The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[Wickerman]

Has anyone ever considered that George Hutchinson and Israel Schwartz... were the same man?...

RD, you've done it again.

Abberline interviewed both witnesses face to face.

[Wickerman]

I feel there may be countless others with the same answer.
That may go some way to explain the lack of progressive thinking that could help evolve the case, for the next generation of Ripper enthusiasts.

I appreciate you being the only one to take the time to respond to my question.

Respect to you for that.

The fact that nobody has proved my question invalid; by showing evidence that Hutchinson and Schwartz couldn't have been the same man, leads me to believe it could be possible.

The argument that a man couldn't change appearance that drastically, is perhaps another mistaken assumption by all those who don't see the significance in the theatrical connection.

I know of one particular Victorian killer who changed his appearance to evade capture...and succeeded.


RD

It's pure guesswork RD.
There is no evidence to suggest both witnesses were the same man.
Criminal investigations begin by gathering evidence, then interpreting that evidence.
If there's no indication they were the same man, then why waste time pursuing something that cannot be confirmed or dismissed.

[Lewis C]

Has anyone ever considered that George Hutchinson and Israel Schwartz... were the same man?

Hi RD,

FWIW, Schwartz has been accused of dishonestly trying to make his suspect seem Gentile, while Hutchinson has been accused of dishonestly trying to make his suspect seem Jewish.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I think I found the estimated timeline. The event that I didn't see mentioned was Eagle's return to the club. Where would you fit that into the timeline?

If there's any part of your timeline that seems to me like a stretch, it would be Diemshutz arriving back over 11 minutes after Mortimer closes her door. It could be that Mortimer's door closing time could be made 3 minutes later, reducing the above interval to 8+ minutes, which I find more acceptable. That would mean that either James Brown's sighting would have to be a little later, or it happened while Mortimer was still at her door. Does the latter seem like a realistic possibility?

Your timeline mentions "Mortimer goes outside" and "Mortimer goes inside", which brings me back to a question that I've had for awhile about this. When Mortimer was at her door, did she go outside, or did she stay inside with the doorway just in front of her? The latter seems more likely to me, because I believe that she went to her door for the purpose of closing it, which one would normally do from the inside. The reason it matters is that she would have a broader field of vision if she went outside, enabling her to see more.

Hi Lewis C,

Yah, there are some bits I overlooked, sometimes because they may occur sufficiently prior to sightings of Stride in the area that I didn't bother. I may at some point go back and try and add in a few more of the characters.

Mortimer's gives different reports, and the press has her doing all sorts of different things. I believe she indicates she was on her doorstep, though, not just closing the door. Anyway, as I've said before, there are lots of decisions one has to make and obviously each of us will at some point make different calls. Most of the times have a fair amount of "wiggle room tolerance", meaning we could adjust things +- quite a bit in many cases, and still have a coherent series of events.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Again, if if uses other witnesses testimony to try and dismiss Schwartz account then the reverse can also be done . Its a pointless exercise that in the end any serious ripperoligist must realize one thing, in the case of liz strides assault and who saw or didn't see it take place then all the evidence must be viewed equally.

I believe that the evidence lays the foundations but the interpretation is a result of filtering all relevant data. Including omission at an Inquest, questions voiced about the statements validity and/or details, competing accounts for the same stated time that do not validate the story as provided, questions about the witnesses background, his residence that morning before the moving started, opinions about the nature of that club and the usual attendees and habits, witnesses known to be financially linked to the clubs operations.. and therefore statements with bias, multiple accounts that conflict with the clubs staffers times as given...all by the same approx 20 minute period...later than those multiple accounts stated, times given by a PC, a physicians assistant and a physician that set a chronology that is not possible if Louis Diemshitz arrived at 1..like he claimed.

In my experience a "serious" Ripperologist is well versed enough in the periphery as well as the mainstream data to pick at that evidence judiciously, with the end goal being a storyline and recreation that is supportable and hopefully reasonable. Some "serious" Ripperologists even believe they can add even more victims to the Canonical list, seemingly any woman who dies in any manner possible, during that period. Some "serious" Ripperologists start at the finish line and then look for people that fit with them, some treat each murder as unique and as yet unconnected to each other by any solid evidence, some think he's medically trained, some think he was basically a butcher, some think he was insane, some dont see the need for that to be the case...

