The Absence Of Evidence

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Fanny Mortimer's statement does not disprove my point about the multiple statements she made. 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."

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But we have valid reasons.

Diemschutz had no reason to lie about the time that he discovered the body.
He saw a clock just before he arrived.
He knew how long it took to get from clock to yard.
If the clock said 1.00 then it was physically possible for him to get to the yard with the clock still at 1.00.
Even if it was actually 1.01 there’s no issue at all.
Eagle said that he was called to the body around 1.00.

We allow for leeway because we know for a fact that most people had no watch.

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.

[Abby Normal]

That's an interesting idea, though I disagree. I think strangling was a means to an end for the Ripper and that the mutilations were his goal. The Ripper probably started by stabbing his victims, then switched to the strangulation/throat cutting combination as a better method for incapacitating the victim and reducing the amount of blood he got on himself.

That said, do you have any examples of death by strangulation that might have been early attempts by the Ripper?

For my theory, Annie Millword and Martha Tabram might have been early attacks by the Ripper before he had fully developed his MO.

bingo fiver.
it was all about the knife for the ripper. theres also bruising evidence that suggest maybe some of the victims may not have been strangled at all to incapacitate, but knocked out. mary kelly seems he went straight for cutting the throat since she was already passed out. either way, i agree, any strangulation was a means to an end.or if he did enjoy it, it was still only secondary to the mutilations.

stranglers, like btk, tend not to be post mortem types like the ripper. they get off on strangling, letting victim regain consciousness, strangle again etc. they are torturers and sadists. unlike the ripper. rader said, it was all about the rope. with the ripper, it was all about the knife.

[Fiver]

I appreciate you sharing that with us.
For years I've maintained the Ripper was not a 'knife-man', he was a strangler. None of the victims were stabbed to death (I've always discounted Tabram), if a killer carries a knife and intent on murder, then typically he uses the knife to kill his victims, not this one.

The knife is purely for mutilations. This one likes to see, feel & hear the last gasps of life gurgling from his victim as he compresses their throat. This is what he enjoys.
Mutilations, in my view are more for display to shock the press, public and those finding the bodies. All the bodies are displayed in one way or another.
This is one reason I suspect the Whitechapel Murderer was, or had been a garroter at some point in time.
Strangling is what excited him, mutilations made him famous (or infamous).

That's an interesting idea, though I disagree. I think strangling was a means to an end for the Ripper and that the mutilations were his goal. The Ripper probably started by stabbing his victims, then switched to the strangulation/throat cutting combination as a better method for incapacitating the victim and reducing the amount of blood he got on himself.

That said, do you have any examples of death by strangulation that might have been early attempts by the Ripper?

For my theory, Annie Millword and Martha Tabram might have been early attacks by the Ripper before he had fully developed his MO.

[Fiver]

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.

Neither I nor anyone else has any requirement to provide counter theories. You are the one making the claims. You are the one who is responsable for proving your theory.

Back in post #134 your claimed that "Wess said it was empty at 12:20-12:30, Eagle said it was empty as he returned at 12:40, Lave said it was empty at 12:35 until 12:45, when he was at the gate smoking, The young couple said it when asked what they saw in terms of activities during that half hour, 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."

Your claim about Wess is provably false. He was 5 to 15 minutes walk away from the club at "12:20-12:30". Wess could not and did not say anything about how many people were near the club at "12:20-12:30".

Your claim about Eagle is provably false. Eagle said "I did' see people in Berner street.

Your claim about Lavee is provably false. 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, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions." from 12:30 to 1:00.

Your claim about the young couple is provably false. The couple did not say Berner Street "was empty", they said they did not hear "any unusual noises" coming from Dutfield's Yard.

Your claim about Fanny Mortimer quotes one of her statements and ignores a second contradictory statement that appeared in the same edition of the Evening News.

According to what you call the "press manufactured" quote, 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.

[Fiver]

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

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.

This is the 3rd time I have posted this direct quote of Wess saying "I did" see "anyone about in Berner-street".

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.

