If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not sure if the police would blend witness times like that, just as they do not blend witness descriptions (in case it wasn't the same bloke). Whatever the case, the timeline you describe here has Mortimer at her doorstep by 12:45, and midway between then and 1am, she sees Goldstein. That was just before she turned in. Sounds about right to me. See how easy it is when the actor is excluded?

Neither scenario excludes Schwartz. He was there. It’s a fixed point in any scenario.

All we know is she said she'd just gone indoors. So let's just call it 'no more than 5 minutes', and accept that she was therefore at her open door until that amount of time before the arrival of Diemschitz.

No. We work Fanny’s story around Schwartz. We don’t know exactly what time either of them were present. We just know that they weren’t present at the same time.

Because in the scenario that Goldstein passes at 12:45, the pony and cart cannot come along more a few minutes later. It is not realistic to have Schwartz and Brown in the intervening timespan.

Yes it is. Time gap unknown. Ignore times and just go on order of events. The only question is was Schwartz before Fanny went onto her doorstep or after she went back inside. It could have been either.


A careful reading of Brown suggests that he did not see the couple until returning home. This suggests that the couple he saw had arrived at the spot while he was in the chandlers shop. That was at about 12:45. What did the young woman say ...?

She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

It fits like a hand in a glove, when allowing for a very reasonable change of size.



It's always necessary to keep in mind that Spooner stated that the victim appeared to be bleeding, when he was examining. There was also huge blood loss by that time. Was she murdered at 12:45, or more like midway between 12:45 and 1am?

You can very obviously post what you like but I have no interest in fantasies. Schwartz was there. I’m not interested in any scenario which seeks to conveniently airbrush him. He was there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If murder occurred (whether high profile or otherwise) somewhere near to where any of us lived how many of us would agree to lie about being on the spot when we weren’t? How many would be able to, just a few hours later, provide a reason for actually being there so that the police could easily check where we came from and at what time? They would also have been able to have checked the validity of the reason for our presence there. Then of course, as we weren’t actually there, how would feel about the very obvious possibility that someone might have come forward and said “well I was there and I never saw him?” And, that said, how enthusiastic would we be for such a lie when would know that it placed us at the scene of the murder without anyone to say “yes, I saw him there and he wasn’t physically involved in the incident.” Added to this how comfortable would the person that put you up to this lie feel? Knowing that under pressure from police questioning you might slip up or even just admit that you were coerced to lie.

Yet we keep being asked to accept this preposterous nonsense. And the only reason that this silliness has been put forward is because some of the timings don’t exactly match up. No matter how many times it’s shown that, by employing a margin for error, that there are no issues some still prefer to dive straight into cover up and conspiracy no matter how far-fetched, baseless and ridiculous, rather than accept the very obvious, the very plausible and the very grounded explanation that times shouldn’t be taken exactly. That we need to make allowances. Just as we need to make allowances for the various minor differences in press report. These differences are simply par for the course and we would be more surprised if they didn’t exist.

Faced with the two possibilities, a) unrealistic, unlikely, baseless, motiveless cover up (they happen all the time when people are murdered in the street of course) or, b) Schwartz simply saw an incident when there was no one else in the street, how can there even be any competition between the two? How much time do we waste in our lives listening to this kind of stuff. Enough is enough with this tired joke.

[JeffHamm]

...
Faced with the two possibilities, a) unrealistic, unlikely, baseless, motiveless cover up (they happen all the time when people are murdered in the street of course) or, b) Schwartz simply saw an incident when there was no one else in the street, how can there even be any competition between the two? How much time do we waste in our lives listening to this kind of stuff. Enough is enough with this tired joke.

But there was someone else in the street; Pipeman. And there are tantalizing suggestions that Pipeman may have been identified, in which case, Schwartz's account would have been corroborated (by which I mean the events not Schwartz's interpretation of the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman - the Lipski stuff).

Sadly for us, the information we have is only suggestive that Pipeman was identified and interviewed, and this is just another one of those times where the police knew more than we do, but we cannot be sure of what that "more" consisted of. But regardless, there was someone else in the street at the time and while we don't have it recorded what their version of the events were it is possible the police did. And if they did, it would have been recorded somewhere at that time. Uncovering that in some misplaced document would be a fantastic discovery. Sigh. If I'm going to be making wishes, I want a pony too.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

George,
in #2821 I discussed two scenarios. One based roughly on Goldstein time (12:55), and the other with Goldstein replacing Schwartz at ~12:45, which is obviously not Goldstein time, or Schwartz time, or Mortimer time. It's just a scenario that attempts to make sense of the evidence. I did use police time, true, but on the other hand, Mortimer time was only mentioned to suggest that her timing fits the first scenario. So what unjustified syncing of times am I guilty of?



