Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[lynn cates]

better case scenario

Hello MB. It would be even better if he stopped off for a drink, so he could become tipsy, and had come down Berner from Commercial, and ALL in about 60 seconds.

Cheers.
LC

[moonbegger]

Hello MB. It would be even better if he stopped off for a drink, so he could become tipsy, and had come down Berner from Commercial, and ALL in about 60 seconds.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn , I was unaware that Brown used a breathalyzer to determine how much BSM2 had to drink ..

the woman had her back to the wall, facing the man who had his arm up against it.

Arm up against the wall Maybe to stabilize himself .. If he was a little Tipsy ???

Browns man could have quite easily gone up batty St in a huff turned back down Berner st , all in the space of a few minutes , And we all know how reliable Victorian timings can be here !

cheers , moonbegger

[Tom_Wescott]

Interesting though .. did Schwartz re-confirm the fact that it was a Pipe and not a Knife with his description ?

Yes. Stewart once produced a table prepared by the police that added the additional detail that the pipe was in Pipeman's mouth. I'd fairly say that rules out a knife.

I agree that Brown's man could not have been BS Man.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[moonbegger]

I agree that Brown's man could not have been BS Man.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom ,

I am curious as to why you would say " Could not have been "

Both Schwartz and Brown describe a BSM , almost same height , Both wearing hats ..

Also there is nothing to rule out this man walking around the corner with stride to Berner street , leaving her at the yard entrance , taking a few paces up Berner street towards Commercial road , before turning back to give her some abuse .. in fact both statements Schwartz ( Apparently made ) support this ..

on turning into Berner Street from Commercial Street and having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.

cheers , moonbegger

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Moon. I think the coat suggests Brown's man was probably Pipeman. If not, then a different man altogether.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

tempus fugit

Hello MB. Thanks.

If timings are that far out, why adduce them at all?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

pipe

Hello Tom.

"Stewart once produced a table prepared by the police that added the additional detail that the pipe was in Pipeman's mouth. I'd fairly say that rules out a knife."

Love to see that. The knife story does not sound credible--perhaps an afterthought by a reporter?

"I agree that Brown's man could not have been BS Man."

Splendid.

Cheers.
LC

[moonbegger]

Hello MB. Thanks.

If timings are that far out, why adduce them at all?

Cheers.
LC

Hello lynn , my new approach is timing friendly ..

Also there is nothing to rule out this man walking around the corner with stride to Berner street , leaving her at the yard entrance , taking a few paces up Berner street towards Commercial road , before turning back to give her some abuse .. in fact both statements Schwartz ( Apparently made ) support this ..

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Hi Moon. I think the coat suggests Brown's man was probably Pipeman. If not, then a different man altogether.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom ,

Yes that Overcoat reporting does at first seem pretty conclusive ..

Although there is the coincidence factor of Liz being twenty yards away from her second sighting , just minutes earlier , with another broad shouldered man of the same height and build as Schwartz described , who was also " dressed respectably in dark clothes and a hat.,"

I'm not sure just the word " Overcoat" would be enough for me to reject the above as just coincidence ..

cheers , moonbegger

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom ,

Yes that Overcoat reporting does at first seem pretty conclusive ..

Although there is the coincidence factor of Liz being twenty yards away from her second sighting , just minutes earlier , with another broad shouldered man of the same height and build as Schwartz described , who was also " dressed respectably in dark clothes and a hat.,"

I'm not sure just the word " Overcoat" would be enough for me to reject the above as just coincidence ..

cheers , moonbegger

It's not conjecture, it's a possibility suggested by timing, logistics, and descriptive evidence. And it's a goo possibility since mere seconds or minutes separate the two sightings, which are on the same spot, and it takes only seconds to walk 20 yards. But, it also takes only seconds for one man to leave the scene and another to emerge. Logistics and clothing makes it far more likely for Brown's man to have been Pipeman over BS Man. However, that does not make Brown's man Pipeman.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

paces

Hello MB. Thanks.

