The Absence Of Evidence

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[caz]

Diemschitz' clock based time is used to discount the times given by several other witnesses, including police.
If everyone is out of time except your Louis, you have to make the timeline work without granting yourself any favours, and without ignoring any evidence.
The period from the cart entering yard to the commencement of the search took minutes, not one minute.
The very people involved in the search, and contributors to their own onsite paper, gave a search time of 10 minutes. Press reports add support to an extended search time.
Frank calculated Eagle's journey to Leman street station as being about 5 minutes...

And then, on to Eagle, who was sent for the Leman Street Police Station. Going there by way of Commercial Street, the distance would have been some 610 meters. Going there by Fairclough Street, Backchurch Lane and Hooper Street, it would have been some 515 meters. Running there at a speed of 2 m/s (7.2 km/hr, a slow jogging speed), it would have taken Eagle 5 minutes and 5 seconds to cover 610 meters.

All this has to occur by 1:10.

The simple solution is have Diemschitz arriving before 1am - several minutes before - so that he really arrived at "about one o'clock", rather than precisely so.
Ironically, "about" was the word Diemschitz spoke to the press. It was also the word used in Arbeter Fraint, after Diemschitz' inquest appearance.
Clearly the word 'precisely' was used at the inquest, to give his timing more weight.

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.

[caz]

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

That's quite funny, Trev, because unless I'm very much mistaken, Michael Richards [to whom you addressed the above post] suspects a butcher - and a mad one at that - of locating and removing Chapman's uterus.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

You want leeway? I'll give you leeway!

Let's assume Fanny actual were outside around the 12:45 mark, and no Schwartz incident.

However, let's assume this report is factual. Echo, Oct 1:

The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. 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.

So at some point that night, Stride surely was thrown to the ground.

So what point? Let's assume this report is fairly accurate (same edition):

From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.
"We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."

So that's probably 12:00 to 12:30 accounted for, so let's go back further...

William Marshall: I live at 64 Berner-street, Commercial-road, and am a labourer. On Sunday last I saw the body of deceased in the mortuary. I recognize it as that of a woman I saw on Saturday evening about three doors off from where I am living in Berner-street. That was about a quarter to 12. ... She was standing talking to a man.

How did the man look?

The CORONER. - Can you describe the man? -There was no lamp near and I did not see the face of the man she was talking to. He had on a small black coat and dark trousers. He seemed to be a middle-aged man.
The CORONER. - What sort of cap was he wearing? - A round cap with a sort of peak to it; something like what a sailor would wear.
The CORONER. - What height was he? - About 5ft. 6in., and he was rather stout. He was decently dressed, and I should say he worked at some light business, and had more the appearance of a clerk than anything else.
The CORONER. - Did you see whether he had any whiskers? - From what I saw of his face I do not think he had. He was not wearing gloves, and he had no stick or anything in his hand.
The CORONER. - What sort of coat was it? - A cut-away one.

So ...

black cut-away coat and dark trousers, middle-aged, round cap with a peak, like a sailors, 5'6", rather stout, appearance of a clerk, no whiskers, no gloves or anything in hands.

Now, substituting the age given in the Echo assault report, for that given by Schwartz for his first man, the first man (BS) becomes...

age 35 to 40 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

From which I surmise ...

Marshall's Man was Broad Shouldered Man

And by the time that Israel Schwartz saw him he’d apparently put on a false moustache? A stocky man in dark clothing and wearing a cap. I’m not saying that it couldn’t have been the same man but I’d say that we can’t assume it. I can’t see how this helps in any way or what you are deducing from it>

[Herlock Sholmes]

