If Schwartz Lied ...

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I can't point to any evidence that disproves your idea, but because we have no evidence about what happens once Scwartz leaves, I can say "I doubt you guessed the answer"

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,
I agree that there is no evidence about what happens once Schwartz leaves, so we are all in the realm of speculation.

I cannot see JtR in the role of an inebriated man assaulting a woman in front of two witnesses. I think that Parcelman is the man that has been with Stride since 11pm at the Bricklayer's and I do not see that as typical of JtR. I think that if Parcelman were going to leave the area then Stride would have gone with him so I think that Stride was in the yard alone because she was waiting for him. That leaves Pipeman, but the details are of course conjexture. JMO.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

George,
in Swanson's report, there is a marginal note that includes this:

The Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz.

How do you suppose the police came to that conclusion, without speaking to the man?

That footnote is a comment on Swanson's report, likely from someone at the Home Office, it has been suggested to be Lushington.
The writer (Lushington?) also wrote: "....but I understand the Inspector to suggest that Schwartz' man need not have been the murderer....", which shows the footnote is not commenting on the police investigation, but remarking on the fact the '2nd man' is not included by Swanson as a person of interest in this report.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Jeff,

My scenario is that JtR is prowling for a victim. He arrives at the Nelson corner and standing in the door way notices the BSman-Stride-Schwartz situation developing and sees an opportunity to have a victim with a witness testifying against someone else. He makes a brief aggressive move towards Schwartz and sees him run away. He then moves BSman off. Stride is feeling rescued and takes out her cachous and accedes to his suggestion to seek shelter in the club. He follows behind her and the murder takes place, but there is an interruption. This could be the pony and cart, in which case he slips into the alcove where the toilets are located and leaves when Louis goes inside the club. Alternatively, Parcelman returns just as JtR puts Stride on the ground and a chase down Fairclough ensues that is later reported on by Wess. JtR evades Parcelman and the later returns to find the commotion and leaves because he is a married man and doesn't want his infidelity revealed.

Cheers, George

George,
in Swanson's report, there is a marginal note that includes this:

The Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz.

How do you suppose the police came to that conclusion, without speaking to the man?

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

Hi Jeff,

My scenario is that JtR is prowling for a victim. He arrives at the Nelson corner and standing in the door way notices the BSman-Stride-Schwartz situation developing and sees an opportunity to have a victim with a witness testifying against someone else. He makes a brief aggressive move towards Schwartz and sees him run away. He then moves BSman off. Stride is feeling rescued and takes out her cachous and accedes to his suggestion to seek shelter in the club. He follows behind her and the murder takes place, but there is an interruption. This could be the pony and cart, in which case he slips into the alcove where the toilets are located and leaves when Louis goes inside the club. Alternatively, Parcelman returns just as JtR puts Stride on the ground and a chase down Fairclough ensues that is later reported on by Wess. JtR evades Parcelman and the later returns to find the commotion and leaves because he is a married man and doesn't want his infidelity revealed.

Cheers, George

I suppose, but I tend to shun complicated stories that involve characters or events for which we have no record when a viable story already exists within what we know. While I'm not suggesting it is a fact that B.S. killed Stride, the evidence does suggest he's the most probable killer. If not him, which can't be excluded, then I just prefer the generic "someone else" as that reflects the amount of information we have about the alternative offender. Parcelman and Pipeman appear to have left the area, but I suppose either of them could have come back, but there's no indication they did. B.S. is in a physical confrontation with Stride, sufficient for her to go to the ground once, so he seems a pretty good candidate. The police at the time noted that there was 15 minutes between the Scwartz event and her discovery, and in the recreation we end up with between 10 and 11, but the police recognized the possibility of the "someone else" option. At the same time, they also comment on the description of B.S. and Lawende's man from the Eddowes case, and suggest that the two descriptions could be of the same person, which is part of the evidence they considered pointed to Stride being a Ripper victim. I'm on the fence over Stride in that respect, so I'm open to the "someone else" possibility, but I'm not keen on filling in the blanks without guidance by the evidence. Much like how the Letchford statement could be spun to narrow the window down to pretty much force the conclusion that B.S. killed Stride, or it could be spun to keep the time window as it is now, anything is possible, making anyone one of those things improbable. We're simply not likely to guess right, but once we guess it's easy for that to distract our thinking as we found "a solution", but in all probablility we didn't find "the solution" so we create our own will-o-the-wisps to pull us off the trail if we're not careful. And one doesn't want to get lost in the woods; it gets dark, and one may never find their way out again. But, that's just me, and how I approach things. I can't point to any evidence that disproves your idea, but because we have no evidence about what happens once Scwartz leaves, I can say "I doubt you guessed the answer" (and I don't mean that in an attacking or insulting way, just pointing out the amount of detail in your story isn't derived from any statements - there are none after Schwarz leaves until Deimshutz arrives).

