How "safe" were the respective murder sites?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;313314]

Hi Fish,

That's interesting. Sounds like you don't think the killer knew the area very well. If, say, he had grown up in the area, he would presumably have passed the yard in daylight and would know what lay just beyond the gates, wouldn't you say?

MrB

Who knows,Mr Barnett?

Are you having problems with me making a general observation? Itīs refreshing, if so - many people have trouble with me making observations from a Lechmereian point of view.

On the whole, if we are to speak of Lechmere here, then Iīd say that it is not easy to say how much he would have known of the yard. It was reasonably not a place you would visit without a reason. If you didnīt stay there or work there or belong to the club, then why would you aquaint yourself with it?
Then again, maybe he DID aquaint himself with it.

Thereīs really no telling. And he could have approached Stride with the sole intention of cutting her neck - thereīs no telling in that area either.

But it IS telling to some extent that people sometimes would disallow me to speak of Lechmere and speak of derailings of threads, whereas at other times, they will try and make me speak of the same man. Itīs a bit confusing, but telling.

Hope that answers your question, Mr Barnett!

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;313308]

Itīs anybodyīs guess - but what I am saying is that we cannot exclude that the killer did not know of the side door. If so, and if he netered the street at a stage when there was noone in it but for Stride, I think that the apparent character of a working yard, the businesses having their names painted in white on the yard gates, the darkness of the yard and the overall setting could easily have made a killer who looked for secluded spots to kill and eviscerate in go "There it is!".

I agree that this spot may have made him comfortable enough to try and kill someone. However, as you have acknowledged that the Club would have had a steady trickle of people leaving, it simply had to have been busier than Hanbury. There really should be no question about that. ..unless Hanbury had a Friar's roast going on that I never heard of.

Mike

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=The Good Michael;313317]

I agree that this spot may have made him comfortable enough to try and kill someone. However, as you have acknowledged that the Club would have had a steady trickle of people leaving, it simply had to have been busier than Hanbury. There really should be no question about that. ..unless Hanbury had a Friar's roast going on that I never heard of.

Mike

Define "a fairly steady trickle", Mike!

One person per minute?

One per every five minutes?

One per every fifteen minutes?

Could there be differing intervals of time involved?

Before you go "You admitted it!", you need to give these matters some afterthought.

I would say that if three people left the club in a twenty minute period of time, it would be a trickle.

I would also say that I would not be perplexed if ten people passed through Hanbury Street in twenty minutes at 5.30. If not, then I would be perplexed.

... but I would not try and make you agree that it COULD happen, since I donīt need to - I know it anyway.

The basics are that the yard could be taken for a useful place to kill by somebody who did not know it very well, and that either Berner Street OR Hanbury Street could have been more awake and crowded on the respective mornings. If you have any objections to that, they will have to stand for you.

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;313318]

Define "a fairly steady trickle", Mike!

Steady trickle would be every minute or so someone leaves and another is saying goodbyes. That's my take on a trickle. A trickle doesn't stop. It isn't slow droplets spaced apart by lengthy intervals of time. There really can be no doubt that Berner Street in the area of the club was busier than Hanbury could have been. Not 'little' doubt, but 'no' doubt. That doesn't change anything in my mind with regards to Stride being a potential ripper victim. Not a whit for me.

Mike

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=The Good Michael;313320]

Steady trickle would be every minute or so someone leaves and another is saying goodbyes. That's my take on a trickle. A trickle doesn't stop. It isn't slow droplets spaced apart by lengthy intervals of time. There really can be no doubt that Berner Street in the area of the club was busier than Hanbury could have been. Not 'little' doubt, but 'no' doubt. That doesn't change anything in my mind with regards to Stride being a potential ripper victim. Not a whit for me.

Mike

I donīt think there was somebody exiting the club every minute, Mike. We have Mrs Mortimer, for example, who speaks of Leon Goldstein as the only one she noticed passing through the street as she stood on her doorstep for a significant period of time. She also mentions the couple at the corner, but says not a word about any clubbers coming or going.

So no, there was not that kind of traffic at that stage. If there had been, then Stride would not have died in the yard. There must have been more substantial amounts of time when nobody came or went to or from the club.