Irate replies to posts: data

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I find it difficult to place much weight on Fanny Mortimer as we just can’t be certain exactly what time she was actually on her doorstep and when she was inside. The conflicting versions make her a grey area. Unsafe to rely on to quote Mr Marriott. Consequently the fact that she didn’t see Schwartz can’t be used as proof that he wasn’t there. The actual Schwartz Incident would have taken a matter of seconds and might easily have occurred during the time that she’d returned indoors. Obviously we can’t state this as a fact but the possibility certain exists so it’s fairly pointless to claim Mortimer as disproving Schwartz (it’s similar to the idea of interruption - we can’t prove that interruption took place but the possibility exists and as long as it exists we can’t we can’t assume that the killer wasn’t the ripper) And so just because Mrs M didn’t see Schwartz it doesn’t mean that he wasn’t there - only that she didn’t see him. We have to remember of course that we can take Schwartz time as being spot-on either. Leeway

You want leeway? I'll give you leeway!

Let's assume Fanny actual were outside around the 12:45 mark, and no Schwartz incident.

However, let's assume this report is factual. Echo, Oct 1:

The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. 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.

So at some point that night, Stride surely was thrown to the ground.

So what point? Let's assume this report is fairly accurate (same edition):

From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.
"We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."

So that's probably 12:00 to 12:30 accounted for, so let's go back further...

William Marshall: I live at 64 Berner-street, Commercial-road, and am a labourer. On Sunday last I saw the body of deceased in the mortuary. I recognize it as that of a woman I saw on Saturday evening about three doors off from where I am living in Berner-street. That was about a quarter to 12. ... She was standing talking to a man.

How did the man look?

The CORONER. - Can you describe the man? -There was no lamp near and I did not see the face of the man she was talking to. He had on a small black coat and dark trousers. He seemed to be a middle-aged man.
The CORONER. - What sort of cap was he wearing? - A round cap with a sort of peak to it; something like what a sailor would wear.
The CORONER. - What height was he? - About 5ft. 6in., and he was rather stout. He was decently dressed, and I should say he worked at some light business, and had more the appearance of a clerk than anything else.
The CORONER. - Did you see whether he had any whiskers? - From what I saw of his face I do not think he had. He was not wearing gloves, and he had no stick or anything in his hand.
The CORONER. - What sort of coat was it? - A cut-away one.

So ...

black cut-away coat and dark trousers, middle-aged, round cap with a peak, like a sailors, 5'6", rather stout, appearance of a clerk, no whiskers, no gloves or anything in hands.

Now, substituting the age given in the Echo assault report, for that given by Schwartz for his first man, the first man (BS) becomes...

age 35 to 40 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

From which I surmise ...

Marshall's Man was Broad Shouldered Man

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Irate replies to posts: data

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Why would there be a need at the Inquest to add a word just to give Diemschutz timing more weight? No one was doubting his timing as he’d seen a clock less than a minute before arriving at the yard.


>Good question. I think the the answer is simple though; to clear the decks.
Diemschitz 'precisely one o'clock' means; other than the murder itself, nothing of significance happened until 1am, when he discovered the body. So you (the jury), can forget all those rumours you've heard about chases up Fairclough St, and whatnot.<

But there was never any implication that anything of significance apart from the murder occurred before 1.00. Whether Diemschutz said ‘precisely’ or it was added he still said 1.00 and he qualified this by saying that he’d arrived at this time after seeing a clock less than a minute before discovering the body. So he can’t be accused of trying to override rumours that he wasn’t aware of.

....

I don’t see why we ‘need’ Diemschutz discovering the body before 1.00?


<Because Smith's testimony precludes it.
The search took around 10 minutes.
There was a significant lapse of time between discovery and commencement of search.
Other witness testimony leans earlier than 1am.
There is a fifth reason not discussed recently.<

The search didn’t take 10 minutes and Smith doesn’t preclude it. You’re making unwarranted assumptions. Those other witnesses are beyond weak and very obviously mistaken.

......

Why is Eagle being sent to Leman Street at around 1.05 arriving at 1.10 an issue?
For starters; Eagle returned with Lamb. Spooner arrived 5 minutes before that ... which means 1am.

