The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[GBinOz]

Ill take advice on this George because I don’t recall Johnston being listed as a Doctor. At the Inquest, unlike Phillips and Blackwell, he was listed a simply Edward Johnston. Was he a qualified Doctor? He’s called Blackwell’s ‘assistant’. So it appears to me that Blackwell was the first ‘Doctor’ to arrive. Either way, even if he was a qualified Doctor, Johnston might have been considered just an assistant by Lamb.

Hi Michael,

He definitely wasn't a doctor, he was an assistant. But the testimony at the inquest makes it plain that both Lamb and Diemshitz mistook him for Dr Blacklock. Diemshitz said the first doctor opened the top buttons on Stride's dress and Lamb said he closed the gates after the doctor started his examination. Johnson said he opened Stride's buttons and the gates were closed after he arrived. Blackwell said Stride's buttons were open when he arrived and the gates were closed and specifically stated that Lamb was mistaken on this point.

As far as Spooner, Eagle and Brown go, answer me one question - when did they last actually see a clock. Eagle said there was a clock in the club but he didn't look at it. Brown said the was a clock in the Chandler's shop but he didn't look at that either. These people were just making it up from memories that they didn't know they would have to recall and clock times obviously were not a major part of their lives.

I am not accusing Diemshitz of lying. He usually arrived back at around one o'clock, which is what he told all the press. Come the inquest, and with eye witness testimony being notoriously unreliable, he may have convinced himself that he must have looked at the clock and it showed one o'clock because that it what he had told the press. A bold statement rather than if's and but's. The clock would have been a courtesy provided by the tobacco shop for their customers. Would they have incurred the expense of a large face clock that was lighted internally all night when they were closed?

I hold to the opinion that the police times are the most credible, but there are not a lot of minutes difference between us anyway. The big question is how long was it between the BSMan argument and Stride being murdered. If it was 15 minutes it leaves more time for the perpetrator to be someone unknown. If it was only a few minutes it comes down to BSMan, Parcelman or Pipeman. It doesn't even affect the interruption theory as that could equally be attributed to the return of Eagle, the strolling of Lave or a commotion in the kitchen.

Perhaps it is time to quit quibbling about minutes and focus on who killed Lizzie complete with accompanying logic.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Michael,

He definitely wasn't a doctor, he was an assistant. But the testimony at the inquest makes it plain that both Lamb and Diemshitz mistook him for Dr Blacklock. Diemshitz said the first doctor opened the top buttons on Stride's dress and Lamb said he closed the gates after the doctor started his examination. Johnson said he opened Stride's buttons and the gates were closed after he arrived. Blackwell said Stride's buttons were open when he arrived and the gates were closed and specifically stated that Lamb was mistaken on this point.

As far as Spooner, Eagle and Brown go, answer me one question - when did they last actually see a clock. Eagle said there was a clock in the club but he didn't look at it. Brown said the was a clock in the Chandler's shop but he didn't look at that either. These people were just making it up from memories that they didn't know they would have to recall and clock times obviously were not a major part of their lives.

I am not accusing Diemshitz of lying. He usually arrived back at around one o'clock, which is what he told all the press. Come the inquest, and with eye witness testimony being notoriously unreliable, he may have convinced himself that he must have looked at the clock and it showed one o'clock because that it what he had told the press. A bold statement rather than if's and but's. The clock would have been a courtesy provided by the tobacco shop for their customers. Would they have incurred the expense of a large face clock that was lighted internally all night when they were closed?

I hold to the opinion that the police times are the most credible, but there are not a lot of minutes difference between us anyway. The big question is how long was it between the BSMan argument and Stride being murdered. If it was 15 minutes it leaves more time for the perpetrator to be someone unknown. If it was only a few minutes it comes down to BSMan, Parcelman or Pipeman. It doesn't even affect the interruption theory as that could equally be attributed to the return of Eagle, the strolling of Lave or a commotion in the kitchen.

