The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[Michael W Richards]

And none of the the times are different from those stated by 20 to 30 minutes. If you go read what I did, what it produced, how I checked it, and so forth, you would know that.

But, the information you insist I use has Lave in the yard, seeing nothing, while you also have stride being killed in that time, discovered, the doctor arrives, but Lave, in the yard sees none of it. You listed a buch of statements, after criticizing me for not producing a timeline based on what he or she said. So you can claim to recognize the clicks are different, but you show no tolerance for anyone who tries to do anything about that.

Yet you do not seem concerned that Lave, in the statements you provided, claims to have been in the yard from 12;40 until 1;10. Yet during that whole time he sees nothing, yet you claim the body was discovered and the club was out in the yard at 12:45, scheming about how telling the police the body was found at 1 would deflect their interest from the clu members, but discovery at 12:45 is certain doom for the club (I still can't fathom that and it has never been adequately explained how shifting the time of the discovery is supposed to help the club avoid suspicion - oh yah, why is it we can shift Deimshutz's time to be different to what he says? Why is suggesting tines different to what people say worth presenting as a flaw yet your entire idea is based on doing just that?) Based on Lave, from the statements you thin I should use, the murder is after 1:10 , unless you are ok with arbitrarily modifying what Lave says when it doesn't suit your idea, but it is a sin when somebody else suggests adjustments different from the ones necessary to make your idea work ?

I spelled out the rules by which I calculated the times, none of which includes "must have the discovery be at exactly 1", or any other pet theory. But you presented me with a short list of information you insist be used, as said, so no arbitrary changes as you call them. I looked at your list and it produces nonsense, as I pointed out. So if that is the information you use to back you theory, I would suggest you go back and get another subset of the evidence.

- Jeff

Ive read your argument, and thats why we are discussing it. What Ive posted are quoted statements from various sources including Inquest transcripts that provided times for events that can be used as is, without much or any allowance for error. 1 proceeds to 2, and then to 3...and their statements and recollections match each others without prior consultation. The statements that do not match in any usable time sequence with the above and each other when taken as verbatim quotes, have to be re-tooled and explained to make sense. The explantions are always varied and subjective, but they are speculative.

You and some others seem to be stressed about what a time differential could offer the people who made the few statements Im citing....Louis, Morris, Lave and the theatrical Israel Schwartz. When that murder happened it happened on their property. They are the only people known to be anywhere near that entrance, the exception being Goldstein at 12:50-55. The streets were empty. When one of them realizes what has happened, either by discovery or even witnessed, there would certainly be a period of disbelief or shock, then reaction. How quick that reaction takes place is important forensically. If any delay happened due to discussions between senior staff members there, perhaps in that period between the discovery alleged by several witnesses to have been at 12:45... and the dispatch of Issac K, Morris and Louis and Issac[s]...it would make the club look suspicious. (3 search groups, not 2 as stated by the aforementioned club related witnesses...Kozebrodksi said himself at the crime scene that he "was sent out at the request of Louis or some other member, which also shows that he is responsive to people who are members, as he was an apprentice there and unpaid. All the men, except Israel...or maybe not, relied on that club for income and lodging).

So Louis and Morris and maybe other senior men decide that they should send men out in different directions and no-one should say they saw anything...even if they did. They establish that Louis arrived at 1, which is because they discussed the matter after the discovery and took a few minutes and they didnt want to appear hesitant about going for help. At 1am, there wouldnt have been any time for any hesitance, they would be the most fast moving efficient respondents to an unfamiliar emergency situation ever recorded. Just think of it...Eagle returns with Lamb just before 1 and Louis just discovers the body at 1...now thats efficient.

They hit the jackpot later anyway, someone saw the victim being assaulted on the street, outside the property...and just before she is killed. Whew. Which according to Blackwell, and using Phillips estimate at 1:30 that she had been cut within the hour, puts that assault just feet and maybe minutes from where she will be killed. ...the sound of tap water gently washing hands.....