There is a myriad of opinion on the matter by "serious" Ripperologists Fish, what I believe is that Polly and Annie were definitely killed by the same man, and that Kate is possibly on that same list...as well as perhaps Alice MacKenzie. Because I dont see THE killer yet, but I do see the trail of bread crumbs. Or as in your personal perspective, the loaves of bread.

[FISHY1118]

I believe that the evidence lays the foundations but the interpretation is a result of filtering all relevant data. Including omission at an Inquest, questions voiced about the statements validity and/or details, competing accounts for the same stated time that do not validate the story as provided, questions about the witnesses background, his residence that morning before the moving started, opinions about the nature of that club and the usual attendees and habits, witnesses known to be financially linked to the clubs operations.. and therefore statements with bias, multiple accounts that conflict with the clubs staffers times as given...all by the same approx 20 minute period...later than those multiple accounts stated, times given by a PC, a physicians assistant and a physician that set a chronology that is not possible if Louis Diemshitz arrived at 1..like he claimed.

In my experience a "serious" Ripperologist is well versed enough in the periphery as well as the mainstream data to pick at that evidence judiciously, with the end goal being a storyline and recreation that is supportable and hopefully reasonable. Some "serious" Ripperologists even believe they can add even more victims to the Canonical list, seemingly any woman who dies in any manner possible, during that period. Some "serious" Ripperologists start at the finish line and then look for people that fit with them, some treat each murder as unique and as yet unconnected to each other by any solid evidence, some think he's medically trained, some think he was basically a butcher, some think he was insane, some dont see the need for that to be the case...

There is a myriad of opinion on the matter by "serious" Ripperologists Fish, what I believe is that Polly and Annie were definitely killed by the same man, and that Kate is possibly on that same list...as well as perhaps Alice MacKenzie. Because I dont see THE killer yet, but I do see the trail of bread crumbs. Or as in your personal perspective, the loaves of bread.

Now I know why I stopped coming here for a while !

Post such as the above .

Schwartz = witness testimony to the assault on liz stride. There's nothing sinister or complicated about it , only when one chooses to eliminate it in support of another witness or suspect

I feel another break coming on
.

[The Rookie Detective]

RD, you've done it again.

Abberline interviewed both witnesses face to face.

That's a perfect answer; thank you for confirming that.

I must admit that I was testing the waters a little; to see what kind of reactions would be gotten from such a question.


As always, I appreciate you clarifying that fact with your excellent knowledge.

It certainly beats all that obtrusive talk of razors; the Ripperology equivalent of "no comment"


I am happy to be proven wrong because it's a learning process. I am all the better for it.


Respect to you as always


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

FWIW, Schwartz has been accused of dishonestly trying to make his suspect seem Gentile, while Hutchinson has been accused of dishonestly trying to make his suspect seem Jewish.

That's an interesting point.

It's as though they were trying to get one up on each other; to see who could gain the most traction from their alleged witness experiences respectively.

Like 2 friends having a bet on who can get the bigger story.


RD

[c.d.]

I am happy to be proven wrong because it's a learning process. I am all the better for it.

That's a good attitude to take, R.D.. We should probably all adopt it.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lewis C,

Yah, there are some bits I overlooked, sometimes because they may occur sufficiently prior to sightings of Stride in the area that I didn't bother. I may at some point go back and try and add in a few more of the characters.

Mortimer's gives different reports, and the press has her doing all sorts of different things. I believe she indicates she was on her doorstep, though, not just closing the door. Anyway, as I've said before, there are lots of decisions one has to make and obviously each of us will at some point make different calls. Most of the times have a fair amount of "wiggle room tolerance", meaning we could adjust things +- quite a bit in many cases, and still have a coherent series of events.

- Jeff

Interesting Jeff that with this murder many people are ok with simply "adjusting" the times some witnesses give to match better with others they seem to believe are more trustworthy. First off, which are the ones you believe should be that trusted baseline, and which are not? I can tell you that the majority of accounts indicate that there were activities involving the body found in the passageway as early as 12:40-45, and that ONLY those accounts lead to a uninterrupted chain of events based on the times given by the truly trustworthy here...the PC's and the Medical men. The other accounts require your "wiggle room" adjusting to work...so good luck wiggling around the fact that by Louis's times given his story starts 20 minutes later than those majority of witnesses reported.

