The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[caz]

You do not believe that "these extra dramatic comings and goings" occurred, or at least did not occur when Michael claims they did, and yet Fanny's non-witnessing of these events - supposed or actual - still counts against Fanny's reliability as a witness? That is completely arbitrary.

Your reference to "a doorstep dwelling busybody", suggests that you regard Fanny Mortimer with disdain. Presumably she is a threat to things you wish to believe were true, and wish others to also believe.

You misunderstood the direction of my sarcasm, NBFN.

A bit like Schwartz misunderstanding the direction of the highly charged "Lipski!"

I wasn't really referring to Fanny's reliability, but to the fact that she admitted to hearing and seeing very little of any real evidential value during that entire half hour: she heard heavy footsteps between 12.30 and 12.45; and saw a man with a black bag between 12.45 and 1am. That was pretty much it, until she heard a pony and cart shortly before the sounds of the commotion in and around the yard. Not her fault at all, and she had to estimate the times and the intervals just like anyone else in her situation.

Incidentally, what a stroke of luck for Louis D, if he lied about his arrival time and delayed raising the alarm for up to twenty minutes, that someone else's pony and cart should have been audible to Fanny at a time which was consistent with Louis acting immediately on his grim discovery. Or did luck have nothing to do with it? Did the crafty so-and-so wait for Fanny to lock up and prepare for bed, then take his pony and cart round the block, so she would hear him coming and assume it was for the first time that night?

Today's theorists only get to play around with the comings and goings, adding or taking away at their leisure, because Fanny managed to miss so much of the known action, through no fault of her own.

It was not my argument that she was out on her doorstep for almost the entire half hour, making her not only appear like a 'doorstep dwelling busybody', but a particularly ineffectual one at that.

Is that how long it would take? So tell us how long Stride had been standing in the gateway, prior to Schwartz turning into Berner street. Then tell us how long she remained at the gateway after BS had left the scene. Or was BS the murderer? Apparently you know the answer, because it was apparently all over in the time it would take to take a pee.

What Schwartz described could all have been over in that time. Even if we take Schwartz out of the equation as an inconvenient witness, we know Stride was seen there on Berner Street alive and well, after 12.30, and that at some point she entered the yard for whatever reason, to be found dead there within the same half hour. Fanny never saw the woman. So she must have been indoors all the while Stride would have been visible from Fanny's doorstep. We don't know exactly how long that would have been before Stride was out of sight inside the yard, or if her killer was visible for any of that time, but Fanny saw nothing and nobody. How long she would have needed to be indoors to miss all that we know happened is anyone's guess.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I can see what you mean and have re-read Lamb's statement a dozen times, but just can't agree with your suggestion. Lamb replied to a question at the inquest saying that he passed the intersection of Commercial Road and Berner Street 6-7 minutes before he arrived at Dutfields yard. (There are those who insist he was 6 minutes out in this estimate.) The tobacconist clock that Diemshitz claimed to have viewed is at that intersection. I am in the minority of those who believe that Lamb is more likely to have looked at that clock on one or both occassions that he passed it than did Diemshitz. So Lamb, on his normal beat, passes that intersection headed east on the way to the fixed point at Grove St. He then turns around and heads west on his normal beat. In his testimony he is stating a time and place for when the two men were running towards him shouting. A minute or two later, at about 1 o'clock, he is in Dutfields yard and Smith stated that he was at the intersection of Commercial Road and Berner Street at one o'clock, the same time that Diemshitz said he was turning into Berner St from Commercial Road. Remembering that in every other statement before the inquest he said he turned into Berner St at his usual time of about one o'clock, except for one statement where he said 12:45 because he came home early due to the rain, are you going to say that Diemshitz was right and two police constables were wrong? That is not to suggest that Diemshitz was deliberately lying. Witnesses are known for sub consciously augmenting what they actually saw and he may have just firmed up his "usual time" for the inquest.

I asked Monty the question: how important was correct time to police constables. His reply was very important. I think it is time to determine an answer for the question: How did police constables keep an accurate track on time without pocket watches. I suspect that perhaps the overseeing seargent would set a pocket watch to GMT from the telegraphed time at the local police station and then provide clock corrections for clocks on the PC's rounds, but I'll follow that up.

Cheers, George

'Remembering that in every other statement before the inquest he said he turned into Berner St at his usual time of about one o'clock, except for one statement where he said 12:45 because he came home early due to the rain...'

