Whistling on Berner Street

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I don't have knowledge of any time quote from either Gilleman or Goldstein.

As you can see from my timeline, I have transposed Mortimer time to Police time and postulated her going inside just before the short Schwartz incident takes place. While I did quote approximate times in my timeline, I rather like Frank's idea of a timeline sans times, just sequences. It would save a lot of bickering.

Cheers, George

Hello George. I agree. I think most of us accept that we have to allow for a reasonable margin for for error as long as we don’t stretch it beyond breaking point. Frank’s suggestion avoids quibbling over uncertainties.

[GBinOz]

Gilleman doesn’t mention a time George. For years Michael had claimed that something existed that showed that Gilleman supported an earlier discovery time but this isn’t true but Michael has never felt able to acknowledge this despite being asked numerous times.

As you know of course the only mention of Gilleman was from Eagle who said that he’d called him to the body around 1.00.

I agree that nothing is absolute proof but if it’s being claimed that Fanny not seeing Schwartz proves that he wasn’t there (and it has been claimed) then we can point to the very plausible possibility that she went onto her doorstep earlier and could have been back inside by the time Schwartz arrived. Also we can hold Schwartz to an exact time either.

…..

I don’t know if this has been answered elsewhere George but we tend to hear a time put to Goldstein’s passing. Was a time actually quoted by Goldstein or are we fitting Goldstein in with Fanny time?

Hi Herlock,

I don't have knowledge of any time quote from either Gilleman or Goldstein.

As you can see from my timeline, I have transposed Mortimer time to Police time and postulated her going inside just before the short Schwartz incident takes place. While I did quote approximate times in my timeline, I rather like Frank's idea of a timeline sans times, just sequences. It would save a lot of bickering.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again with the Gilleman. Can someone please point me to a reference to Gilleman mentioning a time?

To be fair Herlock, Mortimer only referred to footsteps. She could not know who was producing those footsteps. It is assumed in many scenarios, including mine, that it was Smith but it could have been anyone including JtR, or even Goldstein headed north. I think it is most likely that Mortimer recognised Smith's footfalls as she was used to hearing them but, strictly speaking, we can't use it as absolute proof as she didn't see him.

Cheers, George

Gilleman doesn’t mention a time George. For years Michael had claimed that something existed that showed that Gilleman supported an earlier discovery time but this isn’t true but Michael has never felt able to acknowledge this despite being asked numerous times.

As you know of course the only mention of Gilleman was from Eagle who said that he’d called him to the body around 1.00.

I agree that nothing is absolute proof but if it’s being claimed that Fanny not seeing Schwartz proves that he wasn’t there (and it has been claimed) then we can point to the very plausible possibility that she went onto her doorstep earlier and could have been back inside by the time Schwartz arrived. Also we can hold Schwartz to an exact time either.

…..

I don’t know if this has been answered elsewhere George but we tend to hear a time put to Goldstein’s passing. Was a time actually quoted by Goldstein or are we fitting Goldstein in with Fanny time?

[GBinOz]

For 1.00 we have, two-thirds of Spooner, Diemschitz, Eagle, Gilleman, Mrs Diemschitz, the club servants all indicating a discovery time of around 1.00 (Club time?).

I have stated only what Fanny said herself - that she went onto her doorstep just after the Constable passed and he said that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35. You favour Fanny’s time estimate (Mortimer time) over Smith’s (Police time) and you complain when I simply suggest that Lamb might have been 5 minutes or so out.

Your claim that Gilleman proves an earlier discovery time. Yeah, keep wriggling on that one Michael.

Again with the Gilleman. Can someone please point me to a reference to Gilleman mentioning a time?

