If Schwartz Lied ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And how do you know that the Mortimer’s owned a clock?

Nice piece of manipulation by the way

Try this…..again…

She was simply estimating her time and was wrong. Smith was correct in that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35. I know that you are reluctant to admit that Smith might have been correct because it provides a simple explanation that you seek to avoid or dismiss. That she was back indoors when Schwartz passed.

Obviously you realize how devastating it could be to belief in the 1am arrival time, to suppose that the Mortimer residence had a clock, and that the clock may well have been a few minutes 'ahead of time".

[caz]

This 'reasonable possibility' has to consider that, as usual, no one heard or saw this...

Mrs D: In the yard itself all was as silent as the grave.

But she was in the yard at some point, unseen and unheard, until her killer found her and cut her throat there. She must have had a reason for being there. And Mrs D only said it was silent in the yard itself, not that she'd have seen anyone who had used the outside privy. Unless you are suggesting she'd have heard the noises associated with any such visit, and made a mental note to report it if anyone turned up dead in the yard, I'm not sure how you are ruling out that Stride may have needed a quick pee.

Why would she attempt to avoid him? Was she in the habit of picking and choosing her customers?
If she had been looking for customers from the club, then why had prostitutes rarely if ever been seen in that location? What are the chances that she would had stood there soliciting, been seen by no one except Schwartz, and then get roughed-up (and possibly murdered) by the first drunk she encounters?

I didn't suggest Stride was looking for customers at all. I don't think that's very likely. I merely suggest that BS man may have thought she was and didn't like it. She may have gone to the club to avoid being accosted by someone who had been too persistent. Could even have hidden in the privy, hoping he would not look there and piss off. All was as silent as the grave, so if she thought it safe to come out, she was mistaken. The singing and dancing from inside the club was her 'safety in numbers', which would have prevented anyone from doing an 'Annie Chapman' on her in that spot, but it wasn't enough to save her from a cut throat.

[caz]

Let's have another look at the evidence. The People, Oct 7:

The police authorities who have the inquiries with respect to the murders in hand, have received a statement with regard to the murder in Berner street that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground, but that it being thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, no notice was taken of it.

The witness perceived a quarrel between a man and his wife - not a random drunk and a street prostitute. Consequently the witness took "no notice of it". No running away, and no chase.

Could the statement have referred to what Pipeman witnessed, as opposed to Schwartz?

Pipeman saw the actual assault, but assumed it was a domestic and left the scene without taking any more notice.

Schwartz saw the man approach the woman, as if drunk, then stop to say something to her before assaulting her.

Just seen from two different perspectives?

[caz]

Goldstein was not the only man she had seen, but he was the only man she had seen walk down the street previously. That was previous to going to the door to shoot the bolts. She decided to stay at her doorstep a while longer, and that's when she saw him again - possibly coming from the club. Fanny saw Leon twice.

Good Moaning,

You misunderstood the context in which Fanny used the word 'previously'. This was pointed out to you the first time, but you chose to ignore it and continue to misinterpret the witness. Are you sure English is your fist linguage?

I don't know why you'd do this in a public sotting, but it's nit a God lock.

Fanny only saw Goldstein once, and if you had listened very carefully the first time, it would only have needed saying once.

This is fast becoming like an episode of 'Allo 'Allo.

I'll tick my lav of you noo.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let's have another look at the evidence. The People, Oct 7:

The police authorities who have the inquiries with respect to the murders in hand, have received a statement with regard to the murder in Berner street that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground, but that it being thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, no notice was taken of it.

The witness perceived a quarrel between a man and his wife - not a random drunk and a street prostitute. Consequently the witness took "no notice of it". No running away, and no chase.

How many different versions are we going to consider as ‘evidence?’ These were Press versions from a non-English speaker via an interpreter after all. Every slight difference in wording shouldn’t be regarded as a revelation.

”No notice was taken of it” is a strange phrase in my opinion. What does it mean? Schwartz saw the incident so he obviously must have taken some ‘notice’ of it. There would have been no way that he could have discovered the reason behind the argument by ‘taking more notice’ because he couldn’t speak English. If we imply that ‘no notice’ means that he didn’t run away well we have to say that in no version does he run away due to BS Man only because of Pipeman going in the same direction as him. Your ‘random drunk’ is again misleading. This version of events doesn’t mention the walk along Berner Street which is how Schwartz came to believe that the man was drunk and just because BS Man met up with Stride this wouldn’t eliminate the possibility in Schwartz eyes that they might have been man and wife.

Your quoted passage means nothing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Obviously you realize how devastating it could be to belief in the 1am arrival time, to suppose that the Mortimer residence had a clock, and that the clock may well have been a few minutes 'ahead of time".

