If Schwartz Lied ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Here we go again.

As Fiver pointed out are you absolutely determined to quote Mortimer selectively to make your point. A point which is redundant.

You've repeatedly accused me of selectively quoting Fanny Mortimer, without ever spelling out what you mean by this.
There are two sets of quotes we can draw from - the 12:30 to 1am quote, and the Evening News interview. I quoted from both. I often quote from either or both. I cannot recall you ever quoting from either. So let's see you make an argument, quoting from either or both. Your choice of course, just as it is your choice to not continue being a hypocrite.

Now if you would like me to 'quote' Fanny Mortimer from the Daily News/Evening News 'important statement' report - which I know is very dear to your heart - then here goes...

Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard the pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

According to you, Fanny had locked up by 12:45 - when Schwartz turned into Berner street. So putting this and your apparently preferred report together, we have the cart passing #36 at about 12:48. Tell me about the irony of that...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why do you have an issue with this? How long do you think that the Schwartz incident took?

Schwartz walked behind BS Man along Berner Street. We don’t know how far behind because he didn’t specify but surely we can agree that it was likely a matter of a few yards.

BS Man stops to talk to Stride - start the clock.

Wrong. The clock starts when Stride reaches the gate.
The issue is why no one saw Stride standing in the gateway, as well as the assault incident and the chase.
Allow me to 'selectively 'quote'' Fanny Mortimer...

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. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door...

Fanny did not see Stride or parcel man, as far as we know. So for Schwartz' story to be true, we need Stride to return to the vicinity in which PC Smith had seen her, several minutes prior, and stand in the gateway. This also has to occur without Fanny noticing, or anyone else. Furthermore, it cannot just be assumed that Stride reached the gateway at about the moment Schwartz enters the street. If she was standing there as Schwartz claimed, it could have been for a few minutes. However, no other witness - from either street or club - reports seeing Stride standing in the gateway. This is quite understandable too - what possible reason would she have for doing so?

So the 'Schwartz incident' is really a misnomer. It should be called the 'street incident', or the 'four person incident'. The clock starts from the point Stride reaches the gates, and if not then, from the point she walks back to them. How long she was as the gates is an issue that cannot just be ignored, and it cannot be assumed that she suddenly materialized at that location, as though she had teleported down from the Liberator.

Schwartz hasn’t stopped walking all of this time remember.

And argument commences and Stride ends up on the floor.

Schwartz crosses over the road and walks on (Pipeman isn’t relevant to how long hhis took.)

We can’t be certain but I’m estimating that from the time that BS Man met Stride to the time Schwartz reaches the crossroads to have been around 20 seconds.

So roughly 20 seconds I’m estimating. Maybe a bit less, maybe a little more. I can’t see why you object to this apart from you trying to make out that Schwartz said that he’d stopped when he did no such thing (but I’m used to that kind of tactic by now)

How long did Stride calling out take? We can’t know but what 2 seconds in total. 1 second for the call of Lipski.

So we have 20 seconds of visuals and a couple of seconds of sound (most of it not very loud) and you try and claim that this MUST have been seen by others had it occurred.

You need to visit Planet Earth and leave the manipulations at home.

And you still need Schwartz to visit the railway arch, with Pipeman in pursuit part of the way. Tell me who witnessed this.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

More blatant dishonesty.

Your providing an answer to a question which wasn’t the one in discussion.

My response was to your statement that Schwartz said that he’d stooped.

He did not. You made that up.

No I did not. You made up me making that up.

If Schwartz kept walking when he reached the gateway, then he would have observed the assault while walking away from it - so over his shoulder or while walking backwards. If that were the case, then tell me why he bothered to cross the road.

The Star: The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street.

The crossing of the street was to avoid the situation.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

At what time did Fanny lock up? Don’t know - wasn’t there.
How long had Stride been standing at the gateway when Schwartz entered Berner street? Don’t know - wasn’t there.
When did the incident occur? Don’t know - wasn’t there.
At what time did the young couple reach the board school corner? Don’t know - wasn’t there.

Lame

Mmm let’s think children. A 30 minute round. 12.35 on his first round. 12.35 + 30 I think you’ll find is 1.05.

You'll find that a 25-30 minute beat, starting from the location at 12:30-12:35, would return to that location somewhere in the range 12:55-1:05.
Okay, so you've chosen the latest possible time from that range, for obvious reasons, but let's go with that time. Lamb arrived a few minutes prior to Smith, and Spooner arrived a few minutes prior to Lamb, so we have Spooner in the yard by 1am. Congratulations, you just helped to undermine one of the Central Dogmas of Ripperology.

And for the 1000th time we can’t hold these timings to the minute. Allow for margin of error. If you won’t do that everything you say is pointless.

