Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
    If that were all true, Michael, then why didn't Fanny see Eagle run from the yard in the direction of Commercial Road? For Eagle to arrive at where Lamb was at, say, 12:58, Eagle would have to have exited the yard about a minute and a half before that. If Fanny would actually have remained at her door until 1 am, then she couldn't have missed Eagle running right past her.

    All the best,
    Frank
    Why didnt Fanny see Eagle arrive either Franko? Why didnt Fanny see Israel, or BSM, or Pipeman, or Louis arriving "precisely at 1".What Fanny doesnt mention, she obviously didnt see, but she did say that she was at her door nearly that entire last half hour too. Nearly...that obviously infers not the whole time. So how are we to determine whether or not these unseen people were there, because none have any secondary sightings. This line of your is interesting....."For Eagle to arrive at where Lamb was at, say, 12:58, Eagle would have to have exited the yard about a minute and a half before that". Ok, so what time would Louis have to have first arrived, so he can get off the cart, go inside to call upstairs and have Eagle be able to go for help and find it before 1?

    Fanny did hear bootsteps Franko, she said that around 12:45, while indoors, she heard the heavy tramp of what she "suggested" were policemans boots. She didnt see anyone, she heard footsteps and thought they were policemans boots. Did she know that some women also wore heavy mens boots, or just regular street folk too? See Strides footwear for one, and Kates. Boots on cobbles are boots on cobbles if unseen, agttributing someone to those same boots is speculation, and she would have been warned about that had she presented this at the Inquest. So....Why isnt she there? Because she didnt see anyone other than Goldstein near the gates, and he walked past. What she didnt see would have zero bearing on what was happening with Liz. Now Israel...why isnt he telling his story to the Inquest jury, surely a sighting of the victim being assaulted just before being cut is relevant info to that question of How she dies. Why isnt he there? Dont know, but the fact he isnt makes him irrelevant to these discussions.

    Lets review what Fanny is said to have stated....

    " A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement . It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman....(speculation about who those boots belonged to)... passing the house on his beat". Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had anyone done so she could not have overlooked the fact. ​The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and so it happened that in about four minutes' time she heard the pony cart pass the house,...(she heard a cart and pony about the time I would imagine quite a few people were gathering in that narrow passageway, and since its 1, it would be around the time the pony and cart would be taken to stable in George Yard. remember, Louis said he was going to offload and then stable the cart and pony)...... and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband. Thus, presuming that the body did not lay in the yard when the policeman passed-and it could hardly, it is thought, have escaped his notice-and presuming also that the assassin and his victim did not enter the yard while the woman stood at the door,...(which is consistent with Fannys comments)... it follows that they must have entered it within a minute or two before the arrival of the pony trap....(purely speculative scenario offered by reporter, no evidence supports it). If this be a correct surmise,...(as I said, his speculation).... it is easy to understand that the criminal may have been interrupted at his work. The man who drove the cart says he thinks it quite possible that after he had entered the yard the assassin may have fled out of it,.. (Louis created this scenario, there is no evidence that supports him).. having lurked in the gloom until a favourable moment arrived."

    What that statement above suggests that perhaps she didnt see the killer enter the gates or leave by them, because the killer never left the confines of the passageway. It also suggests she heard boots around 12:45 running, and a cart and horse about 4 minutes after she went inside at 1am. it also suggests that Louis created the idea that the killer might have slipped past him, when there is no evidence anyone left that passageway at that time. It also suggests that the boots she heard around 12:45 could be just about anyone, perhaps Eagle, perhaps Issac K....perhaps Schwartz,... if you like cow pies.

    There are things that are slightly different in other accounts...

    "Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36 Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy says:- "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. ...(establishes the troubled nature of the club, as both the police and neighbours saw them)...I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gates with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe 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 in the pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that they could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up, as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable judging by her clothes,... (establishes that Liz dressed nicely enough to be considered "respectable, not like a prostitue)...and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street about twenty yards away.... (identifies Browns couple)....before, and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound."

    All the time evidence from people who didnt work for or live at the club differs from the statements about times given by those people who were paid to be there and had accommodations there. Why is that cleanly divided? How come at least some unaffiliated witnesses didnt see what Israel says he saw, or Louis arriving,....How come Issac K himself doesnt back Louis's stated arrival time? How come Eagle didnt see Lave? If the killer didnt come from the street, then the club itself, the yard or the stables are the only places the killer could have come from. How come Lave didnt see anyone there? How come Wess didnt when he was leaving? Did the police think the same As I suggested when they searched the unused stables and the office located in that building? Did the police search the men, and the club, because they initially thought someone from there killed Stride? Is Israel Schwartz's BSM the offsite thug that intends to place the likely killer...from off the property and not from any straggling club attendees?

