Whistling on Berner Street

[Herlock Sholmes]

Makes you wonder about Koz. Did Louis hear that Koz had said 12:40 to the press, and decide retrospectively that he'd seen the Harris clock?



Yeah, I have no idea who these men could be, who appear to be together or know each other





Charles Letchford was Jack the Ripper. Unfortunately, George, I don't have a plot. I did have one at one stage, but I lost it

Isn’t that the third ‘ripper’ that you’ve uncovered in Berner Street?

[caz]

This is a strawman argument. Who is claiming that no one else witnesses anything related? Is that the impression you get of me, after reading this post?

Too often members forget (or perhaps, 'forget') what other members have said on topics, from one day to the next. The gaps are then filled in in a way to make out that someone is a half-wit.

The post you linked me to is on a Witness thread I haven't caught up with since late October, so I have yet to read it in context with all the other related posts. My post here was related to previous posts here, as is usually the case unless otherwise specified.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Lamb testified that he was at the intersection of Commercial and Berner 6-7 minutes before he arrived at the yard. Diemshitz had already testified that he saw a clock at that location, the first time he had ever mentioned seeing a clock. Do you consider it reasonable that Lamb would not have checked the clock as he passed. He didn't have a pocket watch, so how was he to determine times if he ignored local clocks as he passed them. What reason would you put forward for his averting his eyes to avoid seeing the clock as he passed?

Hi George,

If Lamb did check the clock, he'd have been able to say so, just like Louis D did, and give the precise time it was showing as he passed.

Do you consider it reasonable that Lamb would have neglected to mention this, and instead had to excuse his estimate of the time due to not having a watch?

Sounds to me like Lamb neglected to check the clock on this particular occasion. He was human after all.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

However, it is conceivable that Mortimer saw more than she was willing to admit to the police, and so truncated about 20 minutes, down to 10. She may have been rather like Matthew Packer was initially - adamant that she had seen nothing suspicious, to avoid the possibility of any adverse reaction to herself or her family.

There are several scenarios with key witnesses that are never discussed, usually because people are too focused on protecting Schwartz.

Now that's funny. If you are right, it would mean that Fanny could have witnessed the three men while standing on her doorstep: Schwartz, Pipeman with knife in hand and BS assaulting Stride, but said nothing because they knew where she lived and she could be next.

I don't think you really wanted to suggest that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George,

If Lamb did check the clock, he'd have been able to say so, just like Louis D did, and give the precise time it was showing as he passed.

Do you consider it reasonable that Lamb would have neglected to mention this, and instead had to excuse his estimate of the time due to not having a watch?

Sounds to me like Lamb neglected to check the clock on this particular occasion. He was human after all.

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It would only have occurred to Schwartz if he knew "Lipski" was an epithet directed at Jews and the story behind it. With no English, he'd have needed someone who spoke both languages to explain this to him at some point before he heard it being used by Stride's assailant.

Your assumption is that Schwartz cannot be a false witness, because he if he were, he would surely have claimed that 'Lipski' was aimed at him, implying that he knew the connotations of that word. Given you believe Schwartz to be a true witness, the question becomes; how is Abberline going to suggest or hint to Schwartz, that the word was aimed at him, if Schwartz doesn't either already know how the word is used, or Abberline explains to him, how the word is used? Either way, Schwartz needs to know for Abberline's questioning to make sense to Schwartz, and yet, Schwartz remains at best, undecided. Anderson's draft letter suggests that Schwartz was not undecided at all.

But assuming he did know, why would he have fannied around with it and suggested it was called out to an accomplice? If he 'knew exactly what he intended to convey' - that this thug had hurled an insult at him for being Jewish - he could have done it in the first place and left no room for interpretation.

For the reason I gave - if it was directed at Schwartz, then Pipeman has no reason to be 'startled', and run off. In the Pipeman as accomplice scenario, 'Lipski' becomes an alert to Pipeman - who is obviously asleep on the job - that a Jewish intruder is present. Again, aiming the call at Schwartz would amount to nothing bit a bit of verbal abuse, and once again, Pipeman would have very little or no reason to taking his marching orders from BS.

So for me, the epithet theory is out. A man named Lipski was never found. That leaves the murder connotation. So either BS is announcing to the street that he is about to murder the woman he is assaulting, or the murder has already occurred.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Now that's funny. If you are right, it would mean that Fanny could have witnessed the three men while standing on her doorstep: Schwartz, Pipeman with knife in hand and BS assaulting Stride, but said nothing because they knew where she lived and she could be next.

I don't think you really wanted to suggest that.

