The Absence Of Evidence

[caz]

You mistake ‘irate’ for ‘exasperated.’

You start from the viewpoint that ‘discrepancy’ equates to lies and conspiracy. I come from a starting point that genuine errors are far a more likely explanation and that they are inevitable.

There isn’t anything about your points that cannot be explained when we allow for a margin of error. If we take every timing as a literal fact then we can create any amount of scenario’s on the flimsiest of bases. To even consider some kind of cover-up we would need something completely inexplicable. It would also help if we had valid reasons why witnesses might have lied, but none exist. The idea that club members first concern was the potential closing of there club because the police might have blamed them for ‘hosting’ a ripper murder is nothing short of preposterous. That they would then have arranged for a ‘witness’ like Schwartz simply to imply that the killer wasn’t Jewish (leaving aside the suggestion that they would choose a ‘witness’ who couldn’t even speak English - despite your repeated efforts to imply that he might actually have been able to - is again, preposterous)

Witnesses like Hoschberg and Kozebrodski were very clearly mistaken. Spooner has to be eliminated by his own words. Eagle backs up Diemschutz discovery time. It all fits. We don’t know who killed Elizabeth Stride but we know with certainty that she died between 12.45 and 1.00.

It's worse than that, Herlock, because Schwartz himself implied the exact opposite, that Pipeman was addressed as "Lipski" and was an accomplice to the assault on Stride. It was Abberline who interpreted what Schwartz had witnessed as a Gentile assailant hurling an insult at the obviously Jewish Schwartz.

So if anyone was conspiring with club members to deflect the blame away from a Jewish assailant, even Abberline was more likely than Schwartz to have been in on it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

All this presumes that the clock Louis saw was showing the correct time, to within 30 seconds. Is there any evidence of this?

I believe him when he said he timed his arrival by the clock, but if that clock was out, by 30 seconds or more either way, then the word "precisely" would be unintentionally misleading.

Also, estimated timings, where a clock or watch has not been consulted, are invariably rounded up or down to the nearest five minutes at best. That's just human nature, but the result is that it can make a heck of a difference, when multiple witnesses are contributing to a timeline of events, each of which could have happened in less than a minute.

I don’t know why this is so hard for some to accept Caz? If we allow for an reasonable and understandable margin for error it all fits. There really is no issue apart from one that’s been manufactured using conspiracist thinking....again.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's worse than that, Herlock, because Schwartz himself implied the exact opposite, that Pipeman was addressed as "Lipski" and was an accomplice to the assault on Stride. It was Abberline who interpreted what Schwartz had witnessed as a Gentile assailant hurling an insult at the obviously Jewish Schwartz.

So if anyone was conspiring with club members to deflect the blame away from a Jewish assailant, even Abberline was more likely than Schwartz to have been in on it.

Love,

Caz
X

True Caz. I don’t like to be too critical

[FrankO]

So it was after he entered the yard, and not in the gloom of Berner street. On arriving he would have immediately spoken to the PC at the gate, been let through, met with his assistant by the body, looked at his watch (with the benefit of police lanterns), then commenced his examination. So not much time, but some.

I had forgotten that the gates were closed when he arrived, so your suggestion sounds about right and he would have lost some time, but not much.

About 1 o'clock, as near as I can tell, on Sunday morning I was in the Commercial-road...

What was the 'tell'?

I'd suggest that that would have been the fact that PC 426 H had just come off his fixed point duty when he & Lamb were called by Eagle & Kozebrodski and that this is why PC 426 H could follow him down to the yard. Fixed point duty PC's went off-duty at 1 o'clock.

[erobitha]

Some stats on murder and crime in the mid-late Victorian period. Sadly murder is not broken down by type, but then neither was suicide which was higher.

If we all believed Trev, it would appear most poor souls that ended up brown bread as a victim of murder did so by having their gregory sliced open. I'm pretty sure if that was the case, this type of report would most likely recognsie that fact. It doesn't.

Citation: Statistics of the Abatement in Crime in England and Wales, During the Twenty Years Ended 1887-88 by George Grosvenor





And to top it off I found in the appendix a typical piece of politics from Monro who was top dog at the time of this report.

[rjpalmer]

It's worse than that, Herlock, because Schwartz himself implied the exact opposite, that Pipeman was addressed as "Lipski" and was an accomplice to the assault on Stride.

This might be overstating it, somewhat.

It's true that the Star made this claim, based on an interview with Schwartz, but Abberline later stated that he questioned Schwartz closely on the matter, and Schwartz didn't know who was being addressed.

