The Absence Of Evidence

[FrankO]

My oh my, Andrew, that's a lot of stuff in your post #239, so, I just have a reaction or two and a general remark for you.

Mrs Diemschitz only mentions one man - Eagle - coming in at around 12:40. However, what time "about twenty minutes before the body was discovered" actually refers to, might not be 12:40.

As far as I can see, there really is no doubt that it was about 20 minutes before one o’clock. In the Daily News of 2 October Mrs. Diemshutz said: “It was just one o'clock when my husband came home. Some twenty minutes previously a member of the club had entered by the side door, but he states that he did not then notice anybody lying prostrate in the yard.”

Good point, and a similar point applies to Diemschitz - had he not just passed the fixed point PC on his way home?

I don’t think so. He came back from near Crystal Palace, south of the Thames and a little west of Berner Street. He would have crossed the Thames by way of the Tower Bridge, then north to Commercial Street and then east along Commercial Street, where he turned right into Berner Street. PC Ayliffe (426 H) was, of course, further to the east.

Mrs Diemschitz: Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs. Up till then I had not heard a sound-not even a whisper. Then suddenly I saw my husband enter, looking very scared and frightened. I inquired what was the matter, but all he did was to excitedly ask for a match or candle, as there was a body in the yard. The door had been, and still was, half open, and through the aperture the light from the gas jets in the kitchen was streaming out into the yard. I at once complied with his request and gave him some matches. He then rushed out into the yard, and I followed him to the doorway, where I remained. Just by the door I saw a pool of blood, and when my husband struck a light I noticed a dark lump lying under the wall. I at once recognised it as the body of a woman, while, to add to my horror, I saw a stream of blood trickling down the yard, and terminating in the pool I had first noticed. She was lying on her back with her head against the wall, and the face looked ghastly. I screamed out in fright, and the members of the club, hearing my cries, rushed downstairs in a body out into the yard. When my husband examined the body he found that life, so far as he could tell, was quite extinct. He at once sent for a policeman.

OK, so what were the time-consuming actions here? Diemshutz entered the kitchen by the side-door; he, apparently said there was a body in the yard and asked for a match & candle; she gave him what he asked for, after which he rushed ouside; he struck a light, and while she screamed, members came down and hurried outside, too; Diemshutz in the meanwhile saw all the blood made, which made him run (or send someone) for the police. Could have happened in 20-30 seconds.

Regardless, if Eagle leaves at 1:05, or even 1:07, we still have to account for Spooner arriving 5 minutes prior (as Herlock has reminded MWR, over and over).
If Spooner arrives 1:00-1:02, Diemschitz cannot possibly have seen the clock reading the time he said it did.

Spooner doesn't seem to have been the best witness when it comes to estimating times. But besides, I agree with Herlock in that timings should not be taken at face value, a little leeway where leeway is due. Spooner said 4 or 5 minutes, Diemshutz said "at the same moment", referring to Spooner lifting Stride's chin and Diemshutz then seeing the cut to the throat for the first time. As far as I'm concerned, the truth was probably somewhere in the midde.

General remark: sticking to the official accounts, there's no need to question or fit much of anything. If you don't and you'd try and fit everything together, that will prove difficult, if not impossible.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

>>If you're implying that Wess heard it on the grapevine... I have no doubt Goldstein was a traveller, but what was he doing travelling after midnight?<<

If Goldstein was a traveller, he, either, may not have heard about the murder or not been available to talk to Wess until Tuesday. There's nothing odd about the timing given the Victorian lifestyle. You are viewing and judging things from a modern perspective.

This response does not answer the quoted question.

We learn from the Morning Advertiser report that, according to Wess, he had to persuade Goldstein to accompany him to the station.
It does not appear that Goldstein's state of knowledge was the issue, in regard to the timing of that visit.
Why exactly Goldstein would have required persuasion to clear him of any suspicion in a murder case, is unclear, at least for those who have not given any serious thought to the man.

Wess spoke to the press, so surely he read newspapers. I think it likely he would have been aware of the comments of Fanny Mortimer, published in the Monday papers - having read them of his own accord, or having been notified of them. As the semi-incriminating remarks against the man with a black bag only appear in Fanny's interview in the Evening News, it seems quite possible that Wess did not become aware of these until the Tuesday evening.

