If Schwartz Lied ...

[JeffHamm]

...
I take your point, but I'm more interested in theories than sequences. Theories are about insight, whereas sequences are mostly (it seems) about making everything fit. Yet how can everything be made to fit, without consensus on what everything consists of? Clearly I'm not part of any consensus.

But theories are the explanations for the sequence of events - theories are explaining what happened. When we don't know what happened (the sequence) then we don't know what it is we have to explain. While I fully accept that we don't have enough information to be absolutely certain of what the sequence (data) is, and so we all end up having to make some assumptions at various points, without knowing what you think probably happened it becomes hard to follow your explanations because the various posts don't seem to fit together. I recognize that if you haven't settled upon a big picture structure to work from how that makes perfect sense, but it also makes it hard to enter into lengthy discussions while your position is still fluctuating from one idea to the next because as your underlying structure shifts the arguments you present can end up being contradictory (as we noted above), and that isn't fruitful for the other person.

I think it would be a really good exercise for you to try and put together a sequence/time line, or even multiple ones. Find out which of your ideas can work together (produce a structure) and which of your ideas don't fit together. In the end, you might have say 3 different structures, and some ideas may fit into any of them, but other ideas will only fit in 2 of the 3, and other ideas can only work in one or another of the structures.

And then, you can compare how well each of those "models", or "theories" seem to do. It will help to stabalize that big picture that keeps moving in front of you by creating different versions. After that, it will become apparent which ideas conflict with each other (i.e. if I include idea A in this structure I can't fit in idea B, but in my other structure I can put idea B but not idea A).

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, I'm not going to "ignore times and just go on order of events", because it is not possible to know what events are realistic, let alone the order they should be placed in, without having some grasp of the timing of those events. More specifically, all the evidence we have suggests that the pony and cart arrived soon after Mortimer locked up. I'm not going to throw away that evidence to protect Israel Schwartz.
.

Of course we can’t completely ignore times but we can go through the series of events without assigning exact times to them (or any times if we just suggest a reasonable, plausible series of events) because we have absolutely no way of knowing how accurate these times were. We can’t prove or disprove anything by obsessing with them. As long as we don’t take it to ridiculous lengths it helps us see what was a realistic possibility and what wasn’t. But nothing can be gained, except providing fodder for cover ups, if we persist in trying to tie down certain events to exact times which is what you appear to constantly want to do. In a previous post I cited the example of Long and Halse who both quoted exactly the same time that they had previously walked along Goulston Street without seeing each other. Should that ‘concern’ us? Not in the slightest as it would only have taken a minute or less of leeway in times and they would indeed have missed each other. Add the unlikeliness of them lying or the lack of any known motive for lying then the answer is obvious. Likewise in Berner Street.

So we have…

1. Mortimer was there and Schwartz wasn’t - so Schwartz lied - the incident didn’t occur.
2. Mortimer was there and Schwartz wasn’t - so Schwartz got his time wrong - the incident occurred.
3. Mortimer lied - and Schwartz was there - the incident occurred.
4. Mortimer was mistaken on her time - and Schwartz was there - the incident occurred.

So 3 out of the 4 ‘possibles’ we have the incident being entirely possible.

Then, could it have occurred and not been heard?

I don’t really see this as a question worth wasting time on. “Not very loudly,” should seal the deal combined with the fact that we don’t even know if Fanny was at the front or back part of the house at the time, combined with the fact that this event would have only occurred over a matter of seconds. No issue at all here….it quite obviously could have occurred unheard.

Then we have no valid suggestion of a reason for Schwartz lying.

Then we have to add the utter stupidity of claiming to have been somewhere without being aware of the very real possibility of someone proving otherwise.

Then we have the fact that he’d have been placing himself at the crime scene with no one to verify that he wasn’t the actual murderer.

How much more do we need?

Schwartz was there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no doubt that Schwartz was taking a risk in lying to the police. Perhaps he was a risk taker. Can you think of anyone else, who was in the habit of taking huge risks?

But there’s no evidence for it or any valid reason that anyone could come up with. It wouldn’t even have been a calculated risk. Just a pointless one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

By 'fixed point', you of course don't mean that theories should be based around an agreed upon time, you mean that the reality of Schwartz's story is not be questioned.