Still, one would think that if Schwartz was trying to implicate an anti-Semite, he wouldn't have been ambiguous and uncertain. His very uncertainty suggests that he was being honest. At least that's how I see it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im trying to imagine this cabal of Club Plotters discussing their fiendish cover up.


Isaac Plotski: The rozzers will definitely blame us for letting the ripper kill in our yard. We’re done for. We’ll never be able to overthrow the government now and I was really looking forward to it.

Jacob Coverupski: We have to do something. We Jews will not be blamed for nothing. I have a plan.

Isaac Plotski: Does it involve chalk?

Jacob Coverupski: No. Why chalk?

Isaac Plotski: It doesn’t matter. What we need is someone who will pretend that he saw someone who wasn’t Jewish with the woman that was killed.

Samuel Conspirashevsky: Brilliant Who shall we use?

Isaac Plotski: Well the police all speak English so why don’t we get someone that can’t speak English?

Samuel Conspirashevsky: Genius. Why don’t we get someone that’s blind too?

Isaac Plotski: Please take this seriously.

.....

It all makes sense

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You start from the viewpoint that ‘discrepancy’ equates to lies and conspiracy. I come from a starting point that genuine errors are far a more likely explanation and that they are inevitable.

No. A discrepancy is just that. It doesn't mean two or three other things, unless there is good other evidence to suggest so.

There isn’t anything about your points that cannot be explained when we allow for a margin of error.

That margin of error isn't going to have Diemshitz arriving significantly after 1am, is it? Only earlier. Yet that suggests there is something wrong with that time - a latter time should make just as much sense and an earlier time, but it doesn't.
In the much more likely case of an earlier time, the period between Smith on his beat, and Diemschitz arriving home, gets less, and therefore the probability of a four person incident going unnoticed, just yards from Fanny's doorstep, shrinks accordingly.
This, by the way, is the reason Mortimer has to be constantly denigrated as a hopelessly unreliable witness. She is a threat to the Old Established Theories.

If we take every timing as a literal fact then we can create any amount of scenario’s on the flimsiest of bases.

Which is exactly what occurs with this ...

LD: On Saturday I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street.

To even consider some kind of cover-up we would need something completely inexplicable. It would also help if we had valid reasons why witnesses might have lied, but none exist.

Then you should be able to explain why, at around 10pm on the Tuesday, Wess suddenly found it necessary to take Goldstein off to Leman street to identify him as the man seen walking down Berner St. That information had already appeared in the papers of Monday morning!
What information had just come to Wess's attention, that he felt he needed to act on immediately? Not only did he go to the police, he then went to the Morning Advertiser. Did Goldstein go to the MA office also, I wonder?
Stranger still, why did Wess have to persuade Goldstein to go? One might suppose it to have been the other way around - Goldstein persuading Wess - it was his name that had to be cleared. But, cleared of what? Walking down a street carrying a black bag is not an offence. The Home Office asked a pertinent question ...

Who saw this man go down Berner St. or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions might be asked

Did he come forward to pre-empt any suspicion?

The idea that club members first concern was the potential closing of there club because the police might have blamed them for ‘hosting’ a ripper murder is nothing short of preposterous. That they would then have arranged for a ‘witness’ like Schwartz simply to imply that the killer wasn’t Jewish (leaving aside the suggestion that they would choose a ‘witness’ who couldn’t even speak English - despite your repeated efforts to imply that he might actually have been able to - is again, preposterous)

My last comments on the subject ...

It is also worth considering that a man with no English - whether 100% true or otherwise - is not going to be as certain about the intentions of an English speaker as you or I. Schwartz seemed fairy sure it were aimed at Pipeman. Abberline should have recognised this and moved on. I guess he was 'hung up' about who was Jewish and who wasn't, whereas the critical issue is, where did the culprit come from; the club or the street? Schwartz' tale suggests the later.

You don't read posts super carefully, do you?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And by the time that Israel Schwartz saw him he’d apparently put on a false moustache?

Marshall: There was no lamp near and I did not see the face of the man she was talking to.

You don't read quotes super carefully, do you?

A stocky man in dark clothing and wearing a cap.

You left out; similar age, same height (with a 1" margin of error), and arguably similar looks (clerk/fair complexion).
There is an uncanny similarity between the two descriptions, and considering this is night-time, they are about as close as could be expected of the same man.

I’m not saying that it couldn’t have been the same man but I’d say that we can’t assume it.

According to the first Echo report...

It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it.

