If Schwartz Lied ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That footnote is a comment on Swanson's report, likely from someone at the Home Office, it has been suggested to be Lushington.
The writer (Lushington?) also wrote: "....but I understand the Inspector to suggest that Schwartz' man need not have been the murderer....", which shows the footnote is not commenting on the police investigation, but remarking on the fact the '2nd man' is not included by Swanson as a person of interest in this report.

This is a very strange interpretation of the footnote, and I do not share it. That comment has nothing to do with the 2nd man, and everything to do with the 1st man. The writer of the footnote is simply saying that although Schwartz' (1st) man was witnessed at a later time than Smith's man, and is therefore more likely to have been the murderer, he understands that Swanson need not necessarily suppose that he was, because the reported time was 12:45, not 1am. It's quite straightforward. Also, the reference to the police not suspecting the 2nd man, is unambiguous. It is a reference to the police investigation, and it is not there to explain that Swanson has supposedly excluded the man as a person of interest in the report. The only issue with it is what is left unexplained; how did the police determine the 2nd man was not a suspect?

[JeffHamm]

This is a very strange interpretation of the footnote, and I do not share it. That comment has nothing to do with the 2nd man, and everything to do with the 1st man. The writer of the footnote is simply saying that although Schwartz' (1st) man was witnessed at a later time than Smith's man, and is therefore more likely to have been the murderer, he understands that Swanson need not necessarily suppose that he was, because the reported time was 12:45, not 1am. It's quite straightforward. Also, the reference to the police not suspecting the 2nd man, is unambiguous. It is a reference to the police investigation, and it is not there to explain that Swanson has supposedly excluded the man as a person of interest in the report. The only issue with it is what is left unexplained; how did the police determine the 2nd man was not a suspect?

The phrase that shows the intent of the footnote writer is "but I understand the Inspector to suggest...", indicating the comment is about Swanson's report (Swanson's report itself refers to the police investigation, but the footnote is in reference the report itself, and not the next step along, which is the investigation itself). Basically, the commenter may be unable to comment upon the actual investigation (because they are not privy to the actual investigation) and therefore they can only comment upon the "report of the investigation".

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I cannot see JtR in the role of an inebriated man assaulting a woman in front of two witnesses. I think that Parcelman is the man that has been with Stride since 11pm at the Bricklayer's and I do not see that as typical of JtR. I think that if Parcelman were going to leave the area then Stride would have gone with him so I think that Stride was in the yard alone because she was waiting for him. That leaves Pipeman, but the details are of course conjexture. JMO.

So when do you suppose the parcel first made an appearance? Was it when Stride and Parcelman went to Packer's shop? According to the vigilance committee's hired detectives, "the perpetrator of the Berner street crime was seen and spoken to whilst in the company of his victim, within forty minutes of the commission of the crime...". If you suppose the crime occurred at about 12:50, then the grape sale would have occurred shortly after 12:10, if 'the professionals' are to be believed. What's interesting about that time, is that Wess said he left for home at 12:15, and mentioned seeing men and women in Fairclough street.

I would not be surprised that the police questioned JtR at least once. He came up with a good story that the police could not disprove and which was good enough to put doubt in their minds as to the validity of Schwartz's story.

Do you suppose that story included running down Fairclough street, behind another man who was also running?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The phrase that shows the intent of the footnote writer is "but I understand the Inspector to suggest...", indicating the comment is about Swanson's report (Swanson's report itself refers to the police investigation, but the footnote is in reference the report itself, and not the next step along, which is the investigation itself). Basically, the commenter may be unable to comment upon the actual investigation (because they are not privy to the actual investigation) and therefore they can only comment upon the "report of the investigation".

- Jeff

Yes, that section is a reference to Swanson's report. The footnote writer is simply stating that he understands Swanson's reasoning. He also understands that the police do not suspect the 2nd man. He may not be privy to the actual investigation, but clearly he knows the situation. How can the footnote only be commenting on the report, if Swanson himself does not state that the 2nd man is not suspected? So the HO must know the situation. Arguably, The Star also seems to know the situation...