However, if it is to be believed that Wess only accompanied Goldstein to the station with a view to clearing him of suspicion at having been seen walking down Berner street and around the board school corner, then Goldstein could have been collected at any time between Monday morning and early Tuesday evening. Wess (William street) and Goldstein (Christian street), were almost neighbours. Many other members could have sought him out, well before late evening of the Tuesday. Furthermore, how much suspicion might have Goldstein's walk down Berner street actually aroused? It seems fairly innocuous behaviour, and therefore, both Wess's insistence and Goldstein's apparent reluctance, is a puzzle that requires explaining.

We could also wonder why it was necessary for Wess to hold Goldstein's hand (or drag it) - why couldn't Goldstein front up to the station alone, once persuaded of the necessity? Was the issue that Goldstein had little or no English? If true, then we are looking at an interesting coincidence.
Many members of the club were able to speak to the press on the Sunday, and many of those had perfect English. Young Isaacs had partial English ability, but did his best to give an account, all the same.
Two men of known identity are placed close to the murder time and location - one by themselves (Schwartz), and the other (Goldstein) by a witness. Both visit the police. Both visit the press. Both are apparently non-English speakers.

[caz]

So the self-appointed Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories, claims to want this case solved.
Yet the Old Established Theories have not gone close to doing so. Is that a contradiction?

I know this was directed to Herlock, but this argument is getting really childish.

The Old Established Theories cannot be blamed for the failure of everyone on the planet, from 1888 to 2021, to solve a single Whitechapel murder.

Motiveless murders of defenceless street women, where there was no tangible link between victim and assailant, were arguably among the most difficult crimes to solve, without the aid of modern forensics. That, right there, should be enough to explain why they will continue to resist all efforts to make any kind of breakthrough. The only hope is for some newly discovered evidence to provide a vital missing piece of the jigsaw. Theories, old or new, won't change anything.

I've been around here for two decades, and have read more than my fair share of New Wave Theories [kinder than Fringe], and those theorists have got no closer than anyone else. Hardly surprising given the nature of the crimes, but it's worse when that nature is ignored or misunderstood, sending the theorists hurtling off in a variety of strange new directions, believing they are on the right track at last, while everyone else is stuck on the wrong one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nice piece of trumpet-blowing. It’s a tired old opinion I’m afraid which is tossed out when someone disagrees with a theory. It’s The Marriott Defence. “You’re only disagreeing because your stuck on the old established theories and you don’t want the case solved.”

I want the case solved. This is not my main interest in life. If it was solved i wouldn’t burst into tears.

I’d agree that there are two types of Ripperologists.

One who doesn’t state opinion a fact; who assesses using reason, logic, evidence and common sense; one who accepts that coincidences, discrepancies can occur without it proving dishonesty; one who doesn’t set out just to have a ‘theory’ and then defend it at all costs.

The other is one who deliberately seeks out minor discrepancies so they they can weave their own theory. Someone who desperately wants to be seen as an original thinker battling away against the ‘establishment.’ Theirs is an ego-led exercise of creating baseless theories and then throwing up The Marriott Defence when no one agrees with them. Less solving of the mystery and more of creating other mysteries where none exist.


>So the self-appointed Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories, claims to want this case solved.
Yet the Old Established Theories have not gone close to doing so. Is that a contradiction? <

Not at all. You use the word ‘claim’ to imply that I don’t of course.

As far as I’m concerned there aren’t really any old established theory...it’s a bit of a myth. There are suggestions that have gained more traction over the years of course but there is usually a good reason for this, ie that lots of researchers/Ripperologists have looked into something and have come to the same or similar conclusions. Some people tend to find this annoying and take it as their mission to try and shoot these down just for the sake of it and with nowhere near sufficient evidence (often in the pursuit of a theory) To me it often seems a case of someone saying something like “ok, let’s have a look at the events in Berner Street and see if I can weave some kind of new theory?” In cases like this there will always be enough to build a new theory or to suggest some kind of plot due to discrepancies and errors.