She could have witnessed the three men (or four), if Schwartz' tale were true - which it isn't

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

If Lamb did check the clock, he'd have been able to say so, just like Louis D did, and give the precise time it was showing as he passed.

Do you consider it reasonable that Lamb would have neglected to mention this, and instead had to excuse his estimate of the time due to not having a watch?

Sounds to me like Lamb neglected to check the clock on this particular occasion. He was human after all.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

With all due respect, I disagree with your proposal in the stongest possible terms. It casts aspersions on the professionalism of Lamb purely to defend a polished up statement by Diemshitz.

Detective-Inspector Reid: How long before had you passed this place?
Witness: I am not on the Berner-street beat, but I passed the end of the street in Commercial-road six or seven minutes before.

Lamb was answering a question from Reid. Reid didn't ask about what clock and what time was showing. Reid was requesting a time interval. Reid and Lamb were professionals who knew the duties of a PC. Lamb was making it clear that he was estimating from the Harris clock and not deriving his time from a pocket watch. But if you can look at the physical barriers to Diemshitz actually being able to see the clock from his cart position and still accept his testimony while labelling Lamb as derelict in his duty, that's your call.

Cheers, George

[caz]

Your assumption is that Schwartz cannot be a false witness, because he if he were, he would surely have claimed that 'Lipski' was aimed at him, implying that he knew the connotations of that word.

Er, no. That's not what I was saying at all. False witness or otherwise, If Schwartz had known the connotations of that word, he'd have known that anyone hearing his account and seeing his strong Jewish appearance would have known them too and interpreted the incident as Abberline did. Maybe that was the plan and he was playing a curious double bluff just for jolly. But is it likely?

Given you believe Schwartz to be a true witness, the question becomes; how is Abberline going to suggest or hint to Schwartz, that the word was aimed at him, if Schwartz doesn't either already know how the word is used, or Abberline explains to him, how the word is used? Either way, Schwartz needs to know for Abberline's questioning to make sense to Schwartz, and yet, Schwartz remains at best, undecided. Anderson's draft letter suggests that Schwartz was not undecided at all.

Abberline questioned Schwartz 'very closely' as to whom Lipski was addressed, but he was unable to say. So whether he was lying or truthful about the incident as a whole, he was indicating an ignorance of himself as the obvious candidate. To me, that smacks of the truth, because it wouldn't have made much sense as a lie. Back to the unlikely double bluff. And Abberline was there, face to face with this man, and had the experience we lack in dealing with local matters with a Jewish angle.

For the reason I gave - if it was directed at Schwartz, then Pipeman has no reason to be 'startled', and run off.

But Schwartz initially said he took Pipeman to be an accomplice, who ran after him when he became alarmed. You'd have to ask Abberline why he thought Pipeman may have been similarly alarmed by the situation, but Schwartz himself 'could not tell' why the man was running.

In the Pipeman as accomplice scenario, 'Lipski' becomes an alert to Pipeman - who is obviously asleep on the job - that a Jewish intruder is present. Again, aiming the call at Schwartz would amount to nothing bit a bit of verbal abuse, and once again, Pipeman would have very little or no reason to taking his marching orders from BS.

Again, it was Abberline's job to make the call, but it was based on Schwartz's admitted uncertainty about what he had witnessed. If he knew exactly what he intended to convey, he either messed it up, or it was that very uncertainty that he meant to convey, and which Abberline reported on.

So for me, the epithet theory is out. A man named Lipski was never found. That leaves the murder connotation. So either BS is announcing to the street that he is about to murder the woman he is assaulting, or the murder has already occurred.

I can't pretend to understand how you arrived at this conclusion from Schwartz's muddled account, but I'm in good company because Abberline would have been as bemused then as I am now.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi George,

If Lamb did check the clock, he'd have been able to say so, just like Louis D did, and give the precise time it was showing as he passed.

Do you consider it reasonable that Lamb would have neglected to mention this, and instead had to excuse his estimate of the time due to not having a watch?

Sounds to me like Lamb neglected to check the clock on this particular occasion. He was human after all.

Love,

Caz
X

Its safe to assume that if Lamb gave any estimate it would be based on his accounting for the intervals as was pointed out by someone else. He would be using some kind of measurement to stay on his timings. Clock, clock inside a storefront....whatever. We do not know Louis consulted any clock actually, we know only that he said he did and it puts him arriving when he would have been seen by Fanny at her door. She didnt see him arrive before or at 1am. And of course the little matter of multiple witnesses describing being aware of the injured woman well before 1, with Louis there at the time. That may be problematic for some, but when you factor in Lambs contention he was there before 1am, maybe not so much.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

With all due respect, I disagree with your proposal in the stongest possible terms. It casts aspersions on the professionalism of Lamb purely to defend a polished up statement by Diemshitz.