I recently theorized that Fanny may well have seen the assault described by Schwartz. This resulted in zero discussion. As anticipated. The same was true when I suggested that WVC patrolman may have been on Berner street in the lead-up to the murder, and may have included men whose names we know of, and/or the men described by Schwartz. This resulted in a long and interesting discussion. Not. As anticipated. The demand for any theories that step outside of "we know what happened on Berner street", is zero. Yourself being the exception. So perhaps just ask me some questions?

I, too, would be interested in seeing you lay out a time line, with or without actual times (your preference) of how you envision the events occurring and how all the pieces fit together. It's often difficult to piece them together to reflect your "big picture" when the ideas are presented scattered over multiple threads. Particularly when there are times when things seem to be contradictory. For example, you point out above that you recently considered the idea that Fanny may have seen the assault referred to by Schwartz, and yet in the post immediately preceding that one you stated that the events Schwartz described simply never happened ("No one heard it, because it never happened. Simpler." is how you phrased it). But if it never happened, then Fanny could not have witnessed them, so it's hard to reconcile your thoughts because these examples suggest that you believe the events both did and did not happen when we look over those two different posts. Clearly that can't be the case, nor do I think you believe that.

Rather, it is more likely you are exploring different lines of thought, which is certainly good practice, but it can be confusing for everyone else trying to make sense of your position in terms of the big picture.

By presenting a sequence of events, or a time line of the events, then it would go to great lengths to clarify your core position at this time - the framework on which the detailed events are hung so to speak. Obviously, we're all free to change our minds in the future so presenting your thoughts as they stand at this point in time does not mean you are forever beholden to stand fast to them.


- Jeff

[GBinOz]

I, too, would be interested in seeing you lay out a time line, with or without actual times (your preference) of how you envision the events occurring and how all the pieces fit together. It's often difficult to piece them together to reflect your "big picture" when the ideas are presented scattered over multiple threads. Particularly when there are times when things seem to be contradictory. For example, you point out above that you recently considered the idea that Fanny may have seen the assault referred to by Schwartz, and yet in the post immediately preceding that one you stated that the events Schwartz described simply never happened ("No one heard it, because it never happened. Simpler." is how you phrased it). But if it never happened, then Fanny could not have witnessed them, so it's hard to reconcile your thoughts because these examples suggest that you believe the events both did and did not happen when we look over those two different posts. Clearly that can't be the case, nor do I think you believe that.

Rather, it is more likely you are exploring different lines of thought, which is certainly good practice, but it can be confusing for everyone else trying to make sense of your position in terms of the big picture.

By presenting a sequence of events, or a time line of the events, then it would go to great lengths to clarify your core position at this time - the framework on which the detailed events are hung so to speak. Obviously, we're all free to change our minds in the future so presenting your thoughts as they stand at this point in time does not mean you are forever beholden to stand fast to them.


- Jeff

Thanks Jeff,

You have laid out a reply to Andrew far better than I could have formulated. Hopefully he will be persuaded.

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

But there was someone else in the street; Pipeman. And there are tantalizing suggestions that Pipeman may have been identified, in which case, Schwartz's account would have been corroborated (by which I mean the events not Schwartz's interpretation of the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman - the Lipski stuff).

Sadly for us, the information we have is only suggestive that Pipeman was identified and interviewed, and this is just another one of those times where the police knew more than we do, but we cannot be sure of what that "more" consisted of. But regardless, there was someone else in the street at the time and while we don't have it recorded what their version of the events were it is possible the police did. And if they did, it would have been recorded somewhere at that time. Uncovering that in some misplaced document would be a fantastic discovery. Sigh. If I'm going to be making wishes, I want a pony too.

- Jeff

Fair point of course Jeff. As you say, the possibility at least exists that they did indeed locate Pipeman who confirmed Schwartz story.

