If Schwartz Lied ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Again there’s just no mystery here. PC Smith:

“I was last in Berner-street about half-past 12 or 12.35.”

Fanny said 12.45.

So if Smith was correct and, for example, passed at 12.33 we would have Fanny coming onto her doorstep at 12.34 where she remained for around 10 minutes then she would have been back inside before Schwartz passed at 12.45. Why is this very simple, very plausible explanation anathema to some? It’s a constant and wilful ignoring of anything that might be termed a prosaic explanation in favour of anything that might imply lies or conspiracies and I don’t get it. Why would you want to create a mystery when there’s mystery enough already in this case.

So if Fanny were at her doorstep as of 12:34, and back inside before Schwartz arrives on the scene at 12:45, at what time do you suppose the Goldstein sighting occurred? About 12:40?

If Stride is at the gateway by the time Schwartz enters Berner street at 12:45, at what time do you suppose she were first there? About 12:43? Perhaps even 12:42?

So that would mean Fanny locking up no later than 12:42, for a total of about 8 minutes on her doorstep. So a quite a bit less than nearly all of the half hour before 1am.

So in summary you have Smith passing at 12:33 with Stride and companion on the street, Fanny on doorstep at 12:34 with Stride and companion out of sight, Goldstein walking down Berner street at 12:40, Fanny locking up by 12:42, Stride at the gates by 12:43, and Schwartz and the BS man on Berner street at 12:45. Then Diemschitz arriving 15 minutes later.

Okay, so what time do you suppose the murder occurred? Wess said Goldstein was passing at about the time of the murder, so I guess the murderer was BS man.

So one more question; was BS man Jack the Ripper?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So if Fanny were at her doorstep as of 12:34, and back inside before Schwartz arrives on the scene at 12:45, at what time do you suppose the Goldstein sighting occurred? About 12:40?

If Stride is at the gateway by the time Schwartz enters Berner street at 12:45, at what time do you suppose she were first there? About 12:43? Perhaps even 12:42?

So that would mean Fanny locking up no later than 12:42, for a total of about 8 minutes on her doorstep. So a quite a bit less than nearly all of the half hour before 1am.

So in summary you have Smith passing at 12:33 with Stride and companion on the street, Fanny on doorstep at 12:34 with Stride and companion out of sight, Goldstein walking down Berner street at 12:40, Fanny locking up by 12:42, Stride at the gates by 12:43, and Schwartz and the BS man on Berner street at 12:45. Then Diemschitz arriving 15 minutes later.

Okay, so what time do you suppose the murder occurred? Wess said Goldstein was passing at about the time of the murder, so I guess the murderer was BS man.

So one more question; was BS man Jack the Ripper?

We don’t know what time Goldstein passed because he didn’t give a time. Any attempt to recreate precisely what happened is futile. So eliminate conspiracy and we can say Schwartz passed at whatever time that he did and Fanny Mortimer must have been inside because she didn’t see him. And as Fanny had gone back inside by the time Schwartz passed Goldstein obviously passed before she went inside. If Stride and companion were in the street opposite the yard when Smith passed but gone when Fanny came out then either they both left the street with Stride returning alone when Fanny had gone back inside (just before Schwartz arrived) Fanny also must have come onto her doorstep after Eagle had returned to the club which he said was at 12.35 (so either Fanny was on her door for less time than she’d thought or perhaps Eagle returned a little earlier than he’d thought.

Its never going to work exactly because naturally there were errors (as opposed to misdirection) The reason behind any plot makes no sense at all so can be dismissed without a second thought (especially when you consider what a useless, pointless plan it would have been) and so no one had any reason to lie. Once you clear away the conspiracy bilge we are left with what is left to us. Diemschutz discovered the body when he said that he did. There can be no doubt about that (no matter how much quibbling about the word ‘precisely’ is done) Eagle was called to the body by Gilleman at around 1.00. He probably returned with Lamb around 1.06ish, Spooner got there 5 minutes or so before (more likely less than 5) The Doctors arrived when they said that they did. Hoschberg and Kozebrodski were mistaken in their timing (as was Spooner when he guessed at 12.35)

If BS Man was the killer then I’d probably veer toward him not being the ripper but only because I find it hard to imagine the ripper drawing to attention to himself like he did with Schwartz and then going on to kill on the same spot.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Perhaps Lamb blew his whistle when Eagle found him in Commercial Road. Then again when he got to the yard. The first was the one Harris heard, the second was the one Hoschberg heard?

