If Schwartz Lied ...

[JeffHamm]

Good post, Jeff.

The fact that Schwartz goes from BS man addressing Pipeman as "Lipski", to admitting under further questioning that he is 'unable to say', is more than enough to disprove Michael's hunch that Schwartz's brief was to lie, by putting a Gentile killer out on Berner Street, abusing the victim. Why would Schwartz claim not to know what he witnessed, if he was lying about it to protect the club?

As liars go, Schwartz must be up there with Aldridge Prior, the Hopeless Liar. He gets the lie totally wrong, and then can't remember what he's meant to be lying about.

But in Michael's world, he must be a liar because otherwise he'd have been there at the Inquest, come hell or high water, and in Michael's world, liars are liars, so it doesn't matter to him whether a lie makes sense or not. He can take whatever they say and fashion a whole theory out of it.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks Caz.

Yes, Schwartz's original statement implicating a Jewish accomplice clearly indicates he was not set up by members of the club to divert attention away from the Jewish club. And I agree that his willingness to to then concede he isn't sure who Lipski was shouted at after being questioned also points to him not being there to get a specific story out. These aspects of his story, as he told it initially, and his lack of apparent commitment to it being accepted as he originally told it, all refute his involvement. Give Schwartz is such a central figure in the conspiracy, once he's eliminated like this, the whole house of cards falls down.

- Jeff

[etenguy]

Thanks Caz.

Yes, Schwartz's original statement implicating a Jewish accomplice clearly indicates he was not set up by members of the club to divert attention away from the Jewish club. And I agree that his willingness to to then concede he isn't sure who Lipski was shouted at after being questioned also points to him not being there to get a specific story out. These aspects of his story, as he told it initially, and his lack of apparent commitment to it being accepted as he originally told it, all refute his involvement. Give Schwartz is such a central figure in the conspiracy, once he's eliminated like this, the whole house of cards falls down. - Jeff

The question I would ask is 'was there anything in the statement made by Schwartz that indicated he was lying and was his reaction to be questioned on his statement consistent with him telling the truth?' When judging both of these areas, I can find no reason to doubt that Schwartz is telling the truth.

Does that mean he was telling the truth? No. He may have been an accomplished liar who understood that being a little vague about some aspects of the story made it more convincing (as Herlock indeed argues). Letting the police conclude 'Lipski' was directed at him might have been more convincing than simply telling them that.

If it was a lie, then why introduce clay pipe man? I think the answer to this might be to explain why he left the street so quickly rather than assist a woman he sees being attacked. He describes running from the area until clay pipe man stops following him. If there was no second man the police may have asked why he did not raise the alarm (perhaps search out a police officer) when seeing a woman attacked and thrown to the floor given the other murders that had recently taken place.

If Israel Schwartz was telling the truth and the attacker he saw did murder Elizabeth Stride, as surely he must, then does this suggest the murderer was not the same man who killed the other four canonical victims or do we conclude that Jack the Ripper had an accomplice?

Also, if Israel Schwartz was telling the truth, why do no other accounts of Elizabeth Stride sightings that night mention a second man?

More questions than answers - but taken all together, although there is nothing about the way Schwartz told his story which makes it seem to me he was lying, when considering the wider picture it does prompt questions which either bring into question what he has said or bring into question whether or not Stride was a Ripper victim.

[caz]

This is all very reasonable, etenguy, but Michael's theory is that not only did Schwartz lie, to deflect blame for the murder away from the club and the Jews there, and onto a Gentile ripper on Berner Street, but that the authorities must have known he had lied, because there was no other possible reason for him not attending the Inquest to give his account.

What I've been unable to get from Michael [apart from an admission that the police investigated the story anyway ] is which part of Schwartz's account would have led to the conclusion that he was lying? All of it? Some of it? Just one particular aspect?

Michael's reasons for concluding that Schwartz lied are bound up with his belief in an earlier discovery of the murder, but that can't be applied to the authorities, because they accepted Louis D's 1am discovery time. So their reasons for disbelieving Schwartz's story would have to be different, but as yet Michael has come up with no suggestions.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hello Caz,

The police might have in fact concluded that Schwartz lied and that is the reason that he did not appear at the inquest. That possibility cannot be dismissed. The problem is that no one, repeat no one, knows for sure.