Good luck with the pony Jeff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any doubts that the local police might have had about Schwartz story could have originated from Pipeman had they located and interviewed him of course. He and Schwartz might have viewed the incident differently with Schwartz seeing aggression where Pipeman saw drunken horseplay perhaps? And with Fanny’s statement they might have considered the possibility that Schwartz had seen an incident unconnected to the Stride murder that might have occurred at an earlier time. Perhaps around or before 12.30 just before Smith passed along Berner Street especially if Schwartz was simply estimating the time and he had no way of being in a position to confirm it?

Abberline might have been more impressed by Schwartz version than Pipeman’s and he could been right or wrong.

But however we evaluate what we know and however we interpret the timing discrepancies, to suggest that Schwartz lied about being present then we have to consider and assess the actual likelihood of this happening and when we do that the doubts begin to pile up so heavily that when we view them as a list I fail to see how the possibility can carry any weight.

[caz]

If Mortimer had said ...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

... you and the other English speaking posters would have a point. But she didn't say that. Alternatively, if Mortimer had said ...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

... you and the other English speaking posters would have half a point. But she didn't say that either. What she did say, was ...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

Which means something different again, and so you and the other English speaking posters do not have a point. If Mortimer had only seen one man the whole time she was at the door, she would have said so, and not bothered placing black bag man into a special category.

What? Just before Fanny turned in, she noticed one person passing: the man who would later identify himself as Goldstein, and satisfy the police about his movements and whereabouts around the time of the murder. She went out again just after one o'clock to see what the commotion was. She didn't see Goldstein on that occasion, did she? Therefore, he was the only man she had seen pass through the street when she had previously been outside, i.e. at some point between 12.30 and 1am, but closer to 1am if it was just before she turned in. Just the one man passing, when she happened to be out on her doorstep. It doesn't get much simpler than that - unless you really, really want it to be complicated.

This implicitly assumes that Mortimer was only at her doorstep on one occasion, leading up to the murder. This assumption is not justified. Mortimer's own words combined with other evidence suggests that she was first outside not long after 12:30, and that she remained there nearly the whole time, before seeing Goldstein at close to 1am. This suggests she were at the door in an on-off-on manner. Consequently, we cannot say what period 'previously' refers to. So if she had indeed been in a position to see anything more than once, the question then becomes; previous to what? At this point, the meaning of 'previously' is uncertain, but the breakdown above should at least suggest that she did not use the word 'previously' in a redundant manner. The only way we could resolve this ambiguity, is by turning to other evidence. Here is that evidence ...

I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.
...
He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

No such assumption needed on my part. Fanny could have been in and out every few minutes for all the difference it would make to her only sighting of a man in the street, who happened to be Goldstein. If she had seen this same man on two occasions, or if the police had found her testimony ambiguous in that regard, this would surely have come out in the wash, and Goldstein would have been grilled accordingly. It didn't happen.

Love,

Caz
X

[JeffHamm]

Fair point of course Jeff. As you say, the possibility at least exists that they did indeed locate Pipeman who confirmed Schwartz story.

Good luck with the pony Jeff.

Hi Herlock,

While the information we have suggests that Pipeman was identified and interviewed by the police, which would confirm the events Schwartz described but presumably refutes Schwartz's belief Pipeman and B.S. were a team (and that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman, etc), if that suggestion is true it would also explain the statements in the press about how Schwartz's account might not be wholly believed by the police. Basically, the police believe Schwartz's statements with regards to the events, but not his statements about the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman or the intended target of B.S. Lipski. In short, they accepted his facts but did not accept his interpretation of them - so his statement was not wholly believed, but that means it was not wholly disbelieved either. I tend to think this division is what the "not wholly believed/relied upon" statement is in reference to. And if Pipeman was subsequently identified and interviewed, then the police's suspicions would be confirmed.

We get to the same above notion simply via the memo to HO as well, where the alternative explanation for Lipski is given. So identifying Pipeman isn't necessary to get there for the police to have doubts (alternate explanations they believe to be more likely) but a chat with Pipeman would be a way for them to confirm or refute those doubts.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

While the information we have suggests that Pipeman was identified and interviewed by the police, which would confirm the events Schwartz described but presumably refutes Schwartz's belief Pipeman and B.S. were a team (and that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman, etc), if that suggestion is true it would also explain the statements in the press about how Schwartz's account might not be wholly believed by the police. Basically, the police believe Schwartz's statements with regards to the events, but not his statements about the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman or the intended target of B.S. Lipski. In short, they accepted his facts but did not accept his interpretation of them - so his statement was not wholly believed, but that means it was not wholly disbelieved either. I tend to think this division is what the "not wholly believed/relied upon" statement is in reference to. And if Pipeman was subsequently identified and interviewed, then the police's suspicions would be confirmed.

