The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[Michael W Richards]

To address the posts countering my perceptions, let me reiterate that a very sound reason any of the club staffers would have to alter some facts would be to protect the club and in turn their livelihood. This club in particular was not well thought of, I suspect that's the case with others too. Late nights, Noisy..."low men"..that was their reputation. A murder suspected to have been done by someone at the club would have closed it down promptly. So when I look at the contradictory and skewed accounts for the time around 12:40-12:45 and know that the evidence suggests that Liz was likely cut around 12:46-12:56, I have to look for who among those witnesses seems trustworthy at face value. Cause that all we got, we know very little about any of them. In this case I see the non-affiliated off site witnesses as most likely to have been impartial. They have no horse in this race. If Im correct, the fact that their times contradict some key points found within the 4 stories with substantial corroboration among them, casts some serious doubts upon the integrity of those accounts.

To Jon, anyone at the club could have been sent to stable the cart, (I believe it was in George Street/Yard though if memory serves), and my question to you about who mentions the cart and pony when the police arrive is more important than you give credit. They pose a sizeable obstacle to a group of onlookers and newly arriving officials. Where did they go, who took them and when are very relevant issues.

To be clear...I am suggesting that a murder was discovered, likely by Louis, on the property around 12:40-12:45. He called for some members to the scene. Actions were delayed due to some strategic considerations being assessed. One club member is sent out at that time for help. The cart and horse are taken away, and the response plan is initiated with 2 search parties being sent this time. The first party meets one of them on his way back. This all happens fairly quickly, and the 2 search parties are likely dispatched before Goldstein enters the picture...all he sees are the other men gathered around the body and someone waving him away.

Not an unrealistic scenario in my view, and Im not pointing culpability for the murder itself on anyone. Im just suggesting that the evidence says that the person most probably came from the club, and therefore that makes this a public relations problem with severe potential consequences for anyone making their living there. I think that rationale explains a lot of what Israel comes forward to say, when considering he also knows Wess from a few years back in Paris, as I believe Debra discovered in her research. An offsite assault no less, by a likely gentile. That should clear up any suspicions about one of our anarchist Socialist Jews at the club at that time being the bad guy.

[Michael W Richards]

You have what appears to be a murder at a bikers club, you have unaffiliated passers by as witnesses who saw some things, and you have bikers from the club who all saw nothing during the same times that the passers by say they saw events,.. not even each other when in the same place at the same time...and Im to take the bikers word over the bystanders? Why would I do that?

[Joshua Rogan]

anyone at the club could have been sent to stable the cart, (I believe it was in George Street/Yard though if memory serves)

Daily Telegraph, etc.
"What did you do with the pony? - I left it in the yard by itself, just outside the club door"

Morning Advertiser
"By a Juror.-Was there room for you to have passed the body with your cart?-Oh, yes. Mine is not a very wide cart; it only took up the centre of the passage. If my pony had not shied, perhaps I would not have noticed it at all. When I got down my cart passed the body. The barrow was past the body when I got down to see what it was"

Evening News, A woman who lives 2 doors from the club; "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."

Did she remark that it was the second time the cart had passed? I don't think so.

To be clear...I am suggesting that a murder was discovered, likely by Louis, on the property around 12:40-12:45. He called for some members to the scene. Actions were delayed due to some strategic considerations being assessed. One club member is sent out at that time for help. The cart and horse are taken away, and the response plan is initiated with 2 search parties being sent this time. The first party meets one of them on his way back. This all happens fairly quickly, and the 2 search parties are likely dispatched before Goldstein enters the picture...all he sees are the other men gathered around the body and someone waving him away.

All this was going on while Fanny was at her door "nearly the whole time between half past twelve and one o'clock" and noting the "quiet and deserted nature of the street"?
Really?

[Michael W Richards]

Daily Telegraph, etc.
"What did you do with the pony? - I left it in the yard by itself, just outside the club door"

Morning Advertiser
"By a Juror.-Was there room for you to have passed the body with your cart?-Oh, yes. Mine is not a very wide cart; it only took up the centre of the passage. If my pony had not shied, perhaps I would not have noticed it at all. When I got down my cart passed the body. The barrow was past the body when I got down to see what it was"

Evening News, A woman who lives 2 doors from the club; "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."

