Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Agreed. The clock Smith would have used was just up the street in the Tobacconist window on the corner of Commercial Road. The same clock he was using when he said at the inquest that he was on that corner at 1 o'clock. His estimate of 12:30 to 12:35 was because he had walked away from his reference. When he said he was back on the corner at 1 o'clock he was viewing his reference clock. No estimate necessary as he had an exact time according to the clock that Diemshitz referenced. I have seen a suggestion on this forum that maybe Diemshitz heard the clock chime and mistook the chime for 1 o'clock when it was actually for 12:45. I don't know if a clock in a shop window would have a chime loud enough to be heard in the street but if it did Diemshitz time of passing FM would be pretty close using the 10 minute correction to Tobacconist clock time derived from Smith's earlier passing.

    Cheers, George
    Hello George, welcome to Casebook

    I’ve never been good on directions but when we look at Smith’s Inquest testimony he does mention Backchurch Lane before Commercial Road. Someone posted something about Smith’s route a while back but I can’t find it so maybe someone can help on this? Wouldn’t this raise the possibility that Smith passed on the opposite side to the clock? I don’t know? As Smith doesn’t mention where he got his time from isn’t it possible that he might have got it from a different source? As we know that Lamb arrived after 1.00 and that Smith arrived after Lamb then he couldn’t have been on that corner at 1.00 so I’m wondering if he saw a clock earlier on his route?

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
    Why would he have immediately left the scene?
    Referring to Pipeman, he would also have been there for a reason, but if he was simply minding his own business he could have been on his way home anyway, having stopped in a doorway just to light his pipe. You are looking at a snapshot and inferring that Pipeman had planned to hang around indefinitely, puffing away and taking in the atmosphere, until the quarrel suddenly sent him packing. I don't see the problem either way. He might have taken off a bit more hurriedly to avoid it, and who would blame him? This is what Schwartz could have seen as threatening, because like you he didn't know if Pipeman was about to walk off in that direction anyway.

    Schwartz was suggesting that the second man were an accomplice. While this is ambiguous in Swanson's summary, it is made very clear in the Star report, and by Anderson in his letter (in which he refers to "the supposed accomplice"). So there is much more going on than just two different perspectives. It seems to me from the October 1 & 2 Star reports, that initially Pipeman was not wholly believed, and then doubts arose of Schwartz' story. The critical issue is how this was resolved - it's seemingly one man's word against another - yet there was no trial. Therefore Pipeman's story must have been in some way unassailable. It's obvious to me how that could have been the case.
    How could there have been a trial if no suspect was ever tracked down and identified as BS man?

    I can see how Schwartz might have preferred to believe Pipeman was an accomplice, who had chased him away from the scene, because it excused him for leaving the woman to her fate. That doesn't make it so, nor would it make either witness a liar. Two independent witnesses, telling the same essential story about time and place, but from their personal perspectives, would have had a better ring of truth, especially if both were able to explain their presence and their movements.

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Well summed up Fiver

    What we can say for certain though is that Mortimer cannot be used as proof that the Schwartz incident didn’t take place and yet we repeatedly hear her used for precisely that reason. Of course we have to point out that PC Smith disagrees with Fanny on the time that he passed along Berner Street. He said between 12.30 and 12.35 whilst she had it 12.45. So which one was correct?

    We have no way of knowing for certain but we can say that Smith would have been the likelier to have been correct. He was on a regulated beat. He’d probably very recently passed a clock and, as a Police Officer who would have been expected to report incidents noting the time that they’d occurred he’d have had more reason to have been aware of time. Fanny on the other hand had no reason to log the time as it was just another normal night for her. And so, if Smith was right, then she’d have been back inside by the time Schwartz appeared.
    Agreed. The clock Smith would have used was just up the street in the Tobacconist window on the corner of Commercial Road. The same clock he was using when he said at the inquest that he was on that corner at 1 o'clock. His estimate of 12:30 to 12:35 was because he had walked away from his reference. When he said he was back on the corner at 1 o'clock he was viewing his reference clock. No estimate necessary as he had an exact time according to the clock that Diemshitz referenced. I have seen a suggestion on this forum that maybe Diemshitz heard the clock chime and mistook the chime for 1 o'clock when it was actually for 12:45. I don't know if a clock in a shop window would have a chime loud enough to be heard in the street but if it did Diemshitz time of passing FM would be pretty close using the 10 minute correction to Tobacconist clock time derived from Smith's earlier passing.

