Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
    That is just rephrasing the question.
    I have already answered this multiple times. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

    I clearly answered "Who was the man pursued" in Post #1324.

    I clearly answered "Who was the man pursued" again in Post #1359.

    I clearly answered "Who was the man pursued" again in Post #1499.

    According to the October 1, 1888 Echo, the man pursued was "man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer"

    According to the October 1, 1888 Star, the man pursued was a Hungarian who was not the killer.

    My point is that the club secretary did not implicate Schwartz. At the time the club secretary gave his interview to the Echo, Schwartz' account had not been been published in the Star. The Star account also did not name the Hungarian. You can't deliberately implicate someone when you don't know who they are, let alone that after you give your interview Schwartz would give an account of being pursued.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
      Not the killer, according to the Hungarian. LOL
      At the point that the Hungarian gave his interview to the Star, he had no way of knowing that Wess was giving an interview to the Echo saying that yet another person had pursued someone who might have been the killer.

      Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
      Wess didn't need the papers to know what had occurred. He didn't learn from the papers - he was the content.
      So you are saying that Wess was responsible for the content of both the Star account and the Echo account? That makes no sense at all. At the point that Wess gaveng an interview to the Echo saying that yet another person had pursued someone who might have been the killer, he had no way of knowing that the Hungarian was giving his interview to the Star.

      The club secretary did not implicate Schwartz. At the time the club secretary gave his interview to the Echo, Schwartz' account had not been been published in the Star. The Star account also did not name the Hungarian. You can't deliberately implicate someone when you don't know who they are, let alone that after you give your interview Schwartz would give an account of being pursued.


      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        When Fanny went to the door with the intention of shooting the bolts, she had already been outside.
        When she had been outside previously, she saw Goldstein. Then when she decided to stay at her door a while longer, she saw him again.
        Here you make a variety of assumptions.

        You assume Fanny Mortimer had already been outside when she went to the door with the intention of shooting the bolts. None of the newspaper accounts support your position - they all have her going to the door once, but disagree on when she went and how long she stayed.

        Building on that first assumption, you then assume Fanny Mortimer saw Leon Goldstein twice. None of the newspaper accounts support your position - they all have Goldstien passing through the street once, but disagree on the direction he walked.





        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
          If Schwartz is to be believed.
          Caz' point has nothing to do with whether or not Schwartz was telling the truth.

          Stride was in the yard at some point, unseen and unheard. Stride was killed in the yard - the blood evidence makes that clear. Stride must have had a reason for being in yard. Caz' suggested one of the most prosaic - she went there to use the public loo. That's quite possible, and no evidence disproves it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            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?”
            If "shortly before a quarter to one o'clock" is a guess, then so is 1:00. You can't have both ways. If it is not a guess, then there would seem to be two possibilities:

            one: her clock was correct, and by 12:45, she was at her doorstep.

            two: the clock was a few minutes forward of the correct time. So "just after one o'clock" could mean right on 1am, or even slightly before.

            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)
            Was Smith correct about his later time - the one you are keen to avoid talking about?

            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.
            Fanny Mortimer is a terrible problem for Schwartz believers.
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              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.
              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              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.
              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              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.
              You're obviously far more interested in finding ways of making sense of Schwartz' ridiculous story, than you of solving the actual murder!
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Up, down, along…..
                Both 'up' and 'down' were used consistently by Fanny, and in keeping with the convention of regarding the northern end as being the top of the street...

                Echo, Oct 1: I met my young man 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.

                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?)
                The Home Office asked a question about this man, that Swanson may never have seen, let alone responded to. He was extremely busy. Nor can we be sure that the duty officer at Leman street the evening that Goldstein and Wess went there, was aware of the Evening News interview. Were you aware of it a few months ago, after having studied the case for years?

                These are very obviously two versions of the same thing worded differently. How can you not see this?
                Commercial Road was to Fanny's left, and the club was to her right. How can you not see this?
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  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.
                  The fixed point officer - whose shift finished at 1am - was found at or near his fixed point.
                  PC Smith proceeded to Berner street from Gower's Walk - a few minutes away - at 1am.
                  There is no way Diemschitz could have turned into Berner street, when he claimed to.

                  "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.
                  That's wrong. An approximate time - "about one o'clock" - would have been compared to other witness accounts, and the consensus would have been that Diemschitz arrived at about five to one.

                  And you still have provided no reason for Diemshutz to lie about the time.
                  Diemschitz did sharpen up his earliest estimate, and I have given a reason for him doing so.

                  There was no "manfacturing" needed to make make interruption a possibility.
                  Diemschitz manufactured a significant chuck of Ripperology.

