Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Erobitha, if you read Swanson's comment with the understanding that Schwartz's story is still under investigation, I think your difficulties go away. Let me insert the second "if" that I think was implied, but not stated.


    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    “If Schwartz is to be believed, and "if" the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered. At the same time account must be taken of the fact that the throat only of the victim was cut in this instance which measured by time, considering meeting (if with a man other than Schwartz saw) the time for the agreement & the murderous action would I think be a question of so many minutes, five at least, ten at most, so that I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer, although it is clearly the more probable of the two.”
    When people link two conditions in a sentence they do not always use a preposition twice, the second one is assumed.

    What Swanson is saying in my view is, the police are still investigating his story, and providing the subsequent report (their conclusion) of that investigation casts no doubt on his story, then...etc..etc.


    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by caz View Post

      But she was in the yard at some point, unseen and unheard, until her killer found her and cut her throat there. She must have had a reason for being there.
      If Schwartz is to be believed.

      And Mrs D only said it was silent in the yard itself, not that she'd have seen anyone who had used the outside privy. Unless you are suggesting she'd have heard the noises associated with any such visit, and made a mental note to report it if anyone turned up dead in the yard, I'm not sure how you are ruling out that Stride may have needed a quick pee.
      Men were often in the yard, and not just to use the loos. If you want to suppose that Liz could have used one of those loos unnoticed, then you are again taking a virtual risk. At some point the luck has to run out.

      I didn't suggest Stride was looking for customers at all. I don't think that's very likely.
      So what possible reason would she have for being there? If she had used a Dutfield's Yard loo, she would have walked out of the yard and continued on her way. Yet Schwartz claimed...

      ...he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

      I merely suggest that BS man may have thought she was and didn't like it.
      I'm not sure why some stranger would care, especially a drunk one. Perhaps Michael Kidney would not have liked it, but I don't think he was ever suspected.

      She may have gone to the club to avoid being accosted by someone who had been too persistent. Could even have hidden in the privy, hoping he would not look there and piss off. All was as silent as the grave, so if she thought it safe to come out, she was mistaken. The singing and dancing from inside the club was her 'safety in numbers', which would have prevented anyone from doing an 'Annie Chapman' on her in that spot, but it wasn't enough to save her from a cut throat.
      So from the time she first argued with this man, is thrown on the footway, then hides in the loo, and then comes out again only to be murderer, how much time has elapsed? It must be getting close to 12:50. So let's roll the dice...

      DN, Oct 1: When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

      Did we get lucky again?
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        Could the statement have referred to what Pipeman witnessed, as opposed to Schwartz?
        According to Schwartz, there was no one else in the street, so I guess the answer is yes.

        Pipeman saw the actual assault, but assumed it was a domestic and left the scene without taking any more notice.
        Why would he have immediately left the scene?

        Schwartz saw the man approach the woman, as if drunk, then stop to say something to her before assaulting her.

        Just seen from two different perspectives?
        Schwartz was suggesting that the second man were an accomplice. While this is ambiguous in Swanson's summary, it is made very clear in the Star report, and by Anderson in his letter (in which he refers to "the supposed accomplice"). So there is much more going on than just two different perspectives. It seems to me from the October 1 & 2 Star reports, that initially Pipeman was not wholly believed, and then doubts arose of Schwartz' story. The critical issue is how this was resolved - it's seemingly one man's word against another - yet there was no trial. Therefore Pipeman's story must have been in some way unassailable. It's obvious to me how that could have been the case.
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          Good Moaning,

          You misunderstood the context in which Fanny used the word 'previously'. This was pointed out to you the first time, but you chose to ignore it and continue to misinterpret the witness. Are you sure English is your fist linguage?

          I don't know why you'd do this in a public sotting, but it's nit a God lock.

          Fanny only saw Goldstein once, and if you had listened very carefully the first time, it would only have needed saying once.

          This is fast becoming like an episode of 'Allo 'Allo.

          I'll tick my lav of you noo.
          ...the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road.

          I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.

          He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

          That would be twice.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            But we can’t assume an unknown to be true simply to disprove something. We have the choice of just 2 options.

            1. Fanny Mortimer was correct and that she went onto her doorstep just after 12.45, stayed there for around 10 minutes, and then went back inside at approximately 12.55.

            or,

            2. Constable Smith was correct when he said that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35. This would mean that Mortimer could have gone onto her doorstep between those 2 times and then went back inside between 12.40 and 12.45.
            3. Fanny's house had a clock, and she thought Smith passed a few minutes after he actually did, because the time on the clock was out.

            This is how the Evening News described Fanny...

            Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, and formed a strong contrast to many of those around her. I got into conversation with her and found that she was one of the first on the spot.

            It's hardly radical to suggest that the Mortimer residence had a clock.