Is that what a professional historian would do? Is that what the police did, or would do now - force one witnesses account to be compatible with that of another?



No, I'm not going to "ignore times and just go on order of events", because it is not possible to know what events are realistic, let alone the order they should be placed in, without having some grasp of the timing of those events. More specifically, all the evidence we have suggests that the pony and cart arrived soon after Mortimer locked up. I'm not going to throw away that evidence to protect Israel Schwartz.

When George was putting up a strong case that Diemschitz could not have seen the Harris clock at 1am - as he claimed to at the inquest - you were at the forefront of the fierce resistance to that notion. So in theory you ignore times, but in practice, otherwise.



Your faith in Schwartz has a hint of religiosity about it.

I could also say that your obsession with uncovering a non-existent cover up boarders on obsessive.

I can accept the suggestion that Schwartz might have got his time estimation wrong.
I can accept that he might have seen an incident which wasn’t actually threatening.
I can accept that Schwartz might have made errors in his observations.

But I see no reason to even consider that he wasn’t there. Especially when the case for this is simply based on the time that Fanny Mortimer was on her doorstep.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

As to the time conflict of 12:45, I think they would have viewed any statement of time that wasn't based upon a clock reading (i.e. I went inside when I heard the 3/4 of an hour chime strike) as meaning "roughly x o'clock". Basically, Fanny was simply not on her porch at the time Schwartz saw things. My guess is that she went in a few minutes before the Schwartz event, perhaps just after seeing Goldstein pass? But I need to go over all of those statements again and try and sort things out. We're into pretty fuzzy territory by this point. I sometimes wonder if, for example, Goldstein passes after the Schwartz event, so FM has to come out after it, and Goldstein glances at the club because he sees some movement in the dark alley (i.e. the murder). FM then goes inside, Goldstein moves on, and JtR leaves, shortly followed by Deimshutz's arrival. But that would mean the Shwartz event occurs just long enough before Goldstein enters the scene that Schartz and Pipeman have left, and Stride and B.S. are in the ally, but not so much before that B.S. has time to do more than cut her throat (note, presuming that B.S. = JtR of course). I think, though, while exciting, that scenerio is just a bit too tight time wise to justify based upon the information we have. Would make a good movie scene though.

- Jeff

It would make a good movie scene. In it I would have Goldstein reaching 22 Christian street, only to spot Schwartz by the railway arch, catching his breath. Goldstein being a considerate chap, opens his black bag and pulls out a cigarette. He hands to it Schwartz and gives him a light, hoping to calm his nerves.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Herlock,

While the information we have suggests that Pipeman was identified and interviewed by the police, which would confirm the events Schwartz described but presumably refutes Schwartz's belief Pipeman and B.S. were a team (and that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman, etc), if that suggestion is true it would also explain the statements in the press about how Schwartz's account might not be wholly believed by the police. Basically, the police believe Schwartz's statements with regards to the events, but not his statements about the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman or the intended target of B.S. Lipski. In short, they accepted his facts but did not accept his interpretation of them - so his statement was not wholly believed, but that means it was not wholly disbelieved either. I tend to think this division is what the "not wholly believed/relied upon" statement is in reference to. And if Pipeman was subsequently identified and interviewed, then the police's suspicions would be confirmed.

We get to the same above notion simply via the memo to HO as well, where the alternative explanation for Lipski is given. So identifying Pipeman isn't necessary to get there for the police to have doubts (alternate explanations they believe to be more likely) but a chat with Pipeman would be a way for them to confirm or refute those doubts.

- Jeff

Wait a minute. The Star tells us:

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.

That would seem to be an overreaction, if the only issue was that they disagreed with Schwartz's interpretation. Especially if that disagreement was down to nothing more than another mans interpretation. However, it would not have been an overreaction, if Pipeman had so thoroughly contradicted Schwartz, that the police at Leman street decided they could no longer act on Schwartz's statement, without additional facts. Yet this begs the question - why believe Pipeman and disbelieve Schwartz? Pipeman must have had something overwhelming in his favour. Such as proof of his whereabouts, and there could be no better proof than being locked in the yard, and ending up on Reid's list of 28.