>We have to remember ‘leeway’ of course so if it was stated that Eagle arrived at 1.10 it might actually have been 1.11 or 1.12 and, as Frank has Eagle running at a ‘slow jog,’ we have to consider that he might have run a fair bit quicker reducing his journey time by a minute or two.
So by 'leeway', you really mean 'margin of error'. So 1:10 becomes 1:09-1:11, or even 1:08-1:12.

Frank may have done his estimate cognizant of the fact that Eagle may have been drinking.

I have to return to the question of why Diemschutz would have lied about the time that he found the body?
"Why would he lie?" - is not my style. What if I don't happen to think of the actual reason, or settle on one that is false?
I prefer to just look keep looking at the evidence until I see inconsistencies, anomalies, underappreciated points, and potential links.
And it's all just data to me. Diemschitz seems to have been well regarded: data. Le Grand, not so: data. Schwartz was Jewish: data.<

And this is the problem of course. Reading far to much into inconsistencies that very naturally occur in cases like this. Compounded of course by the general lack accuracy in recording times (for very obvious reasons) It’s easy to start seeing connections or imagining links.

.....

The cover up idea can safely be discarded as we know.
It's set to make a surprise comeback

You obviously have a far higher tolerance for nonsense than I do. Conspiracist thinking is the curse of the modern age. The idea that there was a cover up in Berner Street is worse than a joke. It’s a complete and utter waste of everyone’s time and should be utterly and categorically dismissed by everyone. Diemschutz discovered the body when he said that he did without a solitary shred of doubt.

.......

He saw a clock, which ‘might’ have been wrong of course, and so he could give a pretty accurate time that he arrived at the yard. If we stop taking times as exact or assuming a mystery/cover up then there really is little problem. Even if Schwartz lied or exaggerated or misjudged what he saw (and the possibility exists) it still doesn’t even come close to meaning that there was anything mysterious going on.

>Why would he lie?<

He wouldn’t and he didn’t. Less imagination and more reason is required before the subject of Ripperology is regarded by all as the domain of Flat Earther types.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why would there be a need at the Inquest to add a word just to give Diemschutz timing more weight? No one was doubting his timing as he’d seen a clock less than a minute before arriving at the yard.

Good question. I think the the answer is simple though; to clear the decks.
Diemschitz 'precisely one o'clock' means; other than the murder itself, nothing of significance happened until 1am, when he discovered the body. So you (the jury), can forget all those rumours you've heard about chases up Fairclough St, and whatnot.

I don’t see why we ‘need’ Diemschutz discovering the body before 1.00?

Because Smith's testimony precludes it.
The search took around 10 minutes.
There was a significant lapse of time between discovery and commencement of search.
Other witness testimony leans earlier than 1am.
There is a fifth reason not discussed recently.

Why is Eagle being sent to Leman Street at around 1.05 arriving at 1.10 an issue?

For starters; Eagle returned with Lamb. Spooner arrived 5 minutes before that ... which means 1am.

We have to remember ‘leeway’ of course so if it was stated that Eagle arrived at 1.10 it might actually have been 1.11 or 1.12 and, as Frank has Eagle running at a ‘slow jog,’ we have to consider that he might have run a fair bit quicker reducing his journey time by a minute or two.

So by 'leeway', you really mean 'margin of error'. So 1:10 becomes 1:09-1:11, or even 1:08-1:12.

Frank may have done his estimate cognizant of the fact that Eagle may have been drinking.

I have to return to the question of why Diemschutz would have lied about the time that he found the body?

"Why would he lie?" - is not my style. What if I don't happen to think of the actual reason, or settle on one that is false?
I prefer to just look keep looking at the evidence until I see inconsistencies, anomalies, underappreciated points, and potential links.
And it's all just data to me. Diemschitz seems to have been well regarded: data. Le Grand, not so: data. Schwartz was Jewish: data.

