Whistling on Berner Street

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, it could not "just as easily mean that". The clear implication is that the witness was stationary, and in view of the perpetrator, who then moved out of the view of the witness.

Once again, you're creatively interpreting things to save Schwartz. The funny thing is, when I wrote that post I did not have Schwartz in mind. It is about Mortimer, Stride, Parcelman, and the observations made by a WVC patrolman. Yet even when I imply that Fanny Mortimer may not have been forthcoming with all details, Schwartz' story is still left looking vulnerable. You really need to rethink your dedicated defense of this guy.

If a vigilance committee man had made observations of the events on Berner street leading up to the murder, then on that dark street he cannot have been far from the action. Did Schwartz say anything about this man?

Abberline: There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.

Apparently not.

I’d have to add. If this wasn’t Schwartz why is there no mention of a name? The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee wasn’t exactly MI6 was it? Why is there no mention of this ‘person’ by the police? Possibly because this ‘person’ was Fanny Mortimer?

. Yet even when I imply that Fanny Mortimer may not have been forthcoming with all details, Schwartz' story is still left looking vulnerable. You really need to rethink your dedicated defense of this guy

Why is it ok for you to move Fanny’s timing to accommodate your theory but you keep suggesting that I’m desperately trying to keep Schwartz ‘in the game’ simply by make the very reasonable suggestion that she went onto her doorstep at around 12.35. One which accords with a Police Officer’s time.

.
Taken literally, on reaching her doorstep, Fanny should have come almost face-to-face with Stride. The only way to avoid this is to suppose that Stride and companion moved away from the point they had been seen at by Smith - far enough away that Fanny can see neither of them - within the few seconds between Smith passing and Fanny opening her door.

Put that way, it does seem unlikely this would have been the case

If a gap of time is sufficient to accommodate an event I can’t see why it should be considered ‘unlikely.’

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I’d have to add. If this wasn’t Schwartz why is there no mention of a name? The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee wasn’t exactly MI6 was it? Why is there no mention of this ‘person’ by the police? Possibly because this ‘person’ was Fanny Mortimer?

Here is the same report as the Amateur Detectives at Work report, that is in post #1. This is the Echo version...

----

ENTHUSIASTIC AMATEUR DETECTIVES.

Now the police themselves seem to despair of getting a clue to the miscreant. They are certainly not relaxing their efforts. The number of the force and of disguised detectives on duty last night was as large as ever; and they were joined, too, by about fifty volunteer patrols - working men whose indignation has taken this unselfish character. Should the murderer again attempt to give effect to his infamous designs in the Whitechapel district he will require, in the interest of his own personal security, not only to avoid the uniformed and plain clothed members of the Metropolitan Police Force, but to reckon with a small, enthusiastic body of amateur detectives. Convinced that the regular force affords inadequate protection to life and property in this densely populated neighbourhood, a number of local tradesmen decided a few weeks ago to appoint a Vigilance committee of a novel and interesting character. One of the principal duties of this body was to themselves patrol the most secluded parts of the district in the dead of night with a view to running the criminal to earth.

HOW THEY PROCEED - THEIR BEATS.

This Committee decided to call in professional assistance rather than rely solely upon their own resources. For this purpose they engaged the services of two private detectives - men who, though unattached to either the Metropolitan or City Police Forces, hold themselves out as experts in the unravelling of mysteries. At the disposal of these executive officers are placed about a dozen stalwart men, possessing an intimate acquaintance with the highways and byeways of Whitechapel. Only those who have been selected who are "physically and morally" equal to the task they may any night be called upon to perform. As they were previously numbered among the unemployed, it became unnecessary to fix a high scale of remuneration. Shortly before twelve o'clock these assassin hunters are despatched upon their mission. Their footfall is silenced by the use of galoshes, and their own safety is assured by the carrying of police whistles and stout sticks. The area over which this additional protection is afforded is divided into beats, each man being assigned his respective round.

ON DUTY TILL 5 A.M.

Nor is that all. At half an hour after midnight the committee rooms close by Act of Parliament, and thence emerge those members of the committee who happen to be on duty for the night. Like sergeants of police they make their tours of inspection, and, while seeing that their men are faithfully performing their onerous duties, themselves visit the most sequestered and ill lighted spots. It appears that usually the volunteer policemen leave their beats between four and five o'clock in the morning. Suspicions, surmises, and possible clues are notified to the nearest police stations from time to time, and one member of the committee at least honestly believes that he is on the right track. Whether his private opinion is justified by fact, time alone can reveal. Meanwhile, he and his colleagues are determined to leave no stone unturned, and firmly continue to maintain that the dark places of Whitechapel demand a more thorough watchfulness on the part of the police than is at present devoted to them.