[JeffHamm]

Ive read your argument, and thats why we are discussing it. What Ive posted are quoted statements from various sources including Inquest transcripts that provided times for events that can be used as is, without much or any allowance for error. 1 proceeds to 2, and then to 3...and their statements and recollections match each others without prior consultation. The statements that do not match in any usable time sequence with the above and each other when taken as verbatim quotes, have to be re-tooled and explained to make sense. The explantions are always varied and subjective, but they are speculative.

You and some others seem to be stressed about what a time differential could offer the people who made the few statements Im citing....Louis, Morris, Lave and the theatrical Israel Schwartz. When that murder happened it happened on their property. They are the only people known to be anywhere near that entrance, the exception being Goldstein at 12:50-55. The streets were empty. When one of them realizes what has happened, either by discovery or even witnessed, there would certainly be a period of disbelief or shock, then reaction. How quick that reaction takes place is important forensically. If any delay happened due to discussions between senior staff members there, perhaps in that period between the discovery alleged by several witnesses to have been at 12:45... and the dispatch of Issac K, Morris and Louis and Issac[s]...it would make the club look suspicious. (3 search groups, not 2 as stated by the aforementioned club related witnesses...Kozebrodksi said himself at the crime scene that he "was sent out at the request of Louis or some other member, which also shows that he is responsive to people who are members, as he was an apprentice there and unpaid. All the men, except Israel...or maybe not, relied on that club for income and lodging).

So Louis and Morris and maybe other senior men decide that they should send men out in different directions and no-one should say they saw anything...even if they did. They establish that Louis arrived at 1, which is because they discussed the matter after the discovery and took a few minutes and they didnt want to appear hesitant about going for help. At 1am, there wouldnt have been any time for any hesitance, they would be the most fast moving efficient respondents to an unfamiliar emergency situation ever recorded. Just think of it...Eagle returns with Lamb just before 1 and Louis just discovers the body at 1...now thats efficient.

They hit the jackpot later anyway, someone saw the victim being assaulted on the street, outside the property...and just before she is killed. Whew. Which according to Blackwell, and using Phillips estimate at 1:30 that she had been cut within the hour, puts that assault just feet and maybe minutes from where she will be killed. ...the sound of tap water gently washing hands.....

So we can't adjust times, but we can adjust all the other content of the witness statements? Correction, we can adjust the times of the witnesses associated with the club, since we can adjust everything they say; which given the location of the murder means we can adjust the majority of the witness statements. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that approach.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

Another example is from the Eddowes case, where Lawende estimates they waited 5 minutes for the rain, but one of the other men estimated the wait to be 3 or 4 minutes.


- Jeff

Good point. That would be Joseph Levy.

Checking, those aren't the only examples.

"I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards." "It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church." - Albert Cadoche, Chapman Inquest

"I stood by the side of the body for four or five minutes, until the last witness arrived." - Edward Spooner, Stride Inquest

"I preceded him by three or four minutes." - Edward Johnson, Stride Inquest

"I stayed there three or four minutes, and then went back home, when I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of the Board School." - James Brown, Stride Inquest

Other examples of not rounding times to a multiple of 5 are:

"She stood in the door two or three minutes..." - Timothy Donovan, Chapman Inquest

"About two minutes at most." "I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came." - John Richardson, Chapman Inquest

"As I was passing 29, Hanbury-street, on my way to work in Chiswell-street, at about eight minutes past six on Saturday..." - Henry Holland, Chapman Inquest

"Dr. Blackwell was the first doctor to arrive; he came ten or twelve minutes after myself, but I had no watch with me." "I am not on the Berner-street beat, but I passed the end of the street in Commercial-road six or seven minutes before." - PC Lamb, Stride Inquest

"That beat takes twelve or fourteen minutes." - PC Watkins, Eddowes Inquest

"From Berner-street to Mitre-street is three-quarters of a mile, and a man could walk the distance in twelve minutes." - Frederick Foster, Eddowes Inquest