            And finally, I’ll ask again. Why is it unbelievable that no one saw the Schwartz incident and yet it’s perfectly understandable that no one saw Diemschutz arrive back around 12.30 ish on his horse and cart? Anyone else tired of double standards and moving goalposts?
            12:30ish? What are you talking about?
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

              So unreliable then?
              It depends. What are we relying on Schwartz for? His description of what he witnessed or conclusions related to what he said he saw?

              c.d.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                Hi erobitha,

                What do you think could have motivated Schwartz to tell his story to begin with?
                He may have wanted to contradict the opinion of 'the public', who regarded the man pursued as being the murderer.

                I thought there were just two schools of thought on the use of "Lipski": that Pipeman was addressed by that name by BS man [which Schwartz originally assumed was the case], suggesting they were both Jewish and acting together; or that it was shouted at the obviously Jewish Schwartz as an insult [which Abberline put to Schwartz as the more likely explanation, and Schwartz conceded ignorance on the point], in which case Pipeman need not have been involved and BS man was probably not Jewish.

                If Schwartz went to the police and the Star with a prepared story that had no basis in fact, and made Pipeman an accomplice to the assault on Stride, why did he not stick to his script under police questioning, but let Abberline talk him out of it? The end result was a dog's breakfast that was open to interpretation, according to whether one preferred to believe BS man was the murderer, the ripper, a Jew, an invention, or none of the above.
                If Abberline did indeed talk him out of it, then Abberline interfered with a witness in the process of giving a statement.
                However, it is not at all clear that he did talk him out of it...

                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...

                I get the impression that it was Abberline who thought it more likely that 'Lipski' was directed at Schwartz, but that that was not how the story was told to him.

                As for "why did he not stick to his script under police questioning" - that is a very odd argument. You don't think there was a script, so how can you refer to the contents of a non-existent script? That is like arguing that Pipeman didn't exist, but was invented by Israel Schwartz, who didn't exist either. If the script didn't exist, then it is meaningless to ask why Schwartz didn't stick to it.

                The essence of Schwartz' story, is not who is and isn't Jewish, but rather where the murderer likely came from (club vs street), and that he had an accomplice. Once again, Anderson's draft letter...

                I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself.

                So based on the evidence of Schwartz, the consensus is that 'Lipski' was directed "to Schwartz himself", and yet the second man is still regarded by Schwartz as "the supposed accomplice". So 'Lipski' is irrelevant. Ergo, all the arguments about Schwartz failing to stick to a simple script, are also irrelevant.

                If Pipeman was traced, or came forward voluntarily [possibly after reading about himself in The Star], and confirmed the basics: the assault and when and where it happened, the police would have had to take both witnesses seriously, in which case they could have been held back in case there was a future trial. They'd have had the potential to identify a suspect as the same man they saw assaulting Stride. Could have been a biggy.
                There was no future trial, and Pipeman was not on the apprehensions sought list. So what happened? Well to start with, as "the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case" appears to be different to the evidence as summarized by Swanson, and as there is no evidence that Schwartz actually attended the inquest, then I would suggest that this evidence was given by Schwartz, while he was in the slammer.
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  3. Fanny's house had a clock, and she thought Smith passed a few minutes after he actually did, because the time on the clock was out.

                  This is how the Evening News described Fanny...

                  Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, and formed a strong contrast to many of those around her. I got into conversation with her and found that she was one of the first on the spot.

                  It's hardly radical to suggest that the Mortimer residence had a clock.



                  12:30ish? What are you talking about?
                  I say 12.30 ish because I believe that Michael’s plot had him arriving back around 12.35. I believe that you suggest a slightly later time? The point remains though. If a point is being made about no one seeing the Schwartz incident why is it not a problem that no one saw Schwartz arriving back earlier? And if we talk about what she did or didn’t hear why can’t we ask “well if she heard a horse and cart at 1.00 why didn’t she hear one arrive earlier?”

                  On Mortimer and whether she owned a clock or not. I don’t think that we can assume this just because she kept herself clean or that her husband was well-to-do living in a terraced house in Berner Street but of course it’s not impossible that they either owned a clock or that her husband owned a watch. It doesn’t help us though because we have no way of ascertaining when Fanny last discovered the time (and as you say, how accurate it was.) She might have asked her husband the time earlier and was told 12.15 and she judged that she heard Smith 30 minutes later when actually it was more like 20.

                  At the end of the day, taking into consideration the different version of what she supposedly said, it’s entirely reasonable and possible that Smith was correct about what time he passed and that Fanny was mistaken. We can’t state this as a proven fact of course but it’s entirely plausible (more so when we consider why Smith was likelier to have been correct)

                  This is why I don’t understand when someone says “the Schwartz incident couldn’t have occurred because Fanny Mortimer would have seen it.” This can’t be said because we don’t know when Fanny was on her doorstep and when she was indoors. Fanny is no help so I can’t see why we keep going back to her? It’s also worth noting how vital she is to the case that Schwartz wasn’t there. It’s a pretty weak case. Close to non-existent in fact.

