Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[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

Refrain? That whole post was whining! And I've provided you all the sources in the past that prove what I say is true, and you act like that never happened. In fact, you say twice here that I refuse to provide the evidence. Disingenuous much?

As for me "really wanting" to be the de facto source on Berner Street...is that why my first book doesn't even touch on it? If and when I publish a Berner Street book, that (and not me) will be the de facto source. And there's absolutely no question that the case sorely needs one. Until then, there's the police and press reports, which is where I get my info. I encourage you to read and research as well. Then you wouldn't have to pretend to be at the same knowledge level as the rest of us. If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, then you, my friendly neighbor to the north, are positively deadly.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hunter]

From the Echo, Oct. 1:


It is established almost beyond doubt that the poor creature met her death some time between twelve and one o'clock. And yet no one seems to have heard a struggle, or a groan, or the slightest indication of what was going on. From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.

"We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."

The quote by Mrs. Mortimer referred to by Mike as appearing in the Oct 2nd Evening News was a Press Association interview that appeared in several publications - including the Evening News - on Oct. 1st:

A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

Mortimer is assuming they were there before and after the murder. She doesn't say she actually saw them. In fact, "they" told her they didn't hear a sound - obviously part of the mixed up gossip going around while the press were interviewing anyone who would speak. Tom's point about the couple not being there when Brown was is correct.

If there had been any real indication that this couple was there, Inspector Reid would have presented them to that witness to either clarify or deny this was the couple he saw. There is no indication this was done and Reid conducted a very thorough investigation of this murder compared to the previous two conducted by others (Joseph Chandler was not even a detective inspector at the time of the Hanbury St. murder, just inspector).

[Michael W Richards]

Tom, ....you tell me that youve provided the proof yet in post #238 you stated you are withholding it..."Not yet,... not here"? I actually posted a supporting note to your choice in your first book on the topic on one of these threads somewhere...I was pleased to see that it wasnt a Suspect and Explanation kind of book. As for reading up on these cases, Im fairly sure aside from your own research Ive read comparable amounts on the cases specifically. And Ten years or so, off and on, here discussing the data.

Hunter, Im interested to know how you know so well what Reid thought about the witnesses,... your impressions, or do you have some reference material from him specifically on the topic? Fanny Mortimers statement to the press does not exclude the couple from being at that corner at approx 12:45, its within the bounds of it. She establishes them there before, and after, and unless someone has evidence that they left and returned to the same spot, they may well have been there at 12:45.

Also worth repeating that Brown saw or heard nothing of any altercation around the corner, and neither did Fanny. Also worth noting that Fanny doesnt say "after 1am when the woman was found dead", she says "after the woman had been murdered". Since we have at least 3 witnesses that stated within 1 hour of the discovery that they were alerted to a dead woman in the passage at or around 12:45am, Fanny may have intended her comments with that in mind.

Interesting that the young couple, who must have been interviewed and did discuss the events with Fanny, did not state that they saw or heard a cart arrive. Interesting that no-one stated that they saw or heard the cart arrive, Louis stated he arrived at 1. Fanny heard a cart and horse, arriving or leaving, its unlikely she could have discerned its direction from inside the house.

Israel Schwartz says he saw Liz Stride alive between 12:35 and 1am when Louis says he found her dead. Israel is not a witness in the public hearing convened to determine her cause of death, and to my knowledge no-one specifically corroborates Louis's timing of 1am.

The sighting at that corner could well be a very significant clue that Liz Stride had been off the street and out of sight since shortly after the PC left, which impacts the questions arising about time alone and missing mutilations greatly. Thats why I dont Read into Reid, nor do I assume that this was done and that person was honest and that one was not.

The validation comes from unconnected sources whose statements validate the evidence given by another, or others. In the case of the specific timing of Liz Strides cut, there is no such validation. Estimates and guesses.

Cheers

[Hunter]

I see. Your resistance to the evidence that the young couple were there prior to the other witnesses is because it conflicts with your timing theory. Since this is not the topic of this thread and we both have deviated substantially from it, I'll leave you with that last word and let others decide based on what has been presented already. Feel free to start a thread if you like. Will be glad to join you there as time permits.

[caz]

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

I've never been able to see BSM in a relationship with Liz. How rare would such a chance meeting be?

