Stride..a victim?

[Herlock Sholmes]

She did say on and off didnt she? I am well prepared to accept that she was inside when Louis actually arrives, but not that plus Israel plus BSM plus Liz back out on the street again, plus Pipeman....that she missed that arrival AND all those people coming from nowhere to participate in that supposed event Israel, the theatrically dressed friend of Wess's, claims he saw, it just isnt reasonable. She said "nearly the whole time", that means most of that half hour.

I'd say that "nearly the whole time" doesn't equate to 'on and off.'

Plus we have this of course

.
...

Evening News, Oct 1:

A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. 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. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

Which doesn't make Mrs Mortimer look exactly 100% reliable.

[Michael W Richards]

I'd say that "nearly the whole time" doesn't equate to 'on and off.'

Plus we have this of course



Which doesn't make Mrs Mortimer look exactly 100% reliable.

Not sure why we have to do a drill down on the obvious, but "nearly the whole time" can be easily interpreted as "off and on", we do have a quote that says off and on somewhere but I dont think we need that when the meaning behind the "nearly the whole time" is synonymous with it. In the second objection you neglect to mention that what you posted was someones synopsis of what Fanny said, not a quote from her.

[Wickerman]

Are you specifically referring to the 1am issue?
If yes, where does that leave Diemschitz?

Gavin suggests Smith entered Berner & Batty streets from Comm. Rd., yet Smith specifically says he went up towards Comm. Rd. after passing Stride & Parcel-man, nothing about coming down Berner.
Concerning his reference to 1:00 am., he does indicate (Telegraph) that he had completed a 'round' (ie; "having gone round my beat"), he was back at the top end of Berner St. at 1:00am, suggesting he had just embarked on his next Beat heading towards Christian st.
This might indicate why Smith was not called (by witnesses), he was on Comm. Rd. west of Berner coming from Gower, whereas Eagle & Koz. had run east towards Christian st., had they run west towards Gower they may have met PC Smith.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not sure why we have to do a drill down on the obvious, but "nearly the whole time" can be easily interpreted as "off and on", we do have a quote that says off and on somewhere but I dont think we need that when the meaning behind the "nearly the whole time" is synonymous with it. In the second objection you neglect to mention that what you posted was someones synopsis of what Fanny said, not a quote from her.

Come on Michael they're not synonymous at all. One could mean that she came onto her doorstep at 12.35 and stayed there until 12.55. Whereas the other could mean that she came onto her doorstep at 12.30 went back inside at 12.35 then came out again at 12.42 and went back inside at 12.48 then back out at 12.54 until 1.00.

And on the second point, just because the reporter didn't put what was said into quotation marks doesn't mean that it wasn't accurate. I'm sure that there are numerous examples of when a reporter wrote something in quotation marks but it wasn't exactly what the person being reported as said.

[c.d.]

"Off and on" or "nearly the whole time" seems to be a moot point. The question is could she have missed an event that only took a few minutes?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

"Off and on" or "nearly the whole time" seems to be a moot point. The question is could she have missed an event that only took a few minutes?

c.d.

Yes, she sure could have. Would she miss hearing it though? She heard boots while inside, a cart and horse, so...would she miss a yell, a call of Lipski across the street, in addition to 4 people that were not there ever when she was at her door?

I can readily accept she missed something like the cart and horse arriving, but it certainly didnt arrive "precisely" at 1, and the cart and horse she did hear was after people were aware of the body. Even by Louis's statements. So...she likely heard a cart and horse that wasnt Louis a few minutes after 1, or she heard the cart and horse leaving for George Yard. Which still leaves Louis being possibly missed around 12:39-12:40. Which would match the majority of witnesses, and completely discredit Israel by the way. It would mean that the people I suggest would be most negatively impacted by a club closure lied...like Eagle and Lave.