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

And, as you say, even then one could have the return of parcel man, who ends up moving B.S. on, and then killing her, but I find that odd - what's parcel man's motive to both rescue her and then kill her immediately afterwards?

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

My scenario is that JtR is prowling for a victim. He arrives at the Nelson corner and standing in the door way notices the BSman-Stride-Schwartz situation developing and sees an opportunity to have a victim with a witness testifying against someone else. He makes a brief aggressive move towards Schwartz and sees him run away. He then moves BSman off. Stride is feeling rescued and takes out her cachous and accedes to his suggestion to seek shelter in the club. He follows behind her and the murder takes place, but there is an interruption. This could be the pony and cart, in which case he slips into the alcove where the toilets are located and leaves when Louis goes inside the club. Alternatively, Parcelman returns just as JtR puts Stride on the ground and a chase down Fairclough ensues that is later reported on by Wess. JtR evades Parcelman and the later returns to find the commotion and leaves because he is a married man and doesn't want his infidelity revealed.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And the cachous are a problem for whoever killed Stride in my view. It's a non-issue, though I know some see it as a problem if B.S. kills Stride, but provided someone else gets her in the alley and kills her, it's perfectly fine for her to be holding them. I just see them as one of those oddities that happen in real life. It's weird, but it's weird no matter who killed her.

The cachous are only a problem because we normally suppose Stride was attacked while standing. The killer grabs the scarf perhaps, and pulls her to the ground. Somehow he gets her down on the stones and then cuts, without her letting go of the cachous packet. This is perplexing, but a simple solution would be to have her sitting when attacked. That way, her hand is already close to the ground, or even on it. The 'problem' with that solution is that is would make BS Man, and the other theatrics introduced by Schwartz, seemingly redundant.

Regarding the idea of someone else getting her in the passageway, that someone is surely going to be from the club. Given that scenario, it hardly seems strange to find Wess talking to a reporter about a mysterious chase down Fairclough street, perceived to be the murderer being chased by a man who is known not to be a club member, but whose name escapes the secretary at that moment.

[JeffHamm]

Hi NBFN,

The issue here is that you have Diemschitz arriving within 10 minutes...

12:58:24: Diemshutz’s arrival (based upon George’s 1m 50s recreation of pony shy->heading out

...and there is massive blood loss by that time. Minutes worth. So Letchford's sister must have missed the Schwartz incident by very little. There is so little time left now that BS must have been the killer. So a 133 year-old problem remains...

The Foreman: Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted?
Dr. Phillips: That is an inference which the jury would be perfectly entitled to draw.

BS Man just does not seem to behave in a way that we might reasonably suppose the murderer to have done. Yet your timeline leaves us with little or no other choice than to suppose that he was the murderer.

I wasn't very clear I don't think with the Letchford info. I was really suggesting what I presented was supported, if I did I would have included it in the main timeline.