"I dispatched a constable to Dr. Gordon Brown, informing him, and proceeded myself to Mitre-square, arriving there about two or three minutes past two." - Inspector Collard, Eddowes Inquest

"About two minutes to one o'clock, when I was taking her out of the cell, she asked me what time it was." - PC Hutt, Eddowes Inquest

"I do not think my door had been ajar more than two or three minutes when he knocked. - George Morris, Eddowes Inquest

"At two minutes to two o'clock on the Sunday morning, when near Aldgate Church, in company with Detectives Outram and Marriott, I heard that a woman had been found murdered in Mitre-square." - DC Halse

"I then blew my whistle, and between two and three minutes Sergeant Badlam came up." "After he came out I went in some two or three minutes later." - PC Andrews, Mackenzie Inquest

"About 12 minutes to 1 this morning I was in Old Castle-street and saw Constable Andrews." - PC Badham, Mackenzie Inquest

[Fiver]

Im not sure that suggesting subjective interpretation of how reliable anyone was here will get you anywhere Scott, what needs to be sorted out is the fact that the majority of witness statements, of those unaffiliated financially with the club, suggest a deserted street that last half hour and and being alerted to a body being in the passageway between 12:40 and 12:45.

Your statement is still incorrect.
* Fanny Mortimer contradicts a 12:45 discovery and gives a time of around 1am.
* PC Lamb gives a time of around 1am.
* Edward Spooner gives times of 12:35 am and 1am, both of which contradict a 12:45 discovery.
* Dr Blackwell supports a time of around 1am.
* Edward Johnson supports a time of around 1am.
* James Brown contradicts a 12:45 discovery.
* Leon Goldstein contradicts a 12:45 discovery.
* Florence Letchford contradicts a 12:45 discovery.

The only witnesses to support a time of 12:40 to 12:45 are Hershberg and Kozebrodsky, one of whom was a member of the club.

[Wickerman]

Lave places himself in the gateway at about 12:45. If the coroner did not regard that as suspicious, what does that tell us?

That Lave's story was not suspicious?

[The Rookie Detective]

How can Schwartz and Lave both be reliable accounts?

They essentially occupy the same space at the same time

But one tells us nothing, sees nobody and hears nothing

The other tells us a great dramatic violent scene unfolded followed by an audible anti-Semitic slur.

Either one is wrong, both are wrong, or one is right and the other wrong.

The only way in which BOTH Lave and Schwartz can be correct and truthful, is if one or both of them made a mistake with their timings.

How convenient.


RD

[c.d.]

The other tells us a great dramatic violent scene unfolded followed by an audible anti-Semitic slur.

That seems a tremendous exaggeration of what Schwartz said he saw.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

How can Schwartz and Lave both be reliable accounts?

They essentially occupy the same space at the same time

But one tells us nothing, sees nobody and hears nothing

The other tells us a great dramatic violent scene unfolded followed by an audible anti-Semitic slur.

Either one is wrong, both are wrong, or one is right and the other wrong.

The only way in which BOTH Lave and Schwartz can be correct and truthful, is if one or both of them made a mistake with their timings.

How convenient.


RD

Hi RD,

Well, despite the fact that the exact time of the murder and/or discovery is not agreed upon, everyone does agree that the murder and discovery, with the emptying of the club members, etc happen between say 12:40 and 1:00 (ish). It's where in that range of time that is considered contentious.

Lave, however, contradicts everyone. His statement is that he's in the yard of the club for half an out starting at 12:40 (so until 1:10). And he says basically "nothing happened during that time". Yet during that time Stride is murdered, and the body is discovered, the club go looking for police, the police show up, etc. Clearly, Lave's mistaken about the time he went outside, or the duration of his time outside, or both.

