The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[drstrange169]

>>I never said the word was only a legal definition. I said it is only inadmissible at a trial in a criminal court.<<

And why would you do that?

And why would you frame it in the context of, "It seems you are confused about Hearsay"?

Those are rhetorical questions, I don't need an answer. I suggest you re-read your post #45 and understand what you wrote.




>>You have provided nothing to counter that.<<

Why would I want to? Again rhetorical, what happens in a courtroom is not part of the debate here.



Back to "on topic".

>>Are you actually reading these news reports?<<

Yes, but you apparently aren't or at least you are failing to understand them.



>> Mortimer saw them standing at the corner, they didn't tell her they were there, she saw them there herself.<<

Could point to the quote that specifically says she "saw" them? Again rhetorical, you can't because she didn't.

That's your interpretation, not what was actually written. There is no evidence to counter the notion she was simply repeating information she had heard. As I'm about to show at the end of this post, there IS evidence that suggests she didn't see them.




>>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.<<

Precisely!

Fifty yards, 150 feet, puts them around Christian, Backchurch or Ellen, from roughly 12:40 to 1:00, which means they were categorically NOT the couple that Brown saw. And it would have been impossible for Mortimer to see them from her doorway.

[Wickerman]

Brown saw Stride. Fanny Mortimer did not see a couple. Wishing it different won't make it so, Wick.

Tom, it's written there in black & white. Mortimer's interview is in the first person, I saw, I heard, My opinion, etc. No matter what deceptive language you choose to employ, you can't change that fact. The interview is her own words, and at the end she tells us she saw the couple.

The woman who was standing there even admits to being there.

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.
Daily News, 1^st Oct. 1888.

However, there was another couple who walked up and down (12:00-12:30), and I suggest your mistake has been to believe this same 'walking' couple was the same as the 'standing' couple, on the corner of Fairclough.
(I'm not sure why you say you found it, this interview was never lost).

There are no similarities between their two stories, therefore no cause to believe they are the same couples. The 'walking' couple never said they stood anywhere for any length of time.
This is the 'trip wire' I told you about at the start.

You should review all of this because your argument holds no water.

Mortimer & Brown saw the same couple at the same location, and the female of this couple admitted to being right there for "about 20 minutes".

[drstrange169]

>> 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"?<<

Always pleased to educate those not up with the case;-)

"There was only one other person to be seen in the street ..." (He's referring to Pipeman)
Inspector Abberline's report dated 1st Nov 1888

Ouch!

[drstrange169]

>>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.

[Harry D]

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.

Would you turn a blind-eye if you saw a man trying to drag a woman away, only to throw her to the ground?

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.

Then he must have believed that BS Man was the killer and did not take into consideration the forensic evidence, unsurprisingly.

He might have been the only one who saw what took place.

That's convenient.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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

[John G]

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

Yes, it was something I mentioned earlier. However, on reflection, weren't Spooner and his lady friend stood by the corner of Fairclough and Christian Street, whereas the Brown sighting was close to the corner of Fairclough and Berner Street, i.e. by the Board School?

[Abby Normal]

Tom, it's written there in black & white. Mortimer's interview is in the first person, I saw, I heard, My opinion, etc. No matter what deceptive language you choose to employ, you can't change that fact. The interview is her own words, and at the end she tells us she saw the couple.

The woman who was standing there even admits to being there.

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.
Daily News, 1^st Oct. 1888.

However, there was another couple who walked up and down (12:00-12:30), and I suggest your mistake has been to believe this same 'walking' couple was the same as the 'standing' couple, on the corner of Fairclough.
(I'm not sure why you say you found it, this interview was never lost).

There are no similarities between their two stories, therefore no cause to believe they are the same couples. The 'walking' couple never said they stood anywhere for any length of time.
This is the 'trip wire' I told you about at the start.

You should review all of this because your argument holds no water.

Mortimer & Brown saw the same couple at the same location, and the female of this couple admitted to being right there for "about 20 minutes".

hi wick
you are exactly right. the only thing Mortimer confirms is she did NOT see stride with a man that night and that browns couple was the same as the couple she saw- a different couple than stride and her man. and other than that she really dosnt add anything of worth to the story.

[Abby Normal]

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?



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.



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.



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?

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

[Abby Normal]

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.

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

[Abby Normal]

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).

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, it was something I mentioned earlier. However, on reflection, weren't Spooner and his lady friend stood by the corner of Fairclough and Christian Street, whereas the Brown sighting was close to the corner of Fairclough and Berner Street, i.e. by the Board School?

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

[Cogidubnus]

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

Something about Spooner's timings is a little awry, but nonetheless was not his evidence that he'd been standing outside the Beehive pub (corner of Fairclough/Christian Streets) with a young lady for about 25 minutes, and that upon encountering Diemschutz and Jacobs he returned with them to the club, stopping only to talk to the witness Harris who'd emerged from his house in Brunswick Street having heard a policeman's whistle? If he and the girl really had been at the Beehive all that time, (and I think it might've been longer in truth), where does the meandering come in please?

Cheers

Dave

[Joshua Rogan]

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

Not so, according to Spooner in the Morning Advertiser;

"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. We had been in a beershop at the corner of Settles-street, Commercial-road, and remained till closing time. I stood at the top of Christian-street for a few minutes, and then walked down the street."