That's right - all these dogmatists who will not accept that Diemschitz arrived a few minutes or more before 1am, are really just a pointless bunch of nit-pickers. Allowing for a reasonable margin of error, Diemschitz arrived at about 5 minutes to 1am.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

When you tell us why Schwartz lied?

I could tell you why Schwartz might have lied, and why Mortimer might have lied. Different scenarios though.

And why everyone at the club allegedly lied. And why Smith lied about what time he passed. And why Spooner lied about what time he got to the yard?

Lots of ‘dishonesty’ around. Oh of course, it’s a conspiracy.

Like the poster who said that Israel Schwartz had said that he’d ‘stopped’ just to make a redundant point.

You're allegedly a serious poster. No sign of it here.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In Post #1296, you claimed that Schwartz gave evidence at the Inquest.


It's good to see you now admitting you were in error in Post #1296, though.

Robert Anderson: I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself.

The "evidence of Schwartz at the inquest" is a reference to Schwartz' evidence, not Schwartz himself. It's a subtle difference, and evidently too subtle for some.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I might be mistaken but this seems like another moment? Was Anderson a part of some plot too?

So I suppose that the evidence of Schwartz was part of the inquest - which concurs with Anderson's draft letter - whereas you suppose Schwartz and his evidence were not part of the inquest, which contradicts Anderson. Tell me about the irony of you suggesting that it is me who supposes Anderson was part of some plot...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You are falsely representing my position. In Post #1296, you said "His informer implicated the man pursued. Who was the man pursued?" I clearly answered "Who was the man pursued" in Post #1324.

According to the October 1, 1888 Echo, the man pursued was "man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer"

According to the October 1, 1888 Echo, the man pursued was a Hungarian who was not the killer.

My point is that the club secretary did not implicate Schwartz. At the time the club secretary gave his interview to the Echo, Schwartz' account had not been been published in the Star. The Star account also did not name the Hungarian. You can't deliberately implicate someone when you don't know who they are, let alone that after you give your interview Schwartz would give an account of being pursued.

Yet Wess appeared to know details of the event. Tell me why...

Congratulations on attacking something I never said.

You've been doing that a lot.

It was a statement aimed at no one in particular. You're being a bit over-sensitive.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Again you falsely represent my position.

Your opinion is not proof. You've still shown no indication that prisoner situation at Leman street has anything to do with the credibility of Schwartz' statements or his likelihood as a suspect.


Your opinion is not proof. The Star account does not support your opinion that the prisoner situation at Leman street has anything to do with the credibility of Schwartz' statements or his likelihood as a suspect.

Never mind - I have given up on expecting a serious discussion of the prisoner situation, and related maters such as the apprehensions sought list.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Your opinion is not a fact. You have yet to show that the mud evidence is a devastating blow to orthodox opinion. And you certainly haven't refuted what I said.

Streets get dirty. Dirt turns to mud when it gets wet. Even today, with more frequent and through road cleaning, your clothes will get dirty if you fall on wet pavement. Dutfield's Yard was not a road, let alone a main road, and it was in one of the poorer sections of London, so it was not a priority area for street cleaning.

You are changing Dr Phillips' words, to something that suit you better. The word was not 'dirty'. The words were 'matted' and 'plastered'. Very different.
There was also said to be a slight amount of mud on the right side. How did that get there? Did it splash up when she was "gently laid down"?

Based on the blood evidence, Stride was killed where she was found. The body was not moved.

You still haven't told me about the collision. Can you tell me about the collision?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The accounts very clearly contradict each other.

In one account, Mortimer went to her doorstep around 12:45 and stayed there "for ten minutes". In the other account, Mortimer "was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock"

That's a 15 minute difference in when Mortimer supposedly started observing the street and a 15 to 20 minute difference in how long Mortimer observed the street.

There are multiple versions of Fanny Mortimer's story. These accounts contradict each other on several points - when she went to her door, how long she was at her door, whether she saw anyone leave Dutfield's Yard, what direction the man with the black bag was going. The biggest time contradiction is between two different accounts in the same issue of the same newspaper.

If Fanny had said she were knitting, prior to hearing the policeman's footsteps, then the two accounts would contradict each other. Yet all we know from the 'important statement' report is that Fanny went to the door with the intention of shooting the bolts - so the door wasn't locked and quite possibly open. Tell me what Fanny was doing, prior to hearing the footsteps. If you can't, there is no contradiction - one report simply begins at a later time.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The source of the statement about "hearing Smith go by" is Fanny Mortimer as recorded by a reporter. It should be treated with caution, but not with more caution than the other statements by Fanny Mortimer.

I don't accept the report was recorded by a reporter. I believe the report was based on second hand information, and a bunch of guesswork.

"A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. 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. 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. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard the pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband." - 1 October 1888 Daily News

This report also appeared in the Evening News. Can you tell me why the EN quoted Fanny multiple times in the 'Interview with a Neighbor' report, but not the other? Did the EN take two statements from Fanny? Or if it were just one, why did they bother also publishing the other report? Did the interviewer not ask enough questions?