Hi George,

Could you source this for me please, as I could have sworn the report you appear to be thinking of said something quite different? I thought Louis consistently said he noted the time as being one o'clock, but expanded on this in one article to say this was not his usual time, because he had left the Westow Hill market early due to the poor weather, so would normally have arrived back later than one o'clock. At the time I read the article in question, I thought this sounded consistent with his wife saying he had "suddenly" appeared at the kitchen door, as if she hadn't expected him back quite so soon. And she confirmed the one o'clock time, didn't she?

I don't recall reading anything to suggest that Louis had deviated from his one o'clock arrival/discovery time, let alone that he had slipped up somewhere along the line and said it was 12.45. Perhaps someone should have alerted Michael Richards to this bombshell a lot sooner.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

FM: 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 around the corner by the Board School.

That was previously. Think about that word George - it is redundant if Fanny only saw him once.

The 'previously' simply refers to when Fanny had last been out on her doorstep, prior to going out soon after one. On that previous occasion the only man she saw was the one with the bag. She didn't mean that she saw the same man again when she went out soon after one.

It's all in the language, and it can be tricky for some people even when there is no room for interpretation, as in this case.

Fanny saw this man once, and it shouldn't need saying twice, never mind umpteen times.

[caz]

Like the club members that all said they were there by the woman at 12:40, based on the clock all would be able to use in the club.

Yellow card, Michael! In the sin bin for ten, unless you have a source for any of your club members saying they knew it was 12.40, based on seeing that clock and noting the time.

Fanny was at her door throughout that half hour, when the specific intervals were we dont know for sure, but we do know that it was her belief she was there "nearly the whole time". There are events that are claimed around 12:40 that no-one else sees...likely Louis and Eagle returning, you would have Liz and BSM near the spot where the approaching Schwartz witnesses his assault....( this isnt my validation of his story at all, but just to make the point),.... you have Spooner coming into the yard, you have a few things that Fanny doesnt see and yet happened..but they happen within maybe a third of that 30 minutes period. So, if she is out of sight for 10 minutes of 30, might she feel that she was at the door most of that time?

How is that relevant? If Fanny did believe she was at the door "nearly the whole time", then good for her, but we know she couldn't have been - or else she was the least observant witness in the entire case and as much use to its solution as a stopped clock. Not as useful in fact, because even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Fanny was at her door throughout that half hour, when the specific intervals were we dont know for sure, but we do know that it was her belief she was there "nearly the whole time"

Why do you keep repeating this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
No it doesn’t. The ‘incident’ is purely what occurred in Berner Street. We can’t stretch it out just to make it more unlikely to have been missed.

That is just funny.

…..

Why funny?

We’re talking about the time that Schwartz would have been in sight of Mortimer had she been on her doorstep and not when he’d turned the corner.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=NotBlamedForNothing;.[/QUOTE]


Me: After Schwartz turned out of Berner Street no one saw him or took notice of him.

NBFN: Unlike the part in Berner street, witnessed by dozens?

Please, there’s only so much laughable nonsense I can cope with at a time. Who are these hoards of people who all must have seen Schwartz had he been there? Is your thinking at such an infantile level that you think that it’s utterly preposterous that this short incident might not have been witnessed?

Interesting you say that it begins from the point that Stride stands in the gateway because Fanny didn’t see her arrive there. And if Fanny went onto her doorstep at 12.45 this gives the lie to her statement of being on her doorstep for nearly the whole of the 30 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00. It’s half of that time wiped away straight away.

She went to her door to shoot the bolts. She had been previously been on her doorstep, and had left the door unlocked. There is no explicit indication that she not previously been on her doorstep, and the unlocked door supports the notion that she were on her doorstep most of the half hour, as she claimed. So that gives the lie to your claim.

You’re the expert in lies not me. There’s no ‘explicit indication’ that she wasn’t completely naked either but it’s a reasonable inference. She was inside…then she came onto her doorstep for a period….then she went back inside. We have no cctv footage or verification of the times of these actions therefore it is a 100% indisputable FACT that Fanny Mortimer could have been inside at the time of the incident. Anyone that disagrees with this FACT isn’t worthy of an opinion.


Again, if she went onto her doorstep at 12.45 for 10 minutes (so until 12.55) why didn’t she see Stride.

Because she was not there to be seen. The whole "standing in the gateway", is a pile of garbage.

Time wasting, dishonest nonsense.

If the murder took place earlier Stride must have been there.

That is brilliant logic!

Try it sometime instead of polluting this forum with your embarrassingly childish conspiracy theorist drivel.

Fanny is a useless witness.

She is obviously a problem for the traditionalists.

More of a problem for conspiracist fantasists.

…..