To conclude that there could be no other reason is a classic Argument from Ignorance. That is like saying I was alone in the woods and heard a strange sound and saw something in the trees. It had to have been Bigfoot what else could it be?

It is fine to make an argument supporting a particular claim just don't claim it as fact when it is not. Seems simple enough.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

The question I would ask is 'was there anything in the statement made by Schwartz that indicated he was lying and was his reaction to be questioned on his statement consistent with him telling the truth?' When judging both of these areas, I can find no reason to doubt that Schwartz is telling the truth.

Does that mean he was telling the truth? No. He may have been an accomplished liar who understood that being a little vague about some aspects of the story made it more convincing (as Herlock indeed argues). Letting the police conclude 'Lipski' was directed at him might have been more convincing than simply telling them that.

If it was a lie, then why introduce clay pipe man? I think the answer to this might be to explain why he left the street so quickly rather than assist a woman he sees being attacked. He describes running from the area until clay pipe man stops following him. If there was no second man the police may have asked why he did not raise the alarm (perhaps search out a police officer) when seeing a woman attacked and thrown to the floor given the other murders that had recently taken place.

If Israel Schwartz was telling the truth and the attacker he saw did murder Elizabeth Stride, as surely he must, then does this suggest the murderer was not the same man who killed the other four canonical victims or do we conclude that Jack the Ripper had an accomplice?

Also, if Israel Schwartz was telling the truth, why do no other accounts of Elizabeth Stride sightings that night mention a second man?

More questions than answers - but taken all together, although there is nothing about the way Schwartz told his story which makes it seem to me he was lying, when considering the wider picture it does prompt questions which either bring into question what he has said or bring into question whether or not Stride was a Ripper victim.

Hi etenguy,

I think we should introduce the term mistaken to go along with truths and lies. Truth we'll reserve for saying what one believes and one's belief being accurate. Mistaken is saying what one believes but one's beliefs are inaccurate. Lies are when one says something one believes to be false. So to misrepresent one's beliefs is to lie and is considered being dishonest, but to hold false beliefs is to be mistaken, but honest.

We don't have a copy of his interview, only the reference made to it. There is nothing to indicate the police thought he was lying, though they did suggest he may be mistaken.

With regards to letting the police come to the conclusion he was mistaken, rather than force the issue could be the case. But then we are still left with the fact his original story implicates a Jew, which is directly the opposite of the proposed goal of the conspiracy. Hoping the police will think he is mistaken on that point is a gamble, and a very dangerous one. If the club were trying to deflect attention away from themselves far simpler and to the point to have schwartz simply sày B.S. yelled something in English at him that he did not understand.

Leaving the scene of a confrontation is not uncommon and he could have just said he went looking for the police, couldn't find one, and since he didn't expect murder, just went home. There hadn't been a murder for a while after all, and the others were all north of Whitechapel road. There are simply far easier stories to make up that would be more suitable to the goal of the alleged conspiracy. It is the increase in unnecessary complicatons that suggest he's not lying, and the goal of the police, and now research, to try and determine if he was truthful or mistaken.

It appears, he was mistaken, and that pipeman was not connected to B.S. Hence no 2nd man at other sightings of Stride, etc.

But if it's true, then that could simply mean none of the previous sightings are of B.S. (or pipeman), and yes, I think it would lower the probability of B.S. being JtR as no other potential sightings of victims indicates an accomplice. Also, while there are cases of serial killer teams, that is still very rare and the lone killer far more probable. Her lack of mutations already sets her apart, but can be explained due to the noisy club spooking him (or Deimshutz's arrival), but once there is an accomplice, it becomes more probable she was not mutilated because the motive was probably robbery or something like that, at least that would be my view.

- Jeff

[etenguy]

Hi etenguy,

I think we should introduce the term mistaken to go along with truths and lies. Truth we'll reserve for saying what one believes and one's belief being accurate. Mistaken is saying what one believes but one's beliefs are inaccurate. Lies are when one says something one believes to be false. So to misrepresent one's beliefs is to lie and is considered being dishonest, but to hold false beliefs is to be mistaken, but honest.

We don't have a copy of his interview, only the reference made to it. There is nothing to indicate the police thought he was lying, though they did suggest he may be mistaken.