Detective-Inspector Reid: How long before had you passed this place?
Witness: I am not on the Berner-street beat, but I passed the end of the street in Commercial-road six or seven minutes before.

Lamb was answering a question from Reid. Reid didn't ask about what clock and what time was showing. Reid was requesting a time interval. Reid and Lamb were professionals who knew the duties of a PC. Lamb was making it clear that he was estimating from the Harris clock and not deriving his time from a pocket watch. But if you can look at the physical barriers to Diemshitz actually being able to see the clock from his cart position and still accept his testimony while labelling Lamb as derelict in his duty, that's your call.

Cheers, George

With all due respect, George, I was not trying to 'defend' anyone else's statement here. I was merely concerned with PC Lamb's explanation for needing to estimate the time: he didn't have a watch. He didn't make it 'clear' that he was estimating anything from the Harris clock, or any other clock. In fact he said nothing at all about having fixed the time by a clock at any point. You are simply presuming he would have done. But as you say, he was asked to estimate the time interval between passing the Commercial-road end of the street and being called, and he thought it was "some six or seven minutes". No clock or watch would have helped him estimate that interval, but surely you can see why it would have been useful to the investigation had he given the exact time for when he had passed a fixed point with a working clock. That's a no-brainer. He wasn't able to do that.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its safe to assume that if Lamb gave any estimate it would be based on his accounting for the intervals as was pointed out by someone else. He would be using some kind of measurement to stay on his timings. Clock, clock inside a storefront....whatever. We do not know Louis consulted any clock actually, we know only that he said he did and it puts him arriving when he would have been seen by Fanny at her door. She didnt see him arrive before or at 1am. And of course the little matter of multiple witnesses describing being aware of the injured woman well before 1, with Louis there at the time. That may be problematic for some, but when you factor in Lambs contention he was there before 1am, maybe not so much.

For multiple, read 2.

Amazing that you’ll quibble about the appropriateness of suggesting that Lamb might have been a bit out in his estimation and yet you think it’s perfectly reasonable just to accuse an inconvenient witness of lying. A man who had zero reason for lying.

The nonsense about being seen by Fanny is just that…nonsense. If she had gone onto her doorstep at 12.45 then why didn’t she see him arrive. As a matter of FACT no one saw him return to Dutfield’s Yard but we can be reasonably certain that he wasn’t beamed in by Scotty. Try and stay within the bounds of reason. That no one saw Diemschutz at whatever time means nothing.

If certain posters could rid themselves of the offence to reason that is ‘if something wasn’t witnessed then it couldn’t have happened’ we would have to waste much less time eliminating dross.

……

No answer to my points Michael?

The cover up is absolutely dead and buried. You should now admit it.

[caz]

Its safe to assume that if Lamb gave any estimate it would be based on his accounting for the intervals as was pointed out by someone else. He would be using some kind of measurement to stay on his timings. Clock, clock inside a storefront....whatever. We do not know Louis consulted any clock actually, we know only that he said he did and it puts him arriving when he would have been seen by Fanny at her door. She didnt see him arrive before or at 1am. And of course the little matter of multiple witnesses describing being aware of the injured woman well before 1, with Louis there at the time. That may be problematic for some, but when you factor in Lambs contention he was there before 1am, maybe not so much.

Oh not this drivel again. Fanny didn't see Louis arrive period. She was indoors when she heard his pony and cart, and that was just before Louis himself said he had made the discovery, and just before Fanny emerged once more to see what the commotion was about. You think Fanny knew to the nearest second what time she went indoors, and knew she was still at her door at 1am? That's when Louis said he saw the clock, so even if she timed it so she shut the front door at a second past the hour, she'd have heard but not seen his arrival.

Your 'multiple' witnesses were estimating the time and not considered reliable, or the police would have taken a lot more interest in Louis and his clock.

A hundred witnesses with no reason - or no means - to fix the time would have been no more reliable.

Lamb's contention, as reported in The Times, was that he was in Commercial Rd "about 1 o'clock, as near as I can tell". Was he misquoted in one of the reports, or did he give two estimates of the time? Either way, it's not a fact that it was before 1am when he heard the news of "another murder".

In any case, if the whole idea was to delay the discovery and raising the alarm until shortly after 1am, to give the conspirators time to work out a plan of damage limitation, it would have been screwed from the start if the alarm was raised independently and provably before Louis claimed he had arrived at the scene. And Louis could have done nothing about it.