To be fair Herlock, Mortimer only referred to footsteps. She could not know who was producing those footsteps. It is assumed in many scenarios, including mine, that it was Smith but it could have been anyone including JtR, or even Goldstein headed north. I think it is most likely that Mortimer recognised Smith's footfalls as she was used to hearing them but, strictly speaking, we can't use it as absolute proof as she didn't see him.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your rebuttal is as long winded as my own post, so I cant fault you on that, but I will say that when the only known documents regarding any "Ripper" case indicate one thing to then question that with an opinion is of no value to any academic student. Just an opinion. In the case of the Stride murder, the known documents suggest that the only witnesses that are in sync with any other witnesses recollections, given as independent statements, indicate that the majority of the witnesses believed that they were made aware of the body between 12:40 and 12:45 and that Louis Diemshitz was there at the time. Youve gone way out of your way to suggest they are all wrong, but offered not one shred of proof...just your opinion, that they are. Even gone so far as suggesting that one of the witnesses who had as part of his job a requirement to keep accurate time was wrong. Lamb. I dont have to tell you or anyone that amounts to nothing. Youve stated empirically that Fanny wasnt at her door at 12:45 where Ive found no evidence that anyone, Fanny included, stated that. So take all the offense you like at me pointing it out, but a spade is still a spade.

Im afraid that your spade is a lawn mower. You have Hoschberg and Kozebrodski. Spooner estimates 12.35 then contradicts himself twice by saying that he’d stood for 25 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00 - which gives us 12.55. Then he gives us 5 minutes before Lamb which takes us around 1.00. So you have Hosch/Koz and one third of Spooner.

For 1.00 we have, two-thirds of Spooner, Diemschitz, Eagle, Gilleman, Mrs Diemschitz, the club servants all indicating a discovery time of around 1.00.

I have stated only what Fanny said herself - that she went onto her doorstep just after the Constable passed and he said that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35. You favour Fanny’s time estimate over Smith’s and you complain when I simply suggest that Lamb might have been 5 minutes or so out.

You keep saying I am proposing a "theory", where there is no evidence in any of my posts that anything Ive offered that is not already in the records is more than suggestion what might be made of the conflict. I dont have any theories, aside from the one that almost all of the accepted "conclusions" made by many of these 100 Ripperologists have no basis in factual data. They are interpretations of the known data. There is no Canonical Group, its a creation and foundation for many of those who debate these crimes. But like a Ripper who doesnt rip, or a public mutilator who dismembers indoors over time, these are all baseless ideas without proof.

Your claim that Gilleman proves an earlier discovery time. Yeah, keep wriggling on that one Michael.

Anyway, this was meant to be a cheers, good luck and advice to those who havent studied the cases for decades to always seek validation in the records for any claims any poster makes. Its in the best interest of accuracy, and is the only path to truth. Known baselines, like the fact these are all still unsolved and there is no legitimate single suspect to tie any 2 together shouldnt prevent anyone from taking known data and using a logic approach to its interpretation. One or more of these cases may well still be solvable, but not when people adhere to premises that have never been proven...like a single Canonical Group killer...or admonish anyone who deviates from that "opinion". Its why you hate the idea that a very good suspect for Annies murder could not have killed any others. Surely they must all be by one man....well, its really 5 individual murders that are unsolved, within a file of 12 or 13 unsolved murders of women during that same period in time. Thats what it is now, and what it has always been.

The people that want to perpetuate "Jack" almost always have economical aspirations, to make a buck by perpetuating a myth to another generation of students. I say they deserve better, more honesty, and frankly so did I.

Its not a myth. 5 murders of prostitutes. All with their throats cut. All within a tiny area and within a couple of months. Stride might or might not have been a victim but the odds that these women were killed by different men must be vanishingly small.

Good luck.

All that’s needed is - not to get carried away by errors that will always occur - not to assume poverty stricken Victorians all had perfect access to the exact time - not to assume the sinister - and to remember that if a theory sounds far-fetched then it most likely is. If everyone adopted that approach we’d get no wild theories or leaps of faith.

[Michael W Richards]

I can’t recall challenging you to be polite Michael but this holier than thou post should fool no one. I have nothing personal against you Michael but as Caz would confirm she took you to task not so long ago for saying that those that disagreed with you are idiots (I can’t recall the exact wording that you used.)