But we can’t assume an unknown to be true simply to disprove something. We have the choice of just 2 options.

1. Fanny Mortimer was correct and that she went onto her doorstep just after 12.45, stayed there for around 10 minutes, and then went back inside at approximately 12.55.

or,

2. Constable Smith was correct when he said that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35. This would mean that Mortimer could have gone onto her doorstep between those 2 times and then went back inside between 12.40 and 12.45.

I can’t prove 2 as you can’t prove 1.

What I can suggest in favour of Smith is,

a) He was on a regulated beat which means that he could estimate the time with reasonable accuracy.
b) He was a Police Officer who, due to the nature of his job, would have to be pretty ‘time-aware’ at all times.
c) On his second beat he arrived at the yard just after Lamb. If we estimate this as around 1.06/107 then from 12.35 we get a round of 31 or 32 minutes which is no stretch of the imagination. Indeed if he’d initially passed at 12.36 then we’d have a 30 minute round.
d) As far as Fanny was aware this was a very run-of-the-mill evening so she had no reason to accurately log the time.
e) We don’t know how she came by her 12.45 time. We certainly can’t state that she had a clock. It might have been the case that she was just estimating the duration since she’d previously learned the time by whatever source. Maybe she’d heard church bells at some point?
f) Fanny appeared to give differing versions to the Press of what she did that night. This might have been their error of course but this at least raises the possibility that she wasn’t very consistent in her version of events.

I think that if you placed all of the evidence in front of anyone and asked the question “who is the most likely to have been correct on their timing Smith or Mortimer” I’m confident that it heavily favours Smith. So I’ll repeat, I can’t see why it keeps being repeated that Mortimer disproves Schwartz. She doesn’t even come close.

And finally, I’ll ask again. Why is it unbelievable that no one saw the Schwartz incident and yet it’s perfectly understandable that no one saw Diemschutz arrive back around 12.30 ish on his horse and cart? Anyone else tired of double standards and moving goalposts?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But she was in the yard at some point, unseen and unheard, until her killer found her and cut her throat there. She must have had a reason for being there. And Mrs D only said it was silent in the yard itself, not that she'd have seen anyone who had used the outside privy. Unless you are suggesting she'd have heard the noises associated with any such visit, and made a mental note to report it if anyone turned up dead in the yard, I'm not sure how you are ruling out that Stride may have needed a quick pee.



I didn't suggest Stride was looking for customers at all. I don't think that's very likely. I merely suggest that BS man may have thought she was and didn't like it. She may have gone to the club to avoid being accosted by someone who had been too persistent. Could even have hidden in the privy, hoping he would not look there and piss off. All was as silent as the grave, so if she thought it safe to come out, she was mistaken. The singing and dancing from inside the club was her 'safety in numbers', which would have prevented anyone from doing an 'Annie Chapman' on her in that spot, but it wasn't enough to save her from a cut throat.

Hi Caz,

Ive never understood the ‘what reason would she have had for being their’ viewpoint. The fact is that she was there. Yours is a very reasonable, plausible possible explanation. But ‘reasonable’ and ‘plausible’ are anathema to some. ‘Far-fetched’ and extremely unlikely’ being preferred.

It’s entirely possible that BS Man had assumed that she was soliciting and was angry at being rebuffed. For all that we know Stride could have been walking along Berner Street but she stopped at the gate because she had something wrong with a shoe or an item of clothing. Just as she was about to move on BS Man was there. Why not? She might also have used the loo as you suggested. She might have believed that someone was due to pass along Berner Street around that time who she intended to tap for a few pennies but BS Man got their first. Perhaps she’d arranged to meet someone? Perhaps she was soliciting? Perhaps she was looking for someone that she suspected might have been inside the club (maybe someone that she did work for and she felt might be willing to lend her a few pennies?)

Im sure that we could think of a few more but there was nothing suspicious about Stride being where she was found just because we can’t give a definitive reason.

[erobitha]

Hi erobitha,

What do you think could have motivated Schwartz to tell his story to begin with?

I thought there were just two schools of thought on the use of "Lipski": that Pipeman was addressed by that name by BS man [which Schwartz originally assumed was the case], suggesting they were both Jewish and acting together; or that it was shouted at the obviously Jewish Schwartz as an insult [which Abberline put to Schwartz as the more likely explanation, and Schwartz conceded ignorance on the point], in which case Pipeman need not have been involved and BS man was probably not Jewish.

