If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

Diemschutz passed at 1.00 as he said. We know this because he saw a clock.

Its noticeable that you’ve completely ignore what I said about Smith. You are usually very keen to point out how long his round took but you are strangely reticent when I mention the fact that if Fanny was correct (and she very obviously wasn’t) then his second beat was completed in 20 minutes.

Do you think that a 20 minute time is reasonable?

Or was FM wrong?

Ill give you a clue…..

She was wrong and Smith was right.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

Waffle.

Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest.

We don’t know why not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

She was at her door nearly the whole time between 12:30 and 1:00. Why would she keep opening and closing the door?
On the hand, if she had repeatedly open and closed the door, then when she heard the 'measured, heavy tramp', the door was closed. So even with the door closed, she could clearly hear noises from the street. Guess what she didn't hear?

You just keep getting more and more bizarre.

Firstly, according to the EN, she went onto her doorstep at just after 12.45 for 10 minutes.

Which means that before she went onto her doorstep she was inside.

Which means that she was on her doorstep, according to her, for 10 minutes out of 30. Which, and I’m no mathematician, means that she was on her doorstep for a third of the time between 12.30 and 1.00.

Does ‘nearly the whole time’ equate in any way to ‘a third of the time?’

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I agree that “just gone indoors” would usually indicate a shorter period but as we’ve shown that she was wrong about the time that Smith passed we have to take that into consideration.

Once it is admitted that the 4 minute gap is probably the product of a reporter doing sums, then it can never be clear what elements of that report are faithful to what Fanny said in the statement referred to, and what is being supposed by the reporter. For example, if Fanny had mentioned being on her doorstep for about 10 minutes, prior to locking up shortly before 1am, and also shortly after hearing a policeman pass, then the time reference can be inferred. Does the following sentence sound like an inference, or a paraphrasing...?

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.

It appears that way, and not - she said that was what the time was when the PC passed. At least, that's how it appears to me. Regardless of one's opinion, it can never be stated with certainty what parts of that report are 100% owing to Fanny's own words. So it can be used as evidence, but it is unsafe to do so.

Similarly, it can never be stated with certainty what the source of that statement is. The lack of quotes - in spite of it having been deemed important - and the fact that it begins with a reference to a passing policeman, suggests to me that it was a police statement. One of the few papers that printed the report, also interviewed Fanny (Evening News). Why would they print two extra reports, and the half-past twelve to one o'clock report, unless the 'important statement' had come from police?

Schwartz lies to place himself at the scene of a murder. (Knowing that, if they were so inclined, the police could check where he was before the event, whether he had a legitimate reason to be there and what time he returned)

He ignores the possibility of inconvenient witnesses popping up all along Berner Street. Or even another witness putting Stride in the company of a tall, thin Scotsman at 12.45.

There are inconvenient witnesses, which ironically you ignore. For example, the couple on the board school corner ... must have got the time wrong. So inconvenient witnesses appear to be no obstacle.

However, I still have to consider why Schwartz would have taken such a risk. Having said that, I would also say that there is another irony in your position (and Caroline's). If there was what you two like to call a plot, then by definition Schwartz is not acting alone. Someone could have conceivably told him when the street was deserted. To suppose that Schwartz has to just take the risk of guessing, implies he is acting alone. You can't have it both ways.

If you think it far-fetched that Schwartz might have been given information about the state of the street, then perhaps consider the following. ELA, Oct 6:

The Evening News publishes important information obtained by two private detectives. Their inquiries go to establish the fact that the perpetrator of the Berner-street crime was seen and spoken to whilst in the company of his victim, within 40 minutes of the commission of the crime, and only passed from the sight of a witness 10 minutes before the murder, and within 10 yards of the scene of the awful deed.

The EN published this info before PC Smith appeared at the inquest. Where do the numbers come from?

He’s ‘selected’ to do a simple job - to tell the police that the killer shouted Lipski at him and so was anti-Semitic - and even with a tame interpreter he messes up this simple task.

Was this simple job given to Schwartz by Wess, or at least with his blessing? If so, why does Wess apparently throw Schwartz under a hansom cab, in the Echo report?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Diemschutz didn’t ‘sharpen up’ his timing. He gave his time and never changed it. We have a witness who gives a time. Fortunately he tells us how he came up with that time unlike other witnesses who were simply estimating. Diemschutz passed a clock. We know that this clock existed.

So even when we have this the conspiracist still thinks that he was wrong or lying. On what evidence?

Evening News, Oct 1:

I am a traveler in the common jewellery trade, and work only for myself. I have also been the steward for the International Working Men's Club for between six and seven years, and I live on the premises of the club. For some time I have been in the habit of going to Westow Hill, at the Crystal Palace, every Saturday, in order to sell my goods at the market which is there. I got back this Sunday morning about one o'clock, and drove up to our club-room gate in my pony cart.

Why is it that in conspiracy world you and Michael prefer to suggest that people estimating timings were pinpoint accurate and yet someone that actually saw a clock was wrong? Was Blackwell making his time up too?