Lave did not say "nor did I see anybody moving about in the street" - he said "nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions".

"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 said "nor did I see anybody moving about there [Dutfield's Yard] in a way to excite my suspicions, " not "nor did I see anybody moving about in the street".

Strike 3 - for you.

Fanny Mortimer's statement does not disprove my point about the couple that she saw in the street.

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 Mortimer's statement does not disprove my point about the multiple statements she made. 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."

In this statement, 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 e second, contradictory statement 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.

[Fiver]

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

I did not question Wess statement, I showed that it contradicted your claim. You claimed that Wess said Berner Street was "empty at 12:20-12:30".

His statement, which you quote, contradicts your claim.

"[Coroner] 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. There was also a light in the printing- office, the editor being in his room reading.
[Coroner] Was there much noise in the club? - Not exactly much noise; but I could hear the singing when I was in the yard.
[Coroner] Did you look towards the yard gates? - Not so much to the gates as to the ground, but nothing unusual attracted my attention.
[Coroner] Can you say that there was no object on the ground? - I could not say that.
[Coroner] Do you think it possible that anything can have been there without your observing it? - It was dark, and I am a little shortsighted, so that it is possible. The distance from the gates to the kitchen door is 18 ft.
[Coroner] What made you look towards the gates at all? - Simply because they were open. I went into the club, and called my brother, and we left together by the front door.
[Coroner] 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. I generally go home between twelve and one o'clock."

Wess testimony was that he "left at a quarter-past twelve o'clock". By 12:20 Wess was 5 minutes away from the club. By 12:30, Wess was 15 minutes away from the club. He did not and could not have testified that Berner Street was bear the club was "empty at 12:20-12:30".

[Herlock Sholmes]

If it was 12:38, what time does he return?
Then what time does Lamb arrive?
Then Spooner?
Then commence search?
Then hullaballoo in the yard?
Then discover victim?
Then enter yard?
Then enter Berner street ... at what time?





I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between twelve thirty-nine and a quarter to one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual.

Goddammit it works! You're right!

Forget nitpicking over a minute or two or three here or there....
Accept 100% that there was no plot therefore no one was lying.....
Accept that errors occurred....

And it does work.

The timeline is of little importance and the only reason we began discussing it was because we were hoping that Michael would see sense. He didn’t. There was no cover up. We know this without a shadow of a doubt. Therefore all that we need to know that Diemschutz discovered the body at 1.00 + or - a minute and that she was killed just before by a man who might or might not have been Jack the Ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you can't see any reason for questioning Diemschitz, then I can't see any reason for allowing for a bit of leeway with times.
If you choose "precisely one o'clock", you have to make it work without any fiddling.
If you can't make it work, that's too bad for you and Louis.

But we have valid reasons.

Diemschutz had no reason to lie about the time that he discovered the body.
He saw a clock just before he arrived.
He knew how long it took to get from clock to yard.
If the clock said 1.00 then it was physically possible for him to get to the yard with the clock still at 1.00.
Even if it was actually 1.01 there’s no issue at all.
Eagle said that he was called to the body around 1.00.

We allow for leeway because we know for a fact that most people had no watch.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Then I’d suggest perhaps if it was 12.38 then Mortimer might have been wrong about how long she stood on her doorstep for.

If it was 12:38, what time does he return?
Then what time does Lamb arrive?
Then Spooner?
Then commence search?
Then hullaballoo in the yard?
Then discover victim?
Then enter yard?
Then enter Berner street ... at what time?

We also need to consider that Schwartz might not have passed at exactly 12.45 (it might have been 12.46 or 12.47 or 12.48)

Juggle and it works

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between twelve thirty-nine and a quarter to one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual.

Goddammit it works! You're right!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I can’t see any reason for questioning Diemschutz. He saw a clock and could judge how long it took for him to arrive at the yard so the chances of him making an error of any note is almost non-existent. Obviously he had no reason to lie and we know that no cover up took place so I can see no reason to doubt that Diemschutz discovered the body between 1.00 and 1.01.

