Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    The presumptives being used here are not reconstructions, they are individual guesstimates of whats of value and what isnt. No-one knows what specific times Fanny was at her door and when she wasnt...only that she was there the last 10 minutes of the hour. Presuming who checked what clock and whether they checked at all isnt useful....you cant know, nor can I. What can be known is if more than one person recalled the same thing happening at the same location and time. Lave could have validated Eagle in that manner, or vice versa, but that didnt occur. Fanny could have done so for Louis, but that didnt happen.

    What did happen is that the majority of independent witnesses interviewed about their recollections of what they were doing at 12:40 all said they were by the dying woman with Louis and others. None of the the independent witness accounts that suggest otherwise have any secondary validation....even though some claimed to be in the same place and at the same time...like Lave and Eagle.
    This is simply untrue.

    for the 200th time…

    Eagle and Gillman combined give a discovery time of around 1.00.

    Brown heard the calls for a Constable at around 1.00

    Spooner arrived 5 minutes before Lamb and clearly not 15 or 20 minutes before him. Lamb’s time ties in perfectly with Johnston and Blackwell.

    Sarah Diemschutz and the club servants confirmed the 1.00 time.

    No one reports seeing or hearing any commotion before 1.00 including Fanny.

    As well as not seeing Schwartz Fanny also doesn’t see a solitary sign of any kind of club-related activity before 1.00.

    …..

    And so all that you have are Kozebrodski and Hoschberg (who’s ‘around’ 12.45 ‘I should think’ you take as gospel.)

    For Christ’s sake the case for any kind of cover up couldn’t possibly be weaker. It’s feeble. It’s pathetic. It’s a non-existent fantasy. Just give it up Michael. You’re cover up has been blown out of the water, trampled into the dust and buried. It exists only in the mind of you and your partner in fantasy.

    It’s about time this travesty ended once and for all.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



    “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

    “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
      >>And why no mention of Israel Goldstein?<<

      Too busy taking care of business.
      Could be, Dusty. ;-)



      Comment


      • Hi NBFN,

        Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        So Smith's timing has to be compatible with Diemschitz timing, and not the other way around?
        What I suggested was making both compatible with each other. Nothing I suggested was outside of the range of times Smith gives, and I was just pointing out that entirely within both Smith and Diemshutz's statement there exists the possibility that neither statement has to be viewed as an error. It shows both statements can be true at the same time, which negates the claim they are incompatible.


        So I was probably a bit harsh in using it. So I will make my point another way. How many people need to not be around when they said they were, for the Schwartz incident to go unnoticed, when it is claimed to have occurred?
        Well, I most of them aren't around by their own statements. The only statement, if taken at face value, is FM's, as at some point I think she says she's on her door step for most of the time between 12:30 and 1 o'clock. But if we accept that, then Stride is never on Berners Street after 12:30, so she's been laying dead in the alley since some time before that. And all the to'ings and fro'ings from the club never noticed her. Also, she never sees Diemshutz arrive, but hears him after she goes back in, which makes his discovery at 1 o'clock supported. But those who question Schwartz often do so because they believe Deimshutz arrived at 12:45, and they use FM's statement to show Schwartz and Pipeman were never there, but then, that would mean Stride wasn't either. It also means Deimshutz didn't arrive at 12:45 either. And, all of the other activity, that is pointed at to argue Schwartz wasn't there is also never mentioned by FM.

        If we take FM's statement without question, then nothing at all happened that night, apart from at some point a man with a bag was walking from Commercial down Berners Street and turned onto Fairclough, and a couple was seen at some point. Her statement, if accepted, ends up causing us to have to conclude "these other statements are all false". However, if FMs statement is taken with a few grains of salt, and her claim to have been on her doorstep nearly the whole time is seen as a bit of an exaggeration, then a lot (not all of course) of the conflicts vanish.