As for Schwartz, was he not at the inquest, because he was back at Leman street police station, attempting to provide those additional facts?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What? Just before Fanny turned in, she noticed one person passing: the man who would later identify himself as Goldstein, and satisfy the police about his movements and whereabouts around the time of the murder. She went out again just after one o'clock to see what the commotion was. She didn't see Goldstein on that occasion, did she? Therefore, he was the only man she had seen pass through the street when she had previously been outside, i.e. at some point between 12.30 and 1am, but closer to 1am if it was just before she turned in. Just the one man passing, when she happened to be out on her doorstep. It doesn't get much simpler than that - unless you really, really want it to be complicated.

So now you're saying she only saw one person passing. Not long ago it was ...

In other words, the only man Mortimer saw when she was previously on her doorstep - i.e. before the murder was discovered - was a young man with a bag.

She even helps you to understand this was just the one sighting of him, by describing what he was doing on that one occasion.

If it is so simple, why the change of tune? Is it because I pointed out that the chances of Mortimer only seeing one man between nearly all of 12:30 to 1am, were slim to none?

FM: I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in.

This has two possible interpretations. Yours is ...

I only noticed one person passing, and that was just before I turned in.

Mine is:

Just before I turned in, I only noticed one person passing.

Your interpretation does not explain why she says what she says immediately following ...

That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.

Why was he going in that direction?

Our job is to explain all the evidence, not just parts of it.

No such assumption needed on my part. Fanny could have been in and out every few minutes for all the difference it would make to her only sighting of a man in the street, who happened to be Goldstein. If she had seen this same man on two occasions, or if the police had found her testimony ambiguous in that regard, this would surely have come out in the wash, and Goldstein would have been grilled accordingly. It didn't happen.

Love,

Caz
X

How do you know it didn't happen?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But however we evaluate what we know and however we interpret the timing discrepancies, to suggest that Schwartz lied about being present then we have to consider and assess the actual likelihood of this happening and when we do that the doubts begin to pile up so heavily that when we view them as a list I fail to see how the possibility can carry any weight.

There is no doubt that Schwartz was taking a risk in lying to the police. Perhaps he was a risk taker. Can you think of anyone else, who was in the habit of taking huge risks?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I, too, would be interested in seeing you lay out a time line, with or without actual times (your preference) of how you envision the events occurring and how all the pieces fit together. It's often difficult to piece them together to reflect your "big picture" when the ideas are presented scattered over multiple threads.

True, but that picture is cracked, blurred, has many missing pieces, and worst of all, it keeps moving in front of me!

Particularly when there are times when things seem to be contradictory. For example, you point out above that you recently considered the idea that Fanny may have seen the assault referred to by Schwartz, and yet in the post immediately preceding that one you stated that the events Schwartz described simply never happened ("No one heard it, because it never happened. Simpler." is how you phrased it). But if it never happened, then Fanny could not have witnessed them, so it's hard to reconcile your thoughts because these examples suggest that you believe the events both did and did not happen when we look over those two different posts. Clearly that can't be the case, nor do I think you believe that.

Rather, it is more likely you are exploring different lines of thought, which is certainly good practice, but it can be confusing for everyone else trying to make sense of your position in terms of the big picture.

Yes, I knew I was contradicting myself, but sometimes I think it's better for the discussion to get people thinking and talking, rather than just trying to contradict them. Besides, I could be wrong - both Schwartz and Goldstein may have had absolutely nothing to do with the murder, and have no knowledge of who did. In that case it was Charles Letchford LOL

By presenting a sequence of events, or a time line of the events, then it would go to great lengths to clarify your core position at this time - the framework on which the detailed events are hung so to speak. Obviously, we're all free to change our minds in the future so presenting your thoughts as they stand at this point in time does not mean you are forever beholden to stand fast to them.


- Jeff

I take your point, but I'm more interested in theories than sequences. Theories are about insight, whereas sequences are mostly (it seems) about making everything fit. Yet how can everything be made to fit, without consensus on what everything consists of? Clearly I'm not part of any consensus.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But there was someone else in the street; Pipeman. And there are tantalizing suggestions that Pipeman may have been identified, in which case, Schwartz's account would have been corroborated (by which I mean the events not Schwartz's interpretation of the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman - the Lipski stuff).

