The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[John G]

Hi John

Schwartz, by this time has started crossing the road, has passed the Yard and is looking back...With BSM's back to Schwartz, his body is likely masking exactly what he was doing to hurl Liz to the ground...and don't forget it all happened quite quickly..."the man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway"...note please the "but" - he thought he saw the man try to pull the woman into the street, but threw her down instead? (Else why use the word but? Whats wrong with "and"?

Also note please, it doesn't say the pavement but the footway...the entrance to the yard was, I believe, of mud and stones with a stone gutter or gully (referenced in the evidence) down the side by the club...the side door to the club opened onto it - wouldn't this be a footway? Sad that we only have Swanson's report to the Home Office, and not the original statement which might clarify this...

Cheers

Dave

Hi Dave,

Okay, so the only way to make sense of Scwartz's evidence is to totally reject Scwartz's evidence in favour of a completely different narrative!

Thus, we have to reject Scwartz's evidence in respect of BS Man attempting to pull Stride into the street, otherwise she would surely have resisted, thus dropping the cachous.

Thus, we have to reject Scwartz's evidence in respect of BS man spinning Stride around and throwing her to the ground, otherwise she would surely have thrown out her hands, spreading her fingers, and thereby spilling the cachous.

Thus we have to reject Scwartz's evidence in respect if clumsy BS Man throwing Stride onto the "footway", completely rejecting the literal meaning of this word, "a path or track for pedestrians", in favour of a completely unnatural meaning.

Or we could reject the cart before the horse approach, i.e. getting very creative to make the pieces fit, and simply reject Scwartz's evidence completely.

[Cogidubnus]

Dave,
It sounds to me as if he tried to pull her from the gateway into the street, but in doing so pulled her off her feet and only managed to move her as far as the footway before she hit the ground. Since she was still held by the arm, she would quite likely pivot around and so land on her rear or side.
Bearing in mind this is translated from Hungarian, do you think that is a reasonable interpretation of Schwartz' statement?

Hi Joshua

We assume it's translated from the Hungarian only because the Star says he was Hungarian, rather than Swanson...it could have been Yiddish or some other tongue...but yes he was a foreigner and did not speak English, doubtless necessitating a translator...this obviously gives rise to possible misunderstandings either way...but Schwartz was closely questioned on what he saw, and Swanson is British and does not need a translator - "the man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway"

I believe his wording is careful and meaningful...particularly that "but"... if the assailant succeeded in pulling her outside then he would have said so, rather than saying "tried"... and he'd surely have used an "and", rather than "but"...or are you perhaps confirming my belief that the footway could also mean something other than that out in the street?

Cheers

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Dave,

Okay, so the only way to make sense of Scwartz's evidence is to totally reject Scwartz's evidence in favour of a completely different narrative!

Thus, we have to reject Scwartz's evidence in respect of BS Man attempting to pull Stride into the street, otherwise she would surely have resisted, thus dropping the cachous.

Thus, we have to reject Scwartz's evidence in respect of BS man spinning Stride around and throwing her to the ground, otherwise she would surely have thrown out her hands, spreading her fingers, and thereby spilling the cachous.

Thus we have to reject Scwartz's evidence in respect if clumsy BS Man throwing Stride onto the "footway", completely rejecting the literal meaning of this word, "a path or track for pedestrians", in favour of a completely unnatural meaning.

Or we could reject the cart before the horse approach, i.e. getting very creative to make the pieces fit, and simply reject Scwartz's evidence completely.

I believe you've misunderstood what I've tried to say...I'm not rejecting anything Schwartz said...I even quoted Swanson's words verbatim...all I'm suggesting is that it might've been hard for Schwartz to see exactly how BS Man got Liz to the ground, as from the rear his body would've blocked the view. I don't think that's rejecting any evidence...nor is interpreting footway as a place where people walk...

[Wickerman]

Michael.

William Wess, in his own words left the club about 12:15, along with his brother and Louis Stansley. All three of them walked south down Berner to Fairclough, then east along Fairclough towards James Street.

Why on earth would anyone try place Wess outside Dutfields Yard, talking with Stride, at 12:35?
It just makes no sense at all.