I believe the investigation that the police undertook of that location...the stables, the printing office, the yard, upstairs and downstairs inside the club, backstage, searching people..demonstrates that from what they saw initially it appeared to them that the killer most likely was already on that premises when Liz shows up.

[Michael W Richards]

I think what can help with some of these matters is an understanding of human beings, of their weakness, of their self preservation instincts. Reading evidence is one thing, re-creating the environment and event or events is essential. The words used are framework, the actual facts are the pictures. Picture that road...review the photos, if you live in London get a sense of that space and imagine it back then. Understand what people who are not trusted and looked upon as troublemakers do when they feel threatened by authorities. Try and understand exactly what a possibly 2 second murder, grab scarf twist and slice, looks like. Was Liz facing the gates, or into the passageway when that happens. If its the gates... was she leaving to go out into the street, if facing into the passageway, was she pushing past the man to perhaps go inside the club. The evidence isnt the final answer, nor are the quotes. Its the interpretations that reveal what really happened.

And I trust the men that without prior consultation gave essentially the exact same stories and timings. I can re-create that scene they create. It can make sense. It does make sense.

But not if the people most likely to lie to evade blame are the ones you trust the most. The scene their stories create cannot exist. Eagle and Lave cannot be at the gates at the same time and not even see each other. Louis didnt arrive "precisely" at 1. Israel's story suggests that 3 men, including himself, BSM and Pipeman were not seen or heard by anyone else. The only way you can tell if a tree fell when no-one is there to hear it is if you later find one fallen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think what can help with some of these matters is an understanding of human beings, of their weakness, of their self preservation instincts. Reading evidence is one thing, re-creating the environment and event or events is essential. The words used are framework, the actual facts are the pictures. Picture that road...review the photos, if you live in London get a sense of that space and imagine it back then. Understand what people who are not trusted and looked upon as troublemakers do when they feel threatened by authorities. Try and understand exactly what a possibly 2 second murder, grab scarf twist and slice, looks like. Was Liz facing the gates, or into the passageway when that happens. If its the gates... was she leaving to go out into the street, if facing into the passageway, was she pushing past the man to perhaps go inside the club. The evidence isnt the final answer, nor are the quotes. Its the interpretations that reveal what really happened.

And I trust the men that without prior consultation gave essentially the exact same stories and timings. I can re-create that scene they create. It can make sense. It does make sense.

But not if the people most likely to lie to evade blame are the ones you trust the most. The scene their stories create cannot exist. Eagle and Lave cannot be at the gates at the same time and not even see each other. Louis didnt arrive "precisely" at 1. Israel's story suggests that 3 men, including himself, BSM and Pipeman were not seen or heard by anyone else. The only way you can tell if a tree fell when no-one is there to hear it is if you later find one fallen.

Yes, human beings that make errors. That mis-speak. That get times wrong. All play a part to create little mysteries but this isn’t a play where we can just create a scenario.

Mis-speaking.....Diemschutz uses the the word ‘precisely’ but only once. In other reports the word isn’t mentioned. He said that he took his time from the Bakers clock. Did such a clock exist? Yes. Did anyone see or hear him arrive? He wasn’t seen but Mortimer heard a cart at just the time that he said that he’d arrived. So how many carts would have been rattling around this backstreet at 1am? What are the odds of one appearing just at the time that Diemschutz states but it wasn’t him? Diemschutz also ‘said’ in one report that Stride was dressed better than the last victim but in the others he said that she was dressed better than the local women. Do we read the first one and assume that he must be have been the ripper? Of course not, we assume it’s an error of reporting which is probably what his use of the word ‘precisely’ was. He probably said that he turned into Berner Street at ‘precisely’ 1.00 and it was reported incorrectly.

Times wrong..... Kosebrodski might simply have gotten to the club later than he thought after taking his time from where he was previously. He then misjudged how long was the gap before Diemschutz entered. What reason would he have had for logging the time when Diemschutz entered? None. He was having a drink and talking to friends. Haven’t we all lost track of time on occaision? It’s just a few minutes here and a few there.

