The Absence Of Evidence

[c.d.]

Funny how the police not only searched all the men still there but also the club itself, which suggests they entertained an idea that this murder looked to have been committed by someone already there.

It looks like all of their intense training paid off. Searching and questioning people at the scene of the crime as opposed to questioning and searching men who were not there.

c.d.

[caz]

I'm trying to recall the knife bluntness question here; was Rumbelow saying the knife owned by Dorothy Stroud was blunt when he saw it and was (therefore) blunt when it was (possibly) used on Stride? Or was Rumbelow recalling the testimony about the Coram knife?

I'm afraid I can't recall the precise details, Scotty. But Don did seem to believe that the knife used on Stride [whichever knife he thought that was] was blunt, which made no sense to me.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Again, if these ‘people’ haven’t come to agree with this after 20 years of looking into this they’re hardly likely to are they? Give it up Michael. A child could see that you’re wrong.

You were asked to stop with the infantile posts with funny faces...and it seems you cant. So ciao...Ive read your last idiotic post.

[caz]

You should know by now that in Ripperology all things are possible

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, Trev, I certainly should, after reading your posts and those by Michael Richards.

So it's possible that Kidney cut Stride's throat in a rit of fealous jage.

It just looked like the impersonal act of a man who had killed this way before, and would do so again before the night was out.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, Trev, I certainly should, after reading your posts and those by Michael Richards.

So it's possible that Kidney cut Stride's throat in a rit of fealous jage.

It just looked like the impersonal act of a man who had killed this way before, and would do so again before the night was out.

Love,

Caz
X

You mean by cutting a throat? Thats a sort of signature for you? Instead of just being one of the easiest and cheapest ways to inflict harm on another? When you have a single throat cut you have a ton of local men that could have done it....when you have a uterus extracted fast, in near darkness and virtually in complete format....few could.

[caz]

No, not just by cutting a throat.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you just arrived and hadn't read any of the relevant posts on this subject.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, Trev, I certainly should, after reading your posts and those by Michael Richards.

So it's possible that Kidney cut Stride's throat in a rit of fealous jage.

It just looked like the impersonal act of a man who had killed this way before, and would do so again before the night was out.

Love,

Caz
X

You are entitled to your opinion as i am mine

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

No, not just by cutting a throat.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you just arrived and hadn't read any of the relevant posts on this subject.

"It just looked like the impersonal act of a man who had killed this way before,.." I was just commenting about that line which you posted.

[Trevor Marriott]

when you have a uterus extracted fast, in near darkness and virtually in complete format....few could.

You are totally correct

The spanner in the works comes from one of the doctors who said that a butcher could effect such removals which is beyond comprehension even back then, which researchers have wrongly picked up on to negate the knowledge clearly needed to not only locate the organs but remove them as well.

I dont see any evidence of butchers doubling up as surgeons at the local hopsitals

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You were asked to stop with the infantile posts with funny faces...and it seems you cant. So ciao...Ive read your last idiotic post.

An easy way to avoid answering the questions that you’ve ignored so far.

And I’m no longer interested discussing the case with a provably dishonest poster who is willing to stoop to any form of manipulation of evidence to try and shoehorn a thoroughly discredited and entirely laughable excuse for a theory.

[Fiver]

Wess said it was empty at 12:20-12:30

This is an incorrect statement on your part.

Wess said that he left at "a quarter-past twelve o'clock". He did not claim that Berner Street "was empty at 12:20-12:30", he said he was between 5 and 15 minutes walk away from the club at that time.

Eagle said it was empty as he returned at 12:40

This is another incorrect statement on your part.

When asked "Did you see anyone about in Berner-street?', Eagle replied "I dare say I did, but I do not remember them." That directly contradicts your idea that "Eagle said it was empty as he returned at 12:40", he said he did see people.

Lave said it was empty at 12:35 until 12:45, when he was at the gate smoking,

This is another incorrect statement on your part.

Lave said ""I was in the yard of the club this morning about twenty minutes to one. At half-past twelve I had come out into the street to get a breath of fresh air. There was nothing unusual in the street. So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions."

Lave said "There was nothing unusual in the street", he did not say the street "was empty". Lave did say "nobody came into the yard" from 12:30 to 1:00, which is clearly incorrect.

Lave did not say he was smoking at this time.

The young couple said it when asked what they saw in terms of activities during that half hour,

This is another incorrect statement on your part.

According in Fanny Mortimer "A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound."

According to the Daily News "A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises."

The couple did not say Berner Street "was empty", they said they did not hear "any unusual noises" coming from Dutfield's Yard.

and Fanny said it as she was at her door "nearly the whole time"...yes, thats her quote, not press manufactured...and saw no-one except for the young couple from 12:35 until 12:55...when she sees Goldstein passing.