Do you recall why you think it was "almost certainly" Wess, based on what?

[Michael W Richards]

There are issues with the stated times by all witnesses.
However, with respect to Fanny, I think you are incorrect. It is necessary to have Fanny at her door at least twice. You seem to have her there only once.
Thanks to Dave, I am reminded that I placed here at her at her door between 12:40-12:50, then the second time just after 1:00am, in fact after Louis arrived home, so possibly it was 1:05, or there abouts.

As for Spooner and the rest you mention, we have to just admit they had their estimates wrong.

On your first comment, No Jon, there aren't. There is a witness who by her own admission was at her door "nearly the whole time between half past 12 and 1", and that witness was at her door continuously from 12:50 until 1...verified by her sighting of Goldstein at 12:55ish. She was at her door at 1am, she heard the commotion when she went inside after 1. Spooners account timing agrees with 3 others there that night, some interviewed onsite within an hour of the actual murder. Find me 3 corroborating accounts for Louis, or Morris, Or Lave. Or Schwartz. Or just find me one. Any indication that what the senior club members said wasn't pure bull***.

[Michael W Richards]

Evening News 1st October 1888

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 Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

It would appear that Fanny did hear Diemschutz arrive...

She heard a cart and horse pass 4 minutes AFTER 1am, so it proves A)Louis didn't arrive at exactly 1am, and she could hear things on the street while in her house...funny that she doesnt hear Israels events though, huh? Plus....can you please tell me where the cart and horse were when the police arrived?

[Michael W Richards]

Or we could reject the cart before the horse approach, i.e. getting very creative to make the pieces fit, and simply reject Scwartz's evidence completely.

It is rejected as being of any use in the Inquest into how Liz Stride died.

[Cogidubnus]

She heard a cart and horse pass 4 minutes AFTER 1am, so it proves A)Louis didn't arrive at exactly 1am, and she could hear things on the street while in her house...funny that she doesnt hear Israels events though, huh? Plus....can you please tell me where the cart and horse were when the police arrived?

She heard a horse and cart pass approximately four minutes after she went in...was the time she went in exactly 1am GMT...we don't know, but personally I'm dubious...Diemschutz passed the clock in the jewellers at 1am...so you'd expect it to be a little later that he arrived at the yard...how much later? And was Diemschutz observation of the clock correct to GMT? And was the clock set for exact GMT? We don't know Michael...

She could hear things from her bedroom at the front of the house...according to her it was from there she heard footsteps outside, (which took her to the door at just after 1245 wasn't it?), and it was from there she heard Diemschutz's cart....approximately ten minutes, plus four minutes later...When the Schwartz thing went off she was presumably elsewhere in her house, perhaps at the rear...who knows?

You know as well as Jon and I do that timings are necessarily approximate in the LVP (heck they can be today too...get a dozen people to show you their wristwatches!) and things didn't happen with military position with some guy offstage with a stopwatch directing...

Cheers

Dave

PS Where the horse and cart were when the police arrived isn't stated...perhaps it'd been led down the back of the yard, perhaps Mrs Diemschutz had led it elsewhere...why? Is it somehow necessary to your conspiracy?

[Cogidubnus]

It is rejected as being of any use in the Inquest into how Liz Stride died.

With respect we don't know that...We know Schwartz wasn't called to give evidence publicly to the inquest...we do not know why...we do know from Abberline's memorandum of 1st November that the police still believed in Schwartz by that stage...and that was about a week after the Stride Inquest was concluded...

Dave

[packers stem]

With respect we don't know that...We know Schwartz wasn't called to give evidence publicly to the inquest...we do not know why...we do know from Abberline's memorandum of 1st November that the police still believed in Schwartz by that stage...and that was about a week after the Stride Inquest was concluded...

Dave

And that's not enough to raise your suspicions?
The fact that everyone and his dog who saw absolutely nothing of any importance was called but the two people who probably did see something ,namely Schwartz and Packer were not called ?