Spooner was also guessing based on pub times. But he said that he arrived 5 minutes before Lamb. So his is the easiest to dismiss.

The murder would have been the work of seconds. The Schwartz incident was again the work of seconds. We know from the Evening News combined with the likelihood of PC Smith being more likely to have been correct on timing than Mortimer that Fanny was likely to have been indoors at the time of the Schwartz incident. She didn’t come back outdoors until she heard the commotion of the club members so she wouldn’t have seen the killer escape into Berner Street.

None of this is impossible or even unlikely.

Or do we interpret events your way and say that the killer came from the club and that the members lied to cover this up to protect the reputation and future existence of the club? It’s not impossible but is it probable? What would such a plan achieve though and would they have come up with it on the spur of the moment? Was every club member told about the plan so that they could all get their stories straight and how was that arranged in such a short space of time?

The body of a prostitute was still found in the yard next to the club - so the police might still have suspected a member who’d either gone inside or escaped. (Surely a better solution would have been to put the body onto Diemschutz cart and dump her a few streets away?) The Schwartz story still has an altercation right outside the club with BS Man seeming to pull her into the yard. So again it’s the club. The shout of Lipski implicates a Jew. Why would they put that into a plan outside a Jewish club where they were trying to draw attention away? Then there’s Schwartz who the police might easily have checked to see if he had good reason for being where he said he was or where they just lucky to find a member who just happened to have a good reason for passing the club at 12.45 am? And how lucky were they that no one saw him?

The plan sounds nowhere near as likely as the simpler explanation Michael. Stride was killed sometime after 12.45 and was probably interrupted by Diemschutz. He ducked into the shadows then scarpered when Diemschutz went inside. Any slight evidential discrepancies are just the kind of errors that occur under stressful circumstances and at a time when very few people owned watches or clocks.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is an odd one, as Lamb only blew his whistle after he had arrived in the yard and had sent PC 426H for the doctor and Eagle for the inspector and Spooner arrived in the yard before Lamb.

Abraham Heshburg apparently heard a whistle before Lamb arrived, also...

I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to 1 o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway. Two or three people had collected, and when I got there I saw a short dark young woman lying on the ground, with a gash between 4 and 5 inches long in her throat. I should think she was 25 to 28 years of age. Her head was towards the north wall, against which she was lying. She had a black dress on, with a bunch of flowers pinned on the breast. In her hand there was a little piece of paper containing five or six cachous.

There is no way Lamb would be letting anyone get that close to the victim, if he were there to stop them.
So who blew the whistle?
Could it have been someone from the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee?

Diemshutz, on the other hand, has Lamb & PC 426H arrive immediately after Spooner had lifted Stride's chin.

He does...

When I returned a man that we met in Grove-street, and who came back with us, took hold of the head, and as he lifted it up I first saw the wound in the throat. At the very same time Eagle and the constable arrived.

In effect, Diemschitz claimed two pairs of events occurred at exactly the same time - clock/cart, Spooner/Lamb.

Thanks, NBFN, I hadn't seen this one, yet.

Here's another one for the timeline, from Lloyds Weekly News, Sep 30:

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Morning Advertiser, Oct 1:

A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, and the former struck a match while the latter lifted the body up. It was at once apparent that the woman was dead. The body was still warm, and the clothes were wet from the recent rain, but the heart had ceased to beat, and the stream of blood on the gutter, terminating in a hideous pool near the club door, showed but too plainly what had happened. Both ran off without delay to find a policeman, and at the same time other members of the club, who had by this found their way into the court, went off with the same object in different directions. The search was for some time fruitless. At last, however, after a considerable delay, a constable, 252 H, was found in Commercial road.

