The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[Cogidubnus]

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

Meandered? You've made that up.

Please see Posts 74/75

[Wickerman]

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.

Yes, thats a practical way of looking at it. Her coming back and forth to the door, the only means of entertainment in those days.
Hopefully the kids would have been in bed, or at least asleep at that time of night.
I was born at the tail end of those times. In the late 50's early 60's you could see the old women standing at their doorway during the day, or sitting on an old wooden chair just out on the sidewalk, knitting.
Mortimer had other considerations as you say, so for the half-hour in question (12:30-01:00) she would go back in the house briefly, but she thinks that for most of that 30 minutes she was at her door. We can't seem to account for more than ten minutes of that time, but her statement likely was not complete.

[Abby Normal]

Why do people make this harder than it is?


””” i was standing at my door NEARLY the whole time” ”..”. Right. She wasn’t at her door the whole time!! So she obviously wasn’t standing at her door to see stride and bs man, or anything else she missed. My god this isn’t rocket science!

[drstrange169]

>>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 again you have not read or failed to understand the evidence.

The "couples" were almost certainly one couple, as both were "young, sweethearts."

But even if they weren't one couple, your guesswork is demolished by the facts.

I repeat, Mrs Stride was in her 40's and the "couple", whichever version you care to choose, were "young, sweethearts'.

Brown heard the woman, he did not describe a young girl, reject the man, hardly the action of "sweethearts" one would have thought.

The the idea that Brown would mistake a young girl, which both reports describe her as, for Mrs Stride who was in her forties and looked it, is a bizarre notion, to say the least.

But, none of this matters as the "young girl" told the reporter that the closest they got to Fairclough and Berner from before the time Brown left his house, to the time he ate his breakfast, was over 100 feet.

By their own story, they were indisputably NOT the Brown couple, as they tell us they were at corner too far away.

This is further supported by the fact that they do not mention that anyone passed them by at the relevant time.

It is beyond me how in the face of genuine evidence people still push unsustainable stories.

[drstrange169]

>>so to sum up Brown and Mortimer saw the "young sweetheart" couple and did not see stride and her man.<<

No, because Brown did not see anybody "young" and he identified Mrs Stride.

No, because the young couple specifically stated the were over 100 feet away from that corner at the time.

No, because the young couple did not say they saw Brown.

No, because the woman, not young girl, Brown saw, rejected her potential suitor.

No, because their was no man lighting a Pipe opposite them.

No, because the young couple do not mention seeing Diemshtiz arrive.

No, because the young couple do not mention the two club men running past them yelling for police.

No, because, if true, they would be crucial witnesses and yet they do not rate a mention in Swanson or Abberline's reports.

[drstrange169]

>>Please see Posts 74/75<<

Yes!

[Tom_Wescott]

For crying out loud. Mortimer saw no couple. Zero. She saw Leon Goldstein. James Brown likewise saw no young couple. He saw Liz Stride - whom he identified by her features and not her clothes - and a man. This couple, incidentally, was on the opposite side of Berner Street and were long gone by 12:45.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Harry D]

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

...or the more sensible, rational explanation is that she had them in her hand when she was killed?

[Losmandris]

What throws this whole thing up in the air is timings. I don't think any of the witnesses can be relied upon for being completely accurate with the exact time they saw these events. I am presuming none of them would have had time pieces, relying instead on the chimes of local clocks. If some of these timings were out by as little as five minutes (i.e. the time it would take to walk down Berner Street, say) perspectives can be changed completely.

Regards,

Tristan

[Wickerman]

Why do people make this harder than it is?


””” i was standing at my door NEARLY the whole time” ”..”. Right. She wasn’t at her door the whole time!! So she obviously wasn’t standing at her door to see stride and bs man, or anything else she missed. My god this isn’t rocket science!

Right, in other words she said she was standing there, on and off, but not every minute. So long as we can account for her being stood there twice, there shouldn't be an issue with her statement.

[Wickerman]

>>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 again you have not read or failed to understand the evidence.

Ok, lets see the evidence.

The "couples" were almost certainly one couple, as both were "young, sweethearts."

That's not evidence, it's just opinion. You can't allow them to be different, that much is clear.

But even if they weren't one couple, your guesswork is demolished by the facts.

I repeat, Mrs Stride was in her 40's and the "couple", whichever version you care to choose, were "young, sweethearts'.

Brown heard the woman, he did not describe a young girl, reject the man, hardly the action of "sweethearts" one would have thought.

