If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

You should be able to quote me making that claim. Especially when you put emphasis on 'must'.

My position is that is highly likely that at least someone would have heard or seen something, had there been an event at least somewhat similar to that described by Schwartz. To quote you back at yourself; How is this being in any way unreasonable?

The point is only valid if you could say “it’s impossible that the Schwartz incident could have occurred without Mortimer or anyone else seeing or hearing it.” And so as you obviously can’t say that there’s no point proceeding. The incident very obvious could have occurred without anyone seeing or hearing it.

Id say “as Schwartz didn’t mention seeing Fanny Mortimer when he passed I’d say that means that she wasn’t there at that time. Whatever that time was.”

Its far more likely than expecting everyone to believe that Schwartz lied to place himself at the scene of a brutal murder without the back up of someone to confirm that he wasn’t actually the killer.

Schwartz was there, the incident occurred, no one heard it because, as Schwartz said, it wasn’t very loud.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

yup-and of course the man came forward himself and explained what he was doing and where he was going-- there was no back and forth-he simply passed by.

Isn't this being a little naïve, Abby? Do you suppose Goldstein would have mentioned leaving the club to the police, if he had done so at any time remotely close to the murder? His visit to the Spectacle Alley coffee house may have been verified by the police, but this only accounts for the innocuous part of the evidence, not the juicy bit.

Regardless of his guilt or innocence, Goldstein was probably never going to admit to any more than was absolutely necessary. Even then, Wess had to persuade him to go to the station to make a statement. Given your complete faith in the man's honesty, do you have anything to say about why Goldstein needed persuading to explain something as innocuous as walking down Berner street carrying a work bag, or why it took him so long to do so?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is an invention.

we have two different reports, not actually written by Mortimer, where one uses ‘up’ and the other uses ‘down.’ Feeble in the extreme.

How much of this passage is an invention?

No Police Officer mentions Goldstein being seen twice near the murder site which would have been an extremely important point. Not a mention. It very obviously didn’t occur.

Another extremely important point, which you unsurprisingly failed to mention, is that most of the evidence from the case is now lost. It cannot simply be assumed that no mention was ever made of Mortimer seeing Goldstein twice.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes I do.

Yes I do ... ignore any evidence that doesn't fit with what I want the truth to be

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Because, like all witnesses, I don’t hold Schwartz to an exact time.

You're not being asked for an exact time. Actually, let's make it really easy for you - let's not bother with giving times at all, no matter how approximate (clearly you're not up for that). Let's just think about the sequence of events ...

The time we are given for Schwartz is 12:45. The time we are given for Goldstein is about 1am. So tell me what the sequence was. Was it Schwartz then Goldstein, or Goldstein followed by Schwartz?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The point is only valid if you could say “it’s impossible that the Schwartz incident could have occurred without Mortimer or anyone else seeing or hearing it.” And so as you obviously can’t say that there’s no point proceeding. The incident very obvious could have occurred without anyone seeing or hearing it.

My point is that it is a we are dealing with an issue of probability. We are not dealing with a world of definite or impossible circumstances - which you seem to be more comfortable with. If you cannot understand that the witnessing of Schwartz's story is a matter of probability, then there is indeed no point in proceeding.

Id say “as Schwartz didn’t mention seeing Fanny Mortimer when he passed I’d say that means that she wasn’t there at that time. Whatever that time was.”

The Star: The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Who saw it, other than Schwartz? If not Mortimer, was it a WVC patrolman?

Its far more likely than expecting everyone to believe that Schwartz lied to place himself at the scene of a brutal murder without the back up of someone to confirm that he wasn’t actually the killer.

If there were no witnesses to the incident, then what backup does Schwartz have, regardless of his honesty? Who was in a position to verify Schwartz's story? Someone at home could only verify that he was not at home at the time, which proves little. On the other hand, if Mortimer had been at her doorstep at the time and witnessed the assault (assuming it occurred), she could could have at least partially backed up Schwartz's claim to have passed through the street at the time. Yet if that were the case, then how many men did Mortimer actually see pass through the street ...?

... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road.

Just the one (as everyone here seems to believe), or was black bag man the only man she had seen more recently, who had also passed through the street previously?

Schwartz was there, the incident occurred, no one heard it because, as Schwartz said, it wasn’t very loud.

What wasn't very loud? The screams which were conveniently not very loud? Did the man call out 'Lipski' to the man on the opposite side of the street, but not very loudly?

[Herlock Sholmes]

How much of this passage is an invention?

.

Memoirs written 50 years after the crimes b a man who was a mere Constable at the time

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're not being asked for an exact time. Actually, let's make it really easy for you - let's not bother with giving times at all, no matter how approximate (clearly you're not up for that). Let's just think about the sequence of events ...

The time we are given for Schwartz is 12:45. The time we are given for Goldstein is about 1am. So tell me what the sequence was. Was it Schwartz then Goldstein, or Goldstein followed by Schwartz?

Could have been either.

[caz]

and there was singing from the club. I actually have no problem with the wording of someone screaming, but not very loudly. all it means is they called or cried out but werent screaming at the top of their lungs.

For once, Abby, we agree about something!

All those people singing inside the club would have drowned out all but the very loudest noises coming from the street. There are degrees of loudness where screams are concerned, or we wouldn't have common expressions such as: "She screamed at the top of her lungs/voice", or "she screamed blue murder", or "she let out a piercing scream".

Louis D's wife was in the kitchen doing the teas and coffees and only realised he was back when he suddenly appeared with news of his grim discovery. So she didn't hear his pony and cart entering the yard, or just didn't register the sound.

