If Schwartz Lied ...

[drstrange169]

>>Hypothetically, and just for the sake of discussion, without taking this as any sort of conspiracy theory, if Diemshitz had lied in his statement would it still be evidence, evidence, evidence?<<

To try and make your point, you keep avoiding the evidence in toto.
Despite not having access to all the evidence, why would you think you know more those who did have access to all the evidence or those that were actually there??
Baxter.
Scotland Yard.
Mortimer.
Goldstein.
Brown.
Marshall.
Lamb.
Smith.
The P.C. on fixed point.
The members of the club.
The Letchfords.
Etc.

It isn't just about Deimshitz, it's about all points of evidence that support him.

[GBinOz]

>>Frantic Man: Help, come quickly, there's a woman being murdered.
PC: Thanks for letting me know. I am not allowed to leave my point to assist you. So b%#ger off to Leman St and tell them your story.<<

Exactly!

"I went to find a policeman at the Spitalfields Market. I found one there, and he told me he could not come, but that I would find one outside. ...
A Juror - Did the policeman in Spitalfields market say why he could not come with you?
Witness - I told him it was a similar case to what had happened a week previous. The policeman said he could not come, but that I would find another policeman outside the market. I could not see him.
Was the policeman engaged on any duty? - He was standing in the market. No one was speaking to him. I made a complaint in the afternoon to Commercial street police station about this affair, and they took all the evidence I could give.
The Coroner - There was a statement made by the Inspector that there are certain places (fixed point) where policemen are under orders not to leave their posts on any account."

Henry John Holland's testimony at the Mrs Chapman inquest.

Yikes. I stand corrected. The policy make absolutely no sense to me but I can't now dispute that it was not the case. Thanks for sorting me out on this point Dusty.

Cheers, George

[drstrange169]

>>What reason are you proposing for his ignoring the Harris clock?<<

This wasn't addressed to me, so forgive me for jumping in.

Why would he look at the clock?

When he passed it, according to his own testimony, he had no idea anything was happening. It was only when he got into Berner St that he saw something was going on. Even then he had no idea there was a murder until he got to the gates.
If he told Baxter and Scotland yard that he did look at the clock, obviously they would have mentioned the contradiction. Their silence is proof the newspapers that reported him saying "about one" were the correct ones.

[drstrange169]

Yes, there's no doubting it was a stupid policy! Sorry I should have quoted Holland earlier, being an old feller here, I tend to forget you are new to all this.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You are suggesting that Smith may have been estimating time from a clock he'd seen earlier and thought that he didn't want to mess up his estimate additions by looking at a real clock? Or are you suggesting Smith didn't know the Harris clock was there and available for viewing? What reason are you proposing for his ignoring the Harris clock?

Then you say "All that I’m suggesting is that in the normal run of events a Constable would be considered more reliable on timing than a woman lounging on her doorstep unless we knew for a fact that she used a clock. Which we don’t. .. So why is it strange that I and others suggest Smith as the more likely to have been reliable?" Have I not made it clear that I am the flagship, the vanguard for the opinion that Smith is the one who is reliable. Even if Fanny had a clock it was not necessarily in sync with the Harris clock, and Fanny didn't see who was in the boots producing the heavy footstep sound. It may have been Smith at 12:30 HCT (Harris clock time) or it may have been BSM at 12:45 Fanny Mortimer time. I think the former FWIW.

George, I think it fair to say that Herlock's position on Smith is a little confused. Smith's timings are supposedly much more reliable than Mortimer's, and yet...

Who is wrong about being there at 1.00? Well it’s very obviously, and provably Smith. How many times do we have to go over this.

So Smith supposedly underestimated the time that he reached Berner street - it was actually several minutes later. At least 7. However, Smith is more reliable that Fanny Mortimer, who supposedly gave a later time for Smith's passing by than he did of himself!

No doubt the answer to this conundrum is; Smith was right when Herlock wants him to be, and wrong when he wants him to be. Oh, and anyone who disagrees with his very reasonable explanation, is a contemptible conspiracy theorist.

It's impressive stuff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Where do your arbitrary insinuations end?

They aren’t insinuations. I’m simply stating that Diemschutz stated what time he got to the yard and we have 5 people confirming this. In any normal appraisal of a series of events this would be considered extremely powerful support and yet you say that these apparently count for nothing?

