Whistling on Berner Street

[GBinOz]

But that awareness would not tell them what the correct time was, so I'm not sure how that helps to show Louis D lied about the time showing one o'clock as he passed it.

Louis would have had to know the correct time when he did arrive, in order to make up a later time of discovery of just after 1am. He'd have known, as did the police, how inaccurate clocks could be. This wasn't just a matter of calculating a time interval and pushing the discovery forward five, ten or fifteen minutes - or 'polishing it up' as you put it, because he wouldn't have known what time he was polishing it up from.

I think you have just made it clearer than ever that the estimates given by all the witnesses concerned would not even have been helped by the last time they thought to look at a clock!

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I wasn't contemplating him making up a time. He said in all his interviews that he arrived at his usual time of about one o'clock. That would have been acceptable to all. Then he changed that to a clock sighting. The first sign of a dodgy witness is changing their story. Anyone have a reason for him changing his story?

FM is often discarded as a witness on the basis of inconsistancy, by I suspect in her case the comparison was between and interview and an editorial. I believe that FM, having heard Smith's footsteps many times a night for a long time, would be equipt with the ability to identify him on the night in question. If we adjust her times to police time, however they determined it, it suggests that Schwartz passed just after she went inside. Then apply the four or five minutes until she heard the horse and cart, and we have an interval between the BSman incident and the discovery of the body. A very short interval, which reduces the number of suspects and increases the likelihood of the interruption theory. If we have to adhere to the proposal that nobody lies, the "why didn't he see so and so" arguments devolve into clock syncs or witnesses not considering what they saw to be unusual.

Clock times don't really matter - differences in clock syncs could explain many of the differences in times quoted by the various parties. So Koze and Hosch could be correct in their time zone, as Michael suggests. When I set out my timeline I incorporated suggested time zone differences but if others want to adjust things for one witness then that is up to them. I think that Frank was on the right track with a timeline of sequences and no times.

Coming back to the topic of the thread, I think the whistle heard by Hosch and Harris was deployed by a member of the WVC, perhaps Koze or Jacobs.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

> >Israel Sunshine, Julius Barnett, and Emanuel Snapper and others, also spoke to being in the crowd, and being assaulted by the Defendants without any provocation.<<

Coming late to this, so apologises if it's already been covered, but these particular claims were dismissed, which gives us some idea of the honesty of the crowd attacking.

For the defence, Mr. Thompson called a large number of witnesses, most of whom were foreigners, whose evidence had to be interpreted, who said that on the 16th of March there was a Synagogue parade and a “procession of the unemployed and sweaters’ victims.
A GREAT DISTURBANCE
After it was over, there was a great disturbance outside the International Working Men’s Club. The people were throwing stones and creating a great disturbance. The doors of the Club were broken open, and Frost struck Diemshitz. and rushed into the Club.

The police ran after Diemshitz and two of the crowd struck him on the back. None of these witnesses saw any blows struck by members of the Club, the mob and the police being the aggressors.

Mrs. Diemshitz made an attempt to rescue her husband, and did strike the police with a hair broom; but that was the only assault that was committed.

On the way to the police station, Diemshitz was kicked and handled by the police.
WITNESS EVIDENCE
One of the witnesses said that he saw the handle of the door, tied by some boys, and Diemshitz and his wife came to see what was the matter.

Although Inspector Ferrett was there, Frost kicked Mrs. Diemshitz, and struck her on the breast.

Mr. Thompson contended it was highly improbable that the case as submitted by the prosecution was correct, as a great deal of what occurred was in a dark passage, where it was highly probable that the police had made a mistake.
THE VERDICT

Mr. Gill briefly replied, and Sir P. Edlin having summed up, the Jury, after a brief deliberation in the box, found both the Prisoners Guilty of assaults on the police only.

Kozelvodski, who was recommended to mercy, was ordered to pay a fine of £4, or, in default, one month’s imprisonment, the money to be paid on the 6th of May.

Diemshitz was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour, and at the expiration of that time to enter into his own recognisances in the sum of £40. and to find two sureties in the sum of £20 each to be of good behaviour for twelve months.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Caz,

I wasn't contemplating him making up a time. He said in all his interviews that he arrived at his usual time of about one o'clock. That would have been acceptable to all. Then he changed that to a clock sighting. The first sign of a dodgy witness is changing their story. Anyone have a reason for him changing his story?

Cheers, George

I genuinely see nothing dodgy about this. You’re not contemplating him making up a time but in the same breath you’re accusing him of being a dodgy witness. This is starting to sound like a retrospective character assassination George.

First it’s the arrest which has absolutely no relevance to whether he saw a clock or not. Now this. At first he just says that he got back at his usual time of 1.00 then at the Inquest (possibly after being asked how he was certain of the time) he mentions the clock.

There’s just nothing to this. We don’t have a solitary shred of evidence that discredits or places even the slightest doubt on Diemschutz.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Caz,

If we have to adhere to the proposal that nobody lies, the "why didn't he see so and so" arguments devolve into clock syncs or witnesses not considering what they saw to be unusual.

Cheers, George

We don’t have to adhere to that and no one is suggesting it. But we can’t just assume that someone is lying because it’s convenient to do so. Fanny isn’t dismissed or accused of being dishonest. But Fanny didn’t say that she’d seen a clock. She said that she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed and she believed that it was around 12.45.