Anyone who claims that there was a cover up is a

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Like the club members that all said they were there by the woman at 12:40, based on the clock all would be able to use in the club.

Caz
Yellow card, Michael! In the sin bin for ten, unless you have a source for any of your club members saying they knew it was 12.40, based on seeing that clock and noting the time

Well said Caz, the whole topic is polluted by this biased nonsense.

Does “It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think” sound like a man who’s just seen a clock? Michael tries to sneak in a “would be able to use…” which very obviously doesn’t mean that they did use one.

These conspiracists love to quote clocks…..until it’s mentioned that Diemschutz specifically says that he saw a clock….then he’s lying.

So those that didn’t mention seeing a clock must have seen one and those that did see a clock didn’t really see one. These are the rules on the Grassy Knoll.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
FM: 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 around the corner by the Board School.

That was previously. Think about that word George - it is redundant if Fanny only saw him once.

Caz
The 'previously' simply refers to when Fanny had last been out on her doorstep, prior to going out soon after one. On that previous occasion the only man she saw was the one with the bag. She didn't mean that she saw the same man again when she went out soon after one.

It's all in the language, and it can be tricky for some people even when there is no room for interpretation, as in this case.

Fanny saw this man once, and it shouldn't need saying twice, never mind umpteen times.

This is no misunderstanding Caz. It’s dishonesty pure and simple. It’s very obvious what Fanny meant. She categorically didn’t see him twice.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The 'previously' simply refers to when Fanny had last been out on her doorstep, prior to going out soon after one. On that previous occasion the only man she saw was the one with the bag. She didn't mean that she saw the same man again when she went out soon after one.

It's all in the language, and it can be tricky for some people even when there is no room for interpretation, as in this case.

Fanny saw this man once, and it shouldn't need saying twice, never mind umpteen times.

You're wrong. Goldstein was not the only man she saw. From the Interview with a Neighbour:

Was the street quiet at the time?

Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club.

So other than at the club, there was hardly anybody moving about - meaning that she did see a finite number of people on the street.
It is owing to this and her multiple visits to her doorstep, that she places the man with a black bag in a category all of his own...

... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

If Goldstein had been the only man she had seen throughout the half hour, she need only have said...

... the only man I saw was a young man who passed through the street carrying a black shiny bag ...

It's all in the language, Caz, and the evidence.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You misunderstood the direction of my sarcasm, NBFN.

A bit like Schwartz misunderstanding the direction of the highly charged "Lipski!"

I wasn't really referring to Fanny's reliability, but to the fact that she admitted to hearing and seeing very little of any real evidential value during that entire half hour: she heard heavy footsteps between 12.30 and 12.45; and saw a man with a black bag between 12.45 and 1am. That was pretty much it, until she heard a pony and cart shortly before the sounds of the commotion in and around the yard. Not her fault at all, and she had to estimate the times and the intervals just like anyone else in her situation.

Before concluding that Fanny did not see certain people, you need read and comprehend what she said...

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this morning, and did not notice anything unusual.

Other than the timespan, the key word here is 'unusual'.

Consider Joseph Lave:

About twenty minutes before the alarm I went down into the yard to get a breath of fresh air. I walked about for five minutes or more, and went as far as the street. Everything was very quiet at the time, and I noticed nothing wrong.

Did Lave miss seeing Eagle's return? Or did he just not mention it because it was beside the point? In other words, there is nothing wrong with Eagle returning to the club, so Eagle's return does not meet his criteria.

Similarly, Eagle's return need not meet Fanny's criteria for unusual. It may meet your criteria, but as far as Fanny is concerned, this is just another night - she is not there to journal every coming and going.

It seems to be that Fanny is quite familiar with some of the personalities at the club. She mentions Lewis/Louis by name. She seems to have spoken with Sarah. She probably knows Morris and Philip. Yet what does she say about the man with a black bag...?

Did you observe him closely, or notice anything in his appearance?

No, I didn't pay particular attention to him. He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me.

He was a stranger to her. Evidently many of the members were not strangers to her then, otherwise why mention that this particular man was?

The bottom line is that her non-mentioning of Morris tells us nothing - for all we know they may have said hello to each other.

Incidentally, what a stroke of luck for Louis D, if he lied about his arrival time and delayed raising the alarm for up to twenty minutes, that someone else's pony and cart should have been audible to Fanny at a time which was consistent with Louis acting immediately on his grim discovery. Or did luck have nothing to do with it? Did the crafty so-and-so wait for Fanny to lock up and prepare for bed, then take his pony and cart round the block, so she would hear him coming and assume it was for the first time that night?