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

If one of those two men were Pipeman, then it would seem Pipeman is no longer regarded as a suspect. If neither of those men were Pipeman, then surely the police will be acting further on the same information, especially given Schwartz suggested that the two men may have been accomplices.

[JeffHamm]

Hi NBFN,

Yes, that section is a reference to Swanson's report. The footnote writer is simply stating that he understands Swanson's reasoning. He also understands that the police do not suspect the 2nd man. He may not be privy to the actual investigation, but clearly he knows the situation. How can the footnote only be commenting on the report, if Swanson himself does not state that the 2nd man is not suspected? So the HO must know the situation. Arguably, The Star also seems to know the situation...

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

If one of those two men were Pipeman, then it would seem Pipeman is no longer regarded as a suspect. If neither of those men were Pipeman, then surely the police will be acting further on the same information, especially given Schwartz suggested that the two men may have been accomplices.

I don't have the full report in front of me, but we do know that HO received a report where the police interpretation of who "Lipski" was directed at (Schwartz himself, rather than Schwartz's interpretation it was shouted at pipeman) was explained, and that the police put more weight on their own interpretation than Schwartz's (which, I believe, is what is referred to when we see comments about Schwartz's statement not being entirely believed, the events were believed, just not Schwartz's interpretation of pipeman's involvement). Because it is Schwartz's statement that implicates pipeman as being a person of interest, but the police interpretation would mean there's no evidence to implicate pipeman, the footnote writer's comment would appear to be combining information from the body of information HO has available to them. That is, after all, one of the reasons why someone would make comments like this; highlighting information they have but which is not directly in this particular report.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

This was in another thread, but to keep it with the recreation analysis I presented, I'll post it here (removing the portions of the post not on topic here, or related to my comment).

...
DN: 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.

EN: 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.

...

Hmmm, These are interesting, and something has just occurred to me. From those press reports, it is entirely possible that the 4 minutes referred to is the interval between her completing her preparations for bed and hearing the cart, so there's some amount of time that starts with the doorlocking and ends upon completing her nighttime preparations (other "shutting down the house for the night routines" if you will) that is not specifically stated. That would mean the time between her coming inside and her hearing the pony and cart is some amount more than her estimated 4 minutes.

That would fit with the BST recreation I posted a few days ago, as that came out with quite a bit longer interval, although still within the margin of expected error. This was the largest error in the recreation, and while the results don't call for any further explanation, that doesn't mean some of the error may be in how I've interpreted what that 4 minutes refers to.

Anyway, didn't mean to side track, but this just popped into my head now as I read them. Obviously what I'm suggesting has been influenced by the recreation I worked on, so it should be viewed as a post-hoc explanation, but that can be a benefit of working on things like this. They can help make one consider ideas that were otherwise overlooked. One (i.e. me) just has to be careful not to get drawn too far into this, as one can easily shift from "making sense of the data" to "forcing the data to make sense". The former is good and is the purpose of analysis and research, the latter is bad and is the antithesis of analysis and research.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Yah, B.S. just suddenly attacking Stride does seem unlike JtR, but then I'm on the fence as to whether or not Stride is even a victim of JtR. The sudden attack out of the blue, rather than getting to a location with them first seems uncharacteristic. And tends to be a point against her inclusion. And she could be waiting for Parclmans return, but as you say, if she's been with him since 11, that too doesn't seem very JtR like.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I too have been ambivalent about Stride being a JtR victim. I have recently been reading evidence and considering the "From Hell" letter and now consider it likely that it was from JtR. If that idea is accepted then his wording that he took the kidney "from one woman" indicates that he had two victims that night, and I find myself swayed towards that opinion. If that is the case then Pipeman would fit into the category of opportunistic blitz attacker.