We get to the same above notion simply via the memo to HO as well, where the alternative explanation for Lipski is given. So identifying Pipeman isn't necessary to get there for the police to have doubts (alternate explanations they believe to be more likely) but a chat with Pipeman would be a way for them to confirm or refute those doubts.

- Jeff

Hello Jeff,

Yes it has to be a possibility that any doubt as to the Schwartz incident might simply have been a matter of a difference in interpretation between Schwartz and Pipeman with Abberline favouring the Schwartz version. I know that not everyone will agree but I don’t think that’s it’s so much of a long shot to suggest that a situation of drunken horseplay or even a non-threatening disagreement might have been misunderstood by a non-English speaker walking the streets around midnight and one who might even have been of a nervous disposition in the first place.

Obviously Abberline would have been aware of the clash between the ‘12.45’ of both FM and Schwartz and yet he went with the Schwartz version. Any police doubts might have been because they favoured FM and believed that the incident that Schwartz saw had occurred earlier in the evening taking into consideration estimated times of course?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Mortimer had said ...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

... you and the other English speaking posters would have a point. But she didn't say that. Alternatively, if Mortimer had said ...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

... you and the other English speaking posters would have half a point. But she didn't say that either. What she did say, was ...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

Which means something different again, and so you and the other English speaking posters do not have a point. If Mortimer had only seen one man the whole time she was at the door, she would have said so, and not bothered placing black bag man into a special category.

.[/I]

I realise that Caz has already answered this point (a point that we’ve all responded to at some point) but I’ll add one to your “But she she didn’t say that….” point. She also didn’t say “is saw a man that I’d seen previously,” or “I saw a Jewish looking man for the second time that night,” or “I saw a young Jewish man who I recognised as the man that I’d seen earlier,” or “I’m sure that the man that I saw walking along Berner Street was the same man that I’d seen earlier.”

So at the time of a murder, during a series of high profile murders, a woman sees a man with a black bag hurrying past the site of a murder but she doesn’t explicitly mention that she’d actually seen him twice. This is the problem with reading way too much into one word. It’s also worth noting that nowhere did the police ever mention her seeing him twice and nowhere in the various Press reports did they ever say that the man was seen by FM twice. And we know why. Because she clearly only saw Goldstein once.

[JeffHamm]

Hello Jeff,

Yes it has to be a possibility that any doubt as to the Schwartz incident might simply have been a matter of a difference in interpretation between Schwartz and Pipeman with Abberline favouring the Schwartz version. I know that not everyone will agree but I don’t think that’s it’s so much of a long shot to suggest that a situation of drunken horseplay or even a non-threatening disagreement might have been misunderstood by a non-English speaker walking the streets around midnight and one who might even have been of a nervous disposition in the first place.

Obviously Abberline would have been aware of the clash between the ‘12.45’ of both FM and Schwartz and yet he went with the Schwartz version. Any police doubts might have been because they favoured FM and believed that the incident that Schwartz saw had occurred earlier in the evening taking into consideration estimated times of course?

Hi Herlock,

My reading of Abberline's view is that he suspected that Lipski was shouted at Schwartz during the Schwartz interview, so the doubts around Schwartz's interpretations of the events (at least with regards to any potential relationship between B.S. and Pipeman) arose at that time, which would be before Pipeman was potentially identified and spoken with as well.

Pipeman, if interviewed, may very well have also indicated that he saw a man throw a woman to the ground, etc, but I suppose your suggestion that Pipeman's interpretation of that could also have been very different cannot be dismissed.