Both statements occur in the same edition of the Evening News, yet you claim one as "her quote" and dismiss the other as "press manufactured".

According to what you call the "press manufactured" quote "During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time."

Mortimer did not say Berner Street was empty "from 12:35 until 12:55", she said "she saw no one enter or leave" Dutfield's Yard between 12:45 and 12:55.

According to what you call "her quote", Mortimer said she "did not notice anything unusual" and "There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe anyone enter the gates" and "the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School."

This is a claim that the man with the bag (Leon Goldstein) was the only man to "pass through the street" during "nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock". It is not proof "that Berner street was empty and deserted from 12:35 until 12:55". It is proof that Fanny Mortimer did not notice Lave, Eagle, Kozebrodski, Letchford, or Schwartz at the times they claim to have been in been on Berner Sreet.

You should actually read the materials about this case, its interesting. And then I wouldnt have to post the obvious in response to questions that can be easily answered by reading about the case.

I have read the materials about the case, which is how I know you have not accurately portrayed what they said. Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

[FrankO]

If he arrived at a time we might find acceptable evidence for, its after 1am and at 1:05 we have a PC having been escorted by Eagle and Issa K to to the passageway. So, it cannot be that he arrived just after 1am, because we have very good proof that Eagle is returning to that passageway at that same time. Louis cannot "discover" someone after someone was already sent out for help. Unless...you figure it out.

Have you ever given any thought to the distances & timings involved for Diemshutz and Eagle to make their respective return trips to Grove Street, Michael? I’m quite sure you don’t, because otherwise you wouldn’t have said something like the above.

OK, let’s figure it out and say that Eagle returned with Lamb at 1:05 in the yard, just as you say. The distance to where he met Lamb and back to the yard is at least 360 meters, and even 480 meters if they actually met at Grove Street, as Eagle claimed. We know they ran, so let’s suppose that they ran at an average speed of 14.4 km/hr or 4 m/s, nothing outlandish. For Eagle to make this trip and arrive back in the yard at 1:05, he needed to leave the yard 90 seconds before, which would bring the clock at 1:03:30 when he left the yard. If he ran at a speed of 3 m/s, then it would have taken him 120 seconds, which would bring the clock back to 1:03. If he ran at 2 m/s, then he would have left the yard 180 seconds before, at 1:02.

For Diemshutz to run to Grove Street and back to the yard (almost 290 meters), he would have needed 75 seconds (at a speed of 4 m/s). So, if, for instance, he left the yard at exactly 1:02, he would have arrived back in the yard at 1:03:15. If he ran 3 m/s, then it would have taken him 97 seconds and he would have arrived back in the yard at 1:03:37. If he ran at 2 m/s, then he would have returned back in the yard 145 seconds later, at 1:04:25. Still well in time for Eagle & Lamb to arrive in the yard at 1:05!

How’s that for proof: Diemshutz could actually have arrived back in the yard before Eagle ever left?! We know this wasn't the case, but it still shows the relative sea of time there was between 1:00 and 1:05 for Diemshutz and Eagle to move back & forth.

But even if they would have left the yard at the exact same moment, it woud be perfectly possible for Diemshutz to have arrived back in the yard before Eagle & Lamb.

Where does this leave your “very good proof that Eagle is returning to that passageway at that same time”? And where would it leave your "damage control duo" Diemshutz & Eagle, if you would be right?

Your plot would thicken. Or better yet, it'd evaporate...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have you ever given any thought to the distances & timings involved for Diemshutz and Eagle to make their respective return trips to Grove Street, Michael? I’m quite sure you don’t, because otherwise you wouldn’t have said something like the above.

OK, let’s figure it out and say that Eagle returned with Lamb at 1:05 in the yard, just as you say. The distance to where he met Lamb and back to the yard is at least 360 meters, and even 480 meters if they actually met at Grove Street, as Eagle claimed. We know they ran, so let’s suppose that they ran at an average speed of 14.4 km/hr or 4 m/s, nothing outlandish. For Eagle to make this trip and arrive back in the yard at 1:05, he needed to leave the yard 90 seconds before, which would bring the clock at 1:03:30 when he left the yard. If he ran at a speed of 3 m/s, then it would have taken him 120 seconds, which would bring the clock back to 1:03. If he ran at 2 m/s, then he would have left the yard 180 seconds before, at 1:02.

For Diemshutz to run to Grove Street and back to the yard (almost 290 meters), he would have needed 75 seconds (at a speed of 4 m/s). So, if, for instance, he left the yard at exactly 1:02, he would have arrived back in the yard at 1:03:15. If he ran 3 m/s, then it would have taken him 97 seconds and he would have arrived back in the yard at 1:03:37. If he ran at 2 m/s, then he would have returned back in the yard 145 seconds later, at 1:04:25. Still well in time for Eagle & Lamb to arrive in the yard at 1:05!