I also see no issue with ‘fitting in’ everything that we know occurred between his arrival and the arrival of Dr Blackwell. I’d say that there was ample time.

All that remains is the order of events. My opinion will irritate some but I’d say that if we can make things fit by allowing for a bit of leeway with times that that is likely to be the explanation. We can never know for certain though of course.

If you can't see any reason for questioning Diemschitz, then I can't see any reason for allowing for a bit of leeway with times.
If you choose "precisely one o'clock", you have to make it work without any fiddling.
If you can't make it work, that's too bad for you and Louis.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't see on what Blackwell should have wasted a minute or two. He arrived, Lamb showed him the body, saying that nobody had touched her or something similar and he was off with his examination. Besides, Blackwell himself stated "I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was 1.16 a.m.". To me, that's clear enough: he consulted his watch around the moment he entered the yard, not while he was examining Stride.

Johnston: As soon as Dr. Blackwell came he looked at his watch. It was then 1:16.

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.
It's when he is initially with the victim, that is important from a medical point of view.

What if Lamb's sense of time was just 3 to 5 minutes off on Blackwell's watch?

As I mentioned, Lamb's alert time estimate obviously has a significant margin of error, because its a subjective estimate.*
I was merely pointing out that Lamb's sense of timing seems to have been quite accurate, as you would expect for a PC.
I'm not saying he necessarily got to the yard at 1:01.

* Or was it? What I find interesting about Lamb is this...

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

What was the 'tell'?

[FrankO]

I would quibble that Blackwell actually started his examination at 1:16, and arrived a minute or two earlier.

I don't see on what Blackwell should have wasted a minute or two. He arrived, Lamb showed him the body, saying that nobody had touched her or something similar and he was off with his examination. Besides, Blackwell himself stated "I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was 1.16 a.m.". To me, that's clear enough: he consulted his watch around the moment he entered the yard, not while he was examining Stride.

We can test Lamb's sense of time, to some degree, as follows (Times, Oct 3)...

About 1 o'clock, as near as I can tell, on Sunday morning I was in the Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street. Two men came running towards me.

So by his own estimate of the alert time, he would arrive in the yard just a little after 1am - let's say 1:01.

Dr. Blackwell, about ten minutes after I got there, was the first doctor to arrive.

Now ~1:11.

Dr. Blackwell examined the body, and afterwards the surrounding ground. Dr. Phillips arrived about 20 minutes afterwards; but at that time I was at another part of the ground.

Now ~1:31.

So what time was Dr. Phillips recorded at arriving? Lloyd's Weekly News, Sep 30:

Dr. Phillips was sent for, who came at 1.30 in a cab.

Obviously the starting estimate - 1:00 - has a margin of error attached to it, but his subjective sense of time seems good.

What if Lamb's sense of time was just 3 to 5 minutes off on Blackwell's watch?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Going by Blackwell's watch, I actually do think Smith saw Stride & companion later than the 12:30-12:35 that he himself claimed. I think it would have been closer to 12:40.
Agree, and Smith only estimated the earlier time anyway.
It goes without saying that 12:40 does not bode well for the reality of the 12:45 incident

Then I’d suggest perhaps if it was 12.38 then Mortimer might have been wrong about how long she stood on her doorstep for. We also need to consider that Schwartz might not have passed at exactly 12.45 (it might have been 12.46 or 12.47 or 12.48)

Juggle and it works

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can’t see any reason for questioning Diemschutz. He saw a clock and could judge how long it took for him to arrive at the yard so the chances of him making an error of any note is almost non-existent. Obviously he had no reason to lie and we know that no cover up took place so I can see no reason to doubt that Diemschutz discovered the body between 1.00 and 1.01.

I also see no issue with ‘fitting in’ everything that we know occurred between his arrival and the arrival of Dr Blackwell. I’d say that there was ample time.

All that remains is the order of events. My opinion will irritate some but I’d say that if we can make things fit by allowing for a bit of leeway with times that that is likely to be the explanation. We can never know for certain though of course.