I find myself unable to share your opinion regarding the possility of Spooner plus one being the couple that Brown saw as Spooner said he was at the Beehive until joining Deimshitz on the latter's trip back to the yard. It does seem perculiar that he abandoned her under the circumstances, but there is no mention of her after the Beehive. Could be that he had decided that he didn't like her and just dumped her there and then.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Yes, agreed, and as you point out that would mean JtR was not this 'blitz' killer he is believed to have been.
He couldn't have spent any length of time with Eddowes, thats true but both Nichols & Chapman were out of public view for some time, just over an hour with Nichols, but about 4 hours with Chapman, so can we truly describe him as a 'blitz' killer?
We can't be sure these victims were alone for most of the time leading up to their discovery.
Even Kelly's killer had to have spent some time with her, so perhaps if we gave him the benefit of the doubt this killer just may have preferred to get to know his victims, contrary to established beliefs?

Once he has decided on his victim an opportunistic killer must be patient, whether he must entertain his prey for an hour or two is perhaps all part of the challenge and excitement for him.

Hi Jon,

Four hours for Chapman would have to discount Long as a witness?

I am very interested in your theory that JtR was a man with "strange eyes" and according to Best and Gardner, Parcelman qualified on that point. I have also noted that perculiarity within descriptions of Britannia Man, the Bethnal Green Botherer, the man spotted by Bowyer, and more recently, descriptions of Deeming and Thompson. But with Parcelman, I would still have difficulty letting go of the traditional concept of an opportunistic blitz killer.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

So when do you suppose the parcel first made an appearance? Was it when Stride and Parcelman went to Packer's shop? According to the vigilance committee's hired detectives, "the perpetrator of the Berner street crime was seen and spoken to whilst in the company of his victim, within forty minutes of the commission of the crime...". If you suppose the crime occurred at about 12:50, then the grape sale would have occurred shortly after 12:10, if 'the professionals' are to be believed. What's interesting about that time, is that Wess said he left for home at 12:15, and mentioned seeing men and women in Fairclough street.

Do you suppose that story included running down Fairclough street, behind another man who was also running?

Hi Andrew,

My suspicion is that his parcel was the political literature that Wess spoke of leaving at the printing office.

I believe Schwartz ran down Berner St, if it is that to which you refer.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

Hi Jeff,

I too have been ambivalent about Stride being a JtR victim. I have recently been reading evidence and considering the "From Hell" letter and now consider it likely that it was from JtR. If that idea is accepted then his wording that he took the kidney "from one woman" indicates that he had two victims that night, and I find myself swayed towards that opinion. If that is the case then Pipeman would fit into the category of opportunistic blitz attacker.

I find myself unable to share your opinion regarding the possility of Spooner plus one being the couple that Brown saw as Spooner said he was at the Beehive until joining Deimshitz on the latter's trip back to the yard. It does seem perculiar that he abandoned her under the circumstances, but there is no mention of her after the Beehive. Could be that he had decided that he didn't like her and just dumped her there and then.

Cheers, George

Yah, I waffle on Stride too, and have for years. It's all a matter of optics, and how we answer questions we don't have definitive answers to (like the authenticity of the From Hell letter). I view it like the Scottish verdict of "not proven", which more or less translates into "You may not have done it, but don't do it again".

I know Spooner says he was a bit further down Fairclough, but that's at the time of the search, which is almost 15 minutes later. If the two of them were strolling, they could have been at the board school for a brief while, turned and headed back, etc. I guess the part of me that thinks this is worth considering is that Spooner's description of what they were doing before he joined the search party seems to suggest he would have been in a position to see Stride and Overcoatman at the board school unless they were on the Berners Street side. But if they were on Berners Street, then Fanny Mortimer should have seen them. I think she says she saw a young man and his sweetheart, and that there is a news report that she spoke to them at the crime scene as well. So if she saw Overcoatman and Ms.SomeOtherNight, then Brown's sighting is probably not Stride. And if it's not Stride, but the young couple, and she spoke to them, either there's another young couple, who ends up at the crime scene but who saw nothing (so must have been on Fairclough with their backs towards Berner Street - i.e. heading towards the pub where Spooner is eventually located), and so forth.

I might have the location of the young couple wrong, though. I can't recall where they are mentioned, or the press report where it appeared that Fanny spoke to them after the body was found (I recall seeing it in a thread somewhere, but finding specific things like that can be a nightmare).