        It seems to me that it might be more fruitful to view the testimonies more with a view to try and work out when FM was on her doorstep, rather than presuming she was there when, and for how long, she states. We know, for example, that she was inside when Diemshutz arrives as she hears the pony and cart go by, and shortly thereafter there's the commotion at the club. In her testimony, even if we keep open the question of what time that happened, there is no indication that there was a 15 or 20 minute delay between Diemshutz's arrival and the beginning of the search for the police, so no time for the "let's protect the club by waiting 15 minutes before alerting the police, that will divert suspicion from us, and let's get someone to tell the police there were two people, and let's give one of them a Jewish name. How about Lipski?" (please don't ask me to explain the logic behind that plan as it escapes me as well).

        Anyway, FM also mentions hearing footsteps, and we've covered that, either she hears PC Smith, which would make her time estimate incorrect of when she heard them and means she was back inside during the Schwartz even, or she hears the killer leaving (possibly), which places the murder around the time of the Schwartz event.

        In some reports I think she says she's out on the step for 10 minutes. Even that seems a fairly long time to just be standing there. If she's out to have a smoke, though, maybe that's not too long. The bowls of a clay pipe don't hold a lot of tobacco though, but I don't know how long it would normally take to smoke one. Larger pipes can be smoked for a fair while, but the clay pipes are smaller (and get hot). Anyway have any experience with them?

        I'm digressing a bit, sorry, as of course FM doesn't say why she went out on her step. Not knowing what she was doing makes it hard for us to try and reason how long it would take her to do it. The having a pipe idea just popped into my head.

        Regardless, as I say, FM statements creates conflicts with just about everyone, and that to me points to FMs statement as being a major source of error. Not meaning she lied, only that it's not all accurate. To me, the most plausible inaccuracies come from her estimations of the temporal aspects of her testimony, the times, and durations, she gives.


        One of the three FM reports, possibly is based on a police statement.
        If it's only possibly, then it's also possibly not.


        The logic is; each witness is or is not called, on their own merits, according to the coroner. We can only argue that those decisions were a matter of relevance or faith in the respective witnesses. That is, there could more than one basis for rejecting a witness, so one rejection need not saying anything about another.
        Sure, but that's not my point. My point is it means not being called cannot be used as evidence the witness was not believed.


        Why did Pipeman become Knifeman? Blame it on the Star? It is never the fault of Schwartz, and why should he get the blame for no one seeing or hearing anything ... after we move them out of the way?
        Well, the press does get things wrong all the time. Also, we know from the police report Schwartz appears to lack confidence and when someone offers an alternative explanation he agreed it was possible (i.e. that his version of Lipski being shouted at pipeman, he agrees he could be wrong and that Lipski could have been shouted at himself; so if the Star reporter suggested maybe it wasn't a pipe but a knife, Schwartz may have agreed that was possible? Again, we don't know how strong Schwartz's convictions were. But we do have two conflicting news reports. I'm pretty sure if his police statement included "knifeman" rather than "pipeman", though, there would be evidence of that in the surviving reports. Even if the police believed Lipski wasn't "knifeman's name", they are unlikely to presume he wasn't involved after all.

        As for Schwartz never being at fault, that's not entirely accurate. Schwartz is at fault for the suggestion that B.S. had an accomplice, "pipeman", named Lipski. All of that stuff is considered errors, and oddly, nobody on either side of the debate, seems to have any problem with not taking that at face value. But it doesn't fit with any of the theories so nobody tries to prop it up. Mind you, FM's statement doesn't really fit with any of the theories either, but there are more versions of her statements to choose from.


        If the following is a reasonable thing to say...



        ... then it is reasonable to suggest that the Mortimer's had a clock.
        One can always suggest anything. But to have evidence that Mortimer had a clock requires, at the very least, a statement to that effect. Nowhere, as far as I'm aware, is it ever stated that she had a clock, or that she referenced a clock.


        If there was no Israel Schwartz, you would not be making this argument.
        What arguments I may or may not make in this hypothetical situation are also hypothetical.


        Maybe!



        They weren't gone, they spoke to Fanny Mortimer.
        And FM, in my reading of things, is the likeliest source of conflict with many of the other witness statements.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Fanny Mortimer. Now where have I seen that set of initials before? Hmmmm.

          c.d.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
            Fanny Mortimer. Now where have I seen that set of initials before? Hmmmm.

            c.d.
            Noooooo c.d.