    I freely admit that one must interpret data, it cannot be just accepted at face value, but would a serious investigator suggest changing witnesses given stated times so they better fit some of the evidence, or would an investigator follow the evidence that is corroborated to help ascertain the truth?

    The people with the greatest risk of being accused of murder were the legally responsible people of that club. And they are the ones who give stories that without exception....have zero secondary validation.
    The way Herlock complains about having this reality out there youd think I was trying to re-write history, when ironically im the one using secondary source statements.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

      Why didnt Fanny see Eagle arrive either Franko? Why didnt Fanny see Israel, or BSM, or Pipeman, or Louis arriving "precisely at 1"..
      And why didn’t Fanny see Louis returning at around 12.45?
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

      Comment


      • Now Israel...why isnt he telling his story to the Inquest jury, surely a sighting of the victim being assaulted just before being cut is relevant info to that question of How she dies. Why isnt he there? Dont know, but the fact he isnt makes him irrelevant to these discussions.

        Have you changed your mind, Michael? I thought you knew why Schwartz did not appear or did you simply misspeak?

        c.d.

        Comment


        • Louis found the body, went for a Constable less than two minutes later, returned two minutes later then Eagle left to find a PC and returned 2 minutes later.

          1.00-1.06

          Simple. That should be the end of it. Unless someone has a theory to defend of course.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

          Comment


          • The woman appeared to me to be respectable judging by her clothes,... (establishes that Liz dressed nicely enough to be considered "respectable, not like a prostitue)..​

            How did prostitutes dress that distinguished them from "respectable" women?

            c.d.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
              Now Israel...why isnt he telling his story to the Inquest jury, surely a sighting of the victim being assaulted just before being cut is relevant info to that question of How she dies. Why isnt he there? Dont know, but the fact he isnt makes him irrelevant to these discussions.

              Have you changed your mind, Michael? I thought you knew why Schwartz did not appear or did you simply misspeak?

              c.d.
              Hi c.d.

              Isn't it convenient.

              Michael needs to discredit Schwartz - so he wasn’t trusted to appear at the inquest.
              Michael needs to discredit Diemschitz, Eagle and co - they are all plotters and we’re in on it.
              Michael needs Fanny to be proof that the incident didn’t occur - but he ignores the fact that she doesn’t hear Diemschitz allegedly returning early.

              Its almost as if a script is being created.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

              Comment


              • One general point. When I mentioned Michael’s scattergun approach I was talking about just reposting scenarios mentioning numerous witnesses and not focusing on individual points. Before Michael complains, I’m guilty of this too. We should take a leaf out of c.d’s book. He focuses on one point at a time and tries to get to the bottom of that before moving on. A man with legal training.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  One general point. When I mentioned Michael’s scattergun approach I was talking about just reposting scenarios mentioning numerous witnesses and not focusing on individual points. Before Michael complains, I’m guilty of this too. We should take a leaf out of c.d’s book. He focuses on one point at a time and tries to get to the bottom of that before moving on. A man with legal training.
                  Thanks for the compliment (I think) but I have zero desire to get involved in all this time nonsense. I think it is pointless and will not lead anywhere substantive. This is post no. 848 and it entered dead horse territory a few hundreds posts ago and is now nothing more than a pissing contest. I want no part of it but will respond to certain non-timeline statements that I think need to be addressed. But as for the timeline? Nope, count me out.

                  And yes, I have had legal training. Thanks for noticing.

                  c.d.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Hi c.d.

                    Isn't it convenient.

                    Michael needs to discredit Schwartz - so he wasn’t trusted to appear at the inquest.
                    Michael needs to discredit Diemschitz, Eagle and co - they are all plotters and we’re in on it.
                    Michael needs Fanny to be proof that the incident didn’t occur - but he ignores the fact that she doesn’t hear Diemschitz allegedly returning early.
                    And while not being present at the inquest is evidence that Schwartz wasn't trusted is not evidence that Fanny is not to be trusted.