With regards to letting the police come to the conclusion he was mistaken, rather than force the issue could be the case. But then we are still left with the fact his original story implicates a Jew, which is directly the opposite of the proposed goal of the conspiracy. Hoping the police will think he is mistaken on that point is a gamble, and a very dangerous one. If the club were trying to deflect attention away from themselves far simpler and to the point to have schwartz simply sày B.S. yelled something in English at him that he did not understand.

Leaving the scene of a confrontation is not uncommon and he could have just said he went looking for the police, couldn't find one, and since he didn't expect murder, just went home. There hadn't been a murder for a while after all, and the others were all north of Whitechapel road. There are simply far easier stories to make up that would be more suitable to the goal of the alleged conspiracy. It is the increase in unnecessary complicatons that suggest he's not lying, and the goal of the police, and now research, to try and determine if he was truthful or mistaken.

It appears, he was mistaken, and that pipeman was not connected to B.S. Hence no 2nd man at other sightings of Stride, etc.

Hi Jeff

It is always good to receive a response from you, and as usual, you make some good and considered points.

It is of course entirely possible Schwartz was mistaken and telling his truth. To be mistaken, he would have to both misinterpret who was being called Lipski and that clay pipe man was pursuing him. It could well be the case, the pipeman might just have been removing himself from the situation the same as Schwartz. But in those types of situation, by which I mean when you are threatened or intimidated at night, it would be rare not to know you were the target. Even though he was a Jew, Israel did not think the jewish insult was directed at him, instead believing clay pipe man was being called, encouraged in this belief by the pipe man's actions. Nevertheless, entirely possible he misread the situation.

But if it's true, then that could simply mean none of the previous sightings are of B.S. (or pipeman), and yes, I think it would lower the probability of B.S. being JtR as no other potential sightings of victims indicates an accomplice. Also, while there are cases of serial killer teams, that is still very rare and the lone killer far more probable. Her lack of mutations already sets her apart, but can be explained due to the noisy club spooking him (or Deimshutz's arrival), but once there is an accomplice, it becomes more probable she was not mutilated because the motive was probably robbery or something like that, at least that would be my view.

- Jeff

I agree, if Schwartz was neither mistaken nor lying, then it would, to my mind, open up questions as to whether Stride was a victim of JtR or not.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff

It is always good to receive a response from you, and as usual, you make some good and considered points.

It is of course entirely possible Schwartz was mistaken and telling his truth. To be mistaken, he would have to both misinterpret who was being called Lipski and that clay pipe man was pursuing him. It could well be the case, the pipeman might just have been removing himself from the situation the same as Schwartz. But in those types of situation, by which I mean when you are threatened or intimidated at night, it would be rare not to know you were the target. Even though he was a Jew, Israel did not think the jewish insult was directed at him, instead believing clay pipe man was being called, encouraged in this belief by the pipe man's actions. Nevertheless, entirely possible he misread the situation.



I agree, if Schwartz was neither mistaken nor lying, then it would, to my mind, open up questions as to whether Stride was a victim of JtR or not.

Hi etenguy,

I would suggest that it only takes one error of interpretation on the night by Schwartz and that the other follows on as a consequence. If at the time Lipski was shouted, probably startling him, he looks around and notices pipeman for the first time (another jolt, given he's already nervous about the confrontation, he crossed the street to avoid it after all) and he presumes pipeman is the intended target. Without much time to consider things, he then sees pipeman coming towards him (probably, as you say, to also avoid the confrontation developing) and in his now "alert for danger" state that would simply result in both reaffirming his belief that B.S. and pipeman are working together and also in making him think pipeman is coming after him. Basically, once that initial error is made about Lipski being intended for pipeman, the rest of how he interprets the entirety of the events will flow on from that starting point. Only when he is forced to reconsider the events, when he is questioned, do the alternatives occur to him and he backs down in his confidence. In other words, I think we only have one mistake to assume and the others are simply further consequences of that initial error of interpretation. At least, that's how it looks to me.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Caz,

The police might have in fact concluded that Schwartz lied and that is the reason that he did not appear at the inquest. That possibility cannot be dismissed. The problem is that no one, repeat no one, knows for sure.

To conclude that there could be no other reason is a classic Argument from Ignorance. That is like saying I was alone in the woods and heard a strange sound and saw something in the trees. It had to have been Bigfoot what else could it be?