            Don't give them ideas.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

            Comment


            • When we scrape beneath the surface and get to the nub of the debate it really is pretty simple.

              The Grassy Knoll Two claim the Schwartz was never in Berner Street and that there was no incident involving Elizabeth Stride and BS Man.

              So the onus is on them to prove this with evidence and to do this they produce Fanny Mortimer.

              They say because FM said that she went onto her doorstep around 12.45 then she would have seen the Schwartz incident had it occurred at 12.45.

              ​​​​​​……

              And so whenever we try to prove that ‘a’ didn’t see ‘b’ at ‘x’ time we need to know the times as facts.

              So do we know for certain that Schwartz was absolutely spot on with his timing when he said that he’d passed the gates? The answer of course is no. We don’t know how he arrived at that time so we cannot assume that it was accurate. Any reasonable + or - is possible.

              And do we know for certain what time FM went onto her doorstep. Again the answer to this one is also no. She estimated 12.45 (and we have no way of knowing how she arrived at that time) but she also said that she went onto her doorstep just after she heard a Constable pass. This could only have been Smith and he said that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35. So in theory she could have gone onto her doorstep at 12.31 or 12.32 or 12.33 or 12.34 or 12.35 or 12.36 or 12.37 or 12.38 or 12.39 or 12.40 or 12.41 or 12.42 or 12.43 or 12.44 or 12.45 or even 12.46.

              Can we be sure how long she was on her doorstep? She estimated 10 minutes but again we can’t know if she saw a clock or simply made a judgment. So she might have only been on her doorstep for 7 or 8 minutes or she might have been on there for 11 or 12.

              ​​​​​​……

              Yes, I’m repeating the very obvious but sadly I feel the need to because of the, shall we say ‘strange’ thought processes going on in some quarters. And so to sum up.

              Can someone please tell me why Fanny Mortimer repeatedly gets used to ‘prove’ that Schwartz was never there? Honest answers please. How?

              We don’t know exactly what time Schwartz passed.
              We don’t know exactly what time FM went onto her doorstep.
              And we don’t know exactly how long she was on there.

              The actual incident between BS Man could only have taken around 30 seconds or less but if we add walking time (to cover the possibility of Fanny seeing him walk along the street) then let’s call it a minute.

              How many reasonable people could see the vagueness in the times estimated and then state that this proves that a 1 minute incident could not have been missed?

              The suggestion just beggars belief and the fact that Fanny apparently didn’t see Morris Eagle return or Liz Stride arrive or Diemschutz arrive back early gets conveniently swept under the carpet in a sad attempt to try and keep a non-existent cover-up afloat.

              Ive exaggerated nothing in the above. I’ve manipulated nothing. I’ve simply laid out what we know. The only honest position would be to stop trying to use Fanny Mortimer to bolster a fantasy.

              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

              “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                Hi NBFN,

                What I suggested was making both compatible with each other. Nothing I suggested was outside of the range of times Smith gives, and I was just pointing out that entirely within both Smith and Diemshutz's statement there exists the possibility that neither statement has to be viewed as an error. It shows both statements can be true at the same time, which negates the claim they are incompatible.
                Okay fine, but do you realize that your 5 minutes between Diemschitz entering Berner street, and Smith's arrival, is completely 'consumed' by the 5 minutes Spooner was at the yard before the arrival of Lamb?

                Well, I most of them aren't around by their own statements. The only statement, if taken at face value, is FM's, as at some point I think she says she's on her door step for most of the time between 12:30 and 1 o'clock. But if we accept that, then Stride is never on Berners Street after 12:30, so she's been laying dead in the alley since some time before that. And all the to'ings and fro'ings from the club never noticed her. Also, she never sees Diemshutz arrive, but hears him after she goes back in, which makes his discovery at 1 o'clock supported. But those who question Schwartz often do so because they believe Deimshutz arrived at 12:45, and they use FM's statement to show Schwartz and Pipeman were never there, but then, that would mean Stride wasn't either. It also means Deimshutz didn't arrive at 12:45 either. And, all of the other activity, that is pointed at to argue Schwartz wasn't there is also never mentioned by FM.