Perhaps it is time to quit quibbling about minutes and focus on who killed Lizzie complete with accompanying logic.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

We have to accept of course that there are some witnesses who we have no way of knowing whether they owned a watch or a clock, or whether they saw a clock at any point or how long prior to the event in question had they seen a clock. So, as you say, we have to make allowances. Certainly the clock that Diemschutz saw might not have been completely accurate but I don’t think that we have any grounds for saying that he misjudged what the clock said (I’m not saying that it’s impossible that he could have done that) so I’d say that we would have to give him at least the benefit of the doubt. He had no reason to rigidly stick to 1.00 if he was uncertain. He had nothing to lose by saying “I saw the clock but only briefly and it was poorly lit and it appeared to say 1.00)

I agree that police officers had more reason for being aware of time than your average citizen but it has to be noted that many of them (probably most) didn’t own a watch. So even with police officers a reasonable + or - has to be applied (which I know that you’re not disputing btw) So we have Lamb estimating 1.00 (Michael said ‘just before’ 1.00 so it might have been written as that somewhere but not at the Inquest) The two versions of his Inquest testimonies in The Times And The Telegraph have him saying ‘about’ and ‘approximately’ 1.00. Well 1.05 is ‘about’ 1.00 or ‘approximately’ 1.00. So there’s nothing, absolutely nothing, about what Lamb said that clashes with with what Eagle (and therefore Diemschutz) said. Body found at 1.00. Eagle finds Lamb around 1.05. They arrive at the yard around 1.06/7. Johnston is called around 1.10. After waking Blackwell, putting on his coat etc he arrived at the yard at 1.12/3. Blackwell arrived at 1.16. I genuinely can’t see a single issue with this.

If Diemschutz had immediately gone for a Constable after discovering the body at 1.00 (yelling in the street) we would expect someone to have heard this just after 1.00. And we have exactly that in Brown. He mentions 12.45 as the time that he’d seen the couple and we have no way of knowing how he arrived at that time but he did. He continued home, ate his supper (which gives him a fair way of judging the time lapse) and so arrived at an approximation of 1.00 when he heard the cries.

So for me the timings show that nothing at old suspicious occurred here. Just a few errors and estimations which we can pick through.

I agree again George that there probably is no point in further discussing these events in the absence of anything new. Michael has his theory but I think that you and I only differ slightly on a few issues of timing.

[GBinOz]

So we have Lamb estimating 1.00 (Michael said ‘just before’ 1.00 so it might have been written as that somewhere but not at the Inquest) The two versions of his Inquest testimonies in The Times And The Telegraph have him saying ‘about’ and ‘approximately’ 1.00. Well 1.05 is ‘about’ 1.00 or ‘approximately’ 1.00. So there’s nothing, absolutely nothing, about what Lamb said that clashes with with what Eagle (and therefore Diemschutz) said. Body found at 1.00. Eagle finds Lamb around 1.05. They arrive at the yard around 1.06/7. Johnston is called around 1.10. After waking Blackwell, putting on his coat etc he arrived at the yard at 1.12/3. Blackwell arrived at 1.16. I genuinely can’t see a single issue with this.

Hi Michael,

I feel that I have to draw to your attention that you are in error in the above bolded remark.

From the report of the inquest in the Daily Telegraph:
Constable Henry Lamb, 252 H division, examined by the coroner, said: Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting.
Mr. Edward Johnson: I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kaye and Blackwell. On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H

From the report of the inquest in the Morning Advertiser:
Police-constable Henry Lamb, 252 H, deposed - About one o'clock on Sunday morning last I was in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street. Two men came running to me shouting something. I went towards them.
Mr. Edward Johnson, called and examined - I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kay and Blackwell at that address. On Sunday morning last, a few minutes past one o’clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H.

As I have said, I have no confidence in any times presented by Eagle. The Times is the only report that I can find were it reports Johnson as saying he was contacted at "About five or ten minutes past 1". The contradictions in press reports from the inquest in frustrating, and all that can be done is to take a consensus and eliminate the outliers that occur, presumably due to the reporter dozing off.