You're jumping around. First you assumed it was another PC, then Lamb multiple times consecutively, and now Lamb once on Commercial Rd, and then a few more times when in the yard. Having said that, at least you're having a go. Some Ripperologists seem to have placed the whistle and related evidence in the too hard basket.

There are multiple issues with Lamb blowing once on Comm. Rd. Firstly, Lamb tells us how he came to be at the yard, and when he blew his whistle ...

I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting. I went to meet them, and they called out, "Come on, there has been another murder." I asked where, and as they got to the corner of Berner-street they pointed down and said, "There." I saw people moving some distance down the street. I ran, followed by another constable - 426 H.

I felt the wrist, but could not discern any movement of the pulse. I then blew my whistle for assistance.

So it were only when Lamb could see that the situation were serious, that he blew for assistance. He did not blow his whistle based on hearsay.
I would hazard a guess that a constable blowing his whistle based on hearsay, and away from a possible crime scene, would be a breach of procedure.

The other issue is; what was the result if Lamb is assumed to have blown his whistle on Comm. Rd? Which constable to the north came to his assistance?
Was it Collins? Yet if it were, who was the PC seen by James Brown...?

When I heard screams I opened my window, but could not see anybody. The cries were of moving people going in the direction of Grove-street. Shortly afterwards I saw a policeman standing at the corner of Christian-street, and a man called him to Berner-street.

So I don't think your third attempt works.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We don’t know what time Goldstein passed because he didn’t give a time. Any attempt to recreate precisely what happened is futile. So eliminate conspiracy and we can say Schwartz passed at whatever time that he did and Fanny Mortimer must have been inside because she didn’t see him.

In Swanson's October 19 report, he begins his reference to Leon Goldstein with; about 1 a.m. 30th
So conceivably Goldstein did give a time. About 1am is very different to the timeframe you have him in, and this remains so when conspiracy is eliminated.
However, it may have been the case that Goldstein gave that time, to align his movements with what Mortimer had told the press ...

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half past twelve and one o'clock this morning, and I did not notice anything unusual.

Obviously this would have been to avoid any suspicion that might have resulted from him giving a different time to Fanny.
Yet I don't mean to imply that in taking the path of least resistance, Goldstein should be looked on with suspicion.
Leman street station accepted his story, and therefore we know he did not do anything naughty.
The only nagging issue I have with Goldstein is; if he was wanting to stay compatible with what Fanny said, and Fanny had suggested nearly all of 12:30-1:00, why did Goldstein choose a time close to the end of that period? Why didn't he choose a time somewhere in the middle - say 12:45? It's got me beat!

I understand your point about the timing of the Schwartz incident. If we deal with any tricky questions by labelling them all 'conspiracy thinking', then we can simply say that the incident happened when it did, and Fanny must have been inside at the time. Well if nothing else, that does make things at a lot easier, and besides, resistance is futile!

And as Fanny had gone back inside by the time Schwartz passed Goldstein obviously passed before she went inside.

As far as I know, you are the only person who swaps Schwartz and Goldstein around - everyone else supposes that Goldstein appears on the scene, after Schwartz. Not that there's anything wrong with that. On the contrary, it shows a willingness to step outside traditional thinking.

If Stride and companion were in the street opposite the yard when Smith passed but gone when Fanny came out then either they both left the street with Stride returning alone when Fanny had gone back inside (just before Schwartz arrived) Fanny also must have come onto her doorstep after Eagle had returned to the club which he said was at 12.35 (so either Fanny was on her door for less time than she’d thought or perhaps Eagle returned a little earlier than he’d thought.

Your model only has one minute elapsing from the time Smith passes, to Fanny going outside. That means Stride and man must have walked off the moment Smith had gone by. Yet Smith only sees the pair when walking back up Berner street. I wonder why they stopped where they did, so briefly? I guess you could have them lingering there for a bit, and reduce Fanny's doorstep time to 5 or 6 minutes.

So a bit of an update on Eagle's time, I see ...

