Fanny Mortimer

[Herlock Sholmes]

For the sake of other readers, this refers to Frank's 4th possibility:



If they have gone into the yard after 12:45, but before 12:47 or 48, then parcel man is surely the killer.
Not sure were that would leave the Schwartz tale - maybe that is what you're hinting at?

Alternatively we are looking at Mortimer observing the street from about 12:47:00, until the end of 12:56.
So we would need Stride to leave the scene before this period, and then both Stride and killer to either enter the yard in that period, without Fanny noticing (another roll of the dice), or for both to enter in the few minutes prior to 1am.
The later (1am) point assumes there was a gap between Mortimer's lockup and Diemschitz' arrival, which I think is false, and just part of the highly misleading Daily/Evening News reports.
Even if there were a gap, what are the chances that Stride and killer would independently meet at the gates in this short period, or that they return together from some trip from around a corner or side street (and no one notices that either)?

Regarding the 1am issue, I don't think it possible for Diemschitz to have arrived at that time - it's too late. Smith's timings alone cast much doubt on it.
In the Echo, Oct 1, there may be a clue as to what really happened...

The steward of the International and Educational Club reached the gate just as the clock struck one.

Did the clock strike one, or a quarter to one? In the same edition...

Complaint is also made [?] [?] [?] there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be [?] from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation.

The other issue with 1am, is of course Mrs Mortimer...

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half past twelve and one o'clock this morning...

What does Fanny mean by 'one o'clock'? That is not a trick question.
Does she mean her clock was observed to read one, right after she locked up, or that she guessed one, or that she got her sense of time from subsequently talking to Louis Diemschitz?
In the later case, 'one o'clock' is not a time as such, but a signifier for two simultaneous events. Walter Dew:

Just as she was about to re-enter her cottage the woman heard the approach of a pony and cart. She knew this would be Lewis Dienschitz, the steward of the club.




True, it's just that I think Johnston would be more likely to remember the 1:16, if he were writing it down at the beginning of Blackwell's examination.




As did The Lodger




Doesn't Spooner arrive 4 or 5 minutes before Lamb?
How much time elapsed from the point Diemschitz sees the clock, to Spooner's arrival at the yard? It's more that 1 or 2 minutes.
Why did you refer to Diemschitz claimed arrival time, as an estimate?

Why do you assume Mortimer to have been correct about the time that she heard Smith pass? Smith said that it was 12.30-12.35 of course. So If Smith passed at say 12.33 and Fanny went to her doorstep at 12.34 then we would have her on her doorstep for 10 minutes as she claimed but which might only have been 8 minutes or 9 minutes. Which would have meant that she could have been back inside as early as 12.42. She could have seen Goldstein at 12.40.

Yes she didn’t see Smith’s couple but they might have turned into Fairclough Street or stood in a doorway of the Board School for privacy and so remained out of sight for the duration of her vigil. If she then went back inside at 12.42/3 then this gives time for Stride to get to the gates to be seen by Schwartz at 12.45.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Which, in my view suggests there is more to this story than has come to light.

Yes. It's interesting that the other reports of Schwartz incident-like events, are witnessed by multiple people, whereas with Schwartz himself, he is apparently the only witness (other that the other 3 in the story).

Also, I wonder what the belief was at the club - did they all agree on when the murder occurred, or was there significant disagreement?
I would suppose the later - reflected in their own paper claiming a quarter to one murder, and a one o'clock discovery - the former being too specific and too coincidental with the Schwartz incident, to be ignored as a mere guess.
I suspect Schwartz' visit to Leman street station, had something to do with reducing the tension between the competing stories - the murderer fleeing up Fairclough street at a quarter to one, and the murdered being disturbed by Diemschitz, at 1am.
That is, the Schwartz version of the 12:45 incident (real or otherwise), plays down the murder aspect, or at least makes it ambiguous.
This would, perhaps, have allowed the club to have a public position that matched that of the police. Irish Times, Oct 1:

It is believed in police circles that the murderer was disturbed at his work by the arrival of Diemshitz, and that he made off as soon as he heard the cart at the top of the street.

This is a common problem, trying to arrive at a conclusion from what remains of the evidence.