Cheers, George

[Michael W Richards]

Spooner's evidence as printed in the Morning Advertiser;

"I stood by the side of the deceased about five minutes, till Police-constable Lamb came."

And if Spooner was correct with his estimate and Lamb with his statement, Spooner would have been there about five minutes before Lamb arrived...shortly before 1am.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

If someone proposes a theory that is not taken seriosly by others, does that disqualify him from being considered seriously on other matters?

I was referring to his discussion with a horologist who was considered to be an expert in the keeping of time by the police and by civilians in 1888. The conclusion, derived from the advice of that expert, was that times established by officers of the law, including police surgeons, are far more accurate than those derived from civilian clocks. This attracted a comment from Simon Wood of "You're quite right about public clocks and their inaccuracy.".

Cheers, George

I dont think I have any objection to the above, certainly clocks randomly maintained and not all being established by a central source would have differing times. And ones that police used would be the central source for them to establish some synchronization. I would think the time would be referenced in every station by officers heading out to work their beat or returning from it. They could set their watches by that.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

I feel that I have to draw to your attention that you are in error in the above bolded remark.

From the report of the inquest in the Daily Telegraph:
Constable Henry Lamb, 252 H division, examined by the coroner, said: Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting.
Mr. Edward Johnson: I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kaye and Blackwell. On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H

From the report of the inquest in the Morning Advertiser:
Police-constable Henry Lamb, 252 H, deposed - About one o'clock on Sunday morning last I was in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street. Two men came running to me shouting something. I went towards them.
Mr. Edward Johnson, called and examined - I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kay and Blackwell at that address. On Sunday morning last, a few minutes past one o’clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H.

As I have said, I have no confidence in any times presented by Eagle. The Times is the only report that I can find were it reports Johnson as saying he was contacted at "About five or ten minutes past 1". The contradictions in press reports from the inquest in frustrating, and all that can be done is to take a consensus and eliminate the outliers that occur, presumably due to the reporter dozing off.

Cheers, George

You seem to be addressing me but posting Herlock's quotes....might want to fix that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Michael,

I feel that I have to draw to your attention that you are in error in the above bolded remark.

From the report of the inquest in the Daily Telegraph:
Constable Henry Lamb, 252 H division, examined by the coroner, said: Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting.
Mr. Edward Johnson: I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kaye and Blackwell. On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H

From the report of the inquest in the Morning Advertiser:
Police-constable Henry Lamb, 252 H, deposed - About one o'clock on Sunday morning last I was in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street. Two men came running to me shouting something. I went towards them.
Mr. Edward Johnson, called and examined - I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kay and Blackwell at that address. On Sunday morning last, a few minutes past one o’clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H.

So we have The Telegraph saying ‘shortly before’ and The Times and The Telegraph saying ‘about 1.00.’ Which is the more accurate? What we know for a fact though George is that Lamb didn’t have a watch and so was simply estimating. So I just can’t see an issue here. Just before 1.00 could mean 12.59. Or about could mean just before or just after. But there’s nothing there that speaks of any significant error. There’s nothing that breaks the chain of events. Indeed an earlier time for Eagle meeting Lamb would raise the question of why it took them so long to get to Blackwell’s house as it was nearby. So it fits. And even if it was a couple of minutes earlier it changes nothing. There can be no doubt that Diemschutz discovered the body at 1.00 (even give or take a minute or two) Eagle and Brown confirm this. I can’t see why this hasn’t been conceded long ago to be honest George?

As I have said, I have no confidence in any times presented by Eagle. The Times is the only report that I can find were it reports Johnson as saying he was contacted at "About five or ten minutes past 1". The contradictions in press reports from the inquest in frustrating, and all that can be done is to take a consensus and eliminate the outliers that occur, presumably due to the reporter dozing off.

And the consensus confirms the series of events.