So we are free to choose between the 2 times. But we can’t use her to dismiss Schwartz because we have to accept that there’s a good possibility that Smith passed when he said that he did and that Fanny had gone back inside by 12.45. I’m not claiming it as 100% certain George but the simple fact that it’s a plausible possibility then Fanny is just no good to us for dismissing Schwartz. That’s just a fact.

I tend to go with Smith because if 2 people estimate and one is a Constable then I say that the Constable is the likelier to have been correct. This doesn’t apply to Lamb though, and that isn’t double standards but it’s not 2 people estimating. Lamb was estimating Diemschutz wasn’t. So Diemschutz wins. Or at least should be considered the likelier to have been correct.

[DJA]

Nice try Dave. The broomstick reference was put forward by the defence saying that the only violence against the police and others was by Mrs D wielding a hairbroom. The jury were not impressed.

Cheers, George

Meh! Gentiles.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There’s just nothing to this. We don’t have a solitary shred of evidence that discredits or places even the slightest doubt on Diemschutz.

Except for the evidence we do have. For example...

Diemschitz, Sep 30:

She was a little bit better dressed I should say than the woman who was last murdered. Her clothes were not disarranged. She had a flower in the bosom of her dress, and in one hand she had some grapes and in the other some sweets. She was grasping them tightly. I had never seen her before.

Diemschitz, Oct 1:

C: Did you notice her hands?
D: I did not notice what position her hands were in. I only noticed that the dress buttons of her dress were undone.

It's unlikely (though not impossible) that you're not aware of this gross discrepancy, yet you claim there is zero evidence that could place the slightest doubt on Louis Diemschitz. Why are you trying to protect this witness?

[GBinOz]

Except for the evidence we do have. For example...

Diemschitz, Sep 30:

[I]She was a little bit better dressed I should say than the woman who was last murdered.

Interesting. How did Diemshitz know how Chapman was dressed?

[GBinOz]

I genuinely see nothing dodgy about this. You’re not contemplating him making up a time but in the same breath you’re accusing him of being a dodgy witness. This is starting to sound like a retrospective character assassination George.

Herlock

Caz: "Louis would have had to know the correct time when he did arrive, in order to make up a later time of discovery of just after 1am."

No make it ups. One story one day. A different story the next. My daughter is a solicitor. Witnesses who change their story are not well looked upon.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

We don’t have to adhere to that and no one is suggesting it. But we can’t just assume that someone is lying because it’s convenient to do so. Fanny isn’t dismissed or accused of being dishonest. But Fanny didn’t say that she’d seen a clock. She said that she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed and she believed that it was around 12.45.

So we are free to choose between the 2 times. But we can’t use her to dismiss Schwartz because we have to accept that there’s a good possibility that Smith passed when he said that he did and that Fanny had gone back inside by 12.45. I’m not claiming it as 100% certain George but the simple fact that it’s a plausible possibility then Fanny is just no good to us for dismissing Schwartz. That’s just a fact.

I tend to go with Smith because if 2 people estimate and one is a Constable then I say that the Constable is the likelier to have been correct. This doesn’t apply to Lamb though, and that isn’t double standards but it’s not 2 people estimating. Lamb was estimating Diemschutz wasn’t. So Diemschutz wins. Or at least should be considered the likelier to have been correct.

It may have been on another thread, but I thought I made it clear that I don't dismiss Schwartz.

"So Diemschutz wins.".....No he doesn't!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Interesting. How did Diemshitz know how Chapman was dressed?

That's easy-peasy, George. Schwartz told him.

[GBinOz]

That's easy-peasy, George. Schwartz told him.

Ahh, humour, nyuk,nyuk,nyuk.

But seriously, AFAIK there were no photos of Chapman after her murder that showed her clothing. Her clothing was comprehensively cut up and covered in blood. The only conclusion is that Louis liked to make things up.... perhaps a need to feel important? There is one other conclusion as to how he knew what Chapman was wearing, but I'm not even going to mention that.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Ahh, humour, nyuk,nyuk,nyuk.

He thinks I'm joking

But seriously, AFAIK there were no photos of Chapman after her murder that showed her clothing. Her clothing was comprehensively cut up and covered in blood. The only conclusion is that Louis liked to make things up.... perhaps a need to feel important?

I think Spooner was doing something similar with his 12:35 'estimate'. He was inflating his value to the coroner.

There is one other conclusion as to how he knew what Chapman was wearing, but I'm not even going to mention that.

Well if you don't, George, I will...

Louis Diemschitz was Jack the Ripper!

So that's four Rippers I've uncovered, just on Berner street:

Schwartz
Goldstein
Letchford
Diemschitz

Seriously, does anyone else come close to my record?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Interesting. How did Diemshitz know how Chapman was dressed?

The Star, September 8th

"Her clothing, like that of most of her class who ply their trade in this quarter of London, was old and dirty"

An error strewn report for sure, but an indicator to the type of gossip that would be going on around the streets of the East End. I'm going out on a limb here, but no, I don't think Louis was on Hanbury St. I think he's recounting what was being said at the time.

[GBinOz]

The Star, September 8th

"Her clothing, like that of most of her class who ply their trade in this quarter of London, was old and dirty"

An error strewn report for sure, but an indicator to the type of gossip that would be going on around the streets of the East End. I'm going out on a limb here, but no, I don't think Louis was on Hanbury St. I think he's recounting what was being said at the time.

Thanks Al, that would be it.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'm going out on a limb here, but no, I don't think Louis was on Hanbury St. I think he's recounting what was being said at the time.

I think you're right Al, so I will leave my suspect list at three for now, although I think I can eliminate one of those three, as well.