If we can't pinpoint his time, then he fits into an infinite number of other timelines. You may not like someone suggesting one of those timelines, but that's your problem.

But the 1.05 approximation ties in with Diemschutz (and Eagle who supports him) It also ties in with Johnston and Blackwell.

Brown's evidence also fits with Spooner being some sort of policeman. It fits.

No it doesn’t. We know that Spooner wasn’t a police officer. Brown said “shortly afterwards..” So after the events involving Spooner.

Fatal to what? The Old Theories?

Fatal to the only sensible interpretation of events.

Direct quotes carry far more weight than second or third hand descriptions of what a witness had said. Especially when a report cannot even name the witness. This should go without saying, yet it does not. What is the justification?

Can you guarantee what was a direct quote? Fanny Mortimer helps no one. I might also ask why it doesn’t ‘go without saying’ that Smith was more likely to have been reliable than some doorstep busybody who can’t make her mind up about what she did?

He did. However, it was not as big a mistake as some suppose.

Hoschberg can be dismissed. He got to the yard when it was full of people. He simply got the time wrong.

Yes you do. For example...

FM: I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by.

...you manipulate "just gone indoors" to mean about 20 minutes.

Fanny Mortimer should really be ignored. We can’t put any weight behind anything that she says. One version has her missing Schwartz another has her seeing a Schwartz-free Berner Street. Which is likelier to have been true? I think it’s far less likely that Schwartz falsely placed himself at the scene of a murder.

What you don't seem capable of understanding, is that given "reasonable margin of error", some people are going to come to different conclusions to yourself. To then turn around and call these people conspiracy theorists, means that you are pushing a double standard.

No I’m not. You are blatantly backing up the notion of a conspiracy/cover-up so that’s self-explanatory. It’s not ‘different conclusions’ that I object to. It’s the constant side-stepping of the most reasonable explanations in favour of one’s assuming that witnesses were ‘in on it.’. The notion of a cover up by club members isn’t even approaching reasonable in itself. There are so many very obvious objections. So many reasons to dismiss the idea. And let’s not beat around the bush, you found a cover-up in Hanbury Street and Mitre Square and now Berner Street. So we have 3 murders all involving cover-up’s of some form. This points to a tendency.

Who are you suggesting is arguing for this plot? Either name names, or be accused of deliberate strawmanning.

This is Michael’s Conspiracy of course which I naturally assumed that you were defending but if you have a different conspiracy then I wasn’t aware of that and I apologise for assigning the wrong conspiracy to you. There was no conspiracy or cover-up by the way.

The soft-headed approach that assumes no one lied about anything, will not help in determining that.

I call it a common sense approach. Of course witnesses can lie but we can’t assume it. The vast majority of witnesses tell the truth. This doesn’t stop them being mistaken of course. Diemschutz had no reason to lie. Nor did Morris Eagle.

If you begin by assuming lies and cover-up’s that’s what you’ll find. Whether they are there or not. In this case it’s very obvious that there was no cover-up.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yikes. I stand corrected. The policy make absolutely no sense to me but I can't now dispute that it was not the case. Thanks for sorting me out on this point Dusty.

Cheers, George

The Star, Oct 1:

There are several questions pressing themselves to the front: (1) whether extra patrol work has been really undertaken; (2) whether the senseless system of "fixed points," by which constables instead of ranging over a given area are kept at certain stations, has been modified in view of the special circumstances of the case; (3) whether any efficient detective work of the higher order has been set on foot; (4) whether the advice of French and American detectives, who are far better organised and trained for the detection of crime than our own, has been taken.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I want to comment on your comments to my post but that was not tranferred here. But first I'd like to say that I am not wearing any conspiracy goggles to take off, so I guess I must be one of the contemptibles.

Ok. My ‘contemptible’ comment was made in frustration and wasn’t aimed at you. I apologise.

You quote Lamb as saying Blackwell arrived 10 minutes after him. He actually said 10-12 minutes and you omitted the 12 because it lessened your case.

Not the case George. I tend to go with the Sourcebook: “Dr. Blackwell, about ten minutes after I got there, was the first doctor to arrive.” So, as you can see, I omitted nothing intentionally.