----

The two private detectives mentioned, are Grand and Batchelor. Grand was a career criminal. What did he tell the police of what he knew, and what was his relationship with the police like, at the time?

Why is it ok for you to move Fanny’s timing to accommodate your theory but you keep suggesting that I’m desperately trying to keep Schwartz ‘in the game’ simply by make the very reasonable suggestion that she went onto her doorstep at around 12.35. One which accords with a Police Officer’s time.

Around 12:35 and around 12:40 is not much different. 12:35 would put Smith at the top of Berner street at about 1am - when he said he was there. Presumably you're happy with that?

If a gap of time is sufficient to accommodate an event I can’t see why it should be considered ‘unlikely.’

Well I know you think 15 minutes is a few minutes, so how long do you think immediately is? 3 minutes? Yet what if immediately means the definition of immediately?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is it ok for you to move Fanny’s timing to accommodate your theory but you keep suggesting that I’m desperately trying to keep Schwartz ‘in the game’ simply by make the very reasonable suggestion that she went onto her doorstep at around 12.35. One which accords with a Police Officer’s time.

Around 12:35 and around 12:40 is not much different. 12:35 would put Smith at the top of Berner street at about 1am - when he said he was there. Presumably you're happy with that?


“It takes me from 25 minutes to half an hour to go round my beat.” 12.35 + 30 mins = 1.05

Unless you’re not only trying to change the English language but the rules of maths too?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

“It takes me from 25 minutes to half an hour to go round my beat.” 12.35 + 30 mins = 1.05

Unless you’re not only trying to change the English language but the rules of maths too?

The initial point is when last on Berner street. The alert point (when he sees the crowd at the gates), is when next at the top of Berner street, on Commercial Road. About 2 minutes to go at that point, which totals 27 minutes. Bang in the middle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The initial point is when last on Berner street. The alert point (when he sees the crowd at the gates), is when next at the top of Berner street, on Commercial Road. About 2 minutes to go at that point, which totals 27 minutes. Bang in the middle.

But this is meaningless nitpicking. Can you be absolutely certain for example that a beat couldn’t on occasion take slightly longer or slightly less?

Again, I return to the point that we cannot hold people to exact times therefore Fanny should not be used to try and ‘disprove’ Schwartz. So why does she keep getting used? There are too many unknowns; too many estimations. Another example is Schwartz of course, I’ve tended to focus on how Fanny could have been back indoors by 12.45 but we also have to ask “how can we hold Schwartz to an exact time?” We have no way of knowing how he came state that time. Maybe he passed at 12.40; maybe he passed at 12.45; maybe he passed at 12.50 or at any point in between?

[Scott Nelson]

Again, I return to the point that we cannot hold people to exact times...

One can argue this point until the cows come home, but it won't make any difference to many people. So could you please give up trying?

[Herlock Sholmes]

One can argue this point until the cows come home, but it won't make any difference to many people. So could you please give up trying?

Why give up?

[Guest]

''
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Again, I return to the point that we cannot hold people to exact times...

''
I wonder if some study was done for time estimation from memory.

Would it be approx 5 mins either way or 10 mins?

If you allow every witness a fair error of +/- 8 mins either way, which seems fair to me, what sceneros would that conjur up.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But this is meaningless nitpicking.

You suggested I might be trying to change the rules of math. So I showed you the math, and you call it "meaningless nitpicking". That is moving the goalposts. Why is your math acceptable, but mine not? Is it because mine clashes with one of the dogmas of Ripperology - that Diemschitz arrived at 1am, and discovered the body?

Can you be absolutely certain for example that a beat couldn’t on occasion take slightly longer or slightly less?

It was I who originally explained the timespan of Smith's beat to you - 25 to 30 minutes. The mean is 27.5. It would not just be "on occasion" that he would walk his beat in more or less time than the mean. It would actually be 100% of the time!

Let's be clear on the situation; you want to use Smith's 12:35 time to keep Mortimer out of the way of the Schwartz incident - another of the dogmas of Ripperology. Yet given the timespan of Smith's beat, and what he tells us of where he was at 1am, you are not willing to accept that this means that it was Smith who was about to turn into Berner street at 1am, and not Diemschitz.

