Was Israel Schwartz a form of Patsy

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Good find Jeff. Haven't come across this before.

[JeffHamm]

That's an interesting thread. They mention this interesting story found in the Echo (Oct 1, 1888):

------------------------------
A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.


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, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. 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. 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. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally [?] fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.
------------------------------

And that seems to relate to Schwartz's story, where Schwartz would be the man pursued, and "Pipeman" the pursuer. Interestingly, it also indicates that Pipeman must have been identified, though the story indicates his name was not remembered (other than he was not a club member). The time also corresponds to the 12:45 time of Schwartz's story. What I'm most interested in, though, is who is the person who is supposed to have witnessed this pursuit?

Also, in the same issue, there was this as well:
----------------------
THE HOUR OF HER DEATH. 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 man mentioned at the end seems to be just someone walking along Commercial Street, but this would be the couple with the man with the long coat to his heels. It appears they too were identified, and interviewed, by the press (and presumably the police as well) but had little information of relevance.

- Jeff

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Yes, this old thread has a translation of the 5th October issue relating to the murder;

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/elizabeth-stride/6778-arbeter-fraint-s-take

Thanks Josh, that's exactly what I was after.

[Joshua Rogan]

Just a quick question, did The Arbiter Frient write about the murder? Since it happened on their doorstep? I've had a root round but can't find anything. Thought you guys would know.

Thanks,

Yes, this old thread has a translation of the 5th October issue relating to the murder;

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/elizabeth-stride/6778-arbeter-fraint-s-take

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Just a quick question, did The Arbiter Frient write about the murder? Since it happened on their doorstep? I've had a root round but can't find anything. Thought you guys would know.

Thanks,

[c.d.]

If a tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it fall...the results are what matters here, and the evidence is there in the historical records cd. Israel and his entire witness statement are not recorded as being part of the Liz Stride Inquest in any format, nor is there any mention of any witness claiming such an event occurred there in the records. Mentioning support for it in some police publication or memo a few weeks later, only reveals that particular officers, or publications, opinion.

The creation of grey areas when not required impedes progress cd, why put variables that are only within the possible, not probable, into any mix in these or any cases to study.

Ok, Michael, you have convinced me. So we can now throw out statements from Schwartz AND Fanny Mortimer since NEITHER OF THEM appeared at the inquest. Got it.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

....there's probably a conspiracy involved.

lol. now that's funny

[Michael W Richards]

so after all this no evidence schwartz was lying or there was any conspriacy-and at the end of the day all we have is just a bunch of witnesses off on there times and a dead women found clutching breath mints. and some very creative fiction.

Actually, presumption of Israel Schwartz status as a viable entity in the question of her death is something that first needs to be proven before being disproven. And which witnesses had incorrect times inadvertently and which had them intentionally is something that isn't proven either.

Creative is what Liz Strides Canonical inclusion is, and any continuing belief in what is a non-entity by the recorded evidence.

Like in the Watchman movie when Rorshach says to his fellow inmates...." Im not in here with you,.. you're in here with ME". This isn't about me proving Israel didn't matter...its obvious within the known evidence of the Inquest, he didn't matter in that proceeding. Its about you first proving that he did despite the existing contradictory evidence for that conclusion.

The fantasy that has spellbound so many for so many years, has so hypnotized generations, so they no longer see that their beliefs are just founded on sand.

[Joshua Rogan]

If a tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it fall...

....there's probably a conspiracy involved.

[Abby Normal]

so after all this no evidence schwartz was lying or there was any conspriacy-and at the end of the day all we have is just a bunch of witnesses off on there times and a dead women found clutching breath mints. and some very creative fiction.

[Michael W Richards]

You hit the nail on the head there, doctor. Or as they say in court "assumes facts not in evidence."

c.d.

If a tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it fall...the results are what matters here, and the evidence is there in the historical records cd. Israel and his entire witness statement are not recorded as being part of the Liz Stride Inquest in any format, nor is there any mention of any witness claiming such an event occurred there in the records. Mentioning support for it in some police publication or memo a few weeks later, only reveals that particular officers, or publications, opinion.

The creation of grey areas when not required impedes progress cd, why put variables that are only within the possible, not probable, into any mix in these or any cases to study.

[c.d.]

>> Again, too bad they didnt show such confidence in him at the Inquest into Liz Strides cause of death.<<

Since we don't know why he wasn't there, we can't know that they didn't "show confidence in him" at the time of the inquest.

You hit the nail on the head there, doctor. Or as they say in court "assumes facts not in evidence."

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

Fair enough Jeff, but this particular instance is a very good way to make my point....Fanny says "nearly" the whole time, and then later gives us a specified time and duration at the door from 12:50-1:00am. This, to me, suggests her "nearly the whole" is really about the 20 minutes she wasn't continuously at the door, because she later establishes a period with a specific time, a sighting at a specific time, and a specific time she went back indoors. What she really meant...vs...what she actually said and the words she used to say it.

