If Schwartz Lied ...

[DJA]

Reckon BS man was muscle for Stride who was to meet Sutton in the yard for a blackmail pay off.
Sutton was on the top floor of the Club watching proceedings below.
BS man leaves and returns,pulling Stride from the yard.He then leaves for good.
Schwartz hears "Lips,see"..Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia - Wikipedia
Beer shop owner is preparing a knock off pipe of tobacco and is cleaning his pipe.
When the coast is clear,Sutton is out the front door and into the yard.
He offers Stride the cachous,which she takes out of his hand.Last thing she ever does.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Goldstein headed north was reported in the EN and corroborated by Walter Dew. It is speculation that he came from Dutfield's, but he came from that direction. There are those who want to manipulate language and dismiss evidence to say he was only seen once, headed south...that's their opinion. If you introduce clock times you then then need to juggle the time interval of 12-15 minutes round trip to the Spectacle coffee house.

If the heading south from Spectacle Alley occurs first, then the round trip time is not the issue. Getting Goldstein into the yard, unseen, is the problem.

If you are confident in your theory, present it and expect peer objections..."Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead". No one knows the answer, so your conjecture, if reasonably formulated, is as good as the next person's. The whole point of this forum is to introduce evidence and respectfully discuss differences in opinion and interpretation.

Cheers, George

Okay, here is another theory. The police would obviously have read the EN interview, and determined that Goldstein's whereabouts had to be determined not only by investigations at the coffee house, but also at Goldstein's residence on Christian street. Had Goldstein left 22 and gone to the club, after having been seen by Fanny, then someone at 22 may well have been aware of that. So that person or persons had a choice - to provide Goldstein with an alibi, or tell the truth and effectively have him turned over to gentile justice. They chose the former.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

By definition scream means a "long, loud, piercing cry". It appears obvious that there is a translation error.

It may appear that way to you, George, but it appears to me that Schwartz was talking ****. Do you really suppose the translator would have struggled with a simple word like 'screamed', and do you also suppose that Abberline would have casually accepted this claim, before writing it down and moving on to his next question?

Schwartz probably meant she protested/objected/remonstrated/complained three times, but not very loudly.

Cheers, George

He probably didn't mean that, because how would a non English speaker manage to count three distinct protests/objections/remonstrations/complaints? And if that's what they were, why would Schwartz have claimed that she did so, but not very loudly? If she merely complained about being thrown down, then she complained, and the loudness of that triple complaint would have been a trivial detail in Abberline's notes, at best, and hardly worthy of mention by Swanson in his report.

[GBinOz]

Posted by Caz:
But which direction? Unless Berner Street was on a slope, residents and non-residents alike could say 'up' or 'down' based on different perspectives, as you have been advised more than once. A man from Liverpool might say he had come 'up' to London, while the person he was visiting would say he had come 'down' to London.

Clearly I didn't take that advice, as this rather ungracious post to Jeff would suggest.

Clearly you were justified in not taking that advice, as it was just a manufactured example to support a point of view. Your post to Jeff, while a little ungracious, contained multiple examples of evidence to show how the locals in the area, at that time viewed the ups and downs of Berner St. Yours was the correct interpretation (IMO) despite what a man from Liverpool and his host might say.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Could the Star not mean that one man appeared to match Schwartz's description of Stride's assailant, while the second appeared to match Pipeman's description of the same man, Pipeman having come forward as 'another source' i.e a second witness? Witness descriptions of the same man can be notoriously at odds, so the police had two men who could have been BS man, and would therefore need additional facts about the men if one was going to remain under arrest. Both must have been released without charge after satisfying the police that they were not there.

Did the police become despondent, and give up on Schwartz merely because the first two arrests hadn't resulted in any progress? No, I don't think so. Besides, if the two men had satisfied the police as to their whereabouts, why would it matter that the two descriptions (one hypothetical), were somewhat at odds?

How could Schwartz have been expected to provide additional facts? He had already been questioned closely by Abberline, who had given his professional opinion on the matter.

Exactly, but that's his problem. I still think that Anderson's reference to "the supposed accomplice" and " the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest", are references to information and/or clarifications given by Schwartz, after the Abberline interview.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No change of tune, just a different way to say the same thing.