If Schwartz went to the police and the Star with a prepared story that had no basis in fact, and made Pipeman an accomplice to the assault on Stride, why did he not stick to his script under police questioning, but let Abberline talk him out of it? The end result was a dog's breakfast that was open to interpretation, according to whether one preferred to believe BS man was the murderer, the ripper, a Jew, an invention, or none of the above.

If Pipeman was traced, or came forward voluntarily [possibly after reading about himself in The Star], and confirmed the basics: the assault and when and where it happened, the police would have had to take both witnesses seriously, in which case they could have been held back in case there was a future trial. They'd have had the potential to identify a suspect as the same man they saw assaulting Stride. Could have been a biggy.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

The problem started for me when Swanson sent his report to the Home Office on 19th October 1888. The marginal note bothers me greatly. I know there is a risk a clerk wrote it. However, it could have been Swanson. He was a fan of such things. It could have even been Henry Matthews.

The outcome is because that the slur Lipski was used means the killer was most likely Jewish is absolutely nonsensical. Clearly Schwartz was trying to convey the killer was a gentile because a Jew would not likely call another Jew Lipski. So there is official belief of that view - regardless of who wrote the marginalia.

Then you have the fact no-one can independently corroborate any of the things Schwartz claimed he saw. Abberline was diligent and took the statement as was intended. Between then and the report the feeling that Schwartz was not 100% reliable by the police, is evident in Swanson’s report.

“If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered. At the same time account must be taken of the fact that the throat only of the victim was cut in this instance which measured by time, considering meeting (if with a man other than Schwartz saw) the time for the agreement & the murderous action would I think be a question of so many minutes, five at least, ten at most, so that I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer, although it is clearly the more probable of the two.”

Why do we never see such a disclaimer on any other witness statement “if so so and so is to be believed”? Clearly Swanson is acknowledging the issues with it.

Then we have the railway arch and address that didn’t exist.

I think the false witness was trying to move focus away from the Jewish community by indicating the murderer was most likely a gentile. Yet somewhere along the way it became even more muddled that using the term Lipski made the killer Jewish.

it’s almost like the Jews are the men that should be blamed for nothing.

[c.d.]

Why do we never see such a disclaimer on any other witness statement “if so so and so is to be believed”? Clearly Swanson is acknowledging the issues with it.

My guess (and that is all that it is) is that no aspersion is being cast on Schwartz's veracity but rather the problems inherent in the fact that he did not speak or understand English. In other words, the police simply didn't know what the hell he saw.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Not harsh Abby, as I said previously, it’s good there are so many different viewpoints.

It does not bother me that people dismiss what I say because I am a Maybrickian. People can believe what they want. You and I for example pretty much agree on the GSG.

Nothing I have said is factually incorrect with regards to Schwartz. I can argue the reverse. Some want his statement to be factually correct for their own reasons too.

The peaked cap is clutching at straws. It’s like saying he had a moustache too. In Victorian London?

no its not. id venture 90 percent of the adult male population in victorian london had mustaches and probably about the same wore hats. but peaked caps? cmon-stupid comparison. maybe 15 percent wore peaked caps. (and dont post a picture of dockside workers/sailors all wearing peaked caps as an example! LOL!)
Abberline even commented on the peaked cap man being the ripper.

The only one clutching at straws here is you, but being a maybrickian-youre an expert at that.
and dont push it or ill be tempted to give your ilk a new nickname-Brick Heads lol. get it? May-brick. Brick head. Hee Hee. just messing with you ero. at least we agree on the gsg! : )

[erobitha]

no its not. id venture 90 percent of the adult male population in victorian london had mustaches and probably about the same wore hats. but peaked caps? cmon-stupid comparison. maybe 15 percent wore peaked caps. (and dont post a picture of dockside workers/sailors all wearing peaked caps as an example! LOL!)
Abberline even commented on the peaked cap man being the ripper.

The only one clutching at straws here is you, but being a maybrickian-youre an expert at that.
and dont push it or ill be tempted to give your ilk a new nickname-Brick Heads lol. get it? May-brick. Brick head. Hee Hee. just messing with you ero. at least we agree on the gsg! : )

Yours Brick-head

[erobitha]

Why do we never see such a disclaimer on any other witness statement “if so so and so is to be believed”? Clearly Swanson is acknowledging the issues with it.

My guess (and that is all that it is) is that no aspersion is being cast on Schwartz's veracity but rather the problems inherent in the fact that he did not speak or understand English. In other words, the police simply didn't know what the hell he saw.

c.d.

So unreliable then?

[Abby Normal]

Yours Brick-head

but they dont have mustaches! ; )

[erobitha]

but they dont have mustaches! ; )

[Herlock Sholmes]

They don’t have moustaches……yet.