                  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.
                  It's quite simple - he gets to explain how the murderer entered and exited the yard unnoticed. This would help to take suspicion away from the people at the club.
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                    I have already answered this multiple times. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

                    I clearly answered "Who was the man pursued" in Post #1324.

                    I clearly answered "Who was the man pursued" again in Post #1359.

                    I clearly answered "Who was the man pursued" again in Post #1499.

                    According to the October 1, 1888 Echo, the man pursued was "man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer"

                    According to the October 1, 1888 Star, the man pursued was a Hungarian who was not the killer.

                    My point is that the club secretary did not implicate Schwartz. At the time the club secretary gave his interview to the Echo, Schwartz' account had not been been published in the Star. The Star account also did not name the Hungarian. You can't deliberately implicate someone when you don't know who they are, let alone that after you give your interview Schwartz would give an account of being pursued.
                    As I predicted, the Echo report has become the elephant in the room.
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                      Here you make a variety of assumptions.

                      You assume Fanny Mortimer had already been outside when she went to the door with the intention of shooting the bolts. None of the newspaper accounts support your position - they all have her going to the door once, but disagree on when she went and how long she stayed.
                      I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this morning, and did not notice anything unusual.

                      The word 'nearly' could in general mean one of two things:

                      one: It could refer to the boundaries - for example, she was at her door in one half hour period until nearly 1am.

                      two: It refers to leaving her doorstep and returning, within that half hour period.

                      The first would be bad news for Israel, and the second bad news for Leon. Which man do you most need to protect, to keep the mystery alive?

                      Building on that first assumption, you then assume Fanny Mortimer saw Leon Goldstein twice. None of the newspaper accounts support your position - they all have Goldstien passing through the street once, but disagree on the direction he walked.
                      Fanny saw people on the street and near the club, but she singled out the man with the black bag, for special attention. In fact, she put him in a category of one...

                      ... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously ...

                      Note that this category is non-specific with regards to direction - it could mean up, and it could mean down. That is because the man with the black bag did both - he passed down the street, and a while later he passed up the street.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                        Caz' point has nothing to do with whether or not Schwartz was telling the truth.

                        Stride was in the yard at some point, unseen and unheard. Stride was killed in the yard - the blood evidence makes that clear. Stride must have had a reason for being in yard. Caz' suggested one of the most prosaic - she went there to use the public loo. That's quite possible, and no evidence disproves it.
                        I think it more likely that, like the young woman in the Echo report, Stride was walking past the gates rather than standing at them. She was pulled into the yard as she passed. There is no good reason for supposing she was standing at the gates of Dutfield's Yard. Given the small chance she had been waiting for someone, the meeting place would have outside a pub, and/or on Commercial Road. The gateway would have been a very odd choice of meeting place, unless she were meeting a club member.
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Quote from Herlock:
                          • The couple move on after Smith passes which, according to him, could have been just after 12.30. We have no way of applying an exact time.
                          • Fanny Mortimer comes onto her doorstep just after the 2 have taken the very short walk into Fairclough Street.
                          • Fanny stands there for 10 minutes until, say, 12.43. During which time Goldstein passed by.
                          • Just after Fanny went back indoors Stride re-enters Berner Street and goes over to the gate (possibly to meet someone)
                          • BS Man walked toward her with Schwartz walking a few yards behind.
                          • The actual incident lasts for 15/20 seconds.
                          • The noises that Stride made were ‘not very loud’ and the shout of ‘Lipski’ was aimed at a man standing a very few feet away. No one had any reason for paying attention to noises in the street at 12.45 so no one noticed or heard it.

                          Herlock has said many times that too much emphasis is placed on exact times and I fully agree. In 1888 few people owned timepieces. Doctors usually had clocks in their homes and pocket watches. The police did not usually carry pocket watches but, due to the necessity of keeping track of time for their job purpose, would have availed themselves of any timepieces on their round to assist that purpose. Access to a time piece did not assure an accurate time as they may not have been synchronised to GMT or each other. It is critical that a benchmark timepiece be nominated to co-ordinate times. In this case the benchmark timepiece would be the clock in the premises of Harris Tobacconist on the eastern corner of Commercial Road and Berner St from which Diemshitz determined that it was “exactly” 1 o’clock when he turned into Berner St. Smith would have used this clock to determine his estimate of having seen Liz at 12:30 – 12:35. At the inquest he said “I was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock” and noticed the commotion outside Dutfields yard. I cannot reasonably believe that Smith was standing outside the Tobacconist shop which had a clock in the window, and while viewing a potential incident, then consciously chose to ignore the clock and base his testimony on estimates. Lamb said that he was first alerted at a few minutes to one, and since he later stated that he did not possess a pocket watch, would have assuredly deduced that time from the same clock as he passed on his way to Dutfields yard. Johnson, who lived in a doctor’s premises and would have access to a clock, and been used to recording time as part of his profession, stated at the inquest “On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H”. This call from the Constable was preceded by Diemshitz travelling down Berner St, turning into the yard, prodding an object with his whip, alighting from his cart, lighting a match, discovering a body, alerting club members, ascertaining Stride was dead, running to and along Commercial Road to find police, running back with police, police running back and down Commercial Road to alert Johnson only a few minutes after Diemshitz had turned at 1 o’clock, unseen by Smith who is at that corner, into Berner St. There just isn’t enough time.
                          Without engaging in any conspiratorial theories whatsoever, I believe that it is not reasonable to deduce anything other than Diemshitz was, whether deliberately or unintentionally, inaccurate in his statement of the time that he discovered the body of Stride and that time should not be used as a benchmark. There is no synchronicity error here as Diemshitz and Smith were looking at the same clock so the error can only be that of perception or deception.