Anyway, I'm not suggesting it's a proven thing or anything like that, but I think there's enough indications that it's worth considering. But we all like our own ideas.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi NBFN,

I don't have the full report in front of me, but we do know that HO received a report where the police interpretation of who "Lipski" was directed at (Schwartz himself, rather than Schwartz's interpretation it was shouted at pipeman) was explained, and that the police put more weight on their own interpretation than Schwartz's (which, I believe, is what is referred to when we see comments about Schwartz's statement not being entirely believed, the events were believed, just not Schwartz's interpretation of pipeman's involvement). Because it is Schwartz's statement that implicates pipeman as being a person of interest, but the police interpretation would mean there's no evidence to implicate pipeman, the footnote writer's comment would appear to be combining information from the body of information HO has available to them. That is, after all, one of the reasons why someone would make comments like this; highlighting information they have but which is not directly in this particular report.

- Jeff

I cannot see why the HO person would suppose that the police do not suspect the 2nd man, if Swanson's report refers to the 1st man calling Lipski, apparently to the 2nd man, who then follows Schwartz. That is why I suppose the note writer is drawing on external knowledge. However, let's suppose that I am entirely wrong, and Wickerman is entirely correct, and it's though the note writer is saying something like this...

Well the inspector gave no commentary on his thoughts about the 2nd man, or anything the police may have discovered about the 2nd man, so I guess the police just do not suspect this man.

If that interpretation is correct, then for me it begs the question; why does the note writer deem it appropriate to speculate on the situation with the 2nd man, in a marginal note, yet Swanson himself tells us nothing about the 2nd man, other than his description of the Schwartz incident? Swanson doesn't bother giving us a single sentence about the investigation of man. No wonder the note writer feels it necessary to fill in the gaps. So why didn't Swanson give us even a single clue? Is it because the news is bad, in the sense that Pipeman has been identified, and he contradicts Schwartz to the extent that Abberline could potentially be embarrassed?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi all,

This was in another thread, but to keep it with the recreation analysis I presented, I'll post it here (removing the portions of the post not on topic here, or related to my comment).



Hmmm, These are interesting, and something has just occurred to me. From those press reports, it is entirely possible that the 4 minutes referred to is the interval between her completing her preparations for bed and hearing the cart, so there's some amount of time that starts with the doorlocking and ends upon completing her nighttime preparations (other "shutting down the house for the night routines" if you will) that is not specifically stated. That would mean the time between her coming inside and her hearing the pony and cart is some amount more than her estimated 4 minutes.

That would fit with the BST recreation I posted a few days ago, as that came out with quite a bit longer interval, although still within the margin of expected error. This was the largest error in the recreation, and while the results don't call for any further explanation, that doesn't mean some of the error may be in how I've interpreted what that 4 minutes refers to.

Anyway, didn't mean to side track, but this just popped into my head now as I read them. Obviously what I'm suggesting has been influenced by the recreation I worked on, so it should be viewed as a post-hoc explanation, but that can be a benefit of working on things like this. They can help make one consider ideas that were otherwise overlooked. One (i.e. me) just has to be careful not to get drawn too far into this, as one can easily shift from "making sense of the data" to "forcing the data to make sense". The former is good and is the purpose of analysis and research, the latter is bad and is the antithesis of analysis and research.

- Jeff

Jeff,
the problem with supposing more than 4 minutes, is that her own words sound like it was no more than that, and quite possibly much less...

I had just gone indoors and was preparing to go to bed when I heard a commotion outside...

How much time is implied by the word 'just'? What about here...

It was just after 1 o'clock when I went out...

Was this just a guess, and seemingly a 'lucky' one? Mortimer made reference to two other times...

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock on Sunday morning, and did not notice anything unusual.

Actually three, if this is included...

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.

All three have something in common - they are at or close to a quarter hour point. What would a newbie to the subject suppose, if you asked them to explain this pattern? I'd suppose they would guess that the Mortimer household had a clock that chimed on the quarter hour.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

My suspicion is that his parcel was the political literature that Wess spoke of leaving at the printing office.

I believe Schwartz ran down Berner St, if it is that to which you refer.