It is fine to make an argument supporting a particular claim just don't claim it as fact when it is not. Seems simple enough.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

If you check out An Inquiry Into A Coroners Inquiry on Davis Orsam’s website I’d say that he’s proven beyond doubt that Schwartz non-attendance can’t be put down to the fact that the police didn’t believe him. You’re absolutely right though that we certainly can’t assume a reason. We can make suggestions but they would be speculation of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The question I would ask is 'was there anything in the statement made by Schwartz that indicated he was lying and was his reaction to be questioned on his statement consistent with him telling the truth?' When judging both of these areas, I can find no reason to doubt that Schwartz is telling the truth.

Does that mean he was telling the truth? No. He may have been an accomplished liar who understood that being a little vague about some aspects of the story made it more convincing (as Herlock indeed argues). Letting the police conclude 'Lipski' was directed at him might have been more convincing than simply telling them that.

If it was a lie, then why introduce clay pipe man? I think the answer to this might be to explain why he left the street so quickly rather than assist a woman he sees being attacked. He describes running from the area until clay pipe man stops following him. If there was no second man the police may have asked why he did not raise the alarm (perhaps search out a police officer) when seeing a woman attacked and thrown to the floor given the other murders that had recently taken place.

If Israel Schwartz was telling the truth and the attacker he saw did murder Elizabeth Stride, as surely he must, then does this suggest the murderer was not the same man who killed the other four canonical victims or do we conclude that Jack the Ripper had an accomplice?

Also, if Israel Schwartz was telling the truth, why do no other accounts of Elizabeth Stride sightings that night mention a second man?

More questions than answers - but taken all together, although there is nothing about the way Schwartz told his story which makes it seem to me he was lying, when considering the wider picture it does prompt questions which either bring into question what he has said or bring into question whether or not Stride was a Ripper victim.

Hi Eten,

We just don’t know why Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest but it wasn’t because the police disbelieved him. Michael just needs to discredit him so that he can dismiss him merely as pawn in a cover up (which doesn’t hold water whichever way you look at it.)

The issue is that we know that all of the timings don’t add up so it’s fertile ground for a conspiracy theory but what we all accept (except for Michael) is that we have to allow witnesses leeway in timings due to the fact that most people didn’t own watches. Allowing for a little plausible leeway a timeline can be achieved.

Added to this Michael is very selective when it comes to assessing witnesses. In fact he completely ignores the inconvenient. Spooner is the main case in point. Time and time again I asked him why he ignores the fact that Spooner said that he’d been at the yard 5 minutes before PC Lamb arrived. When he finally responded he simply denied that he’d said it which is bizarre seeing as it’s in his Inquest statement. I posted the quote and he went back to ignoring it. He’s also repeatedly mention Gillen (Gilleman) as backing up his theory that the body was discovered earlier. This is simply untrue as everyone knows. Gilleman is only mentioned in this case by Morris Eagle who said that he called him to see the body at around 1.00. It’s just not a very honest approach so it’s a bit rich when he resorts to insulting everyone else when we call him out on it.

Lesson to learn.....wear a hard hat if you get in the way of a man and his cherished theory.

[etenguy]

Hi etenguy,

I would suggest that it only takes one error of interpretation on the night by Schwartz and that the other follows on as a consequence. If at the time Lipski was shouted, probably startling him, he looks around and notices pipeman for the first time (another jolt, given he's already nervous about the confrontation, he crossed the street to avoid it after all) and he presumes pipeman is the intended target. Without much time to consider things, he then sees pipeman coming towards him (probably, as you say, to also avoid the confrontation developing) and in his now "alert for danger" state that would simply result in both reaffirming his belief that B.S. and pipeman are working together and also in making him think pipeman is coming after him. Basically, once that initial error is made about Lipski being intended for pipeman, the rest of how he interprets the entirety of the events will flow on from that starting point. Only when he is forced to reconsider the events, when he is questioned, do the alternatives occur to him and he backs down in his confidence. In other words, I think we only have one mistake to assume and the others are simply further consequences of that initial error of interpretation. At least, that's how it looks to me.

- Jeff

Indeed, Jeff. If Schwartz did misinterpret the situation, then the chain of events you outline is likely how that happened.

But what was going on in the attacker's head? Why did he shout out at all? If this was JtR, this would be the only time he attacked before being somewhere secluded and then to draw attention to himself further immediately before a murder. It doesn't strike me as the behaviour we might expect from JtR given the other murders and sightings. Whether Schwartz was mistaken, lying or completely accurate - I am now doubting that Stride was murdered by JtR.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

We just don’t know why Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest but it wasn’t because the police disbelieved him. Michael just needs to discredit him so that he can dismiss him merely as pawn in a cover up (which doesn’t hold water whichever way you look at it.)

