The Berner Street Con(spiracy)

[Chris]

Liz is cut by 12:56 by the Senior medical mans estimates, and perhaps as early as 12:46...

Actually, according to most reports of Blackwell's inquest testimony, he thought that she had been dead not more than 20-30 minutes when he saw her - not that she had been dead for more than 20 minutes:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=21678&postcount=192

The one thing that strikes me about Packer`s various statements is that there was an American staying at the Club, who by his own account left the club for a breath of fresh air around 12.30 am -Joseph Lave.

Hi Jon,

Actually Lave was a renting cottager, and he stated he left his cottage and was in the yard...even out as far as the open gates, until 12:40am,...which is when Eagle says he entered the yard to go in the side door. Neither corroborates the other with a sighting of the other.

Pirate on the notion of a Conspiracy....if a group decides to use an opportunity to fabricate a story or details within it that is uniformly presented by all parties within the group to the authorities....you have conspiracy.

In this case, of the main witnesses in the picture after PC Smith had left, we have Brown, Schwartz, Fanny, Goldstein, Diemshutz, Eagle, Kozebrodski, Mrs Diemshutz, and Lave, ...and Schwartz may well be affiliated in some manner, even as a meeting attendee.

Only Brown and Fanny have outsider perspectives....and thats why I choose to accept their remarks, they can have no ulterior motive.

Liz is cut by 12:56 by the Senior medical mans estimates, and perhaps as early as 12:46...either of which allows for ample time to do damage control with a simple "empty yard/no-one saw or heard anything" story.

Best regards all.

[Jeff Leahy]

The one thing that strikes me about Packer`s various statements is that there was an American staying at the Club, who by his own account left the club for a breath of fresh air around 12.30 am -Joseph Lave.

Yeah, but no rain after 11 pm. I think you have to discard Packers evidence.

[Jon Guy]

The one thing that strikes me about Packer`s various statements is that there was an American staying at the Club, who by his own account left the club for a breath of fresh air around 12.30 am -Joseph Lave.

[The Good Michael]

Wait. You were asking the other Michael. I was just offering an opinion that conspiracy can take subtle forms. I did this in the form of a rhetorical question.

As for Packer. I don't know that everything was a lie, but he certainly was like the boy who cried wolf if nothing else.

Mike

[Jeff Leahy]

Hey Pirate!

I agree about conspiracies in general, yet isn't an attempt to control damage a conspiracy if a few control the dissemination of information?

Cheers,

Mike

I dont know I was asking you?

I don't want a silly debate about semantics. It just seems to me the word conspiracy seems to suggest a group of people concocting a story together, where as damage limitation is more of an every day, lets leave some of the story out sort of senario.

However there could be lots of reasons why all the peices don't fit, and it doesnt necessarily mean people lied or deliberately contrived a story.

confusion, poor memory?

As far as Packer is concerned. Perhaps there was an element of truth, it was raining up until eleven...perhap's he saw someone else earlier in the evening?

Pirate

[The Good Michael]

Hey Pirate!

I agree about conspiracies in general, yet isn't an attempt to control damage a conspiracy if a few control the dissemination of information?

Cheers,

Mike

[Jeff Leahy]

When is a Conspiracy a Conspiracy?

Hello all,

I guess Im getting lost with the plot formation here,....we have the Pipeman and BSM identified as detectives, and Schwartz as a pedlar happening by? turns out Packer did sell Liz and a Toff some grapes, and that means if Jack killed her he's a Toff, and Brown must have seen other people....and why is this likely again? Do The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen make an appearance at some point?

A murder which by action alone could have been committed by anyone with a knife and a mean disposition was committed on anarchist Socialists property on an active night when some 28 people were still in attendance from the close to 200 that were there earlier.

Any "conspiracy" theory need only address that fact.

Self preservation is the logical and simple to execute proposition here, all witness testimony from club associated persons suggested no club attendee could have done this since none were around. Schwartz is only strongly supported in a reminiscence, and has no Inquest witness creds, so the reality is his story is unsupported formally, even if supported informally.

What is the issue to any theory is where did the man come from....was he Mr Grapes, or was he Broadshouldered Man....was he a club attendee, a returning Pipeman, or even Jack.....

Since this murder is atypical of a Ripper murder I dont know that inserting a Ripper type suspect high on the probability charts is warranted or wise. This is always the most debated murder, the least likely Ripper murder, and the one that has an obvious opportunity and motive built in for enhancing the position of the club with the most relevant evidence given almost exclusively by people connected with the club.

Best regards

Hi Michael

As you know I dont buy conspiracy theories, largely because cover-ups are usually exposed and people arnt good at keeping secrets. However, you now seem to be suggesting something else, and i'm not certain conspiracy is the right word.

Certainly the idea of some porkies to protect the club sits better with me than conspiracy. But is there any real or hard evidence to support this claim or suggestion?

Yours Pirate

[Ben]

Ah, okay.

Thanks for the clarification, Mike.

[The Good Michael]

Why are any of these suspects any less "valid" or "fitting" for the Stride murder than the generic "Polish Jew" suspect?