Did she remark that it was the second time the cart had passed? I don't think so.



All this was going on while Fanny was at her door "nearly the whole time between half past twelve and one o'clock" and noting the "quiet and deserted nature of the street"?
Really?

Not sure how you arrived at 2 passes, she only heard the cart and pony once. Your last quoted line raises a great question but again I have no idea why youd then look for less probable and uncorroborated answers to it. She was at her door, by her statement from 12:50 until 1. No Louis arriving, no cart leaving at that time. That means the cart was moved after 1, not before as I suggested. Ok. That's fine.

Too bad people don't seem to get what Im saying, because it could mean if correct that the cart may have actually disturbed the killer, if he disturbed her around the time she was cut by the 12:46-12:56 estimate time. It could be used against me...to counter what Ive said so many times here... there is no evidence any interruption occurred. If he arrived when she was cut, there could have been been. Course, it that was the case, he could have cut her too.

[Wickerman]

To address the posts countering my perceptions, let me reiterate that a very sound reason any of the club staffers would have to alter some facts would be to protect the club and in turn their livelihood. This club in particular was not well thought of, I suspect that's the case with others too. Late nights, Noisy..."low men"..that was their reputation. A murder suspected to have been done by someone at the club would have closed it down promptly. So when I look at the contradictory and skewed accounts for the time around 12:40-12:45 and know that the evidence suggests that Liz was likely cut around 12:46-12:56, I have to look for who among those witnesses seems trustworthy at face value. Cause that all we got, we know very little about any of them. In this case I see the non-affiliated off site witnesses as most likely to have been impartial. They have no horse in this race. If Im correct, the fact that their times contradict some key points found within the 4 stories with substantial corroboration among them, casts some serious doubts upon the integrity of those accounts.

To Jon, anyone at the club could have been sent to stable the cart, (I believe it was in George Street/Yard though if memory serves), and my question to you about who mentions the cart and pony when the police arrive is more important than you give credit. They pose a sizeable obstacle to a group of onlookers and newly arriving officials. Where did they go, who took them and when are very relevant issues.

To be clear...I am suggesting that a murder was discovered, likely by Louis, on the property around 12:40-12:45. He called for some members to the scene. Actions were delayed due to some strategic considerations being assessed. One club member is sent out at that time for help. The cart and horse are taken away, and the response plan is initiated with 2 search parties being sent this time. The first party meets one of them on his way back. This all happens fairly quickly, and the 2 search parties are likely dispatched before Goldstein enters the picture...all he sees are the other men gathered around the body and someone waving him away.

Not an unrealistic scenario in my view, and Im not pointing culpability for the murder itself on anyone. Im just suggesting that the evidence says that the person most probably came from the club, and therefore that makes this a public relations problem with severe potential consequences for anyone making their living there. I think that rationale explains a lot of what Israel comes forward to say, when considering he also knows Wess from a few years back in Paris, as I believe Debra discovered in her research. An offsite assault no less, by a likely gentile. That should clear up any suspicions about one of our anarchist Socialist Jews at the club at that time being the bad guy.

Michael.

You have invented your own drama which bares little resemblance to the stated testimony. You still want Deimshutz to discover the body, but at 12:45, when he specifically said 1:00am.
You then offer a plot to justify why so many witness statements do not support your theory, they are lying to protect the institution, which is another excuse you have to invent to protect the first invention.

None of this theory is suggested by the evidence. Rather, it seems to me you have created this theory to tie certain pieces of evidence together.

Just bear with me here.
It is universally recognised on academic forums that evidence speaks to the inquiry.
Though it is also admitted that evidence needs to be interpreted. And, as a result, we can have more than one interpretation of what the evidence is telling us.
The key here though is, let the evidence speak.

What is an absolute no no! is, the inquiry cannot change the evidence. ALL the evidence is to be taken as given, not cherry pick what fits and make excuses for what doesn't.
A great deal of what posters write on Casebook is contrary to good research practices. The reason is plain to see, the poster has an idea to promote or theory to defend.

From what you wrote I can see you have created a story that fits some pieces of testimony, but only some, and that's the problem.
A true theory, the only viable theory, is the one that fits ALL the known facts/evidence. When there are facts which do not fit the theory, then the theory is flawed, it's false.
You have too many facts which do not fit the theory.