Yes he’s estimating but he’s doing this by taking the time that he arrived back at the club (12.45) and adding the approximate period of time before Gilleman informed him that there was a body in the yard. Around 1.00.

By the way, what do you suppose Stride was actually doing at the gateway, apparently alone? She wasn't waiting for a cab, and in all previous sightings that night, she had been with someone else. Now she is alone. Why?

Its never going to work exactly because naturally there were errors (as opposed to misdirection) The reason behind any plot makes no sense at all so can be dismissed without a second thought (especially when you consider what a useless, pointless plan it would have been) and so no one had any reason to lie.

It's seems quite simple to me too. There was no plot, as no one had any reason to lie, and we know no one had any reason to lie, because there was no plot!

Once you clear away the conspiracy bilge we are left with what is left to us. Diemschutz discovered the body when he said that he did.

This also seems obvious to me. We know Diemschitz discovered the body when he said he did, because to suggest otherwise implies a conspiracy, and as conspiracy can be ruled out on principle, all we are left with is the simple, irrefutable truth; Diemschitz discovered the body at 1.00, and whatever seconds.

There can be no doubt about that (no matter how much quibbling about the word ‘precisely’ is done) Eagle was called to the body by Gilleman at around 1.00. He probably returned with Lamb around 1.06ish, Spooner got there 5 minutes or so before (more likely less than 5) The Doctors arrived when they said that they did. Hoschberg and Kozebrodski were mistaken in their timing (as was Spooner when he guessed at 12.35)

Why would the fixed point officer still be at his post at 1:05? Was he dealing with an issue that he let fall off the table?

So Spooner arrived around 1:01-03? I guess the newspaper reports about the long delay in finding police, were all false then, as was Arbeter Fraint's claim of a 10 minute search time. Yet I don't see why anyone from the club would say this if it weren't more or less true. It's not like they deliberately padded the search out to beyond 1am, so that the fixed duty officer couldn't say anything that contradicted the claim of a 1am discovery time.

If BS Man was the killer then I’d probably veer toward him not being the ripper but only because I find it hard to imagine the ripper drawing to attention to himself like he did with Schwartz and then going on to kill on the same spot.

If BS Man is not the Ripper, then I guess all the argument over interruption, is redundant.
Perhaps more importantly, we might have to wonder why Spooner saw blood still flowing from the throat, at a few minutes past 1, if the murder occurred just after a quarter to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're jumping around. First you assumed it was another PC, then Lamb multiple times consecutively, and now Lamb once on Commercial Rd, and then a few more times when in the yard. Having said that, at least you're having a go. Some Ripperologists seem to have placed the whistle and related evidence in the too hard basket.

There are multiple issues with Lamb blowing once on Comm. Rd. Firstly, Lamb tells us how he came to be at the yard, and when he blew his whistle ...

I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting. I went to meet them, and they called out, "Come on, there has been another murder." I asked where, and as they got to the corner of Berner-street they pointed down and said, "There." I saw people moving some distance down the street. I ran, followed by another constable - 426 H.

I felt the wrist, but could not discern any movement of the pulse. I then blew my whistle for assistance.

So it were only when Lamb could see that the situation were serious, that he blew for assistance. He did not blow his whistle based on hearsay.
I would hazard a guess that a constable blowing his whistle based on hearsay, and away from a possible crime scene, would be a breach of procedure.

The other issue is; what was the result if Lamb is assumed to have blown his whistle on Comm. Rd? Which constable to the north came to his assistance?
Was it Collins? Yet if it were, who was the PC seen by James Brown...?

When I heard screams I opened my window, but could not see anybody. The cries were of moving people going in the direction of Grove-street. Shortly afterwards I saw a policeman standing at the corner of Christian-street, and a man called him to Berner-street.

So I don't think your third attempt works.

A reasonable explanation exists but we have no way of ever discovering it. You’ve pointed out that Ayliffe’s fixed point duty ended at 1.00 so what if he’d set off by the time that Eagle found Lamb and Lamb blew his whistle to call Ayliffe back so that he could assist him?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
In Swanson's October 19 report, he begins his reference to Leon Goldstein with; about 1 a.m. 30th
So conceivably Goldstein did give a time. About 1am is very different to the timeframe you have him in, and this remains so when conspiracy is eliminated.
However, it may have been the case that Goldstein gave that time, to align his movements with what Mortimer had told the press ...