My sense is that the police were fairly confident that Schwartz did see a man assault Stride where she was put to the ground, and that the man shouted Lipski. Also, that there was another person present (Pipeman). However, the police were inclined to believe that Lipski was actually shouted at Schwartz and that Schwartz was mistaken in thinking it was shouted to alert Pipeman, and that Pipeman was more likely a 2nd potential witness than a 2nd potential perpetrator. So the police did have "doubts" about the accuracy of some parts of Schwartz's statements and hence, Schwartz's account could not be wholly believed, only partially believed. Basically, the police did not think Schwartz was making the events up, he just didn't fully comprehend what was going on. Finding Pipeman (or B.S.) would allow them to get a 2nd statement to help resolve that (remember, just because the police suspected Schwartz was mistaken doesn't mean he was mistaken and the police would want to know if the correct interpretation was that put forth by Schwartz, who was there, or the police, who are more familiar with criminal events and situations. We know the police did search for Lipski families in the area, so even though they had doubts about Schwartz's statement they didn't dismiss it and followed it as a potential lead.

As to the time conflict of 12:45, I think they would have viewed any statement of time that wasn't based upon a clock reading (i.e. I went inside when I heard the 3/4 of an hour chime strike) as meaning "roughly x o'clock". Basically, Fanny was simply not on her porch at the time Schwartz saw things. My guess is that she went in a few minutes before the Schwartz event, perhaps just after seeing Goldstein pass? But I need to go over all of those statements again and try and sort things out. We're into pretty fuzzy territory by this point. I sometimes wonder if, for example, Goldstein passes after the Schwartz event, so FM has to come out after it, and Goldstein glances at the club because he sees some movement in the dark alley (i.e. the murder). FM then goes inside, Goldstein moves on, and JtR leaves, shortly followed by Deimshutz's arrival. But that would mean the Shwartz event occurs just long enough before Goldstein enters the scene that Schartz and Pipeman have left, and Stride and B.S. are in the ally, but not so much before that B.S. has time to do more than cut her throat (note, presuming that B.S. = JtR of course). I think, though, while exciting, that scenerio is just a bit too tight time wise to justify based upon the information we have. Would make a good movie scene though.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There are 2 types of speculative scenarios: one in which Mr. Broad Shoulders is also Stride's killer and one in which he's not. There's no way for us to determine which is the correct one, however incompatible Schwartz's evidence might be with that of Lamb and Blackwell.

Sure, there is no way for us to determine which is the correct one, if these are the only choices. However, the incompatibility of Schwartz's evidence with that of Lamb and Blackwell, surely provides some basis for making a decision on which scenario is the most likely. If we go with the later option, we are of course then dealing with the probability of Stride being attacked by two men, less than 15 minutes apart.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I know that you object to the ‘few seconds’ but of course that’s only because you’ve sought to portray it as if Schwartz pulled up a chair to watch a dress rehearsal for Twelfth Night. Schwartz walked behind BS man along Berner Street. He saw him stop and talk to Stride. It’s impossible that it took more than a few seconds. Why argue against the obvious?

Because it's obvious that the stopwatch has to start from the time Stride reaches the gateway, and not from the moment Schwartz enters Berner street. Consequently we are dealing with the probability of Stride standing at that location, without being seen. We also have to ponder her reason for standing there alone. This from the Irish Times:

Several members of the club, including the steward, stated that the yard adjoining the building had never been frequented by unfortunate women. The traffic there is constant, and continues almost all the night through.

This is rather different from the picture we have of no one being in the yard between the time of Eagle's return, and Diemschitz' return. Presumably people inside would have used the outside loos in that period, or have gone outside for the fresh air, as Lave did. Yet no one saw or heard anything suspicious, let alone witnessed the deceased standing at the gates ...

The windows of the clubroom are within ten feet of the spot, whilst the cottages stand almost opposite and command a complete view of it. None of the occupants of these houses, however, heard the faintest noise in the course of Saturday night or Sunday morning. The residents in the yard are tailors and cigarette makers, and they are not in the habit of retiring very early. A reporter who made inquiry among them, however, was unable to find any person who had either seen or heard anything suspicious.

The stopwatch on the Schwartz incident is stopped when either Schwartz stops running, or Berner street is cleared of the other characters in his story - whichever comes last.

[Mark J D]

... we are of course then dealing with the probability of Stride being attacked by two men, less than 15 minutes apart...

I don't think one is compelled to postulate an improbability like two equally random attacks on one woman in a brief period. I would imagine that a killer like ours would be absolutely delighted to see a woman being assaulted by another man in front of a witness: he can then sidle up and cut her throat knowing that, as long as he has not been seen, descriptions of those two other people are going to circulate in perpetuity. Thus the attacks are not really 'separate': the first is actually the cause of the second...

M.