If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Wriggling like a worm on a hook.

You said that Schwartz stopped. He never mentions stopping. He does infer, insinuate or suggest that he stopped. His actions don’t even remotely imply that he stopped. He watched these events as he walked past.

Schwartz hardly comes across as Charles Bronson in Death Wish does he? Can we imagine him standing a few feet away watching this incident. The man who scarpered?

Schwartz did not stop…..you said that he did.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. 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.

Spooner arrived at approx 1.03
Lamb at approx 1.06
Smith at approx 1.07

or Spooner arrived at approx 2 minutes 30 seconds past 1.
Lamb arrived at approx 1.05
Smith arrived at approx 1.06

Approx.

No issues. No mystery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. 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.

This nonsense is very easily refuted of course.

When I (and others) talk about applying a reasonable margin for error we do so when we apply it to witnesses who didn’t own watches or clocks, or witnesses of whom we have no way of knowing if they owned watches or clocks, or witnesses who had no reason for logging the time accurately and who may have just been estimating a duration of time since they last saw a clock. It’s a proposition that I’d suggest only you and Michael have an issue with. The only 2 posters that I can recall who also had an issue with the suggestion that most working class people didn’t own watches or clocks were Fishy1118 and The Baron so make of that what you will.

Secondly, you (and Michael) aren’t suggesting an error in estimation with Diemschutz. You are suggesting that he lied. So I’m not ignoring a reasonable margin for error with Diemschutz because he saw a clock and knew how long it would have taken him to get from the clock to the yard, I’m ignoring the baseless claim that he lied because there’s no evidence for it. And the only way that any doubt can be cast onto Diemschutz (surprise, surprise) is by completely ignoring very reasonable margins for error with witness timings.

Again, simple stuff. No mystery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

But equally baseless.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Absolute textbook conspiracy theorist thinking. Claiming to know what Anderson was thinking. 2+2=37

[Herlock Sholmes]

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...

Anderson made an error. Simple and very obvious. No mystery of course.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

LOL. I was the one that told you that! What did I say in the immediately prior post...?

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

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.

The person who wrote that rather odd report, was attempting to work out when the murderer and victim could have entered the yard unnoticed, and the murderer exited unnoticed. I think Diemschitz wanted to do the same, and after speaking to his neighbor, became adamant that he had arrived at exactly 1am - not the about 1am of his initial press statement. This made 'the gap' more like a probability, than just a possibility. The reporter walked right into the gap...

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.

Thus, in spite of a lack of physical evidence for interruption, the notion was nonetheless put forward as the obvious explanation...

If this be a correct surmise, it is easy to understand that the criminal may have been interrupted at his work.

So the next time you think about Diemschitz' claim to have made it into Berner street at exactly 1am, perhaps consider what his motivation might have been for 'sharpening up' his estimate...

The man who drove the cart says he thinks it quite possible that after he had entered the yard the assassin may have fled out of it, having lurked in the gloom until a favourable moment arrived.

Louis Diemschitz effectively invented a significant chunk of Ripperology. To suppose that that chunk is every going to be rejected, would be like supposing that geologists might one day stop studying certain kinds of rocks.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Do you not think parcel man might have been rather conspicuous at this point? Reid's search of the neighborhood does not support this notion.

Fanny comes onto her doorstep for 10 minutes and goes back inside a minute or two before 12.45.

You've said this many times, and I do not recall it once being challenged by anyone other than myself.

FM: I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out...

Who else supports Michael's contention that Fanny locked up 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?

Godot? Why on earth would she be meeting someone at the entrance to Dutfield's Yard, 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.

So at least as early as 12:35, Stride had been standing around the corner on Fairclough street, and then stands for a minute or two at the gates. In that 10 to 15 minute period, she is not observed by even one person. Okay.

Now if you cut things very fine, Mortimer must therefore lockup at about 12:43. In other words, she didn't hear Smith's footsteps at shortly before a quarter to one, she locked up then! Who actually believes this?

If this were true, at what time did Fanny see Goldstein, and why does Swanson's report suggest that Goldstein was seen about 1am? Did Goldstein and Wess simply follow the path of least resistance? Also, if Goldstein had been on his way to 22 Christian street at this point, he would have passed Stride when he turned the corner into Fairclough street. Was this mentioned to the police?

