If Schwartz Lied ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

>>There are enough hints in Arbeter Fraint that it were Kozebrodski who discovered the body ...<<<


"... Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body."
Der Arbeter Fraint" October 5, 1888.

Gosh, that's one hell of a subtle hint!

Why would a publication, specifically set up for the purpose of propaganda for the club, drop "hints" that they murdered a woman?
My question is retorical.

It's also bullshit, because you changed 'discovered' to 'murdered'. Nicely done.

[drstrange169]

>>It's also bullshit, because you changed 'discovered' to 'murdered'. Nicely done.<<

Again,

"... Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body."

Ergo, Der Arbeter Fraint is indisputably stating "Dimshits" was the first ... period.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you outline your theory in the thread, Diemschutz' pony and cart - an obstruction to proceedings?

It being that:

A club member drags Mrs Stride into the street as Diemshitz arrives.
She is given grapes to feed his donkey, as she does so, she is grabbed by several club members, holding her front and back and they stuff a sock in her mouth.
Someone pulls her scarf tight for several minutes till she becomes unconscious.
A cachous packet falls to ground, and is picked up by one of the men.
They lift her onto a blanket and cut her throat precisely along the scarf line.
She is then carried on the blanket inside the gates leaving a trail of blood the men tread in.
The cart is driven inside and Diemshitz runs inside calling for help.
Mrs Mortimer is paid a "fiver" to make up her story.

You are right, the smell of bullshit has been brought in here, but's not on my shoes.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

>>It's also bullshit, because you changed 'discovered' to 'murdered'. Nicely done.<<

Again,

"... Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body."

Ergo, Der Arbeter Fraint is indisputably stating "Dimshits" was the first ... period.

Thanks for the in-depth analysis. What would we do without you?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you outline your theory in the thread, Diemschutz' pony and cart - an obstruction to proceedings?

Those comments were written when I had been studying the case for a matter of weeks, if not days.
Understandably, I was still getting my head around many if not all the issues.
It is very revealing that you have resorted to such barrel-scrapping tactics, to protect your boys at the club.

You are right, the smell of bullshit has been brought in here, but's not on my shoes.

I smell fear, and it's coming from your direction

[drstrange169]

A lot of avoidance and not much information. What is your position now?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What extreme lengths? The steward, pony & cart arrived very shortly after the discovery.
I do not suppose that he arrived at 12:40 or something radical like that. That would be confusing me with Michael Richards.
Do you realize how offensive doing that could be … to Michael?

Then what are you suggesting? If you’re suggesting that either Diemschutz didn’t discover the body or that if he did discover it he discovered it 5 minutes or so before the time that he said that he did then I have to ask why? What was the point of the lie?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Is this phrase 'staring at nothing and nobody', designed to create doubts about Fanny's doorstep vigils?
Is Fanny Mortimer a threat to established beliefs

No but I’d say that she wasn’t the most reliable of witnesses. It’s interesting to see how those seeking to create a mystery cling to one version of what she said while ignoring the other. Or how they believe her to be so reliable that they refuse to even countenance the suggestion that PC Smith might have been correct and that she might have been wrong. A poster might almost be tempted to use the word ‘selective.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

. You know the drill, Caz. The Schwartz incident "might have been over in a few seconds".

Are you saying that this isn’t a fact?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The so-called Schwartz incident cannot just be accepted at face value

So we assess it fairly.

Could he have been mistaken about the time or location of the event? I’d say no, or at least unlikely in the extreme. He gave his statement a very few hours later and so I can’t see how he could have been mistaken in these ways.

Could he have been mistaken about the nature of what he saw? I’d say possibly. It could have been a bit of horseplay where Liz ended up on the floor. Maybe it wasn’t Liz but just 2 drunks? It’s easy to mistake something like this as being ‘angry.’

Could he have lied? Of course he could have lied but we have to ask ‘why would he?’ The whole idea of a cover-up makes no sense in any way which leaves a man placing himself at the scene of a murder for no real reason. A man who would have risked being shown to have been a liar by any number of other witnesses that he’d have been unaware of (like someone looking out of their window for example or someone in the street at that time)

All that we have is Fanny Mortimer who gives differing versions of what she did that night and in one of those versions she would have been back inside her house when Schwartz passed. I see no reason why anyone could doubt that the Schwartz incident would have taken a few seconds so why is it considered by some to be so remarkable that no one saw it? The fact that Abberline felt that he was genuine should add weight to his claim too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Move the times around all you like. 12:40 = Smith or Eagle or Lave. 12:50 = Mortimer. You can run, but you can't hide.

Its a far more honest approach than demanding that we take every appropriate time as a literal truth. By allowing The Gestimate Factor there is no mystery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. to protect your boys at the club

Behold The Marriott Defence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A lot of avoidance and not much information. What is your position now?

His position Dusty, like Michael’s, is to manufacture a mystery/cover-up where none exists by the selective use of and the biased interpretation of evidence and then when posters disagree they label them as being part of The Secret Order Of Ripperologists defending ‘the old established theories.’

By the way Dusty, I’ll see you at Monday’s Lodge Meeting.

[FrankO]

Baxter's apparent exaggeration is a clear sign that he cannot quite make sense of what Diemschitz had claimed.

Then he clearly would not have done his job well and should have asked questions until he could make sense of it.