Cheers, George

I honestly don’t get it George. To me it’s as clear as daylight what happened, in what order and at what time (given a reasonable margin for error in timings of course.) I know that you’re not proposing any kind of cover-up George but in the total absence of reasons to lie were just left with errors of estimations. We should have no problems with 2 or 3 minutes but people like Hoschberg, Kozebrodski and Spooner who talk about being in the yard at 12.35/12.45 were very obviously mistaken and should be dismissed. Like Fanny Mortimer, who I wouldn’t have trusted to tell me what day it was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And if Spooner was correct with his estimate and Lamb with his statement, Spooner would have been there about five minutes before Lamb arrived...shortly before 1am.

Or, as Lamb said in The Times and The Advertiser. ‘about 1.00.’ And when we consider the absolute fact that he didn’t have a watch and was estimating it’s far more likely, almost to the point of certainty, that it was around 1.05 or so when Eagle found him which ties in perfectly with the time that Johnston was called.

Too much hard work is being done to find a non-existent break in the chain. If this evidence was presented in court, with a recognition of estimating, no one would question the chain of events.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I dont think I have any objection to the above, certainly clocks randomly maintained and not all being established by a central source would have differing times. And ones that police used would be the central source for them to establish some synchronization. I would think the time would be referenced in every station by officers heading out to work their beat or returning from it. They could set their watches by that.

What watches Michael? You keep assuming that they had watches. Lamb dint have a watch. Smith gave an estimated time so I’d suggest that he didn’t have a watch.

[bolo]

Hi Herlock, all,

What watches Michael? You keep assuming that they had watches. Lamb dint have a watch. Smith gave an estimated time so I’d suggest that he didn’t have a watch.

people bringing in timings and picking the time estimates from witnesses that fit their theories best is not uncommon in Ripperology, even though it not only is rather unscientific but also seems to ignore the fact that average East Enders rarely owned watches. They had to rely on public clocks or clock strikes from church towers and more often than not, it was just guesswork. That's why I take theories that rely on more or less exact timings with a grain of salt.

Grüße,

Boris

[Michael W Richards]

I honestly don’t get it George. To me it’s as clear as daylight what happened, in what order and at what time (given a reasonable margin for error in timings of course.) I know that you’re not proposing any kind of cover-up George but in the total absence of reasons to lie were just left with errors of estimations. We should have no problems with 2 or 3 minutes but people like Hoschberg, Kozebrodski and Spooner who talk about being in the yard at 12.35/12.45 were very obviously mistaken and should be dismissed. Like Fanny Mortimer, who I wouldn’t have trusted to tell me what day it was.

You seem to have little problem with the timings or accounts because you just assume that the wrong times are the ones that conflict with what your perceptions are. What you dont seem to realize is that 2 sighted people cannot be in the exact same place at the same time and not see each other, nor can 4 people all be mistaken in their times by exactly the same amounts if statements were taken independently, there must be second hand verification for any account to be considered accurate..particularly when the individual accounts clash with a group that has verification by each others independant statements,..the list goes on.

Heschbergh(Hoschberg), Kozebrodski and Spooner were not "obviously mistaken" at all, youve never proven that they were so you should probably stop claiming it. If you have such proof, by all means post it, but we both know that isnt the case, is it? They are assumed wrong by you because youve chosen to believe statements that are contradictory to them.

The truth, if you really care about such matters, is that no-one has even proven anything about timings or arrivals, they all need to be reconciled with actual evidence. You know that Israel saying what he says happened at 12:45 doesnt mean it happened at all, he just says it did and nobody can prove him wrong or right because no-one saw what he says happened but him. Thats why you seek out second party verifications in the first place.

And in the case of Heschberg, Spooner, Kozebrodski and Gillen (reported), they agree with each others details and within a 5 minute parcel of time. You accuse them all of being off by 20 minutes...all of them. Fannys sighting of Goldstein validates his statement, the young couple are seen on the street by both Fanny and Brown....and yet there is not one single second source validation for Israel Schwartzs story, nor Diemshutz arrival time, nor Eagles return time, nor Lave at the gates at 12:45. All the men Ive said would have reason to protect the club and their incomes. As for your post about watches, we are not talking about everyone having them so why claim we were? Pocket watches, wristwatches and clocks..thats all. And as weve already clearly established, police were mandated to know their beat times, so when Lamb says "before" 1 its highly probable by police official times that night he was accurate. Beats and all schedules had specific timings involved, stop insinuating they were mistaken.