I imagine Schwartz might have gone straight for a policeman if Stride had been screaming for all she was worth.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Another extremely important point, which you unsurprisingly failed to mention, is that most of the evidence from the case is now lost. It cannot simply be assumed that no mention was ever made of Mortimer seeing Goldstein twice.

So you admit there is no surviving evidence that Mortimer did see Goldstein twice, or ever suggested it?

I don't know why you continue to misinterpret the meaning of 'previously', despite several English speaking posters pointing this out to you. But it does you no favours. It's primary level comprehension when you put it in context, that this doesn't refer to seeing Goldstein on two occasions, but to when Mortimer herself was 'previously' on her doorstep, before emerging again when the alarm was raised.

In short, she saw Goldstein on the previous occasion she was in a position to see anything or anyone.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road.

In other words, the only man Mortimer saw when she was previously on her doorstep - i.e. before the murder was discovered - was a young man with a bag.

She even helps you to understand this was just the one sighting of him, by describing what he was doing on that one occasion.

Love,

Caz
X

[FrankO]

What do you suppose actually made her scream? That is, was it screams of pain, or humiliation, or something else?

As we have nothing to stand on, evidencewise, we might concoct away. Without getting anywhere, mind you.

There doesn't seem to have been any physical evidence of her being thrown to the ground, so I would doubt it being a matter of physical pain, but then why didn't she just say something to the man assaulting her, or call for help? After all, Schwartz was right there.

Maybe she did say something to Mr. Broad Shoulders. Maybe something like "Stop it", "I'm not your woman", "Leave me alone". Or maybe she did say something to Schwartz, maybe something like "What are you looking at?", Mind your own business", "Get out of here". Or "Help", "Go for the police" "Go now". For all we know, it might have been any one of these 3 possibilities.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So you admit there is no surviving evidence that Mortimer did see Goldstein twice, or ever suggested it?

I don't know why you continue to misinterpret the meaning of 'previously', despite several English speaking posters pointing this out to you. But it does you no favours. It's primary level comprehension when you put it in context, that this doesn't refer to seeing Goldstein on two occasions, but to when Mortimer herself was 'previously' on her doorstep, before emerging again when the alarm was raised.

In short, she saw Goldstein on the previous occasion she was in a position to see anything or anyone.

Love,

Caz
X

Your not thinking ‘sinister’ enough Caz.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My point is that it is a we are dealing with an issue of probability. We are not dealing with a world of definite or impossible circumstances - which you seem to be more comfortable with. If you cannot understand that the witnessing of Schwartz's story is a matter of probability, then there is indeed no point in proceeding.

So my thinking is … which is the more likely?

a) an incident occurred of a duration of a few seconds where no great noise was made but there was no one else in the street at that precise time so no one saw it or heard it from within the houses.

or,

b) Israel Schwartz lied about being in Berner Street at that time and when he tells this lie he has absolutely no way of knowing if anyone, in the street or from within one of the houses, could have proven him a liar. And in doing so he places himself at the scene of a brutal murder with no one to say “yes, I was there too and Mr Schwartz simply walked past a wasn’t involved.”

Again, which of those 2 is the likeliest? It’s a) by an absolute country mile. It’s not even remotely close. So the overwhelming ‘probability’ is that the Schwartz incident occurred.

The Star: The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Who saw it, other than Schwartz? If not Mortimer, was it a WVC patrolman?

If it’s a report only mentioned in one paper I’d say it’s probably a mistake if no one else mentioned anyone else seeing the incident.

If there were no witnesses to the incident, then what backup does Schwartz have, regardless of his honesty? Who was in a position to verify Schwartz's story? Someone at home could only verify that he was not at home at the time, which proves little. On the other hand, if Mortimer had been at her doorstep at the time and witnessed the assault (assuming it occurred), she could could have at least partially backed up Schwartz's claim to have passed through the street at the time. Yet if that were the case, then how many men did Mortimer actually see pass through the street ...?

The experienced and highly regarded Abberline interviewed him face to face and believed that he was a truthful witness.

... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road.


Just the one (as everyone here seems to believe), or was black bag man the only man she had seen more recently, who had also passed through the street previously?

Everyone believes it because it’s true that there was only one. She saw Goldstein once. If she’d seen him twice she’d have mentioned it. It would have interested the police. But she didn’t say that she’d seen him twice. Because she didn’t. His passing was unimportant but the police naturally interviewed him and found that he was unconnected to the crime. Goldstein can and should be kicked into the long grass and no more words should be wasted on him.

What wasn't very loud? The screams which were conveniently not very loud? Did the man call out 'Lipski' to the man on the opposite side of the street, but not very loudly?

It wasn’t loud enough for anyone in the houses to hear. Simple. That’s all that we need to know. When Schwartz (at whatever time it was) passed Fanny Mortimer was indoors. How do we know that she was indoors? Because she didn’t see the Schwartz incident and she very obviously would have done had she been on her doorstep.

Again, we know what happened in Berner Street. No one lied, or covered anything up. There were no fiendish plots or blokes walking around with false beards on looking out through newspapers with two holes cut out. A woman got murdered by an unknown man who got away with it.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Memoirs written 50 years after the crimes b a man who was a mere Constable at the time

Which compares very favourably to yourself.

Why do suppose that the claims made regarding Berner street in that memoir, written by a world famous ex-detective, have hardly been acknowledged let alone discussed by Ripperologists, since WW2? Considering all the wacky and highly unlikely identities who have been placed on JtR suspect lists over the years, the absence of Leon Goldstein from any of them seems to be an anomaly. Can you explain it?