If Schwartz Lied ...

[caz]

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

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

No change of tune, just a different way to say the same thing.

If the chances of Fanny only seeing one man between 12.30 and 1am really were slim to none, what are you trying to say? That she wasn't on her doorstep for nearly the whole time, and therefore missed all but one man - Goldstein - who passed by between 12.30 and 1am? Or she was there for much of the time, and saw other men on the street besides Goldstein, who passed by twice to her knowledge, but she failed to say so? I'm just trying to work out what you believe, but it's not easy!

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

This has two possible interpretations. Yours is ...

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

Mine is:

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

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

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

Why was he going in that direction?

But which direction? Unless Berner Street was on a slope, residents and non-residents alike could say 'up' or 'down' based on different perspectives, as you have been advised more than once. A man from Liverpool might say he had come 'up' to London, while the person he was visiting would say he had come 'down' to London.

At no point does Fanny say that when she saw bag man, just before turning in, it was the second time she had seen him in the last half hour.

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

But our job is not to add in evidence that boils down, or adds up if you prefer, to baseless speculation.

How do you know it didn't happen?

Because you can't simply invent the evidence to make it happen.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Wait a minute. The Star tells us:

They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

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

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

Could the Star not mean that one man appeared to match Schwartz's description of Stride's assailant, while the second appeared to match Pipeman's description of the same man, Pipeman having come forward as 'another source' i.e a second witness? Witness descriptions of the same man can be notoriously at odds, so the police had two men who could have been BS man, and would therefore need additional facts about the men if one was going to remain under arrest. Both must have been released without charge after satisfying the police that they were not there.

How could Schwartz have been expected to provide additional facts? He had already been questioned closely by Abberline, who had given his professional opinion on the matter.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

No, and that is why we have multiple witnesses stating that had there been screams of cries for help, they surely would have heard them.

I'm just wondering how these witnesses would know this for a fact, unless they were used to hearing screams and cries for help from the street directly outside the club, while the people inside were all talking or singing? Was it a frequent occurrence? If not, they could only have presumed they'd have heard Stride screaming, regardless of the volume. It's possible they felt rather guilty for enjoying themselves, unaware that there was a woman in distress who was about to be murdered in their yard.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

You've made this claim several times now. Can you back it up by quoting me in a way that demonstrates that I'm constantly demanding exact times?

What I meant by that phrase, as I’m sure that you are aware, was the attempts to prove that one witness must have been wrong because their time clashes with another’s. The obvious example being Mortimer and Schwartz’s 12.45. My point is that if we accept that we have no way of verifying the accuracy of times and so apply a reasonable margin for error then there’s nothing unbelievable about Schwartz story in terms of Fanny not seeing him. The times estimated by Fanny or himself you both have been in inaccurate.

I don't think two PC's are good basis for comparison.

I can’t see why not. Both claimed to be at the same location at the same time, like Mortimer and Schwartz. A time difference can explain both.

I'm wary of these "I can prove what happened by sheer logic" arguments. They are full of unexamined assumptions. For example, what is the definition of 'there' for Mortimer, and for Schwartz? If Mortimer was in her front room ground floor bedroom, and heard the 'measured, heavy tramp' of a passing policeman, was she 'there'? If Schwartz had arrived at the gateway, and proceeded to take Stride into the yard and kill her, that would surely count as being 'there', but that is obviously not what you meant.

It probably wasn’t the best way of trying to make a point, I agree.

No, and that is why we have multiple witnesses stating that had there been screams of cries for help, they surely would have heard them.

Who stated that?

Apart from the fact that we are dealing with many more witnesses than just Fanny, your reasoning is faulty. To claim that these not very loud screams "should seal the deal", completely ignores that the reality of these screams is not an objective fact, but just a claim made by a single witness. Your argument amounts to; "Schwartz is to be believed, because he said there were screams, but they were not very loud". Schwartz cannot simply be taken on trust.

He used (or rather the reporter used via an interpreter) the word ‘screamed.’ He might equally have used the word ‘called’ or ‘shouted’ or ‘yelled’ or ‘cried out.’ None of which would have altered the meaning but….. he very specifically added ‘but not very loudly.’ So he was keen to stress that the sounds that she made weren’t very loud. You’re emphasising the word ‘screamed’ but minimising the phrase ‘not very loudly’ which is the most important part of what he was trying to get across. It might even have been in response to the question: “how loud were the screams?”

Given that his story is so unlikely, the lack of valid suggestions for him lying amounts to a criticism of Ripperologists in general. Perhaps some effort should be made in this direction, as it has been in coming up with reasons for Stride to have stood alone in the Dutfield's Yard gateway.

There’s not a single part of his story that’s unlikely. The only point that stands out is the ‘pipe’ versus ‘knife’ question.

Schwartz claimed to have been out on the street and alone, having been away from his wife all day and part of the night. How could someone have proven him to not be on Berner street when he said he was? It seems a little ironic for you to be making this argument, given your 'exact time' accusations of myself.

If he wasn’t there how could he have that Fanny Mortimer would have claimed to have been on her doorstep at the same time? How could he have known that Mrs Sholmes and Mrs Watson weren’t chatting on their doorsteps from 12.30 until 1.00 with the gates in full view? How could he have known that MrThompson wasn’t looking out of his window smoking his pipe for the same period? How could he have known that Mr Goldberg wasn’t standing outside the club from 12.40 to 12.50 smoking a cigarette and waiting for his friend Mt Abrahams to emerge from the club?

Exactly. That's what we do have, and in the Echo report, he implicitly is the murderer.



Well for starters, we need an explanation for the board school couple not seeing or hearing the incident.

They were around the corner in Fairclough Street and the incident wasn’t very loud.

What evidence supports this assertion?

Everything.

