If Schwartz Lied ...

[Abby Normal]

No more than pretending that she’d seen him twice when she clearly hadn’t.

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No more than pretending that she’d seen him twice when she clearly hadn’t.

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?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Presumably Abberline agreed, that screaming but not loudly is not necessarily a contradiction in terms.

What do you suppose actually made her scream? That is, was it screams of pain, or humiliation, or something else? There doesn't seem to have been any physical evidence of her being thrown to the ground, so I would doubt it being a matter of physical pain, but then why didn't she just say something to the man assaulting her, or call for help? After all, Schwartz was right there.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So is "about 1 a.m." about right?

Which could have been 12.45.

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

Goldstein is another bit-part player. He existed. That’s it. Unimportant.

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?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

As far as events in Berner Street go Wess is a nonentity. An irrelevance. He’s just repeating and garbling stories. I ignore entirely anything that he said.

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Do we need this kind of doublethink? You persist under the assumption that whatever sounds Stride made must have been heard.

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?

All that I’ve suggested is that we cannot assume that Fanny Mortimer spent her entire life within 6 feet of her front door. How is this being in any way unreasonable?

The set of all people who were or may have been in a position to catch a glimpse or hear anything of Schwartz, 1st or 2nd man, or Stride standing in the gateway, is greater than one. We know of some of these people, but not all by name. An example of each.

For all that we know she might have gone to the outside loo?

Your belief in Schwartz's story seems to be absolute, so if not the loo, then perhaps she was boiling the kettle. No matter what, she did not see or hear anything of it.

This is the funny thing about the argument over Schwartz - we all seem to agree that Fanny Mortimer did not see or hear anything of the incident, but for different reasons. Just for a moment though, consider the following ...

FM: I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock this Sunday morning, and did not notice anything unusual.

Think about the meaning of 'unusual', in context. What counts as unusual for Berner street, near the club on a meeting night? Next quote is from 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.

Consider this juxtaposition: [I] did not notice anything unusual : no notice was taken of it.

The person who made the statement, knew that the woman thrown to the ground was also the murdered woman. That person must have seen Stride when deceased, in one of two places - the yard, or at the mortuary. Mortimer saw Stride in the yard - Schwartz at the mortuary. Who made the statement referred to in the People?

You then focus on the word scream but gloss over the ‘not very loudly.’”

What I'm focused on is the desire by some to tweak the evidence, to make Schwartz's tale seem more realistic.

‘Screaming but not very loudly’ makes little sense of course so what’s the likeliest explanation given that it came from a non-English speaker communicating through an interpreter? Could there have been some error where ‘not very loudly’ should have meant ‘very loudly?’ Wouldn’t we then have expected Abberline to have asked for clarification for any anomaly? Or is the simpler, more reasonable and far more likely explanation that ‘screamed’ was the poorly chosen word but the important part was the Schwartz was clearly stressing that whatever noise she made, it wasn’t very loud. So it’s clearly unsurprising that no one heard her.

You clearly have little faith in Abberline. I think it much more likely that he did ask for clarification, than it being a case of the wrong word being chosen. The word 'screamed' is hardly an unusual or difficult word. By the way, who do you suppose made the wrong choice - Schwartz or interpreter? Would it have been possible for Abberline to question Schwartz closely regarding the calling of Lipski, if Schwartz and interpreter, or interpreter and Abberline, were struggling to communicate?

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is what you said in #2758:


You're 'interpretation' is extremely flexible. I'll give you that much.

No more than pretending that she’d seen him twice when she clearly hadn’t.

[Abby Normal]

Do we need this kind of doublethink? You persist under the assumption that whatever sounds Stride made must have been heard. All that I’ve suggested is that we cannot assume that Fanny Mortimer spent her entire life within 6 feet of her front door. How is this being in any way unreasonable? For all that we know she might have gone to the outside loo? You then focus on the word scream but gloss over the ‘not very loudly.’”

‘Screaming but not very loudly’ makes little sense of course so what’s the likeliest explanation given that it came from a non-English speaker communicating through an interpreter? Could there have been some error where ‘not very loudly’ should have meant ‘very loudly?’ Wouldn’t we then have expected Abberline to have asked for clarification for any anomaly? Or is the simpler, more reasonable and far more likely explanation that ‘screamed’ was the poorly chosen word but the important part was the Schwartz was clearly stressing that whatever noise she made, it wasn’t very loud. So it’s clearly unsurprising that no one heard her.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is stating an opinion as fact. Swanson's comments on Goldstein were based on Goldstein's statement at Leman street station. So we should presume or at least suppose it most likely that "about 1 a.m." was the approximate time as stated by Goldstein. Yet if that time did not come from Goldstein, then who? There can be only one ...

Until you can point to a verified, cast-iron time for Goldstein’s passing then I’ll continue to call any time in relation to him as an estimate.

It is quoted as evidence, not fact. How much does this evidence piss you off?