Another case of "nothing to see here , move along now .... "

[Wickerman]

On your first comment, No Jon, there aren't. There is a witness who by her own admission was at her door "nearly the whole time between half past 12 and 1", and that witness was at her door continuously from 12:50 until 1...verified by her sighting of Goldstein at 12:55ish. She was at her door at 1am, she heard the commotion when she went inside after 1. Spooners account timing agrees with 3 others there that night, some interviewed onsite within an hour of the actual murder. Find me 3 corroborating accounts for Louis, or Morris, Or Lave. Or Schwartz. Or just find me one. Any indication that what the senior club members said wasn't pure bull***.

Michael, please put aside the "nearly the whole time", it does not match the rest of her statement.
Mortimer actually tells us when she went to the door the first time, and how long she stood there.

12:40ish......."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,......she remained standing there ten minutes" (12:50)

12:50......."Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed".....

The next piece is somewhat flexible....it seems her "four minutes" must have been a bit longer. Either that or her "ten minutes" was more like twenty?

"...in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house," (which was at or just after 1:00am)

"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,..." (man passed by about 1:00am)


Mortimer is obviously guessing the times and how long she was at her door & away from her door.

However, PC Smith saw a couple (Stride & Parcel-man) opposite the club (No.40) at 12:35.
As he walked north on Berner he must have passed Mortimer's house at No.36 (are these the footsteps she heard?)
This time is the only anchor we have for the start of her vigil.

So, Mortimer either stood at her door for 10 minutes and was inside for about 14, or she was at her door for 20 minutes and was inside for about 4 minutes. Or, something in between.

Yet, Mortimer claims to have seen Goldstein, who we are told passed by about 1:00am. But she says she saw him "previously", which is on her first vigil, not the second. Which then suggests Mortimer had to have stood at her door for 20 minutes not ten as she guessed.
So this appears to blend Michael's time window with my own.

She went to her door for the first time about 12:40, and stayed there for roughly 20 minutes, until about 1:00am, at which time she returned indoors for a few minutes, and heard Diemshutz arrive, then the commotion. At which point, about 1:05 she returns to her door.

[Cogidubnus]

And that's not enough to raise your suspicions?
The fact that everyone and his dog who saw absolutely nothing of any importance was called but the two people who probably did see something ,namely Schwartz and Packer were not called ?

Another case of "nothing to see here , move along now .... "

I didn't say that it hadn't attracted my attention...It's attracted a lot of people's attention...However, without any further evidence, I'm not yet quite prepared to go as far as Tom Wescott does in Ripper Confidential...For one thing, I'm not even in the same league of knowledge and Tom's is an extremely cleverly constructed theory...I admire both it and him greatly...but personally I'm not even firmly wedded to life with BSM as the killer, Pipeman as a (later) killer or anybody else as a (later) killer...I just feel it's important to keep all the options open, and all the cards on the table until the river card is turned...and I'm afraid until that card turns up then in my honest opinion it all ranges between speculation and conspiracy theory...

Dave

[Joshua Rogan]

We assume it's translated from the Hungarian only because the Star says he was Hungarian, rather than Swanson

Well, they do say he was Hungarian four times, and also "The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand", so I'd say it's a reasonable assumption.

it could have been Yiddish or some other tongue...but yes he was a foreigner and did not speak English, doubtless necessitating a translator...this obviously gives rise to possible misunderstandings either way

Fair point. It needn't actually have been translated from Hungarian. But any level of translation is liable to introduce nuances and variations in meaning, not to mention full blown errors, which may seem insignificant to one side but prove crucial to full understanding.
Misinterpretations happen on this site all the time, yet by-and-large we all speak the same language.

but Schwartz was closely questioned on what he saw, and Swanson is British and does not need a translator

I'm not sure I get your meaning here...I don't think Swanson actually spoke to Schwartz, he relied on Abberline's report of his interrogation, and hence was reliant on the quality of translation in that interview.

"the man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway"

I believe his wording is careful and meaningful...particularly that "but"... if the assailant succeeded in pulling her outside then he would have said so, rather than saying "tried"... and he'd surely have used an "and", rather than "but"

I too believe the "but" is significant. I am suggesting Swanson means that the man intended to pull Stride along after him into the street, but only succeeded in dragging her off her feet and to the ground on the footway.

or are you perhaps confirming my belief that the footway could also mean something other than that out in the street?