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half past twelve and one o'clock this morning, and I did not notice anything unusual.

Obviously this would have been to avoid any suspicion that might have resulted from him giving a different time to Fanny.
Yet I don't mean to imply that in taking the path of least resistance, Goldstein should be looked on with suspicion.
Leman street station accepted his story, and therefore we know he did not do anything naughty.
The only nagging issue I have with Goldstein is; if he was wanting to stay compatible with what Fanny said, and Fanny had suggested nearly all of 12:30-1:00, why did Goldstein choose a time close to the end of that period? Why didn't he choose a time somewhere in the middle - say 12:45? It's got me beat!

I understand your point about the timing of the Schwartz incident. If we deal with any tricky questions by labelling them all 'conspiracy thinking', then we can simply say that the incident happened when it did, and Fanny must have been inside at the time. Well if nothing else, that does make things at a lot easier, and besides, resistance is futile!

His ‘about 1 am’ is pretty useless to anyone as far as establishing anything with any confidence.

There is a problem with Fanny Mortimer and it’s her EN interview. It appears that some (and I’m not pointing a finger at you here) are quite happy to point out the difference in what Schwartz told the Police and what he told The Star and yet they are quite happy to keep quoting Fanny saying that she was on her doorstep “nearly the whole time between half past twelve and one o’ clock..” whilst ignoring what she said to the EN which was that she was on her doorstep for around 10 minutes of that 30. So, to steal one of Trevor’s mantra’s I’d say that her evidence is ‘unsafe.’

On dealing with the ‘tricky questions’ by labelling them as ‘conspiracy thinking.’ I’ll admit of course that this comment was a reaction. I think that if we encounter a discrepancy our initial default position should be that there must be a reasonable, non-sinister explanation. It doesn’t mean that discrepancies can’t mean that someone is lying though. Of course it can mean that but we shouldn’t assume it. The scene in Berner Street is fertile ground for a charge of conspiracy because so many people were involved but we have to remember, and Michael doesn’t appear to wish to accept this, that most people didn’t own watches or clocks and so when you also throw in the stress and excitement of the situation and get people thinking back to what they did and when mistakes are pretty much a certainty (I’m telling you something that you already know of course)

So for a start I don’t accept the proposed reason for the cover-up. That these men’s first thought, in that moment of high stress, was that the Police might close down the club doesn’t wash. If they were that desperate why not wrap the corpse in a tarp and dump it elsewhere? It’s a complete non-starter; not even worth considering for a second IMO. Therefore Diemschutz had no reason to lie. And none of the other witnesses had and reason to lie (except perhaps for their 5 minutes of fame - which might to some extent apply to Fanny?) I genuinely see no mystery. Discrepancies yes, but no mystery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. By the way, what do you suppose Stride was actually doing at the gateway, apparently alone? She wasn't waiting for a cab, and in all previous sightings that night, she had been with someone else. Now she is alone. Why?

Its possible that she might have arranged to meet someone there. Maybe BS man? This might explain why she didn’t scream loudly when they were struggling and she ended up on the ground?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. It's seems quite simple to me too. There was no plot, as no one had any reason to lie, and we know no one had any reason to lie, because there was no plot!

My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek

Still it’s basically true. I see no plot. Nothing even anything remotely approaching the suspicion of a plot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Why would the fixed point officer still be at his post at 1:05? Was he dealing with an issue that he let fall off the table?

So Spooner arrived around 1:01-03? I guess the newspaper reports about the long delay in finding police, were all false then, as was Arbeter Fraint's claim of a 10 minute search time. Yet I don't see why anyone from the club would say this if it weren't more or less true. It's not like they deliberately padded the search out to beyond 1am, so that the fixed duty officer couldn't say anything that contradicted the claim of a 1am discovery time

We’ve already mentioned the possibility that Eagle might have first turned left into Commercial Road adding time to the search.

He could have been approached by a member of the public at 1.00 and stood talking to him or, as I mentioned earlier, perhaps he’d begun his journey back but Lamb blew his whistle to call him back?

