Suspect Witnesses?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Brown didn't see a girl, he saw a woman and identified her at the mortuary.

There is reason to believe that Charles Letchford was the male half of the first couple. Had the female half been Sarah Grant, it would seem she must have moved between 1888-10-01 and 1889-12-25. Not inconceivable, but of course I'm just speculating on her identity.

[The Rookie Detective]

Yes, and this, at midnight.
Our first question should be, what is a nice girl doing out by herself at such a late hour?

As I suggested, maybe she sneaked out when her parents went to bed?
Or, maybe she was a servant girl, who got off at 11:30 pm, and snook out of her room to meet her date?
The very fact she seems to have been out so late by herself suggests this was a meeting that would not be approved of by, either her family or her employer or associates.
Because she did walk up Berner St. by herself, it is quite reasonable to suggest she had to walk back by herself, and for the same reason, whatever that reason was.

But you're deliberately ignoring my point, and in the process contradicting yourself.

You're saying that the girl walked back down Berner Street alone.

Which would be fine by itself IF her young man never walked down Berner St with her.

But you're then saying that before doing walking down Berner St alone to go home, that she had already walked down Berner Street with her young man beforehand, and then gone back up to the top of Berner St again, before then again coming back down by herself!

That's nonsense

Because you said yourself in the same breath that the young man wouldn't have walked down Berner St because maybe the girl's parents didn't approve.

Which is akin to having your cake and eating it.

You're also using the times stated as gospel.

Which again is interesting, because the same should then apply to Mortimer, who said 1st hand that she stood at her door for almost the whole time between 12.30am to 1am and saw nobody but a man walk hurriedly with a black bag.

Mortimer never said 1st hand that she was as her door for only 10 minutes, she said around 30 minutes running up to the time Stride was discovered.

So we have the young couple from midnight to half past
and Mortimer from half past midnight to 1am.

Schwartz lied
Pc Smith was absent
Lave lied about going as far as the street
etc...etc...


Try reading all the articles relating to the young sweetheart couple with the timing of midnight to half past omitted...


...it then becomes clear they all refer to the same couple.


The entire episode can be resolved if the young man never walks down Berner Street.

Because that then proves that the couple on the corner for around 20 minutes, weren't the same couple that went for a walk along Commercial Road.

But...that's not what the young girl implies when she refers to going back down Berner St in the context of her being accompanied by her young man.

He either walks down Berner St or he doesn't.

The suggestion he walks down Berner St with her, but she somehow DOESNT THEN GO HOME, so they then walk back UP Berner St again, before they then say "Goodnight" and only then she walks home alone by going back down Berner St alone (even though they have only just walked down Berner St together a few minutes earlier)... is utter nonsense.

[Wickerman]

Brown didn't see a girl, he saw a woman and identified her at the mortuary.

There is reason to believe that Charles Letchford was the male half of the first couple. Had the female half been Sarah Grant, it would seem she must have moved between 1888-10-01 and 1889-12-25. Not inconceivable, but of course I'm just speculating on her identity.

Now you want to make a distinction between a girl and a woman, really?

[Wickerman]

But you're deliberately ignoring my point, and in the process contradicting yourself.

. . .

Because you said yourself in the same breath that the young man wouldn't have walked down Berner St because maybe the girl's parents didn't approve.

Not at all, walking down Berner St. is not the same as walking her to her door.
They could have stopped at Fairclough, and walked back up. If she lived in the lower half of the street, how is that contradicting myself?
You are assuming walking down the street is walking her home, it isn't.

You're also using the times stated as gospel.

Which again is interesting, because the same should then apply to Mortimer, who said 1st hand that she stood at her door for almost the whole time between 12.30am to 1am and saw nobody but a man walk hurriedly with a black bag.

Mortimer says she stood at her door "nearly the whole time" between 12:30-01:00.

So, "nearly the whole time", means not the whole time. So when was she there, and not there?
I created the Mortimer Clock to help clarify these timings associated with her story.

Mortimer never said 1st hand that she was as her door for only 10 minutes, she said around 30 minutes running up to the time Stride was discovered.