Rather, and this I should have stated better, I got to thinking about possibilities - speculating if you will. And so I made up a situation that, since we have no real data, had it occurred and we had statements recorded like we do for other bits, would fill in some of that Schwartz time window and we end up with such a small window left for the Schwartz event that it starts to look like both B.S. is her killer, and that the Pony shows up very soon afterwards.

I don't subscribe to the pony & cart being what interrupted JtR (if it even was JtR of course), but suspect something earlier spooked him.

Anyway, I was thinking about data that, had it been in front of me, would have made me change my mind on those things.

As I pointed out to George, though, I could just as easily make up a story that results in no real change to the time line. That's what one can do when the data doesn't constrain them, make up whatever one wants to tell the story one wants to tell. The first version was more interesting, and since I didn't intend it to come across as part of what I think can be supported, but rather as what "could have been" (as in, if only we had more information, who knows what could have been ...).

And the cachous are a problem for whoever killed Stride in my view. It's a non-issue, though I know some see it as a problem if B.S. kills Stride, but provided someone else gets her in the alley and kills her, it's perfectly fine for her to be holding them. I just see them as one of those oddities that happen in real life. It's weird, but it's weird no matter who killed her.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi all,

With regards to the recreation I've been working on, and presented above. There is this statement that I've been unable to utilize because it doesn't contain sufficient information for me to convert to BST.

Daily News, Oct 1:
Charles Letchford, living at 30, Berners-street says: "I passed through the street at half-past 12, and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual, and my sister was standing at the door at 10 minutes to one, but did not see anyone pass by. I heard the commotion when the body was found, and heard the policemen's whistles, but did not take any notice of the matter, as disturbances are very frequent at the club, and I thought it was only another row."

Here's my problem, we do not know for how long the sister was at her doorstep. Moreover, there are no other events mentioned that we can use to figure out the relationship between the stated 12:50 and BST. We also do not know how to adjust his 12:30, or even if it is based upon the same clock as the later 12:50.

It would fall as stated to be in the window for the Schwartz event, but as that incident currently has 10m 23s (between 12:48:01 and 12:58:24) within which to fit an approximately 2 minute event, even if her 12:50 is synchronized with BST already, she could be out for 5 minutes and there would still be 3m 24s remaining, which is more than the 2 minutes required. What’s unfortunate is if that were the case, then we’re getting close to a reconstruction that starts to suggest B.S. must have killed Stride just after Schwartz fled, and which would even suggest the 1888 “interrupted by pony cart” idea might be correct. That idea is one which is one I’ve tended to dismiss as unlikely, but this piece of the puzzle, if only we knew a bit more about it to actually fit it in, might force me to change my view on that. I've had to speculate too many things, though (her "clock" is in sync with Blackwell's watch; she was out for 5 minutes, etc) so it remains too unknown to do much with.

But, the recreation, which appears to account for all of the other statements, can accommodate this as it is presented as her time outside is unknown, and given she didn't see anything, would suggest she wasn't out for long. Or, she may have gone out after the Schwartz incident too, of course.

- Jeff

The issue here is that you have Diemschitz arriving within 10 minutes...

12:58:24: Diemshutz’s arrival (based upon George’s 1m 50s recreation of pony shy->heading out

...and there is massive blood loss by that time. Minutes worth. So Letchford's sister must have missed the Schwartz incident by very little. There is so little time left now that BS must have been the killer. So a 133 year-old problem remains...

The Foreman: Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted?
Dr. Phillips: That is an inference which the jury would be perfectly entitled to draw.

BS Man just does not seem to behave in a way that we might reasonably suppose the murderer to have done. Yet your timeline leaves us with little or no other choice than to suppose that he was the murderer.

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

Hi Jeff,

When I decided to attempt a recreation my expection was for a longer time than that which resulted.