Smith would have seen the same clock, when he looked down Berner street from Commercial Road, and saw people at the entrance to the yard. Smith also tells us that he headed to Berner street at 1am. I see no reason to doubt that this was more than a couple of minutes off the exact time.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And of course you’re not trying to make it sound unmissable are you? He was carrying a parcel. People carry things like parcels, packages and bags. He wasn’t carrying a penguin.

If you want to suppose Stride and parcel man could have stood in Fairclough street for 10 minutes unnoticed, that's your problem. Although I would say that the only way someone with a parcel of that size would not stand out, is if there were quite a few other people on the street at the time - people who did not report seeing a chase. You can't have it both ways. Unless that is, you're an Anti-Conspiracist. Then you can have it both ways, and lots more besides.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I honestly believe that you’re getting worse.

You could be right

Why does anyone stand in a gateway? If you saw someone standing in a gateway would you say “well he can’t really be standing there because why would he want to stand in a gateway?”

Please stop this nonsense. She might have arranged to meet someone is a possibility. After a miserable night she might have decided to earn some cash is another.

So after chatting with parcel man for 10 minutes, she decided to solicit by standing in the gateway?

You have no evidence for an ambushing murderer. Or an escaped Baboon or an insane, Transvestite Yak Farmer from Stepney.

There seems to be ambush theory, given anonymously to an Irish Times reporter...

There do appear to be peculiarities in the tale of one of the murders that point more closely to a possible revelation. The woman was not in the company of her assailant. She carried in one hand sweetmeats and in another grapes, as if she were on her way to her home. She was surprised, grasped and her throat severed by a fierce attack, and it is hardly possible that this could have been done without some stains having been made upon the murderer's clothes.

Who did the IT speak to who might have known this, because they witnessed it?

Try and control this lunacy.

Okay, I'll try...

[c.d.]

Was this simple job given to Schwartz by Wess, or at least with his blessing? If so, why does Wess apparently throw Schwartz under a hansom cab, in the Echo report?

This is where I have a problem. I can only imagine the conversation -- "Hey Schwartz, you're new to this country and you have a wife and young child, right? Would you mind lying to the police in a murder investigation? The other club members would really appreciate it." Schwartz would had to have been extremely loyal or extremely naive. Talk about taking one for the team.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Waffle.

Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest.

We don’t know why not.

I didn't say he was at the inquest, and neither did Anderson. Yet people at the inquest appear to know about the Schwartz tale. How can that be?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Does the following sentence sound like an inference, or a paraphrasing...?

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.

It appears that way, and not - she said that was what the time was when the PC passed. At least, that's how it appears to me. Regardless of one's opinion, it can never be stated with certainty what parts of that report are 100% owing to Fanny's own words. So it can be used as evidence, but it is unsafe to do so

But we have Smith who, under anyone’s ‘reasonable judgment,’ would have to be considered as more likely to have been correct about what time he passed then she would. Therefore we can consider it very possible, indeed likely, that Fanny Mortimer went onto her doorstep at or before 12.35. And so any attempt to use her to claim that Schwartz lied should be dismissed. It’s black and white.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. There are inconvenient witnesses, which ironically you ignore. For example, the couple on the board school corner ... must have got the time wrong. So inconvenient witnesses appear to be no obstacle.

However, I still have to consider why Schwartz would have taken such a risk. Having said that, I would also say that there is another irony in your position (and Caroline's). If there was what you two like to call a plot, then by definition Schwartz is not acting alone. Someone could have conceivably told him when the street was deserted. To suppose that Schwartz has to just take the risk of guessing, implies he is acting alone. You can't have it both ways.

How would it have been possible for someone to have been able to say “there was definitely no one else in Berner Street at 12.45. I also went along the street checking every window to make sure that no one was looking out!”

No reasonable person can continue to talk in terms of a cover-up. It’s gone. The idea is babyish.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. There are inconvenient witnesses, which ironically you ignore. For example, the couple on the board school corner ... must have got the time wrong. So inconvenient witnesses appear to be no obstacle.

Yup. Got their time wrong…..Dismissed……next

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Was this simple job given to Schwartz by Wess, or at least with his blessing? If so, why does Wess apparently throw Schwartz under a hansom cab, in the Echo report?

Continually repeating nonsense won’t make it true.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Evening News, Oct 1:

I am a traveler in the common jewellery trade, and work only for myself. I have also been the steward for the International Working Men's Club for between six and seven years, and I live on the premises of the club. For some time I have been in the habit of going to Westow Hill, at the Crystal Palace, every Saturday, in order to sell my goods at the market which is there. I got back this Sunday morning about one o'clock, and drove up to our club-room gate in my pony cart

You’re obsessed with nitpicking through newspaper quotes as if they are definitive proof of something.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Smith would have seen the same clock, when he looked down Berner street from Commercial Road, and saw people at the entrance to the yard. Smith also tells us that he headed to Berner street at 1am. I see no reason to doubt that this was more than a couple of minutes off the exact time

More nitpicking with phrasing. I’ll tell you what happened. Ignore the clocks. Things occurred in the order that the witnesses said that they did. THERE WAS NO COVER-UP, NO CONSPIRACY AND NO MYSTERY..