I definitely have a problem

I would expect so. Witnesses were kept in a separate room from the proceedings, so out of sight of the coroner.
The coroner's deputy will be aware of who is in the waiting room and who has not shown up. The deputy will need to inform the coroner prior to the witness being called, at which point it would be entered as part of the record.

Do you think it conceivable that Schwartz was called, did not show up, and this was not made public because of Schwartz being Jewish?
If there was much general concern about anti-Jewish sentiment, what effect might it be supposed would result from the public learning that an important Jewish witness had not heeded his inquest summons?

Perhaps, because it is hearsay, not actually witnessed by the Secretary (Wess).
A witness is instructed to only comment on what they see, hear or say, of the events that took place.

I would suppose that Wess would have received the best available information, being the secretary.
However, even if he does hear rumours, those rumours could easily be traced to their originator.
Surely the coroner would be interested in hearing about...

... the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street ... The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

Taking literally, this cannot mean there was a misconstrued chase, as the man doing the chasing is not a club member.
On the other hand, it may mean that some members of the club knew the identity of Pipeman. Fascinating.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't know where they went; they may have gone into the yard or just around the corner or turn into one of Berner Street's small side street. I don't think she must return shortly before 1 am and, whoever he was, Stride's murderer must have appeared (and disappeared) when no one was looking.

For the sake of other readers, this refers to Frank's 4th possibility:

Mortimer heard Smith pass her house just before 12:45 and went to her doorstep at least 1.5 minute later (so that Smith and Stride & companion would be out of sight) and stood there for some 10 minutes.

If they have gone into the yard after 12:45, but before 12:47 or 48, then parcel man is surely the killer.
Not sure were that would leave the Schwartz tale - maybe that is what you're hinting at?

Alternatively we are looking at Mortimer observing the street from about 12:47:00, until the end of 12:56.
So we would need Stride to leave the scene before this period, and then both Stride and killer to either enter the yard in that period, without Fanny noticing (another roll of the dice), or for both to enter in the few minutes prior to 1am.
The later (1am) point assumes there was a gap between Mortimer's lockup and Diemschitz' arrival, which I think is false, and just part of the highly misleading Daily/Evening News reports.
Even if there were a gap, what are the chances that Stride and killer would independently meet at the gates in this short period, or that they return together from some trip from around a corner or side street (and no one notices that either)?

Regarding the 1am issue, I don't think it possible for Diemschitz to have arrived at that time - it's too late. Smith's timings alone cast much doubt on it.
In the Echo, Oct 1, there may be a clue as to what really happened...

The steward of the International and Educational Club reached the gate just as the clock struck one.

Did the clock strike one, or a quarter to one? In the same edition...

Complaint is also made [?] [?] [?] there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be [?] from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation.

The other issue with 1am, is of course Mrs Mortimer...

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half past twelve and one o'clock this morning...

What does Fanny mean by 'one o'clock'? That is not a trick question.
Does she mean her clock was observed to read one, right after she locked up, or that she guessed one, or that she got her sense of time from subsequently talking to Louis Diemschitz?
In the later case, 'one o'clock' is not a time as such, but a signifier for two simultaneous events. Walter Dew:

Just as she was about to re-enter her cottage the woman heard the approach of a pony and cart. She knew this would be Lewis Dienschitz, the steward of the club.

I've re-read the statements by both Blackwell and his assistent, but Johnson's corroborate Blackwell's in that he consulted his watch as he arrived in the yard, not as he was examining the body. Not that it would make a lot of difference though...

True, it's just that I think Johnston would be more likely to remember the 1:16, if he were writing it down at the beginning of Blackwell's examination.

True (although it was longer), and he may also have gone via Hampshire Court.

As did The Lodger

I don't see it as a big problem, NBFN. I think Lamb arrived around 1.05 (so, itmay also have been 1.06) and Diemshutz may well have been off for 1 or 2 minutes on his estimate.

Doesn't Spooner arrive 4 or 5 minutes before Lamb?
How much time elapsed from the point Diemschitz sees the clock, to Spooner's arrival at the yard? It's more that 1 or 2 minutes.
Why did you refer to Diemschitz claimed arrival time, as an estimate?