Diemschitz quoted in the London Evening News, Oct 1:

One of the members named Isaacs came out with me. We struck a match, and then a horrible sight came before our eyes; we saw a stream of blood flowing right down to the door of the club. We sent for the police without delay, but it was some time before an officer arrived; in fact we had some difficulty in finding one. A man called Eagle, also a member of the club, went out to find a policeman, and going in a different direction to what we did, found a couple in Commercial-road. One of them was 252 H. One of the constables blew a whistle.

So why would Kozebrodsky be familiarly known as Isaacs? Why not just call him Isaac?
One possibility is that there are two members who frequent the club, both with first name Isaac.
So to avoid the issue of having two Isaac's in the same room, Kozebrodsky is differentiated from the other Isaac, by the addition of an 's'.

But why do it that way, and who might the other Isaac be?

Eagle: When I got outside I saw Jacobs and another going for the police in the direction of Fairclough-street, and I then went to the Commercial-road, all the time shouting "Police!" On getting to the corner of Grove-street I saw two constables, and told them that a woman had been murdered in Berner-street. They returned with me to the yard. I then noticed several members of the club and some strangers were there. A constable threw his light on the body, and then told the other officer to go for a doctor, and sent me to the station for the inspector.

So do we have both an Isaacs and a Jacobs?
If yes, could this be the situation...

Isaacs = Isaac Kozebrodsky

Jacobs = Isaac Jacobs

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
There is no way Lamb would be letting anyone get that close to the victim, if he were there to stop them.
So who blew the whistle?
Could it have been someone from the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee?

You're stating an opinion as a fact. He might have taken a closer look if Lamb stood in the gateway/on the pavement to blow his whistle. Or he might have looked while Lamb was questioning one of the others present.

Or, Heshburg was exaggerating and just got that information from others.

Basically the whistle says that Lamb was already there (inconvenient as that might be) when Heshburg went into the yard.

...

So Constable Lamb shows us that both Spooner and Heshburg's earlier discovery of the body times were errors. Surprise, surprise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Morning Advertiser, Oct 1:

A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, and the former struck a match while the latter lifted the body up. It was at once apparent that the woman was dead. The body was still warm, and the clothes were wet from the recent rain, but the heart had ceased to beat, and the stream of blood on the gutter, terminating in a hideous pool near the club door, showed but too plainly what had happened. Both ran off without delay to find a policeman, and at the same time other members of the club, who had by this found their way into the court, went off with the same object in different directions. The search was for some time fruitless. At last, however, after a considerable delay, a constable, 252 H, was found in Commercial road.

Diemschitz quoted in the London Evening News, Oct 1:

One of the members named Isaacs came out with me. We struck a match, and then a horrible sight came before our eyes; we saw a stream of blood flowing right down to the door of the club. We sent for the police without delay, but it was some time before an officer arrived; in fact we had some difficulty in finding one. A man called Eagle, also a member of the club, went out to find a policeman, and going in a different direction to what we did, found a couple in Commercial-road. One of them was 252 H. One of the constables blew a whistle.

So why would Kozebrodsky be familiarly known as Isaacs? Why not just call him Isaac?
One possibility is that there are two members who frequent the club, both with first name Isaac.
So to avoid the issue of having two Isaac's in the same room, Kozebrodsky is differentiated from the other Isaac, by the addition of an 's'.

But why do it that way, and who might the other Isaac be?

Eagle: When I got outside I saw Jacobs and another going for the police in the direction of Fairclough-street, and I then went to the Commercial-road, all the time shouting "Police!" On getting to the corner of Grove-street I saw two constables, and told them that a woman had been murdered in Berner-street. They returned with me to the yard. I then noticed several members of the club and some strangers were there. A constable threw his light on the body, and then told the other officer to go for a doctor, and sent me to the station for the inspector.

So do we have both an Isaacs and a Jacobs?
If yes, could this be the situation...

Isaacs = Isaac Kozebrodsky

Jacobs = Isaac Jacobs

Is there no such thing as an error?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You're stating an opinion as a fact. He might have taken a closer look if Lamb stood in the gateway/on the pavement to blow his whistle. Or he might have looked while Lamb was questioning one of the others present.