                If we take FM's statement without question, then nothing at all happened that night, apart from at some point a man with a bag was walking from Commercial down Berners Street and turned onto Fairclough, and a couple was seen at some point. Her statement, if accepted, ends up causing us to have to conclude "these other statements are all false". However, if FMs statement is taken with a few grains of salt, and her claim to have been on her doorstep nearly the whole time is seen as a bit of an exaggeration, then a lot (not all of course) of the conflicts vanish.

                It seems to me that it might be more fruitful to view the testimonies more with a view to try and work out when FM was on her doorstep, rather than presuming she was there when, and for how long, she states. We know, for example, that she was inside when Diemshutz arrives as she hears the pony and cart go by, and shortly thereafter there's the commotion at the club. In her testimony, even if we keep open the question of what time that happened, there is no indication that there was a 15 or 20 minute delay between Diemshutz's arrival and the beginning of the search for the police, so no time for the "let's protect the club by waiting 15 minutes before alerting the police, that will divert suspicion from us, and let's get someone to tell the police there were two people, and let's give one of them a Jewish name. How about Lipski?" (please don't ask me to explain the logic behind that plan as it escapes me as well).

                Anyway, FM also mentions hearing footsteps, and we've covered that, either she hears PC Smith, which would make her time estimate incorrect of when she heard them and means she was back inside during the Schwartz even, or she hears the killer leaving (possibly), which places the murder around the time of the Schwartz event.

                In some reports I think she says she's out on the step for 10 minutes. Even that seems a fairly long time to just be standing there. If she's out to have a smoke, though, maybe that's not too long. The bowls of a clay pipe don't hold a lot of tobacco though, but I don't know how long it would normally take to smoke one. Larger pipes can be smoked for a fair while, but the clay pipes are smaller (and get hot). Anyway have any experience with them?

                I'm digressing a bit, sorry, as of course FM doesn't say why she went out on her step. Not knowing what she was doing makes it hard for us to try and reason how long it would take her to do it. The having a pipe idea just popped into my head.

                Regardless, as I say, FM statements creates conflicts with just about everyone, and that to me points to FMs statement as being a major source of error. Not meaning she lied, only that it's not all accurate. To me, the most plausible inaccuracies come from her estimations of the temporal aspects of her testimony, the times, and durations, she gives.
                It is true that Fanny did not see Stride or her murderer enter the gates, and she admits to that in her statement. So when did it occur? This is obviously a crucial question, and I suppose there are 4 possibilities:

                1. Stride entered the yard, and possibly the club, well before she was murdered. So say between Smith's passing and Mortimer's going to her doorstep. That would explain why she were not seen by any neighbour, after about 12:35. This scenario requires some members of the club to keep quiet about this, and possibly many.

                2. Fanny was completely confused about how much time elapsed between her lockup and subsequently going to the yard. It was much longer than the few minutes or less that she supposed. Everything happened in that period.

                3. Fanny was correct that only minimal time elapsed between her lockup and being alerted, and in this brief time, Stride was passing the gates, and was grabbed and pulled into the yard.

                4. Stride entered the yard before Fanny locked up, but at a moment when Fanny was distracted by something else, and/or just inside her door or in the front room.

                #1 requires a cover-up, possibly a big one, so that seems unlikely. #2 requires us to suppose that what seemed like less than 5 minutes was more like 20, which I think is far-fetched. #3 and 4 are similar, in that both have Fanny just missing the event, and that event looks something like an ambush. So neither require Stride to have been at the gates for any significant time. How fascinating then, that there is an anonymous account of something like an ambush murder, in the Irish Times of Oct 1:

                There do appear to be peculiarities in the tale of one of the murders that point more closely to a possible revelation. The woman was not in the company of her assailant. She carried in one hand sweetmeats and in another grapes, as if she were on her way to her home. She was surprised, grasped and her throat severed by a fierce attack, and it is hardly possible that this could have been done without some stains having been made upon the murderer's clothes.