The club members were of course interviewed about whether any of them were in the yard in the relevant time period inbetween 12.45 and 01.00. None of them professed to having been there. Did they leave through the front door, unbolting it from the inside, like Morris Eagle and his girlfriend at around 11.30 PM? If so, none of them spoke of that either during the period. At least I cannot remember any such witness or testimony. So whereīs that one-minute trickle?

Was the club area busier than Hanbury Street on the whole? It may well have been, yes. The Hanbury Street residents hitting the street at 5.30 will reasonably have been more scattered, but they may have been around in greater numbers nevertheless.
Personally, I think they were. But my guess is as good - or bad - as yours. None of the suggestions are anything but that, and it does not help that you claim that there can be certainty.

Clearly, there canīt.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Between 1am and 4am the streets would be at their quietest. That's when a kill in a dark corner of a street would be preferable, as the killer would have a constant view of his escape routes. Earlier or later, killing in a yard would provide the seclusion unavailable in the streets, but would carry its own risks when it came to escape. Do the timings of the murders bear that out? I think so.

[The Good Michael]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;313323]

Personally, I think they were. But my guess is as good - or bad - as yours. None of the suggestions are anything but that, and it does not help that you claim that there can be certainty.

Clearly, there canīt.

It helps me clarify things to a satisfactory level by having certainty about something that is a conclusion based upon my logic. Clearly it isn't based on yours, however. Yet, it is what I interpret.

Mike

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=The Good Michael;313327]

It helps me clarify things to a satisfactory level by having certainty about something that is a conclusion based upon my logic. Clearly it isn't based on yours, however. Yet, it is what I interpret.

Mike

Aha. Well, it does not clarify things to me when somebody asserts that we may draw conclusions that are not there for us to draw. It veils things.

Would you accept if I interepreted the killings as the work of Charles Lechmere and said that it was not a hunch but a certainty...? Somehow, I donīt think you would go along with that reasoning.

Then again, who am I to quibble - I donīt go along with YOUR reasoning. And I found a couple of useful details to allow for me to be stubborn on the point. What testimony do YOU have speaking of a steady trickle of clubbers pouring into Berner Street at the relevant remove in time, Mike?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Between 1am and 4am the streets would be at their quietest. That's when a kill in a dark corner of a street would be preferable, as the killer would have a constant view of his escape routes. Earlier or later, killing in a yard would provide the seclusion unavailable in the streets, but would carry its own risks when it came to escape. Do the timings of the murders bear that out? I think so.

Was that timetable posted on the walls of Whitechapel? Of course not - stupid me; that would have all the prostitution business going down in yards up til 1 o clock, after which it would have moved out onto the streets, effectively prohibiting any murders!

I think we may safely conclude that the degree to which the streets were quiet or not would vary quite a lot. Residential streets, factory streets, nightlife streets - they would all have had their own timetables.

At any rate, if there was a lot of people in a street at, say 3.15, I am anything but sure that the killer would have whiskered them all into a dark yard while he did the business out in the open street. I think he adapted from situation to situation, but I think that an empty yard was ALWAYS to be preferred to the open street alternative.

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;313329]

And I found a couple of useful details to allow for me to be stubborn on the point. What testimony do YOU have speaking of a steady trickle of clubbers pouring into Berner Street at the relevant remove in time, Mike?

There is a difference here. I don't wish to be stubborn. I don't need any newspaper articles to understand the drinking habits and comings and goings of revelers. I was a bartender for 3 years. I saw many trickles in that time and not just because of weak bladders. So...you may be stubborn if you wish. I prefer life experience and logic in this instance. You can hold onto Mortimer's petticoats if you wish. She has always been a bundle of knowledge.

Mike

[MrBarnett]

I wonder what time the club normally closed.

Did they ring a bell and call out, 'Time, comrades PLEASE ! Haven't you got shtetls to go to??'

[Fisherman]

Mike:

There is a difference here. I don't wish to be stubborn.

Nor do you need to. To you, itīs a done deal: "Not 'little' doubt, but 'no' doubt".

I don't need any newspaper articles to understand the drinking habits and comings and goings of revelers. I was a bartender for 3 years. I saw many trickles in that time and not just because of weak bladders. So...you may be stubborn if you wish. I prefer life experience and logic in this instance. You can hold onto Mortimer's petticoats if you wish. She has always been a bundle of knowledge.