[Michael W Richards]

Jon, Im beginning to have my doubts that you are able to step off your high horse for a moment and see how contradictory youre becoming, or that you are able to understand the concepts of bias and self preseravtion with respect to individuals, but for the record;

1. The evidence includes statements from witnesses
2. Fannys statement says that no-one was anywhere near the gates from 12:50 until 1am, only Goldsteins passing at 12:55.
3. Louis's statement say that a 1am precisely is when he arrived...(are you finally seeing his problem Jon?)
4. Louis makes his living from the club, Fanny does not.
5. By the statements, which are evidence... 2 club witnesses are in the same place at the same time, 12:40 and neither sees the other, a witness comes forward Sun night to claim he was on the street with the dead woman and 2 other men at 12:45, another witness says he saw the same woman with a man down the street at the same time, (12:45), 3 club witnesses and 1 outside witness say they were by a dying woman with Louis at 12:45 inside the passageway...15 minutes before Louis says he arrived, 1 club witness says he "couldnt be sure whether he walked past a woman dying in the passageway at 12:40.
6. The statements above shows us clearly that some witnesses were either very wrong, very imaginative, or lying. The statements therefore cannot coexist as trustworthy "evidence". The investigator must then re-evaluate what motivations might affect a truthful account from being given.

Men with their jobs on the line give statements that directly contradict people who had no profit or loss motivations, surely you understand the basic nature of human beings dont you Jon? ITs inconceivable that anyone would approach these crimes without at least that in their arsenal. That people lie all the time to avoid being blamed for something, or to conceal their guilt about something, that people sometimes kill other people just because they got angry for a split second. That people lie to protect friends, that people lie to protect reputations..that people lie sometimes for money..You lecture me about "the evidence" like Im not using exactly whats is there on the pages, then deny the existence of the evidence because you dont like what Ive concluded from it. Thats too bad, but Im not losing any sleep over it. Ive followed the evidence, maybe if you did too this wouldnt be so difficult for you. I see this trait again in the Lewis/Kennedy delusions of yours.

Well Jon, the overwhelming majority from within the EVIDENCE GIVEN BY WITNESSES, is that 4 witnesses statements say that they were in the passageway with Louis at 12:45, and as such are corroborated accounts. They are the ONLY corroberated stories from club witnesses, and the only story that has both club witnesses and an outside witness without bias agreeing on a specific range of time for being by the body..12:40-12:45.

In criminal investigations the evidence constructs the story. The evidence here obviously reveals that some witness stories are unusable in the form that they are given. The ones that fall into that category are Lave, Eagle, Schwartz, and Louis. All with club bias. Fannys is fine...despite the fact she contradicts Louis and others, Browns is fine although what people make of it is often "creative", and Spooners suggestion of when he was in the passageway IS CORROBERATED BY 3 OTHER WITNESSES. The fact they disagree with Louis should be an indication you are backing the wrong person, but oddly its not. You choose to believe what you want despite the contrary evidence.

There is one story that is representative of what happened that night in Berner Street, a factual event, that you dont like what I suggest that might be, thats fine. But dont post bulls*** like Im the one ignoring the evidence, or Im the one incapable of viewing this objectively. Head out the sand but, there is nothing to fear in the truth Jon. Liz Stride was a victim of an exceedingly brief and fatal altercation on the property of Jews who were considered Anarchists and Low Men by their neighbors and the police. Thats the simple truth.

Ive never espoused a complete theory about any of these murders in over 30 years since I began the study, I have no "suspect", I dont believe I must presume that the Canonical Five is accurate, and in this murder case, I dont see any evidence at all that indicates that Liz Strides murder is anything other than a simple murder of passion...in this case likely brief anger. And I think Ive got a better grasp on you about how disappointingly consistent abhorrent human behaviour is. People kill, people lie all the time, and many times its for gain or self preservation. Louis has both of those motivations. So does Eagle. Fanny has neither, nor does Brown or Spooner.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

Simply having a motive does NOT NECESSARILY mean that someone engaged in a crime. You have to have evidence to support that conclusion. Since you strongly believe the club members had a motive you see their actions in that light. Those of us not wearing "motive glasses" don't see it.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Jon, Im beginning to have my doubts that you are able to step off your high horse for a moment and see how contradictory youre becoming, or that you are able to understand the concepts of bias and self preseravtion with respect to individuals,...

