If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

. 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

Another example of the way that you try and manipulate evidence to suit. Just because she went to the door with intention of bolting it for the night we cannot assume that it was open. Unlocked, yes, but open, no. Common sense also tells us that this was completely unlikely.

[Fiver]

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

Do you have the slightest idea what "approximately" means? Saying approximately 1:05 and saying approximately 1:07 is not jumping around, it is being approximate.

[Fiver]

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.

There is an invented chunk of Ripperology related to Diemschutz, but the invention is by people who assume Diemschutz was lying about when he found the body. There is no evidence that Diemschutz lied and so far no one has provided a credible reason that Diemschutz would lie.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you have the slightest idea what "approximately" means? Saying approximately 1:05 and saying approximately 1:07 is not jumping around, it is being approximate.

This is one of the most annoying and frustrating thing about these debates Fiver. The very convenient refusal to accept that the majority of timings are approximations. So to the conspiracist, if x said that he passed a location at 1.00 and so did y then one of them must have lied.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

"Just gone indoors" means a very brief to brief period. Maybe a minute, or maybe a few minutes. Not 20 or more.
If you were not motivated to find a timeslot for Israel Schwartz and his fantasy micro-play, you would not be engaged in this sort manipulation.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

So why did he do it?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why would he have stood out?

I have no idea why a man carrying a half yard wide parcel wrapped in newspaper would have stood out.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I’m not claiming this as a fact but a possibility. She was found inside the yard so she was there for some reason. We can only speculate what that reason might have been.

There is no obvious reason for her to have stood in that gateway. On the other hand, just behind the line of the gates would have been a great spot for an ambushing murderer to have waited.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I really don’t know why you struggle with this concept unless you are suggesting that there was never a period when any given street was deserted. No one saw the ripper in Bucks Row. Or Lechmere and Paul. Are we saying that it’s unlikely that they were there?

It is unlikely she were hanging around the vicinity of the murder location - alone or with someone - for anything more than seconds at a time. Five and ten minutes periods would not have gone unnoticed. For example, when Wess went home he saw people in Fairclough street, and Eagle probably saw people in Berner street, when he returned to the club. The unnoticed waiting in the gateway is just another reason to doubt Schwartz' story.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

.Let me guess - not very loud?

We have no way of knowing how loud it was but we know that Schwartz wasn’t standing far away. It’s was also only one word. Why do treat this incident as if it was a Motörhead soundcheck. It’s a massive exaggeration. The fact that no one else heard Lipski is not in the least suspicious unless of course you are constantly thinking in terms of conspiracy.

The Star: ...but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

The evidence is against you.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

[B]Because BS Man was arguing with Stride. Maybe he wasn’t sure if the shout was directed at her? After all this happened over a short space of time and Schwartz was walking at the time. Very easy to be uncertain. I’d say that it’s a massive pointer to him telling the truth.

This is not how the story goes. Schwartz got as far as the gateway, which is where he observes the assault from...

...having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

So Schwartz apparently stood watching the quarrel and assault like some sort of voyeur. He then crosses the street...

On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

Once again, Schwartz apparently stops...

The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away...

BS Man called out - apparently to Pipeman. Schwartz then walked away - in other words he stopped twice.

If Schwartz was a false witness doing the work of the club plotters and with a tame interpreter how could they have failed to get across the simple message that BS Man shouted ‘Lipski’ at him? It was the whole point of the ‘plan’ after all. This was impossible to **** up and yet Schwartz and the interpreter manage it. Proof that there was no club-based plot.

You tell me - you obviously know more about this plot than I do.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Via an interpreter.

Looks like 'the interpreter excuse' is the new get out of jail free card.
Are you suggesting Schwartz (via interpreter) never told Abberline he had run as far the railway arch, and that this was just a mistake of interpretation? Are you doing this because there were no witnesses to the chase and Schwartz' story needs to be rescued?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And you know that because?

...but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

Because you have the conspiracy goggles on of course.

Lame

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Im not jumping around I’m saying that we cannot pin these times down exactly. It’s impossible. No CCTV, no mobile phone signals…why is this such an issue for you?

……

Ok, let’s put Fanny Mortimer timing to bed once and for all.

Smith stated that he’d passed at approximately 12.30-12.35. If we take his round as 30 minutes then that gets him back to Berner Street at approximately 1.05.

but…..

If we take Fanny Mortimer time of 12.45 to have been correct then his 30 minute round would have him returning to Berner Street at approximately 1.15. Close to the time of Dr Blackwell’s arrival.

So I’ll ask everyone….which is the closest to what we know? Smith arriving at approximately 1.05 or Smith arriving at approximately 1.15?

We know that he didn’t arrive anywhere close to 1.15 and so, if Fanny was correct with her 12.45 time then Smith completed his round in approximately 20 minutes.

I call on all reasonable posters to suggest which is likeliest to have been correct?

Ill state my opinion with confidence. Fanny Mortimer was mistaken. Smith passed when he said that he did.

Therefore Fanny, after spending approximately 10 minutes or so on her doorstep was back inside when Israel Schwartz passed.

We can very safely dismiss FM’s time of 12.45.

EN/DN, Oct 1: 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 Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

If Fanny locked up by 12:45, did she hear the cart about 18 minutes later, but mistake that for 4? Or did Diemschitz cart passed her house well before 1am?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Anderson made a mistake. You are trying to interpret a simple error with the goggles on.

Schwartz' position seems to have changed, in Anderson's letter. How did Anderson and the department know of this, if not from the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest? Perhaps you could tell me about the foreman knowing of the Schwartz incident?
If Anderson was wrong, we are left with a mystery - why wasn't Schwartz called to the inquest? Yet Anderson's draft tells us there is no mystery. So why are you trying to create a mystery where none exists?