The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[Herlock Sholmes]

From The Times account of the inquest 2 Oct 1888, witness: Eagle.
Witness. - I think the policeman touched it, but the other persons appeared afraid to go near it. When I first saw the body of deceased, I should say it was about 1 o'clock, although I did not look at the clock.

Herlock, if you are calling for honesty, it does you no credit to keep pretending that you are unaware of Eagle's statement. The "must of seen a clock" rule, as you put it, cannot apply to Eagle because he his admitting that, while there was a clock to be observed, he did not do so.

Cheers, George

I don’t understand your reason for posting this George. The example is perfectly fair as far as I can see. The point I was making is that just because a clock existed at a location is doesn’t mean that the person must have looked at it. We can only assume that person did look at the clock if he specifically said so.

However 2 men came from inside the club and would have had access to a clock

As you can see from the above quote Michael assumes exactly as I stated above. The same assumption has been made before. I know very well that Eagle explicitly stated that he didn’t look at the clock and this illustrates the point I was making. We can’t say whether Koz and Hoschberg looked at the clock near to the discovery of the body. It’s reasonable of course to suggest the possibility that they looked at it at some point earlier in the evening and that’s how they estimated their times but we can’t state it as a fact and we can’t state at what time.

[GBinOz]

Childishly simple to answer.

Why doesn’t this ‘must have seen a clock’ rule apply to Eagle?

Try honesty for change.

From The Times account of the inquest 2 Oct 1888, witness: Eagle.
Witness. - I think the policeman touched it, but the other persons appeared afraid to go near it. When I first saw the body of deceased, I should say it was about 1 o'clock, although I did not look at the clock.

Herlock, if you are calling for honesty, it does you no credit to keep pretending that you are unaware of Eagle's statement. The "must of seen a clock" rule, as you put it, cannot apply to Eagle because he his admitting that, while there was a clock to be observed, he did not do so.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

What a convenient response.



Everyone who points to evidence you don't like, or points to the illogic of your 'timelines', is conveniently dismissed as 'nitpicking'. It's a joke.



Actually, we do.

Just for once, please stop twisting everything. And no we don’t have evidence that Diemschutz didn’t find the body.

Why do I have to keep repeating the same old obvious facts. We CANNOT recreate what happened by using precise times due the times being estimations. So we can’t say ‘well x couldn’t have happened at 12.45 when y happened at 12.46. How can I make this clearer.

So unless you can say something like “we can prove that x was there at exactly 12.45 therefore we know that y couldn’t have been there” then there’s no point in going any further. As long as there is a physical, plausible possibility that these events occurred in the order thats claimed and at roughly the times then that’s good enough. It should be end of conversation but it’s not because you and Michael keep trying to reverse engineer the impossible to manufacture a mystery. It’s an obsession.

If you want to prove something strange went on then produce the evidence. Not maybe’s. Can you disprove the so-called official version. No you can’t. 100% without a shadow of a doubt you can’t.

This is what happened…..

Stride was killed before 1.00 in the yard.

Diemschutz found the body at around 1.00.

The police were called.

Everything else is speculation, interpretation and, in some quarters, an unhealthy dose of manipulation.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

People were unhappy with the police at the time. It was a good opportunity to try and show them in a bad light. “There’s never a copper around when you need one!”

What a convenient response.

Nitpicking over times is pointless. We don’t know exact times so we can’t claim them.

Everyone who points to evidence you don't like, or points to the illogic of your 'timelines', is conveniently dismissed as 'nitpicking'. It's a joke.

Have we any evidence that Diemschutz didn’t find the body. No

Actually, we do.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It’s fairly meaningless.

That's a fairly evasive statement. We know the man was indeed a member of the club, and so we get...

He was probably coming from the Socialist Club.

Which is fairly meaningful. That is why the issue has received so much discussion over the last 20 years.

[Herlock Sholmes]

By "could have been", you actually mean "was".

LEN, Oct 1:

Diemschitz: 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.

Nothing changes by the time Arberter Fraint is next published:

Dimshits, Eygel and Gilyarovsky ran to look for a policeman; ten minutes later they had found a pair of peace-keepers.

I'm going to stick with Spooner's estimate of 5 minutes. It also seems that if the following is true...

* The search for police took about 10 minutes
* Diemschitz arrived at 1am
* Lamb arrived about 1:05

...then we can infer that Diemschitz was not the discoverer of the body.

People were unhappy with the police at the time. It was a good opportunity to try and show them in a bad light. “There’s never a copper around when you need one!”

Nitpicking over times is pointless. We don’t know exact times so we can’t claim them.