Yes I have no problem admitting that I’m wary, to say the least, of ideas of plots, cover-ups and conspiracies. This is possibly due to my previous, and not very longstanding, interest in the JFK assassination where I saw the lengths that people will go to create and defend a theory and how many offences to reason and sense they were prepared to make. We see elements of that in this case. Michael’s theory has been around for years and no one (perhaps except for you now) gives it any weight and for very obvious reasons. This isn’t a case of defending the old established theories it’s a case of looking at a theory (over and over again over 20 years by untold amount of ripperologists) and finding it baseless.....because it is.

Finally, although I’ve given myself a joke title I really can’t understand why I’m considered to be set in stone on certain ideas or theories....

I have no idea of who the ripper was a possibly never will (although I favour Druitt of the named suspects.)
I have no set idea whether the ripper did or didn’t write the GSG.
I have repeatedly stated that I accept the possibility that Stride might not have been a ripper victim.
Although I favour Druitt I accept that Mackenzie might have been a victim which would eliminate him of course.
Im undecided on Tabram or whether any of the others like Mylett were connected.
I can’t make my mind up whether Hutchinson was telling the truth or not.

These hardly point to someone with set-in-stone ideas. I prefer to be cautious when looking at the evidence. I prefer not to get carried away just because I see 2 Press Reports that differ in some way or when witnesses give times that disagree. My default position is ‘there’s probably a reasonable explanation.’ That doesn’t mean that further investigation isn’t necessary, just that we shouldn’t try to move heaven and earth to make that discrepancy fit a theory. I make no apologies for this approach.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
No, I’m just saying that it’s impossible to prove something using an unknown. We can speculate and there’s nothing wrong with that but it doesn’t add weight to a particular idea or theory.

>It is impossible to prove that Mrs Long saw JtR on Hanbury street. It will always remain an unknown. Therefore, we can speculate and there’s nothing wrong with that but it doesn’t add weight to a particular idea or theory.<

Marshall’s description of the type of person that the man appeared to be was just his impression of course. Perhaps he didn’t have a local accent which led him to believe that he was more middle class?

>Or perhaps he did?

Whatever the case, we can speculate and there’s nothing wrong with that but it doesn’t add weight to a particular idea or theory<

As I said, there’s nothing wrong with speculation, we all do it at times.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No, I’m just saying that it’s impossible to prove something using an unknown. We can speculate and there’s nothing wrong with that but it doesn’t add weight to a particular idea or theory.

It is impossible to prove that Mrs Long saw JtR on Hanbury street. It will always remain an unknown. Therefore, we can speculate and there’s nothing wrong with that but it doesn’t add weight to a particular idea or theory.

Marshall’s description of the type of person that the man appeared to be was just his impression of course. Perhaps he didn’t have a local accent which led him to believe that he was more middle class?

Or perhaps he did?

Whatever the case, we can speculate and there’s nothing wrong with that but it doesn’t add weight to a particular idea or theory.

Nice piece of trumpet-blowing. It’s a tired old opinion I’m afraid which is tossed out when someone disagrees with a theory. It’s The Marriott Defence. “You’re only disagreeing because your stuck on the old established theories and you don’t want the case solved.”

I want the case solved. This is not my main interest in life. If it was solved i wouldn’t burst into tears.

I’d agree that there are two types of Ripperologists.

One who doesn’t state opinion a fact; who assesses using reason, logic, evidence and common sense; one who accepts that coincidences, discrepancies can occur without it proving dishonesty; one who doesn’t set out just to have a ‘theory’ and then defend it at all costs.

The other is one who deliberately seeks out minor discrepancies so they they can weave their own theory. Someone who desperately wants to be seen as an original thinker battling away against the ‘establishment.’ Theirs is an ego-led exercise of creating baseless theories and then throwing up The Marriott Defence when no one agrees with them. Less solving of the mystery and more of creating other mysteries where none exist.

So the self-appointed Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories, claims to want this case solved.
Yet the Old Established Theories have not gone close to doing so. Is that a contradiction?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I’m saying it should be treated with caution, as, yes, it was an “unofficial” account. What strikes me as odd in the AF account is that Diemshutz finds the body, runs inside and that, for some odd reason or other, he seems to remain inside while Gilyarorsky takes the lead and goes outside to check the body (seeing the blood), then to the printing office.