                Evidently someone witnessed the murder.

                Sure, but that's not my point. My point is it means not being called cannot be used as evidence the witness was not believed.
                Okay. I think there was another issue with Schwartz, that led to his non-appearance.

                Well, the press does get things wrong all the time. Also, we know from the police report Schwartz appears to lack confidence and when someone offers an alternative explanation he agreed it was possible (i.e. that his version of Lipski being shouted at pipeman, he agrees he could be wrong and that Lipski could have been shouted at himself; so if the Star reporter suggested maybe it wasn't a pipe but a knife, Schwartz may have agreed that was possible? Again, we don't know how strong Schwartz's convictions were. But we do have two conflicting news reports. I'm pretty sure if his police statement included "knifeman" rather than "pipeman", though, there would be evidence of that in the surviving reports. Even if the police believed Lipski wasn't "knifeman's name", they are unlikely to presume he wasn't involved after all.
                I don't think there was a pipe or a knife, but that's for another time.

                As for Schwartz never being at fault, that's not entirely accurate. Schwartz is at fault for the suggestion that B.S. had an accomplice, "pipeman", named Lipski. All of that stuff is considered errors, and oddly, nobody on either side of the debate, seems to have any problem with not taking that at face value. But it doesn't fit with any of the theories so nobody tries to prop it up. Mind you, FM's statement doesn't really fit with any of the theories either, but there are more versions of her statements to choose from.
                Actually, I think Schwartz was kind of right about the two men, and also that everyone, both now and then, is/was wrong about 'Lipski'.

                One can always suggest anything. But to have evidence that Mortimer had a clock requires, at the very least, a statement to that effect. Nowhere, as far as I'm aware, is it ever stated that she had a clock, or that she referenced a clock.
                FM: It was just after one o'clock when I went out...

                How do you suppose she came to that conclusion, without a clock? From talking to Louis?
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  Okay fine, but do you realize that your 5 minutes between Diemschitz entering Berner street, and Smith's arrival, is completely 'consumed' by the 5 minutes Spooner was at the yard before the arrival of Lamb?
                  Again, if one takes the stated times and durations as if they are absolutes, then the witness statements can never make a coherent telling of the events. However, if we view things like "5 minutes" or "20 minutes", more like how people actually communicate, it might be more fruitful to substitute more descriptive terms, like "a short time", "a bit of a wait", and so forth. I tend to think the police were more attuned to the time, and how long of an interval may have passed, simply because they were constantly checking the times during their beats. So, for a PC who was on their regular beat, they would have a pretty good idea of being able to estimate the time based upon where in their beat something happened. Other witnesses, though, are likely to be far less reliable as they simply have no reason to have been all that focused on the passage of time.

                  It is true that Fanny did not see Stride or her murderer enter the gates, and she admits to that in her statement. So when did it occur? This is obviously a crucial question, and I suppose there are 4 possibilities:

                  1. Stride entered the yard, and possibly the club, well before she was murdered. So say between Smith's passing and Mortimer's going to her doorstep. That would explain why she were not seen by any neighbour, after about 12:35. This scenario requires some members of the club to keep quiet about this, and possibly many.

                  2. Fanny was completely confused about how much time elapsed between her lockup and subsequently going to the yard. It was much longer than the few minutes or less that she supposed. Everything happened in that period.

                  3. Fanny was correct that only minimal time elapsed between her lockup and being alerted, and in this brief time, Stride was passing the gates, and was grabbed and pulled into the yard.

                  4. Stride entered the yard before Fanny locked up, but at a moment when Fanny was distracted by something else, and/or just inside her door or in the front room.

                  #1 requires a cover-up, possibly a big one, so that seems unlikely. #2 requires us to suppose that what seemed like less than 5 minutes was more like 20, which I think is far-fetched. #3 and 4 are similar, in that both have Fanny just missing the event, and that event looks something like an ambush. So neither require Stride to have been at the gates for any significant time. How fascinating then, that there is an anonymous account of something like an ambush murder, in the Irish Times of Oct 1:
                  In a way, that's the puzzle we're all trying to solve isn't it? I'm not sure there will be a solution that satisfies everyone, in part because whatever solution one offers require us to make a call about things we cannot be sure about. But that's the nature of the case. We have to bring to it all of our own personal biases and ideas of what seems to be more and less probable. There just isn't enough information to objectively draw firm conclusions.