How’s that for proof: Diemshutz could actually have arrived back in the yard before Eagle ever left!! We know this wasn't the case, but it still shows the relative sea of time there was between 1:00 and 1:05.

But even if they would have left the yard at the exact same moment, it woud be perfectly possible for Diemshutz to have arrived back in the yard before Eagle & Lamb.

Where does this leave your “very good proof that Eagle is returning to that passageway at that same time”? And where would it leave your "damage control duo" Diemshutz & Eagle, if you would have been rigth?

Your plot would thicken. Or better yet, it'd evaporate...

Excellent post Frank

I don’t see how anyone could honestly dispute this. One of Michael’s issues (among many) is that he isn’t willing to accept that timings in this case aren’t exact and so we have to allow at least some leeway. Michael took issue with me over my innocuous comment that most people at that time (and especially in that area) wouldn’t have owned watches or clocks. Maybe he believes that Constables engaged in ‘knocking up’ for fun? We know for example that Lamb didn’t have a watch. So when we look at these times we have to allow for discrepancies which were certain to occur. When Hoschberg, for example, uses the words “about” and “I should think” we know that he’s guessing the time that he was alerted to events in Dutfield’s Yard. He thought that it was ‘about 12.45.’ Clearly he was wrong, as was Spooner when he guessed at 12.35. We can work out with a very reasonable degree of accuracy what time Lamb got to the yard. Spooner said that he’d been there for just 5 minutes when Lamb arrived. Leeway is one thing but is it remotely likely that when Spooner estimated 5 minutes it was actually 30 minutes? Of course not. No sensible person would suggest it. Therefore we can say that Spooner arrived at the yard just after 1.00. And so the foundations of this cover up (Michael’s 4 witnesses) crumble very easily when we apply a bit of judgment. And when we add an invented statement from Gilleman plus a man (Eagle) who we have in black and white saying that he first saw the body around 1.00 there really is nothing left. 4 very obviously mistaken witnesses are hardly the most solid basis for a theory. But then everyone except one realises this.

[Michael W Richards]

Have you ever given any thought to the distances & timings involved for Diemshutz and Eagle to make their respective return trips to Grove Street, Michael? I’m quite sure you don’t, because otherwise you wouldn’t have said something like the above.

OK, let’s figure it out and say that Eagle returned with Lamb at 1:05 in the yard, just as you say. The distance to where he met Lamb and back to the yard is at least 360 meters, and even 480 meters if they actually met at Grove Street, as Eagle claimed. We know they ran, so let’s suppose that they ran at an average speed of 14.4 km/hr or 4 m/s, nothing outlandish. For Eagle to make this trip and arrive back in the yard at 1:05, he needed to leave the yard 90 seconds before, which would bring the clock at 1:03:30 when he left the yard. If he ran at a speed of 3 m/s, then it would have taken him 120 seconds, which would bring the clock back to 1:03. If he ran at 2 m/s, then he would have left the yard 180 seconds before, at 1:02.

For Diemshutz to run to Grove Street and back to the yard (almost 290 meters), he would have needed 75 seconds (at a speed of 4 m/s). So, if, for instance, he left the yard at exactly 1:02, he would have arrived back in the yard at 1:03:15. If he ran 3 m/s, then it would have taken him 97 seconds and he would have arrived back in the yard at 1:03:37. If he ran at 2 m/s, then he would have returned back in the yard 145 seconds later, at 1:04:25. Still well in time for Eagle & Lamb to arrive in the yard at 1:05!

How’s that for proof: Diemshutz could actually have arrived back in the yard before Eagle ever left?! We know this wasn't the case, but it still shows the relative sea of time there was between 1:00 and 1:05 for Diemshutz and Eagle to move back & forth.

But even if they would have left the yard at the exact same moment, it woud be perfectly possible for Diemshutz to have arrived back in the yard before Eagle & Lamb.

Where does this leave your “very good proof that Eagle is returning to that passageway at that same time”? And where would it leave your "damage control duo" Diemshutz & Eagle, if you would be right?

Your plot would thicken. Or better yet, it'd evaporate...