Cheers.
LC

Eh? Where did that come from, Lynn? It wasn't my perception that the assault on Liz was a domestic incident; Moonbegger merely suggested it may have been Pipeman's perception. I was acting as interpreter in MB's temporary absence, as you had misunderstood him.

Send reinforcements, we're going to advance.

Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

interpreter

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"Where did that come from, Lynn?"

Um, think that was MY question. But interpreters are not responsible for content. Very well.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi Lynn,

I didn't understand why you asked ME the question I quoted from your post.

I still don't.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

I see. Your resistance to the evidence that the young couple were there prior to the other witnesses is because it conflicts with your timing theory. Since this is not the topic of this thread and we both have deviated substantially from it, I'll leave you with that last word and let others decide based on what has been presented already. Feel free to start a thread if you like. Will be glad to join you there as time permits.

I will add only that I have never had any "timing" theory Hunter, nor any preffered suspect agenda, nor any Conspiracy agenda. I am trying to follow the evidence as it lays. In the case of Berner Street, there are 3 different stories for the time of 12:45am and Liz Stride....Browns, Israel Schwartz, and Issac Kozebrodski, Spooner and an additional Club member's. Maybe Gillen or Giller, I dont recall specifically. That there were at least 3 witnesses in that group is factual.

I believe you and others would like to tell me which account is accurate, even though Liz Stride is in 3 different places in those stories. Which story you believe directly impacts the probable validity of other witness accounts, such as Louis, and Morris, and even Goldsteins.

It has always seemed to me that the most probable people in this murder investigation to have modified the actual truth or created a story from whole cloth would be the people who had monetary or freedom concerns that depended on the degree of guilt that they would be perceived as having. That would of course be the Club members and visitors.

When you have conflicts like this I dont care how each story might fit a particular theory, I am assessing what is reasonable and therefore probable to believe in.

Just for the record, anyway.

Cheers

[moonbegger]

Eh? Where did that come from, Lynn? It wasn't my perception that the assault on Liz was a domestic incident; Moonbegger merely suggested it may have been Pipeman's perception. I was acting as interpreter in MB's temporary absence, as you had misunderstood him.
Caz
X

Hello Caz & Lynn ,

Does anyone else find it hilarious , that this is a thread questioning the probability of misunderstanding interpretations and misinterpretation itself, between two or three different languages and dialects 125 years ago ..

The fact that we can still gloriously fail to communicate and misunderstand each other in an all too common language 125 years later is priceless ..

Lynn , I tip my cap to you sir , if this was indeed your intention .

moonbegger

[DRoy]

That's your idea?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

It was not my intent to try to claim it as a new idea or take credit for such an idea, although I had yet to see it suggested in this thread. I don't recall seeing it suggested elsewhere either but apparently it has been.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Its really not that incomprehensible is it ? "The man your looking for lives here , but keep his name out of the paper, or that'll be your last tip"
Yet you have no problems believing a Policeman gave the press the Interpreters details .. Obviously the Police gave out information about the visit , or how else would the press got wind of it in the first place ..

Moon,

They didn't find him at his house, they found him down the street from his house. Quite remarkable considering the amount of people in the area. The description must have been perfect for them to find him!

No I don't have proof Schwartz was told not to talk to the press. I don't think you'd find too many people on here that would disagree it is almost a certainty they did.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

My views on the Star piece are this...

Either it was planted by the police, or the Star reporter paid a copper for the info...which happened ALL the time.

Agreed! Thanks Tom!

Cheers
DRoy

[moonbegger]

Moon,

They didn't find him at his house, they found him down the street from his house. Quite remarkable considering the amount of people in the area. The description must have been perfect for them to find him!

DRoy ..

A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane.

Did he not live in Backchurch Lane ? And are there any other statements pertaining to how , and where , he was found ? If the star man was told to keep it under wraps , its no wonder his exact address and name was omitted .

cheers , moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Also , on another note connected with Schwartz and his Truthfulness or reliability .. or lack of it , according to some .. Is this possibly another misinterpretation or misread ?

This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

This appears at the foot of Schwartz press account .. is Schwartz getting accidently discredited , because people are attributing "The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted" to Schwartz account as opposed to the prisoner in question ? just a thought ..

cheers , moonbegger

[lynn cates]

another go

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Perhaps another go is in order. Or perhaps it is enough that you see no love connection from BSM to Liz.

Cheers.
LC