Whistling on Berner Street

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And anyone following the threads will know that he’s suggested all of the above as suspects. Stop wriggling.

I was taking the mickey out of myself, you humorless sod

[Herlock Sholmes]

Andrew was attempting some humour based based on my question (post 162), and this is obvious to anyone who is following this thread.

And anyone following the threads will know that he’s suggested all of the above as suspects. Stop wriggling.

[GBinOz]

It beats me how you’ve manage to see that post as aimed at anything that you’ve said George?

It was aimed directly at NBFN and the 4 ripper suspects that he’s ‘uncovered’ on Berner Street. Nothing to do with the point you quoted.

Andrew was attempting some humour based based on my question (post 162), and this is obvious to anyone who is following this thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Diemschitz, Sep 30:
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?

I regard this as a legitimate question to which Al provided an appropriate answer. If you are unable to tolerate any deviation from traditional views, why do you feel compelled to participate in the discussions by just repeating the same arguments?

Cheers, George

It beats me how you’ve manage to see that post as aimed at anything that you’ve said George?

It was aimed directly at NBFN and the 4 ripper suspects that he’s ‘uncovered’ on Berner Street. Nothing to do with the point you quoted.

[GBinOz]

Once you eliminate all of that pointless guff and just view events as a simple murder with witnesses giving their statements (whilst factoring in the possibility of error) then we can see how we’ve all wasted (and continue to waste) months of our lives.

Diemschitz, Sep 30:
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?

I regard this as a legitimate question to which Al provided an appropriate answer. If you are unable to tolerate any deviation from traditional views, why do you feel compelled to participate in the discussions by just repeating the same arguments?

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Once you eliminate all of that pointless guff and just view events as a simple murder with witnesses giving their statements (whilst factoring in the possibility of error) then we can see how we’ve all wasted (and continue to waste) months of our lives.

There was no cover-up.

It is a terrible waste of time, to be sure, but someone has to fight The Forces of Irrationality and UnReason, and no one does it better than you, Michael.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

You might joke but it illustrates your ‘clutching at straws’ method. It shows how you do indeed look for mystery in every single aspect of the case. Unfortunately for your imagination though this was a simple case of murder. No Freemasons, no shadowy figures sloping away in the dark and no Professor Moriarty’s. Once you eliminate all of that pointless guff and just view events as a simple murder with witnesses giving their statements (whilst factoring in the possibility of error) then we can see how we’ve all wasted (and continue to waste) months of our lives.

There was no cover-up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

With what’s going on here I’d have to ask if someone ancestor had been run over by Diemschutz cart at some point? It’s becoming a joke. Perhaps he was the ripper because someone has found that he used to pull girls hair in the playground?!

Is it a coincidence that as soon as Caz makes the point about why Lamb was insistent on letting people know that he had no watch, which combined with his own wording, shows beyond any doubt that Lamb was estimating and that it points to him not having just seen a clock we suddenly get a wave of posts trying to show what a liar Louis was? Why is this?

The evidence favours Louis over Lamb.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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]

Interesting. How did Diemshitz know how Chapman was dressed?

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

[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!