Have we any evidence that Diemschutz didn’t find the body. No

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just took out the incorrect quote from Lamb and left the accurate one, and voila, you have Lamb arriving before 1, around 12:55 as you prefer, and Spooner 5 minutes before him, at approx 12:50.

Didnt notice that both are before 1, when Louis says he first arrived? That means Spooner saw men out on the street before 12:50, and that those men were sent for help from the passageway before that. Like Issac said.

I missed a point.

All along I’ve been saying how unbelievable it would have been for Diemschutz have come to his ‘conclusion’ about the closing of the club and his false witness plan in the short time between your suggested discovery of the body (12.45 - even though earlier you’d gone for an earlier time to accommodate Spooners 12.35) and 1.00ish when they went looking for a PC.

But now it gets even more unbelievable (if that’s possible) Now your suggesting that they went for a PC straight away; getting to Lamb at 12.50ish.

And so, in a cold dark yard at 12.45 am Diemschutz discovers a body. And within a couple of minutes he’s though, a) that the police might close down the club and b) that they would find a false witness in the next few hours who would be willing to lie and say that he’d seen the killer and heard him use an anti-Semitic insult.

Thats what he thought and decide within a couple of minutes before flying out of the yard with the very man that he forgets to mention this plan to?

Keep digging Michael.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Of course not. The 12.59/1.00 is approx time that he returned. Lamb got there approx 1.05. Smith just after.

And before you mention Spooner getting there 5 minutes before Lamb this was an estimate too. So 5 minutes could have been 2 and a half or 3.

By "could have been", you actually mean "was".

LEN, Oct 1:

Diemschitz: 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.

Nothing changes by the time Arberter Fraint is next published:

Dimshits, Eygel and Gilyarovsky ran to look for a policeman; ten minutes later they had found a pair of peace-keepers.

I'm going to stick with Spooner's estimate of 5 minutes. It also seems that if the following is true...

* The search for police took about 10 minutes
* Diemschitz arrived at 1am
* Lamb arrived about 1:05

...then we can infer that Diemschitz was not the discoverer of the body.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

Should this also be dismissed from everyone's thoughts?

It’s fairly meaningless.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Apart from the totally implausible motive and the simplicity of coming up with an easier and far more effective plan, the facts above alone should dismiss the idea of a cover up from everyone’s thoughts.

He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

Should this also be dismissed from everyone's thoughts?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Presumably the 12:59 or 1:00 you have for Louis, signifies when he returned with Spooner. So at what time do you have Louis reading the clock?

You have Smith arriving 1 minute after Lamb. Lamb ran down Berner street, whereas Smith plodded down it. So when Lamb turned into Berner with Eagle, was Smith actually in front of him?

Of course not. The 12.59/1.00 is approx time that he returned. Lamb got there approx 1.05. Smith just after.

And before you mention Spooner getting there 5 minutes before Lamb this was an estimate too. So 5 minutes could have been 2 and a half or 3.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

As I’ve repeatedly said we shouldn’t try to reverse engineer events by narrow times.

Louis 1.00/ Lamb 1.05/ Smith 1.06

or

Louis 1.00/ Lamb 1.04/ Smith 1.05

or even

Louis 12.59/ Lamb 12.03/ Smith 1.04

……

Louis at 12.44 or 12.45 just doesn’t work.

Presumably the 12:59 or 1:00 you have for Louis, signifies when he returned with Spooner. So at what time do you have Louis reading the clock?

You have Smith arriving 1 minute after Lamb. Lamb ran down Berner street, whereas Smith plodded down it. So when Lamb turned into Berner with Eagle, was Smith actually in front of him?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And the ‘conspirator’ Diemschutz doesn’t bother telling Kozebrodski or Hoschberg about the ‘revised’ discovery time? And he continues with this plan despite bringing back to the yard a complete stranger (Spooner) who is also ignorant of the ‘revised’ discovery time. Perhaps he hoped to bribe the police officer who interviewed the members only to interview the ones that he’d told about the plan?

Not only was he strangely unconcerned about the above he’s not bothered that someone in Berner Street might have seen him return on his horse and cart 15 minutes or more before he claimed to have arrived back.

And then, when they make the inexplicable choice of a non-English speaking planted witness, he is totally and blissfully unconcerned that someone in the street might have popped up and said “if Schwartz had been there I’d have seen him and I didn’t.”

For someone coming up with a plan which involved lying about the discovery of a murdered woman who was always going to be suspected of being a victim of the ripper, Diemschutz acted with all the casual disinterest of a man playing a bit of a practical joke.