Why are you asking me these questions? I think you might be confusing me with Michael Richards.

[GBinOz]

Going back to your ~12:50 discovery time, you suppose that the Mortimers' clock was running 10 minutes slow (or should that be fast?). Okay, so how do you account for this timing...

Mrs. Deimschitz, the stewardess of the club, has made the following statement:-"Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs. Up till then I had not heard a sound-not even a whisper. Then suddenly I saw my husband enter, looking very scared and frightened."

Why "just about one o'clock", and not "about ten minutes to one"? Was the club clock reading the same erroneous time as the clock at #36?

I mostly agree with this, but it is not at all certain the Herschburg was in the club at the time of the discovery. Yes there is a press report to that affect, but that is not what he told the press. It seems likely though, that Abraham did discuss the murder with some members of the club - he knows too much not to have. It's also a little odd that we have AH guessing a time of 12:45 for hearing a whistle, and in the evening Schwartz decides to pick a time for his story that, unfortunately for him, coincides with James Brown fetching his supper and seeing nothing suspicious, but which just happens to be the same time as supposed by Herschburg - 12:45.

FM: 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 around the corner by the Board School.

That was previously. Think about that word George - it is redundant if Fanny only saw him once.

Hi Andrew,

You got me on that clock time. I meant running fast. I should have been more careful after being pinged for doing the same thing a few posts ago. There are a great many conflicting statements, both in press interviews and press reports of inquest testimony. When Diemshitz returns to the body after finding his wife it is variously reported that light was provided by a match held by him, a candle held by him and a match held by Eagle. Mrs Diemshitz reported that other members were summoned by her scream, where as Eagle says Gilleman told him. With regards to clocks, it is quite conceivable that at any given time the clocks in the Club, #36, the tobacconist, Blackwell's surgery and Blackwells pocket watch could have been reading 10 - 15 minutes different to each other and/or to GMT. My assessment of about 12:50 was based on FM's estimated time interval after the passing of Smith. Besides unsynced times there is the factor that you raised in your later post regarding witnesses not seeing anything "unusual". At the inquest Eagle was asked "Did you see anyone about in Berner-street?" and replied - "I dare say I did, but I do not remember them.". No one knew at the time that they would shortly be witnesses.

I interpreted Herschburg's statement "came down to see what was the matter" as coming down the club stairs, but he may have meant coming down the street.

I have to agree with Herlock (yes, it can happen!) in saying that the Schwartz incident only lasted around a minute, starting from when he noticed the altercation between BS Man and Stride to when he crossed Fairclough and, yes, I think that he thought that Pipeman may have been following him.

I agree with Caz in that the word "previously" refers to "when I went out" rather than "I had seen pass".

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're wrong. Goldstein was not the only man she saw. From the Interview with a Neighbour:

Was the street quiet at the time?

Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club.

So other than at the club, there was hardly anybody moving about - meaning that she did see a finite number of people on the street.
It is owing to this and her multiple visits to her doorstep, that she places the man with a black bag in a category all of his own...

... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

If Goldstein had been the only man she had seen throughout the half hour, she need only have said...

... the only man I saw was a young man who passed through the street carrying a black shiny bag ...

It's all in the language, Caz, and the evidence.

No it’s not. What you’re doing is that your assuming that you know how Fanny Mortimer was thinking and how she would use language. Anyone reading that whether in 1888 or today would take it that she meant ‘previously’ to have meant before the discovery of the body. And the ‘evidence’ is of course the fact that at no point anywhere does she say that she saw Goldstein twice. Wouldn’t she have stated that the man that passed just before the body was discovered, and who had looked toward the club, earlier in the evening? Would she have realised that the police would have wanted to know this? Of course she would. Did the police mention this fact anywhere? No they didn’t. Did Goldstein, who came forward voluntarily, mention an earlier visit to Berner Street? No he didn’t.

This is another example of conspiracist interpretation by nitpicking at a word. First it was Diemschutz used of the word ‘precisely’ now this. It gets more desperate.

Fanny Mortimer saw Goldstein once sometime between 12.30 and 1.00. That’s what we know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Before concluding that Fanny did not see certain people, you need read and comprehend what she said...

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this morning, and did not notice anything unusual.

Other than the timespan, the key word here is 'unusual'.

You’re doing it again. Trying to read way too much into a word. You say above “what she said…” But is that exactly what she said? Are we going to continue to trawl every newspaper account with different wording?

Consider Joseph Lave:

About twenty minutes before the alarm I went down into the yard to get a breath of fresh air. I walked about for five minutes or more, and went as far as the street. Everything was very quiet at the time, and I noticed nothing wrong.

