Stride..a victim?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fanny outside: 12:35-12:45



Fanny outside: 12:45-12:55

I don't see Herlock Sholmes as a very reliable investigator.

Try reading.

If Mortimer was correct then of course yes she was on her doorstep from 12.45-12.55. But if PC Smith was correct then she was on her doorstep from 12.35-12.45.

Why do you assume that a police officer, on a regulated beat and who had just passed a clock must have been wrong?

Again I suspect that the word 'inconvenient' comes into the explanation. Fixed ideas, agendas and unwillingness to countenance the possibility that they might just be wrong. And, before you say it, I have no agenda here I'm simply stating the possibilities without assuming that one witness must be taken more seriously than another.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you’re missing Herlock’s point, which is not that both intervals are true, but that there are differing and conflicting statements. So the idea that the FM was on her doorstep for 30 minutes and would not have missed anything is false.

Thank you Kattrup.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Try reading.

If Mortimer was correct then of course yes she was on her doorstep from 12.45-12.55. But if PC Smith was correct then she was on her doorstep from 12.35-12.45.

Why do you assume that a police officer, on a regulated beat and who had just passed a clock must have been wrong?

Again I suspect that the word 'inconvenient' comes into the explanation. Fixed ideas, agendas and unwillingness to countenance the possibility that they might just be wrong. And, before you say it, I have no agenda here I'm simply stating the possibilities without assuming that one witness must be taken more seriously than another.

Its gone quiet

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

It all comes down to time keeping in the LVP. Louis states a clock, which has no guarantee of accuracy. Fanny is at best presumed to have a clock. The IWMC might have had a clock, but if it did, there's no reference, and even if there was, was said clock accurate? PC beats were based on a measured time spent treading at a certain pace, but again, not accurate.

I've long felt, Berner St isn't about specific times, its about piecing together the individual statements in an agreeable chronology regardless of what times individuals state, those times are undoubtedly disputable.

Give or take 5-10 minutes here or there, Schwartz doesn't fit, make of that what you will.

As for the passing of time, as in 'about' 10 mins or such, that's as vague now as it was then. Perception is a much varied thing.

That doesn't mean anyone was lying. People can be wrong with surety, misguided with good intention, or just plain mistaken. That's not the same as lying.

I appreciate the work that others have done regarding Berner St, and somewhere in there is a clearer picture of the events, that doesn't rely on liars.

To close, timekeeping was at best vague, and that's based on confirmed times. Individual recollections of time, as per Spooner and Mortimer, have to be treated as guesses, but, that's relevant in correlating with other known events. We can construct chronology, not timings. Short of Louis clock, there's no guarantee of time. And that's not guaranteed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It all comes down to time keeping in the LVP. Louis states a clock, which has no guarantee of accuracy. Fanny is at best presumed to have a clock. The IWMC might have had a clock, but if it did, there's no reference, and even if there was, was said clock accurate? PC beats were based on a measured time spent treading at a certain pace, but again, not accurate.

I've long felt, Berner St isn't about specific times, its about piecing together the individual statements in an agreeable chronology regardless of what times individuals state, those times are undoubtedly disputable.

Give or take 5-10 minutes here or there, Schwartz doesn't fit, make of that what you will.

As for the passing of time, as in 'about' 10 mins or such, that's as vague now as it was then. Perception is a much varied thing.

That doesn't mean anyone was lying. People can be wrong with surety, misguided with good intention, or just plain mistaken. That's not the same as lying.

I appreciate the work that others have done regarding Berner St, and somewhere in there is a clearer picture of the events, that doesn't rely on liars.

To close, timekeeping was at best vague, and that's based on confirmed times. Individual recollections of time, as per Spooner and Mortimer, have to be treated as guesses, but, that's relevant in correlating with other known events. We can construct chronology, not timings. Short of Louis clock, there's no guarantee of time. And that's not guaranteed.

Well said Al. I don't think it's possible to definitively sort out what went on in Berner Street. Discrepancies in timings, witnesses that might or might not have been mistaken and differing versions of what was said all combine to create a minefield. And this is before we even get to the 'was the killer interrupted' part? So basically I don't think that any of us can say "this is what happened" no matter how frustrating that might be. Far too many 'might's,' 'what ifs,' 'perhaps's' and 'could haves.'

[c.d.]

With respect to Fanny Mortimer's testimony I think the key question is how long would the Stride/B.S. man encounter have lasted or Stride being killed by someone else at a later point. I think in both instances less than five minutes. Fanny had a sick husband and five children. Could she have been inside for five minutes tending to them and simply have missed the killing? Her "almost" the whole time would certainly seem to encompass a mere five minutes unaccounted for.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Why do you assume that a police officer, on a regulated beat and who had just passed a clock must have been wrong?

You're correct, most beat constables used local clocks to time their beat, they didn't all have a watch. So, a time offered by a policeman is more than likely to be correct. They of all people know the importance of stating the correct time.