[Sunny Delight]

The one thing that strikes me about Berner Street is the sheer amount of people passing through or in the area between 12:30 and 1am. PC Smith saw a man and woman at 12:30 near Dutfields Yard. Morris Eagle returns to the International Working Mens Club at 12:40. Charles Letchford was passing around the same time as these two. A courting couple are in the area and probably seen by James Brown on his way to get supper. Fanny Mortimer is at her door on and off. Elizabeth Stride is in Berner Street as Broad Shouldered man and Israel Schwartz are walking down the street. Pipeman appears after the altercation between BS and Stride(assuming it is true which I believe it is). Then Louis Diemschitz finds the body at 1am. The sheer amount of people coming and going really strikes me. Whoever the Ripper was and I believe it was BS man he was an incredible risk taker. I think Peter Sutcliffe was similar in that he became totally unhinged from reality and danger the more he killed.

Mortimer's statements are somewhat convoluted and confusing but the liklihood is she likely was at her door after the attack by BS man. It astounds me just how the Ripper was not caught after the Double Event. I have been watching Yorkshire Ripper on Netflix and what shines through is the mysoginy from the Police in regards the victims. This hampered the investigation quite badly at times and saw key witnesses ignored. One can only imagine how things were in 1888.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You still don't understand.

The reference to excuses for non-attendance is made given the assumption that Schwartz was summonsed to the inquest.

Therefore, the police's loss of faith, real and influential or otherwise, is irrelevant to my argument in that post.

Now go and wipe the egg off your face...

Yeah right.

[Wickerman]

Agreed, but it seems astonishing to me that he would not have been.

Which, in my view suggests there is more to this story than has come to light.
This is a common problem, trying to arrive at a conclusion from what remains of the evidence.

Do you also mean there would be mention of his non-attendance in the papers?

I would expect so. Witnesses were kept in a separate room from the proceedings, so out of sight of the coroner.
The coroner's deputy will be aware of who is in the waiting room and who has not shown up. The deputy will need to inform the coroner prior to the witness being called, at which point it would be entered as part of the record.

I think the question - why wasn't Israel Schwartz called to the inquest? - might be the wrong one.
Consider the report in The Echo, Oct 1:

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street ... The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

Why wasn't Wess asked about this, at the inquest?

Perhaps, because it is hearsay, not actually witnessed by the Secretary (Wess).
A witness is instructed to only comment on what they see, hear or say, of the events that took place.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Its taken you a week to come up with that?

Any excuse for Schwartz non-attendance simply evaporates.

Or

there are no valid excuses for his non-attendance - like the one’s suggested by myself and others - so what remains but the suggestion that the police had lost faith in him.

Its self explanatory.

No wonder you didn’t respond to my posts on the other thread despite three prompts. You were trying to find away of wriggling out of it rather than accepting.

You still don't understand.

The reference to excuses for non-attendance is made given the assumption that Schwartz was summonsed to the inquest.

Therefore, the police's loss of faith, real and influential or otherwise, is irrelevant to my argument in that post.

Now go and wipe the egg off your face...

[FrankO]

Where did Stride & companion go, considering she must return just before 1am, if not into the yard?
And when does JtR enter the picture?

I don't know where they went; they may have gone into the yard or just around the corner or turn into one of Berner Street's small side street. I don't think she must return shortly before 1 am and, whoever he was, Stride's murderer must have appeared (and disappeared) when no one was looking.

The 1:16 gets quoted all the time, but strictly speaking, this is the time Blackwell begins his examination, not his time of arrival at the gates.
This is true because Johnston is aware of this time - thus it must have been recorded by Johnston when he is with Blackwell, near the body...

As soon as Dr. Blackwell came he looked at his watch. It was then 1:16. I was there three or four minutes before Dr. Blackwell.

The coroner had this understanding, also...

… although the bleeding had stopped when Dr. Blackwell's assistant arrived, the whole of her body and the limbs, except her hands, were warm, and even at 16 minutes past 1 a.m. Dr. Blackwell found her face slightly warm, and her chest and legs quite warm.

I've re-read the statements by both Blackwell and his assistent, but Johnson's corroborate Blackwell's in that he consulted his watch as he arrived in the yard, not as he was examining the body. Not that it would make a lot of difference though...

There must be a gap of some minutes, for these reasons, although 426H could have gone to the surgery via Fairclough & Batty streets.

