderer leave the yard?

I fully accept that many have very different views than I do. If we all agreed, there would be little point to discussing it after all. Anyway, I think the time available for someone else to come along is fairly small, but I don't think it is so small that one could say that even as I present it it would be impossible.

- Jeff

Just to be clear, in your timeline, how much time are we talking about?

[JeffHamm]

Once the events described by Schwartz are placed after Fanny Mortimer locks-up, and before Diemschitz arrives, two problems arise.

- There is not enough time for another man to come along and kill Stride. So, for those who believe this is what occurred, your timeline cannot be accepted.

- There is no longer any possibility of 'hiding' the noises from Fanny, who could seemingly hear the sound of passing policeman, while she's inside. That is due to her proximity to the yard, after she locks-up...

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.

Hi NBFN,

If the attack was very quick, there would be time for someone else to come along (i.e. one could argue someone from the club came out; or someone came from Fairclough, never passing Fanny's for her to hear; Fanny's 4 minutes is just a reporter's notion, not what she said, so she's doing stuff inside for longer and so lots of opportunity for her to not hear someone passing, particularly someone walking more quietly than a PC, etc).

All I'm getting at is that when there isn't any evidence of another person, only a potential period of time for which we don't know what happened, one can creatively fill it with anything. The lack of restraints allows the imagination to run wild.

But, at the same time, such arguments are just that - imagination running wild due to our lack of sufficient information to draw conclusions as to what happened. They just point out possibilities that the void of ignorance we face cannot rule out, but that is a far cry from arguing "so someone must have come along". No, just because we can imagine how someone could have come along is not the same as demonstrating someone did come along.

I don't think we know enough to remove the possibility, but at the same time, I see nothing that demonstrates that possibility is anything more than that - a possibility we can't rule out, there's nothing to indicate someone actually did come along.

It's like saying Schwartz lied - sure, people lie, it's possible, but from what we know everything points to Schwartz relating an actual incident. He went to the police, they questioned him carefully, they were not convinenced Schwartz got all the details right (with regards to whom Lipski was shouted at - Schwartz initially thinks it was shouted as a warning to Pipeman, but later concedes he may have been mistaken, etc), but the observable events themselves the police found no fault in. And, in attempting to rebuild the sequence of events, it looks to me that it isn't difficult for his events to have occurred between 12:45 and 1:00 in such a way that it doesn't conflict with other things we know. Given that I think we need direct evidence before concluding someone lied, I see nothing that indicates Schwartz lied - though I think there is good reason to suspect he was mistaken about some things (particularly the relationship between BS and Pipeman).

I fully accept that many have very different views than I do. If we all agreed, there would be little point to discussing it after all. Anyway, I think the time available for someone else to come along is fairly small, but I don't think it is so small that one could say that even as I present it it would be impossible.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Given how minimal the attack was, no mutilations, I think it is possible it could be committed in a minute or so. As such, I am pretty sure one could suggest such a thing, although there being time isn't really evidence there was another person.

- Jeff

Once the events described by Schwartz are placed after Fanny Mortimer locks-up, and before Diemschitz arrives, two problems arise.

- There is not enough time for another man to come along and kill Stride. So, for those who believe this is what occurred, your timeline cannot be accepted.

- There is no longer any possibility of 'hiding' the noises from Fanny, who could seemingly hear the sound of passing policeman, while she's inside. That is due to her proximity to the yard, after she locks-up...

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.

[JeffHamm]

Michael also believes the murder occurred around 12:45. I recently pointed out to him that the extent of blood flow at time of discovery, precludes the possibility of a very recently interrupted or fleeing murderer. A ~12:45 murder pushes the discovery out to about 12:50, possibly further. Michael's theory places the discovery before the murder.

In your timeline, is there time for another man to arrive on the scene and kill Stride, with time to spare for the observed blood flow to occur?

Given how minimal the attack was, no mutilations, I think it is possible it could be committed in a minute or so. As such, I am pretty sure one could suggest such a thing, although there being time isn't really evidence there was another person.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Michael,

I am aware that you disagree, which is fine. But if Koz and Eagle's time are held as true, as you argue for, they conflict with Fanny, Brown, Goldstein, and, well, just about everyone else who are not club members. Their times even conflict with club's paper, Arbiter Feint (sp?), which says the murder itself took place around 12:45, so the body cannot have been found around 12:40. Nor would it take 20 minutes to get up to Commercial to find Lamb, etc. As such, I conclude that because the time line I suggests fits together for the vast majority of the statements, with only Koz and Eagle's times appearing out, then they are the one's in error.

Michael also believes the murder occurred around 12:45. I recently pointed out to him that the extent of blood flow at time of discovery, precludes the possibility of a very recently interrupted or fleeing murderer. A ~12:45 murder pushes the discovery out to about 12:50, possibly further. Michael's theory places the discovery before the murder.