Nowhere does Brown say how old the female was, he was never asked. And, he only said he was "almost certain" she was the deceased, which means he was not certain.
Plus the very noticeable flower on her breast, noticed by every other witness, including Packer, but not noticed by Brown, as close as he was.

The the idea that Brown would mistake a young girl, which both reports describe her as, for Mrs Stride who was in her forties and looked it, is a bizarre notion, to say the least.

Much depends on the age of the witness as to how they describe someone else. Mrs Kennedy described a man who looked 40 as a "young man".

But, none of this matters as the "young girl" told the reporter that the closest they got to Fairclough and Berner from before the time Brown left his house, to the time he ate his breakfast, was over 100 feet.

Why can't you provide a quote for that story, and which newspaper it came from?

It is beyond me how in the face of genuine evidence people still push unsustainable stories.

At the top of this post you talked about "evidence", yet the rest of the post is just an emotional outburst - where is this evidence?
I always provide quotes, with sources.

Maybe your arguments will be more believable when you include the quote (the evidence), it can speak for itself.

[Wickerman]

For crying out loud. Mortimer saw no couple. Zero.

Tom, here, you wrote this:

Wishing it different won't make it so, Wick.

Wishing, don't make it so, Tom.
All you have done is repeat your belief, you can't allow it, so you won't allow it. But you don't seem to understand opinion is not evidence.

James Brown likewise saw no young couple. He saw Liz Stride - whom he identified by her features ......

You & I both know that is not true. So where does that leave you and your argument?
All Brown said was he was "almost certain" it was Stride, so you know he didn't recognize her features.

This couple, incidentally, was on the opposite side of Berner Street and were long gone by 12:45.

The 'walking couple' may have been long gone, but not the 'standing couple' by their own admission, they were there for 20 minutes before the alarm was raised. So, that means from 12:40 - 1:00am.

There aint' any other way to cut it.

[Wickerman]

The the idea that Brown would mistake a young girl, which both reports describe her as, for Mrs Stride who was in her forties and looked it, is a bizarre notion, to say the least.

I was looking at more of this "evidence" you speak about.

I know published estimates of Stride's age were stated to be 35-40, another opinion said 30. However, interestingly Abraham Heshburg, gave a different opinion..... "I should say she was from 25 to 28 years of age."
I thought you might find this interesting given that James Brown does not say how old he thought the female looked who he saw on the street corner.

Isn't "evidence" bizarre?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Harry D,

...or the more sensible, rational explanation is that she had them in her hand when she was killed?

Well, given she had to hold them when being choked, thrown to the ground, and having her throat cut, I'm not so sure them being tucked in a position where they might, as a result, dislodge and end up in her hand is really less sensible or less rational than suggesting she held on to them the entire time. I don't really have a big problem with her doing that, though, but I would hardly call the suggested alternative less sensible - less familiar to you, perhaps, but it is a familiar thing to me (and again, that could be why it seems sensible and rational to me and not you - simple familiarity with people tucking small things in their shirt sleeve).

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>Why can't you provide a quote for that story, and which newspaper it came from?<<

Ah, I'm beginning to understand your difficulties in following this thread.

I, mistakenly apparently, assumed as you've been on the boards a long time that you were familiar the all the evidence available.

My apologies, I now see you are not.

You did not know about Schwartz's statement to Abberline, November 1 1888, and now you don't know about the Evening News article from Oct 1 1888. Which is odd because you even quoted in your own post #56!

"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."

50 yards = 150 feet, the distance from the club gateway is about 15 yards, 45 feet, ergo the couple told the reporter they were about 100 feet from the corner of Berner and Fairclough.

Now, lets cross check this story against the evidence. Backchurch, Christain, Ellen and Commercial Road aren't exactly 50 yards from, but close enough to be described as such. However, Berner and Fairclough cannot by any means be described as such.

They said they hadn't "heard any unusual sounds".

Now that's curious, because if they were at the corner of Berner/Faiclough they should have said we didn't "see" anything unusual.

Clearly then, where ever they were, they had no line of sight, merely believed they were within earshot.

But they is more information that verifies where they were.

They make no mention of seeing Brown, they make no mention of the whole Schwartz, Broad Shoulders and Pipeman affair and most important of all, they make no mention of Goldstein and his black bag. All of which, if they were on Berner/Fairclough they would have had to have seen and would certainly have mentioned.


Research isn't just picking out the bits we like, it's testing it out against all the known evidence.