More logical would be that Diemshutz went inside, alerted people there, that other people went upstairs to alert the people there while Diemshutz went outside and then ran for the police. Very odd, too, that first Gilyarovsky goes into the printing office through the yard to alert Krants & Yaffa, that the editing duo dashes outside towards the gates, where they not only see the dead woman, but also Eygel, Friedman and – again - Gilyarovsky! How did Gilyarovsky do that?!?

I agree there is something not quite right with the AF account, and have noticed that oddity regarding Gilyarovsky/Kozebrodski.
I have a suspicion that Yaffa = Lave, which would place him in the AF rooms, and yet in the MA, Oct 1:

Another member of the club - A Russian named Joseph Lave - feeling oppressed by the smoke in the large room, went down into the court about twenty minutes before the body was discovered, and walked about in the open air for five minutes or more. He strolled into the street, which was very quiet at the time, and returned to the concert room without having encountered anything unusual.

Mrs Diemschitz only mentions one man - Eagle - coming in at around 12:40. However, what time "about twenty minutes before the body was discovered" actually refers to, might not be 12:40. It might be earlier, which would explain why Lave is not seen by Mortimer.

There is quite a lot to unpack with the AF account and the various movements in the yard. Worthy of its own thread. I recall noticing that when the comments of Koz and Lave are looked at together, it hints that something has occurred at 12:30 - hence the reason for all the contradictory quotes.
By the way, did you know Eagle was on the French secret police books, in regard to the discovery of the body?

How could that have taken 10 minutes, let alone even longer?

If somebody from the club would have ran north to Commercial Street and turned right, he would have found PC 426 H, a fixed point duty PC, no less, on the corner of Grove Street. That was not even 250 meters from the yard - a return trip that could have taken less than 3 minutes - but also only 135 meters away from the top of Berner Street.

Smith, by the time they went out to look for a copper, must have been somewhere going north in Backchurch Lane, quite possibly in one of the small side street/courts on the west side of it, or even between Backchurch Lane and Gower’s Walk on Commercial Street. Either way, Smith would have also been at around 250 meters from Dutfield’s Yard. In fact, I’d find it quite odd that Smith would not have heard any of the shouting & running, if anyone actually turned left at the top of Berner Street.

I agree re Smith, and you're right about the 10 minutes - they could have walked to the fixed point and returned in far less than that!
Yet we have this from Diemschitz in the DN, Oct 1:

One of the members who is known as Isaacs went out with me. We struck a match and saw blood running from the gate all the way down to the side door of the club. We had the police sent for at once, but I believe it was several minutes before a constable could be found. There was another member of the club named Eagle, who also ran out to get a policeman. He went in a different direction to the others, and managed to find two officers somewhere in Commercial-road.

The others? Koz is quoted as saying:

I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers.

Yet Eagle says:

I heard Diemschitz calling for the police, and I ran into the Commercial-road.

Who did he run with?
We can't even seem to work out if the search parties left almost together, or it was one then the other.

An interesting thing is that Eagle lived at no. 4 New Road, which is just on the northern side of Commercial Street. Walking from his home to the club would have taken him right past PC 426 H, who would have been on duty at the corner of Grove Street & Commercial Street from 5 pm. Even if he didn’t pass that corner earlier on that particular evening, I’m sure he would have past it on several other occasions walking to the club or back home and it seems quite unlikely that he wouldn't have known about the fixed-point PC on that particular corner. As Inspector Reid said, the very object of having fixed point men was to save people the trouble of running all the way to the station if anything would happen.

Good point, and a similar point applies to Diemschitz - had he not just passed the fixed point PC on his way home? He noticed the baker's clock, but apparently neither the stationary PC, or Lamb, and then goes searching along Fairclough St! At least Eagle went up to Commercial Rd, but for him to not know exactly were he could find a PC, seems odd.