Its rather ironic that you should make points about accepting that there are unknowns because that’s one thing that you appear to be loathe to admit. On timings for example. When reasonable posters like Jeff and Frank (to name but two) have stated that a reasonable margin for error needs to be applied you’ve pretty much hit the roof. Fanny Mortimer is a case in point of course. Hoschberg couldn’t be wrong. Kozebrodski couldn’t be wrong.

Honesty and integrity. Ok, how about how you kept on and on about Gilleman (who for some absolutely unfathomable reason you stubbornly kept calling Gillen despite being told numerous times that there’s no mention of a Gillen in the case) You kept telling us that there was testimony from Gilleman that confirmed an earlier discovery time but everyone knows that this doesn’t exist. How is it ‘honest’ to persist in that very obvious untruth Michael.

Your very selective in memory as well as thinking on this case. I’m not decrying your knowledge of the case at all by the way. Just your interpretations which everyone can see always lean toward supporting your theory. You refuse to accept that witnesses make errors; that estimations can be and often are incorrect.

And let’s refresh our collective memories about motives shall we Michael. Even the least cynical among us might be a tad suspicious to find a man who has a suspect for two of the murder (Issendschmidt who couldn’t have killed Stride or Eddowes) who just happens to be insistent that Stride couldn’t have been a victim (and if I recall correct, you’ve expressed doubt about Eddowes too) Most would say….convenient. Just as convenient as the same theorist coming up with a far fetched plot which ‘proves’ that the ripper didn’t kill Stride. Convenient again.

No one, including me, would ever get excessively irritated Michael by someone simply postulating a theory but you just can’t do that. Despite the fact that you’ve found no supporters over the years you still persist in posting in a tone of someone explaining the obvious to idiots. A kind of “how can you not see that this plot actually happened” tone which is over-confidence taken to whole new levels.

I rarely claim anything as an undisputed fact. I don’t claim to know more than anyone else on this case. I have no theories to bias my opinions. I’m not attached to any orthodoxy. And I’m not hoping that the case is never solved. I’m not immune to errors but unlike some I’ll admit them when they’re pointed out to me. Yes I get irritable and yes I can be sarcastic. Maybe I’m too cautious but that’s my preferred approach. I don’t get excited just because 2 newspaper reports are slightly differently worded; or if 2 estimated times clash. I don’t believe in assuming the sinister.

Finally, if you took a poll of 100 ripperologists I’d guess that 99 would disagree with your theory. I’m not even saying that this would prove you wrong but what it should do is make you think “perhaps I’m being a bit over-confident as surely not all of these 99 are idiots like Herlock?”

But it won’t. You cannot debate with someone convinced that he’s come up with a solution (and a solution that he’s held onto for 20 years.)

Your rebuttal is as long winded as my own post, so I cant fault you on that, but I will say that when the only known documents regarding any "Ripper" case indicate one thing to then question that with an opinion is of no value to any academic student. Just an opinion. In the case of the Stride murder, the known documents suggest that the only witnesses that are in sync with any other witnesses recollections, given as independent statements, indicate that the majority of the witnesses believed that they were made aware of the body between 12:40 and 12:45 and that Louis Diemshitz was there at the time. Youve gone way out of your way to suggest they are all wrong, but offered not one shred of proof...just your opinion, that they are. Even gone so far as suggesting that one of the witnesses who had as part of his job a requirement to keep accurate time was wrong. Lamb. I dont have to tell you or anyone that amounts to nothing. Youve stated empirically that Fanny wasnt at her door at 12:45 where Ive found no evidence that anyone, Fanny included, stated that. So take all the offense you like at me pointing it out, but a spade is still a spade.

You keep saying I am proposing a "theory", where there is no evidence in any of my posts that anything Ive offered that is not already in the records is more than suggestion what might be made of the conflict. I dont have any theories, aside from the one that almost all of the accepted "conclusions" made by many of these 100 Ripperologists have no basis in factual data. They are interpretations of the known data. There is no Canonical Group, its a creation and foundation for many of those who debate these crimes. But like a Ripper who doesnt rip, or a public mutilator who dismembers indoors over time, these are all baseless ideas without proof.