Perhaps it's the bar that I set too high, not the horse. To promote a viable theory certain guidelines need to be followed, and all verbal evidence needs to be treated equally unless, or until something surfaces to the contrary.
The key question is always, "what does the evidence suggest?", not what can I say it means.
You've created a motive, right?
Even though Deimschutz has a market stall at Westow Hill, you say he earns his living from the Club. Certainly he acts as steward, and very likely in return he gets free accommodation at the club. Was he paid by the club? _ I don't know.
Why would he loose anything if a murder took place on the property?

As the club was a political enterprise then the only reason the authorities would have for shutting it down would be due to political activity against the government, or radical activity causing civic trouble.
If a member turned out to be a murderer, he would be dealt with like any other murderer. There would be no reflection on the club. This is the fictional aspect to the motive.

but for the record;

1. The evidence includes statements from witnesses
2. Fannys statement says that no-one was anywhere near the gates from 12:50 until 1am, only Goldsteins passing at 12:55.

She doesn't say that though.
She admits to being out for 10 minutes after those heavy footsteps, but she then went inside, only to return to her door after 1:00am

She says: "I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside,..."

It would appear the murder occurred in those few short minutes when she was inside between her first and second stint at her door.

3. Louis's statement say that a 1am precisely is when he arrived...(are you finally seeing his problem Jon?)
4. Louis makes his living from the club, Fanny does not.
5. By the statements, which are evidence... 2 club witnesses are in the same place at the same time, 12:40 and neither sees the other, a witness comes forward Sun night to claim he was on the street with the dead woman and 2 other men at 12:45, another witness says he saw the same woman with a man down the street at the same time, (12:45), 3 club witnesses and 1 outside witness say they were by a dying woman with Louis at 12:45 inside the passageway...15 minutes before Louis says he arrived, 1 club witness says he "couldnt be sure whether he walked past a woman dying in the passageway at 12:40.
6. The statements above shows us clearly that some witnesses were either very wrong, very imaginative, or lying. The statements therefore cannot coexist as trustworthy "evidence". The investigator must then re-evaluate what motivations might affect a truthful account from being given.

Of course we have conflict in the stated times. This has been a well known problem, yet getting the times wrong does not necessarily mean subterfuge or some clandestine motive.
Regular people just did not know the correct time, rounding up or down was pretty normal especially when there's only about 7 minutes between 12:30 and 12:45. By that I mean if you dont think 7 minutes has passed when an incident occurred since the last clock chime you heard, then it's about 12:30. If you think more than 7 minutes has passed then it's about 12:45.
That's how people without a watch got through the day.

Men with their jobs on the line give statements that directly contradict people who had no profit or loss motivations, surely you understand the basic nature of human beings dont you Jon?

I understand you Michael, I just don't see the motive as warranted. In my view no jobs were at risk because of this murder.

The weakest link in this motive is that you are talking about the Stride murder as if the Eddowes murder had never happened.
Why would the police suspect a club member when the next murder happened in the City ten minutes walk away?
It wasn't as if the police didn't suspect this was a double event from the start.
The argument that "because it happened on club property we need to invent a bunch of lies to protect the club" is immediately scuttled by the Eddowes murder.

In criminal investigations the evidence constructs the story. The evidence here obviously reveals that some witness stories are unusable in the form that they are given. The ones that fall into that category are Lave, Eagle, Schwartz, and Louis. All with club bias. Fannys is fine...despite the fact she contradicts Louis and others, Browns is fine although what people make of it is often "creative", and Spooners suggestion of when he was in the passageway IS CORROBERATED BY 3 OTHER WITNESSES. The fact they disagree with Louis should be an indication you are backing the wrong person, but oddly its not. You choose to believe what you want despite the contrary evidence.

Yet, I hold the conventional view, but you try to make out it's the fringe view.

There is one story that is representative of what happened that night in Berner Street, a factual event, that you dont like what I suggest that might be, thats fine.

'Like' doesn't come into it. It's a matter of how to accept the inconsistencies and which stories are justified by the evidence.

Liz Stride was a victim of an exceedingly brief and fatal altercation on the property of Jews who were considered Anarchists and Low Men by their neighbors and the police. Thats the simple truth.

