Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • The following is from the Echo report:

    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, ... 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.


    Now re-written, to support Schwartz:

    A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE FLEEING THE MURDERER.

    In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been observed 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- chasing another man along Fairclough-street, ... The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who witnessed the chase, but he is not a member of their body.


    Of course it was Pipeman, not BS man who supposedly pursued or followed Schwartz, but you get the gist - the roles are reversed.

    So what to make of the following part of the report...?

    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.

    Does the 15 minutes start from the point of the pursuit? Because if it does, what the report is implying is; the body was discovered at about a quarter to one.
    If that is the correct interpretation, then when combined with the pursuit story, the result is; Israel Schwartz killed Elizabeth Stride.
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • I’d say that surely this is just a case of after-the-event confusion and rumour. Surely these 2 were Diemschutz and Kozebrodski? You say that no one was misconstruing them as being in a chase but you say that after a quote from Spooner who heard them shouting for a Constable and then spoke to Louis, so he obviously knew that this wasn’t a chase.

      So Wess, writing after the event and from the viewpoint of someone who wasn’t actually involved in these events, hears about two men running along Fairclough Street and conflates this with Schwartz story of how he walked away believing at first that he’d been followed. When Wess mentions being unable to recall the name the person that saw the ‘chase’ and that he wasn’t a club member I’d suggest that this was Brown.

      This is the kind of confusion and Chinese whispers that occur after a major events. What motive did Wess have to deliberately lie?

      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 NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        The couple spoke to the press and to Mortimer. Their timing and location seems solid. Even more so if it is considered that Brown saw them too. In contrast, we have no definite witnesses to any element of Schwartz' account. No one sees a woman in the gateway, no sees an altercation at the gates, no one sees a man smoking a pipe, and no one sees or hears a chase along Fairclough street, or a man running all the way to one of the railway arches. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of the couple, and against Schwartz
        We also have a Police Officer. Fanny said she went onto her doorstep immediately after Smith passed and he makes no mention of a second couple.

        Then there’s Morris Eagle. This couple say that they saw nothing suspicious yet they make no mention of Eagle entering the yard, let alone Lave.

        They also make no mention of seeing Goldstein.

        Most importantly of course, they make no mention of seeing Stride who we can state with 100% certainty as being there.

        I can’t see that this couple is any use at all as witnesses especially coming to us second hand via Fanny.

        ​​​​​​…….

        I just remembered……didn’t you say that you weren’t averse to the suggestion that Schwartz might have been there but misconstrued or exaggerated what was going on? If so we could add Schwartz to the list of ‘people it’s strange that the couple didn’t see.’

        Yes, no one saw Schwartz, but that in itself doesn’t mean that he wasn’t there. If we can ask ‘why didn’t Fanny see him’ we can ask with equal validity ‘why didn’t Schwartz see Fanny?’

        Id say that it’s because she wasn’t there.
        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


        • Eagle's testimony according to the Daily Telegraph 2 Oct 1888
          [Coroner] Did you see anyone about in Berner-street? - I dare say I did, but I do not remember them.

          With all the discussion of who saw who, and why, or why not, could it just come down to the fact that they didn't consider men walking in the street or couples standing in the street as unusual. Eagle did not consider seeing people in the street as memorable. Others use phrases like "didnt see or hear anything unusual". An altercation? Loud screams of murder? That would be considered unusual. Did Mortimer only comment on Goldstein because she thought the black shiny bag was unusual?

          Cheers, George
          Last edited by GBinOz; 11-06-2021, 12:39 PM.
          “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
            Eagle's testimony according to the Daily Telegraph 2 Oct 1888
            [Coroner] Did you see anyone about in Berner-street? - I dare say I did, but I do not remember them.

            With all the discussion of who saw who, and why, or why not, could it just come down to the fact that they didn't consider men walking in the street or couples standing in the street as unusual. Eagle did not consider seeing people in the street as memorable. Others use phrases like "didnt see or hear anything unusual". An altercation? Loud screams of murder? That would be considered unusual. Did Mortimer only comment on Goldstein because she thought the black shiny bag was unusual?

