Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

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).

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[lynn cates]

paces

Hello MB. Thanks.

Actually, more than a few paces.

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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