Apart from the totally implausible motive and the simplicity of coming up with an easier and far more effective plan, the facts above alone should dismiss the idea of a cover up from everyone’s thoughts.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Michael,

The actual time Spooner arrives isnt a huge problem for me, I could see that being between 12:45 and 12:55.. which is when I believe Lamb sees the men. Spooner is in the situation of having to estimate an interval between leaving the pub and arriving at the Beehive as well as how long they stood there, so his estimate could be off a few minutes easily. However 2 men came from inside the club and would have had access to a clock, and they said 12:40, not 12:40 ish, or around 12:40. Spooner also says that men were there around the body when he arrives, that would be the case if men were there at 12:40 wouldnt it?

Yes, Spooner, like most of the statements we have, is estimating a duration, and individual people vary with how well they do that, and on average, people tend to overestimate the types of durations we're talking about.

Regardless of the time Spooner arrives, given he arrives after Deimshutz and others have gone looking for the police, no matter what time he arrives I think it is safe to presume there are others around the body.

The larger picture here is that based on the cumulative statements of Lamb, Spooner, Issac K and Heschberg, Louis and others were by the dying woman at least 15 minutes before Louis claimed to have arrived. Lamb was summoned before 1am. That indicates a search party for help going out at least 5 minutes prior, and Issac K says he met up with that party which included Eagle, when Eagle and Lamb were returning to the club. All before 1am.

I know that's your theory. However, given Spooner joins Deimshutz's party as they return along Fairclough, it seems to violate the laws of physics for Spooner to be at the scene prior to Deimshutz's arrival.

So why would Louis say he arrived at 1? Why would Lave and Eagle not acknowledge they saw each other in the passageway, or anyone else gathered there? Why would Eagle not say unequivocally that he didnt have to side step around a dying woman? I believe they all tried to create an illusion of emptiness for that passageway at around 12:40-12:45, (even though its highly probable based on the other statements that it was far from empty, and remember Blackwells estimate of her earliest cut time is around 12:46...Phillips later suggested as early as 12:30...) If no-one was there at that time, then her killer must have come from elsewhere, because he and her must have entered after that time. That was their logic. Israel is after thought insurance for leaving that impression.

People's testimonies often tend to come across as equivocal, not always of course, but it is quite common for people to recognize they could have missed something, or to acknowledge that what they believe could be incorrect. Generally, this reflects people not wanting to lead an investigation down the wrong path and be the one responsible due to their information turning out to be wrong due to them being mistaken (not lying, mistaken). I would suggest it requires far more direct evidence of misdirection to account for Eagle not being unequivocal.

Also, I suspect they all give the impression that Stride was not in the ally at the time they were simply because she wasn't. The club "story" only changes the time of the murder, not the place, and it is the place that would draw suspicion on the club. So if they wanted to divert attention away from the club, changing the time of the murder, or who found it, etc, does nothing to serve that purpose.

The "conspiracy" then was by the paid staff members alone, and was to preserve their jobs and prevent further anti immigrant jew mania across London. As you will recall, it was at this point in time house to house searches were taking place in the Jewish parts of the East End, and it seemed that the conclusion of the police was that the murders were by an immigrant jew and that none of the other jews would testify against him. Would the International Club contain people that might be fearful of such an anti-Semitic wave?

Almost all who attended it. Certainly the ones who made their living there.

And again, changing the time of the murder isn't going to change public opinion. If they thought they would look bad for a 12:40 discovery, they would still look bad for a 1 o'clock discovery. And Spooner isn't a club member anyway, he's just a random guy out with his girlfriend who got caught up in the situation when Deimshutz and company ran passed him on Fairclough. He has no reason to protect the club.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just took out the incorrect quote from Lamb and left the accurate one, and voila, you have Lamb arriving before 1, around 12:55 as you prefer, and Spooner 5 minutes before him, at approx 12:50.

Didnt notice that both are before 1, when Louis says he first arrived? That means Spooner saw men out on the street before 12:50, and that those men were sent for help from the passageway before that. Like Issac said.

Let’s play ‘pick a quote.’

Lamb:

“About 1 o’clock, as near as I can tell, on Sunday morning I was in the Commercial-road,”

Diemschutz saw a clock, remember? So if we don’t assume a lie (conspiracist nonsense of course) then Lamb was called after 1.00. Quibbling about clocks apart can any of this be made to fit a discovery time of 12.45.

Not even close. Unless you deliberately try and manipulate of course.

Hoschberg and Koz can safely be sideline. I don’t care what you or anyone else says on this as I’m tired of listening to biased, self serving claptrap.