True (although it was longer), and he may also have gone via Hampshire Court.

The big problem is always going to be that Lamb must arrive a few minutes or more before Smith, for Smith to not hear any of the related activity.
Yet this puts Lamb on the scene at 4 or 5 past 1 (in your 4th scenario), and much activity has to occur between then and 1am, for Diemschitz to arrive when claimed.

Consider what he said to The Star:

First of all I thought it was my wife, but I found her inside the club enjoying herself with the others. I said to some of the members there is a woman lying in the yard, and I think she is drunk. Young Isaacs, a tailor machinist, went to the door and struck a match, and to our horror we saw blood trickling down the gutter almost from the gate to the club. The dance was immediately stopped. I and Isaacs ran out for a policeman, but could not find one after traversing several streets, but in the meantime another man from the Club, Eagle, ran to the Leman-street police-station and fetched two policemen, who arrived about seven minutes after the discovery.

The Leman street detail is incorrect, but the 7 minutes would throw out the timeline.

I don't see it as a big problem, NBFN. I think Lamb arrived around 1.05 (so, itmay also have been 1.06) and Diemshutz may well have been off for 1 or 2 minutes on his estimate.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That last line assumes he was called, which we do not know to be the case.

Agreed, but it seems astonishing to me that he would not have been.

There was a penalty for non-compliance with a summons to attend. I would expect the coroner would have made his absence a matter of public record if he had ignored the summons and not attended.

Do you also mean there would be mention of his non-attendance in the papers?

We may as well drop the idea that he was summonsed and concentrate why he wasn't.

Okay then. Actually, have been thinking about that recently...

I think the question - why wasn't Israel Schwartz called to the inquest? - might be the wrong one.
Consider the report in The Echo, Oct 1:

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street ... The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

Why wasn't Wess asked about this, at the inquest?
Baxter did not ask Wess anything about when he learned of the murder, who told him, or what other relevant details he may have overheard or been told, that morning.
Yet how could the coroner not have been interested in a story that included 'a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer'?
And what about the man who supposedly gave chase - why not call him to the inquest, or at least attempt to ascertain the man's identity, by asking Wess/Diemschitz/Eagle for some insight?
Then there is the apparent other reporting of an incident involving Stride being thrown down. The People:

The police authorities who have the inquiries with respect to the murders in hand, have received a statement with regard to the murder in Berner street that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground, but that it being thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, no notice was taken of it.

The statement giver was not called to the inquest. Why not?
Was this actually Schwartz telling the duty inspector at Leman street station, half the story he went on to tell Abberline (with a different age for b-s man)?
Whatever the case, this assault was not mentioned at the inquest, which leads back to what I think is the real issue...

It is not just Israel Schwartz who is missing from the inquest, but any mention of all of these stories of events that seem to occur at around a quarter to one.
It is all absent. It's as though Baxter was unaware of any of it.

By the way, for anyone who believes Schwartz' tale, can you not see how his story is a fabrication - but not fabricated out of nothing, but rather by combining bits of other stories...?

a man and his wife quarrelling
[the man] was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground
he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street
The man pursued escaped...

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
The text of mine you highlight which says - any excuse for Schwartz' non-attendance simply evaporates - refers to both the excuses made for Schwartz not heeding his summons, if it is accepted that he was called, and to hypothesised reasons for him being excused on safety or other grounds

Its taken you a week to come up with that?

Any excuse for Schwartz non-attendance simply evaporates.

Or

there are no valid excuses for his non-attendance - like the one’s suggested by myself and others - so what remains but the suggestion that the police had lost faith in him.

Its self explanatory.

No wonder you didn’t respond to my posts on the other thread despite three prompts. You were trying to find away of wriggling out of it rather than accepting.

[Wickerman]

If he is called to the inquest - which he surely was - he is legally obliged to attend.
If there were concerns over safety, there is a mechanism for dealing with this - appearance in camera.
There is no evidence that this mechanism was used, and therefore it is highly likely that Israel Schwartz dodged the inquest.

That last line assumes he was called, which we do not know to be the case.

If every witness called to an inquest or court case could simply refuse to turn up on safety grounds, the entire legal system would pretty much collapse.