Anyway, this was meant to be a cheers, good luck and advice to those who havent studied the cases for decades to always seek validation in the records for any claims any poster makes. Its in the best interest of accuracy, and is the only path to truth. Known baselines, like the fact these are all still unsolved and there is no legitimate single suspect to tie any 2 together shouldnt prevent anyone from taking known data and using a logic approach to its interpretation. One or more of these cases may well still be solvable, but not when people adhere to premises that have never been proven...like a single Canonical Group killer...or admonish anyone who deviates from that "opinion". Its why you hate the idea that a very good suspect for Annies murder could not have killed any others. Surely they must all be by one man....well, its really 5 individual murders that are unsolved, within a file of 12 or 13 unsolved murders of women during that same period in time. Thats what it is now, and what it has always been.

The people that want to perpetuate "Jack" almost always have economical aspirations, to make a buck by perpetuating a myth to another generation of students. I say they deserve better, more honesty, and frankly so did I.

Good luck.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another point is that how can a scenario be claimed as a true version of events when it’s much easier to postulate another scenario which is no less likely.

> A drunken club member heads to the club and sees Stride who he knows. An argument ensues and he pulls her into the yard where the argument continues. The part on the pavement is seen by Schwartz. Louis returns at 12.40 and finds this club member standing over the body. Louis knows this club member well and after the man pleads with him he decides to help him. He takes him inside to the kitchen and either he or his wife washes the knife thoroughly and puts it in with the clubs utensils. They send him to mix with the other members believing him ok to act normally then Kozebrodski comes downstairs and Louis tells him about the body in the yard. It’s now just after 12.50. About 12.55 they go looking for a Constable. <

This ‘explains’ how the killer escaped being seen. It ‘explains’ in a way the time differences between Hosch/Koz and Louis/Eagle. No in depth risky plot is required.

Am I claiming that this happened? Of course not but it’s more likely imo than a Lipski-related false witness one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There was a time years ago when I discussed these very same topics with members like Sam, Ben, Glenn, George, Simon Wood, AP Wolf, occasionally Stewart Evans, and many others who I wont all mention, but were certainly important and informative regardless of the specific topic. Some things remained present in all the discussions. Respect for the historical documentation, not necessarily any acceptance at face value of any opinion be it modern or contemporary, but a shared distaste for falsehoods and absolutes being used. There are in fact few absolutes in this topic in general, beginning with the Canonical proposition itself. Everyone who decides to post about these issues should be clear about what is opinion vs fact, and be historically accurate when doing so. It seems like back then we all readily accepted the higher standard for the discussions when approaching them academically. Should anyone overstep those boundaries they were quickly reminded of the "facts" by any one of these reputable members, and the poster taking liberties with the truth was humbled. Often politely, but not always.

That is not what happens anymore, just like in most social media platforms, the inaccurate, intentionally misleading or deceptive, or downright false posts get left out there for anyone to believe or disbelieve. This kind of anonymity draws out the weak because they can just assume a posture of strength, many of the people who regularly mislead would have never attempted to do what they do had they had to face a well informed group of people in person. A feeling of safety enables the falsehoods, and I hope that can change.

Ive been challenged to remain polite by posters like Herlock who continually post inaccurate and misleading information, and consistently accuse others of doing just that when they provably did not do so. People who think that opinion is gospel. Well, I failed many of those manners challenges and resorted to name calling and insults to try and point out the misinformation he and others put out there, thinking in my own mind that we all have the reputation of the venue to protect, its integrity and accuracy. When it was smaller, admin could watch every post and jump in themselves when posters took liberty with truth, but they cant be expected to do that when the membership has grown so much and the number of people visiting the site has as well. Every poster here now has to take responsibility to ensure that the quality of the information and the accuracy of stated historical "fact" is still alive and well. There are many people who hope to learn from others better informed, dont let the ones that arent take anything away from that experience. I used Herlock as an example because if anyone should be so inclined they can fact check every post he has made and see for themselves. Hes an obvious, others are not so obvious. Some are selling books or trying to make a buck out of the worldwide interest in these cases and have those goals as their reason for posting what they do. I have academic reasons for coming here and staying here, and I believe many others do too.