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.

Oxymoron

‘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.

Let me guess - not very loud?

Schwartz was only standing feet away after all.

Then how could he not know who it was directed at?

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.

This is what Anti-Conspiracism is all about - making up any garbage and then stating that if it cannot be proved to be false, it is justified on the grounds that it contradicts some strawman conspiracy theory. Anti-Conspiracism is an excuse for lowering intellectual standards, while pretending to do the opposite.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

Someone did mention it - The Actor Formerly Known as Israel Schwartz. TAFKaIS told Abberline he ran to one of the railway arches. It is not an irrelevant error, and your attempt to suggest otherwise amounts to a blatant attempt to alter witness evidence.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Wriggling like a worm on a hook.

It is actually you who are on the hook, and that is why you did not even attempt to answer my question.

You said that Schwartz stopped. He never mentions stopping. He does infer, insinuate or suggest that he stopped. His actions don’t even remotely imply that he stopped. He watched these events as he walked past.

Swanson summarized the event. Stopping at the gates is inferred.

Schwartz hardly comes across as Charles Bronson in Death Wish does he? Can we imagine him standing a few feet away watching this incident. The man who scarpered?

He scarpered from a man lighting a pipe, not the man he supposedly watched assault Stride, at close range. Yes, it is a bullshit story.

Schwartz did not stop…..you said that he did.

Which is correct. He gets as far as the gates, then the assault occurs, and then he crosses the street. It can be inferred that he was attempting to avoid getting involved in the situation. This is exactly what we see in the Star account...

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Spooner arrived at approx 1.03
Lamb at approx 1.06
Smith at approx 1.07

Yesterday it was 1:05. I've got you jumping around again.

or Spooner arrived at approx 2 minutes 30 seconds past 1.
Lamb arrived at approx 1.05
Smith arrived at approx 1.06

If Lamb arrived only one minute prior to Smith, he would have passed Smith when he ran down Berner street! This is complete nonsense!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Absolute textbook conspiracy theorist thinking. Claiming to know what Anderson was thinking. 2+2=37

Lunacy! I'm accepting what Anderson wrote, at face value. How does that amount to conspiracy thinking? This is desperate stuff.

Anderson made an error. Simple and very obvious. No mystery of course.

I don't think there was a mystery either - Anderson was correct. How do suppose Anderson made an error of that magnitude, given the importance of the witness in question?

Anderson's draft letter indicates to me a changed position by Schwartz. The fact that this is evident in a letter that refers to the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest is quite intuiting. On the Tuesday we learn from the Star that the Leman street police are no longer going to continue investigating, based on the Hungarian's statement. On the Wednesday the coroner adjourns the inquest until the Friday. On the Friday...

Foreman: Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted?
Dr Phillips: That is an inference which the jury would be perfectly entitled to draw.

...the evidence of Schwartz appears to known. What happened? Before answering, I would suggest considering why Schwartz was never used (or again used) as a witness to an ID parade, in contrast to Joseph Lawende. Did Schwartz lose credibility?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. You've said this many times, and I do not recall it once being challenged by anyone other than myself.

FM: I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out...

Who else supports Michael's contention that Fanny locked up before 12:45?

I can’t see how that quote changes anything. She doesn’t say how long she had been back inside before she heard the commotion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
So the next time you think about Diemschitz' claim to have made it into Berner street at exactly 1am, perhaps consider what his motivation might have been for 'sharpening up' his estimate...

The man who drove the cart says he thinks it quite possible that after he had entered the yard the assassin may have fled out of it, having lurked in the gloom until a favourable moment arrived.

Louis Diemschitz effectively invented a significant chunk of Ripperology. To suppose that that chunk is every going to be rejected, would be like supposing that geologists might one day stop studying certain kinds of rocks.

Firstly I’d ask, did Diemschutz actually suggest this? Or had someone suggested to him and he’d felt it a possibility? He had no motive for sharpening up his estimate at all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Do you not think parcel man might have been rather conspicuous at this point? Reid's search of the neighborhood does not support this notion

Why would he have stood out?