You draw the conclusion that BSman was the likely killer. There were two other known persons that were possibly still in the vicinity. If Parcelman accompanied Stride to the yard, and left her alone temporarily for reasons to which we are not privy, he could have been there if BSman and Stride resolved their differences. If Pipeman's "pursuit" of Schwartz was nominal rather than lengthy, he could have then warned off BSman and, acting in the role of rescuer and comforter, enticed her to take refuge in the club, seizing his opportunity as she turned to accept his advice. Of course your timeline addresses the topic of the thread in the negative, and I agree.

Cheers, George

I tended to think maybe 2-3 minutes, so not too much longer, but it was still a guess that I wasn't comfortable with making.

And, I would like to qualify the "B.S. = killer", I don't actually conclude that from the timeline, rather, there are ways to speculate how the "Lectford's sister's" activities could have produced evidence that led to that conclusion and maybe I didn't make that as clear as it could have been. But, without having more information, I could just as easily spun it to leave all sorts of time available (i.e. she came out while FM was on her doorstep too, but they couldn't see each other due to being in a recess, and Lechford goes inside about the same as FM, etc: now, by just making up different data, I can keep the whole 10 minutes and change open, which gives time for B.S. to leave, and someone else to come, etc).

I was more waxing about how there was possible data that could have changed my mind on some things, such as the "pony interruptus" theory.

And, as you say, even then one could have the return of parcel man, who ends up moving B.S. on, and then killing her, but I find that odd - what's parcel man's motive to both rescue her and then kill her immediately afterwards? Still, who knows what ideas go through a violent offender's head, and while we may not understand why someone would act that way doesn't preclude them from doing so.

I think, at the moment, what it looks like to me, is that the testimonies given tend to support the sequence of events. Deimshutz's arrival at 1 appears an honest claim, even if his "exactly" might be a bit overstating it. It works out, in BST, to close enough to 1 that it isn't likely to be dishonest. In fact, it's the time we come to based upon estimating the movements and using the estimated durations, so the fact that working backwards by doing that gets us to the time he testifies to could be argued to be an independent verification of his testimony. We could, in other words, have infered his arrival time even if he hadn't stated it at all. The fact his statement coincides with the calculated time can either be viewed as the recreation verifying his statement, or his statement as confirming the validity of the recreation. They both come to the same point.

Also, FM seems to slot in surprisingly well, which to be honest, I thought she was going to cause all sorts of difficulties, in part because I got the impression her story was being a bit over dramatized by her. In the end, I think she was just inside a bit longer than she realised when she heard the pony go past, and really, how likely is it that she would have noted that interval? the rest all neatly fell into pace.

I had to make some interpretations around PC Smith, but I don't think they are entirely unfounded, or completely random. In the end, we know he arrived after PC Lamb, and I think PC Lamb's time can be well defended, so there's something about PC Smith's stated times that either he has wrong, or we were misunderstanding his intent. What I offered was an attempt to suggest something that doesn't require me to have to just say "well, he got it wrong". I think his clock was just different, and not where we've been assuming he updated his time. Those combined seemed to make sense of it, at least to me.

It's a fun exercise, and so far, seems to keep the testimony coherent, and that is satisfying. I know a lot of people are suspect focused, which is fine and admittedly interesting, but for me, I'm more interested in trying to piece together the events, and to see if we can reconstruct the events of 130 years ago from such minimal, and highly error prone, information. Underneath all the noise, the errors in estimates, the clock errors, and so forth, there's a true story. And the thing about "error" is that it tends to be random, so if you can bring together enough data, the error will sort of cancel itself out, the true story, the one that makes the pieces fit, should emerge if we can just get a few of them connected well enough to hang the rest of them onto the structure it forms. I'm starting to feel that we can do that with the Stride case. We won't get all of it, and it won't be exactly right, but I think the above could be pretty close.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

And I have to thank you again for your recreation of Deimshutz's activities. Without that information, I couldn't really fit him in without making up a duration for it, and making something like that up destroys the validity of the process. With it, I felt more confident to tackle the problem. Personally, I was pleasantly surprised at how nicely the statements started coming together actually.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

When I decided to attempt a recreation my expection was for a longer time than that which resulted.