                  There do appear to be peculiarities in the tale of one of the murders that point more closely to a possible revelation. The woman was not in the company of her assailant. She carried in one hand sweetmeats and in another grapes, as if she were on her way to her home. She was surprised, grasped and her throat severed by a fierce attack, and it is hardly possible that this could have been done without some stains having been made upon the murderer's clothes.

                  Evidently someone witnessed the murder.
                  Well, I suspect that's a journalist presenting the evidence in a dramatic way. While blood is mentioned on one of her hands, I recall it is on the back of the hand. If she grasped her throat, it would be a lot more than the amount described, and also mostly on the palm. It would also make either the grapes or the cachous even more mysterious, given the above has both her hands busy holding one or the other. I think it would be a stretch to suggest this is an actual witness account.

                  Okay. I think there was another issue with Schwartz, that led to his non-appearance.
                  I agree, but I have no idea what it is. We have nothing that even points at why he wasn't there. We just have the fact he wasn't. It's annoying to say the least, but it is what it is.


                  I don't think there was a pipe or a knife, but that's for another time.
                  No worries. And yes, too many topics just becomes chaotic. That is sufficiently different it would probably require it's own thread.

                  Actually, I think Schwartz was kind of right about the two men, and also that everyone, both now and then, is/was wrong about 'Lipski'.
                  Possibly, but if Schwartz were wrong, and the police were wrong, and they are both from the time of the crimes, then it would be a miracle for us 130+ years later, to suddenly guess the truth. But whatever the explanation, it implies Schwartz saw something.

                  FM: It was just after one o'clock when I went out...

                  How do you suppose she came to that conclusion, without a clock? From talking to Louis?
                  She's giving her statement after the events occurred. We can't discount the idea that someone checked the time, or because the topic would be circulating in the area afterwards, that the time of the events became general knowledge. In other words, we don't know if she knew the time at the time, only that she states them later. Witness testimonies don't always reflect things they knew when the event they witnessed occurred, they also get updated as further events unfold. It's one of the major problems we have because witness statements and their memories are so malleable. But it wouldn't be a puzzle if it were easy.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Isn’t it interesting that Police investigating these events at the at no time showed any doubts that Diemschutz did indeed discover the body at 1.00. In the case of Chapman all of the conflicting times were mentioned (Phillips, Richards, Cadosch and Long) and considered so all of the times in Berner Street would have been considered (including Kozebrodski, Hoschberg and Spooner) and they were left in absolutely no doubt as to the discovery time.

                    They also interviewed all of the club members and we have no record of what they said but it’s a fair bet that they confirmed the discovery time.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                    “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                      Well, I suspect that's a journalist presenting the evidence in a dramatic way. While blood is mentioned on one of her hands, I recall it is on the back of the hand. If she grasped her throat, it would be a lot more than the amount described, and also mostly on the palm. It would also make either the grapes or the cachous even more mysterious, given the above has both her hands busy holding one or the other. I think it would be a stretch to suggest this is an actual witness account.
                      You might have noted how it inverts the Schwartz account. The woman walks, while the man is stationary, rather than the opposite. Quite a coincidence if it were just the poetic license of a journalist.

                      I agree, but I have no idea what it is. We have nothing that even points at why he wasn't there. We just have the fact he wasn't. It's annoying to say the least, but it is what it is.
                      He wasn't available while the dispute with the prisoner mentioned in the Star, Oct 1 & 2, was being resolved. By 'dispute', I mean conflicting stories.

                      Possibly, but if Schwartz were wrong, and the police were wrong, and they are both from the time of the crimes, then it would be a miracle for us 130+ years later, to suddenly guess the truth. But whatever the explanation, it implies Schwartz saw something.
                      Someone saw something.

