Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes
View Post
Take Kozebrodsky for example - he claimed to be called down by Diemschutz at 12:40. Clearly he doesn't know to say 'about 1 am'.
Also, I do think this is a Ripper murder - the Eddowes murder was not just some 'happy' coincidence, that took the focus and heat off the club.
I get your arguments in favour of his timing being off, potential reasons to cover for his mate Schwartz etc, but, given that he stabled his pony at George Yard, it would be reasonable to assume that's where it actually was if he didn't ride it into Dutfields Yard. So why not just say he arrived on foot?
Sans the pony and cart, someone like Louis has to walk into the yard and catch the Ripper in the act. How will it be explained what happens then?
I will gather the quotes together soon, but Diemschutz is very quick to sell the idea that the sounds of pony and cart were what made Jack flee, after briefly hiding somewhere. The suggestible Fanny Mortimer agrees with Louis' hypothesis.
The pony and cart story is really a fantastic idea, because arriving home late from the markets, on a Sat/Sun night, is what Louis normally does.
If he invented the pony, and told the police he arrived on it, but it wasn't actually in evidence, would it not be a totally needless risk to lie about it, given that a PC could spot the deception and become suspicious?
It is possible that Louis may have arrived much earlier than claimed, and that the pony and cart are parked at the back of the yard.
On the other hand, Lamb and Phillips searched that area, and curiously found a pile of dung, but no pony or cart (at least they make no mention of it).
The great thing about stabling the pony somewhere else, is that Diemschutz potentially has an 'out' - as in, 'someone must have taken it back there', or 'I forgot that I'd asked comrade X to take it there'.
Re the PC's - they possibly had no knowledge of the pony and cart, on the night. Not just of the story Diemschutz gave at the inquest, but their actual existence. Did Louis give a statement on the night?
Also critical, is the fact that the police seem to have not attended the inquest on day 1, when Diemschutz gives his testimony.
I'm not saying he didn't lie, but if he did, how was that going to benefit anyone?
The discrepancy helps to validate Schwartz account, in which he appears to witness a 'domestic', but which, unknown to him, turns out far worse.
Without the 15 minute gap, Schwartz is running away from a murder scene, at the approximate time of the murder.
In turn, Schwartz' statement helps to make Louis account, believable.
The two accounts 'work off' each other, but in that sense they introduce an element of circular reasoning.
Comment