But Louis wasn't screwed - by any of these witnesses. And his was the time that was universally accepted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh not this drivel again. Fanny didn't see Louis arrive period. She was indoors when she heard his pony and cart, and that was just before Louis himself said he had made the discovery, and just before Fanny emerged once more to see what the commotion was about. You think Fanny knew to the nearest second what time she went indoors, and knew she was still at her door at 1am? That's when Louis said he saw the clock, so even if she timed it so she shut the front door at a second past the hour, she'd have heard but not seen his arrival.

Your 'multiple' witnesses were estimating the time and not considered reliable, or the police would have taken a lot more interest in Louis and his clock.

A hundred witnesses with no reason - or no means - to fix the time would have been no more reliable.

Lamb's contention, as reported in The Times, was that he was in Commercial Rd "about 1 o'clock, as near as I can tell". Was he misquoted in one of the reports, or did he give two estimates of the time? Either way, it's not a fact that it was before 1am when he heard the news of "another murder".

In any case, if the whole idea was to delay the discovery and raising the alarm until shortly after 1am, to give the conspirators time to work out a plan of damage limitation, it would have been screwed from the start if the alarm was raised independently and provably before Louis claimed he had arrived at the scene. And Louis could have done nothing about it.

But Louis wasn't screwed - by any of these witnesses. And his was the time that was universally accepted.

Welcome back to Conspiracyville Caz, where anything can mean anything when there’s shoehorning to be done.

No answer from Michael to my question - why would they have proceeded with such a critical plan knowing full well that members like Kozebrodski and Hoschberg hadn’t been told that they needed to say 1.00? And how could Louis not have bothered to have informed the very man, Spooner, that he’d returned to the yard with, that the ‘script’ discovery time was 1.00? Great plan.

[GBinOz]

With all due respect, George, I was not trying to 'defend' anyone else's statement here. I was merely concerned with PC Lamb's explanation for needing to estimate the time: he didn't have a watch. He didn't make it 'clear' that he was estimating anything from the Harris clock, or any other clock. In fact he said nothing at all about having fixed the time by a clock at any point. You are simply presuming he would have done. But as you say, he was asked to estimate the time interval between passing the Commercial-road end of the street and being called, and he thought it was "some six or seven minutes". No clock or watch would have helped him estimate that interval, but surely you can see why it would have been useful to the investigation had he given the exact time for when he had passed a fixed point with a working clock. That's a no-brainer. He wasn't able to do that.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

While maintaining all due respect, which is becoming unique in the warzone that hallmarks many of these threads, I beg to differ (again). Mind you, I do agree with your proposal that time intervals have nothing to do with clock times.

Do you think that the police constables would have been debriefed by their superiors to ensure that police standards were being upheld? Do you think that the coroner wanted to hear the details of Lamb's beat including all the times he observed on the clocks? Lamb stated that he didn't have a pocket watch for the court record, and to stipulate he was estimating. It may have been fine for civilians such as Eagle and Brown to be making long estimates from guessed starting points, but Lamb's times were estimates from clock sightings. I feel sure that you are not suggesting that he was guesstimating from the time he started his beat. Reid was posing questions to Lamb, such as the time interval from the Commercial/Berner intersection, and which direction he was headed when called, and the time that the fixed point officer was due to be released, for the benefit of the coroner, who thought the latter statement important. Lamb deposed his evidence in the form of a narrative. There after he responded to questions from the coroner and Reid. He wasn't asked if he looked at the Harris clock or what time it showed - that level of detail would have been soughted out at the debriefing.

PC Smith actually did testify to some details of his beat and it was considered so irrelevant that most newspapers didn't even report it. Smith said he was at the intersection at one o'clock, Lamb said he was called to the site shortly before one o'clock. How did he know the time? He was estimating from the last time he saw a clock, and he had just passed the Harris clock headed east on his beat. Do you think that he just forgot to look at the clock headed east, and again headed west when he knew he was about to be involved in a murder investigation? Deductive reasoning dictates that he would have complied with his legal obligation to be aware of the time without the unnecessary presumption that he failed in his duty because he didn't go into details to the coroner, who didn't need those details. Louis had a little story to tell with a polished up time for the inquest. Why does the word of a soon to be convicted criminal have to be taken over that of two respected police constables? In May 1889 a jury concluded that Diemshitz was lying in his defence at his trial and convicted him. How does that record entitle him to a presumption of truth in October 1888?

Cheers, George