                      She's giving her statement after the events occurred. We can't discount the idea that someone checked the time, or because the topic would be circulating in the area afterwards, that the time of the events became general knowledge. In other words, we don't know if she knew the time at the time, only that she states them later. Witness testimonies don't always reflect things they knew when the event they witnessed occurred, they also get updated as further events unfold. It's one of the major problems we have because witness statements and their memories are so malleable. But it wouldn't be a puzzle if it were easy.
                      Diemschitz may have influenced Mortimer's perceptions, to some extent.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • I think that there are 4 categories of timings arranged in terms of their likelihood of being correct.

                        Category A - Those that owned a watch or specifically stated that they saw a clock immediately prior to the event in question. A caveat of course is the one that George has rightly mentioned in that clocks and watches aren’t always synchronised or correct. I think that it’s entirely fair to suggest though that Blackwell’s time is the one that we can take to the bank. It’s entirely reasonable to suggest that a man in his position would have needed an accurate time and so would have regularly have reset his watch. Yes, his 1.16 might actually have differed from the ‘actual’ time by a minute but we have to accept his time.

                        Category B - Those that estimated times but we have no way of knowing exactly how they arrived at those estimations but they had reason to be at least reasonably accurate on times (allowing for a reasonable margin for error of course) This category is basically for Police Officers and medical men. We can’t say that they must have been spot on at all times but they certainly had more reason to be regularly aware of roughly what the time was than the average Berner Street area inhabitant.

                        Category C - Those who estimated and we have no exact way of knowing how they came to their time.

                        So….

                        Category A - Blackwell, Diemschutz.

                        Category B - Smith, Lamb, Johnston etc.

                        Category C - Everyone else.

                        Can those in Category C be subdivided further. I think so. By specifying those that state how they came by their time estimation.

                        Eagle said that he returned at about 12.35. He doesn’t round this down or up. He’s quite specific even though it’s still an estimation so I think that it’s reasonable to suggest that he saw the club clock on his return. Or maybe he was given the time at his girlfriends house? Then it was around 20 minutes before Gilleman informed him that a body had been found. Again, this is an estimation of time. So we have to ask if he was likely to have mistaken 20 minutes for for 5 or 10 or is it more likely that it was indeed nearer to 20 minutes which would have taken him to around 12.55. So can we really be said to be stretching things to even suggest, for example, that he actually got back at 12.37 and then the time elapse was 23 instead of 20 minutes. Surely no one can reasonably object? Therefore Eagle strongly points to Stride’s body being discovered at 1.00.

                        Fanny Mortimer mentions no clock so we cannot conveniently assume that she had one. She specifically states that she went onto her doorstep immediately after hearing a Constable pass and she herself estimated the time to have been around 12.45. But if we accept the premise of Category B then Smith’s estimate of 12.30-12.35 has to have been reasonably accurate. The fact itself that he gives a range is convincingly reasonable. So the only way that Fanny’s time can be tied down is in terms of PC Smith. Therefore I can’t see how anyone can object to it being said that it’s likely that she went onto her doorstep between (Approx) 12.31 and 12.36 for an estimated 10 minutes. Being fair we treat Mortimer to the same criteria as Eagle and so we can’t suggest that her 10 minute estimation was massively out but it’s entirely plausible that it might have been 7 or 8 minutes for example. So reason tells us that there’s nothing at all unlikely in stating that she could have been indoors when Schwartz passed.

                        Likewise Spooner who’s time we can set by Lamb who, not owning a watch but still in Category B, only had to be out in his estimate of 5 minutes or so to have Spooner arriving at the yard shortly after 1.00.

                        Brown is the same. He doesn’t mention a clock but he mentions action like going to a shop (which might have had a clock) or he might have gone for his supper at the same time every night. Or he may have become hungry and checked a clock or watch (if he’d owned one) to see if the shop would still be open. Then all that he had to do was assess the time that it took him to walk the few yards home and to have eaten his supper. Pretty reasonable timing gauges I’d say. So this takes his time of hearing the cries for a Constable to just the right time that Diemschutz and Kozebrodski passed.