                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



                  "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                  ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                  Comment


                  • .
                    Men were often in the yard, and not just to use the loos. If you want to suppose that Liz could have used one of those loos unnoticed, then you are again taking a virtual risk. At some point the luck has to run out
                    But if Liz did enter the yard to use the loo (and it was only a suggestion by Caz) we cant know how many times she’d done so. If she’d only used it a couple of times before then it’s not unreasonable to say that no one saw her. Perhaps she was seen and the man turned a blind eye?

                    This is another example of a suggestion that can’t be affirmed or refuted. Therefore it’s on the list of possible explanations for why she might have been where she was.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                    Comment


                    • . So what possible reason would she have for being there? If she had used a Dutfield's Yard loo, she would have walked out of the yard and continued on her way. Yet Schwartz claimed...

                      ...he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.
                      You just can’t help yourself can you? You keep trying to raise doubts based on imagined ‘issues.’

                      As per Schwartz, he might only have noticed Stride’s presence when BS Man stopped so she might have just got to the gateway as he arrived? Maybe she stopped to rearrange her hat or an item of clothing? Maybe she knew BS Man and as she saw him walking down the street she waited for him? Maybe she’d arranged to meet BS Man? Maybe she owed him money? Maybe she was after money? Maybe, maybe.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                      Comment


                      • .
                        I'm not sure why some stranger would care, especially a drunk one. Perhaps Michael Kidney would not have liked it, but I don't think he was ever suspected.
                        If Stride wasn’t soliciting but the man assumed that she was and propositioned her he might have become angry? An angry drunk might have taken her rebuttal as a personal insult? “So I’m not good enough for you?!” Etc.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



                        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                        Comment


                        • .
                          Why would he have immediately left the scene?
                          You keep asking these types of question where you try to make the most banal, normal occurrences seem like remarkable, baffling behaviour.

                          Why would Pipeman have left the scene? Because he didn’t intend to stand on that spot forever. Because he wanted to go home. Because he didn’t want to get mixed up in the incident.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            ...the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road.

                            I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.

                            He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

                            That would be twice.
                            Up, down, along…..

                            This does not mean that she saw him twice. The mystery Bag Man was obviously a person of interest to the police and Fanny would have realised this. If she’d seen him twice this would have been big news (why would this man have been loitering around the murder scene?) These are very obviously two versions of the same thing worded differently. How can you not see this?
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                              He may well have seen a clock. Was he honest about the time it read? Was he honest to the coroner when he said he did not notice the position of the victims hands? I don't think he was. I do not regard Diemschitz as being a reliable witness.
                              On what basis do you not think Diemshutz was a reliable witness? In none of your dozens of posts have you provided any reason, let alone a credible reason why Diemshutz would have lied about the time he arrived or the position he found the body in.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                                Yes is there is a reason, and I have already given it. Diemschitz likely knew from talking to Fanny that she had locked up before 1am. He then only need sharpen up his arrival from 'about o'clock' to 'exactly one o'clock', and there is now a significant gap between the two events. Just enough of a gap for the murder to have taken place, unnoticed.

                                Very little 'manufacturing' is required to make interruption a possibility. Nor is it necessarily sinister of Diemschitz to have done this. I would have done the same, assuming I had thought of this neat little trick.
                                That is not a reason for Diemshutz lying about the time he arrived. Lets break down your sentences.

                                "Diemschitz likely knew from talking to Fanny that she had locked up before 1am." - this is speculation, not proof. Worse, it is speculation based on the assumption that Diemshutz was lying without you providing any evidence or motive for Diemshutz having lied.

                                "He then only need sharpen up his arrival from 'about o'clock' to 'exactly one o'clock', and there is now a significant gap between the two events. Just enough of a gap for the murder to have taken place, unnoticed." - There was already a sufficient gap between Mortimer locking up and Diemshutz arriving for Stride to have been murdered between those to events, unnoticed. Saying "about one o'clock" would allow for a larger gap between the events than saying "exactly one o'clock". That's the exact opposite of what Deimshutz would do if he was trying to make the time gap bigger than it really was. And you still have provided no reason for Diemshutz to lie about the time.

                                Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                                Very little 'manufacturing' is required to make interruption a possibility.
                                There was no "manfacturing" needed to make make interruption a possibility.

                                Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                                Nor is it necessarily sinister of Diemschitz to have done this.
                                You have yet to provide any reason, sinister or otherwise, for Diemshutz to lie about the time. You yet to provide any reason why Diemshutz would gain anything from lying about the time.



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X