                          If I base some observations on the Tobacconist Clock time, I would concur with Herlock’s first three dot points above (making FM’s clock about 10 minutes fast) except that I would have Parcelman and Liz taking the very short walk into Dutfield’s yard rather than Fairclough St. In another post it was suggested that Parcelman was carrying printed pamphlets for the club so he may have proceeded into the club to deliver said pamphlets, leaving Liz to wait for him just inside the gates out of the sight of FM in her doorway and anyone else in the street. You might also recall that BS reportedly pulled Liz out of the yard towards the street.

                          Next comes the Schartz testimony which I believe in several places suffers in translation. From my reading he was more than a couple of yards behind BS when he crossed the road and kept walking on the other side after seeing Stride pulled from the gateway and knocked to the ground. Remember, FM had her door closed by this time reducing her aural opportunities. It had been a puzzlement to me that if Schwartz were opposite the yard when Pipeman appeared, in the Star version with a knife, and frightened Schwartz, why would he attempt to escape by running towards his perceived assailant. Then I re-examined this:
                          The Star: ...but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

                          Which kerb was he stepping from? To make any sense of his escape strategy it had to be the kerb on the north side of Fairclough St. Which means he was still walking until he heard the argument escalate and turned briefly in response. Schwartz could not have ascertained at whom the shout of Lipski was directed as they were both around 20 yards away. Nor would he have know what Pipeman’s shouting out some sort of warning actually meant. He may have been warning BS to desist in attacking Stride. It may also be that the “intruder” was meant to mean BS, not Schwartz.

                          So perhaps the police thought that Schwartz’s story did not constitute legal evidence? A couple of glimpses of an incident in a dark street at maybe 20 yards distance?
                          LONDON. TUESDAY, 2 OCTOBER, 1888.

                          In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

                          It is a shame that we have no further indication of whether the police doubted some of the testimony given in the story or the story as a whole. If the later, the question arises as to his motive.

                          In all these matters we are engaging in a great deal of speculation and conjecture. I myself have several wildly speculative scenarios around who killed Stride. But that’s for another time.

                          Cheers, George

                          Comment


                          • .
                            If "shortly before a quarter to one o'clock" is a guess, then so is 1:00. You can't have both ways. If it is not a guess, then there would seem to be two possibilities:

                            one: her clock was correct, and by 12:45, she was at her doorstep.

                            two: the clock was a few minutes forward of the correct time. So "just after one o'clock" could mean right on 1am, or even slightly before.
                            Or 3, she was simply m9staken.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                            Comment


                            • . Was Smith correct about his later time - the one you are keen to avoid talking about?
                              Im not avoiding anything. I’ve mentioned the second time very recently in fact. I treat Smith the same as I do other witnesses when I accept that we can’t hold him to exact times (as examples by the fact that he quotes 12.30-12.35 rather than an exact time)

                              How likely would it be for him to have been 10 or 15 minutes out in his estimate compared to the time that Fanny said that he’d passed? As for his second pass along Berner Street then we only have to add 30 minutes onto 12.35 and everything ties up (much to your annoyance no doubt.)

                              Of course we can’t be 100% certain that Smith was correct and we can’t be 100% certain that Fanny was wrong but the former is the more likely. So it’s pointless trying to claim that Fanny Mortimer disproves Schwartz because the response will always be that it is likely that she was wrong about being on her doorstep at 12.45.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                              Comment


                              • . Fanny Mortimer is a terrible problem for Schwartz believers
                                Fanny Mortimer is not a problem at all. What use is a witness who might or might not have been correct and one against whom we have the testimony of a Police Officer to say that she was wrong?

                                FM is pretty much irrelevant.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X