I don't think anyone is denying that, it's what you create in consequence of your belief that most do not agree with.
You argue there was an serious threat against the club, other's including me do not see one.

Ive never espoused a complete theory about any of these murders in over 30 years since I began the study, I have no "suspect", I dont believe I must presume that the Canonical Five is accurate, and in this murder case, I dont see any evidence at all that indicates that Liz Strides murder is anything other than a simple murder of passion...in this case likely brief anger. And I think Ive got a better grasp on you about how disappointingly consistent abhorrent human behaviour is. People kill, people lie all the time, and many times its for gain or self preservation. Louis has both of those motivations. So does Eagle. Fanny has neither, nor does Brown or Spooner.

Fair enough, you're committed to your belief, and yes of course people lie. Though accusing someone of lying just to rationalize your theory is wrong.
What evidence do you have that anyone was lying?
I say "None!".
In this case you're suggesting they lied as a form of self preservation, to protect the club, but this isn't even believable. The future of the club was not in jeopardy.

Was there a written warning against this club by the police? If any member breaks any law one more time we're shutting you down?
This would support your argument, it would at least be evidence.

[Michael W Richards]

As I said Jon, the accounts by the all the witnesses cannot be reconciled with one another, but some do corroborate others. None of the stories given by the club staffers have any corroboration. Yet 4 independent witnesses corroborate each other on the time they were first aware of what went on. There is a small and understandable difference in them, (due to as you point out often the difficulty in getting accurate timings here), ranging from 12:40 until 12:45. Their stories contain the same scenario, arriving in the passageway to find people around a woman dying inside the gates. Since another independent witness saw no-one enter or leave the yard from 12:50 until 1am, corroborated by Leon Goldsteins report Tuesday night that he walked past the gates around 12:55, which was also in Fannys report. It proves she was there at that time. She did not hear or see a cart and horse before going in at 1am, yet Louis says he arrived "precisely at 1" because he took note of a local clock. She would have seen him approach if he was correct.

"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... There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe anyone enter the gates. It was just 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." Daily Telegraph, Oct 1st.

That means Fanny went indoors at 1am, and when she was inside and preparing for bed, she heard a "commotion". She went back outside...and she recalled that while she was at the door previously...from 12:50 until 1, she saw only Leon slide by the gates. We also know that she saw a young couple near to where James Brown says he saw a young couple at 12:45. Yet all the activity claimed within the staffers and mystery witness Schwartz between 12:30 and 12:45, she somehow missed. We know she was at her door when she said she was, and we know that 4 witnesses said they were inside the passageway by the dying woman by 12:45, therefore out of sight to Fanny at her door.

Im trying to show you Jon that as is these stories cannot all be true. Some may be incorrect accidentally or without predjudicial influence, or some may be lies. If some are lies, then who were most likely the liars?

[Wickerman]

....... corroborated by Leon Goldsteins report Tuesday night that he walked past the gates around 12:55, which was also in Fannys report. It proves she was there at that time.

Yes it does, that piece is not in dispute, however you then say:

She did not hear or see a cart and horse before going in at 1am, yet Louis says he arrived "precisely at 1" because he took note of a local clock. She would have seen him approach if he was correct.

No she wouldn't see him.
Mortimer had been inside (she said) "about 4 minutes" when she heard the horse & cart arrive:

"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."

She also says:

"It was just 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,....."

That means Fanny went indoors at 1am,....

No Michael, she went indoors "about 4 minutes" before the cart arrived at 1:00am, this was "the commotion" (at 1:00am), the discovery of the body.


The timing attributed to Mortimer is not difficult to determine, provided we allow a few minutes either way.

Mortimer first claims "nearly the whole time between 12:30 - 1:00", but then her own story narrows that down considerably.

She was at her door twice, the first time after she heard footsteps pass her house "shortly before quarter to one" which could be PC Smith leaving and she stood there for about 10 minutes.
So if you allow a bit of flexibility she may have stood there from 12:45 to 12:55, and she caught Leon Goldstein pass by just before she went inside.

Mortimer had seen inside for "about 4 minutes", when she heard the cart arrive.