It ‘pisses me off’ because it’s only part of the evidence and there are other parts that contradict it. And yet you keep repeating it as a fact.

So is "about 1 a.m." about right?

Which could have been 12.45. Goldstein is another bit-part player. He existed. That’s it. Unimportant.

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. 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.

How much does this evidence piss you off?

Not at all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The mystery is why a seemingly intelligent man like Wess would have been unable to maintain the mental distinction between the chase element of Schwartz's story, and the search for police, which he would have got "straight from the horses mouth" (as opposed to the pony's). You (and everyone else, apparently), accept that mystery without question, whereas I have offered an explanation for it.

So you see, I am not attempting to manufacture a mystery as you claim - that mystery existed before I ever joined this forum. However there is another mystery that you may be able to enlighten me on. Why is no one other than myself interested in discussing the details of this apparent mystery, rather than just explaining it away as someone or someone's confusion?

.

As far as events in Berner Street go Wess is a nonentity. An irrelevance. He’s just repeating and garbling stories. I ignore entirely anything that he said.

[Herlock Sholmes]

By "Possibly she was", you actually mean "She was" - otherwise she would have heard the footsteps, and therefore have been in a position to hear the incident as described. Yet "She was" would mean stating an opinion as a fact. So the 'possibly' in "Possibly she was" means; Luck is my side, and besides, anyone who disagrees is a just a conspiracy theorist.

Do we need this kind of doublethink? You persist under the assumption that whatever sounds Stride made must have been heard. All that I’ve suggested is that we cannot assume that Fanny Mortimer spent her entire life within 6 feet of her front door. How is this being in any way unreasonable? For all that we know she might have gone to the outside loo? You then focus on the word scream but gloss over the ‘not very loudly.’”

‘Screaming but not very loudly’ makes little sense of course so what’s the likeliest explanation given that it came from a non-English speaker communicating through an interpreter? Could there have been some error where ‘not very loudly’ should have meant ‘very loudly?’ Wouldn’t we then have expected Abberline to have asked for clarification for any anomaly? Or is the simpler, more reasonable and far more likely explanation that ‘screamed’ was the poorly chosen word but the important part was the Schwartz was clearly stressing that whatever noise she made, it wasn’t very loud. So it’s clearly unsurprising that no one heard her.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So Swanson gives an estimated time.

That is stating an opinion as fact. Swanson's comments on Goldstein were based on Goldstein's statement at Leman street station. So we should presume or at least suppose it most likely that "about 1 a.m." was the approximate time as stated by Goldstein. Yet if that time did not come from Goldstein, then who? There can be only one ...

Im tired of this 12.30-1.00 being quoted as a fact.

It is quoted as evidence, not fact. How much does this evidence piss you off?

There’s no issue with any of this.

So is "about 1 a.m." about right?

God I’m bored of conspiracy stuff. Pleeeeeeese give it up. There was no plot, no cover up, no one lied, there was nothing remotely sinister going on. A simple murder occurred. People estimated times and some were wrong. Some events got a bit garbled. That’s it.

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. 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.

How much does this evidence piss you off?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Neither are your efforts to manufacture a mystery.

The mystery is why a seemingly intelligent man like Wess would have been unable to maintain the mental distinction between the chase element of Schwartz's story, and the search for police, which he would have got "straight from the horses mouth" (as opposed to the pony's). You (and everyone else, apparently), accept that mystery without question, whereas I have offered an explanation for it.

So you see, I am not attempting to manufacture a mystery as you claim - that mystery existed before I ever joined this forum. However there is another mystery that you may be able to enlighten me on. Why is no one other than myself interested in discussing the details of this apparent mystery, rather than just explaining it away as someone or someone's confusion?

We’ve discussed the ‘previously’ quote. She clearly and obviously wasn’t saying that she’d seen Goldstein previously. Please let this go. It’s boring and obviously wrong.

No, 'we' have not discussed this previously. 'We' have merely asserted what we believe to be true and false.

If she’d looked right and seen a man walking in the direction of Fairclough Street then very obviously he was was walking from the direction of Commercial Road.

This is what you said in #2758:

12.45 Leon Goldstein passes along Berner Street. Just as he’s passed her door Fanny comes onto her doorstep. She looks to her right and sees Goldstein adjacent to the club and wonders if he’s just left it due the fact that he looked Jewish.

My interpretation is compatible although it doesn’t have the attraction of invention like your version.

You're 'interpretation' is extremely flexible. I'll give you that much.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Possibly she was at the back part of the house at the time?

By "Possibly she was", you actually mean "She was" - otherwise she would have heard the footsteps, and therefore have been in a position to hear the incident as described. Yet "She was" would mean stating an opinion as a fact. So the 'possibly' in "Possibly she was" means; Luck is my side, and besides, anyone who disagrees is a just a conspiracy theorist.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I haven’t a clue what you’re getting at.

Of course you don't