One gets the feeling that things were a little quieter in the yard when Heshburg arrives, and that he was able to walk right up to the victim and observe closely...

In the gateway two or three people had collected, and when I got there I saw a short dark young woman lying on the ground with a gash between four and five inches long in her throat.
...
None of us recognised the woman and I do not think she belongs to this neighbourhood.

Does 'us' include the constables on site, and how many of 'us' are there?

Baxter: How many people were there in the yard?
Lamb: I should think 20 or 30. Some of that number had followed me in.

So when where was Lamb when he blew his whistle?

Baxter: Was any one touching the body when you arrived?
Lamb: No. There was no one within a yard of it. As I was examining the body some crowded round. I begged them to keep back, and told them they might get some of the blood on their clothing, and by that means get themselves into trouble. I then blew my whistle. I put my hand on the face and found it slightly warm. I then felt the wrist, but could not feel the pulse.

Or, Heshburg was exaggerating and just got that information from others.

Heshburg gave a very thorough account of the victim, the situation in the yard, and the nature of the club.
In some ways he is an ideal witness - apparently not a member of the club, and yet somewhat familiar with the club's operations and people (he lives at #20 or 28).
Another important thing about Heshburg, is that he seems to be the one that corrects some members of the press, regarding the discovery of the body...

In the course of an interview with a witness shortly after 6 o'clock this morning Abraham Heshberg, a young fellow, living at 20 Berner street, said- "... The body was not found by Koster, but by a man whose name I do not know, a man who goes out with a pony and barrow, and lives up the archway where he was going, I believe, to put up his barrow on coming home from market."

So as late as 6am, some reporters seem to have been under the impression that Joseph Koster, and not Louis Diemschitz, was the discoverer of the body.
That discovery story is also radically different to that of the standard story, which is probably why it is ignored.
However, someone(s) deemed it appropriate to tell this story, in the early hours of the morning. Was it a club person, and what was their motivation for doing so?

Basically the whistle says that Lamb was already there (inconvenient as that might be) when Heshburg went into the yard.

...

So Constable Lamb shows us that both Spooner and Heshburg's earlier discovery of the body times were errors. Surprise, surprise.

You may be stating a opinion as a fact here.

Was Lamb (along with 426H) the first PC on site?

Did Spooner arrive a few minutes before Lamb?

Spooner: As I was going to Berner-street I did not meet any one except Mr. Harris, who came out of his house in Tiger Bay (Brunswick-street). Mr. Harris told me he had heard the policeman's whistle blowing.

In regard to the the hearing of the whistle, the absolute accuracy of stated arrival times is not the issue, rather it is the order of events.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Is there no such thing as an error?

Does anyone else feel threatened by my suggestion?

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, human beings that make errors. That mis-speak. That get times wrong. All play a part to create little mysteries but this isn’t a play where we can just create a scenario.

Mis-speaking.....Diemschutz uses the the word ‘precisely’ but only once. In other reports the word isn’t mentioned. He said that he took his time from the Bakers clock. Did such a clock exist? Yes. Did anyone see or hear him arrive? He wasn’t seen but Mortimer heard a cart at just the time that he said that he’d arrived. So how many carts would have been rattling around this backstreet at 1am? What are the odds of one appearing just at the time that Diemschutz states but it wasn’t him? Diemschutz also ‘said’ in one report that Stride was dressed better than the last victim but in the others he said that she was dressed better than the local women. Do we read the first one and assume that he must be have been the ripper? Of course not, we assume it’s an error of reporting which is probably what his use of the word ‘precisely’ was. He probably said that he turned into Berner Street at ‘precisely’ 1.00 and it was reported incorrectly.