Lave, of course, is independent of Schwartz, so showing that Lave's statement must contain some errors around time does not make Schwartz more, or less, reliable. His statement must be assessed independently.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi NBFN,

That is what I did with the time line reconstruction, but I factored in the empirically based finding that people tend to over estimate short time intervals (so when they say "4 minutes", the true interval is generally somewhat less than that). That resulted in 12:58:24: Diemshutz’s arrival, which is only roughly 3 1/2 minutes off your 1:55. Given I factored in that "shortening" all the way through, and also given that the 12:58:24 is in reference to Dr. Blackwell's watch (not Deimshutz's clock on the corner of Berner and Commercial), I would be surprised if you thought the timeline estimated time is unreasonable.

Hi Jeff,

If that empirical finding is reliable (has it been replicated?) the 4-minutes would more likely be 2 or 3 minutes, than longer. Would I be correct to say that the "recreation has an 11 m 24 gap"?

And as a result, I think it follows that Fiver's point, is therefore not unreasonable (because it leads to a non-adjusted time that is close to the estimated time on Dr.Blackwell's watch, which is likely similar, if not identical, to other clocks that witnesses might have access to; like the one Deimshutz says he referenced).

What Fiver succeeded in doing, was to show that if the report that contains the reference to the about 4 minutes is taken literally, Fanny Mortimer is at doorstep right when Schwartz claims to have turned into Berner St. This remains the case if Fanny was 5 minutes ahead of time, or even 10.

Times and durations that do result in bizarre conflicts, which make us question the reliability of the statements, are things like Lave's statement of being in the yard from 12:40 to 1:10, and during that time, nothing happened. That is clearly wrong and not useful for determining what happened on the night. And you can't solve a case if you don't know what happened in the first place.

- Jeff

1:10 was clearly journalistic error.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That Lave's story was not suspicious?

So, presumably he didn't claim to be at the gates at the time Smith gave for when last in Berner St, as he could hardly have failed to see Stride.

[Michael W Richards]

Your statement is still incorrect.
* Fanny Mortimer contradicts a 12:45 discovery and gives a time of around 1am.
* PC Lamb gives a time of around 1am.
* Edward Spooner gives times of 12:35 am and 1am, both of which contradict a 12:45 discovery.
* Dr Blackwell supports a time of around 1am.
* Edward Johnson supports a time of around 1am.
* James Brown contradicts a 12:45 discovery.
* Leon Goldstein contradicts a 12:45 discovery.
* Florence Letchford contradicts a 12:45 discovery.

The only witnesses to support a time of 12:40 to 12:45 are Hershberg and Kozebrodsky, one of whom was a member of the club.

So, you believe my post needed corrections...

1. For those paying attention, in no way does Fanny ever contradict a 12:45 discovery or an Israel Schwartz presentation, nor does she say the discovery was around 1. She said she heard noise after being inside a few minutes from 1am.
2. PC Lamb said at the Inquest that he saw Eagle at "just before 1"
3. Edward Spooner said he left the pub at midnight with his lass, they walked to the Beehive and stood outside it for about 25 minutes. He said at the Inquest that "I think there were too many people about. I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard." Those 2 statements are not incompatible, the walk to the Beehive and the 25 minutes there could have him arriving in the yard around that time. I personally believe he was off a bit, because 2 people at the club said they were alerted to the body at, or shortly after, 12:40.
4. Dr Blackwell said that he believed the cut was made "From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived", and he also says he arrived at 1:16am. That puts the cut perhaps as early as 12:46. Phillips said at 1:30 when he arrived it had been within the hour, making his cut estimate potentially as early as 12:30.
5. Edward Johnson supports a time of his first learning of the murder around 1am, because he is physically there at 1:10. You fall into a trap almost everyone does here. An earlier discovery time doesnt neccesarily infer an early posse gets help time. In fact, times like Lambs are just fine with a discovery around 12:40. The discovery times isnt the issue there, its when they went for help. And how long were they out there before Lamb saw Eagle.
6. Ill let you in on a secret...James Browns sighting was almost certainly of the young couple that a witness establishes was on that street between 12:30 and 1am, and the young lady did not have any flowers on her jacket.
7. Leon Goldstein passing by at around 12:50-55 in no way contradicts anything, it helps corrobrate Fanny, and whether he actually saw anything when he looked into the passageway or not we have no way of knowing for certain at this time.
8. Interesting that you would try that one, in many ways Mr L is one witness we should listen to regarding the clubs reputation.