Yet Schwartz did take a fair bit of notice of it, and gave the man's age as 30, not 35-40.
So someone else has apparently seen the assault incident. Yet according to Schwartz, Pipeman was the only other person on the street at the time, who then chases him away.

So now consider what is said about the man and woman in the Echo report, with this...

Marshall: I was first attracted by their standing there for some time, and he was kissing and cuddling her.

Was the man trying to patch up an altercation, and get back on good terms with her?

I can’t see how this helps in any way or what you are deducing from it>

As a defender of the Old Established Theories, that kinda goes without saying

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'd suggest that that would have been the fact that PC 426 H had just come off his fixed point duty when he & Lamb were called by Eagle & Kozebrodski and that this is why PC 426 H could follow him down to the yard. Fixed point duty PC's went off-duty at 1 o'clock.

At the risk of sounding arrogant, I knew the answer to my own question when I wrote it, and I knew you would know the answer too

[drstrange169]

>> Then you should be able to explain why, at around 10pm on the Tuesday, Wess suddenly found it necessary to take Goldstein off to Leman street...<<

Victorian East End, no television, no radio, no internet, no phones, etc.

And, of course,

"The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller."

Morning Advertiser 3 Oct 1888

[NotBlamedForNothing]

>> Then you should be able to explain why, at around 10pm on the Tuesday, Wess suddenly found it necessary to take Goldstein off to Leman street...<<

Victorian East End, no television, no radio, no internet, no phones, etc.

If you're implying that Wess heard it on the grapevine, that would actually make things worse for Goldstein.
It would further suggest that Fanny actually did see a man appearing to have just left the club, that the man was carrying a black bag, and that it was the same man she had seen ... cough, cough ... previously.

And, of course,

"The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller."

Morning Advertiser 3 Oct 1888

I have no doubt Goldstein was a traveller, but what was he doing travelling after midnight?
Perhaps he thought he could duck up to the Spectacle Alley coffee house, pick up a bagful of leftover cigarette boxes at a bargain price, and then head back to Dutfield's Yard and make a quick killing?
Yet why did feel it necessary to go there via his home on Christian street? Had he left something there he needed to take with him when he left the yard?

[Herlock Sholmes]

That margin of error isn't going to have Diemshitz arriving significantly after 1am, is it? Only earlier. Yet that suggests there is something wrong with that time - a latter time should make just as much sense and an earlier time, but it doesn't.
In the much more likely case of an earlier time, the period between Smith on his beat, and Diemschitz arriving home, gets less, and therefore the probability of a four person incident going unnoticed, just yards from Fanny's doorstep, shrinks accordingly.
This, by the way, is the reason Mortimer has to be constantly denigrated as a hopelessly unreliable witness. She is a threat to the Old Established Theories

With the information that we have there is no margin for error other than any the might come from the clock being out. He got to the yard at 1.00. Any alternative to that has Diemschutz lying and he had absolutely no reason for doing so. Any theory involving him arriving at 12.35 or 12.40 is baseless nonsense which can, and should be, discarded.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Then you should be able to explain why, at around 10pm on the Tuesday, Wess suddenly found it necessary to take Goldstein off to Leman street to identify him as the man seen walking down Berner St. That information had already appeared in the papers of Monday morning!
What information had just come to Wess's attention, that he felt he needed to act on immediately? Not only did he go to the police, he then went to the Morning Advertiser. Did Goldstein go to the MA office also, I wonder?
Stranger still, why did Wess have to persuade Goldstein to go? One might suppose it to have been the other way around - Goldstein persuading Wess - it was his name that had to be cleared. But, cleared of what? Walking down a street carrying a black bag is not an offence. The Home Office asked a pertinent question ...

Who saw this man go down Berner St. or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions might be asked

Did he come forward to pre-empt any suspicion

Answered by Dusty. You are trying to create a mystery where none exists....as usual.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
It is also worth considering that a man with no English - whether 100% true or otherwise - is not going to be as certain about the intentions of an English speaker as you or I. Schwartz seemed fairy sure it were aimed at Pipeman. Abberline should have recognised this and moved on. I guess he was 'hung up' about who was Jewish and who wasn't, whereas the critical issue is, where did the culprit come from; the club or the street? Schwartz' tale suggests the later.

You don't read posts super carefully, do you?


A nonsense answer of course. No one would choose to use a false witness that needed an interpreter. And I was correct to point out that you continue to imply that he might have spoken some English by your use of ‘whether 100% true or otherwise.’ He didn’t speak English. You have zero basis for suggesting otherwise. You are simply trying create doubt where none exists.....as usual.