The issue is that we know that all of the timings don’t add up so it’s fertile ground for a conspiracy theory but what we all accept (except for Michael) is that we have to allow witnesses leeway in timings due to the fact that most people didn’t own watches. Allowing for a little plausible leeway a timeline can be achieved.

Added to this Michael is very selective when it comes to assessing witnesses. In fact he completely ignores the inconvenient. Spooner is the main case in point. Time and time again I asked him why he ignores the fact that Spooner said that he’d been at the yard 5 minutes before PC Lamb arrived. When he finally responded he simply denied that he’d said it which is bizarre seeing as it’s in his Inquest statement. I posted the quote and he went back to ignoring it. He’s also repeatedly mention Gillen (Gilleman) as backing up his theory that the body was discovered earlier. This is simply untrue as everyone knows. Gilleman is only mentioned in this case by Morris Eagle who said that he called him to see the body at around 1.00. It’s just not a very honest approach so it’s a bit rich when he resorts to insulting everyone else when we call him out on it.

Lesson to learn.....wear a hard hat if you get in the way of a man and his cherished theory.

Hey Herlock - how are you? Safe and well I hope.

We don't know why Schwartz wasn't at the inquest -but the inquest was held to determine the cause of Elizabeth Stride's death rather than to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused. Schwartz was not needed for that purpose and while he had information of interest, if he was indisposed or not, the view may have been taken that he wasn't needed. I don't think Schwartz's non attendance at the inquest means that the police doubted the veracity of what he had told them. Though in my exchange with Jeff, I am becoming more questioning of whether Stride was a ripper victim.

Some of the posts on casebook do get heated - I remember WWH. In that case it was a real shame how his time here ended - he had done some great work and made some great posts.

[JeffHamm]

Indeed, Jeff. If Schwartz did misinterpret the situation, then the chain of events you outline is likely how that happened.

But what was going on in the attacker's head? Why did he shout out at all? If this was JtR, this would be the only time he attacked before being somewhere secluded and then to draw attention to himself further immediately before a murder. It doesn't strike me as the behaviour we might expect from JtR given the other murders and sightings. Whether Schwartz was mistaken, lying or completely accurate - I am now doubting that Stride was murdered by JtR.

Hi etenguy,

I agree, if Schwartz's sighting of events, even if not his interpretation of them, is correct, there are some things that seem different from the other attacks. In particular, by all appearances JtR goes with the victim to the crime scene, and then initiates his attack. That would mean he appears to have spent at least some time in their company, negotiating and so forth. What Schwartz describes is B.S. walking down the street, and even if we think she said something to him, either initially or in response to something he says to her first, the assault on her seems almost immediate. That doesn't seem to fit JtR's M.O. very well.

On the other hand, if B.S. is one of the men thought to be seen with Stride earlier, then that would indicate they did spend some amount of time in conversation, and so forth, and for some reason they have parted company and then he turns around and heads back and the confrontation ensues, with Schwartz noticing things after B.S. has turned around and headed back.

So if B.S. is JtR, and I'm not saying he is just considering that possibility, then Stride appears to have rejected him and he went on his way. Which means he would have went on his way in a direction opposite to Mitre Square as well, now that I think of it. Anyway, if that rejection sparked his murderous desire, it may be that his return and out of character attack reflects that. Also, we have no information about how Nichols and JtR came together, and it is only an assumption that the two of them went to Buck's Row together, rather than met in passing in Buck's Row. In that case, he could have just blitz attacked her as they passed each other, similar to Stride (again, I'm not saying that had to happen, but we don't know how they met, so all options are on the table making it hard to rule anything out so we can't know what's right and what's wrong). And, with Eddowes, if the Church Passage Couple is not Eddowes and JtR, we are again left with a completely open set of possibilities of how that initial encounter went.