Ive been very fortunate to have been able to use such wonderful resources and talk with such informed and well mannered folks. I hope future users will have that same experience, as long as everyone shuts down the falsehoods and does their research it should stay relevant and the information will continue to have integrity and accuracy.

I can’t recall challenging you to be polite Michael but this holier than thou post should fool no one. I have nothing personal against you Michael but as Caz would confirm she took you to task not so long ago for saying that those that disagreed with you are idiots (I can’t recall the exact wording that you used.)

Its rather ironic that you should make points about accepting that there are unknowns because that’s one thing that you appear to be loathe to admit. On timings for example. When reasonable posters like Jeff and Frank (to name but two) have stated that a reasonable margin for error needs to be applied you’ve pretty much hit the roof. Fanny Mortimer is a case in point of course. Hoschberg couldn’t be wrong. Kozebrodski couldn’t be wrong.

Honesty and integrity. Ok, how about how you kept on and on about Gilleman (who for some absolutely unfathomable reason you stubbornly kept calling Gillen despite being told numerous times that there’s no mention of a Gillen in the case) You kept telling us that there was testimony from Gilleman that confirmed an earlier discovery time but everyone knows that this doesn’t exist. How is it ‘honest’ to persist in that very obvious untruth Michael.

Your very selective in memory as well as thinking on this case. I’m not decrying your knowledge of the case at all by the way. Just your interpretations which everyone can see always lean toward supporting your theory. You refuse to accept that witnesses make errors; that estimations can be and often are incorrect.

And let’s refresh our collective memories about motives shall we Michael. Even the least cynical among us might be a tad suspicious to find a man who has a suspect for two of the murder (Issendschmidt who couldn’t have killed Stride or Eddowes) who just happens to be insistent that Stride couldn’t have been a victim (and if I recall correct, you’ve expressed doubt about Eddowes too) Most would say….convenient. Just as convenient as the same theorist coming up with a far fetched plot which ‘proves’ that the ripper didn’t kill Stride. Convenient again.

No one, including me, would ever get excessively irritated Michael by someone simply postulating a theory but you just can’t do that. Despite the fact that you’ve found no supporters over the years you still persist in posting in a tone of someone explaining the obvious to idiots. A kind of “how can you not see that this plot actually happened” tone which is over-confidence taken to whole new levels.

I rarely claim anything as an undisputed fact. I don’t claim to know more than anyone else on this case. I have no theories to bias my opinions. I’m not attached to any orthodoxy. And I’m not hoping that the case is never solved. I’m not immune to errors but unlike some I’ll admit them when they’re pointed out to me. Yes I get irritable and yes I can be sarcastic. Maybe I’m too cautious but that’s my preferred approach. I don’t get excited just because 2 newspaper reports are slightly differently worded; or if 2 estimated times clash. I don’t believe in assuming the sinister.

Finally, if you took a poll of 100 ripperologists I’d guess that 99 would disagree with your theory. I’m not even saying that this would prove you wrong but what it should do is make you think “perhaps I’m being a bit over-confident as surely not all of these 99 are idiots like Herlock?”

But it won’t. You cannot debate with someone convinced that he’s come up with a solution (and a solution that he’s held onto for 20 years.)

[Michael W Richards]

There was a time years ago when I discussed these very same topics with members like Sam, Ben, Glenn, George, Simon Wood, AP Wolf, occasionally Stewart Evans, and many others who I wont all mention, but were certainly important and informative regardless of the specific topic. Some things remained present in all the discussions. Respect for the historical documentation, not necessarily any acceptance at face value of any opinion be it modern or contemporary, but a shared distaste for falsehoods and absolutes being used. There are in fact few absolutes in this topic in general, beginning with the Canonical proposition itself. Everyone who decides to post about these issues should be clear about what is opinion vs fact, and be historically accurate when doing so. It seems like back then we all readily accepted the higher standard for the discussions when approaching them academically. Should anyone overstep those boundaries they were quickly reminded of the "facts" by any one of these reputable members, and the poster taking liberties with the truth was humbled. Often politely, but not always.