I certainly don’t have the feeling that I need to force anything but OK, then you tell me how long you think it would or should have taken Diemshutz:
- to cover the stretch from the corner of Berner Street to Dutfield’s Yard
- to then find out it was a woman lying there which caused his pony to shy
- to then go inside and alert people inside, go outside with Kozebrodski & a candle to then run for the police

From turning into the street until pulling into the yard - in the tens of seconds.
Getting off cart and striking a match a couple of times - similar
So we are getting close to 1:02 already.
The third bit is much more complicated. Are we to believe the story about Koz going into the AF rooms, or Eagle telling the dead body to "get up", with only one other member present...?

I had been there about 20 minutes when the man I mentioned-Gigelmann-came and said, "There is a dead woman lying in the yard." I went down in a second, struck a match, and saw a woman lying on the ground near the gates with a lot of blood near her. Her feet were six or seven feet from the gate, and her head lay towards the yard. When I reached the body and struck the match there was only one of the members present. I thought at first she was drunk, and told her to get up-that was before I struck the match.

Yet both that and the following has to occur prior to the commencement of the searching ...

Mrs Diemschitz: Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs. Up till then I had not heard a sound-not even a whisper. Then suddenly I saw my husband enter, looking very scared and frightened. I inquired what was the matter, but all he did was to excitedly ask for a match or candle, as there was a body in the yard. The door had been, and still was, half open, and through the aperture the light from the gas jets in the kitchen was streaming out into the yard. I at once complied with his request and gave him some matches. He then rushed out into the yard, and I followed him to the doorway, where I remained. Just by the door I saw a pool of blood, and when my husband struck a light I noticed a dark lump lying under the wall. I at once recognised it as the body of a woman, while, to add to my horror, I saw a stream of blood trickling down the yard, and terminating in the pool I had first noticed. She was lying on her back with her head against the wall, and the face looked ghastly. I screamed out in fright, and the members of the club, hearing my cries, rushed downstairs in a body out into the yard. When my husband examined the body he found that life, so far as he could tell, was quite extinct. He at once sent for a policeman.

All this adds up. To what, I'm not sure, but we are now well beyond 1:02.
Yet how could this possibly be the case, if the fixed point officer - 426H - was found along with Lamb, near his station?

Again, and like Herlock's already said, Eagle could have run quicker than 7.2 km/hr and could well have taken the shorter route (through Hooper Street). If he would have run at an average speed of, say, 10.8 km/hr and he would have left at 1:05, then he would have arrived at the station not even 3 minutes later!

It is likely Eagle did not set off the moment he and Lamb arrive - Lamb and 426H (Ayliffe), would first have to assess the situation.
Regardless, if Eagle leaves at 1:05, or even 1:07, we still have to account for Spooner arriving 5 minutes prior (as Herlock has reminded MWR, over and over).
If Spooner arrives 1:00-1:02, Diemschitz cannot possibly have seen the clock reading the time he said it did.
We also have to ask if Smith made use of the same clock. Or was it a clock at Gower's Walk?

[drstrange169]

>>If you're implying that Wess heard it on the grapevine... I have no doubt Goldstein was a traveller, but what was he doing travelling after midnight?<<

If Goldstein was a traveller, he, either, may not have heard about the murder or not been available to talk to Wess until Tuesday. There's nothing odd about the timing given the Victorian lifestyle. You are viewing and judging things from a modern perspective.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Im not saying that it’s not worth discussing. What I’m saying is that you can’t use an unknown to prove something therefore Marshall’s evidence gets us nowhere.

>Are you saying that any evidence that doesn't prove something, is worthless?
And where is it we are trying to get?<

No, I’m just saying that it’s impossible to prove something using an unknown. We can speculate and there’s nothing wrong with that but it doesn’t add weight to a particular idea or theory.

Two fairly general descriptions but certainly sounding close. But general enough to have been 2 different men.

>In each case the man is well dressed. In Marshall's case he speaks mildly, and appears educated. General appearance of a clerk.
Does anyone think this a bit incongruous...?

A round cap with a sort of peak to it; something like what a sailor would wear.

Is he of the wrong class to be wearing a sailor's cap?<

Marshall’s description of the type of person that the man appeared to be was just his impression of course. Perhaps he didn’t have a local accent which led him to believe that he was more middle class?