            Cheers, George
            Surely anyone would have had to have mentioned a man entering the yard?

            I could also add again…..if Schwartz could be accused of lying then why couldn’t Fanny have lied? Maybe she was just a busybody trying to make herself appear more important to events than she actually was? This is just one issue with saying “well if x didn’t see y then y couldn’t have been there?” It could also be asked “well if x didn’t see y then maybe x wasn’t there?”
            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

              I’d say that surely this is just a case of after-the-event confusion and rumour.
              Who was confused? Certainly not Spooner. You're avoiding the pesky details - the two men doubled-back. No one escaped. There was no pursuit.

              Surely these 2 were Diemschutz and Kozebrodski?
              I just checked the Times, DT, DN & MA. None of these papers have Diemschitz mentioning the name of his search companion. However, we have Eagle saying:

              When I got outside I saw Jacobs and another going for the police in the direction of Fairclough-street...

              There is total ambiguity as to who went out for police. I think this stems from an issue concerning Kozebrodsky.

              You say that no one was misconstruing them as being in a chase but you say that after a quote from Spooner who heard them shouting for a Constable and then spoke to Louis, so he obviously knew that this wasn’t a chase.
              Correct. There was no chase. So there are two issues:

              one: How could Wess and Schwartz have independently come up with a chase story? Coincidence or not?

              two: Why does Schwartz cast himself as the innocent man being chased before the murder, whereas Wess implicitly casts Schwartz as the bad guy being pursued, after the murder?

              So Wess, writing after the event and from the viewpoint of someone who wasn’t actually involved in these events, hears about two men running along Fairclough Street and conflates this with Schwartz story of how he walked away believing at first that he’d been followed. When Wess mentions being unable to recall the name the person that saw the ‘chase’ and that he wasn’t a club member I’d suggest that this was Brown.
              Wess wasn't writing, he was talking to a journalist from the Echo. Wess didn't conflate anything. He would have known by then that Diemschitz had gone out along Fairclough street, which he probably got straight from Diemschitz. No one at the club would have been telling Wess some vague story about two men running. It is Wess himself who is wanting us to believe that other people misconceived the situation. According to Wess, the murderer...

              ...was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased...

              Strange that we never hear from any member of 'the public', and so convenient that Wess just cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, although he can remember that he is not an IWMEC member. Your suggestion that Brown was the man who's observations formed the basis for Wess's misconception, is an odd one. Through what communication channel did this occur?

              This is the kind of confusion and Chinese whispers that occur after a major events. What motive did Wess have to deliberately lie?
              Wess was not the recipient of Chinese whispers. He would have received good quality information from club members. However, if Wess supposed that in the confusion immediately after the discovery, someone or ones had come to the wrong conclusion about what had occurred, then he might have a perfectly good reason to fabricate a story, but based on actual events as he understood them.
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                We also have a Police Officer. Fanny said she went onto her doorstep immediately after Smith passed and he makes no mention of a second couple.
                Because the timings do not overlap.

                Then there’s Morris Eagle. This couple say that they saw nothing suspicious yet they make no mention of Eagle entering the yard, let alone Lave.

                They also make no mention of seeing Goldstein.
                The report says: ...neither of them heard any unusual noises.

                If this were the couple seen by Brown, then the woman is heard to say: "No, not to-night, some other night."

                Perhaps the question was: "Would you like to go back to my place and see my etchings?"

                They were looking at each other, not toward the entrance of Dutfield's Yard.

                Most importantly of course, they make no mention of seeing Stride who we can state with 100% certainty as being there.
                So what does 'there' mean? It could mean in the yard already, at the gates, or walking by.

                I can’t see that this couple is any use at all as witnesses especially coming to us second hand via Fanny.
                A reporter spoke to the couple.