You draw the conclusion that BSman was the likely killer. There were two other known persons that were possibly still in the vicinity. If Parcelman accompanied Stride to the yard, and left her alone temporarily for reasons to which we are not privy, he could have been there if BSman and Stride resolved their differences. If Pipeman's "pursuit" of Schwartz was nominal rather than lengthy, he could have then warned off BSman and, acting in the role of rescuer and comforter, enticed her to take refuge in the club, seizing his opportunity as she turned to accept his advice. Of course your timeline addresses the topic of the thread in the negative, and I agree.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

Great job Jeff. Thanks for your time and effort.

Cheers, George

Thanks. I'm not suggesting that's carved in stone, or something that should be viewed as "fact". Rather, what it shows is that the information we have, once we take into account a bit of between clock error, and a tendency to overestimate, etc, results in a time line we can build backwards from Dr. Blackwell's stated time using movements to estimate "event durations", and one or two duration estimations. Then we can compare the times those durations suggest, and compare them to the times people said they happened. And so far, all of the times they said they happened, (and all of the durations that result from our puzzle piece fitting when compared to people's stated estimates of those durations) fall within an acceptable margin of error. None of the clocks are considered more than +-7.5 out of sync with Dr. Blackwell's watch, for example. None of the intervals the recreation produces are outside of the expected margin of errors for the stated estimated duration. Fanny's four minutes is the only case where the recreated duration is near the long end of the range, but her testimony has been difficult to comprehend as she's stated it, and also, sooner or later, when you test enough things, you'll get a finding that's a bit "rare". We get one, and in the overall evaluation, that's not bad. It also could be argued to have isolated the problem part of her statements, it's only the 4 minute wait between going in and the pony cart that looks out of place, the rest fits in pretty well.

Oh, and after having finished all of this, I realised I set Dr. Blackwell's arrival at 1:16:00! Obviously, his statement includes a start time anywhere between 1:16:00 and 16:59 (presuming his watch doesn't have a seconds hand). I should probably, therefore, have set his arrival to be 1:16:30 (shifting all times by 30 seconds). I decided against it because, in the end, that does nothing except change our estimates about how well, or not, other clocks might be synchronized with his.

And I have to thank you again for your recreation of Deimshutz's activities. Without that information, I couldn't really fit him in without making up a duration for it, and making something like that up destroys the validity of the process. With it, I felt more confident to tackle the problem. Personally, I was pleasantly surprised at how nicely the statements started coming together actually. The James Brown passing just after the time estimated for Fanny going inside, which were worked out independently, was very satisfying. Usually I would expect to see some of the recreated times show some problems (i.e. FM goes in just after JB goes past), which can happen with estimations of course, so if the rest looks really solid one might just conclude "close enough is good enough". But it's nice when it just speaks for itself.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

With regards to the recreation I've been working on, and presented above. There is this statement that I've been unable to utilize because it doesn't contain sufficient information for me to convert to BST.

Daily News, Oct 1:
Charles Letchford, living at 30, Berners-street says: "I passed through the street at half-past 12, and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual, and my sister was standing at the door at 10 minutes to one, but did not see anyone pass by. I heard the commotion when the body was found, and heard the policemen's whistles, but did not take any notice of the matter, as disturbances are very frequent at the club, and I thought it was only another row."

Here's my problem, we do not know for how long the sister was at her doorstep. Moreover, there are no other events mentioned that we can use to figure out the relationship between the stated 12:50 and BST. We also do not know how to adjust his 12:30, or even if it is based upon the same clock as the later 12:50.