You say with reference to Johnson "“A few minutes past 1.00,” is just a less exact way of saying “About 5 or 10 minutes past.” "When I went to school" a couple meant two and a few meant three - not five or ten.

Come on George. ‘A few’ doesn’t mean 3. You can have ‘a few’ chips with a steak but you won’t be having 3 chips. My original point stands.

You ask why Eagle would have looked at the clock - an estimate created by adding perceived time intervals gives a better result?

I could really do with finding the quote where Eagle said that he didn’t look at the clock. I’m convince that I did see one somewhere but I’m not claiming it a certain because I can’t prove it. But picture the scene. We obvious don’t know the position of the clock in the club or where Eagle was seated in relation to it. So how can it be far-fetched that Gilleman bursts into the room saying that there’s a body in the yard and Eagle was sitting with his back to the clock. Would anyone’s first action be to check the clock? So it’s entirely plausible and likely that he’d have gone straight down to the yard.

You are suggesting that Smith may have been estimating time from a clock he'd seen earlier and thought that he didn't want to mess up his estimate additions by looking at a real clock? Or are you suggesting Smith didn't know the Harris clock was there and available for viewing? What reason are you proposing for his ignoring the Harris clock?

Im not suggesting that he deliberately ignored the clock but we can’t say that he definitely looked at it. He didn’t mention it after all. It might simply have been his habit to check that he was ‘on time’ by looking at the same clock which might have been another clock. Can we eliminate the possibility that he walked along the opposite side of Commercial Road? Can we say that he wouldn’t have been checking both sides of the road and so might have been looking across the road when he passed Harris’ clock. Whichever way we look at it we can’t assume that he had to have looked at that clock.

Then you say "All that I’m suggesting is that in the normal run of events a Constable would be considered more reliable on timing than a woman lounging on her doorstep unless we knew for a fact that she used a clock. Which we don’t. .. So why is it strange that I and others suggest Smith as the more likely to have been reliable?" Have I not made it clear that I am the flagship, the vanguard for the opinion that Smith is the one who is reliable. Even if Fanny had a clock it was not necessarily in sync with the Harris clock, and Fanny didn't see who was in the boots producing the heavy footstep sound. It may have been Smith at 12:30 HCT (Harris clock time) or it may have been BSM at 12:45 Fanny Mortimer time. I think the former FWIW.

Fair enough.

Can you please give me the link to where Diemschutz did not say that his usual arrival time was 1.00. He said ‘between 1.00 and 2.00.? In the accounts in the Times, The Daily News and the Daily Telegraph they refer to him saying a "usual" time of 1:00, the Star also refers to a "usual" time of 1:00, but records Diemshitz as saying he was running early. I haven't seen a reference to "between one and two".

Joshua’s post #1787

My summary is: Diemshitz says he was at the Harris clock corner at 1 o'clock. Smith says he was at the Harris clock at 1 o'clock. They can't both be right. I choose Smith as the more reliable. If that gains me admission to the old contemptibles club, so be it.

Cheers, George

Slightly disingenuous George. Smith didn’t mention the clock. You are the one assuming that he must have looked at it. This is something we can’t know. Diemschutz however is supported by 5 people. Plus we know that he arrived after Lamb and we know that Lamb arrived after 1.00 (backed up by Diemschutz, the 5 who confirm his time, plus Brown who heard the cries.

[Herlock Sholmes]

>>What reason are you proposing for his ignoring the Harris clock?<<

This wasn't addressed to me, so forgive me for jumping in.

Why would he look at the clock?

When he passed it, according to his own testimony, he had no idea anything was happening. It was only when he got into Berner St that he saw something was going on. Even then he had no idea there was a murder until he got to the gates.
If he told Baxter and Scotland yard that he did look at the clock, obviously they would have mentioned the contradiction. Their silence is proof the newspapers that reported him saying "about one" were the correct ones.

This is a good point. The police weren’t idiots. Don’t we think that one of them would have cottoned on to “hold on how could Diemschutz have seen the clock at 1.00 if Smith was there at exactly 1.00 too.

They would have spoken to Smith. As you say Dusty, the silence on this issue speaks volumes and shows that Smith wasn’t there at exactly 1.00.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. So Smith supposedly underestimated the time that he reached Berner street - it was actually several minutes later. At least 7. However, Smith is more reliable that Fanny Mortimer, who supposedly gave a later time for Smith's passing by than he did of himself!