                I just remembered……didn’t you say that you weren’t averse to the suggestion that Schwartz might have been there but misconstrued or exaggerated what was going on? If so we could add Schwartz to the list of ‘people it’s strange that the couple didn’t see.’
                Nor did he see them. It goes both ways.

                Yes, no one saw Schwartz, but that in itself doesn’t mean that he wasn’t there. If we can ask ‘why didn’t Fanny see him’ we can ask with equal validity ‘why didn’t Schwartz see Fanny?’

                Id say that it’s because she wasn’t there.
                So it's Schwartz versus multiple others, and according to you, Schwartz wins. Okay.
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                  Eagle's testimony according to the Daily Telegraph 2 Oct 1888
                  [Coroner] Did you see anyone about in Berner-street? - I dare say I did, but I do not remember them.

                  With all the discussion of who saw who, and why, or why not, could it just come down to the fact that they didn't consider men walking in the street or couples standing in the street as unusual. Eagle did not consider seeing people in the street as memorable. Others use phrases like "didnt see or hear anything unusual". An altercation? Loud screams of murder? That would be considered unusual. Did Mortimer only comment on Goldstein because she thought the black shiny bag was unusual?

                  Cheers, George
                  Good question. Don't hold your breath waiting for a good answer.
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Surely anyone would have had to have mentioned a man entering the yard?
                    In the EN interview, Fanny is asked:

                    "Was the street quiet at the time?"

                    "Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club."


                    Movement near the club might have included men like Lave. So when Fanny is quoted as saying...

                    A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates.

                    ... she presumably means she did not see anyone enter the gates, when she supposes the deed must have been done. That was in the several minutes prior to lockup. We can determine roughly when those several minutes were, because she then says...

                    It was soon after one o'clock when I went out...

                    ...which was after hearing the commotion outside. Did she get the time right, though? Well it lines up pretty well with this account in the DN. Oct 1:

                    Julius Minsky, a Polish Jew, and a member of the club, states that at the time when the alarm was raised, just after one o'clock, there were some 20 or 30 members in the club room upstairs. They had finished the evening's discussion, and were amusing themselves with singing. The utmost joviality was prevailing when a member rushed excitedly into the room, and shouted out that the body of a murdered woman had been found in the yard. The singing was at once stopped, and all present rushed downstairs in a state of the utmost alarm into the yard. The first thing he noticed was the pool of blood by the kitchen door, and then glancing up the yard to the spot where Mr. Diemschitz was holding a lighted match in his hand, he noticed the body of a woman stretched out by the side of the wall. He was very much frightened himself, and remained in the doorway. Even from there he could plainly see the terrible gash that had been made in the neck. He had been in the club all night, and, so far as he knew, only one member came in before one o'clock. When the police came up they entered the club, and searched the persons of all present.

                    Note that Minsky observed the pool of blood by the kitchen door. The murder must have occurred several minutes prior.

                    Having told us when she went out, Mortimer then, somewhat confusingly, steps back in time...

                    ...and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went around the corner by the Board School.

                    I could also add again…..if Schwartz could be accused of lying then why couldn’t Fanny have lied? Maybe she was just a busybody trying to make herself appear more important to events than she actually was? This is just one issue with saying “well if x didn’t see y then y couldn’t have been there?” It could also be asked “well if x didn’t see y then maybe x wasn’t there?”
                    Fanny may have lied. We cannot say who had reason to lie, until both the murderer is known, and all the important aspects of the murder are known. To say; person X had no reason to lie, is equivalent to saying; we can trust person X.
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Surely anyone would have had to have mentioned a man entering the yard?

                      I could also add again…..if Schwartz could be accused of lying then why couldn’t Fanny have lied?
                      Hi Herlock,

                      "Was the street quiet at the time?"
                      "Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club.".

                      It appears that men moving about at the club was to be expected and not at all unusual.

                      I was reading a thread where it was proposed that certain witnesses were lying. AlBundysEyes
                      responded, jokingly, that maybe everyone was lying. After every subsequent post where a new name was mentioned he would post just "He/she was lying too". IMO, using humour he highlighted the very valid point that to dismiss witnesses as lying because their testimony doesn't fit a particular theory is a very slippery slope, and best avoided.