Did Lave miss seeing Eagle's return? Or did he just not mention it because it was beside the point? In other words, there is nothing wrong with Eagle returning to the club, so Eagle's return does not meet his criteria.

Lave didn’t mention seeing Eagle because he didn’t see him. Anyone on the premises would have been of interest to the police and so Lave would have known this. He’d also have known that he’d have been confirming the movements of a fellow club member at a time when people might have come under suspicion.

Similarly, Eagle's return need not meet Fanny's criteria for unusual. It may meet your criteria, but as far as Fanny is concerned, this is just another night - she is not there to journal every coming and going.

Can you really get more desperate? This is why I say that I find it impossible to believe that ‘some’ people actually believe what they post. You can’t believe this. She mentions Goldstein passing the club but decides that a man entering the yard where the murder occurred around the time of the murder wasn’t worth mentioning. Again, you simply can’t believe this or expect anyone else to believe it. Unless of course you think that when the police questioned her they said “ we’re not interested in hearing about honest looking citizens just anyone that really looked like a murderer?

It seems to be that Fanny is quite familiar with some of the personalities at the club. She mentions Lewis/Louis by name. She seems to have spoken with Sarah. She probably knows Morris and Philip. Yet what does she say about the man with a black bag...?

No. Deliberately dodgy logic. Just because she was aware of Diemschutz it doesn’t mean that she knew him or Sarah. And you definitely can’t go from ‘knowing the existence of’ to “She probably knows Morris and Philip.”

I shouldn’t complain really because by continually making ridiculous assertions and false claims weakening your case even further (if that’s actually possible)

Did you observe him closely, or notice anything in his appearance?

No, I didn't pay particular attention to him. He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me.

He was a stranger to her. Evidently many of the members were not strangers to her then, otherwise why mention that this particular man was?

This is getting silly even by your desperate standards. He mentions that he was a stranger because he was.

The bottom line is that her non-mentioning of Morris tells us nothing - for all we know they may have said hello to each other.

Utterly pathetic. A desperate and extremely sad attempt to dismiss an inconvenient fact in Conspiracy Corner.

The bottom line is this….she categorically did not see Morris Eagle during her stint on the doorstep. At least have the integrity not to stoop so low.

Why are you asking me these questions? I think you might be confusing me with Michael Richards.

Easily done. You are The Grassy Knoll Two. Casebook’s very own flat earthers.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

At the inquest Eagle was asked "Did you see anyone about in Berner-street?" and replied - "I dare say I did, but I do not remember them.". No one knew at the time that they would shortly be witnesses.

So when Eagle walked along half of Berner street, he likely saw multiple people. When Smith walked up Berner street, he saw at least two people. In the considerably longer period that Fanny spent at her door, did she see one person, or more than one?

I agree with Caz in that the word "previously" refers to "when I went out" rather than "I had seen pass".

So what does the other quote refer to? Who made it?

I interpreted Herschburg's statement "came down to see what was the matter" as coming down the club stairs, but he may have meant coming down the street.

This sounds like a walk down the street...

... I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway. Two or three people had collected, and when I got there ...

He can see the people in the gateway before he gets there.
Notice in the following bit, the use of the word 'there', as opposed to 'here'...

About the club? Oh, yes, it would be open till 2 or 3 this morning. I suppose it is a Socialist club, and there are generally rows there. Both men and women go there. They have demonstrations up there, and concerts, for which they have a stage and plane. There was a row there last Sunday night. It went on till about 2 in the morning, and in the end two people were arrested.

He knows all about the place, and he knows all about the discovery and the victim. Herschburg is no doorstop dwelling busybody - he's an active one. How, btw, do you suppose he knew that those two people had been arrested? Perhaps he and Isaacs were buddies?

I have to agree with Herlock (yes, it can happen!) in saying that the Schwartz incident only lasted around a minute, starting from when he noticed the altercation between BS Man and Stride to when he crossed Fairclough and, yes, I think that he thought that Pipeman may have been following him.

You can define the event that way if you like. The issues remains though - who witnessed Stride waiting in the gateway prior to Schwartz supposedly turning into Berner street, and who witnessed the chase? Just no one?

Btw, how often do you suppose members of the club went down into the yard, for whatever reason?

Barnett Kenterich: I do not think the yard bears a very good character at night, but I do not interfere with any of the people about here. I know that the gate is not kept fastened. The club is a nasty place.

Yet none of the them witnessed Stride standing at the gateway.