No doubt the answer to this conundrum is; Smith was right when Herlock wants him to be, and wrong when he wants him to be. Oh, and anyone who disagrees with his very reasonable explanation, is a contemptible conspiracy theorist.

It's impressive stuff.

“At least 7” is an exaggeration of course. Smith could have gone into Berner Street a matter of seconds after Lamb.

Its not a case of “when I want him to be” it’s a case of what the evidence points to. I’m not saying that Smith was provably right and that Mortimer was provably wrong because we have no way of knowing for certain. Fanny’s 12.45 suggests that Schwartz lied and I can’t see a single reason to support that. Fanny also had no reason to have logged the time.

That he wasn’t there at exactly 1.00 is proven because he arrived after Lamb and we know for a fact that Lamb arrived after 1.00. Simple stuff.

This is entirely reasonable.

I wouldn’t be critical of conspiracist thinking if you abandoned the idea of a cover-up. It’s that simple. There was no cover-up. We waste time even giving it a milliseconds consideration. It needs binning once and for all.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But the 1.05 approximation ties in with Diemschutz (and Eagle who supports him) It also ties in with Johnston and Blackwell.

This assumes near perfectly synchronized clocks and watches.

No it doesn’t. We know that Spooner wasn’t a police officer. Brown said “shortly afterwards..” So after the events involving Spooner.

What was shortly after what? Do you know? Who was the man who called the policeman to Berner street? Was it Louis or Isaacs?

Can you guarantee what was a direct quote? Fanny Mortimer helps no one.

Evasive. You would prefer Mortimer to have never spoken to the media.

I might also ask why it doesn’t ‘go without saying’ that Smith was more likely to have been reliable than some doorstep busybody who can’t make her mind up about what she did?

I agree with Smith's timings, plus or minus 3 or 4 minutes. So ask that all you like, but you've already been given an answer - it's just not the answer you want.
You also seem to think that hearing Smith pass is the sum total of what we have of what Fanny said. Not true. Also, your reference to "some doorstep busybody who can’t make her mind up about what she did", is more evidence that Mortimer is a threat to Old Theory Theorists.

Fanny Mortimer should really be ignored. We can’t put any weight behind anything that she says. One version has her missing Schwartz another has her seeing a Schwartz-free Berner Street. Which is likelier to have been true? I think it’s far less likely that Schwartz falsely placed himself at the scene of a murder.

One report starts earlier in time than the other. No mystery.

No I’m not. You are blatantly backing up the notion of a conspiracy/cover-up so that’s self-explanatory. It’s not ‘different conclusions’ that I object to. It’s the constant side-stepping of the most reasonable explanations in favour of one’s assuming that witnesses were ‘in on it.’. The notion of a cover up by club members isn’t even approaching reasonable in itself. There are so many very obvious objections. So many reasons to dismiss the idea.

Wess implicitly pointed the finger at Schwartz, when interviewed by the Echo. Is that what you mean by a 'conspiracy/cover-up'?

And let’s not beat around the bush, you found a cover-up in Hanbury Street and Mitre Square and now Berner Street. So we have 3 murders all involving cover-up’s of some form. This points to a tendency.

A cover-up involves more than one person. Amelia Richardson was one person. As for Mitre Square, can you quote me suggesting a cover-up?

This is Michael’s Conspiracy of course which I naturally assumed that you were defending but if you have a different conspiracy then I wasn’t aware of that and I apologise for assigning the wrong conspiracy to you. There was no conspiracy or cover-up by the way.

This is appalling. So you decided to 'assign' another member's theory to me, without evidence, and now you are retracting that, for no apparent reason, only to continue to label me as a conspiracy theorist, without knowing what conspiracy theory I should now be 'assigned'. This really says a lot about you, Michael.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I call it a common sense approach. Of course witnesses can lie but we can’t assume it. The vast majority of witnesses tell the truth. This doesn’t stop them being mistaken of course. Diemschutz had no reason to lie. Nor did Morris Eagle.