So we have the young couple from midnight to half past
and Mortimer from half past midnight to 1am.

Right, except Mortimer was not there all the time, the young couple (#2) were in the street all the time.

Try reading all the articles relating to the young sweetheart couple with the timing of midnight to half past omitted...

We can all come up with a variety of scenarios if we removed the evidence we don't like.
Chris, I think you know a viable theory must agree with ALL the evidence.

Because that then proves that the couple on the corner for around 20 minutes, weren't the same couple that went for a walk along Commercial Road.

Exactly.

But...that's not what the young girl implies when she refers to going back down Berner St in the context of her being accompanied by her young man.

He either walks down Berner St or he doesn't.

The suggestion he walks down Berner St with her, but she somehow DOESNT THEN GO HOME, so they then walk back UP Berner St again, before they then say "Goodnight" and only then she walks home alone by going back down Berner St alone (even though they have only just walked down Berner St together a few minutes earlier)... is utter nonsense.

Dating couples often walk up and down the street, they don't care where they are, it is being together that matters.

[New Waterloo]

I would imagine this has been visited before so apologies for my thoughts but it seems to me that one persons UP is another persons DOWN when it comes to streets. As is say turn LEFT into a particular street or RIGHT Into the same street so I cant see how we are to assess what the young girl is saying. Her only point of reference seems to be when on Commercial Road or thereabouts, when she sees a man walking towards Aldgate (i think it was)

I think its possible that the young girl was with Spooner as suggested by Herlock and others. Brown is a very good witness. He actually lives next door to the Beehive pub and in his walk from his house to the Chandlers at the Berner Street junction he only sees ONE couple.

I believe Spooners girl friend was probably the girl he married some months later called Catherine Sullivan. Well possibly.

Perhaps they moved about more than suggested by Spooner at the inquest.

NW

[The Rookie Detective]

Not at all, walking down Berner St. is not the same as walking her to her door.
They could have stopped at Fairclough, and walked back up. If she lived in the lower half of the street, how is that contradicting myself?
You are assuming walking down the street is walking her home, it isn't.

The above is just as must conjecture as what I'm suggesting.

So the idea you suggested previously about the girl initially walking up Berner Street alone to go and meet her young man because her parents may have disapproved, has been blown out of the water after you then claim they walked down Berner Street together.
The question is; why did he not meet her down Berner St to begin with?
At the moment, you have the couple going up and down Berner St like a yoyo.

Interestingly, above you've just stated that they may have walked as far as Fairclough St, and then walked back up Berner St again, rather than walk her home...

...which is virtually the same thing I am saying....

up to a point.

... they walked down Berner St together, then stop at Fairclough instead of him taking her home.

Identical.

But the key difference... is that rather than go back up Berner St again, they instead choose to stay and stand around the corner of Fairclough St for around 20 minutes.
The girl is then close to her house, but still out of sight of anyone in Berner St.

Those pesky parents etc...

They don't go both go back up Berner St again once they've already walked down as far as Fairclough St.

It's plausible to suggest that he had intended to walk her home (by the sheer nature and gesture of walking down Berner St together with her) but as they walked past the yard and then reached the corner of Fairclough St, he then suggests to her the idea of extending their meet a little longer and they then stand around the corner and extend their date by another 20 minutes.

The date ends with her telling him "no, not tonight, some other night."

Crucially, the reference to "midnight to half past" relates to the couples implied time spent on their walking date, meaning that the other reference to a couple standing on the corner for around 20 minutes, is then in reference to that extended time for their date.

This takes their total time together to around 55 minutes, from the time the girl first leaves her house, to when the couple part ways.

Coincidentally... there was a newspaper article that referenced the 4 alleged key witnesses at the time; Brown, Mortimer, Marshall and Packer.

Brown and Packer's man both wearing a long overcoat.

Similar to the attire worn by Pipeman; despite Schwartz not being referenced in the same article.


But crucially, that article refers to the supposed time the couple seen by Packer etc.. were in the street...and it's around 1 hour in total.


Sounds very familiar.