If the chances of Fanny only seeing one man between 12.30 and 1am really were slim to none, what are you trying to say? That she wasn't on her doorstep for nearly the whole time, and therefore missed all but one man - Goldstein - who passed by between 12.30 and 1am? Or she was there for much of the time, and saw other men on the street besides Goldstein, who passed by twice to her knowledge, but she failed to say so? I'm just trying to work out what you believe, but it's not easy!

I think she implies she saw other men, and given both the claimed timespan, and reports from other witnesses, I think it highly likely that she did see men other than Goldstein. For example, Eagle returning to the club, and Lave having his wander around. By the way, I think there is a good chance that Eagle saw Stride, and so if Fanny saw Eagle ...

I don't think any man passed by Fanny twice, other than Goldstein. I think what she said, or at least was trying to say, was this ...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen who had passed through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road.

The interpretation that is normally put on Fanny's words, would be a better match if she had said this ...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen previously, was a young man passing through the street carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road.

Was the problem that Fanny knew exactly what she meant, but the journalist who took the notes did not fully grasp what she was saying?

But which direction? Unless Berner Street was on a slope, residents and non-residents alike could say 'up' or 'down' based on different perspectives, as you have been advised more than once. A man from Liverpool might say he had come 'up' to London, while the person he was visiting would say he had come 'down' to London.

Clearly I didn't take that advice, as this rather ungracious post to Jeff would suggest.

Because you can't simply invent the evidence to make it happen.

Umm, okay

[DJA]

Interesting map Dave. Do you know what the circle on the SE corner and the double rectangle on the NE corner are meant to represent?

Cheers, George

Hydrant.

The rectangle ..... I've forgotten.

[GBinOz]

-- What about the Marshalls (who seem to have known the Lechmeres)...?

M.

Marshall was at No 64 Berner St, not shown on Dave's map.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

-- Can someone possibly tell me the address/location of the place Pipeman/Knifeman supposedly emerged from? I'm still trying to work out the logistics of all this...

Thanks.

M.

In case you're not very familiar with these, I would start by considering the two main sources of surviving evidence.

Met evidence

Star evidence

[Mark J D]

Packer's was next door. Last house was Fanny Mortimer's at 36.

-- What about the Marshalls (who seem to have known the Lechmeres)...?

M.

[GBinOz]

Packer's was next door.

Last house was Fanny Mortimer's at 36.

Interesting map Dave. Do you know what the circle on the SE corner and the double rectangle on the NE corner are meant to represent?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

So for example, we can't have Goldstein walking out of Dutfield's Yard at 5 minutes to 1am as part of the accepted story, because that would make him the obvious candidate for the murder, and that would violate the principle of neutrality.

Goldstein headed north was reported in the EN and corroborated by Walter Dew. It is speculation that he came from Dutfield's, but he came from that direction. There are those who want to manipulate language and dismiss evidence to say he was only seen once, headed south...that's their opinion. If you introduce clock times you then then need to juggle the time interval of 12-15 minutes round trip to the Spectacle coffee house.

If you are confident in your theory, present it and expect peer objections..."Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead". No one knows the answer, so your conjecture, if reasonably formulated, is as good as the next person's. The whole point of this forum is to introduce evidence and respectfully discuss differences in opinion and interpretation.

Cheers, George

[DJA]

Thanks Dave. A picture is worth a thousand words (I only used 57). Mark, that is the Nelson on the corner and Dutfields yard is marked by the waggon wheel, and is on the western side of Berner St.

Cheers, George

Packer's was next door.

Last house was Fanny Mortimer's at 36.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why assume that the 'prisoner', or the second man who was arrested and then released, were either Pipeman or BS man, and not just men who fit the given descriptions, but were provably elsewhere at the time?

Because "they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts". At least one of the two men must have been significant enough to have led to that situation, unlike men who were provably elsewhere.

As you don't believe the incident happened anyway, that would also explain why anyone arrested on the strength of Schwartz's story was bound to be released.

I told you the The Dark Side was stronger

The best I could hope for is Jeff's pony, but it ain't gonna happen.

But you can still dig it

I suspect you will have to live in hope for a long time. But isn't your dearest wish that Pipeman was a mere figment of Schwartz's fertile imagination?

I hope not, as I've already argued that Pipeman was not on the Met's apprehension's sought list, for a very good reason

[Mark J D]

A picture is worth a thousand words (I only used 57). Mark, that is the Nelson on the corner and Dutfields yard is marked by the waggon wheel, and is on the western side of Berner St.

Thanks to you both!

M.