If Schwartz Lied ...

[caz]

... 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.

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.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Another extremely important point, which you unsurprisingly failed to mention, is that most of the evidence from the case is now lost. It cannot simply be assumed that no mention was ever made of Mortimer seeing Goldstein twice.

So you admit there is no surviving evidence that Mortimer did see Goldstein twice, or ever suggested it?

I don't know why you continue to misinterpret the meaning of 'previously', despite several English speaking posters pointing this out to you. But it does you no favours. It's primary level comprehension when you put it in context, that this doesn't refer to seeing Goldstein on two occasions, but to when Mortimer herself was 'previously' on her doorstep, before emerging again when the alarm was raised.

In short, she saw Goldstein on the previous occasion she was in a position to see anything or anyone.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

and there was singing from the club. I actually have no problem with the wording of someone screaming, but not very loudly. all it means is they called or cried out but werent screaming at the top of their lungs.

For once, Abby, we agree about something!

All those people singing inside the club would have drowned out all but the very loudest noises coming from the street. There are degrees of loudness where screams are concerned, or we wouldn't have common expressions such as: "She screamed at the top of her lungs/voice", or "she screamed blue murder", or "she let out a piercing scream".

Louis D's wife was in the kitchen doing the teas and coffees and only realised he was back when he suddenly appeared with news of his grim discovery. So she didn't hear his pony and cart entering the yard, or just didn't register the sound.

I imagine Schwartz might have gone straight for a policeman if Stride had been screaming for all she was worth.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're not being asked for an exact time. Actually, let's make it really easy for you - let's not bother with giving times at all, no matter how approximate (clearly you're not up for that). Let's just think about the sequence of events ...

The time we are given for Schwartz is 12:45. The time we are given for Goldstein is about 1am. So tell me what the sequence was. Was it Schwartz then Goldstein, or Goldstein followed by Schwartz?

Could have been either.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How much of this passage is an invention?

.

Memoirs written 50 years after the crimes b a man who was a mere Constable at the time

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The point is only valid if you could say “it’s impossible that the Schwartz incident could have occurred without Mortimer or anyone else seeing or hearing it.” And so as you obviously can’t say that there’s no point proceeding. The incident very obvious could have occurred without anyone seeing or hearing it.

My point is that it is a we are dealing with an issue of probability. We are not dealing with a world of definite or impossible circumstances - which you seem to be more comfortable with. If you cannot understand that the witnessing of Schwartz's story is a matter of probability, then there is indeed no point in proceeding.

Id say “as Schwartz didn’t mention seeing Fanny Mortimer when he passed I’d say that means that she wasn’t there at that time. Whatever that time was.”

The Star: The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Who saw it, other than Schwartz? If not Mortimer, was it a WVC patrolman?

Its far more likely than expecting everyone to believe that Schwartz lied to place himself at the scene of a brutal murder without the back up of someone to confirm that he wasn’t actually the killer.

If there were no witnesses to the incident, then what backup does Schwartz have, regardless of his honesty? Who was in a position to verify Schwartz's story? Someone at home could only verify that he was not at home at the time, which proves little. On the other hand, if Mortimer had been at her doorstep at the time and witnessed the assault (assuming it occurred), she could could have at least partially backed up Schwartz's claim to have passed through the street at the time. Yet if that were the case, then how many men did Mortimer actually see pass through the street ...?

... 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.

Just the one (as everyone here seems to believe), or was black bag man the only man she had seen more recently, who had also passed through the street previously?

Schwartz was there, the incident occurred, no one heard it because, as Schwartz said, it wasn’t very loud.

What wasn't very loud? The screams which were conveniently not very loud? Did the man call out 'Lipski' to the man on the opposite side of the street, but not very loudly?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Because, like all witnesses, I don’t hold Schwartz to an exact time.

You're not being asked for an exact time. Actually, let's make it really easy for you - let's not bother with giving times at all, no matter how approximate (clearly you're not up for that). Let's just think about the sequence of events ...

The time we are given for Schwartz is 12:45. The time we are given for Goldstein is about 1am. So tell me what the sequence was. Was it Schwartz then Goldstein, or Goldstein followed by Schwartz?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes I do.

Yes I do ... ignore any evidence that doesn't fit with what I want the truth to be

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is an invention.

we have two different reports, not actually written by Mortimer, where one uses ‘up’ and the other uses ‘down.’ Feeble in the extreme.

How much of this passage is an invention?

No Police Officer mentions Goldstein being seen twice near the murder site which would have been an extremely important point. Not a mention. It very obviously didn’t occur.

Another extremely important point, which you unsurprisingly failed to mention, is that most of the evidence from the case is now lost. It cannot simply be assumed that no mention was ever made of Mortimer seeing Goldstein twice.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

yup-and of course the man came forward himself and explained what he was doing and where he was going-- there was no back and forth-he simply passed by.

Isn't this being a little naïve, Abby? Do you suppose Goldstein would have mentioned leaving the club to the police, if he had done so at any time remotely close to the murder? His visit to the Spectacle Alley coffee house may have been verified by the police, but this only accounts for the innocuous part of the evidence, not the juicy bit.

Regardless of his guilt or innocence, Goldstein was probably never going to admit to any more than was absolutely necessary. Even then, Wess had to persuade him to go to the station to make a statement. Given your complete faith in the man's honesty, do you have anything to say about why Goldstein needed persuading to explain something as innocuous as walking down Berner street carrying a work bag, or why it took him so long to do so?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You should be able to quote me making that claim. Especially when you put emphasis on 'must'.

My position is that is highly likely that at least someone would have heard or seen something, had there been an event at least somewhat similar to that described by Schwartz. To quote you back at yourself; How is this being in any way unreasonable?

The point is only valid if you could say “it’s impossible that the Schwartz incident could have occurred without Mortimer or anyone else seeing or hearing it.” And so as you obviously can’t say that there’s no point proceeding. The incident very obvious could have occurred without anyone seeing or hearing it.

Id say “as Schwartz didn’t mention seeing Fanny Mortimer when he passed I’d say that means that she wasn’t there at that time. Whatever that time was.”

Its far more likely than expecting everyone to believe that Schwartz lied to place himself at the scene of a brutal murder without the back up of someone to confirm that he wasn’t actually the killer.

Schwartz was there, the incident occurred, no one heard it because, as Schwartz said, it wasn’t very loud.

[Herlock Sholmes]

12:45? Same as Schwartz? How could that be?

Because, like all witnesses, I don’t hold Schwartz to an exact time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

LOL. Very convenient. I suppose you also ignore Arbeter Fraint suggesting that the murder occurred at about 12:45, thus backing up what Wess had told the Echo journo, a few days prior.

Yes I do.

[Herlock Sholmes]

12:45? Same as Schwartz? How could that be?



Whereas Walter Dew thought the man with the black bag, to have been JtR. Out of yourself and Dew, who has/had the best and/or most complete information, on which to determine the truth of the matter?

Who is right on this point? Me or Dew?

Me. 100%.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dew confirmed that black bag man had been seen walking north on Berner street, just before the arrival of Diemschitz. He also confirmed that it was Mrs. Mortimer who did the witnessing. Of course we also have a direct quote of Mortimer, stating that she previously witnessed this man walking down the street and around the board school corner. On which occasion do you think she was hallucinating?

This is an invention.

we have two different reports, not actually written by Mortimer, where one uses ‘up’ and the other uses ‘down.’ Feeble in the extreme. No Police Officer mentions Goldstein being seen twice near the murder site which would have been an extremely important point. Not a mention. It very obviously didn’t occur.