In your timeline, is there time for another man to arrive on the scene and kill Stride, with time to spare for the observed blood flow to occur?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't get involved in time discussions. There are simply too many variables.

Do you mean it is too hard to fit everything in, while avoiding contradictions?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Again, can Louis have arrived at 1am and any of the above be true? No. So why should we presume the above is true then? Because 3 witnesses said they were by the body around 12:40-45, ...with Louis, and because Lamb gets there at just before or at 1, which is impossible if Louis hasnt even found the body until 1,.. because Johnson arrives at 1:10 after being notified of the crime shortly after 1, and because Blackwell said he was there at 1:16, which again wouldnt be possible if Louis didnt even arrive until 1.

Where was Edward Spooner between 12:30 and 1am?

Times: Between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman.

Morning Advertiser: On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the "Bective," at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman.

Daily News: On Sunday morning between 12.30 and 1 o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Tavern, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street along with a young woman.

Daily Telegraph: On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public-house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman.

Eagle did not say he was by the body in the 12:40-45 period. Nor did Spooner. Who were these 3 witnesses?

[JeffHamm]

Ive captured this bit from the above to address, now underlined, "I wanted to see how well the time line hangs together. And it generally hangs together very well, and tends to reflect the unadjusted times the witnesses state within a few minutes (well within a range that such time statements are likely to err)."

Im actually pretty sure you know that isnt true, the time variances in this case are well beyond what people might consider within a reasonable doubt. The evidence is there, this isnt a theoretical dispute. When you remove the times Ive suggested, if for no other reason than a high probability of them having some bias or another filter into their statements...(Im confused why people are shocked at the idea that the men employed and paid by the club might tailor the events they report so they appear to show themselves in the best light possible. Isnt Damage Control a Universal term..and a perfectly natural response, be you law abiding or not?)...... then you have a sequence of events that confirms the time estimates given by the majority of the witnesses. The "adjustments" you and others make to a stated time by a witness is so it can work within some kind of continuous timeline. Well, the evidence Im talking about does just that with any "adjustments" beyond a 5 minute period, give or take. Yours is 20 minutes...and coincidentally all the witnesses you attempt to discredit for their ability to know what the real time all had the same times, within 5 minutes of each other. It creates a continuous report of events and activities by multiple witness statements from a variety of POV's and doesnt require simply changing times that were stated to enable some sort of similar cohesive timeline.

I am not offering any theory here, the witness statements just needed to be referenced in a way that allows for a story to be told ONLY by the people who experienced it, not altered by people 136 years later. Once again, if Lamb arrived just before or at 1, it is well known that a beat cop would regularly check time sources on his beat, then it is impossible for Louis to have arrived at that same time. If Louis arrived 15-20 minutes earlier then Eagle and Issac Kozebrodski have enough time to come downstairs, stand there for a minute figuring out what to do, then head out for help, and return with Lamb at around 1am. Trouble is that Issac Kozebrodski says that happened around 12:40-12:45 and Eagle back Louis's times. Why would he do that? He said he arrived at 12:40, so if that actually was the time she is discovered, he had no personal risk there... he obviously wasnt there when she was killed, why not just say that? In my opinion he just followed Louis's lead and made sure to say nothing provocative. Yes, he said he wasnt sure whether there was a body there when he arrives, but it was dark and the streets were deserted so thats understandable, right? Well, Issac isnt a paid employee at the club, but Louis, Mrs D, Morris Eagle and Joseph Lave are and everyone but Morris lives on that property. They all stood to lose employment and lodgings if the cops closed down the club....so, want to reconsider the Damage Control idea again now?

Louis lied. The paid staff lied, The anarchist hosts. And later that evening, so did someone else.

Hi Michael,

I am aware that you disagree, which is fine. But if Koz and Eagle's time are held as true, as you argue for, they conflict with Fanny, Brown, Goldstein, and, well, just about everyone else who are not club members. Their times even conflict with club's paper, Arbiter Feint (sp?), which says the murder itself took place around 12:45, so the body cannot have been found around 12:40. Nor would it take 20 minutes to get up to Commercial to find Lamb, etc. As such, I conclude that because the time line I suggests fits together for the vast majority of the statements, with only Koz and Eagle's times appearing out, then they are the one's in error.

Clearly you have taken a different approach, which is good as it is important for things to be viewed from different perspectives, but as we work from almost opposite sides of the scene, we aren't going to get anywhere discussing how my idea is different from yours - it almost has to be since you build upon what I see as the error, and vice versa.

