Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    The Star account shows that the Hungarian lived in Backchurch Lane and "fled incontinently, to his new lodgings" there. That means Schwartz ran south on Berner, then west on Fairclough to get to Backchurch Lane.

    Swanson said that Schwartz lived at "22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane". Looking at the map, that's probably at the corner of Backhurch and Ellen.
    All I was going to point out was, Schwartz gave his statement on the evening of the 30th - Sunday.
    Any statement given to police will carry your current address, not the address where you lived at the time of the incident - normally they are both the same anyway.

    This means Schwartz did reside at 22 Ellen St. Backchurch Lane on Sunday night, and presumably this would be the address the police would be able to locate him at in the future should the incident lead to a trial.
    Which means, for our understanding, 22 Ellen St. was the new address, or that any plans to move had been cancelled.
    Otherwise, the police would take down the intended new address.

    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • . It's from the Echo, 1 Oct;

      "A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

      In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body."
      I was asked about this by NBFN. How Wess knew about the chase and that he couldn’t remember the man’s name but knew that he wasn’t a club member? I can’t recall if I responded but isn’t there, as usual, a very simple possible explanation?

      After a murder rumours and gossip are natural and to be expected. He possibly hears about the Schwartz incident from someone who might even have been a club member who perhaps might have known Schwartz or was a near neighbour. He tells Wess “there’s a man that’s just moved in near to me called Schwartz that saw ………”

      When asked later that day Wess couldn’t recall the man’s name but he knew that he wasn’t a club member. Infinitely more likely than a plot.
      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-08-2021, 09:52 AM.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

      Comment


      • It was the pursuer's name, that Wess supposedly couldn't remember...

        The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

        He was not a member of their body.
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
          It was the pursuer's name, that Wess supposedly couldn't remember...

          The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

          He was not a member of their body.
          Thanks for pointing that out

          The above explanation still applies though.

          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes



          "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

            All I was going to point out was, Schwartz gave his statement on the evening of the 30th - Sunday.
            Any statement given to police will carry your current address, not the address where you lived at the time of the incident - normally they are both the same anyway.

            This means Schwartz did reside at 22 Ellen St. Backchurch Lane on Sunday night, and presumably this would be the address the police would be able to locate him at in the future should the incident lead to a trial.
            Which means, for our understanding, 22 Ellen St. was the new address, or that any plans to move had been cancelled.
            Otherwise, the police would take down the intended new address.
            So did the Star man run Schwartz to earth on Ellen street, or Backchurch Lane?
            The later would suggest that he got wind of the Hungarian's call, from a source other than the police.
            Yet that wouldn't explain how the reporter knew this, regarding Schwartz' visit to Leman street station...

            This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.

            When was Schwartz run to earth - Sunday night or Monday before press time? The former would suggest that Schwartz spoke to the Star, still looking as though in the theatrical line (or was it now looking that way?). It is conceivable that there was no running to earth - it was actually Schwartz and the very same interpreter friend, who went to the Star immediately after visiting Leman street, just like Goldstein and Wess went to the Morning Advertiser late on the Tuesday evening, after also having visited Leman street.

            It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane.

            Did the Star interview take place at or outside 22 Ellen street, or at or outside somewhere on Backchurch Lane, or was it actually at the Star office? Would Schwartz have really trusted the Star reporter to keep his address a secret?
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              So did the Star man run Schwartz to earth on Ellen street, or Backchurch Lane?
              The later would suggest that he got wind of the Hungarian's call, from a source other than the police.
              Yet that wouldn't explain how the reporter knew this, regarding Schwartz' visit to Leman street station...
              It was common, even back in the 1950's or 60's for an address to consist of two streets. It's like telling someone which leaf to pick, you identify which twig, which branch, which trunk.
              Commercial street is the nearest main road - the Trunk.
              Backchurch Lane is the next nearest size road - the Branch.
              Ellen street is the Twig.
              22 the house.

              The address where I grew up was 19 Guycroft, Westgate, Otley.
              In this case Westgate was the main Trunk, Guycroft the branch, houses from 15-20 were a Twig (no street name), number 19 being the house.

              I think this process has fallen out of fashion in the computer world, but the Backchurch Lane address in this case means 22 Ellen street, we don't have his Berner street address.