If Smith is regarded as correct about his 12:35 whereabouts, then he has to be regarded as correct about his 1am whereabouts. He is more likely to be correct about the later time than the earlier. You want to turn this upside-down, and your motivation for doing so is obvious.

Again, I return to the point that we cannot hold people to exact times therefore Fanny should not be used to try and ‘disprove’ Schwartz. So why does she keep getting used? There are too many unknowns; too many estimations.

This is a tactic you employ constantly - making out that others are holding people to exact times. I am not doing that! You then go on to claim that if margins of error are not ignored, then any arguments against your precious beliefs are rendered false. Yet you can move Schwartz forward or back 5 minutes - there is still someone or ones in the near vicinity.

Another tactic of yours is to suggest that a witness it being used to disprove Schwartz (who seems to be very dear to your heart). It is not a matter of proof versus disproof, rather it is a matter of probability. The probability that no one witnessed (audibly or visibly) any element of what Schwartz described, is very low. So even without considering the plausibility of some of Schwartz' claims (such as running away from a man lighting a pipe), there should be a sizable number of Schwartz non-believers. So where are they?

Another example is Schwartz of course, I’ve tended to focus on how Fanny could have been back indoors by 12.45 but we also have to ask “how can we hold Schwartz to an exact time?” We have no way of knowing how he came state that time. Maybe he passed at 12.40; maybe he passed at 12.45; maybe he passed at 12.50 or at any point in between?

Yet another tactic of yours is to conveniently forget what other posters have already said on various issues, and then you go ahead and make out that something is believed which actually contradicts what they have already stated. So apparently I'm holding Schwartz to exactly 12:45. So what do what do you make of the following...?

An interestingly wide window. Of course, the incident involving Schwartz is usually presumed to have been at approximately 12:45, owing to Swanson's report...

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

Yet this raises the question as to how one of the following could have been true:

* Stride was killed by BS Man immediately after Schwartz fled the scene. She lies unnoticed for ~15 minutes, until the arrival of Diemschitz.
* BS Man parts the scene, and Stride picks herself up off the footway. She remains at the gateway for nearly 15 minutes, unseen, until being killed by a (presumably other) man, at close to 1am.
* Both BS Man and Stride depart the scene just after Schwartz flees, and then Stride returns just prior to 1am.

The first option struggles for the reason you state, and against the testimony of Spooner, who stated that the victim was still bleeding on his arrival. The later two options have to make sense of accounts such as the following from the Daily News, Oct 1:

Charles Letchford, living at 30, Berners-street says: "I passed through the street at half-past 12, and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual, and my sister was standing at the door at 10 minutes to one, but did not see anyone pass by. I heard the commotion when the body was found, and heard the policemen's whistles, but did not take any notice of the matter, as disturbances are very frequent at the club, and I thought it was only another row."

It seems to me that things would make more sense if the Schwartz incident was placed at closer to 1am, than 12:45. After all, Schwartz' reference to 12:45 was probably just a guess, like this one...

Abraham Herschburg: I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to 1 o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway.

Not only was Schwartz probably guessing about the time, but who knows how much cross-contamination there was, in the various accounts? ELO, Oct 6:

Both murders must have been accomplished with an almost unnatural amount of secrecy, and without a cry being heard from either of the victims, judging from the statements made by those who were within a few yards of the place at the time. Neither Morris Eagle, a Russian Jew, Isaac M. Kazebrodski, a Russian Pole, or Abraham Heshburg, who were in the International Working Men's Club at the time, Barnett Kentorrich, whose house (No. 38) adjoins the yard on the south side, Mrs. Mortimer of 36, Berner-street, who was standing at her door between half-past twelve and one o' clock, Charles Letchford, who passed through the street at half-past twelve, or Mrs. Deimschitz, wife of the steward of the club, who was preparing tea and coffee in the kitchen about a dozen yards away at the time, either heard or saw anything unusual in Berner-street.

How much of what you believe others believe, is false?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
But this is meaningless nitpicking.

You suggested I might be trying to change the rules of math. So I showed you the math, and you call it "meaningless nitpicking". That is moving the goalposts. Why is your math acceptable, but mine not? Is it because mine clashes with one of the dogmas of Ripperology - that Diemschitz arrived at 1am, and discovered the body?