                    With regards to Schwartz, a point that gets raised a lot is the separation between the fact he did not give evidence at the inquest, and the explanation behind that fact (the "why" question). It is the latter that we do not know. One idea that gets tossed around is that he wasn't trusted, either by the police or by the coroner, but there are others too. He may have been sick and could not attend. Due to his lack of English, he may not have understood the summons (if it was delivered to him in written format, he may not have had it translated for example - other ideas could also be put forth as to how a miscommunication due to the language barrier are entirely possible as well). His information, particularly the implication that Pipeman may have been involved and also Jewish, may have been deemed to inflammatory at the time and given he could not provide any information with regards to Stride's name, nor to her manner of death - he didn't claim to see her killed, only roughed up - a decision to not have him testify may have been made on those grounds. Or, given the difficulty we have had locating him in the census records, the police at the time also had difficulty in re-locating him in order to deliver the summons. And so forth. While I do not claim to know the reason for him not testifying, because there is no information recorded to guide us on that "why" question, I do know that the coroner allowed Mary Malcolm to present her evidence despite it being quite obvious her identification of Stride as her sister was viewed suspect at the inquest, so "disbelief" doesn't appear to prevent people being called if their testimony was related to the primary goals of an inquest, in this case the identification of the victim. Moreover, the police were following lines of inquiry based upon Schwartz's statement, both looking up the Lipski families in the area as he initially implied Lipski may have been Pipeman's name, and apparently also looking for men who matched the descriptions (we know some arrests were made based upon descriptions offered, so presumably either B.S. or Pipeman, or at least someone matching that description). That indicates the police did not disbelieve Schwartz, even if they thought his interpretation of the events may have been partly mistaken (in particular Schwartz's idea that Lipski was shouted to Pipeman rather than shouted at himself - something he appears to have acknowledged as a possibility due to Abberline's questioning him on that point).

                    Again, I don't claim to know why he didn't give evidence. However, I don't think it can be due to disbelief because I see evidence that witnesses who were "disbelieved" were called (Mary Malcolm), and I see actions by the police that indicate they took his statement seriously.

                    We know that following Chapman's murder, concern about antiemetic violence was real. Due to the "leather apron" scare, Pizer was called specifically to clear his name for example. We also see the erasing of the GSG based upon that concern as well, showing that there was concern by the police about not increasing public tensions. So there are some indirect pointers that something similar may have been behind his not being called, but they aren't strong enough pointers that we should presume that was the reason.

                    Other explanations, like communication failure due to language difficulties, illness, out of town, etc, are simply other possibilities that we cannot rule out because, as we know, there is nothing surviving in the records that tell us why Schwartz didn't attend.

                    While each of us may have a "gut feeling" as to what explanation is best, it is dangerous to presume our guts provide evidence. Rather, they tend to bias us to favour an explanation when we shouldn't favour any of them. I do think there is sufficient reason in the evidence that it is highly improbable the reason was disbelief, but not being disbelief isn't the same as knowing what the reason was! There's also some basis for the argument it may have involved public safety, but the chain of reasoning is sufficiently long that I wouldn't say that explanation warrants the dismissal of other plausible, and perhaps more mundane, explanations.

                    Its almost as if a script is being created.
                    In my experience teaching research, one of the most difficult things for students to overcome is the influence of our pre-existing beliefs when it comes to interpreting data. When students are taught a "theory", and we then run a lab experiment, if the data does not support the theory it is very common for students to then conclude "Well, the theory predicts A>B, but the data didn't come out that way, so there's something wrong with the data"! Once we believe something, it distorts our view of the very data that is designed to test our beliefs. And that distortion tends to be in the direction that allows us to maintain our belief, its a form of confirmation bias. It is such a powerful thing I see it in published papers as well! In fact, I've got a student now conducting experiments investigating some published claims that, when I read the original paper, I couldn't believe it was published. There were two theories that lead to opposite predictions (they weren't mutually exclusive, so it was entirely possible both ideas are correct, and the data would just reflect which effect was the larger influence on the data). Theory 1 predicted A>B and Theory 2 predicted B>A; and while the data came out B>A, the authors still claimed it was probable that Theory 1 was correct!. We've been following that up, and over the course of 3 different experiments we've basically shown that the ideas behind both theories are correct, and the finding B>A was, in fact, pointing to "Theory 2" being correct, but also the involvement of "theory 1" can be clearly demonstrated as well.