You were a ... bartender for three years? And learnt from that experience how the clubbers of the IWMEC exited the clubhouse in Berner Street in 1888?

I mean, come on, Mike. What kind of evidence is that?

You prefer logic and experience to Mrs Mortimer. Keep in mind that it is YOUR logic - mine tells a different story. My logic says to me that if Mortimer saw Leon Goldstein, then yes, she WAS standing on her doorstep, for Leon Goldstein DID pass that night. After that, I fail to see why she would lie about or forget the rest.

I also fail to see that the absense of testimony relating to the relevant hours of 00.45 to 1.00 could mean anything else than a lack of people being able to say something about the street or yard at that remove in time.

Incidentally, that tallies with what Mrs Mortimer said. No clubbers.

But you disagree. They WERE there at that stage. They trickled out of the club, because your experience of three years of bartending tells us that they must have.

That is pretty meagre, Iīm afraid.

I have been standing outside many a pub late at night, beer-glass in hand, and I know that it will be an area where people are buzzing around like wasps on a lump of sugar. I wouldnīt argue against that. But I would not say that since this has been the picture Iīve taken part of, it must have applied in Berner Street in 1888 too.

The testimony is all we have to go by. It is all-important. And it tells us that nobody professes to having been close by the yard or in it between 00.45 and 01.00. In that respect, the lack of evidence in the field and Mrs Mortimers story corroborate each other. Itīs good enough for me.

Thereīs of course also Schwartz. He says that there was BS man walking down Berner Street and Pipeman coming from that corner beerjoint. But he says not a iot about any clubbers. Thatīs further corroboration on the topic. And Schwartz didnīt wear any petticoat, so maybe I can hold on to him without being ridiculed?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I wonder what time the club normally closed.

Did they ring a bell and call out, 'Time, comrades PLEASE ! Haven't you got shtetls to go to??'

Rules? In an anarchist club? Really...!

Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Rules? In an anarchist club? Really...!

Fisherman

Fish,

What's more anarchic, a trickle or all out of
the door at the same time?

MrB

[The Good Michael]

Mike:

There is a difference here. I don't wish to be stubborn.

Nor do you need to. To you, itīs a done deal: "Not 'little' doubt, but 'no' doubt".

I don't need any newspaper articles to understand the drinking habits and comings and goings of revelers. I was a bartender for 3 years. I saw many trickles in that time and not just because of weak bladders. So...you may be stubborn if you wish. I prefer life experience and logic in this instance. You can hold onto Mortimer's petticoats if you wish. She has always been a bundle of knowledge.

You were a ... bartender for three years? And learnt from that experience how the clubbers of the IWMEC exited the clubhouse in Berner Street in 1888?

I mean, come on, Mike. What kind of evidence is that?

You prefer logic and experience to Mrs Mortimer. Keep in mind that it is YOUR logic - mine tells a different story. My logic says to me that if Mortimer saw Leon Goldstein, then yes, she WAS standing on her doorstep, for Leon Goldstein DID pass that night. After that, I fail to see why she would lie about or forget the rest.

I also fail to see that the absense of testimony relating to the relevant hours of 00.45 to 1.00 could mean anything else than a lack of people being able to say something about the street or yard at that remove in time.

Incidentally, that tallies with what Mrs Mortimer said. No clubbers.

But you disagree. They WERE there at that stage. They trickled out of the club, because your experience of three years of bartending tells us that they must have.

That is pretty meagre, Iīm afraid.

I have been standing outside many a pub late at night, beer-glass in hand, and I know that it will be an area where people are buzzing around like wasps on a lump of sugar. I wouldnīt argue against that. But I would not say that since this has been the picture Iīve taken part of, it must have applied in Berner Street in 1888 too.

The testimony is all we have to go by. It is all-important. And it tells us that nobody professes to having been close by the yard or in it between 00.45 and 01.00. In that respect, the lack of evidence in the field and Mrs Mortimers story corroborate each other. Itīs good enough for me.

Thereīs of course also Schwartz. He says that there was BS man walking down Berner Street and Pipeman coming from that corner beerjoint. But he says not a iot about any clubbers. Thatīs further corroboration on the topic. And Schwartz didnīt wear any petticoat, so maybe I can hold on to him without being ridiculed?

I don't know what you're arguing about. Really I don't. You just might need a break.

Mike