This is a common style of reasoning and arguing about the case. Poster X will decide that, for the life of them, they cannot think of reason that Person Y would have lied. Therefore Poster X 'humbly' asserts that Person Y did not lie, because Poster X has found no reason for them to do so. Yet until we know who the murderer was, for whatever victim is being discussed, it is illogical to conclude that we know who did and didn't have a reason to lie.

If Schwartz had been seen fleeing the scene of the murder of Stride, and was regarded by witnesses as being the murderer, then he may well have had reason to lie. So in the case of Schwartz, you can indeed think of reason for him lying. Yet that reason would be based on the assumption that those witnesses were real. Were they real? Until that is known for a fact, that reason for lying cannot be proven, but nor can it be disproven, and that is my point.

[drstrange169]

Here’s my rough ideas, for what it’s worth.

02:00 ish - Mrs Stride helps clean 2 rooms at Flower and Dean doss house.

05:00 - Fixed point officer takes over the duty at cnr. Grove and Commercial

6:00 ish - Mrs Stride cleans up (not to met a man as has been suggested, but to go to the Queens Head, Commercial St.

07:00 ish - Mrs Stride returns to the doss house, sans a man. She gives Catherine Lane a piece of velvet to mind.

8:00 ish - She leaves the Doss house.

9:00 ish - Krantz starts work at the Der Aberter Fraint printing office.
The debating in the club starts.

10:00 - Smith goes on duty (presumably Lamb too)

11:00 ish - Best and Gardner see Mrs Stride leave the bricklayers arms Settles St.

11:30 ish - The debate ends, most members leave.

11:45 ish - Marshall, standing in his doorway, sees Mrs Stride pass with a man.

12:00 ish - He goes back inside.
A young girl walks past the club mets her boyfriend.
They walk up and down past Berner St in Commercial Road.

12:15 ish - Wess and two others leave for home.

12:30 ish - The couple return down Berner.
Charles Letchford returns home, his wife has been standing at the door waiting for him.
Lave leaves the club eventually going into the street. Stays outside the club for about 10 minutes.
Smith goes through Berner Street and sees Mrs Stride with Parcel man.
Fanny Mortimer hears Smith (?) pass.
Eagle returns to the club.
Mortimer goes to her doorway (she may have looked out previously).

12:45 ish - Schwartz goes down Berner Street.
Brown leaves his house and goes to the Chandler shop in Berner St.

12:49 ish - Brown leaves the shop and sees Mrs Stride on the corner of the board school.
Florence Letchford is standing in her doorway.

12: 55 ish - Goldstein goes down Berner St.
Smith passes Berner St along Fairclough.

12:58 ish - Mortimer locks up and soon after hears Diemshitz’s cart pass by.

1:00 - Deimshitz turns into Berner Street.




Times become vague.

The body is discovered.
Eagle runs up Berner possibly turning left first and then right in Commercial road looking for a policeman.
Kozebrodski runs off down down Fairclough.
Deimshitz follows seconds behind, one/both are shouting “murder” and “police”. Onlookers and those that hear this think the murderer is being chased, giving rise to the rumours.
The two go as far as Grove, passing Spooner and his girl friend.
As they return Spooner goes with Diemshitz.
Mr. Harris come out and follows them to the club.
Kozebrodski goes up Batty.
He meets Eagle and they go down towards the fixed point.
They meet Lamb and the fixed point PC walking back.
Once at the club, Lamb blows his whistle.
Someone approaches PC Collins near Christian St. and he rushes to the club.
Brown hears all this.
Smith turns into Berner Street.
PC 426H goes for Blackwell and returns with Johnston.
Blackwell arrives, according to his watch, 1:16.

Important to note.

Nobody’s time is synced with Diemshitz’s, as far as we know.

Blackwell’s time is also not synced with anybody else’s, Although, it must be close to Johnston’s estimated time.

Every other persons time is an estimation.

I've probably missed something, I'm sure.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That he wasn’t there at exactly 1.00 is proven because he arrived after Lamb and we know for a fact that Lamb arrived after 1.00. Simple stuff.

So work out a time for Smith's arrival, and subtract 25 to 30 minutes from that - as Smith appears to have done, from 1am - to determine the approximate time of his last pass of Berner street. Simple stuff.

[drstrange169]

The last time he passed Berner would have been around 12:55 as he walked down Fairclough, as I've noted in my timeline.