Others will have yet a different set of ideas than either of us as well. And, by everyone sharing their ideas and how they came to them, then people can decide for themselves what they think holds together and what they think doesn't. That is how progress is made.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

All this conjecture about whether, and to what degree the club was involved, completely disregards a couple of significant points.
First - if the club was not in any way involved, then had the police discovered the true murderer their supposed lies & obfuscations would have been uncovered. No-one was to know this was even a true Ripper murder, neither would they know if the killer would be caught, or given up, the next day.
Second - it is not normal for anarchists to draw attention to themselves by committing a murder on their very doorstep, the consequence of which is for every member of the club to be regarded as a potential culprit.

The whole idea is fanciful at best.

[c.d.]

I saw a documentary were they indicated I think it was thirteen groups or individuals who had a motive for killing JFK. If we assume that all thirteen were not responsible it would seem to indicate that motive in and of itself is not sufficient.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

All Ive attempted to point out is that the paid staff at the club made statements concerning body "discovery" times that contradict the times given by everyone else

Well my apologies if I have incorrectly stated your position but isn't it your conclusion that they deliberately did so rather than simply being mistaken? And wouldn't that make that a conspiracy or cover up if you prefer?

c.d.

Yes, its is. I cited a valid reason why they would do that, and how by trying to recreate a timeline by their given times it is evident that the initial discovery could not have been as late as 1am. The "conspiracy" definition is met by the fact that more than 1 person is in on it, but the connotation the word also brings isnt applicable here. I do not contend that Louis briefed everyone there about how he wanted to present the clubs story, but I believe he did with the fellow staff members. Which is why Issac said he was sent out alone by Louis or some member...at 12:40-12:45. He wasnt part of that story creation.

The piece de resistance for self protection was Israel....now suddenlyLiz is back on the street, with multiple people that no-one else sees or hears, she is already being assaulted before on the property, and the drunk BSM may have revealed some antisemetism with a yell. What a coup for that club. Because on paper, using the witnesses, the ONLY men anywhere near that passageway at that time were the men at the club.

Ive also said for years that the JFK killing was covered up by a conspiracy...funny how time works in ones favour sometimes.

[c.d.]

All Ive attempted to point out is that the paid staff at the club made statements concerning body "discovery" times that contradict the times given by everyone else

Well my apologies if I have incorrectly stated your position but isn't it your conclusion that they deliberately did so rather than simply being mistaken? And wouldn't that make that a conspiracy or cover up if you prefer?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

I trust the investigators times, you dont. Thats fine, but realize you are making a choice believing Louis. You are not led to that conclusion by a preponderance of corroborative evidence, in fact, you choose that point of view despite multiple statements from people who are not employees of the club that directly contradict the discovery time he gives.

I don't get involved in time discussions. There are simply too many variables.

But you have reinforced the point that I made. Your view is that because these were very bad men with so much to lose then they absolutely must have lied. Well maybe they did and then again maybe they didn't. I don't take it as a given you do.

And once you have donned cover up glasses then everything not surprisingly gives the appearance of a cover up.

c.d.

I actually find it amusing that by simply reciting evidence that exists and is available to all, in the context it was presented and with corroborating circumstantial evidence, makes me some kind of conspiracy theorist. All Ive attempted to point out is that ONLY the paid staff at the club made statements concerning body "discovery" times that contradict the times given by everyone else. Only that paid staff group. The ones who would lose income and housing if suspicions were that someone at the club did this. Well, the people at the club WERE the only men known to be anywhere near that murder scene at that time, so that seems like a reasonable concern for them to have.

Kozebrodski, Heschberg and Spooner all told of learning about this event between 12:40-12:45. Just 5 minutes variance with the 3 stated times. Lambs stated arrival time at the gates with a returning Eagle and Kozebrodski can be accurate based on those 3 witness times. About 1am. So is Johnsons arrival time, and Blackwells.

Not one of those 3 witnesses, nor Lamb, nor Johnson nor Blackwell COULD have been even approximately accurate if Louis's stated arrival time of "precisely" 1am is accepted as a baseline. So....everyone was wrong about times except for Louis, the person most responsible for what happens at that club at that time, who claimed to have taken his time from a clock on the way back to the club? Morris, Lave and Mrs D agreed with Louis, but why wouldnt they? He was the boss there, he was the one that had to protect the club from suspicions. When they did that, it screwed up what Eagle could say, and Lave, thats why they say they were in the same place at the same time but didnt see each other or anyone else. Thats why Eagle, just to protect himself, had to say he "couldnt be sure" that a body was there when he arrived back at the club at 12:40, because in reality, he did know... one way or the other. But he couldnt contradict Louis. What he did say in that phrase is...the body might have been there at 12:40.

No-one saw Eagle return or when, no-one saw Lave at all, and no-one saw Louis return, or when.

For my money, accepting the majority of witness stated times means that all subsequent times given can be realistic. Louis arriving at 1 and Lamb and Eagle arriving there at that same time, isnt realistic. Or feasible. Or defensible, for that matter.

Aceept Louis arriving at 1am, then all other witnesses timings must be off by at least 20 minutes. All of them. Unrealistic assumption.