Because you tend to read too much into things.

>There are two types of Ripperologists.
One for who the value of the case is the challenge of solving the mystery - who?
For the other, the value is the mystery itself. This type would prefer the mystery to remain unsolved throughout their lifetimes, if not eternally.
Unsurprisingly, this type also tends to see the other as having a propensity for reading too much into things<

Nice piece of trumpet-blowing. It’s a tired old opinion I’m afraid which is tossed out when someone disagrees with a theory. It’s The Marriott Defence. “You’re only disagreeing because your stuck on the old established theories and you don’t want the case solved.”

I want the case solved. This is not my main interest in life. If it was solved i wouldn’t burst into tears.

I’d agree that there are two types of Ripperologists.

One who doesn’t state opinion a fact; who assesses using reason, logic, evidence and common sense; one who accepts that coincidences, discrepancies can occur without it proving dishonesty; one who doesn’t set out just to have a ‘theory’ and then defend it at all costs.

The other is one who deliberately seeks out minor discrepancies so they they can weave their own theory. Someone who desperately wants to be seen as an original thinker battling away against the ‘establishment.’ Theirs is an ego-led exercise of creating baseless theories and then throwing up The Marriott Defence when no one agrees with them. Less solving of the mystery and more of creating other mysteries where none exist.

[FrankO]

Of course it makes sense. I found two constables... is at the end of the search, when he is with another searcher (apparently Koz, but that is unclear), regardless of the quotes being taken literally, or being interpreted.
Eagle is on the stand - it is his actions being questioned by the coroner. He found the constables, and probably being the senior of the two doing the search, and the one with the better English, he probably did the talking.
Your interpretation would require the order of 'we, we, I', to be reversed, to make any sense.

Maybe you’re right, Andrew, and he used the ‘we’ when he spoke of ‘both search parties’ and ‘I’ because, in the end, it was he who was being questioned about his actions. That’s how I would interpret it then.

The Kozebrodski quote contains 3 'I's, and zero 'we's - are we to conclude that he went up to Grove street alone?

Nope.

Are you saying that Arbeter Fraint was just another newspaper? Given the context - those who wrote and contributed to it being present in the yard just after the murder - I don't think AF can be dismissed simply by calling it "unofficial". I doubt the contributors would tell porkies to their comrades, but tell all the truth and nothing but to 'gentile justice'. If anything, the opposite. In fact Diemschitz makes no reference to going in the back door and finding Koz, who then goes into the printing shop and editors office, at the inquest - that whole sequence is omitted.

I’m saying it should be treated with caution, as, yes, it was an “unofficial” account. What strikes me as odd in the AF account is that Diemshutz finds the body, runs inside and that, for some odd reason or other, he seems to remain inside while Gilyarorsky takes the lead and goes outside to check the body (seeing the blood), then to the printing office.

More logical would be that Diemshutz went inside, alerted people there, that other people went upstairs to alert the people there while Diemshutz went outside and then ran for the police. Very odd, too, that first Gilyarovsky goes into the printing office through the yard to alert Krants & Yaffa, that the editing duo dashes outside towards the gates, where they not only see the dead woman, but also Eygel, Friedman and – again - Gilyarovsky! How did Gilyarovsky do that?!?

Dimshits, Eygel and Gilyarovsky ran to look for a policeman; ten minutes later they had found a pair of peace-keepers.

The evidence points to the search taking an extended period.

How could that have taken 10 minutes, let alone even longer?

If somebody from the club would have ran north to Commercial Street and turned right, he would have found PC 426 H, a fixed point duty PC, no less, on the corner of Grove Street. That was not even 250 meters from the yard - a return trip that could have taken less than 3 minutes - but also only 135 meters away from the top of Berner Street.

Smith, by the time they went out to look for a copper, must have been somewhere going north in Backchurch Lane, quite possibly in one of the small side street/courts on the west side of it, or even between Backchurch Lane and Gower’s Walk on Commercial Street. Either way, Smith would have also been at around 250 meters from Dutfield’s Yard. In fact, I’d find it quite odd that Smith would not have heard any of the shouting & running, if anyone actually turned left at the top of Berner Street.