It was I who originally explained the timespan of Smith's beat to you - 25 to 30 minutes. The mean is 27.5. It would not just be "on occasion" that he would walk his beat in more or less time than the mean. It would actually be 100% of the time!

You have a conveniently short memory. What you originally said was “12:35 would put Smith at the top of Berner street at about 1am - when he said he was there.” Which is you deliberately taking Smith’s lower estimate for the duration of his round (25 mins) and ignoring the longer (35) because that would have made his return the inconvenient 1.05.

Let's be clear on the situation; you want to use Smith's 12:35 time to keep Mortimer out of the way of the Schwartz incident - another of the dogmas of Ripperology. Yet given the timespan of Smith's beat, and what he tells us of where he was at 1am, you are not willing to accept that this means that it was Smith who was about to turn into Berner street at 1am, and not Diemschitz.

If Smith is regarded as correct about his 12:35 whereabouts, then he has to be regarded as correct about his 1am whereabouts. He is more likely to be correct about the later time than the earlier. You want to turn this upside-down, and your motivation for doing so is obvious.

Again we cain see the obvious dishonesty of this point. You still ignore the fact that he said that his best took 25 to 30 minutes. What I’m relating should be beyond dispute. If his round took 30 minutes (which has to be possible because he said it himself) then it equally has to be possible that 12.35 and 1.05 do not cancel each other out.

How many times Andrew do we have to keep going over this until it sinks in. I’ve never said that any timings ‘prove’ Schwartz. Smith doesn’t ‘prove’ him. Possible errors by Fanny don’t ‘prove’ him either. The point is that others persist in trying to use Fanny to ‘disprove’ him. My point is…….are you paying attention…..because of the unknowns, because of the estimates, because of the variations which are possible, Fanny Mortimer cannot be used to ‘prove’ that Schwartz wasn’t there. You can’t not understand this.

This is a tactic you employ constantly - making out that others are holding people to exact times.

Michael does. He’s ‘other people’ too. My ‘tactic’ as you call it is to desperately try to get certain people to stop using unknowns to prove or disprove thing. I’m happy to say “the timings mean nothing” and move on. But you’re obsessed with rooting out some none existent cover up. Let’s face it, it’s something that you manage to do in every thread that you take part in.

I am not doing that! You then go on to claim that if margins of error are not ignored, then any arguments against your precious beliefs are rendered false. Yet you can move Schwartz forward or back 5 minutes - there is still someone or ones in the near vicinity.

I have no ‘beliefs’ except that thee was no cover up. Neither did the police.

Another tactic of yours is to suggest that a witness it being used to disprove Schwartz (who seems to be very dear to your heart). It is not a matter of proof versus disproof, rather it is a matter of probability. The probability that no one witnessed (audibly or visibly) any element of what Schwartz described, is very low. So even without considering the plausibility of some of Schwartz' claims (such as running away from a man lighting a pipe), there should be a sizable number of Schwartz non-believers. So where are they?

I don’t use ‘tactics.’ That’s for those with a conspiracist agenda.

Fanny is categorically being used to try and disprove Schwartz. How can you deny this. There’s a whole thread dedicated to whether Schwartz lied.

Again, you keep claiming you’re opinion as if it’s a fact. Why is the probability low? Did Schwartz describe how many decibels Stride’s ‘shout’ was? You don’t know how loud it was? No. You appear to think it somehow remarkable. How can you calculate ‘probability’ with the full information? You can’t. So it’s just your opinion. Ok. No problem. We can say “it’s perhaps surprising that no one heard Stride but then again we have no way of assessing the volume.” And move on.

Another example is Schwartz of course, I’ve tended to focus on how Fanny could have been back indoors by 12.45 but we also have to ask “how can we hold Schwartz to an exact time?” We have no way of knowing how he came state that time. Maybe he passed at 12.40; maybe he passed at 12.45; maybe he passed at 12.50 or at any point in between?

Yet another tactic of yours is to conveniently forget what other posters have already said on various issues, and then you go ahead and make out that something is believed which actually contradicts what they have already stated. So apparently I'm holding Schwartz to exactly 12:45. So what do what do you make of the following...?

Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
An interestingly wide window. Of course, the incident involving Schwartz is usually presumed to have been at approximately 12:45, owing to Swanson's report...