The cover up idea can safely be discarded as we know.

It's set to make a surprise comeback

He saw a clock, which ‘might’ have been wrong of course, and so he could give a pretty accurate time that he arrived at the yard. If we stop taking times as exact or assuming a mystery/cover up then there really is little problem. Even if Schwartz lied or exaggerated or misjudged what he saw (and the possibility exists) it still doesn’t even come close to meaning that there was anything mysterious going on.

Why would he lie?

[Herlock Sholmes]

When we here from Fanny via a press report of a police report, obtained in an unknown format, we get...

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.

Yet when we we here from Fanny directly, we get...

There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates.
If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him.

... and ...

He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

Rather different.

I find it difficult to place much weight on Fanny Mortimer as we just can’t be certain exactly what time she was actually on her doorstep and when she was inside. The conflicting versions make her a grey area. Unsafe to rely on to quote Mr Marriott. Consequently the fact that she didn’t see Schwartz can’t be used as proof that he wasn’t there. The actual Schwartz Incident would have taken a matter of seconds and might easily have occurred during the time that she’d returned indoors. Obviously we can’t state this as a fact but the possibility certain exists so it’s fairly pointless to claim Mortimer as disproving Schwartz (it’s similar to the idea of interruption - we can’t prove that interruption took place but the possibility exists and as long as it exists we can’t we can’t assume that the killer wasn’t the ripper) And so just because Mrs M didn’t see Schwartz it doesn’t mean that he wasn’t there - only that she didn’t see him. We have to remember of course that we can take Schwartz time as being spot-on either. Leeway

[Herlock Sholmes]

Diemschitz' clock based time is used to discount the times given by several other witnesses, including police.
If everyone is out of time except your Louis, you have to make the timeline work without granting yourself any favours, and without ignoring any evidence.
The period from the cart entering yard to the commencement of the search took minutes, not one minute.
The very people involved in the search, and contributors to their own onsite paper, gave a search time of 10 minutes. Press reports add support to an extended search time.
Frank calculated Eagle's journey to Leman street station as being about 5 minutes...

And then, on to Eagle, who was sent for the Leman Street Police Station. Going there by way of Commercial Street, the distance would have been some 610 meters. Going there by Fairclough Street, Backchurch Lane and Hooper Street, it would have been some 515 meters. Running there at a speed of 2 m/s (7.2 km/hr, a slow jogging speed), it would have taken Eagle 5 minutes and 5 seconds to cover 610 meters.

All this has to occur by 1:10.

The simple solution is have Diemschitz arriving before 1am - several minutes before - so that he really arrived at "about one o'clock", rather than precisely so.
Ironically, "about" was the word Diemschitz spoke to the press. It was also the word used in Arbeter Fraint, after Diemschitz' inquest appearance.
Clearly the word 'precisely' was used at the inquest, to give his timing more weight.

Why would there be a need at the Inquest to add a word just to give Diemschutz timing more weight? No one was doubting his timing as he’d seen a clock less than a minute before arriving at the yard.

I don’t see why we ‘need’ Diemschutz discovering the body before 1.00? Why is Eagle being sent to Leman Street at around 1.05 arriving at 1.10 an issue? We have to remember ‘leeway’ of course so if it was stated that Eagle arrived at 1.10 it might actually have been 1.11 or 1.12 and, as Frank has Eagle running at a ‘slow jog,’ we have to consider that he might have run a fair bit quicker reducing his journey time by a minute or two.

I have to return to the question of why Diemschutz would have lied about the time that he found the body? The cover up idea can safely be discarded as we know. He saw a clock, which ‘might’ have been wrong of course, and so he could give a pretty accurate time that he arrived at the yard. If we stop taking times as exact or assuming a mystery/cover up then there really is little problem. Even if Schwartz lied or exaggerated or misjudged what he saw (and the possibility exists) it still doesn’t even come close to meaning that there was anything mysterious going on.