If Schwartz Lied ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

By 'fixed point', you of course don't mean that theories should be based around an agreed upon time, you mean that the reality of Schwartz's story is not be questioned.

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.

Is that what a professional historian would do? Is that what the police did, or would do now - force one witnesses account to be compatible with that of another?

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.

No, I'm not going to "ignore times and just go on order of events", because it is not possible to know what events are realistic, let alone the order they should be placed in, without having some grasp of the timing of those events. More specifically, all the evidence we have suggests that the pony and cart arrived soon after Mortimer locked up. I'm not going to throw away that evidence to protect Israel Schwartz.

When George was putting up a strong case that Diemschitz could not have seen the Harris clock at 1am - as he claimed to at the inquest - you were at the forefront of the fierce resistance to that notion. So in theory you ignore times, but in practice, otherwise.

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.

Your faith in Schwartz has a hint of religiosity about it.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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).

Corroborated, or contradicted? I guess it depends on the interpretation of the Star's Oct 1 & 2 references to the prisoner, and the "other source" who led to another man being arrested, and apparently being released within about 24 hours. If Pipeman was the prisoner mentioned, then how could there be another source, if Pipeman was the only other man on the street? Or, if Pipeman was the other source, who did he point the finger at? Presumably BS man, but then what happens to Schwartz's story, if BS man is quickly released? Does the Star Oct 2 edition, not answer that question?

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

The best we could hope for is attempt to ascertain the identity of Pipeman, and see where that leads ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

True, but that picture is cracked, blurred, has many missing pieces, and worst of all, it keeps moving in front of me!

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.

Yes, I knew I was contradicting myself, but sometimes I think it's better for the discussion to get people thinking and talking, rather than just trying to contradict them. Besides, I could be wrong - both Schwartz and Goldstein may have had absolutely nothing to do with the murder, and have no knowledge of who did. In that case it was Charles Letchford LOL

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

I take your point, but I'm more interested in theories than sequences. Theories are about insight, whereas sequences are mostly (it seems) about making everything fit. Yet how can everything be made to fit, without consensus on what everything consists of? Clearly I'm not part of any consensus.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

There is no doubt that Schwartz was taking a risk in lying to the police. Perhaps he was a risk taker. Can you think of anyone else, who was in the habit of taking huge risks?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

So now you're saying she only saw one person passing. Not long ago it was ...

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.

If it is so simple, why the change of tune? Is it because I pointed out that the chances of Mortimer only seeing one man between nearly all of 12:30 to 1am, were slim to none?

FM: I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in.

This has two possible interpretations. Yours is ...

I only noticed one person passing, and that was just before I turned in.

Mine is:

Just before I turned in, I only noticed one person passing.

Your interpretation does not explain why she says what she says immediately following ...

That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.

Why was he going in that direction?

Our job is to explain all the evidence, not just parts of it.

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

How do you know it didn't happen?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

Wait a minute. The Star tells us:

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.

That would seem to be an overreaction, if the only issue was that they disagreed with Schwartz's interpretation. Especially if that disagreement was down to nothing more than another mans interpretation. However, it would not have been an overreaction, if Pipeman had so thoroughly contradicted Schwartz, that the police at Leman street decided they could no longer act on Schwartz's statement, without additional facts. Yet this begs the question - why believe Pipeman and disbelieve Schwartz? Pipeman must have had something overwhelming in his favour. Such as proof of his whereabouts, and there could be no better proof than being locked in the yard, and ending up on Reid's list of 28.

As for Schwartz, was he not at the inquest, because he was back at Leman street police station, attempting to provide those additional facts?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

It would make a good movie scene. In it I would have Goldstein reaching 22 Christian street, only to spot Schwartz by the railway arch, catching his breath. Goldstein being a considerate chap, opens his black bag and pulls out a cigarette. He hands to it Schwartz and gives him a light, hoping to calm his nerves.

[Herlock Sholmes]

By 'fixed point', you of course don't mean that theories should be based around an agreed upon time, you mean that the reality of Schwartz's story is not be questioned.



Is that what a professional historian would do? Is that what the police did, or would do now - force one witnesses account to be compatible with that of another?



No, I'm not going to "ignore times and just go on order of events", because it is not possible to know what events are realistic, let alone the order they should be placed in, without having some grasp of the timing of those events. More specifically, all the evidence we have suggests that the pony and cart arrived soon after Mortimer locked up. I'm not going to throw away that evidence to protect Israel Schwartz.

When George was putting up a strong case that Diemschitz could not have seen the Harris clock at 1am - as he claimed to at the inquest - you were at the forefront of the fierce resistance to that notion. So in theory you ignore times, but in practice, otherwise.



Your faith in Schwartz has a hint of religiosity about it.

I could also say that your obsession with uncovering a non-existent cover up boarders on obsessive.