                    If there is one thing I try to instill in my students it is to never "like" a theory/explanation. Rather, always view them in terms of how well supported they are by the data, and if data arises that goes against the idea you previously thought was well supported, then change your ranking of them. Theories and explanations are not your friend, you owe them no loyalty.

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                      And while not being present at the inquest is evidence that Schwartz wasn't trusted is not evidence that Fanny is not to be trusted.

                      With regards to Schwartz, a point that gets raised a lot is the separation between the fact he did not give evidence at the inquest, and the explanation behind that fact (the "why" question). It is the latter that we do not know. One idea that gets tossed around is that he wasn't trusted, either by the police or by the coroner, but there are others too. He may have been sick and could not attend. Due to his lack of English, he may not have understood the summons (if it was delivered to him in written format, he may not have had it translated for example - other ideas could also be put forth as to how a miscommunication due to the language barrier are entirely possible as well). His information, particularly the implication that Pipeman may have been involved and also Jewish, may have been deemed to inflammatory at the time and given he could not provide any information with regards to Stride's name, nor to her manner of death - he didn't claim to see her killed, only roughed up - a decision to not have him testify may have been made on those grounds. Or, given the difficulty we have had locating him in the census records, the police at the time also had difficulty in re-locating him in order to deliver the summons. And so forth. While I do not claim to know the reason for him not testifying, because there is no information recorded to guide us on that "why" question, I do know that the coroner allowed Mary Malcolm to present her evidence despite it being quite obvious her identification of Stride as her sister was viewed suspect at the inquest, so "disbelief" doesn't appear to prevent people being called if their testimony was related to the primary goals of an inquest, in this case the identification of the victim. Moreover, the police were following lines of inquiry based upon Schwartz's statement, both looking up the Lipski families in the area as he initially implied Lipski may have been Pipeman's name, and apparently also looking for men who matched the descriptions (we know some arrests were made based upon descriptions offered, so presumably either B.S. or Pipeman, or at least someone matching that description). That indicates the police did not disbelieve Schwartz, even if they thought his interpretation of the events may have been partly mistaken (in particular Schwartz's idea that Lipski was shouted to Pipeman rather than shouted at himself - something he appears to have acknowledged as a possibility due to Abberline's questioning him on that point).

                      Again, I don't claim to know why he didn't give evidence. However, I don't think it can be due to disbelief because I see evidence that witnesses who were "disbelieved" were called (Mary Malcolm), and I see actions by the police that indicate they took his statement seriously.

                      We know that following Chapman's murder, concern about antiemetic violence was real. Due to the "leather apron" scare, Pizer was called specifically to clear his name for example. We also see the erasing of the GSG based upon that concern as well, showing that there was concern by the police about not increasing public tensions. So there are some indirect pointers that something similar may have been behind his not being called, but they aren't strong enough pointers that we should presume that was the reason.

                      Other explanations, like communication failure due to language difficulties, illness, out of town, etc, are simply other possibilities that we cannot rule out because, as we know, there is nothing surviving in the records that tell us why Schwartz didn't attend.

                      While each of us may have a "gut feeling" as to what explanation is best, it is dangerous to presume our guts provide evidence. Rather, they tend to bias us to favour an explanation when we shouldn't favour any of them. I do think there is sufficient reason in the evidence that it is highly improbable the reason was disbelief, but not being disbelief isn't the same as knowing what the reason was! There's also some basis for the argument it may have involved public safety, but the chain of reasoning is sufficiently long that I wouldn't say that explanation warrants the dismissal of other plausible, and perhaps more mundane, explanations.



                      In my experience teaching research, one of the most difficult things for students to overcome is the influence of our pre-existing beliefs when it comes to interpreting data. When students are taught a "theory", and we then run a lab experiment, if the data does not support the theory it is very common for students to then conclude "Well, the theory predicts A>B, but the data didn't come out that way, so there's something wrong with the data"! Once we believe something, it distorts our view of the very data that is designed to test our beliefs. And that distortion tends to be in the direction that allows us to maintain our belief, its a form of confirmation bias. It is such a powerful thing I see it in published papers as well! In fact, I've got a student now conducting experiments investigating some published claims that, when I read the original paper, I couldn't believe it was published. There were two theories that lead to opposite predictions (they weren't mutually exclusive, so it was entirely possible both ideas are correct, and the data would just reflect which effect was the larger influence on the data). Theory 1 predicted A>B and Theory 2 predicted B>A; and while the data came out B>A, the authors still claimed it was probable that Theory 1 was correct!. We've been following that up, and over the course of 3 different experiments we've basically shown that the ideas behind both theories are correct, and the finding B>A was, in fact, pointing to "Theory 2" being correct, but also the involvement of "theory 1" can be clearly demonstrated as well.