                        Finally we have Kozebrodski and Hoschberg. Both estimating and neither mentioning checking a clock. It’s worth noting that Hoschberg mentions hearing a policeman’s whistle before he went into the yard. We know that Lamb blew his whistle and we know that Lamb arrived after 1.00 so I think that we can say with confidence that the ‘mystery’ of Hoschberg’s timing is solved.

                        Its very simple when you remove the conspiracy goggles.

                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



                        “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                        “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Its very simple when you remove the conspiracy goggles.
                          So which category do you place Theatrical Man in?
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            So which category do you place Theatrical Man in?
                            Category C.

                            We have know way of knowing how accurate his time was. But we also have nothing that points to his not being there. Being unseen is not a reason to doubt that something occurred unless it could be proven that there was someone in the street at exactly the time that he passed and that they couldn’t possibly have missed him. Those circumstances don’t exist so the position that he was never there collapses absolutely. It simply becomes a suggestion to back up another unproven and unprovable suggestion. Basically we have Schwartz statement versus nothing. So Schwartz statement stands with no opposition.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              This is simply untrue.

                              for the 200th time…

                              Eagle and Gillman combined give a discovery time of around 1.00.

                              Brown heard the calls for a Constable at around 1.00

                              Spooner arrived 5 minutes before Lamb and clearly not 15 or 20 minutes before him. Lamb’s time ties in perfectly with Johnston and Blackwell.

                              Sarah Diemschutz and the club servants confirmed the 1.00 time.

                              No one reports seeing or hearing any commotion before 1.00 including Fanny.

                              As well as not seeing Schwartz Fanny also doesn’t see a solitary sign of any kind of club-related activity before 1.00.

                              …..

                              And so all that you have are Kozebrodski and Hoschberg (who’s ‘around’ 12.45 ‘I should think’ you take as gospel.)

                              For Christ’s sake the case for any kind of cover up couldn’t possibly be weaker. It’s feeble. It’s pathetic. It’s a non-existent fantasy. Just give it up Michael. You’re cover up has been blown out of the water, trampled into the dust and buried. It exists only in the mind of you and your partner in fantasy.

                              It’s about time this travesty ended once and for all.
                              You need to stick with the facts as they are and desist in using assumptions to bolster your conformity with traditional views. Its a fact that the times that are given by witnesses do not accurately reconstruct the activities between 12:30 and 1am. Without you making a determination yourself who is off on their times and who is accurate you need to at the very least acknowledge that truth. You havent yet. You just dismiss what doesnt fit with your own perceptions. In the same way I suggest Israel is a complete red herring and Louis arrived around 20 minutes or so before he says he did, you suggest that the witnesses that gave stories independantly that have corroborative elements with other witnesses were all wrong....some by exactly the same increments,...and the witnesses that gave stories that no-one corroberates are based on actual events. Including one that isnt even fit to enter into evidence at the Inquest despite its inflammatory nature and probable use in the investigation overall. What would have been the most important statement is absent, in any form. You still support it, and accuse Fanny of simply missing 4 people when she may have been at her door. You suggest the young couple must have missed seeing anyone too, that 3 witnesses who gave the exact same time estimate for being by the body are all wrong..by 20 minutes or so...and the people no-one sees return are the ones we should be getting the facts from.

                              You create the most self serving arguments its pointless to attempt and re-educate you to the realities here. Maybe the simplest way is to state this is you deciding on which witnesses are accurate or not and that has never been a choice you were given. You have evidence, you use that evidence to make a case for something, you dont cherry pick from the facts and suggest statements must have been incorrect. You have offered not one shred of proof of that, youve offered your opinion which by formation, is based on bias and preconceptions. You have your opinion, youre not looking for an answer, you think you already have it. You dont.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Category C.
                                So for all we know, the incident could have been closer to 1am than 12:45, and that would mean Schwartz ran away from a murder scene.

                                Echo, Oct 1:

                                A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

                                In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the two latter running up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made about the difficulty there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be called from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally this fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.



                                Who knew that Schwartz' tale was based on events that occurred immediately after the murder, or to borrow from the local lingo, after she'd been Lipski'd?
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X