[Michael W Richards]

I now see where you are getting your position from Jon, it makes the posts you've made clearer. You are of the erroneous belief that Fanny went indoors at 12:56, when in fact she stated clearly she was at her door" from 12:50 until 1am" continuously. Had you been using that quote from her we could have saved many pages of debate. The "nearly the whole time" refers to the 1/2 hours block of time, which I concede means she was at her door off and on until 12:50. She says she went in at 1, not 12:56.

She was at her door at 1, she went inside, and soon thereafter heard the "commotion", which coincides with the 2 search parties being sent after 1am. No issues there, Ive never suggested the time that Eagle and Diemshitz say they went out for help was a fib...I am suggesting using 4 witnesses statements that they were inside the passageway by the body around 15 minutes earlier. They decide what to do, then they did it. Not hard to comprehend really. Louis was not seen or heard approaching at that time, probably because as 4 people stated, he was already in the passageway. I don't have any issues with him and Eagle leaving after 1 to get help, but Issac K clearly says he was sent BY Louis around 12:45 for help...a mission that none of the club staff mentioned later.

My bet is that Louis arrived when the 4 witnesses say they heard of the dead woman, and that Fanny wasn't at her door at the moment he arrived, because she said she was at her door "nearly" the whole time between 12:30 and 1. That means he arrived right around the same time as Israel Schwartz says he saw the victim alive on the street outside the gates being accosted by a gentile while a smoking man watched. Where the hell all these people suddenly come from, when Lave, Eagle, and Mortimer say the street was deserted is up to your own imagination I suppose, like it was Israels, but Im sure the officials leaving him out of the Inquest addresses what they really thought of his story.

To cd....the only crime I suggest they committed is that they lied about the time from the discovery to seeking help. I don't know who killed her, I do believe that its likely he came from club property though.

[Wickerman]

I now see where you are getting your position from Jon, it makes the posts you've made clearer. You are of the erroneous belief that Fanny went indoors at 12:56, when in fact she stated clearly she was at her door" from 12:50 until 1am" continuously. Had you been using that quote from her we could have saved many pages of debate. The "nearly the whole time" refers to the 1/2 hours block of time, which I concede means she was at her door off and on until 12:50. She says she went in at 1, not 12:56.

Thankyou for explaining your theory in more detail. Though I still do not see it from your point of view.
Before blending all the other witness statements in to the scenario I think it is necessary to make sure we have Mortimer's story as clear as we can.

You will have noticed over all these years we've been here on Casebook how the majority of estimated times given by common people are rounded out to the quarter-hour, like 5:15, 6:30, 12:45, 3:00, etc...

The day of the common person was governed by the chimes of the local clocks. So everyone judged whatever they were doing by the nearest chime they heard to the event they are talking about. No-one had to say "because I heard the chime....", it was taken for granted, justifying it was redundant.
The common person, policemen, shop workers, businessmen all held the same view, this was how they all monitored their day. So when Mortimer says "nearly the whole time between 12:30 & 1:00" it is simply because her attendance at her door began sometime before or after 12:30, and finished sometime before or after 1:00am.

She then refines this time window by mentioning the footsteps (heavy tramp) which she heard "shortly before a quarter to one", then went to the door, at which point she says she stayed there "ten minutes".
We also know she says that on this first vigil she saw Goldstein pass down the street, which has been stated elsewhere as at about 12:55. So the picture is now becoming clearer.

If we permit her a little flexibility due to her having no watch or clock to go by, then she first stood at her door from about 12:40-5 to about 12:50-5, and this latter time (12:55) is consistent with the passing of Goldstein.

We can add to this the fact she also claims to have been inside "for about 4 minutes" when she hears the horse & cart arrive followed by the commotion.
"...in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house"

Deimschutz did say he arrived about 1:00am, and Mortimer also says: "It was soon after one o'clock when I went out,..."

All this Michael is very, very basic. Very easy to understand. Because we now have a demonstrably clear framework we can now add the statements of all the other witness.
As we can see, West, Lave, etc., all passed in/out of the yard (about 12:40) before Mortimer came to stand at her door, so their contributions add nothing to the scenario.

What this also shows is that if Schwartz had the time right (12:45), he should have been seen by Mortimer, but if this altercation took place just before Mortimer came to the door it would/should have been witnessed by West or Lave. If it happened just minutes before they both used the yard or front door then it should have been witnessed by PC Smith.
None of which appears to be the case.