[Wickerman]

It all comes down to time keeping in the LVP. Louis states a clock, which has no guarantee of accuracy. Fanny is at best presumed to have a clock. The IWMC might have had a clock, but if it did, there's no reference, and even if there was, was said clock accurate? PC beats were based on a measured time spent treading at a certain pace, but again, not accurate.

Absolutely!

I've long felt, Berner St isn't about specific times, its about piecing together the individual statements in an agreeable chronology regardless of what times individuals state, those times are undoubtedly disputable.

Or, Sequence of Events, is how I like to put it.
Get the sequence of how events unfolded from statements & testimony, and the precise timing becomes less relevant.

[DJA]

Still reckon Stride's throat was cut, after BS Man pulled her away from the yard, and before Eagle passed by her body in the dark.

[caz]

So, the "about 1 am" in Swanson's report seems to refer to the hour at which he passed through Berner Street on the night of the murder, rather than the hour at which he made his statement or the hour at which he found out that Mrs. Mortimer had seen him.

That's how I read it too, Frank.

So when Fanny saw Goldstein, "around 1am", or shortly before, neither of them had seen or heard any commotion, in which case it is logical to argue that Goldstein was gone and Fanny was in bed when she heard the pony and cart's arrival, and that's when "another" murder was discovered.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

What is an issue is that you seem quite happy to quote her being on her doorstep most of the time between 12.30 and 1.00 but you ignore what she apparently told the Evening News...that she came out of her house after hearing the Constable's tread (which she claimed was at 12.45 contradicting Smith himself) - which means that she was inside the house from 12.30 until 12.45. Then she stayed on her doorstep for 10 minutes and then went back inside until she came out again after hearing the noise from the yard - so she was inside from around 12.55 until say 1.05.

So according to the maths of what she said to the Evening Star, from 12.30 until 1.00 she spent around 10 minutes on her doorstep.

Why is this version ignored in favour of the other? Apart from convenience of course.

She said "nearly the whole time referring to 12:30 to 1am Herlock, she said the last 10 minutes of that same period she spent at the door, she said if anyone had come out of that passageway she would have seen him, and she said she saw Goldstein around 12:55-56, which is quite likely when Liz is cut, if she wasnt already, according to Blackwell. I believe the actual time may be closer to 12:40ish, but thats my quote, not Fannys.

Youre ignoring so much here. She didnt see or hear anything of Israels event, yet she heard cart and horses and bootsteps while inside, she didnt see Louis arrive at 1 as he claimed, she was at her door at that time though. She didnt see anyone leave via the gates, during the time when its quite possible Liz is about to be cut or just has been, and 10 minutes after 4 witnesses say they were already by a dying woman in the passage. At a time when Lave and Eagle both claim they were at the gates yet they didnt see anything, not even each other. Although Eagle "couldnt be sure" he passed body lying there...even though to pass close to the wall, which is what he also said, then he would have had to step over her.

This kind of information is critical when assessing who is telling the truth. If the story can be validated by another independent witness, thats good. By multiple witnesses, with virtually the same story to tell, is very good. People who state they saw or did something that cannot be validated by a secondary independent source, despite their being such a source available, are not trustworthy. When reputations are added to the mix, you have the possibility that lawless anarchists might lie to the police. Particularly if there is revenue loss on the table.

In this case, hell, Eagle and Lave missed that kind of opportunity had they both seen each other. But one, or both were invisible I suppose.

Using the above its apparent that Liz Strides killer came from that property and was not seen on the street before 1am. Using the physical evidence, she was not killed by a Ripper. Those 2 points I believe are key.

[caz]

You seem to be the only one, Michael, who claims to be able to piece all this together and draw firm conclusions about what happened and when, and who was telling the truth and who had a credible motive for lying.

Most of us allow for the witnesses not being in a position to be 100% accurate when estimating the time, while helping the police with what they saw and heard, and we admit we don't have anything like the complete picture to work with. Introducing lying witnesses and conspiracy theories to fill the gaps is not particularly helpful, until all other possibilities have been exhausted and ruled out.

If Schwartz did see Stride being manhandled briefly, before he ran 'incontinently' from the scene, the whole incident, from start to finish, could have happened unwitnessed in less than a minute or two, after PC Smith passed by and Fanny had gone back indoors, having heard but not seen him. If she came back out again just before retiring for the night, to see Goldstein passing by, she would not have heard or seen anything to cause her to make a special note of the time, presuming she even had a clock and it kept reasonable time. When she heard the pony and cart just after 1am, by her own estimate, that was when all hell broke loose, which is strongly indicative of the horrible discovery being made at that hour and reacted to immediately. Stride could have had her throat cut in a split second, at any time between 12.45 and 1, while not a soul was in a position to witness it. Murderers tend to work better without an audience.