Actually, more than a few paces.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Just to put it in perspective, if you were Pipeman standing outside the Nelson and you were looking at Schwartz, you'd be looking at the board school. If you turned your head 80 degrees you'd now be looking straight across Fairclough Street and at Norris' chandler's shop. So, when Brown left this shop, he crossed Fairclough Street diagonally in order to end up on the Board School side where he saw his couple. For only a few seconds would he have had a view of lower Berner Street where he apparently saw no one or nothing of note. This means that Schwartz and BS Man had either not arrived yet or had just passed through. There was no 'young couple' on Berner Street at the time as you often see on the boards and in some books. That couple had not been on the street for 45 minutes or so by that time. So the woman Brown saw was probably Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Arguably the best witness for what happened in front of the gates between 12:30 and 1am is Fanny Mortimer, since her sporadic visits to her door covers that entire time period. No other witness in this case offered a similar perspective, and she has no loyalties to temper her remarks.

She stated to the Evening News on October 2nd that she saw "a young man and his sweetheart standing at the corner of the street...about 20 yards away...before and after the the time the woman must have been murdered."

Elizabeth Stride wasnt acknowledged as being seen by anyone during the period from PC Smith's 12:35 sighting until Louis Diemshutz arrived home. Doesnt mean she wasnt seen of course, just that no-one admitted to seeing her.

Brown almost certainly saw the couple Fanny describes at that location, and since you mentioned it earlier, I agree that he would have had a view of the front of the gates at some point..he certainly would have seen or heard the scuffle if both he and Israel were telling the truth about the time. So would Fanny...either from her front step or inside with an open door.

Cheers

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom says Mortimer's couple wasn't there at 12:45am.

Mike Richards says they were.

Take your pick. But Mike's a horse I've led to water many a time and yet he's made his choice to drown in thirst.

The young woman was interviewed. She was last there around midnight. Midnight is when the murder was originally thought to have occurred. Mortimer spoke to the young woman at the crime scene an reported what she heard or thought she heard to the press. End of story. The young couple is a red herring. No I won't provide sources. Not yet at least, and not here.

Anyway, I believe we were having an intelligent discussion prior to the last post, were we not? I apologize for my part in the digression.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Tom says Mortimer's couple wasn't there at 12:45am.

Mike Richards says they were.

Take your pick. But Mike's a horse I've led to water many a time and yet he's made his choice to drown in thirst.

The young woman was interviewed. She was last there around midnight. Midnight is when the murder was originally thought to have occurred. Mortimer spoke to the young woman at the crime scene an reported what she heard or thought she heard to the press. End of story. The young couple is a red herring. No I won't provide sources. Not yet at least, and not here.

Anyway, I believe we were having an intelligent discussion prior to the last post, were we not? I apologize for my part in the digression.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Its so like you to suggest its me putting the young couple there, since I quoted from Fanny that " A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound". Seems that Fanny talked to them as well.

You personalize points that disagree with what youve stated and take victory laps for information that you claim boosts your point being made...without revealing said information. I can only debate on the currently widely known of course.

Stop taking it so personal Tom, you are not, nor will you ever be, the de facto source for information about the murder at 40 Berner...nor will I, or anyone else be. The problem is you really want to be.

If you have a source that directly refutes what I stated then put it out....if not, then be silent. As I did with what you posted, suggesting that Stride is the woman in the couple at the corner...for one, without any flower arrangement visible on her.

You want to have Liz donning the flower after being at the corner, ....and to be killed by someone else after she is assaulted in the street by BSM?

Ill refrain from whining in my response.

Cheers

[moonbegger]

It might be thought that the frequency of the occurrence of men and women being seen together under similar circumstances might have led to mistaken identity; but the police stated, and several of the witnesses corroborated the statement, that although many couples are to be seen at night in the Commercial-road, it was exceptional to meet them in Berner-street. With regard to the man seen, there were many points of similarity, but some of dissimilarity, in the descriptions of the three witnesses; but these discrepancies did not conclusively prove that there was more than one man in the company of the deceased,

moonbegger