Ben

Sorry. In the context of the club and conspiracy, these guys seem to be invalid.

Mike

Hi Mike,

I agree a Polish Jew would jive nicely with all the authority speculation that one of them was Jack as support....and maybe there were a bunch at the meeting and hanging around. Again, I still dont see how this murder can be equated with Ripper murders though.

I agree with you, the conspiracy if it existed was a damage control conspiracy...a very logical one and maybe even defensible and justifiable if they knew it was not anyone that was attending the club that night.

When you have a murder that could very easily be the result of a spat with a thug, and you have 2 stories that may introduce intimidating persons just before the victim is murdered,....with Brown or Schwartz,... theres no need for Jack to suddenly pop in, cut once and run off to Mitre Square. There is a need to figure out which man is likely the man last seen with Liz,...was BSM really just BS? Was Browns man the likely man?

The only way this murder was Jacks is an interruption, and accepting Schwartz's statement or not, the doc says she was cut by 12:56...and that makes any possible interruption on Goldsteins pass, not with Diemshutz 4 minutes later. And we KNOW Goldstein is a member.

Best regards Mike.

[Ben]

Hutchinson is invalid and doesn't fit here. Fleming is invalid and doesn't fit. Tumblety doesn't fit anywhere, and neither does Druitt or Chapman.

I'm afraid I've lost you here, Mike.

Why are any of these suspects any less "valid" or "fitting" for the Stride murder than the generic "Polish Jew" suspect?

Cheers,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Since this murder is atypical of a Ripper murder I dont know that inserting a Ripper type suspect high on the probability charts is warranted or wise.
Best regards

That depends. A Polish Jew suspect who is also a radical, would fit in well here. We really don't have many valid suspects anyway. Hutchinson is invalid and doesn't fit here. Fleming is invalid and doesn't fit. Tumblety doesn't fit anywhere, and neither does Druitt or Chapman. All this is my opinion of course. A Cohen type, which is one of the most believable of the archetypes, does fit here. And let's not quibble over who was eating out of gutters when. We all know that argument and how easy it has been to counter it.

The point is, it shouldn't be about a conspiracy to commit murder, but rather, a conspiracy of damage control, much as in any organization. And so, is it really conspiracy, or just general practice in many organizations?

Cheers,

Mike

Hello all,

I guess Im getting lost with the plot formation here,....we have the Pipeman and BSM identified as detectives, and Schwartz as a pedlar happening by? turns out Packer did sell Liz and a Toff some grapes, and that means if Jack killed her he's a Toff, and Brown must have seen other people....and why is this likely again? Do The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen make an appearance at some point?

A murder which by action alone could have been committed by anyone with a knife and a mean disposition was committed on anarchist Socialists property on an active night when some 28 people were still in attendance from the close to 200 that were there earlier.

Any "conspiracy" theory need only address that fact.

Self preservation is the logical and simple to execute proposition here, all witness testimony from club associated persons suggested no club attendee could have done this since none were around. Schwartz is only strongly supported in a reminiscence, and has no Inquest witness creds, so the reality is his story is unsupported formally, even if supported informally.

What is the issue to any theory is where did the man come from....was he Mr Grapes, or was he Broadshouldered Man....was he a club attendee, a returning Pipeman, or even Jack.....

Since this murder is atypical of a Ripper murder I dont know that inserting a Ripper type suspect high on the probability charts is warranted or wise. This is always the most debated murder, the least likely Ripper murder, and the one that has an obvious opportunity and motive built in for enhancing the position of the club with the most relevant evidence given almost exclusively by people connected with the club.

Best regards

Hello all,

I guess Im getting lost with the plot formation here,....we have the Pipeman and BSM identified as detectives, and Schwartz as a pedlar happening by? turns out Packer did sell Liz and a Toff some grapes, and that means if Jack killed her he's a Toff, and Brown must have seen other people....and why is this likely again? Do The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen make an appearance at some point?

A murder which by action alone could have been committed by anyone with a knife and a mean disposition was committed on anarchist Socialists property on an active night when some 28 people were still in attendance from the close to 200 that were there earlier.

Any "conspiracy" theory need only address that fact.

Self preservation is the logical and simple to execute proposition here, all witness testimony from club associated persons suggested no club attendee could have done this since none were around. Schwartz is only strongly supported in a reminiscence, and has no Inquest witness creds, so the reality is his story is unsupported formally, even if supported informally.

What is the issue to any theory is where did the man come from....was he Mr Grapes, or was he Broadshouldered Man....was he a club attendee, a returning Pipeman, or even Jack.....

Since this murder is atypical of a Ripper murder I dont know that inserting a Ripper type suspect high on the probability charts is warranted or wise. If Schwartz didnt lie....its likely BSM...she is cut by 12:56 at the latest...if he lied, which the Inquest suggests is possible, since he wasnt involved at all,....then it just has to be someone as close to the time as BSM was....and thats Browns man.

This is always the most debated murder, the least likely Ripper murder, and the one that has an obvious motive for enhancing the position of the club with the most relevant evidence given almost exclusively by people connected with the club.

Best regards