That is not what happens anymore, just like in most social media platforms, the inaccurate, intentionally misleading or deceptive, or downright false posts get left out there for anyone to believe or disbelieve. This kind of anonymity draws out the weak because they can just assume a posture of strength, many of the people who regularly mislead would have never attempted to do what they do had they had to face a well informed group of people in person. A feeling of safety enables the falsehoods, and I hope that can change.

Ive been challenged to remain polite by posters like Herlock who continually post inaccurate and misleading information, and consistently accuse others of doing just that when they provably did not do so. People who think that opinion is gospel. Well, I failed many of those manners challenges and resorted to name calling and insults to try and point out the misinformation he and others put out there, thinking in my own mind that we all have the reputation of the venue to protect, its integrity and accuracy. When it was smaller, admin could watch every post and jump in themselves when posters took liberty with truth, but they cant be expected to do that when the membership has grown so much and the number of people visiting the site has as well. Every poster here now has to take responsibility to ensure that the quality of the information and the accuracy of stated historical "fact" is still alive and well. There are many people who hope to learn from others better informed, dont let the ones that arent take anything away from that experience. I used Herlock as an example because if anyone should be so inclined they can fact check every post he has made and see for themselves. Hes an obvious, others are not so obvious. Some are selling books or trying to make a buck out of the worldwide interest in these cases and have those goals as their reason for posting what they do. I have academic reasons for coming here and staying here, and I believe many others do too.

Ive been very fortunate to have been able to use such wonderful resources and talk with such informed and well mannered folks. I hope future users will have that same experience, as long as everyone shuts down the falsehoods and does their research it should stay relevant and the information will continue to have integrity and accuracy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a quick question. What do you mean by "would this thought have been so immediate"? Schwartz didn't go to Leman street station until late in the afternoon, or early evening. That is not exactly what I would call an immediate response. How do you know that the man who had the appearance of being in the theatrical line, didn't spend the afternoon learning his lines?

Yes but if there was a plot (and there wasn’t) then they (the plotters) would have had to have come up with it in the time between the body being found and the start of the search for a Constable. So if for eg it’s being suggested that the body was found at 12.40 and Eagle went for a Constable at 12.55 say then that means that they saw the motive, came up with the plot and executed it all in the space of 15 minutes or so. I’m not saying that they would have had Schwartz specifically in mind as a false witness but they would have had to have had the idea about a false witness. Unless the Schwartz plan was a plan B of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The reporter? There were lots of reporters. This has been pointed out to you before.

I don’t need this to be patronisingly ‘pointed out’ to me and I’ll repeat “why must they have noted it?”

More likely he just didn’t mention something that wasn’t germane to events that evening.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And this is exactly what I mean about there being an orthodoxy, that regards any deviation from accepted stories as virtual heresy. I've argued that Spooner was actually WVC. There would be nothing sinister about that, and he may have had good reason for not mentioning it. In fact it may have been a committee policy not to disclose the names of it's patrolmen to the public or the press, for safety or other reasons. Consequently, Spooner would have had to come up with another reason for being on the street at that time. It is even possible that Baxter knew what the situation was.

Its possible but we have no evidence for it and we’re never likely to have evidence for it unless some WVC membership list surfaces so what can be gained by an unverifiable suggestion?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think that is correct.

... 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. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street ...

The assault occurs while Schwartz is at the gateway. Then he crosses the road. It is by stopping that Schwartz is able to observe what he claimed to observe. However, this is somewhat beside the point, as this was from Swanson's summary of the statement taken by Abberline. Abberline explicitly stated that Schwartz stopped to watch. There can be no argument on this point.



As if to prove my point that Schwartz's story can only be made sense of, by changing it, you go ahead and change it. Has it even occurred to you that the reason Abberline stated that Schwartz stopped to look, was because that is what Schwartz told him he did? Anything Abberline said that Schwartz did or witnessed, was because Schwartz told him so (via an interpreter). The only exception to this, is Abberline giving his opinion on who 'Lipski' was addressed to. When doing so, Abberline made it clear that this was his opinion, and thus not necessarily the opinion of Schwartz. In other words, it was not what Schwartz had told him had occurred.

