Suspect Witnesses?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Police time is generally considered to be the closest to GMT, but on a beat Smith had to engage in some estimating, so he estimated that he was at the top of Berner St at around 1AM Police time. As Herlock suggested, we have no way of determining the synchronicity of Police time, Diemshitz time (the Harris clock), Club time, Blackwell time or Mortimer time. IMO Diemshitz discovered the body around 12:54 Police time, and Mortimer's clock was around 10 minutes fast on Police time, but that is JMO. Sequences are the thing.

I don't see anything here that contradicts or corrects anything I've said. If Smith's 1am time is a partial estimate, then we must accept that 12:35 is also a partial estimate, but it seems that most members regard this timing as being as fixed as the speed of light. If Smith is at the top of Berner St at 1am 'police time' and Diemschitz is at the same location at 1am 'Louis time', then who would you suggest is not grasping the necessary context when Smith referred to last being on Berner at 12:35?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It should be noted that said move was taking place on the Jewish Sabbath and Schwartz may have absented himself from the process due to religious observance. I have insufficient knowledge of the Jewish persuasion to know whether there may have been an exemption for his wife, but AI suggestes:

Time-bound positive commandments are positive commandments that must be fulfilled at a specific, predetermined time and cannot be made up if missed. In Judaism, women are generally exempt from many time-bound positive commandments, though there are exceptions and different interpretations for this rule.

Good suggestion George. I certainly hadn’t considered that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If she moves for both of them, obviously they would still be together.

Therefore it cannot be assumed that they were in the process of splitting up.

That is what the standard model supposes, but the direction he fled is ambiguous in the police summary.

I thought that the talk of railway arches sealed that deal?

No one else?

Star, Oct 1: The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

They’re talking about Schwartz and Pipeman and they are probably assuming that Pipeman had been spoken to. It’s clearly Schwartz and we know that there was no one else there.

Having identified Stride at the mortuary as the woman he had seen, his still alive wife isn't quite the evidence he needs to avoid suspicion.

So he attacked his wife then killed Stride? You are over-complicating a simple situation. His wife plays no part in this story. She is completely irrelevant.

You are forgetting that Wess had already placed him at the scene, implicitly, and as the murderer, not an innocent witness.

No he hadn’t.

That was your 'embellishment'. My suggestion was that Mrs Richardson had been taking money from 'visitors'. Might be a subject worth revisiting.

Not worth revisiting for a second. A theory that should be completely forgotten; like numerous other flights of fancy that we keep getting foisted on us. We waste so much time discussing imaginings.

[FrankO]

Is that what 164 says?

Well, that is at least how I read it and the "This is what I now believe... The young woman who spoke to Fanny was Spooner's lady friend" played an important part in it.

Now reading the link in your link, I understand that you think the couple seen by Mortimer/the couple that stood in a bisecting thoroughfare for about 20 minutes before the alarm was given, was actually standing on the corner of the Nelson Pub and not on the corner of the board school. While that could explain why Brown wouldn't have noticed them, it still doesn't explain why Spooner explicitly stated they had been standing by the Beehive in Christian Street.

If I still haven't read it the way you meant it, then just say how you did mean it, instead of - rather arrogantly - asking "Is that what 164 says?" There really is no need for that, plus it would be much more helpful & efficient.

On October 5, D-I Reid said: Since then the police engaged in the inquiry had made house to house inquiry in the immediate neighbourhood, with the result that we have been able to produce the witnesses which have appeared before you. The inquiry is still going on.

You must assume that the young couple both lived outside the zone of the house-to-house inquiry but decided to meet at a location within the zone, after midnight. That would seem to be a low probability proposition and in total contrast to the earlier couple, whose female half lived on Berner St.

I don't assume anything other than that it seems the police didn't speak to the couple. And it doesn't seem particularly improbable to me for any couple to have made a stroll further away from where they lived. Isn't that what Stride did on the night of her murder?

[Paddy Goose]

You're getting closer to the realization that it was Mrs Schwartz who was ill-treated at the gateway.

The man "Mrs Schwartz" was married to was not a Schwartz at all. He was Izzy Klebb. Yes he emigrated from the old country, but not all the Klebb clan followed. Izzy's great-great-great-cousin is Rosa Klebb.



You know, the one with the poison shoe, who tried to take back the Lektor. And another clew, that wasn't really a Lektor, that was Dan Farson's briefcase.

[Wickerman]

. . .

There was bruising on Stride's shoulders consistent with being manhandled.

Chapman had similar pair of bruises, one authority at the time assumed the bruises were the result of the killer kneeling on her upper chest. Yet, it appears anal sex can result in such bruising, from the grip of the client's fingertips pressing on the area of her clavicle while stood behind her.