It’s the old saying “a watched pot never boils.” When you’re waiting for something it can appear to be a greater length of time than it actually is, so perhaps the delay just appeared longer to those awaiting the arrival of the police?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If BS Man is not the Ripper, then I guess all the argument over interruption, is redundant.
Perhaps more importantly, we might have to wonder why Spooner saw blood still flowing from the throat, at a few minutes past 1, if the murder occurred just after a quarter to.

Ive always said that there’s at least doubt. This is why I’ve never understood the accusation that I’m defending some kind of cause. It’s possible that the killer wasn’t the ripper. It’s equally possible that he was the ripper though and interruption is….possible

[NotBlamedForNothing]

A reasonable explanation exists but we have no way of ever discovering it.

So we have an anomaly

You’ve pointed out that Ayliffe’s fixed point duty ended at 1.00 so what if he’d set off by the time that Eagle found Lamb and Lamb blew his whistle to call Ayliffe back so that he could assist him?

In the Times, Lamb is quoted as saying ...

About 1 o'clock, as near as I can tell ...

and ...

... I ran down that street followed by Constable 426 H.

If Lamb could tell it was about 1 o'clock, because 426H had just left his station and maybe had to do a U-turn to follow him down Berner street, then it would seem the time must have been pretty close to 1:00. That would explain why Ayliffe was free to leave his station.
Significantly prior to 1:00, and Ayliffe's only option would have been to head back to the station for assistance. Significantly later, and he would be back at the station having a cup of tea. So the timing in a sense, was perfect, and I'm sure Lamb appreciated the company!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

His ‘about 1 am’ is pretty useless to anyone as far as establishing anything with any confidence.

Goldstein visited the station with Wess to clear himself of any suspicion. So I'd say anything either of those men said in relation to that visit, could not be used with any confidence.

There is a problem with Fanny Mortimer and it’s her EN interview. It appears that some (and I’m not pointing a finger at you here) are quite happy to point out the difference in what Schwartz told the Police and what he told The Star and yet they are quite happy to keep quoting Fanny saying that she was on her doorstep “nearly the whole time between half past twelve and one o’ clock..” whilst ignoring what she said to the EN which was that she was on her doorstep for around 10 minutes of that 30. So, to steal one of Trevor’s mantra’s I’d say that her evidence is ‘unsafe.’

The DN/EN report was not an interview. It beings ...

A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement.

Who to - a journalist or a policeman?
Both papers quoted Charles Letchford. How important was his 'statement'? Yet Fanny Mortimer was not quoted.
As I've argues a few times previously, the statement of Mortimer's referred to in the DN/EN reports, was a police statement.
That is why it was deemed important by those papers, yet not quoted from. Those papers have the details of that statement - or at least those the police gave them - but they do not have the a copy of the statement itself.
Consider this bit...

It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat.

They mean ...

It appears, from the information we have of this statement, that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat.

Now consider this bit ...

Thus, presuming that the body did not lay in the yard when the policeman passed-and it could hardly, it is thought, have escaped his notice-and presuming also that the assassin and his victim did not enter the yard while the woman stood at the door, it follows that they must have entered it within a minute or two before the arrival of the pony trap.

When the policeman passed the yard, Stride was upright and breathing. They don't know that, because Smith's inquest testimony is in their future.
Also, their conclusion is obviously just an educated guess. It's Ripperology, 1888 style.

So the question becomes, what parts of that report are due to Fanny's statement, and what parts are due to their own theorising?
As to your question about time on doorstep, what does this part suggest with certainty...?

... shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so.

Did Fanny tell the police she were only on her doorstep for 10 minutes, and in a single stretch, or did she tell them similar to what she told the press, and the DN/EN report just picks up midway through the roughly half hour? In other words, what was she doing before she heard the measured, heavy tramp? Perhaps the fact that the front door wasn't bolted, gives us a clue?

On dealing with the ‘tricky questions’ by labelling them as ‘conspiracy thinking.’ I’ll admit of course that this comment was a reaction. I think that if we encounter a discrepancy our initial default position should be that there must be a reasonable, non-sinister explanation. It doesn’t mean that discrepancies can’t mean that someone is lying though. Of course it can mean that but we shouldn’t assume it. The scene in Berner Street is fertile ground for a charge of conspiracy because so many people were involved but we have to remember, and Michael doesn’t appear to wish to accept this, that most people didn’t own watches or clocks and so when you also throw in the stress and excitement of the situation and get people thinking back to what they did and when mistakes are pretty much a certainty (I’m telling you something that you already know of course)

That default is fine, but at some point we hopefully get to the sinister bit. Try this ...

