If Schwartz Lied ...

[drstrange169]

>>If Leon Goldstein - member of the club - wasn't coming from the club, then where TF was he coming from?<<

Since this has already been explained to you in the thread you started about Leon Goldstein, isn't it more than a little ingenious to be asking that?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Since this has already been explained to you in the thread you started about Leon Goldstein, isn't it more than a little ingenious to be asking that?

No, for two reasons. Firstly, it didn't need it to be explained to me. I had read the relevant evidence before I started the thread. It was I who quoted Swanson mentioning Spectacle Alley, in relation to Goldstein. That was not some revelation to me.
Secondly, my argument that Mortimer had seen Goldstein twice, requires that he had originally been seen walking down Berner street, and yes, that was from Spectacle Alley. That was the first occasion. Not the second.
I made myself very clear about that, yet you chose to ignore it. So it is you who is being more than a little ingenuous.

So let's be honest here. If it were generally conceded that yes, Fanny Mortimer did see Leon Goldstein twice, in the half hour or so leading up to the murder, and that the second time he appeared to be walking in a direction that hinted he had come from the club, and that this must have been close to the time of the murder, what might be the broad impact on Ripperology?

[drstrange169]

>>No, for two reasons. Firstly, it didn't need it to be explained to me. I had read the relevant evidence before I started the thread. It was I who quoted Swanson mentioning Spectacle Alley, in relation to Goldstein. That was not some revelation to me.<<

You might want to read the Goldstein thread again. Mention of Spectacle Alley in any of your posts and reasoning is absent until I pointed it out to you in post #7.



>>Secondly, my argument that Mortimer had seen Goldstein twice... So it is you who is being more than a little ingenuous.<<

In which case you will have no trouble pointing out the exact quote where Mortimer says she saw Goldstein twice ... yes?

I thought not.



>>If it were generally conceded that yes, Fanny Mortimer did see Leon Goldstein twice ... what might be the broad impact on Ripperology?<<

Since Mortimer is never quoted as seeing him twice and no police record or newspaper report states that he walked Berner Street twice that night, your point is irrelevant.

[FrankO]

No one mentioned it because it was not there to move - it was already in the back yard, where the other carts were kept.
That is why, when members rush into the yard, none of them run into the pony or cart, and no one ever has to squeeze between victim and cart. It is not there to cause problems.

Why is it, Andrew, that we have to assume that the pony & cart were in any way hindering people to come out by the side door and stand around Stride’s body? Diemshutz himself, apparently, had no trouble rushing in, so why would people have to run into the pony or cart on their way out (one by one, there being only one door)? Why couldn't Diemshutz have parked the pony cart to the left of the middle of passageway, more or less opposite the side door?

[caz]

https://www.orsam.co.uk/news.htm

New articles by David including some excellent stuff on Inquests which should be of interest to posters on this thread.

Hi Herlock,

Out of curiosity I just read orsam's latest on Simon Wood and found the final sentence completely baffling. I won't quote it, but if I am the Caroline he refers to, I don't know what he is talking about. He mentions a 'friendship' between me and someone called Jonathan as if this has some huge significance. Assuming orsam means Jonathan Menges, I can't imagine what he's trying to imply. There is certainly no personal friendship between us, and our paths have very rarely crossed, either on the boards or via the odd email, when someone may have copied us both in for whatever reason.

I'm afraid this doesn't fill me with confidence about anything else orsam thinks he knows about other people's business. What he knows about Inquest procedures is of course a separate issue.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Out of curiosity I just read orsam's latest on Simon Wood and found the final sentence completely baffling. I won't quote it, but if I am the Caroline he refers to, I don't know what he is talking about. He mentions a 'friendship' between me and someone called Jonathan as if this has some huge significance. Assuming orsam means Jonathan Menges, I can't imagine what he's trying to imply. There is certainly no personal friendship between us, and our paths have very rarely crossed, either on the boards or via the odd email, when someone may have copied us both in for whatever reason.

I'm afraid this doesn't fill me with confidence about anything else orsam thinks he knows about other people's business. What he knows about Inquest procedures is of course a separate issue.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I don’t know the answer to that one.

[Scott Nelson]

Caroline, that should be Orsam with a capital O.