                      If there is one thing I try to instill in my students it is to never "like" a theory/explanation. Rather, always view them in terms of how well supported they are by the data, and if data arises that goes against the idea you previously thought was well supported, then change your ranking of them. Theories and explanations are not your friend, you owe them no loyalty.

                      - Jeff
                      It leads to things like - how come Fanny didn’t see Schwartz? While the question - how come Fanny didn’t see Louis arrive back at around 12.45 is ignored?
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                        And while not being present at the inquest is evidence that Schwartz wasn't trusted is not evidence that Fanny is not to be trusted.

                        With regards to Schwartz, a point that gets raised a lot is the separation between the fact he did not give evidence at the inquest, and the explanation behind that fact (the "why" question). It is the latter that we do not know. One idea that gets tossed around is that he wasn't trusted, either by the police or by the coroner, but there are others too. He may have been sick and could not attend. Due to his lack of English, he may not have understood the summons (if it was delivered to him in written format, he may not have had it translated for example - other ideas could also be put forth as to how a miscommunication due to the language barrier are entirely possible as well). His information, particularly the implication that Pipeman may have been involved and also Jewish, may have been deemed to inflammatory at the time and given he could not provide any information with regards to Stride's name, nor to her manner of death - he didn't claim to see her killed, only roughed up - a decision to not have him testify may have been made on those grounds. Or, given the difficulty we have had locating him in the census records, the police at the time also had difficulty in re-locating him in order to deliver the summons. And so forth. While I do not claim to know the reason for him not testifying, because there is no information recorded to guide us on that "why" question, I do know that the coroner allowed Mary Malcolm to present her evidence despite it being quite obvious her identification of Stride as her sister was viewed suspect at the inquest, so "disbelief" doesn't appear to prevent people being called if their testimony was related to the primary goals of an inquest, in this case the identification of the victim. Moreover, the police were following lines of inquiry based upon Schwartz's statement, both looking up the Lipski families in the area as he initially implied Lipski may have been Pipeman's name, and apparently also looking for men who matched the descriptions (we know some arrests were made based upon descriptions offered, so presumably either B.S. or Pipeman, or at least someone matching that description). That indicates the police did not disbelieve Schwartz, even if they thought his interpretation of the events may have been partly mistaken (in particular Schwartz's idea that Lipski was shouted to Pipeman rather than shouted at himself - something he appears to have acknowledged as a possibility due to Abberline's questioning him on that point).

                        Other explanations, like communication failure due to language difficulties, illness, out of town, etc, are simply other possibilities that we cannot rule out because, as we know, there is nothing surviving in the records that tell us why Schwartz didn't attend.

                        - Jeff
                        Hi Jeff,

                        I'm not sure that we can state categorically that Schwartz's evidence was not presented to the inquest in one form or another.

                        The Home Office Files contain a 2 page report from Sir Charles Warren that says: '...the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case....', and there is a second file containing a draft letter from Anderson to Warren that contains the exact wording found in Warren's report. I don't see this as conclusive evidence that Schwartz attended an in camera session, although there were plenty of days available for such an appearance. Since Anderson was not a "hands on" participant, and he was away at the time, he may have mistakenly assumed that Swanson's statement originated at the inquest. I take your point that Schwartz didn't fit the guidelines - "he could not provide any information with regards to Stride's name, nor to her manner of death", but wouldn't Marshall, Brown and Letchford also fail that test?

                        One reason that I can think of for him not appearing, or not publicly appearing, would be that he feared for his safety, and that of his wife if he did so, but I am also supportive of the reasoning in your above dissertation.

                        Best regards, George​
                        It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                        All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                        ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                          Thanks for the compliment (I think) but I have zero desire to get involved in all this time nonsense. I think it is pointless and will not lead anywhere substantive. This is post no. 848 and it entered dead horse territory a few hundreds posts ago and is now nothing more than a pissing contest. I want no part of it but will respond to certain non-timeline statements that I think need to be addressed. But as for the timeline? Nope, count me out.