Cheers, George

So Krantz and other AF people like Yaffa, were likely acquainted with Parcelman? I'm not saying I don't agree, but wouldn't the police have found this literature (or not), when searching the club and surroundings?

If Schwartz ran down Berner street, then the police must have been intrigued by Wess's comments in the Echo.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,
the problem with supposing more than 4 minutes, is that her own words sound like it was no more than that, and quite possibly much less...

I had just gone indoors and was preparing to go to bed when I heard a commotion outside...

How much time is implied by the word 'just'? What about here...

It was just after 1 o'clock when I went out...

Those are different quotes from the one's you posted before and to which I referred. What we see is that Fanny's story is told in different ways. A few extra minutes is neither here nor there in the telling, but her previous phrasing leads to a different interpretation. Why should we give priority to a presentation using far less precise language?

Anyway, as we know, people's ability to recall temporal intervals is very poor, and associated with wide margins of error. You are suggesting we ignore that fact, and treat her 4 minutes as if it is somehow accurate. We know it won't be, people just are not very good at doing that. And, as I said, the interval in the proposed reconstruction time line falls within the expected margin of errors for someone who gives an estimate of 4 minutes, so there isn't any need to re-interpret what she said but as it looks like it could be read as if she intended something other that what we've supposed, that would only make the fit better, but it doesn't need to be any better than it is.

Also, the commotion would be the men starting to run south to Fairclough, and if Deimshutz finds the body at 1, that would mean it would be "just after 1 o'clock" when she heard the commotion and went out, so if you hold her to her words then you are saying she supports Deimshutz's arrival at 1 o'clock.

So where's the problem?

Was this just a guess, and seemingly a 'lucky' one? Mortimer made reference to two other times...

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock on Sunday morning, and did not notice anything unusual.

Which is different from other times when she says it was 10 minutes. This is why I was surprised that she ended up slotting into the time line fairly easily.

Actually three, if this is included...

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.

All three have something in common - they are at or close to a quarter hour point. What would a newbie to the subject suppose, if you asked them to explain this pattern? I'd suppose they would guess that the Mortimer household had a clock that chimed on the quarter hour.

Yes, and the BST timeline would agree with her time. It's PC Smith who appears to be referencing the most out-of-sync clock in my view. Most of the others appear to be fairly in line with Dr. Blackwell's (within two or three minutes type thing; and even PC Smith's only looks to differ by maybe 6 or 7 minutes).

Again, I don't think it is advisable to read the times stated, or the length of the durations, as if those are hard and fast "facts", rather, they are reconstructed memories of things, and memory is very error prone. This is why eye-witness testimony alone is a horrible basis for a case, and police always try and get objective confirmation. Police, and prosecutors, know how bad eye-witnesses can be and we would be wise to keep that in mind as well. That's why I avoid suspectology, the evidence we have to work with is primarily of the worst kind, and that is no basis upon which to claim a solution. My focus is more on trying to work through the error that comes with witness statements and see if we can find a singular coherant story that still resembles what they are describing, but may differ in specific details (like times and durations) - but not differ beyond the amount by which we might expect them to differ from the truth.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Four hours for Chapman would have to discount Long as a witness?

Hi George.
To be honest, the "four hours" runs between Donavan at 1:35 to Mrs Long at 5:30, - four hours where nothing is known about her movements.

I am very interested in your theory that JtR was a man with "strange eyes" and according to Best and Gardner, Parcelman qualified on that point. I have also noted that perculiarity within descriptions of Britannia Man, the Bethnal Green Botherer, the man spotted by Bowyer, and more recently, descriptions of Deeming and Thompson. But with Parcelman, I would still have difficulty letting go of the traditional concept of an opportunistic blitz killer.

There was also a witness named Thimbleby(?), who saw a man, about 30 yrs old, hurrying with an awkward gait along Hanbury St., towards Brick Lane about 6:00 am on the morning of the murder.

I can't speak for Deeming or Thompson, I try to resist putting a name to this character, but I'm pretty sure he is the best suspect that we know of who was actually present at three of the murders (being Chapman, Stride & Kelly).