An interesting thing is that Eagle lived at no. 4 New Road, which is just on the northern side of Commercial Street. Walking from his home to the club would have taken him right past PC 426 H, who would have been on duty at the corner of Grove Street & Commercial Street from 5 pm. Even if he didn’t pass that corner earlier on that particular evening, I’m sure he would have past it on several other occasions walking to the club or back home and it seems quite unlikely that he wouldn't have known about the fixed-point PC on that particular corner. As Inspector Reid said, the very object of having fixed point men was to save people the trouble of running all the way to the station if anything would happen.

You are trying to make the evidence fit a predefined outcome.

I certainly don’t have the feeling that I need to force anything but OK, then you tell me how long you think it would or should have taken Diemshutz:
- to cover the stretch from the corner of Berner Street to Dutfield’s Yard
- to then find out it was a woman lying there which caused his pony to shy
- to then go inside and alert people inside, go outside with Kozebrodski & a candle to then run for the police

There is no way all the activity can be squeezed into 10 minutes.

Again, and like Herlock's already said, Eagle could have run quicker than 7.2 km/hr and could well have taken the shorter route (through Hooper Street). If he would have run at an average speed of, say, 10.8 km/hr and he would have left at 1:05, then he would have arrived at the station not even 3 minutes later!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Im not saying that it’s not worth discussing. What I’m saying is that you can’t use an unknown to prove something therefore Marshall’s evidence gets us nowhere.

Are you saying that any evidence that doesn't prove something, is worthless?
And where is it we are trying to get?

Two fairly general descriptions but certainly sounding close. But general enough to have been 2 different men.

In each case the man is well dressed. In Marshall's case he speaks mildly, and appears educated. General appearance of a clerk.
Does anyone think this a bit incongruous...?

A round cap with a sort of peak to it; something like what a sailor would wear.

Is he of the wrong class to be wearing a sailor's cap?

Because you tend to read too much into things.

There are two types of Ripperologists.
One for who the value of the case is the challenge of solving the mystery - who?
For the other, the value is the mystery itself. This type would prefer the mystery to remain unsolved throughout their lifetimes, if not eternally.
Unsurprisingly, this type also tends to see the other as having a propensity for reading too much into things.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
As I said, this might or might not have been the same man. We can deduce nothing further from it because it’s no more than 50-50. We just have no way of saying either way.
So if the potentially huge ramifications of the first 50 end up being discussed, I take it you won't be participating?

Im not saying that it’s not worth discussing. What I’m saying is that you can’t use an unknown to prove something therefore Marshall’s evidence gets us nowhere.

The description was hardly Sherlock Holmes was it?
I challenge anyone to come up with a closer matching pair of eyewitness descriptions, across the entire case.

Two fairly general descriptions but certainly sounding close. But general enough to have been 2 different men.

If it was Stride and BS Man they might have parted company and he then saw her outside Dutfield’s Yard. It might have been Stride and another man. It might have been another woman entirely. The point is that we have no way of knowing and I don’t understand why I need to say this?
You don't. What makes you think you do?

Because you tend to read too much into things.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You referred sarcastically to the fact that Marshall did not report the moustache.
Any reasonable person who read his testimony, could see why he might have missed it.

And any reasonable person would also see that in one sentence he could see his face but with another he couldn’t.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

As I said, this might or might not have been the same man. We can deduce nothing further from it because it’s no more than 50-50. We just have no way of saying either way.

So if the potentially huge ramifications of the first 50 end up being discussed, I take it you won't be participating?

The description was hardly Sherlock Holmes was it?

I challenge anyone to come up with a closer matching pair of eyewitness descriptions, across the entire case.

If it was Stride and BS Man they might have parted company and he then saw her outside Dutfield’s Yard. It might have been Stride and another man. It might have been another woman entirely. The point is that we have no way of knowing and I don’t understand why I need to say this?

You don't. What makes you think you do?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And you appear to be very uncritical of witnesses that you like. In one sentence (above) he doesn’t see his face.

And then....



He sees enough of his face to say this.

You referred sarcastically to the fact that Marshall did not report the moustache.
Any reasonable person who read his testimony, could see why he might have missed it.