It would fall as stated to be in the window for the Schwartz event, but as that incident currently has 10m 23s (between 12:48:01 and 12:58:24) within which to fit an approximately 2 minute event, even if her 12:50 is synchronized with BST already, she could be out for 5 minutes and there would still be 3m 24s remaining, which is more than the 2 minutes required. What’s unfortunate is if that were the case, then we’re getting close to a reconstruction that starts to suggest B.S. must have killed Stride just after Schwartz fled, and which would even suggest the 1888 “interrupted by pony cart” idea might be correct. That idea is one which is one I’ve tended to dismiss as unlikely, but this piece of the puzzle, if only we knew a bit more about it to actually fit it in, might force me to change my view on that. I've had to speculate too many things, though (her "clock" is in sync with Blackwell's watch; she was out for 5 minutes, etc) so it remains too unknown to do much with.

But, the recreation, which appears to account for all of the other statements, can accommodate this as it is presented as her time outside is unknown, and given she didn't see anything, would suggest she wasn't out for long. Or, she may have gone out after the Schwartz incident too, of course.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Great job Jeff. Thanks for your time and effort.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi NBFN,

I asked what you're comparing Blackwell's time to. Are you comparing Blackwell to Blackwell?

I'm using Blackwell's watch as the reference time because it is the one clock reading we have the most precise information about; we know he read it for the express purpose of recording the exact time, he recorded it at the time he looked at his watch, and we know where he was when he did it. Other times, like PC Smith's are not stated as to where they were when they read the clock (though I suggest something, it's an interpretation, not a stated fact while Dr. Blackwell's reading is a stated fact).

1am is the disputed time of arrival, not the beginning of the search. Once this difference is accounted for, Lamb arrives too late for Eagle to reach Leman street by 1:10.

As you can see in my most recent post, I only use Dr. Blackwell's time as the starting point. After that, I've used descriptions of what people did (movements), and based upon the distance travelled, and using average speeds, estimate the time those actions would require to complete. I then use those to place them on the timeline in "BST". After that, I compare the time we get with their testimony to see if we're close enough that any differences could simply reflect the fact that when they state the time their consulting a different clock than Blackwell (clock sync error). When I don't have movements, I use stated estimates of durations, correcting them based upon the known tendency for overestimations.

So if we use a number at one end of that range, there is no problem to address.

? One number does not a range make? The estimated duration you quoted was 6 minutes (in the Times it's 5 minutes). From the 6 minutes you quoted, that gives us a range of times, from as short as 2 minutes to as long as 17. The reconstructed duration falls inside of that range. It's not comparing to one number, it's checking if it is longer than the minimum and shorter than the maximum, that's using the entire range (so, you could call that 2 numbers, or you could call it an infinite set of numbers as it contains all the values between), but you can't accurately call it one number.

If 1am is the disputed to time, and we have a PC stating he is at the top of the street at the same time, then it seems fairly sensible to use that time as the standard, rather than a watch being viewed a quarter of an hour later. There is no reason to suppose that Smith's knowledge of the time is less accurate than Blackwell's pocket watch.

What do you mean by accurate? PC Smith would have read the time from a different clock? PC Smith could be accurate with regards to his clock, and Dr. Blackwell could be equally accurate with regards to his as well, but the two clocks could be out of sync.

We know when and where Dr. Blackwell was when he read his clock because he specifically tells us that. PC Smith does not. We therefore can't use PC Smith's clock as our standard because we don't have sufficient information. It's not that PC Smith is inaccurate with regards to his clock, rather we're not using his clock as the standard time piece.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

Hi Jeff,

Second post may be of interest.
https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...ime#post120389

"Without being able to go back with his barrow, and view things ourselves, we also can't be sure if the angle from which he viewed the clock influenced the apparent position of the hands."

Interesting. The original building still stands. If I lived in or near London I would go on site and try to recreate the event. Any volunteers?

Cheers, George

Nice. I see they suggest two clocks could be out by 15 minutes, which would be a +- 7.5 minute window (giving us our 15 minute spread, one on each side of the centre point). That's a bit tighter than I've used, but on the whole, I don't think the clock-syncs error conclusions would change if this tighter criterion were used.

Yes, though recreating the event might be difficult if the original clock is no longer there and the pony doesn't like the modern London Traffic!

- Jeff