[Fiver]

Neither of the men described by Schwartz were ever identified, and no known witness account even hints at corroborating his claims.-

* In the Nichols murder, watchman Patrick Mulshaw was informed of the murder by a stranger who he found suspicious. No known witness account even hints at corroborating his claims
* Elizabeth Long saw a man with Annie Chapman before her death. No known witness account even hints at corroborating her claims
* John Gardner saw Stride with a man before her death. No known witness account even hints at corroborating his claims.
* J Best saw Stride with a man before her death. No known witness account even hints at corroborating his claims.
* William Marshall saw Stride with a man before her death. No known witness account even hints at corroborating his claims.
* PC Smith saw Stride with a man before her death. No known witness account even hints at corroborating his claims.
* James Brown saw Stride with a man before her death. No known witness account even hints at corroborating his claims.
* Mary Anne Cox claimed to have seen a man with near Kelly's lodging. No known witness account even hints at corroborating her claims.
* George Hutchinson claimed to have seen a man with Kelly. No known witness account even hints at corroborating his claims.
* Sarah Lewis claimed to have seen a man with near Kelly's lodging. No known witness account even hints at corroborating her claims.

Like the Schwartz account, any of these uncorroborated claims could be false, but it doesn't prove that they are false. And far too often, they are accepted or rejected based on whether they fit a theory.

What is the best reason you can offer for supposing that the men described by Schwartz, actually existed?

Because the account makes Schwartz look bad. He sees a soon-to-be murder victim being assaulted and says or does nothing. Then he runs away from a man armed with a pipe. People looking for 15 minutes of fame don't give accounts that portray themselves as callous or cowardly.

[Michael W Richards]

Because the account makes Schwartz look bad. He sees a soon-to-be murder victim being assaulted and says or does nothing. Then he runs away from a man armed with a pipe. People looking for 15 minutes of fame don't give accounts that portray themselves as callous or cowardly.

I dont recall anyone suggesting that Israels story was so he could gain fame. I do recall people suggesting that his story was intended to place the most probable killer of Liz from among the great unwashed public out on the street. So, NOT from the club property..whereas before Israels story, ALL the men nearest to the murder site were from the club.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Like the Schwartz account, any of these uncorroborated claims could be false, but it doesn't prove that they are false. And far too often, they are accepted or rejected based on whether they fit a theory.

Fine, but let's be honest about this. If evidence were discovered that unambiguously demonstrated that either or both of the men described by Schwartz had been identified by the police, Schwartz believers the world over would waste no time in uncorking champagne bottles.

Because the account makes Schwartz look bad. He sees a soon-to-be murder victim being assaulted and says or does nothing. Then he runs away from a man armed with a pipe. People looking for 15 minutes of fame don't give accounts that portray themselves as callous or cowardly.

Then he runs away from a man armed with a pipe - I admire your ability to say this with a straight face.

Callous or cowardly? Perhaps, but by the standards of the day, would it have been expected that Schwartz would intervene? If yes, why didn't Pipeman?

[Wickerman]

So, presumably he didn't claim to be at the gates at the time Smith gave for when last in Berner St, as he could hardly have failed to see Stride.

Lave is reported as saying he saw nothing unusual. He doesn't say he saw no-one, or nothing, only that what he did see was what he usually sees.
I would presume then that he saw people, both men & women doing what they always do.
It is also reasonable to assume he saw no argument, no pushing or shoving, nothing violent because the report does say all was quiet. Which does not mean the street was empty. He is quoted as saying - "....while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions."
So, nobody "moving about" in such a way as to draw attention to themselves.

Lave does not say he saw no-body, only that the activity in the street was normal - which is not what you are trying to say.