                      Cheers, George
                      “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                      Comment


                      • 11-05-2021, 03:40 PM
                        Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                        Which kerb was he stepping from?
                        Neither. There was no pursuit.

                        The young couple would have departed when this occurred. Work on sequences rather than accurate to the minute clock times.
                        Do you mean the young couple who spoke to the press and told Fanny they had been at the corner before and after the murder?

                        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        OK, so Schwartz was lying about the entire traditional incident?

                        If Smith's time is adopted, the young couples 20 minutes may have been 12:20 - 12:40 approx. How did they know the actual time of Stride's murder?

                        Cheers, George
                        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                          OK, so Schwartz was lying about the entire traditional incident?
                          Does the following report encapsulate the entire incident? The People, Oct 7:

                          The police authorities who have the inquiries with respect to the murders in hand, have received a statement with regard to the murder in Berner street that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground, but that it being thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, no notice was taken of it.

                          Schwartz doesn't seem to have said anything about a man and wife, and his first man is aged about 30. This age is repeated in the Star. After the Star interview, Schwartz seems to disappear from history. Do you really think we have the whole picture?

                          If Smith's time is adopted, the young couples 20 minutes may have been 12:20 - 12:40 approx. How did they know the actual time of Stride's murder?
                          I don't understand this line of reasoning at all. Frankly, it seems like part of the game of; let's move people around until Theatrical Man's story makes sense. Fanny was on the loo. Brown was at the shop. The couple had left to get coffees at Spectacle Alley. The vigilance committee patrolman were not on Berner street.

                          All that the couple require to place themselves near the scene, before and after the murder, is to have seen and heard men running off and crying "Police!, Murder!". They spoke to Mortimer and press, and they did not get takeaway coffees.
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            I don't understand this line of reasoning at all. Frankly, it seems like part of the game of; let's move people around until Theatrical Man's story makes sense. Fanny was on the loo. Brown was at the shop. The couple had left to get coffees at Spectacle Alley. The vigilance committee patrolman were not on Berner street.

                            All that the couple require to place themselves near the scene, before and after the murder, is to have seen and heard men running off and crying "Police!, Murder!". They spoke to Mortimer and press, and they did not get takeaway coffees.
                            Hi Andrew,

                            I haven't seen a report of the young couple saying they heard men running off and crying "Police!, Murder!", or mentioning takeaway coffee. I'm quite in agreement that Koze or Jacobs were the VC members that would probably have been the whistle blower.

                            My view is that police times are the most reliable and that other witnesses sequence of events might be adjusted for possible time sync differences.

                            You have named your suspect. Lay out a sequence of events.

                            Cheers, George
                            Last edited by GBinOz; 11-07-2021, 06:41 AM.
                            “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                              Hi Andrew,

                              I haven't seen a report of the young couple saying they heard men running off and crying "Police!, Murder!", or mentioning takeaway coffee. I'm quite in agreement that Koze or Jacobs were the VC members that may have been the whistle blower.
                              Hi George,

                              Nor have I seen a report of the vigilance committee that suggested they placed men in clubs, rather than on streets. So let's place a couple of patrolmen on Berner street, and another couple on Fairclough street. Don't worry, Israel will find a way through that net. I think.

                              My view is that police times are the most reliable and that other witnesses sequence of events might be adjusted for possible time sync differences.
                              I'm fine with that.

                              You have named your suspect. Lay out a sequence of events.
                              Okay I'll think about it. Random cryptic clues are fun, though. Btw, I have more than one suspect!
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • .
                                Julius Minsky, a Polish Jew, and a member of the club, states that at the time when the alarm was raised, just after one o'clock
                                I must remember to quote him whenever I’m compiling a list of people and events which point toward Diemschutz discovering the body when he said that he did.

                                Obviously it will be said the he was ‘in on it too’ but that’s to be expected.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X