With Chapman, where at one point Cadoche hears a woman saying "No", and later when he returns to the backyard, he hears a bump on the fence, we again have the possibility of a rejection of some sort (note, he doesn't say she said "no" in any fearful sort of way, and the bump occurs a few minutes later, so it seem unlikely to me the "no" was an exclamation of fear, rather just her saying "no" to something. Maybe a rejection, but of course, she also might have been saying no to something quite innocuous, like "have you slept at all tonight"? type thing - we don't know and the options are endless, so we're unlikely to guess the truth here). But, regardless, Chapman and JtR must have went into the backyard together, and I think that's where we assume that JtR always spent some period of time with his victim before hand. Particularly as that idea would fit with the Kelly case as well, as it would appear he accompanied her back to her room.

What I'm getting at, is that while JtR may have spent a period of time with Chapman and Kelly, we really can't be sure if he did that with Nichols and Eddowes as well (though there are at least some threads to suggest that for Eddowes, but they require concluding that the Church Passage Couple is indeed Eddowes and JtR. While that may be the case, and what minimal evidence we have does point that way, the evidence we have is still too weak to describe that as anything more than possible in my view).

So, if he didn't spend time with Eddowes and Nichols, then Stride becomes less of an oddity. We just don't know enough to make a very confident call on that as far as I can tell. The wound to Eddowes' throat, for example, reads almost like a carbon copy of the wound to Stride's, albeit Eddowes' is a bit deeper, but not by much and well within the amount of variation one would expect from one case to the next. Also, both appear to have had their throats cut after having been put to the ground (there's no great spray of blood on the walls high above Stride, for example). What I don't know, though, is if the throat wounds they both show are very common in knife attacks when the victim is prone. If that's just what they turn out to be like, then the similarities don't mean much. But if throat wounds vary a great deal between different attackers even when the victim is prone, then that similarity would be telling. That's beyond my range of knowledge, so I can't resolve that for myself.

Anyway, as you can see, I have no idea about Stride, and I neither favour her being or not being a victim of JtR. I see differences, but I see similarities too. And the differences are often with what we presume to have happened in the other cases, rather than what we really can be sure of (particularly in reference to Eddowes and Nichols).

Not sure if my waffling is of any help. I would like to think it serves some purpose though.

- Jeff

P.S. Oh, as for what was going on in her attacker's head? Who knows? If B.S. is Stride's killer, then he's obviously angry and confrontational, so seeing Schwartz suddenly appear could just as easily spark a confrontational shout from him. Schwartz was walking behind B.S. after all, so B.S. may have been unaware of Schwartz until he suddenly appeared at the time B.S. was pushing and pulling at Stride.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hey Herlock - how are you? Safe and well I hope.

We don't know why Schwartz wasn't at the inquest -but the inquest was held to determine the cause of Elizabeth Stride's death rather than to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused. Schwartz was not needed for that purpose and while he had information of interest, if he was indisposed or not, the view may have been taken that he wasn't needed. I don't think Schwartz's non attendance at the inquest means that the police doubted the veracity of what he had told them. Though in my exchange with Jeff, I am becoming more questioning of whether Stride was a ripper victim.

Some of the posts on casebook do get heated - I remember WWH. In that case it was a real shame how his time here ended - he had done some great work and made some great posts.

Hi Eten,

Im fine thanks. Had my first COVID jab today. No side-effects so far....unlike my younger brother.

Schwartz could have added almost nothing of value at the Inquest though I do accept that we would have expected him to have been there.

There’s nothing wrong with questioning whether Stride was a victim of the ripper of course. I’ve had doubts myself but it’s difficult to get past two throat cutting prostitute murders within an hour and so close together. And with a perfectly plausible reason for the lack of mutilation too. Nothing’s a certainty though of course. And there’s also nothing wrong with heated debate IMO (it’s down to Mods and Admin to judge when lines are crossed) but it doesn’t help discussion if posters refuse to explain points or respond to opposing viewpoints. No one can expect to get away with a kind of “I said it so it must be true...so stop questioning me about it” attitude which has been a big issue on here. I often moan about PC methods of closing down debate by demonising and name calling but it’s what’s happened here and it’s very noticeable on the Eddowes threads (hardly surprising) If you disagree with someone’s theory (new or old) you get accused of ‘defending the old established theories’ (hence my new signature) As if we are incapable of reading and making an assessment. It’s simply ego IMO. An unwillingness to accept that some people might think that the originator of a theory might just be wrong. Frustrating but what can you do?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your comments.