I can accept the suggestion that Schwartz might have got his time estimation wrong.
I can accept that he might have seen an incident which wasn’t actually threatening.
I can accept that Schwartz might have made errors in his observations.

But I see no reason to even consider that he wasn’t there. Especially when the case for this is simply based on the time that Fanny Mortimer was on her doorstep.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no doubt that Schwartz was taking a risk in lying to the police. Perhaps he was a risk taker. Can you think of anyone else, who was in the habit of taking huge risks?

But there’s no evidence for it or any valid reason that anyone could come up with. It wouldn’t even have been a calculated risk. Just a pointless one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, I'm not going to "ignore times and just go on order of events", because it is not possible to know what events are realistic, let alone the order they should be placed in, without having some grasp of the timing of those events. More specifically, all the evidence we have suggests that the pony and cart arrived soon after Mortimer locked up. I'm not going to throw away that evidence to protect Israel Schwartz.
.

Of course we can’t completely ignore times but we can go through the series of events without assigning exact times to them (or any times if we just suggest a reasonable, plausible series of events) because we have absolutely no way of knowing how accurate these times were. We can’t prove or disprove anything by obsessing with them. As long as we don’t take it to ridiculous lengths it helps us see what was a realistic possibility and what wasn’t. But nothing can be gained, except providing fodder for cover ups, if we persist in trying to tie down certain events to exact times which is what you appear to constantly want to do. In a previous post I cited the example of Long and Halse who both quoted exactly the same time that they had previously walked along Goulston Street without seeing each other. Should that ‘concern’ us? Not in the slightest as it would only have taken a minute or less of leeway in times and they would indeed have missed each other. Add the unlikeliness of them lying or the lack of any known motive for lying then the answer is obvious. Likewise in Berner Street.

So we have…

1. Mortimer was there and Schwartz wasn’t - so Schwartz lied - the incident didn’t occur.
2. Mortimer was there and Schwartz wasn’t - so Schwartz got his time wrong - the incident occurred.
3. Mortimer lied - and Schwartz was there - the incident occurred.
4. Mortimer was mistaken on her time - and Schwartz was there - the incident occurred.

So 3 out of the 4 ‘possibles’ we have the incident being entirely possible.

Then, could it have occurred and not been heard?

I don’t really see this as a question worth wasting time on. “Not very loudly,” should seal the deal combined with the fact that we don’t even know if Fanny was at the front or back part of the house at the time, combined with the fact that this event would have only occurred over a matter of seconds. No issue at all here….it quite obviously could have occurred unheard.

Then we have no valid suggestion of a reason for Schwartz lying.

Then we have to add the utter stupidity of claiming to have been somewhere without being aware of the very real possibility of someone proving otherwise.

Then we have the fact that he’d have been placing himself at the crime scene with no one to verify that he wasn’t the actual murderer.

How much more do we need?

Schwartz was there.

[JeffHamm]

...
I take your point, but I'm more interested in theories than sequences. Theories are about insight, whereas sequences are mostly (it seems) about making everything fit. Yet how can everything be made to fit, without consensus on what everything consists of? Clearly I'm not part of any consensus.

But theories are the explanations for the sequence of events - theories are explaining what happened. When we don't know what happened (the sequence) then we don't know what it is we have to explain. While I fully accept that we don't have enough information to be absolutely certain of what the sequence (data) is, and so we all end up having to make some assumptions at various points, without knowing what you think probably happened it becomes hard to follow your explanations because the various posts don't seem to fit together. I recognize that if you haven't settled upon a big picture structure to work from how that makes perfect sense, but it also makes it hard to enter into lengthy discussions while your position is still fluctuating from one idea to the next because as your underlying structure shifts the arguments you present can end up being contradictory (as we noted above), and that isn't fruitful for the other person.

I think it would be a really good exercise for you to try and put together a sequence/time line, or even multiple ones. Find out which of your ideas can work together (produce a structure) and which of your ideas don't fit together. In the end, you might have say 3 different structures, and some ideas may fit into any of them, but other ideas will only fit in 2 of the 3, and other ideas can only work in one or another of the structures.

And then, you can compare how well each of those "models", or "theories" seem to do. It will help to stabalize that big picture that keeps moving in front of you by creating different versions. After that, it will become apparent which ideas conflict with each other (i.e. if I include idea A in this structure I can't fit in idea B, but in my other structure I can put idea B but not idea A).

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

True, but that picture is cracked, blurred, has many missing pieces, and worst of all, it keeps moving in front of me!

So it is for many of us.
Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Of course we can’t completely ignore times but we can go through the series of events without assigning exact times to them (or any times if we just suggest a reasonable, plausible series of events) because we have absolutely no way of knowing how accurate these times were. We can’t prove or disprove anything by obsessing with them. As long as we don’t take it to ridiculous lengths it helps us see what was a realistic possibility and what wasn’t. But nothing can be gained, except providing fodder for cover ups, if we persist in trying to tie down certain events to exact times which is what you appear to constantly want to do.