              When was Schwartz run to earth - Sunday night or Monday before press time?
              Newspapers went to press overnight, any stories in the morning papers were compiled the night before.
              You can take that to the bank.


              The former would suggest that Schwartz spoke to the Star, still looking as though in the theatrical line (or was it now looking that way?). It is conceivable that there was no running to earth - it was actually Schwartz and the very same interpreter friend, who went to the Star immediately after visiting Leman street, just like Goldstein and Wess went to the Morning Advertiser late on the Tuesday evening, after also having visited Leman street.
              Could be, yes.

              It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane.

              Did the Star interview take place at or outside 22 Ellen street, or at or outside somewhere on Backchurch Lane, or was it actually at the Star office? Would Schwartz have really trusted the Star reporter to keep his address a secret?
              It would seem the press interview took place at 22 Ellen street.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


                I can’t recall from the literature on the case but has anyone ever suggested that part of Schwartz testimony might speak against BS Man being the ripper?

                We don’t know the distance between Schwartz and BS Man as they both walked along Berner Street but it couldn’t have been much. Therefore the time gap between BS Man reaching Stride and Schwartz getting to the point where he felt the need to cross the road could have been more than a very few seconds.

                The ripper gained his victims trust by posing as a customer so that they might take him to a secluded spot. So is it likely that the ripper would have a) have got into an argument on the street with a potential victim and b) done it almost immediately he’d bumped into her?

                Id considered a) before and it’s the main reason that I have my doubts that BS Man was the ripper (whether he killed Stride or not) but I’d never considered b) the speed that the 2 fell into an argument. It just doesn’t sound like ripper-ish behaviour?
                I take your point, Herlock, but the ripper didn't act in a vacuum. His own behaviour would have depended on his surroundings, who else was nearby and what they were doing and, crucially, the behaviour of an intended victim, who may have appeared receptive and placid one minute, but hostile the next.

                We really know so little about the prelude to the other murders, because nobody witnessed the point of no return, when the killer was determined to strike. We may assume that the previous murders went to plan, with willing victims accompanying their killer to deserted locations, making it easy for him to pick his moment and stick to it, with no going back. We just don't know how well he would have adapted, and how fast he would have reacted, if one or more of the conditions changed, requiring him to think on his feet. Would he have been able to hold his tongue and his temper, if a prospective victim started out amenable and promising, but then unexpectedly got cold feet, worrying that something wasn't quite right with her companion? Would he have shrugged and moved on, or might the red mist have come down and caused him to lose it? If it was the latter, his problems would only have been compounded by a busy location, with people coming and going at any time.

                I'm far from convinced that BS man was the ripper, or killed Stride, because there was time for him to leave the scene and her killer to take his cue. But I can't rule BS man out as the ripper either, because we just don't know what the killer of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly would have been like when things didn't go his way. I can't imagine he was the most easy-going, even-tempered individual one could meet.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Mrs Fiddymont is a better suspect than Schwartz. As is Lord Salisbury, his wife, his butler, Queen Victorian and her oldest corgi Graham.
                  Thank you, Herlock.

                  You are hereby warmly invited to join my little club for deluded wishful thinkers who are terrible judges of character. Forget your printer problems for now. Cocktail hour approaches.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post

                    I take your point, Herlock, but the ripper didn't act in a vacuum. His own behaviour would have depended on his surroundings, who else was nearby and what they were doing and, crucially, the behaviour of an intended victim, who may have appeared receptive and placid one minute, but hostile the next.

                    We really know so little about the prelude to the other murders, because nobody witnessed the point of no return, when the killer was determined to strike. We may assume that the previous murders went to plan, with willing victims accompanying their killer to deserted locations, making it easy for him to pick his moment and stick to it, with no going back. We just don't know how well he would have adapted, and how fast he would have reacted, if one or more of the conditions changed, requiring him to think on his feet. Would he have been able to hold his tongue and his temper, if a prospective victim started out amenable and promising, but then unexpectedly got cold feet, worrying that something wasn't quite right with her companion? Would he have shrugged and moved on, or might the red mist have come down and caused him to lose it? If it was the latter, his problems would only have been compounded by a busy location, with people coming and going at any time.