[Abby Normal]

https://www.orsam.co.uk/news.htm

New articles by David including some excellent stuff on Inquests which should be of interest to posters on this thread.

excellent stuff i like the possible reasons he gives for schwartz not being at the inquest

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why is it, Andrew, that we have to assume that the pony & cart were in any way hindering people to come out by the side door and stand around Stride’s body? Diemshutz himself, apparently, had no trouble rushing in, so why would people have to run into the pony or cart on their way out (one by one, there being only one door)? Why couldn't Diemshutz have parked the pony cart to the left of the middle of passageway, more or less opposite the side door?

He could have parked it - there or anywhere else - but he didn't. There was no separate parking action.
However, if by parking you mean where he stopped originally, then there goes the whip and prod story.
By the way, according to Smith, her boots tucked just behind the swing of the gate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

excellent stuff i like the possible reasons he gives for schwartz not being at the inquest

So do I Abby. They all seem plausible. We know that the suggestion that Schwartz wasn’t called because the police or Coroner didn’t believe him is a complete non-starter which can very safely be discarded.

[DJA]

Hi RJ,

Yes, my sentiments exactly. I can't really fathom a good reason to actively leave Schwartz out, especially given the calibre of witnesses across all the inquests. I honestly think that if he was available, he'd have been there. Sadly, without any further information the door to conspiracy is open. But there is certainly enough evidence to show that the authorities were acting on his statement after the inquest. Could they have intentionally witheld his evidence? It's not an unreasonable assumption, but unless anything new comes to light, we'll never know.

Neither Schwartz or Matthew Packer were called,yet they had the best look at BS Man.
There were Morgensterns at 1 Plumbers Row,48 Everard Street and 67 Ellen Street.
Stride was having drinks with a chap until the rain stopped at a pub very close to 1 Plumbers Row.
Next sighted at 64 Berner Street.

As you know I've linked Mary Ann Kelly to both Eddowes and Stride.

Crikey,40 Berner Street was Morgenstern Central

Nominating Simon Morgenstern as BS Man,strong arm support for Stride in a blackmail attempt.

[DJA]

Hi Kattrup,

Your logic is mind-boggling.

I think you may have fallen under the spell of L.O., who is to the subject at hand what Socrates was to spot-welding.

Simon

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Kattrup,

There's no reason on God's green earth why Schwartz should have known she was Elizabeth Stride. He only knew her as the woman he had seen attacked, the same woman whom he subsequently identified at the mortuary. She had no facial disfigurations, so how could Schwartz have been mistaken. And as there were no other women in the mortuary at the time, he was hardly spoiled for choice.

Simon

Would Schwartz have been tested in some manner, when shown the body?
For example, by firstly being asked for a description. If he mentioned a flower on the breast, he would seem to be kosher.
So then we get this …

The Star, Oct 1: The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

Which makes sense, if the prisoner told the partly conflicting story he seems to have.
Yet then we get the mystery …

The Star, Oct 2: 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.

Seems like the prisoner is a prisoner no more. What could have happened to turn the tables so quickly?
Yet if the tables were indeed turned, would it not be Schwartz who becomes a prisoner?
Is that why he wasn't at the inquest?

[caz]

Not that long ago, we had similar shenanigans, we witness here in this thread over in the Maybrick threads. Has the ghost who is Iconoclast decided to haunt this thread?

If you were a good observer of human nature, Observer, you would have noticed that Iconoclast had a healthy sense of humour and was frequently self-deprecating when posting elsewhere.

NotBlamedForNothing's posts are, by contrast, as po-faced and patronising as they come.

I'm not sure what the point of your comparison was, as it adds nothing to this topic.

[mpriestnall]

Would Schwartz have been tested in some manner, when shown the body?
For example, by firstly being asked for a description. If he mentioned a flower on the breast, he would seem to be kosher.
So then we get this …

The Star, Oct 1: The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

Which makes sense, if the prisoner told the partly conflicting story he seems to have.
Yet then we get the mystery …

The Star, Oct 2: 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.

Seems like the prisoner is a prisoner no more. What could have happened to turn the tables so quickly?
Yet if the tables were indeed turned, would it not be Schwartz who becomes a prisoner?
Is that why he wasn't at the inquest?

1. A small number of the top-cops were at it.

2. Jack was arrested immediately post the double event.

2. Schwartz saw Jack with Stride.

3. Schwartz (or Packer for that matter) didn't get an invite to the Inquest to lessen the chance of the investigating cops on the ground of matching the arrested but immediately released suspect's description with the description of Jack provided by Schwartz/Packer.

Simples!