[Michael W Richards]

Now I know why I stopped coming here for a while !

Post such as the above .

Schwartz = witness testimony to the assault on liz stride. There's nothing sinister or complicated about it , only when one chooses to eliminate it in support of another witness or suspect

I feel another break coming on
.

Youre bizarre way of countering points that essentially decimate your own theorizing is, at its most polite, tiresome. Youve concocted some.. also very bizarre... overarching story you try and flog, when over and over again the obvious flaws...like lacking any supporting hard evidence, are pointed out. Yet you are quick to assume a hierarchical position on the matters anyway.

So lets cut to the case here shall we and eliminate what you think is viable or not, since its provable that you believe some things are viable that few if any "serious" Ripperologists entertain... even for a moment.

A witness that gives a story that involves the victim just before her estimated throat cut time, being manhandled in public..feet from where she will soon die....with a description of the man assaulting her, and another witness watching, a statement given before the start of the Inquest....would that information warrant presentation at the formal Inquest into the death? Damn tootin it would be...it suggests that if true, its highly probable that she died by Wilful Murder, which is one possible finding the jury might put forward.

Does Israel Schwartz's story, in any form or format, have a presence in the Formal Inquiry into Liz Strides death? The prosecution rests...contrary "opinions" are unnecessary here.

[JeffHamm]

Interesting Jeff that with this murder many people are ok with simply "adjusting" the times some witnesses give to match better with others they seem to believe are more trustworthy. First off, which are the ones you believe should be that trusted baseline, and which are not? I can tell you that the majority of accounts indicate that there were activities involving the body found in the passageway as early as 12:40-45, and that ONLY those accounts lead to a uninterrupted chain of events based on the times given by the truly trustworthy here...the PC's and the Medical men. The other accounts require your "wiggle room" adjusting to work...so good luck wiggling around the fact that by Louis's times given his story starts 20 minutes later than those majority of witnesses reported.

I have seen your suggestions on that, but I am afraid I don't buy it myself. I don't expect you to buy mine either.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

I have seen your suggestions on that, but I am afraid I don't buy it myself. I don't expect you to buy mine either.

- Jeff

You know one thing I hate is how Border Customs agents make arbitrary decisions about which car to flag for additional inspections, they dont have any real guidelines about which vehicles must be flagged. They decide that based on their own assessments. When people alter witness testimony of their times given when actions were taken or events observed simply based on the fact that other witnesses... which they are inclined to favour...differ with the times as given, you have the same arbitrary process as clearing customs when driving. What Ive been suggesting is that when you remove the statements from the members who were directly linked with the club by employment or housing, youll find that what remains requires no "wiggle room" decisions beyond a minute or 2. They provide a timeline and sequence that is cohesive. You have a story that flows without trouble...it begins around 12:40-12:45 with unbiased and unconnected to the club by income witnesses, which are then validated by the times given by the PC first on the scene, the doctors assistant, and finally the doctor at 1:16.

So I dont rely on arbitrary reassigned times when there is really no need to. All one need do is to remove the witnesses that would have specific bias to any hint of suspicion towards the club or attendees.

Simply put.......Louis, arguably the person most responsible for what happens at that club that night, could not have arrived at "precisely 1" as he claimed because PC Lamb is already there at that time, with Eagle who went for help.

[JeffHamm]

You know one thing I hate is how Border Customs agents make arbitrary decisions about which car to flag for additional inspections, they dont have any real guidelines about which vehicles must be flagged. They decide that based on their own assessments. When people alter witness testimony of their times given when actions were taken or events observed simply based on the fact that other witnesses... which they are inclined to favour...differ with the times as given, you have the same arbitrary process as clearing customs when driving. What Ive been suggesting is that when you remove the statements from the members who were directly linked with the club by employment or housing, youll find that what remains requires no "wiggle room" decisions beyond a minute or 2. They provide a timeline and sequence that is cohesive. You have a story that flows without trouble...it begins around 12:40-12:45 with unbiased and unconnected to the club by income witnesses, which are then validated by the times given by the PC first on the scene, the doctors assistant, and finally the doctor at 1:16.