There was a penalty for non-compliance with a summons to attend. I would expect the coroner would have made his absence a matter of public record if he had ignored the summons and not attended.

We may as well drop the idea that he was summonsed and concentrate why he wasn't.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes I can. I quoted it on the other thread to but you appeared to ‘miss’ it unless you were simply taking your time to come up with an excuse?

Once again, you've managed to grossly misrepresent my position. Here is the original post...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/general-suspect-discussion/743972-stride-a-victim?p=747463#post747463

You claim that in that post I am answering this question:

On whether you’ve suggested that Schwartz non-attendance must have been down to a lack of faith in his evidence. You said:

But that is not correct. If you actually read the post, I am answering a question that Caz asks in this post...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/general-suspect-discussion/743972-stride-a-victim?p=747426#post747426

The question is/was:

Would he have been forced to attend, if there were genuine concerns about his and his family's safety if he did so? I don't know the answer, I'm merely curious.

Fair question, to which I reply (added emphasis)...

If he is called to the inquest - which he surely was - he is legally obliged to attend.
If there were concerns over safety, there is a mechanism for dealing with this - appearance in camera.
There is no evidence that this mechanism was used, and therefore it is highly likely that Israel Schwartz dodged the inquest.
If every witness called to an inquest or court case could simply refuse to turn up on safety grounds, the entire legal system would pretty much collapse.

Neither the question or answer has anything to do with a lack of faith in Schwartz' evidence. You appear to have just made this up.
Also, how could you have possibly interpreted the bold text above as meaning I thought Schwartz was not called to the inquest? Did you just make that up also, or are your comprehension skills so badly lacking that you cannot tell the difference between 'surely was' and 'surely was not'?

The text of mine you highlight which says - any excuse for Schwartz' non-attendance simply evaporates - refers to both the excuses made for Schwartz not heeding his summons, if it is accepted that he was called, and to hypothesised reasons for him being excused on safety or other grounds.

Somehow you've got it into that head of yours, that I suppose Schwartz was not called due to unfavourable police opinion, yet in the post in question I make no reference to police opinion of Schwartz, and furthermore I am aware that the decision making regarding the calling of witnesses is the responsibility of the coroner, not the police.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can you quote me suggesting that Schwartz was probably or definitely not called to the inquest, and that this was due to the police having no faith in him?

Yes I can. I quoted it on the other thread to but you appeared to ‘miss’ it unless you were simply taking your time to come up with an excuse?

.
holmes View Post
On whether you’ve suggested that Schwartz non-attendance must have been down to a lack of faith in his evidence. You said:


“Would he have been forced to attend, if there were genuine concerns about his and his family's safety if he did so? I don't know the answer, I'm merely curious.

If he is called to the inquest - which he surely was - he is legally obliged to attend.

If there were concerns over safety, there is a mechanism for dealing with this - appearance in camera.

There is no evidence that this mechanism was used, and therefore it is highly likely that Israel Schwartz dodged the inquest.

If every witness called to an inquest or court case could simply refuse to turn up on safety grounds, the entire legal system would pretty much collapse.

Given that Schwartz was happy to give an anonymous interview to the Star, the day after the murder, Schwartz himself could hardly have too many concerns about his or his family's (assuming there was one) safety - an anonymous daytime interview by a newspaper reporter, on a Whitechapel street, is hardly a high-security arrangement - either physically or in privacy terms. Compare that to an in camera appearance at an inquest, with the sort of protection available as was placed around Lawende, and any excuse for Schwartz' non-attendance simply evaporates.”

So you’re clearly dismissing all other reasons for Schwartz non-attendance.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Not that I want to harp on about you believing that Schwartz wasn’t called to the Inquest because the police had no faith in him of course.

Can you quote me suggesting that Schwartz was probably or definitely not called to the inquest, and that this was due to the police having no faith in him?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually, it is you and the other hard-core Schwartzists, who cannot let the fantasy go.

The Star: INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.

So Israel Schwartz was probably an actor!
Was he paid for his services to the Socialist League, I wonder, or was there some other kind of deal done?

Irrelevant conspiracist thinking.

The Star: He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter.

How convenient that all the nuances of speech were hidden from the police, and a friend doing the interpreting!

Irrelevant conspiracist thinking.