Yet it says nothing about him moving the cart after having stopped by the body and supposedly attempted to lift it with his whip handle.

Why should it be so important to Stride's inquest that he would have said at what point(s) he stopped before leaving his pony just outside the side door, if he did stop?

No extra movement of the cart necessary, to make sense of this claim.
The problems is that the pony and cart are now in the way, yet we never hear about then again. Something is missing from this story.

Indeed. For your problem to be there, what’s missing is that Diemshutz steered his pony towards the side door. Seeing that we have no reason at all to think that he did that, he could just as well have steered back to its original route after the shying, the one that would have taken the cart past the body without Diemshutz noticing it. Or he could have steered it towards where the waterclosets were - directly opposite the side door - as the yard was wider there.

But even if he did steer it towards the side door, the pony & cart would have been obliquely in the yard, with the cart further away from the right wall than the pony’s head. If the pony’s head would have been a problem for people to get out, it would have been a problem for Diemshutz to get in. If so, I don’t see why Diemshutz shouldn’t have moved the pony in such a way that it wouldn’t be in the way any longer, leaving enough room for people to get out one by one.

So, following the evidence, we get this: Diemshutz entered the yard on his “little cart”, that was "not a very wide cart”, more or less taking “up the centre of the passage”, when his pony shied to the left and so much so that “he wanted to keep too much to the left side against the wall”. Diemshutz then looked to the ground on his right and a bit ahead of him and saw something lying there, poking it with his whip while riding more or less alongside the ‘heap’ and then when he’d passed the ‘heap’ and still hadn’t found out what it was, he halted his pony, got off the cart and went over to the heap to light a match and discover it was the figure of a woman. Then he ran inside, without having to move the pony. End of story.

[FrankO]

What extreme lengths? The steward, pony & cart arrived very shortly after the discovery.

If Kozebrodski was the one who actually discovered the body and he or any of the club members weren't guilty of anything more serious than telling a lie here & there, then replacing Kozebrodski by Diemshutz as the discoverer seems like extreme lengths to me.

Not if there had been a woman standing at her doorstep at #36.

But the thing is that there was no one standing at her doorstep when Diemshutz turned into Berner Street from Commercial Road.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then he clearly would not have done his job well and should have asked questions until he could make sense of it.


Why should it be so important to Stride's inquest that he would have said at what point(s) he stopped before leaving his pony just outside the side door, if he did stop?


Indeed. For your problem to be there, what’s missing is that Diemshutz steered his pony towards the side door. Seeing that we have no reason at all to think that he did that, he could just as well have steered back to its original route after the shying, the one that would have taken the cart past the body without Diemshutz noticing it. Or he could have steered it towards where the waterclosets were - directly opposite the side door - as the yard was wider there.

But even if he did steer it towards the side door, the pony & cart would have been obliquely in the yard, with the cart further away from the right wall than the pony’s head. If the pony’s head would have been a problem for people to get out, it would have been a problem for Diemshutz to get in. If so, I don’t see why Diemshutz shouldn’t have moved the pony in such a way that it wouldn’t be in the way any longer, leaving enough room for people to get out one by one.

So, following the evidence, we get this: Diemshutz entered the yard on his “little cart”, that was "not a very wide cart”, more or less taking “up the centre of the passage”, when his pony shied to the left and so much so that “he wanted to keep too much to the left side against the wall”. Diemshutz then looked to the ground on his right and a bit ahead of him and saw something lying there, poking it with his whip while riding more or less alongside the ‘heap’ and then when he’d passed the ‘heap’ and still hadn’t found out what it was, he halted his pony, got off the cart and went over to the heap to light a match and discover it was the figure of a woman. Then he ran inside, without having to move the pony. End of story.

That really should be end of story Frank but it won’t be of course. At the end of the day, as we all know, the horse and cart were unimportant and so didn’t merit any mention as to its exact location. We know that Diemschutz arrived on it and we know that it wasn’t left near to the body. Another non-mystery.

[caz]

That report neither proves nor disproves anything about Israel Schwartz' account. Schwartz' statement of 12:45 was an estimate. Mortimer's statement of "shortly before a quarter to one o'clock" was also an estimate. It is quite possible that Schwartz' incident occurred at 12:42 and Mortimer came to her doorway at 12:44 after Schwartz and the other people he claims to have seen had moved down the street or ducked into Dutfield's Yard.

The problem is people want to treat the case as a whodunnit. In a whodunnit, times are precise and correct, unless someone is engaging in deliberate deception. In real life, times are usually estimates and sometimes very poor estimates.

And of course, today's armchair detectives can move the characters round the board like they are playing Cluedo, to suit whatever keeps a pet theory alive, and then sleep soundly in their beds at night.

What the police were dealing with in real time from August 1888 could not have been more different, and identifying the killer as soon as possible involved decisions that could literally have been a matter of life and death. They would have been completely familiar with witnesses having to estimate the time of an event to the best of their ability and making honest mistakes. But if anyone's account smacked of deliberate deception concerning the event itself or the time given, this would have been a red flag, indicating that the witness could be concealing knowledge of the crime or protecting some individual or group from suspicion. The police were unlikely to dismiss any such witness lightly, and lose a potentially vital lead. They deserve some credit for working out who required further investigation and who didn't - and also for not fitting up the nearest Jew whose eyes were too close together.

Love,

Caz
X