It's fascinating to me that you claim the authenticity of Schwartz's story, partly based on Abberline extensive knowledge and experience, and his reputation as a policemen, and yet you're happy to casually conclude that Abberline must have been guessing, and guessing wrong at that, when he claimed that Schwartz had stopped to watch. So no, the later is not obviously the more likely. What is obvious is that you're not going to accept all of the story given by Schwartz as recorded by Abberline, if any of it doesn't make sense or sound right to you. Instead, you're going to 'fix' the parts that need 'fixing', and apparently without complaint from anyone except myself. By doing so, however, you're no longer dealing with the events of 1888, but just some fictionalised version of those events.

Nothing changes the fact that The Star interview doesn’t mention him stopping.

“The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off,‘

In fact it has him looking back to see what was going on so clearly in this version Schwartz was in motion.

And in Swanson’s version:

“The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road ‘Lipski’ & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.”

No mention of him stopping. In fact he saw the second man ‘on crossing’ the road.

So ok, we have 3 versions. One of which mentions stopping. Take your pick. The point about stopping or not isn’t a particularly important one so isn’t it possible that Abberline just assumed this? I don’t know which one is correct. You appear to be confident.

I don’t base the authenticity of Schwartz on anything particular. Witnesses usually tell the truth but can be mistaken of course. Why would he lie? How could he have been anything like confident that he wouldn’t be exposed as a liar? So…..

a) part of a plot?
b) seeking his 15 minutes of fame?
or
c) honest but with understandable errors and maybe a bit of exaggeration on his part or by the Press?

Id say

a) not a chance
b) unlikely and fraught with risks out of his control

therefore

c)

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hello George,

At this particular time I think that everyone’s first thought would have been that this was another ripper murder, whether it actually was or wasn’t so it’s difficult, to say the least, to see why they would have believed that the police might have believed that the ripper had killed ‘on his own doorstep’ so to speak. I just can’t see this being in their minds especially faced with the shock of the situation.

To follow on, and I recognise your ‘leaving aside any conspiracy theories’ point, would this thought have been so immediate and so terrifying to club members that in such a short space of time they decided to take such an enormous step as lying to the police with the very obvious risks of discovery. Risks that they had absolutely no control over?

So in a way the fact that they were in the middle of a massively publicised series of murders actually worked in their favour. If this had been an isolated murder they ‘might’ have thought that the police would have seen this as indicative of what kind of club the IWMEC actually was. I still don’t think that they would have come up with this kind of plot though because it was far too risky and easy to unravel.

So no I don’t think that they would have thought that the situation merited lying to the Police.

Just a quick question. What do you mean by "would this thought have been so immediate"? Schwartz didn't go to Leman street station until late in the afternoon, or early evening. That is not exactly what I would call an immediate response. How do you know that the man who had the appearance of being in the theatrical line, didn't spend the afternoon learning his lines?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And this is exactly what I mean. There’s absolutely no basis for believing this. It’s a perfect example of what I mean when I say that you see the sinister in everything. Just because he didn’t mention the irrelevant piece of information about what had happened to the woman doesn’t mean that he was lying.

And this is exactly what I mean about there being an orthodoxy, that regards any deviation from accepted stories as virtual heresy. I've argued that Spooner was actually WVC. There would be nothing sinister about that, and he may have had good reason for not mentioning it. In fact it may have been a committee policy not to disclose the names of it's patrolmen to the public or the press, for safety or other reasons. Consequently, Spooner would have had to come up with another reason for being on the street at that time. It is even possible that Baxter knew what the situation was.

Maybe he did but the reporter didn’t bother to write it up from his notes?

The reporter? There were lots of reporters. This has been pointed out to you before.

“Stranded?” How do you know that she didn’t live a few feet away and he’d just was just talking to him before she went inside?

Now wouldn't that be fortunate? So Spooner's story would now seem to precariously hang on the supposition that his lady friend - probably his soon to be wife Catherine - was literally the girl the next door.