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

Yet this raises the question as to how one of the following could have been true:

* Stride was killed by BS Man immediately after Schwartz fled the scene. She lies unnoticed for ~15 minutes, until the arrival of Diemschitz.
* BS Man parts the scene, and Stride picks herself up off the footway. She remains at the gateway for nearly 15 minutes, unseen, until being killed by a (presumably other) man, at close to 1am.
* Both BS Man and Stride depart the scene just after Schwartz flees, and then Stride returns just prior to 1am.

The first option struggles for the reason you state, and against the testimony of Spooner, who stated that the victim was still bleeding on his arrival. The later two options have to make sense of accounts such as the following from the Daily News, Oct 1:

Charles Letchford, living at 30, Berners-street says: "I passed through the street at half-past 12, and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual, and my sister was standing at the door at 10 minutes to one, but did not see anyone pass by. I heard the commotion when the body was found, and heard the policemen's whistles, but did not take any notice of the matter, as disturbances are very frequent at the club, and I thought it was only another row."

It seems to me that things would make more sense if the Schwartz incident was placed at closer to 1am, than 12:45. After all, Schwartz' reference to 12:45 was probably just a guess, like this one...

Abraham Herschburg: I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to 1 o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway.

Not only was Schwartz probably guessing about the time, but who knows how much cross-contamination there was, in the various accounts? ELO, Oct 6:

Both murders must have been accomplished with an almost unnatural amount of secrecy, and without a cry being heard from either of the victims, judging from the statements made by those who were within a few yards of the place at the time. Neither Morris Eagle, a Russian Jew, Isaac M. Kazebrodski, a Russian Pole, or Abraham Heshburg, who were in the International Working Men's Club at the time, Barnett Kentorrich, whose house (No. 38) adjoins the yard on the south side, Mrs. Mortimer of 36, Berner-street, who was standing at her door between half-past twelve and one o' clock, Charles Letchford, who passed through the street at half-past twelve, or Mrs. Deimschitz, wife of the steward of the club, who was preparing tea and coffee in the kitchen about a dozen yards away at the time, either heard or saw anything unusual in Berner-street.

I make nothing of it. You and Michael are becoming white noise.

How much of what you believe others believe, is false?

I believe that you and Michael will go to absolutely any length…..and I mean absolutely any length to manufacture some kind of mystery or cover up or conspiracy. Then you start getting annoyed with people who simply point out that there’s no remotely reliable evidence for one. And then you try and use The Marriott Defence. That I’m, for some inexplicable reason, desperately defending so sacred Ripperologist script. Could anything be more childish or desperate?

[JeffHamm]

''
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Again, I return to the point that we cannot hold people to exact times...

''
I wonder if some study was done for time estimation from memory.

Would it be approx 5 mins either way or 10 mins?

If you allow every witness a fair error of +/- 8 mins either way, which seems fair to me, what sceneros would that conjur up.

Hi Wiggins,

I've done a literature search on this question just now actually. Will take awhile to fully digest things, but having a look at one research article, duration estimations vary in their accuracy depending upon the time estimated. In short, very small durations (as in a few seconds) tend to get over estimated (roughly doubled), while once we get to long durations (80 minutes), they move towards being underestimated.

However, one has to consider whether or not the activity is a familiar one, or not, and also whether or not it is one that has a regular duration (say, a TV program), or one that typically has a variable duration (eating at a restaurant sort of thing). The error is larger as you would expect, meaning, the estimations of duration are less reliable for unfamiliar and variable events.

Some things, like a PC's beat, would be considered familiar and regular, which corresponds with most people's view that the PC's estimations of their durations are probably most accurate (and that's not even factoring in that they are required to note the time, etc). Other things, like Fanny being on the step, would be a familiar event (probably something she does fairly often), and variable (she's not on some sort of set guard, she's just out for "a bit before bed" type thing). With that in mind, durations of around 13 minutes in reality, for example, get estimated on average at about 1.26 that amount (so something that was really 13 minutes, on average, gets estimated to have been roughly 16 minutes 25 seconds), but the range of those estimates fall (95% of the time) between as short as 4m 40s and extend out to 36m 10s, and of course, 5% of the time someone will estimate something either shorter or longer than those. And remember, all of those estimate times (from 4m 40s to 36m 10s), came from people who all experienced a 13 minute event - but those are all we have access to through these reports - a person's estimation of some duration. We can't treat them like they are the 13 minute event itself, it's what they estimated the duration of the event to have been.