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    If Schwartz is to be believed.
    Look, you want to take Schwartz out of the equation, so be my guest. Take BS man out while we're at it. We were discussing why Stride was in the yard, unseen and unheard by any witness, when her killer - whoever that was - made his move on her.

    Are you saying she had no reason to be there, so she wasn't there?

    Men were often in the yard, and not just to use the loos. If you want to suppose that Liz could have used one of those loos unnoticed, then you are again taking a virtual risk. At some point the luck has to run out.
    Eh? Whether she was in the loo at some point, or elsewhere in the yard, she was unnoticed by anyone but the killer when he struck - or he would have been noticed too, and a very silly billy for not waiting until the coast was clear.

    Are you saying that because nobody noticed them together, they weren't there, and the body was a figment of the collective imagination?

    So what possible reason would she have for being there?
    You win. So she was never there and there was no murder. Great theory - saves a lot of bother looking for evidence if there wasn't any.



    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    Hi Caz,

    The problem started for me when Swanson sent his report to the Home Office on 19th October 1888. The marginal note bothers me greatly. I know there is a risk a clerk wrote it. However, it could have been Swanson. He was a fan of such things. It could have even been Henry Matthews.

    The outcome is because that the slur Lipski was used means the killer was most likely Jewish is absolutely nonsensical. Clearly Schwartz was trying to convey the killer was a gentile because a Jew would not likely call another Jew Lipski. So there is official belief of that view - regardless of who wrote the marginalia.

    Then you have the fact no-one can independently corroborate any of the things Schwartz claimed he saw. Abberline was diligent and took the statement as was intended. Between then and the report the feeling that Schwartz was not 100% reliable by the police, is evident in Swanson’s report.

    “If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered. At the same time account must be taken of the fact that the throat only of the victim was cut in this instance which measured by time, considering meeting (if with a man other than Schwartz saw) the time for the agreement & the murderous action would I think be a question of so many minutes, five at least, ten at most, so that I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer, although it is clearly the more probable of the two.”

    Why do we never see such a disclaimer on any other witness statement “if so so and so is to be believed”? Clearly Swanson is acknowledging the issues with it.

    Then we have the railway arch and address that didn’t exist.

    I think the false witness was trying to move focus away from the Jewish community by indicating the murderer was most likely a gentile. Yet somewhere along the way it became even more muddled that using the term Lipski made the killer Jewish.

    it’s almost like the Jews are the men that should be blamed for nothing.
    Hi erobitha,

    I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Schwartz originally seemed to think Pipeman was being addressed by the name "Lipski", which suggested to him that the two men knew each other and were acting together. It makes no sense otherwise for the police to go looking for men called Lipski, which they did do initially. Schwartz wasn't claiming that BS man was a Gentile. His police statement implied the opposite.

    Abberline established that Schwartz had probably misunderstood the situation, not having any English, and that "Lipski" had been used as an insult directed at Schwartz himself, changing the whole nature of the incident and suggesting that BS man was acting alone and was not Jewish. When this was put to Schwartz, he admitted that he couldn't actually say who BS man had shouted the name at. He had made an assumption. That made his initial interpretation unreliable, but not the witness himself or the basics of seeing the murdered woman being assaulted by one man. He needed no English for that.

    I agree that it would have been nonsensical to believe the killer was Jewish because he had hurled an anti-Semitic insult at an obviously Jewish witness. But did anyone claim this? Surely it depended on whether one chose to believe Schwartz's initial interpretation, of a Jewish accomplice named Lipski, or the one Abberline put on it, of a Gentile assailant shouting an insult at an unwelcome Jewish witness?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X