You've made this claim several times now. Can you back it up by quoting me in a way that demonstrates that I'm constantly demanding exact times?

In a previous post I cited the example of Long and Halse who both quoted exactly the same time that they had previously walked along Goulston Street without seeing each other. Should that ‘concern’ us? Not in the slightest as it would only have taken a minute or less of leeway in times and they would indeed have missed each other. Add the unlikeliness of them lying or the lack of any known motive for lying then the answer is obvious. Likewise in Berner Street.

I don't think two PC's are good basis for comparison.

So we have…

1. Mortimer was there and Schwartz wasn’t - so Schwartz lied - the incident didn’t occur.
2. Mortimer was there and Schwartz wasn’t - so Schwartz got his time wrong - the incident occurred.
3. Mortimer lied - and Schwartz was there - the incident occurred.
4. Mortimer was mistaken on her time - and Schwartz was there - the incident occurred.

So 3 out of the 4 ‘possibles’ we have the incident being entirely possible.

I'm wary of these "I can prove what happened by sheer logic" arguments. They are full of unexamined assumptions. For example, what is the definition of 'there' for Mortimer, and for Schwartz? If Mortimer was in her front room ground floor bedroom, and heard the 'measured, heavy tramp' of a passing policeman, was she 'there'? If Schwartz had arrived at the gateway, and proceeded to take Stride into the yard and kill her, that would surely count as being 'there', but that is obviously not what you meant.

Then, could it have occurred and not been heard?

No, and that is why we have multiple witnesses stating that had there been screams of cries for help, they surely would have heard them.

I don’t really see this as a question worth wasting time on. “Not very loudly,” should seal the deal combined with the fact that we don’t even know if Fanny was at the front or back part of the house at the time, combined with the fact that this event would have only occurred over a matter of seconds. No issue at all here….it quite obviously could have occurred unheard.

Apart from the fact that we are dealing with many more witnesses than just Fanny, your reasoning is faulty. To claim that these not very loud screams "should seal the deal", completely ignores that the reality of these screams is not an objective fact, but just a claim made by a single witness. Your argument amounts to; "Schwartz is to be believed, because he said there were screams, but they were not very loud". Schwartz cannot simply be taken on trust.

Then we have no valid suggestion of a reason for Schwartz lying.

Given that his story is so unlikely, the lack of valid suggestions for him lying amounts to a criticism of Ripperologists in general. Perhaps some effort should be made in this direction, as it has been in coming up with reasons for Stride to have stood alone in the Dutfield's Yard gateway.

Then we have to add the utter stupidity of claiming to have been somewhere without being aware of the very real possibility of someone proving otherwise.

Schwartz claimed to have been out on the street and alone, having been away from his wife all day and part of the night. How could someone have proven him to not be on Berner street when he said he was? It seems a little ironic for you to be making this argument, given your 'exact time' accusations of myself.

Then we have the fact that he’d have been placing himself at the crime scene with no one to verify that he wasn’t the actual murderer.

Exactly. That's what we do have, and in the Echo report, he implicitly is the murderer.

How much more do we need?

Well for starters, we need an explanation for the board school couple not seeing or hearing the incident.

Schwartz was there.

What evidence supports this assertion?

[caz]

Corroborated, or contradicted? I guess it depends on the interpretation of the Star's Oct 1 & 2 references to the prisoner, and the "other source" who led to another man being arrested, and apparently being released within about 24 hours. If Pipeman was the prisoner mentioned, then how could there be another source, if Pipeman was the only other man on the street? Or, if Pipeman was the other source, who did he point the finger at? Presumably BS man, but then what happens to Schwartz's story, if BS man is quickly released? Does the Star Oct 2 edition, not answer that question?

Why assume that the 'prisoner', or the second man who was arrested and then released, were either Pipeman or BS man, and not just men who fit the given descriptions, but were provably elsewhere at the time? As you don't believe the incident happened anyway, that would also explain why anyone arrested on the strength of Schwartz's story was bound to be released.

The best we could hope for is attempt to ascertain the identity of Pipeman, and see where that leads ...

The best I could hope for is Jeff's pony, but it ain't gonna happen. I suspect you will have to live in hope for a long time. But isn't your dearest wish that Pipeman was a mere figment of Schwartz's fertile imagination?

Love,

Caz
X

[Mark J D]

Why assume that the 'prisoner', or the second man who was arrested and then released, were either Pipeman or BS man, and not just men who fit the given descriptions, but were provably elsewhere at the time?

-- Can someone possibly tell me the address/location of the place Pipeman/Knifeman supposedly emerged from? I'm still trying to work out the logistics of all this...

Thanks.

M.