In other words, if we keep in mind the known error that gets associated with people's estimation of temporal durations, and recognize that people are actually pretty bad at it, then suggesting that maybe FM (for example) wasn't out for as long as she suggested, or that quite a bit more time than she estimated had passed, might start to be viewed as how we have to consider these statements - as the estimates they are, and not very accurate ones at that.

Anyway, this is from a paper by Yarmey (2000), and I'm only just looking at it. I'm trying to find something on the accuracy of eye-witnesses' with regards to estimating the time of day, but so far no luck.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You have a conveniently short memory. What you originally said was “12:35 would put Smith at the top of Berner street at about 1am - when he said he was there.” Which is you deliberately taking Smith’s lower estimate for the duration of his round (25 mins) and ignoring the longer (35) because that would have made his return the inconvenient 1.05.

This demonstrates comprehension issues. Besides which, 1:05 is still too early!

Again we cain see the obvious dishonesty of this point. You still ignore the fact that he said that his best took 25 to 30 minutes. What I’m relating should be beyond dispute. If his round took 30 minutes (which has to be possible because he said it himself) then it equally has to be possible that 12.35 and 1.05 do not cancel each other out.

You must hold the record on this forum for accusing other posters of dishonesty. The number I gave was 27 minutes, not 25.

How many times Andrew do we have to keep going over this until it sinks in. I’ve never said that any timings ‘prove’ Schwartz. Smith doesn’t ‘prove’ him. Possible errors by Fanny don’t ‘prove’ him either. The point is that others persist in trying to use Fanny to ‘disprove’ him. My point is…….are you paying attention…..because of the unknowns, because of the estimates, because of the variations which are possible, Fanny Mortimer cannot be used to ‘prove’ that Schwartz wasn’t there. You can’t not understand this.

Not a single element of Schwartz' tale was observed or heard by anyone. It probably didn't happen.

Michael does.

I am not Michael. This seems to be something you struggle with.

I have no ‘beliefs’ except that thee was no cover up. Neither did the police.

Then perhaps you have nothing to add beyond reminding us what the police believed in 1888.

I don’t use ‘tactics.’ That’s for those with a conspiracist agenda.

Anyone who disagrees with you must have a conspiracist agenda. Therefore your position is unassailable. Or so you think.

Fanny is categorically being used to try and disprove Schwartz. How can you deny this.

By referring you to my previous answer. There's that tactic again!

Again, you keep claiming you’re opinion as if it’s a fact. Why is the probability low? Did Schwartz describe how many decibels Stride’s ‘shout’ was? You don’t know how loud it was? No. You appear to think it somehow remarkable. How can you calculate ‘probability’ with the full information? You can’t. So it’s just your opinion. Ok. No problem. We can say “it’s perhaps surprising that no one heard Stride but then again we have no way of assessing the volume.” And move on.

You obviously don't understand that all this applies to you too. However, you move on if you want to.

I make nothing of it. You and Michael are becoming white noise.

This is lame. I contradicted your claim then I am holding Schwartz to an exact time. I wonder if you will continue to use this 'exact times' tactic?

I believe that you and Michael will go to absolutely any length…..and I mean absolutely any length to manufacture some kind of mystery or cover up or conspiracy. Then you start getting annoyed with people who simply point out that there’s no remotely reliable evidence for one. And then you try and use The Marriott Defence. That I’m, for some inexplicable reason, desperately defending so sacred Ripperologist script. Could anything be more childish or desperate?

I disagree with the police about Schwartz, and they did not have any idea who the Ripper was. If everyone here just agreed with the police view about everything (which I'm sure you would prefer), would there be any point to this forum?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
This demonstrates comprehension issues. Besides which, 1:05 is still too early

Too early for what. I believe that I estimated around 1.05 for Lamb. Again, you appear struggle with the principle of estimation. Lamb arrived before Smith whatever the exact time was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. You must hold the record on this forum for accusing other posters of dishonesty. The number I gave was 27 minutes, not 25

We all make errors but some of the ‘errors’ I see on here can’t just be ‘errors’ because they get repeated.

Again, I’ll post the quote, you said: “12:35 would put Smith at the top of Berner street at about 1am - when he said he was there”

I was responding to that specific quote where you specifically said 12.30. Yes you later said 27.5 but I wasn’t commenting on that. The only reason for ‘confusion’ is that you kept the point going instead of ccepting that you had originally calculated with 30 minutes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Not a single element of Schwartz' tale was observed or heard by anyone. It probably didn't happen

If that’s how you choose to think fair enough.

We now know that unobserved or unheard events probably never happened.