[Michael W Richards]

I know that on many occasions her comments state pretty clearly..." I went in at 1:00" Jon, though I see you'll stick with your interpretation of the times given and event schedules anyway. So be it. But as to the access to time pieces, it seems interesting to me that of the 4 people who said they were by the body at 12:45, 3 of them had come out from inside the club, where Im pretty sure larger timepieces would be readily available. Only 1 estimated, ..and curiously, his time matched the three others anyway. Imagine that. 4 witnesses claim to have been by the body at 12:45. Let that settle in. 4. There are no witnesses who saw Louis arrive, there are no witnesses who saw Israel Schwartz, no witnesses saw Liz Stride outside the passageway after 12:35, other than the aforementioned Israel Schwartz, who no-one saw, ...no one saw Eagle arrive, 2 witnesses saw a young couple, and 1 witness saw a man pass by the gates around 12:55...which the passing man later agrees with in his statement Tuesday night. No-one heard "Lipski", other than Mr Schwartz, no-one saw Pipeman, other than Mr Schwartz, and no-one saw a Broad shouldered man on the street,...except of course Mr Schwartz. Yet Fanny was at her door throughout that last half hour, she only saw the maidenfernless young couple, whom Brown also saw.

You've categorically dismissed 4 corroborating stories in favour of others that have no corroboration at all. Does that seem prudent to you Jon? I laughed when you said " all this Michael is very,very basic "...like I just missed the obvious somehow , but I find a lot to support my contentions here and little, if any, to support what you seem adamant to support, the conflicting and puzzling mess of stories and timings that do not line up in any way...no matter how liberal you decide to be with exact times. I find it interesting how often the times are assumed incorrect because they don't fit with the preconceptions. Although If I recall you also support Carrie Maxwell too, correct me please if I am mistaken.

[Joshua Rogan]

I find it interesting how often the times are assumed incorrect because they don't fit with the preconceptions

It's got nothing to do with preconceptions, and everything to do with the events described. If Heshberg says that he was alerted to the murder by the sound of police whistles, that means the police were at the gates before Heshberg, whatever time he thought it might be. If Spooner estimates that he arrived at the club at 12:35 and that the first PC arrived four or five minutes later, that means the police were at the scene as early as 12:40. Or Spooner wasn't very good at estimating times.
Do you think the police were at the scene by 12:45, as these two witnesses show?

[Michael W Richards]

It's got nothing to do with preconceptions, and everything to do with the events described. If Heshberg says that he was alerted to the murder by the sound of police whistles, that means the police were at the gates before Heshberg, whatever time he thought it might be. If Spooner estimates that he arrived at the club at 12:35 and that the first PC arrived four or five minutes later, that means the police were at the scene as early as 12:40. Or Spooner wasn't very good at estimating times.
Do you think the police were at the scene by 12:45, as these two witnesses show?

It has everything to do with preconceptions Josh, you should know that. One is that "whistle" he heard. Since he did not see who blew it, and therefore didn't know where it came from, he might have heard the sound from anywhere. Particularly if he was upstairs in the back of the club. That whistle is just one inconsistency among 4 accounts, yet that's what is most relevant to you? Spooner says he made his way to outside the Beehive with his young lady after the pub closed at midnight, he also says he was there about 20 minutes, that's closer to 12:40-45 than 12:30. Plus, we know PC Smith, another witness without bias, saw Liz at 12:35, but didn't see Spooner.

When the arguments with me consist of assumptions about who had the time wrong or hang on the presumption that 1 minor inconsistency among a group of witnesses negates them all, there is no need to post them. They are just attempts to discredit an idea, not a real debate about what can be used as legitimate evidence.

Ive said what I believe those 4 witnesses, Fanny Mortimer, PC Smith and James Brown statements add up to, and Ive pointed out that none of the club staffers have any corroboration, nor does their star witness, Schwartz. If you want to use only those stories, have at it, but don't use them as real rebuttal because I don't take the word of any individual uncorroborated witness to construct a plausible, reality based event.

We have a situation where Socialist Anarchists that were thought of locally as Low Men "found" a dying woman, and told stories that include times and events that no other witness validates. Credibility is a huge issue here. And Liability.