Nope, I think the "footway" refers to the pavement, between the carriageway and the gateway.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, please put aside the "nearly the whole time", it does not match the rest of her statement.
Mortimer actually tells us when she went to the door the first time, and how long she stood there.

12:40ish......."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,......she remained standing there ten minutes" (12:50)

12:50......."Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed".....

The next piece is somewhat flexible....it seems her "four minutes" must have been a bit longer. Either that or her "ten minutes" was more like twenty?

"...in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house," (which was at or just after 1:00am)

"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,..." (man passed by about 1:00am)


Mortimer is obviously guessing the times and how long she was at her door & away from her door.

However, PC Smith saw a couple (Stride & Parcel-man) opposite the club (No.40) at 12:35.
As he walked north on Berner he must have passed Mortimer's house at No.36 (are these the footsteps she heard?)
This time is the only anchor we have for the start of her vigil.

So, Mortimer either stood at her door for 10 minutes and was inside for about 14, or she was at her door for 20 minutes and was inside for about 4 minutes. Or, something in between.

Yet, Mortimer claims to have seen Goldstein, who we are told passed by about 1:00am. But she says she saw him "previously", which is on her first vigil, not the second. Which then suggests Mortimer had to have stood at her door for 20 minutes not ten as she guessed.
So this appears to blend Michael's time window with my own.

She went to her door for the first time about 12:40, and stayed there for roughly 20 minutes, until about 1:00am, at which time she returned indoors for a few minutes, and heard Diemshutz arrive, then the commotion. At which point, about 1:05 she returns to her door.

Jon,

"Mrs Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy, has made the following statement:- "I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock on Sunday morning, and did not notice anything unusual. As the body when found was quite warm, 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 just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man 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".

Its pretty clear to me that she says she stood, "nearly the whole time" at her door between 12:30 and 1. Yes, she wasnt there continuously, but why you would ignore "nearly the whole " is beyond me. You've decided that this means she was away from her door more than she says she was. Im unsure why, but your call I suppose.

Goldstein passed around 12:55, not after 1, that's why she had seen him on her "previous" time...previous to just after 1...at her door.

Your last line is interesting, so...if she was at her door now 20 minutes as you say, from 12:40 until 1, where is Eagle, Lave, Schwartz, Pipeman, BSM, Spooner....et al. Its clear she wasn't at her door at around 12:40-45 if they are telling the truth. So, either they are all invisible to her, people lied, or your skewed interpretation of what she clearly stated is incorrect. For me her clarity is obvious, and the fact she indicates she saw a young couple on the street and someone passing the gates at around 12:55...the first is corroborated by Brown, the second by Goldsteins admission, ..means she saw no-one else during that time.

[Michael W Richards]

Lest anyone forget, corroboration is a big part of acceptance, and in this case, we have the most contentious statements without any corroboration.

Louis,(on his arrival time): None
Eagle: None
Lave: None
Schwartz: None
Brown: 1 other witness on the young couple seen in the area
Fanny: 1 other witness on the young couple she saw, Goldstein's statement about his time passing the club.
Spooner: Issac K, Gillen, Heschburg.

Are you aware that Issac K, the young helper around the club, not only corroborates Spooners time estimate for the passageway, he also says that Louis sent him out for help alone shortly after 12:45, an unmentioned solo search party in Louis's remarks? Do you know if Israel lived in one of those passageway cottages up until that day? Trick question...no-one knows where he moved from that day. But it easily could have been in one of the cottages. Do you know that it was customary to have skits and plays at these meetings? Israel..."theatrical appearance". Do you know that people in the cottages were awake at the time of the murder, one was Lave. Others were cigarette makers.....hmm, Goldstein passes the gates with a black bag containing empty cigarette cartons...was he intending to drop in on a cigarette maker who was awake at 12:55am? Maybe. If so, what might change his mind, his glance into the passageway? Maybe. If Issac K, Gillen, Spooner and Heschburg were correct about the time they all say they were by the body, then Goldstein would have seen a few people hunched there.