Times wrong..... Kosebrodski might simply have gotten to the club later than he thought after taking his time from where he was previously. He then misjudged how long was the gap before Diemschutz entered. What reason would he have had for logging the time when Diemschutz entered? None. He was having a drink and talking to friends. Haven’t we all lost track of time on occaision? It’s just a few minutes here and a few there.

Spooner was also guessing based on pub times. But he said that he arrived 5 minutes before Lamb. So his is the easiest to dismiss.

The murder would have been the work of seconds. The Schwartz incident was again the work of seconds. We know from the Evening News combined with the likelihood of PC Smith being more likely to have been correct on timing than Mortimer that Fanny was likely to have been indoors at the time of the Schwartz incident. She didn’t come back outdoors until she heard the commotion of the club members so she wouldn’t have seen the killer escape into Berner Street.

None of this is impossible or even unlikely.

Or do we interpret events your way and say that the killer came from the club and that the members lied to cover this up to protect the reputation and future existence of the club? It’s not impossible but is it probable? What would such a plan achieve though and would they have come up with it on the spur of the moment? Was every club member told about the plan so that they could all get their stories straight and how was that arranged in such a short space of time?

The body of a prostitute was still found in the yard next to the club - so the police might still have suspected a member who’d either gone inside or escaped. (Surely a better solution would have been to put the body onto Diemschutz cart and dump her a few streets away?) The Schwartz story still has an altercation right outside the club with BS Man seeming to pull her into the yard. So again it’s the club. The shout of Lipski implicates a Jew. Why would they put that into a plan outside a Jewish club where they were trying to draw attention away? Then there’s Schwartz who the police might easily have checked to see if he had good reason for being where he said he was or where they just lucky to find a member who just happened to have a good reason for passing the club at 12.45 am? And how lucky were they that no one saw him?

The plan sounds nowhere near as likely as the simpler explanation Michael. Stride was killed sometime after 12.45 and was probably interrupted by Diemschutz. He ducked into the shadows then scarpered when Diemschutz went inside. Any slight evidential discrepancies are just the kind of errors that occur under stressful circumstances and at a time when very few people owned watches or clocks.

I noted that interruption word again.

The evidence such as it is suggests a very low trafficked street in that last half hour. Anyone about would have been noticed by Fanny popping in and out from the door. She saw the young couple, she spoke with them afterward. She also saw black bag guy, who Goldstein later claims to be. The last legitimate sighting of Liz on the street is by a police officer. She will likely be cut within the next 10 or 15 minutes. Where does she go? She is not seen..so, where is she? If she is in the passageway isnt it far more likely that her killer was already there? There neednt be street traffic introduced that no-one else can substantiate. You talk of simpler explanations for a 2 second murder, I am all aboard with that, so lets not clutter the table with ideas that cannot be validated. 4 accounts, all from men who did not make a living from the club and 1 who had nothing to do with the club or its agendas. A street witness for 30% of that period continuous observance, and the time in sporadic checks at the door. Simple Herlock. There was no-one but the young couple and If we believe him Goldstein who stated he walked past. Liz out of sight at around 12:36, claims by 4 people that within 5 minutes she would be lying there bleeding out.

Eagle doesnt even see Lave or vice versa. Strike 1. The fact that no other people were seen in that area at that time but the aforementioned. Strike 2. Liz is killed in 2 seconds and left to bleed out. We have no idea how long he would have had undisturbed, but there is no evidence that he had any further intentions. Polar Opposite behavior compared to Jack. Strike 3. You can have a pocket strike with Israel, but you dont need one. He wasnt considered viable.

The club would do damage control and that usually is an immediate response to a situation. Not a well considered one, with consultation and time to digest the options. The woman is there, they need to report this immediately, and they have to make sure that the perception was not that the club had a loose cannon in the flock that night. They...likely Louis and Eagle, decide whats best, who should go for help and which way, what everyone saw of this...nothing....and try and manage the small crowd gathering now. Not let it bulge out into the street.

They used this notoriety to sell glimpses of the murder spot in the following days.