I start from the position that the vast majority of witnesses are honest if honestly mistaken. For Schwartz to have lied about being present I need to see way more than what you’re putting forward. Add this to the sheer unlikeliness of him lying then I see absolutely no reason to doubt his presence in Berner Street. His timing might have been inaccurate; he may have misinterpreted what he’d actually seen but I’m convinced that he was there.

[GBinOz]

-- Can someone possibly tell me the address/location of the place Pipeman/Knifeman supposedly emerged from? I'm still trying to work out the logistics of all this...

Thanks.

M.

Hi Mark,

He was standing in the doorway of the Nelson beer house (it was closed at the time) on the NW corner of the Berner/Fairclough intersection i.e. on the same side of Berner street as BSMan and Stride and the opposite side of Berner St to Schwartz AFTER he had crossed the road to avoid the altercation.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

Okay, so imagine the following is what happened. The word 'Lipski' is called to warn the second man of the 'intruding Jew'. The second man shouts a warning to the first man. Apparently the two men are together or at least known to each other. We know that the WVC had men on the streets by the time of the double event, and it would not be a stretch to suggest that many of these men would have known or become known to each other. The theory coming out of this is; the men Schwartz referred to were associated with the vigilance committee.

So if the theory is assumed true for the sake of argument, what sequence does it suggest? Were the WVC men involved the crooks, or first responders? Well I guess they were crooks if Lipski was in regard to an unwanted intruder, and they were first responders if Lipski was in regard to a murder that had already occurred.

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

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

- Jeff

Okay I will try it, but the theory I currently have in mind seems even less related to sequences of events, than the above. Perhaps the problem is that I'm not thinking about events the way everyone else seems to. My impression is that things are meant to work like this:

For each murder, we start with a broad outline of what happened, and who was involved. This broad outline has two important characteristics. It forms the basis for discussion of each murder, and is therefore almost universally accepted. The other crucial element is that the broad outline is neutral with respect to everyone involved. No one can be implicated by the basic story. So for example, we can't have Goldstein walking out of Dutfield's Yard at 5 minutes to 1am as part of the accepted story, because that would make him the obvious candidate for the murder, and that would violate the principle of neutrality. The problem with that is obvious enough; at some point neutrality has to be 'breached', if the idea is to identify the WM. Yet the unwritten rules don't seem to allow for that.

[DJA]

Hi Mark,

He was standing in the doorway of the Nelson beer house (it was closed at the time) on the NW corner of the Berner/Fairclough intersection i.e. on the same side of Berner street as BSMan and Stride and the opposite side of Berner St to Schwartz AFTER he had crossed the road to avoid the altercation.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Apart from the fact that we are dealing with many more witnesses than just Fanny, your reasoning is faulty. To claim that these not very loud screams "should seal the deal", completely ignores that the reality of these screams is not an objective fact, but just a claim made by a single witness. Your argument amounts to; "Schwartz is to be believed, because he said there were screams, but they were not very loud". Schwartz cannot simply be taken on trust.

By definition scream means a "long, loud, piercing cry". It appears obvious that there is a translation error. Schwartz probably meant she protested/objected/remonstrated/complained three times, but not very loudly.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Thanks Dave. A picture is worth a thousand words (I only used 57). Mark, that is the Nelson on the corner and Dutfields yard is marked by the waggon wheel, and is on the western side of Berner St.

Cheers, George

[Mark J D]

A picture is worth a thousand words (I only used 57). Mark, that is the Nelson on the corner and Dutfields yard is marked by the waggon wheel, and is on the western side of Berner St.

Thanks to you both!

M.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why assume that the 'prisoner', or the second man who was arrested and then released, were either Pipeman or BS man, and not just men who fit the given descriptions, but were provably elsewhere at the time?

Because "they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts". At least one of the two men must have been significant enough to have led to that situation, unlike men who were provably elsewhere.

As you don't believe the incident happened anyway, that would also explain why anyone arrested on the strength of Schwartz's story was bound to be released.

I told you the The Dark Side was stronger

The best I could hope for is Jeff's pony, but it ain't gonna happen.

But you can still dig it

I suspect you will have to live in hope for a long time. But isn't your dearest wish that Pipeman was a mere figment of Schwartz's fertile imagination?

I hope not, as I've already argued that Pipeman was not on the Met's apprehension's sought list, for a very good reason

[DJA]

Thanks Dave. A picture is worth a thousand words (I only used 57). Mark, that is the Nelson on the corner and Dutfields yard is marked by the waggon wheel, and is on the western side of Berner St.

Cheers, George

Packer's was next door.

Last house was Fanny Mortimer's at 36.

[GBinOz]

So for example, we can't have Goldstein walking out of Dutfield's Yard at 5 minutes to 1am as part of the accepted story, because that would make him the obvious candidate for the murder, and that would violate the principle of neutrality.

Goldstein headed north was reported in the EN and corroborated by Walter Dew. It is speculation that he came from Dutfield's, but he came from that direction. There are those who want to manipulate language and dismiss evidence to say he was only seen once, headed south...that's their opinion. If you introduce clock times you then then need to juggle the time interval of 12-15 minutes round trip to the Spectacle coffee house.

If you are confident in your theory, present it and expect peer objections..."Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead". No one knows the answer, so your conjecture, if reasonably formulated, is as good as the next person's. The whole point of this forum is to introduce evidence and respectfully discuss differences in opinion and interpretation.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Packer's was next door.

Last house was Fanny Mortimer's at 36.

Interesting map Dave. Do you know what the circle on the SE corner and the double rectangle on the NE corner are meant to represent?

Cheers, George

[Mark J D]

Packer's was next door. Last house was Fanny Mortimer's at 36.

-- What about the Marshalls (who seem to have known the Lechmeres)...?

M.