Corroborated, or contradicted? I guess it depends on the interpretation of the Star's Oct 1 & 2 references to the prisoner, and the "other source" who led to another man being arrested, and apparently being released within about 24 hours. If Pipeman was the prisoner mentioned, then how could there be another source, if Pipeman was the only other man on the street? Or, if Pipeman was the other source, who did he point the finger at? Presumably BS man, but then what happens to Schwartz's story, if BS man is quickly released? Does the Star Oct 2 edition, not answer that question?

Sadly for us, the information we have is only suggestive that Pipeman was identified and interviewed, and this is just another one of those times where the police knew more than we do, but we cannot be sure of what that "more" consisted of. But regardless, there was someone else in the street at the time and while we don't have it recorded what their version of the events were it is possible the police did. And if they did, it would have been recorded somewhere at that time. Uncovering that in some misplaced document would be a fantastic discovery. Sigh. If I'm going to be making wishes, I want a pony too.

- Jeff

The best we could hope for is attempt to ascertain the identity of Pipeman, and see where that leads ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Neither scenario excludes Schwartz. He was there. It’s a fixed point in any scenario.

By 'fixed point', you of course don't mean that theories should be based around an agreed upon time, you mean that the reality of Schwartz's story is not be questioned.

No. We work Fanny’s story around Schwartz. We don’t know exactly what time either of them were present. We just know that they weren’t present at the same time.

Is that what a professional historian would do? Is that what the police did, or would do now - force one witnesses account to be compatible with that of another?

Yes it is. Time gap unknown. Ignore times and just go on order of events. The only question is was Schwartz before Fanny went onto her doorstep or after she went back inside. It could have been either.

No, I'm not going to "ignore times and just go on order of events", because it is not possible to know what events are realistic, let alone the order they should be placed in, without having some grasp of the timing of those events. More specifically, all the evidence we have suggests that the pony and cart arrived soon after Mortimer locked up. I'm not going to throw away that evidence to protect Israel Schwartz.

When George was putting up a strong case that Diemschitz could not have seen the Harris clock at 1am - as he claimed to at the inquest - you were at the forefront of the fierce resistance to that notion. So in theory you ignore times, but in practice, otherwise.

You can very obviously post what you like but I have no interest in fantasies. Schwartz was there. I’m not interested in any scenario which seeks to conveniently airbrush him. He was there.

Your faith in Schwartz has a hint of religiosity about it.

[Mark J D]

... we are of course then dealing with the probability of Stride being attacked by two men, less than 15 minutes apart...

I don't think one is compelled to postulate an improbability like two equally random attacks on one woman in a brief period. I would imagine that a killer like ours would be absolutely delighted to see a woman being assaulted by another man in front of a witness: he can then sidle up and cut her throat knowing that, as long as he has not been seen, descriptions of those two other people are going to circulate in perpetuity. Thus the attacks are not really 'separate': the first is actually the cause of the second...

M.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I know that you object to the ‘few seconds’ but of course that’s only because you’ve sought to portray it as if Schwartz pulled up a chair to watch a dress rehearsal for Twelfth Night. Schwartz walked behind BS man along Berner Street. He saw him stop and talk to Stride. It’s impossible that it took more than a few seconds. Why argue against the obvious?

Because it's obvious that the stopwatch has to start from the time Stride reaches the gateway, and not from the moment Schwartz enters Berner street. Consequently we are dealing with the probability of Stride standing at that location, without being seen. We also have to ponder her reason for standing there alone. This from the Irish Times:

Several members of the club, including the steward, stated that the yard adjoining the building had never been frequented by unfortunate women. The traffic there is constant, and continues almost all the night through.

This is rather different from the picture we have of no one being in the yard between the time of Eagle's return, and Diemschitz' return. Presumably people inside would have used the outside loos in that period, or have gone outside for the fresh air, as Lave did. Yet no one saw or heard anything suspicious, let alone witnessed the deceased standing at the gates ...

The windows of the clubroom are within ten feet of the spot, whilst the cottages stand almost opposite and command a complete view of it. None of the occupants of these houses, however, heard the faintest noise in the course of Saturday night or Sunday morning. The residents in the yard are tailors and cigarette makers, and they are not in the habit of retiring very early. A reporter who made inquiry among them, however, was unable to find any person who had either seen or heard anything suspicious.