Sure, but as gets discussed on many threads, specific times given in statements are not the same as someone specifically looking at the time, they must be treated with caution. This is, again, not necessarily due to someone being deceitful, but because of the necessisty to somehow convey time despite not having actually looked at a clock, etc. Some people will phrase things with qualifications (like "about x:xx o'clock" or "around x:xx o'clock"), others will not. We often look to see on what basis a given time is made, such as Lawende stating they got up to leave the club at 1:30 by his watch (or the club clock, I forget which), after that, he estimates they waited for 5 minutes for the rain to stop while Levy estimates 3-4 minutes. Already we can see time estimates diverging between two witnesses.

Generally, it is probably best to consider most of the stated times as being associated with a fairly wide margin of error, narrowing it somewhat for those who had a reason to be aware of the time (i.e. those heading to work) and more for those who actually based their time on a clock, and further for those whose job it was to note the time of the events (police). Then, taking all of the statements from all of the witnesses, see what combination generally fits. Mortimer, I believe, states that after she went inside she heard a pony cart, Deimshutz states he noted the time from one of the clocks, etc. This is entirely consistent with her going back inside shortly before 1:00, at which point Deimshutz's cart passes.

Other events, such the men running to seek a police officer, also could not have happened while she was at her door, and she reports hearing a commotion after she went inside, so again, those events happen after she went inside, also consistent with her going in shortly before 1:00. The events with Schwartz are not of long duration, and given she was not out the entire time, could easily have occurred without her knowledge.

Anyway, I realize you've been going over this with others, and I'm just rehashing old ground because I've digressed, but my main point is that time, both stated times and stated durations, are a prime example of how language use differs from one person to another and how something that appears specific really should be viewed as less so.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Ah, ok, I didn't realize you were talking about a different aspect of her statement and not the one I was specifically referring to, which was the specific meaning, or content if you will, of "they". We're both talking about the same concept though, the content of her statement, but we get to that through the interpretation of her specific words. In the case of "they", the content intended is ambiguous, and other words like "nearly" are as well. The phrase "nearly the whole time" is non-specific because it is subjective. It's also based upon a recollection, as are most witness statements. Pending on an individual's use of language, her same behaviour with regards of "door standing", could be phrased "much of the time between..." or "I was there on and off over the times between ..." or "I went out a few times between ..." and so forth, all equally applicable phrasings, with their choice possibily reflecting various biases in how language is used to convey the idea that she was there intermittently. Some people will be fairly accurate in their descriptions, some will tend to inflate things, some will understate, not to deceive but simply because of how they use language.

Because her statement indicates she was there some of the time, but not all of it, we know she will have seen some things but not all things that occurred.

- Jeff

Fair enough Jeff, but this particular instance is a very good way to make my point....Fanny says "nearly" the whole time, and then later gives us a specified time and duration at the door from 12:50-1:00am. This, to me, suggests her "nearly the whole" is really about the 20 minutes she wasn't continuously at the door, because she later establishes a period with a specific time, a sighting at a specific time, and a specific time she went back indoors. What she really meant...vs...what she actually said and the words she used to say it.

[JeffHamm]

I was suggesting that the choice of words is not necessarily the point, the content of what is being said is. And that it reveals something of the persons characteristics. Using Fanny to illustrate...."nearly the whole time". She is referring to a 30 minute block of time, 12:30 to 1am. She really intends to convey the message that she wouldn't have missed much going on in the street at that time. Quantifying exactly how much time was at the door and how much was not wasn't the goal. Quantifying the exact times of her vigil during that time isn't her goal. Both those things are her goal when she speaks about standing at her door the last 10 minutes of the hour, at what time she saw Goldstein, and when she went indoors. Its what the words intend to convey based upon what kind of profile you can get of the speaker, using the other statements as comparison.

Ah, ok, I didn't realize you were talking about a different aspect of her statement and not the one I was specifically referring to, which was the specific meaning, or content if you will, of "they". We're both talking about the same concept though, the content of her statement, but we get to that through the interpretation of her specific words. In the case of "they", the content intended is ambiguous, and other words like "nearly" are as well. The phrase "nearly the whole time" is non-specific because it is subjective. It's also based upon a recollection, as are most witness statements. Pending on an individual's use of language, her same behaviour with regards of "door standing", could be phrased "much of the time between..." or "I was there on and off over the times between ..." or "I went out a few times between ..." and so forth, all equally applicable phrasings, with their choice possibily reflecting various biases in how language is used to convey the idea that she was there intermittently. Some people will be fairly accurate in their descriptions, some will tend to inflate things, some will understate, not to deceive but simply because of how they use language.

Because her statement indicates she was there some of the time, but not all of it, we know she will have seen some things but not all things that occurred.

- Jeff