                    I'm far from convinced that BS man was the ripper, or killed Stride, because there was time for him to leave the scene and her killer to take his cue. But I can't rule BS man out as the ripper either, because we just don't know what the killer of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly would have been like when things didn't go his way. I can't imagine he was the most easy-going, even-tempered individual one could meet.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    Fair points of course Caz. It could have been the case that Stride was waiting for someone when BS Man saw her. He might have been a previous client of hers and therefore thought that she was soliciting and didn’t take it kindly when she told him that she was ‘off duty.’ I still find it difficult to see BS Man as the ripper though after drawing attention to himself as he did.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post

                      Thank you, Herlock.

                      You are hereby warmly invited to join my little club for deluded wishful thinkers who are terrible judges of character. Forget your printer problems for now. Cocktail hour approaches.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X

                      Cheers Caz
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                        Perhaps he ran south on Berner street, then right into Ellen street, running right by the new address and along to Backchurch Lane. Then he ran down to the railway arch. Then he realized the man had stopped following. Then he walked along Pinchin street to the next railway arch, at the bottom of Phillip street, turned up that street, and finally turned right into Ellen street.
                        All this, to escape a man he had seen lighting a pipe. Fascinating. No wonder Leman street let Pipeman go, and locked up Schwartz instead.
                        Schwartz simply ran south towards Ellen street, his new address.




                        Diemschitz & Kozebrodski ran along Fairclough street, some think possible west, but more likely eastward as witnesses corroborate this direction.


                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • It's possible it was Schwartz interpreter friend who tipped off the Star. It's also possible that Schwartz may have just been stopping at an address in Backchurch Ln temporary while all the T's were crossed say, for his new address at 22 Ellen st. It is also possible that Backchurch ln may have been the address of his interpreter friend and the reporter just assumed Schwartz lived there.
                          Regards Darryl

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                            22 Ellen street is below the red dot.

                            Thank you for sharing the map and an explanation of Swanson giving Schwartz' address as "22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane". That makes it far more likely that Schwartz ran south on Berner, then west on Ellen. From the newspaper account, it appears Schwartz did not stop there, but continued west on Ellen, then south on Backchurch to the railway arch.

                            Just for a comparison, was there a 22 Backchurch Lane and where was it? If it was near the corner of Backchurch and Ellen, that would give an alternate interpretation to "22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane", but it seems far more likely that 22 Backchurch would be blocks away from Ellen.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                              Why would #22 be on the corner? Is that where you want it to be?
                              No, I was just trying to make sense of Swanson saying that Schwartz lived at "22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane"

                              Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                              Running east along Fairclough, then south on Christian or Grove, would take Schwartz to one of the arches.
                              That contradicts the The Star account which said that the Hungarian lived in Backchurch Lane and "fled incontinently, to his new lodgings" there. Also, there was a railway arch on Backchurch, and sources say Schwartz ran to Backchurch Lane.

                              From which it seems Schwartz' most likely routes would be:
                              * South on Berner to Ellen. West on Ellen to Backchurch. South on Backchurch to the railway arch.
                              * South on Berner to Fairclough. West on Fairclough to Backchurch. South on Backchurch to the railway arch.

                              The timing means the Echo account of one man was "being chased by another man along Fairclough-street" might be the a garbled account of Schwartz being pursued by Pipeman. Wess' statement of not remembering the name of the pursuer indicates a real person had, rightly or wrongly, been named as the pursuer. That could still have been made up, but the idea that the Echo account was a garbled version of the Schwartz account can not be discounted, either.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                                Thank you for sharing the map and an explanation of Swanson giving Schwartz' address as "22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane". That makes it far more likely that Schwartz ran south on Berner, then west on Ellen. From the newspaper account, it appears Schwartz did not stop there, but continued west on Ellen, then south on Backchurch to the railway arch.

                                Just for a comparison, was there a 22 Backchurch Lane and where was it? If it was near the corner of Backchurch and Ellen, that would give an alternate interpretation to "22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane", but it seems far more likely that 22 Backchurch would be blocks away from Ellen.
                                Hey Fiver, thanks for saying that. Your first point just might be right. I hadn't seen a small overhead walkway at the end of Ellen street.
                                Just gimme a few minutes I'll post a pic.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X