The stopwatch on the Schwartz incident is stopped when either Schwartz stops running, or Berner street is cleared of the other characters in his story - whichever comes last.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There are 2 types of speculative scenarios: one in which Mr. Broad Shoulders is also Stride's killer and one in which he's not. There's no way for us to determine which is the correct one, however incompatible Schwartz's evidence might be with that of Lamb and Blackwell.

Sure, there is no way for us to determine which is the correct one, if these are the only choices. However, the incompatibility of Schwartz's evidence with that of Lamb and Blackwell, surely provides some basis for making a decision on which scenario is the most likely. If we go with the later option, we are of course then dealing with the probability of Stride being attacked by two men, less than 15 minutes apart.

[JeffHamm]

Hello Jeff,

Yes it has to be a possibility that any doubt as to the Schwartz incident might simply have been a matter of a difference in interpretation between Schwartz and Pipeman with Abberline favouring the Schwartz version. I know that not everyone will agree but I don’t think that’s it’s so much of a long shot to suggest that a situation of drunken horseplay or even a non-threatening disagreement might have been misunderstood by a non-English speaker walking the streets around midnight and one who might even have been of a nervous disposition in the first place.

Obviously Abberline would have been aware of the clash between the ‘12.45’ of both FM and Schwartz and yet he went with the Schwartz version. Any police doubts might have been because they favoured FM and believed that the incident that Schwartz saw had occurred earlier in the evening taking into consideration estimated times of course?

Hi Herlock,

My reading of Abberline's view is that he suspected that Lipski was shouted at Schwartz during the Schwartz interview, so the doubts around Schwartz's interpretations of the events (at least with regards to any potential relationship between B.S. and Pipeman) arose at that time, which would be before Pipeman was potentially identified and spoken with as well.

Pipeman, if interviewed, may very well have also indicated that he saw a man throw a woman to the ground, etc, but I suppose your suggestion that Pipeman's interpretation of that could also have been very different cannot be dismissed.

My sense is that the police were fairly confident that Schwartz did see a man assault Stride where she was put to the ground, and that the man shouted Lipski. Also, that there was another person present (Pipeman). However, the police were inclined to believe that Lipski was actually shouted at Schwartz and that Schwartz was mistaken in thinking it was shouted to alert Pipeman, and that Pipeman was more likely a 2nd potential witness than a 2nd potential perpetrator. So the police did have "doubts" about the accuracy of some parts of Schwartz's statements and hence, Schwartz's account could not be wholly believed, only partially believed. Basically, the police did not think Schwartz was making the events up, he just didn't fully comprehend what was going on. Finding Pipeman (or B.S.) would allow them to get a 2nd statement to help resolve that (remember, just because the police suspected Schwartz was mistaken doesn't mean he was mistaken and the police would want to know if the correct interpretation was that put forth by Schwartz, who was there, or the police, who are more familiar with criminal events and situations. We know the police did search for Lipski families in the area, so even though they had doubts about Schwartz's statement they didn't dismiss it and followed it as a potential lead.

As to the time conflict of 12:45, I think they would have viewed any statement of time that wasn't based upon a clock reading (i.e. I went inside when I heard the 3/4 of an hour chime strike) as meaning "roughly x o'clock". Basically, Fanny was simply not on her porch at the time Schwartz saw things. My guess is that she went in a few minutes before the Schwartz event, perhaps just after seeing Goldstein pass? But I need to go over all of those statements again and try and sort things out. We're into pretty fuzzy territory by this point. I sometimes wonder if, for example, Goldstein passes after the Schwartz event, so FM has to come out after it, and Goldstein glances at the club because he sees some movement in the dark alley (i.e. the murder). FM then goes inside, Goldstein moves on, and JtR leaves, shortly followed by Deimshutz's arrival. But that would mean the Shwartz event occurs just long enough before Goldstein enters the scene that Schartz and Pipeman have left, and Stride and B.S. are in the ally, but not so much before that B.S. has time to do more than cut her throat (note, presuming that B.S. = JtR of course). I think, though, while exciting, that scenerio is just a bit too tight time wise to justify based upon the information we have. Would make a good movie scene though.

- Jeff