So I dont rely on arbitrary reassigned times when there is really no need to. All one need do is to remove the witnesses that would have specific bias to any hint of suspicion towards the club or attendees.

In my defence, the decisions I made were not exactly arbitrary, but based upon the stated times and also derived from calculations for stated journeys. I also factored in information we know from research on people's estimations of temporal durations, and also a few laws of physics (if two people say they were both in the same place at time X, but neither sees the other, then either they are both there at the same time but invisible to each other, or their stated times are not right - the former violates physics, the latter is what we can expect in witness testimony - I went with the latter). I double checked any times derived by estimating the journey times and so forth, and the times I calculate fall within acceptable margins of error with people's testified times. As such, all of the quality control checks were passed. The only person whose time I held to be solid and trustworthy was Dr. Blackwell, because he himself testifies he checked his watch upon arrival at the crime scene and recorded it as 1:16, all other times are open to the errors of estimation and memory of the witnesses. In the end, the collection of statements hold together very well and the constraints derived from a number of independent witnesses point to the times given by the witnesses you emphasize are the odd ones out, and so in my assessment are most likely the least reliable. However, if you start with those times as reliable, then many other witnesses have to be arbitrarily dismissed or questioned as well, leading to complex ideas about Schwartz lying, about Deimshutz lying, and so forth, suggestions that have no evidence to suggest them other than their times don't work when we assume those particular witnesses are reliable. That to me indicates the starting assumption is wrong.

In the end, there is no way to put everything together strictly as stated by every witness. As such, somebody is wrong about their time, and from the analysis I conducted, I end up concluding different people are in error than you do. I stand by my assessment and you stand by yours. That's the nature of things.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

In my defence, the decisions I made were not exactly arbitrary, but based upon the stated times and also derived from calculations for stated journeys. I also factored in information we know from research on people's estimations of temporal durations, and also a few laws of physics (if two people say they were both in the same place at time X, but neither sees the other, then either they are both there at the same time but invisible to each other, or their stated times are not right - the former violates physics, the latter is what we can expect in witness testimony - I went with the latter). I double checked any times derived by estimating the journey times and so forth, and the times I calculate fall within acceptable margins of error with people's testified times. As such, all of the quality control checks were passed. The only person whose time I held to be solid and trustworthy was Dr. Blackwell, because he himself testifies he checked his watch upon arrival at the crime scene and recorded it as 1:16, all other times are open to the errors of estimation and memory of the witnesses. In the end, the collection of statements hold together very well and the constraints derived from a number of independent witnesses point to the times given by the witnesses you emphasize are the odd ones out, and so in my assessment are most likely the least reliable. However, if you start with those times as reliable, then many other witnesses have to be arbitrarily dismissed or questioned as well, leading to complex ideas about Schwartz lying, about Deimshutz lying, and so forth, suggestions that have no evidence to suggest them other than their times don't work when we assume those particular witnesses are reliable. That to me indicates the starting assumption is wrong.

In the end, there is no way to put everything together strictly as stated by every witness. As such, somebody is wrong about their time, and from the analysis I conducted, I end up concluding different people are in error than you do. I stand by my assessment and you stand by yours. That's the nature of things.

- Jeff

I would say that the beat policemen had responsibility to know their beat times, so Lamb is as viable as Blackwell. As is Smith.

And again, if you accept Louis Diemshitz statement and times, you will directly clash with those trustworthy witness times. Its not that difficult, at least not as some make it out to be. Louis arrives at "precisely 1"? Then Lamb wasnt there just before or at 1, as he said he was...because it would be after the men were assembled by the body and some were sent for help..which they didnt find immediately...and after Spooner comes into the passageway...then Lamb arrives with Eagle and Issac Kozebrodksi. Then Eagle goes to the station to report the event, Johnson is called, who calls Blackwell. Johnson is there at 1:10 and Blackwell at 1:16. How does that happen if the body is only first discovered by Louis at 1?

Its easy really....he could not have arrived when he said he did. He arrived before then, which is exactly what several witness statements agree with. And the times given by Lamb, Johnson and Blackwell also back that earlier arrival.