Baxter: How many people were there in the yard?
Lamb: I should think 20 or 30. Some of that number had followed me in.

Lamb: I should say there were from 15 to 20 persons in the club-room on the ground floor.

So how many in total?

Reid: As soon as the search was over the whole of the persons who had come into the yard and the members of the club were interrogated, their names and addresses taken, their pockets searched, and their clothes and hands examined. There were 28 of them.

Is there a non-sinister explanation for the apparent anomaly?

Reid: The door of the loft was found locked on the inside, and it was forced. The loft was searched, but no trace of the murderer could be found.

Still nothing sinister?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I can explain this, because it's in plain English.

He heard one policeman, blowing his whistle more than once.

The policeman's [singular - the plural would have been policemen's] whistles [one physical whistle, being blown at least twice].

You're welcome.

Thanks Caz. Can you help me decipher another one...?

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."

[Herlock Sholmes]

. That default is fine, but at some point we hopefully get to the sinister bit. Try this ...

Baxter: How many people were there in the yard?
Lamb: I should think 20 or 30. Some of that number had followed me in.

Lamb: I should say there were from 15 to 20 persons in the club-room on the ground floor.

So how many in total?

Reid: As soon as the search was over the whole of the persons who had come into the yard and the members of the club were interrogated, their names and addresses taken, their pockets searched, and their clothes and hands examined. There were 28 of them.

Is there a non-sinister explanation for the apparent anomaly?

Reid: The door of the loft was found locked on the inside, and it was forced. The loft was searched, but no trace of the murderer could be found.

Still nothing sinister?

I see nothing sinister in the slightest. Vague yes, but why sinister?

In general Lamb appears to be saying that there were 20 -30 people in the yard. Some of whom were from the club (the ‘from 15-20 people’) the rest “had followed me in.”

Reid gave a more exact number because he’d counted the number of statements taken…28 (Lamb’s estimation was 20-30)

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
The DN/EN report was not an interview. It beings ...

A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement.

Who to - a journalist or a policeman?
Both papers quoted Charles Letchford. How important was his 'statement'? Yet Fanny Mortimer was not quoted.
As I've argues a few times previously, the statement of Mortimer's referred to in the DN/EN reports, was a policestatement.
That is why it was deemed important by those papers, yet not quoted from. Those papers have the details of that statement - or at least those the police gave them - but they do not have the a copy of the statement itself.
Consider this bit...

It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat.

They mean ...

It appears, from the information we have of this statement, that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat.

Now consider this bit ...

Thus, presuming that the body did not lay in the yard when the policeman passed-and it could hardly, it is thought, have escaped his notice-and presuming also that the assassin and his victim did not enter the yard while the woman stood at the door, it follows that they must have entered it within a minute or two before the arrival of the pony trap.

When the policeman passed the yard, Stride was upright and breathing. They don't know that, because Smith's inquest testimony is in their future.
Also, their conclusion is obviously just an educated guess. It's Ripperology, 1888 style.

So the question becomes, what parts of that report are due to Fanny's statement, and what parts are due to their own theorising?
As to your question about time on doorstep, what does this part suggest with certainty...?

... shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so.

Did Fanny tell the police she were only on her doorstep for 10 minutes, and in a single stretch, or did she tell them similar to what she told the press, and the DN/EN report just picks up midway through the roughly half hour? In other words, what was she doing before she heard the measured, heavy tramp? Perhaps the fact that the front door wasn't bolted, gives us a clue?

Surely we can only assume that before she went onto her doorstep she was inside her house? She said shortly before 12.45 she heard Smith. Smith said that it was between 12.30 and 12.35.

If she was right and Smith passed at just before 12.45 then we can ask why he didn’t see people in the yard as per Michael’s earlier discovery time?

If Smith was right then it’s reasonable to suggest that Fanny was back inside when Schwartz passed.

Again, I really can’t see anything suspicious about any of this.