The Star: The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

So the man tried, but failed? The man had broad shoulders. Stride was a slight, impoverished woman, and of middle age.
If the man had wanted to pull her into the street (for no obvious reason), he could have.

An assumption that it’s impossible to make and yet......

Schwartz clearly lied about this, and furthermore, the footway is the street, for all intents and purposes. Why would she have stood in the darkness of the Dutfield's Yard passageway?

An assumption based on a false assumption.

Swanson: The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, ...

How improbable that the one and only word that was called out, was a word meaningful to this man of no English!

Or that Lipski was the only word he recognised? Or that in translation that’s how it came across? Or that he said Lipski then other words in a quieter voice which he didn’t catch?

The Star: He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane.

If the police did not disclose his name and address, he (or the interpreter) must have contacted the press of his own accord.

Or the interpreter told someone that he was taking Schwartz to the station and that person talked or his brother-in-law talked or his mate Bob. This isn’t difficult stuff is it?

What possible reason would he have for doing that? What's in it for him?

A question based, again, on a false assumption.

Many people spoke to the press on Berner street, the morning of the murder - so why not Schwartz? Why did he require a special meeting?

Perhaps because he was possibly threatened by the killer his was scared for his safety until he was persuaded that it was the right thing to do?

Of course, these questions assume that the man who spoke to the reporter, was the same man who spoke to Abberline.

Unwarranted assumptions appear to be in vogue at the moment.

A rather different story was given, though - so we can't be sure it was the same man.

There’s much that we can’t be sure of.

The Star: It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

So Schwartz supposedly went out all morning, afternoon, evening, and well into the night, leaving all the details and work involved in moving address, to his wife!

Apparently so. Do you have evidence that this wasn’t the case?

However, this unlikely scenario sets him up for one of the most beautifully constructed excuses ever told by someone going near a crime scene.
You see he just wanted to quickly duck down Berner street that night, to see if his wife had finished moving, but unfortunately was frightened off by a man smoking a pipe. Not to worry, when he finally made it to the new address, the wife was there! What a relief - don't have to go back to Berner street tonight!
So Schwartz gave himself an excuse for briefly being on Berner street, at close to the time of the murder. How utterly convenient.

And how utterly conspiracist. Even an alibi is proof of something dodgy going on

By the way, what's this 'expected to move' bit? Expected? Is that the excuse to be used, when not found at the new address?

You don’t know the exact circumstances so how can you call it false?

When Schwartz runs away incontinently, b-s man is still at the gates, and Stride is still on the footway.
What happens then? Do these two quickly run off stage, in preparation for the next act?

No, this is when the Illuminati arrive with a couple of disgruntled Ochrana agents to meet up with the Head Black Magician to kill Stride on that exact spot where a witch was buried in 1625 after being hit by a flying saucer piloted by Buddha and a mentally unstable barrel-maker from the Isle Of Wight. Honest

The Star: The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

A serious question. Is there mention from other sources that someone else saw the incident?

Irish Times: During the day all sorts of stories were brought to the police with the object of showing that more or less effective "clues" to the perpetrators of the murders had been obtained. ... Another story was to the effect that a man of light complexion had been struggling with the woman Stride in Berner street, and that he threw her down, but it being thought that it was a man and wife quarrelling nobody interfered with them.

Those who saw it? Nobody interfered with them? What's all this about, then?

Don't ask me. I asked you.

Anderson to the Home Office, Oct 23: That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal, is unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime. ...
Moreover, the activities of the Police has been to a considerable extent wasted through the exigencies of sensational journalism, and the actions of unprincipled persons, who, from various motives, have endeavoured to mislead us.

Probably talking about the letters and the kidney etc?

Israel Schwartz may well have been one of those unprincipled persons, and there is not a hint of him being heard from or making an appearance at the inquest. Where did he go?


You're wrong to suppose 'the police' was a monolithic thing, in which everyone agrees with everyone else.


Does that include your own crap...?

The police considered Schwartz evidence important well after the Inquest so we know that’s not why he wasn’t at there. Of course this won’t stop some bringing it up to bolster a nonsense point of course. The fact that some police may have had their doubts is largely irrelevant if true.

Not that I want to harp on about you believing that Schwartz wasn’t called to the Inquest because the police had no faith in him of course.