                          c.d.
                          Hi c.d.,

                          It's even worse than you state, as this whole debate was played out in a Stride thread several years ago. The substantive issue, IMO, is when was Stride killed and who was in the vicinity at that time. A timeline sequence can assist in this task, but the assignment of actual times requires an anchor point and a minimisation of guesstimates. As Jeff has said, his timeline, and mine and Frank's are substantially similar with only the anchor time differing.

                          When this topic was discussed years ago, I searched for an account of an interview with Diemshitz before the inquest where he mentioned the Harris Tobacconist clock providing him with a "precise" time of one o'clock. I could not find even one. In all the pre-inquest interviews that I located he referred to returning at his usual time of around one o'clock. If someone provides such an interview I will stand corrected, but my anchor point is police time.

                          Cheers, George
                          It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                          All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                          ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                            Hi Jeff,

                            I'm not sure that we can state categorically that Schwartz's evidence was not presented to the inquest in one form or another.

                            The Home Office Files contain a 2 page report from Sir Charles Warren that says: '...the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case....', and there is a second file containing a draft letter from Anderson to Warren that contains the exact wording found in Warren's report. I don't see this as conclusive evidence that Schwartz attended an in camera session, although there were plenty of days available for such an appearance. Since Anderson was not a "hands on" participant, and he was away at the time, he may have mistakenly assumed that Swanson's statement originated at the inquest. I take your point that Schwartz didn't fit the guidelines - "he could not provide any information with regards to Stride's name, nor to her manner of death", but wouldn't Marshall, Brown and Letchford also fail that test?

                            One reason that I can think of for him not appearing, or not publicly appearing, would be that he feared for his safety, and that of his wife if he did so, but I am also supportive of the reasoning in your above dissertation.

                            Best regards, George​
                            Hi George,

                            Yah, that report by Warren is curious and has been discussed before. While on one level it might point to Schwartz giving testimony while only the coroner and jury were present (makes no sense for him to present if the jury doesn't hear it), I would think the press would have had a field day if they were barred from the room for such an event. There's no hint of complaint, however, from the press about being restricted, in any way shape or form with regards to what information they could report. Even with regards to the details of Chapman's murders, it was left to the individual papers to decide how much they would report - with most deciding the details were too gruesome for their pages. Also, there is nothing in the coroner's summing up that even hints towards that information, even in a round about way. So while I can't say that means it is impossible for Schwartz to have somehow given his evidence to the jury without the press present (or with them restricted from publishing it), it is a most successful blanketing if that is what happened. Also, given Schwartz had spoken to the press and his story comes to us that way as well, if there were a "reporting ban" on his information then those stories should not appear. If they were published before the ban, it makes the ban a bit of shutting the barn door after the horses have fled.

                            And yes, there are other witnesses whose information doesn't impact upon an inquest's primary function, but as their information is less inflammatory but pretty much covers what Schwartz could contribute, their inclusion may reflect that. That, of course, presumes that "possible repercussions" of Schwartz's statement played any part in his lack of appearing, which it may or may not have.

                            I agree that "fear of reprisals" is something that also needs to be considered. In fact, one could argue that Schwartz's actions are consistent with someone who was afraid of the consequences on the night in question - he appeared to have been spooked by the events, thinks he is being chased, etc. His willingness to report what he saw, however, suggests he had some sense of civic duty, creating a conflict between not wanting to get further involved and recognizing that he needs to come forward to make a statement. It leads to the possibility that he came forward, but did not give his correct name or address (using an alias both with the police and when speaking to the press). That could be why we cannot find him in the census information today, and also explain the oddity of him running "as far as the railway arch", which seems to imply he went passed his destination. Obviously, this is all entirely speculation and just me trying on some ideas, but I've not bought any of them.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                              Why didnt Fanny see Eagle arrive either Franko? Why didnt Fanny see Israel, or BSM, or Pipeman, or Louis arriving "precisely at 1".What Fanny doesnt mention, she obviously didnt see, but she did say that she was at her door nearly that entire last half hour too. Nearly...that obviously infers not the whole time. So how are we to determine whether or not these unseen people were there, because none have any secondary sightings.
                              Hi Michael,

                              You wrote that Fanny being at her door until 1 am proves that Diemshutz couldn’t have arrived at 1 am and that no-one arrived after she saw Goldstein. Apart from the fact that there's nothing to prove that Fanny went inside at 1 am and not a few minutes earlier, are you now saying that she would have been at her door off & on during her vigil until 1 am and that this would be the reason why she, conveniently, didn’t see (or hear) Eagle run past her house?