[Michael W Richards]

Smith saw what he saw around 12:35, and yes, Liz was visible. With Parcel Carrying Guy. Worth pointing out that it had been 5 minutes since Fanny recalled her first being at the door. Presumably, based on "nearly the whole time", she was at her door "off and on" until 12:50. She remained there until just after 1. So, she may well have been at her door at 12:40, or 12:45, and she did claim to hear as little a noise as bootsteps outside on what she described as a deserted street. So...conveniently, 1 thing she must have missed is when your unsubstantiated witness says he was there with Liz and 2 other men? So, where did these fellows just pop in from I wonder? Fannys says she saw only the young couple before 12:55, presumably the young couple was interviewed, how come they didnt back Schwartz? Goldstein Tuesday night claims to be the man Fanny is on record already as seeing at 12:55-56, he didnt correct that or deny that.

Its must be convenient ignoring what is there is order to try and sustain the unsustainable Ripper interruptus, but as it is, Liz Stride was in the wrong place, likely meeting the wrong guy. A Guy who was not compelled mutilate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

She said "nearly the whole time referring to 12:30 to 1am Herlock, she said the last 10 minutes of that same period she spent at the door, she said if anyone had come out of that passageway she would have seen him, and she said she saw Goldstein around 12:55-56, which is quite likely when Liz is cut, if she wasnt already, according to Blackwell. I believe the actual time may be closer to 12:40ish, but thats my quote, not Fannys.



Youre ignoring so much here. She didnt see or hear anything of Israels event, yet she heard cart and horses and bootsteps while inside, she didnt see Louis arrive at 1 as he claimed, she was at her door at that time though. She didnt see anyone leave via the gates, during the time when its quite possible Liz is about to be cut or just has been, and 10 minutes after 4 witnesses say they were already by a dying woman in the passage. At a time when Lave and Eagle both claim they were at the gates yet they didnt see anything, not even each other. Although Eagle "couldnt be sure" he passed body lying there...even though to pass close to the wall, which is what he also said, then he would have had to step over her.

This kind of information is critical when assessing who is telling the truth. If the story can be validated by another independent witness, thats good. By multiple witnesses, with virtually the same story to tell, is very good. People who state they saw or did something that cannot be validated by a secondary independent source, despite their being such a source available, are not trustworthy. When reputations are added to the mix, you have the possibility that lawless anarchists might lie to the police. Particularly if there is revenue loss on the table.

In this case, hell, Eagle and Lave missed that kind of opportunity had they both seen each other. But one, or both were invisible I suppose.

Using the above its apparent that Liz Strides killer came from that property and was not seen on the street before 1am. Using the physical evidence, she was not killed by a Ripper. Those 2 points I believe are key.

I can't see why you keep quoting this ' nearly the whole time..' reference Michael and yet you ignore the other one. The above is a very general statement but the Evening News version of what she did is more detailed. Why is one more likelier than the other to have been true? If anything I'd say that the detailed one was more enlightening.

And so if the EN version was correct then we can say three things.

1. She only spent 10 minutes out of 30 on her doorstep.

2. If her time of 12.45 was correct then yes she should have seen Schwartz but she adds weight to Diemschutz arriving at 1.00 (especially with the commotion just after)

3. If Smith's time was correct (and surely a Police Officer, on a regulated beat and who had just walked past a clock is a better bet for accuracy) then Mrs Mortimer was on her doorstep and went back inside at around 12.45 making it very possible for her to have missed Schwartz.

.
Youre ignoring so much here. She didnt see or hear anything of Israels event, yet she heard cart and horses and bootsteps while inside, she didnt see Louis arrive at 1 as he claimed, she was at her door at that time though. She didnt see anyone leave via the gates, during the time when its quite possible Liz is about to be cut or just has been

But all of your eggs are in one basket Michael. You are dependent on the 'nearly the whole time' quote but you ignore the more detailed one in the EN.

So I'd say that she didn't hear Schwartz because after spending 10 minutes on her doorstep she went back inside and the time was likely to have been 12.45 or just before.

She didn't see Louis arrive because she was inside.

. When reputations are added to the mix, you have the possibility that lawless anarchists might lie to the police.

So where the three lying when they said that they were called to the yard earlier than just after 1.00? Or mistaken? Or was Diemschutz lying (and presumably not au fait with the cover story?) And if he was lying was he just lucky that another cart was heard at the correct place and time? How many cart's would have been driving around at 1.00 am in Berner Street?

And so to sum up...

1. By using what she apparently told the Evening News Fanny Mortimer is hardly reliable when she said that she spent nearly the whole half hour on her doorstep.

2. PC Smith was more likely to have been correct on timing than Mortimer.

3. Therefore Mrs Mortimer was likely to have been inside her house from just before 12.45 until just after 1.00 and so would not have seen the Schwartz episode.

4. Israel Schwartz cannot be dismissed. As Caz rightly pointed out, the whole incident might have taken as little as a minute or even two.

5. The killer might easily have escaped the yard.

We simply don't know exactly what occurred but we can't just pick and choose witnesses and statements.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Goldstein Tuesday night claims to be the man Fanny is on record already as seeing at 12:55-56, he didnt correct that or deny that

Where did Mortimer or Goldstein give a specific time that he'd passed? I'm not saying it didn't happen I was just wondering where the statement was made?