Mortimer claims to have gone to her door around 12:45am, stayed there till about 12:55am, and heard Diemshutz' pony cart around 12:59am.

The report claims that. Do you really suppose Fanny said anything to the effect of hearing the cart 4 minutes later?

PC Smith claims to have passed by at 12:35.

There's your cue, Herlock...

[Herlock Sholmes]

You've repeatedly accused me of selectively quoting Fanny Mortimer, without ever spelling out what you mean by this.
There are two sets of quotes we can draw from - the 12:30 to 1am quote, and the Evening News interview. I quoted from both. I often quote from either or both. I cannot recall you ever quoting from either. So let's see you make an argument, quoting from either or both. Your choice of course, just as it is your choice to not continue being a hypocrite.

Now if you would like me to 'quote' Fanny Mortimer from the Daily News/Evening News 'important statement' report - which I know is very dear to your heart - then here goes...

Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard the pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

According to you, Fanny had locked up by 12:45 - when Schwartz turned into Berner street. So putting this and your apparently preferred report together, we have the cart passing #36 at about 12:48. Tell me about the irony of that...

The Press knew that Diemschutz had said that he’d returned to the yard at 1.00. Don’t you find it strange that Mortimer would say something like ‘about 4 minutes later?’ Who guesses at 4 minutes? I’d say that the 4 minutes was a calculation made by the Press. And so for them - Fanny goes on to her doorstep just after Smith passed (at 12.45 according to her) so they took that to mean 12.46. Ten minutes on the doorstep takes her to 12.56. And to the 1.00 time of Diemschutz arrival is …… 4 minutes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Wrong. The clock starts when Stride reaches the gate.
The issue is why no one saw Stride standing in the gateway, as well as the assault incident and the chase.
Allow me to 'selectively 'quote'' Fanny Mortimer...

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. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door...

Fanny did not see Stride or parcel man, as far as we know. So for Schwartz' story to be true, we need Stride to return to the vicinity in which PC Smith had seen her, several minutes prior, and stand in the gateway. This also has to occur without Fanny noticing, or anyone else. Furthermore, it cannot just be assumed that Stride reached the gateway at about the moment Schwartz enters the street. If she was standing there as Schwartz claimed, it could have been for a few minutes. However, no other witness - from either street or club - reports seeing Stride standing in the gateway. This is quite understandable too - what possible reason would she have for doing so?

So the 'Schwartz incident' is really a misnomer. It should be called the 'street incident', or the 'four person incident'. The clock starts from the point Stride reaches the gates, and if not then, from the point she walks back to them. How long she was as the gates is an issue that cannot just be ignored, and it cannot be assumed that she suddenly materialized at that location, as though she had teleported down from the Liberator.

So we have Stride with Parcel man standing across the road from the yard at 12.30-12.35 when Smith sees them as he passes. Fanny is still indoors. As Smith passes the 2 stroll the few yards around the corner into Fairclough Street chatting away. Fanny comes onto her doorstep for 10 minutes and goes back inside a minute or two before 12.45. As she goes inside Stride returns alone and goes over to the gates of Dutfield’s Yard. Perhaps she arranged to meet someone at 12.45? She’s been standing there for a minute or so when BS Man comes walking along Berner Street drunk with Schwartz walking a few yards behind him. The incident takes a few seconds. Mortimer was inside as were her neighbours and so no one sees anything. This is at 12.45 am after all and it’s Berner Street and not The Strand. No one hears anything because Stride ‘screams’ not very loudly. ‘Lipski’ is one word and easily missable and as we have no sound recording we have no way of knowing how loud it was shouted. Schwartz was only standing feet away after all.

Unless it can be proved that these events are impossible then we have a possible explanation and that’s all that’s needed to dismiss conspiracy. So…

• The couple move on after Smith passes which, according to him, could have been just after 12.30. We have no way of applying an exact time.
• Fanny Mortimer comes onto her doorstep just after the 2 have taken the very short walk into Fairclough Street.
• Fanny stands there for 10 minutes until, say, 12.43. During which time Goldstein passed by.
• Just after Fanny went back indoors Stride re-enters Berner Street and goes over to the gate (possibly to meet someone)
• BS Man walked toward her with Schwartz walking a few yards behind.
• The actual incident lasts for 15/20 seconds.
• The noises that Stride made were ‘not very loud’ and the shout of ‘Lipski’ was aimed at a man standing a very few feet away. No one had any reason for paying attention to noises in the street at 12.45 so no one noticed or heard it.

No mystery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. And you still need Schwartz to visit the railway arch, with Pipeman in pursuit part of the way. Tell me who witnessed this.

Someone mentions the direction of the railway arches. It’s an irrelevant error.