Interesting perspective, but you of course realize that there is a difference here between a fixed distance and precise timing. He doesnt say how long he looked before finding the constable. Your scenario of people running to a point and then running back helps understand the distance they were away from the club, but it doesnt and cant tell you how long they took before finding a constable, Particularly when they dont estimate it themselves. Like in Spooners case...had he estimated how long his saunter with his date took to get to the Beehive instead of estimating how long they stood there before the running men were seen, we wouldnt have needed so much discussion on how off his estimates must have been about when he was alerted. Perhaps you and others wish that Eagle said he saw Lave when he returned, and vice versa, but they didnt...even though they gave the exact same time period for being in place right there. Pity. Maybe you wish that Fanny had seen who was on the cart and horse after 1, which way it was going....again, so much the pity. Maybe you wish that Fanny heard "Lipski" being yelled from inside her house, because she stated she heard bootsteps while inside...and of course the cart and horse. Wouldnt leave so much doubt that Israel had anything factual in his statement. As it is, everything he said is reliant on belief...not substantiated by any other evidence and witness. As is Eagle. And Lave.

You did fail to address my remark that Issak K meets up with Eagle on the way back to the passageway, and thats good, Issak K's own remarks on what he did when and whom he went with or met are illuminating, and do not validate Louis's statement.

Im still a little surprised at how many people want to challenge multiple corroborating statements with ones that are uniquely singular and without any second hand verification. The pull of the Canonical Dark Side when looking at these murders is strong indeed,...I said that out loud using James Earl Jones voice.

You allude to a plot....clearly something that is created on the spot in heightened emotional state would have weak plot points....like the fact that Louis and Morris apparently didnt tell even Issac K to say that Louis arrived at 1. Issac however said that when he arrived back at the club, at half past 12, that about 10 minutes elapsed before he was summoned to the passageway...finding Louis and other members already standing around the body. Contradicting a friends statement, not validating it.

You would think in a broad "conspiracy" Issac and other club members would have been advised to say what Louis and Eagle said...but they didnt, did they? Does that means that the 3 men I mentioned did not try and manipulate the truth by falsifying their own remarks, not as a certainty...but it is interesting that they dont directly contradict each other. Sure, Eagle and Lave screwed up by saying they were in the same place at the same time and didnt see each other...and sure, Louis screwed up unknowingly because we can prove he didnt arrive "precisely" at 1, not was he in his final approach at 1. We have a witness who saw that street at that time, not club affiliated.

So we have a group of men who say they saw Louis was by the body around 12:40...Eagle says he came into the passageway at that time..Lave says he was at the gates at that time...and Louis says he didnt even arrive to discover the body until precisely 15-20 minutes later.
And you, and others dont have problems with these issues?

Makes me wonder what you hope to gain from being here then...if evidence and fact and contradictions and provable lies dont influence your perceptions of what has been historically told.

[Michael W Richards]

This is an incorrect statement on your part.

Wess said that he left at "a quarter-past twelve o'clock". He did not claim that Berner Street "was empty at 12:20-12:30", he said he was between 5 and 15 minutes walk away from the club at that time.

"How do you know that you finally left at a quarter-past twelve o'clock? - Because of the time when I reached my lodgings. Before leaving I went into the yard, and thence to the printing-office, in order to leave some literature there, and on returning to the yard I observed that the double door at the entrance was open. There is no lamp in the yard, and none of the street lamps light it, so that the yard is only lit by the lights through the windows at the side of the club and of the tenements opposite. As to the tenements, I only observed lights in two first-floor windows."
"On leaving did you see anybody as you passed the yard? - No.
[Coroner] Or did you meet any one in the street? - Not that I recollect.

So he estimated when he left by when he arrived and said he saw no-one, and you feel entitled to question the point?



This is another incorrect statement on your part.

When asked "Did you see anyone about in Berner-street?', Eagle replied "I dare say I did, but I do not remember them." That directly contradicts your idea that "Eagle said it was empty as he returned at 12:40", he said he did see people.

See my response above, he didnt say he saw anyone. Strike 2.



This is another incorrect statement on your part.

Lave said ""I was in the yard of the club this morning about twenty minutes to one. At half-past twelve I had come out into the street to get a breath of fresh air. There was nothing unusual in the street. So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions."

Lave said "There was nothing unusual in the street", he did not say the street "was empty". Lave did say "nobody came into the yard" from 12:30 to 1:00, which is clearly incorrect.

Lave did not say he was smoking at this time.

Re-read your post.....nor did I see anybody moving about in the street....you get a Ball 1 because I added the smoking bit.



This is another incorrect statement on your part.

According in Fanny Mortimer "A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound."

According to the Daily News "A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises."

The couple did not say Berner Street "was empty", they said they did not hear "any unusual noises" coming from Dutfield's Yard.


Fanny:

"I suppose you did not notice a man and woman pass down the street while you were at the door? No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had. Particularly if they'd been strangers, at that time o' night. I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in."

Strike 3


I have read the materials about the case, which is how I know you have not accurately portrayed what they said. Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

If you have youre keeping anything you learned secretive.

Let me address you and any other contrary poster....if you are unable to construct scenarios from the evidence provided in the witness statements and the physical evidence, dont waste peoples time by critiquing others that can.