                              This line of your is interesting....."For Eagle to arrive at where Lamb was at, say, 12:58, Eagle would have to have exited the yard about a minute and a half before that". Ok, so what time would Louis have to have first arrived, so he can get off the cart, go inside to call upstairs and have Eagle be able to go for help and find it before 1?
                              You obviously go by Lamb’s estimate, so the timepiece he based that timing on would have indicated a few minutes earlier still when Diemshutz arrived in the yard. We should not be surprised if the timepieces that others based their timings on indicated (slightly) other times.

                              That is, if Lamb’s timepiece would actually have indicated a time before 1 am. Because there’s also evidence that suggests that it was just after 1 am when Lamb saw Eagle & Kozebrodski.

                              Witness. - I was coming towards Berner-street. Police-constable Smith is on the Berner-street beat. There is a constable on fixed-point duty at the corner of Grove-street, Commercial-road, and he came off duty at one a.m.

                              By the coroner: He was not the man who went to the yard with me. A policeman was on "fixed" duty at Grove street, near Berner street; but he was relieved at one o'clock and the "fixed" duty is not taken up again till nine o'clock the next morning.

                              It also suggests she heard boots around 12:45 running, and a cart and horse about 4 minutes after she went inside at 1am. it also suggests that Louis created the idea that the killer might have slipped past him, when there is no evidence anyone left that passageway at that time. It also suggests that the boots she heard around 12:45 could be just about anyone, perhaps Eagle, perhaps Issac K....perhaps Schwartz,... if you like cow pies.
                              She stated she heard the “measured, heavy tramp” of someone, a tramp she clearly associated with that of a policeman, who slowishly walked his beat but didn’t run. If you want anybody to believe that what Fanny heard would have been a man who was running, you’ll have to do better, Michael.

                              All the best,
                              Frank
                              "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                              Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                              Comment


                              • On the subject of why Schwartz didn’t attend the inquest I just thought that I’d post the suggestions that David Orsam mentioned in his …article. He stressed that these were only suggestions by the way.
                                1. His lack of English. The Coroner would have had to pay for an interpreter and then reclaim the expense. Like everyone a Coroner would have watched his budget and as Schwartz wasn’t a vital witness (in regard to the aims of the inquest) the need for an interpreter might have tipped the balance against calling him.
                                2. That the police may have wanted to keep Schwartz evidence about the name ‘Lipski’ under wraps either for operational reasons or for fear of reprisals against the Jewish community.
                                3. That Schwartz made it clear that he didn’t wish to attend and the coroner agreed considering that he was a non-vital witness.
                                4. That Schwartz was taken ill or suffered an injury. (My own addition is that perhaps he successfully feigned illness to avoid attending?)
                                5. That he was called but failed to attend. Maybe, due to the language issue, he misunderstood what he was supposed to do? And is it possible that, because he wasn’t important, they never enforced sanctions?
                                6. That he changed his address and the coroner couldn’t find it. (David provides an example of this occurring in 1907)
                                7. Some kind of administrative error led to the coroner not hearing of Schwartz.
                                8. Along similar lines - the prime mover in organising the witnesses was the coroner’s officer who interviewed them beforehand. Perhaps he didn’t manage to obtain a statement from Schwartz and may not even have been aware of his existence.

                                A final point is that it’s often asked if they didn’t call Schwartz why did they call so and so (substitute any inconsequential witness who appears to have been less important than Schwartz)? The Coroner’s Act talks of the coroner having to examine all persons that tendered their evidence. So some of these witnesses may have just turned up asking to give evidence; maybe from a sense of public duty or made simply to see their names in the newspaper? So it would have been impossible for us, before any of the inquests, to have predicted who would or wouldn’t have given evidence. So we can’t imply anything from non-attendance. Why didn’t they call Fanny Mortimer? Why wasn’t Isaac Kozebrodsky called (didn’t they think him trustworthy due to his incorrect estimation of the time? I wouldn’t claim it so why is it claimed for Schwartz)

                                Basically we don’t know why Schwartz wasn’t called but it wasn’t because the police didn’t believe him because documentary evidence shows that not to have been the case.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X