I, myself, had concluded that the young girl interviewed by the Echo on the morning of 1 October, couldn’t be the young woman mentioned by Mortimer for 2 reasons:
1. the couple mentioned by Mortimer had been standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, meaning that the couple was there between 12:30 and 1 am. Furthermore, it seems Mortimer spoke to her shortly after one o’clock when people were attracted to the commotion caused by the discovery, suggesting that she was even still there shortly after 1 am.

2. in the interview with the Echo this young girl told that she’d passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone and then, from twelve o'clock till half-past, she’d walked up and down with her sweetheart within 20 yards of where the body was found. To me this means that she wasn’t there between 12:30 and the discovery of the body.

So, I'd be interested to know how you've reasoned that the girl mentioned by Mortimer and the 'midnight girl' are one & the same.

It’s, of course, absolutely possible that Brown did see Stride, but why do you think it would have been closer to 12:55 than 12:45?

All the best,
Frank

Hi FrankO, I'll do my best to explain my reasoning for believing the young woman interviewed was Mrs. Mortimer's young woman, and that this young women was nowhere near the Board School at 1am. You mention in your argument (quoted above) Mrs. Mortimer's quote that the young couple were standing at the corner at the time the murder must have been committed, and from this you infer a time line of 12:30 to 1am. While you and I know that's the proper timeline, they did not know that at the time. Particularly Mrs. Mortimer who makes it clear that she was at her door from 12:30 to 1am (whether we believe this is true is irrelevant, as it was the truth as she was telling it at the time) and did not see any couple walking. Therefore, the young woman acquaintance of hers had been walking from around midnight to at or before 12:30. And while and I can agree that no two newspaper reports seem to agree on certain details, one of the two newspapers put the woman and her sweetheart 'not more than 50 yards' from the murder spot, which is significantly longer distance than 20 yards, and indeed has the couple standing at the corner of Berner Street and Commercial Road, just as the young woman stated in her interview. More to the point, as soon as Mrs. Mortimer told these reporters about the young woman and her sweetheart, their next request would have been to make an introduction, which I would propose is how the young woman came to be interviewed in the first.

I've written this in a bit of a rush, so I hope I made sense of it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

Hi etenguy,

I think we should introduce the term mistaken to go along with truths and lies. Truth we'll reserve for saying what one believes and one's belief being accurate. Mistaken is saying what one believes but one's beliefs are inaccurate. Lies are when one says something one believes to be false. So to misrepresent one's beliefs is to lie and is considered being dishonest, but to hold false beliefs is to be mistaken, but honest.

We don't have a copy of his interview, only the reference made to it. There is nothing to indicate the police thought he was lying, though they did suggest he may be mistaken.

With regards to letting the police come to the conclusion he was mistaken, rather than force the issue could be the case. But then we are still left with the fact his original story implicates a Jew, which is directly the opposite of the proposed goal of the conspiracy. Hoping the police will think he is mistaken on that point is a gamble, and a very dangerous one. If the club were trying to deflect attention away from themselves far simpler and to the point to have schwartz simply sày B.S. yelled something in English at him that he did not understand.

Leaving the scene of a confrontation is not uncommon and he could have just said he went looking for the police, couldn't find one, and since he didn't expect murder, just went home. There hadn't been a murder for a while after all, and the others were all north of Whitechapel road. There are simply far easier stories to make up that would be more suitable to the goal of the alleged conspiracy. It is the increase in unnecessary complicatons that suggest he's not lying, and the goal of the police, and now research, to try and determine if he was truthful or mistaken.

It appears, he was mistaken, and that pipeman was not connected to B.S. Hence no 2nd man at other sightings of Stride, etc.

But if it's true, then that could simply mean none of the previous sightings are of B.S. (or pipeman), and yes, I think it would lower the probability of B.S. being JtR as no other potential sightings of victims indicates an accomplice. Also, while there are cases of serial killer teams, that is still very rare and the lone killer far more probable. Her lack of mutations already sets her apart, but can be explained due to the noisy club spooking him (or Deimshutz's arrival), but once there is an accomplice, it becomes more probable she was not mutilated because the motive was probably robbery or something like that, at least that would be my view.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Michael's conspirators must have royally screwed up then, if Schwartz was meant to have described Stride's killer as a lone wolf, non-Jewish abdominal mutilator, who should have had time to rip without interruption between 12.45 and 1am, thanks to Louis having lied about when she was first found dead.

Love,

Caz
X