We can see Louis was "mistaken" though, he clearly did not arrive as he said in his own words..."precisely" at 1. Fanny didnt see anyone arrive at 1 and she was there. To my knowledge, you werent either.

You trust the men running an anarchist club who are at risk of losing income and jobs if this is seen wrong by the police, and you wont trust Fanny Mortimer with no agenda, Spooner with no agenda, and Kozebrodski who tells you in his own words what time he met with Louis in the passageway.

Choices....Ive always said people choose to believe things about these crimes, and many choices are provably incorrect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You seem to have little problem with the timings or accounts because you just assume that the wrong times are the ones that conflict with what your perceptions are. What you dont seem to realize is that 2 sighted people cannot be in the exact same place at the same time and not see each other, nor can 4 people all be mistaken in their times by exactly the same amounts if statements were taken independently, there must be second hand verification for any account to be considered accurate..particularly when the individual accounts clash with a group that has verification by each others independant statements,..the list goes on.

Of course 2 sighted people can’t be in the same place at the same time and not see each other but a simple explanation would be that the times were not exact. If 2 people said that they were at x at 12.00 but they didn’t see each other then it could be that one just missed the other. Maybe by a matter of seconds. It doesn’t follow that one of them lied.

Can 4 people all be mistaken? Of course! 10 people can all be mistaken. It’s no stretch of anyone’s imagination so why do you find it so astounding? The 4 that you rely on were mistaken. Provably mistaken.

Heschbergh(Hoschberg), Kozebrodski and Spooner were not "obviously mistaken" at all, youve never proven that they were so you should probably stop claiming it. If you have such proof, by all means post it, but we both know that isnt the case, is it? They are assumed wrong by you because youve chosen to believe statements that are contradictory to them.

Spooner said that he arrived at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb. It’s in black and white and cannot be disputed. Therefore you should desist in using him. It doesn’t reflect well.

Morris Eagle said that he was called to the body at 1.00 backed up by Gilleman who would have been questioned by the police. Then Brown hears the calls for the police around 1.00. All that you have is to keep calling someone like Eagle a liar. Anyone could call anyone a liar but there’s no evidence for it. The evidence tells us that Diemschutz discovered the body at 1.00. The suggestion that it wasn’t isn’t even worthy of discussion.

Yet again Michael you refuse to answer an awkward questions.

Why did your all seeing Fanny Mortimer not see Hoschberg at 12.45 if you say that she should have seen Schwartz at the same time?

Why did she not see Spooner and Diemschutz returning at 12.35?

Why did she not see Morris Eagle at 12.45?

Why did she not she Diemschutz returning early (as you claim he did)?

Why didn’t she see the alleged Koz going for the police earlier that 1.00?

And yet you rely on Fanny when it suits you to.

The truth, if you really care about such matters, is that no-one has even proven anything about timings or arrivals, they all need to be reconciled with actual evidence. You know that Israel saying what he says happened at 12:45 doesnt mean it happened at all, he just says it did and nobody can prove him wrong or right because no-one saw what he says happened but him. Thats why you seek out second party verifications in the first place.

He had no reason to lie Michael. A fictional plot doesn’t count I’m afraid.

And in the case of Heschberg, Spooner, Kozebrodski and Gillen (reported), they agree with each others details and within a 5 minute parcel of time. You accuse them all of being off by 20 minutes...all of them.

How many times do I have to say this Michael….THERE WAS NO ONE CALLED GILLEN ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CASE.

Where is there 4????

Please, please Michael, just for this once, tell me why you keep quoting Gilleman as proving an earlier discovery time? Eagle said that he called him around 1.00!

So that’s Spooner and Gilleman absolutely and categorically off your list. Gone. Leaving 2 blokes guessing the time.

Its beyond feeble Michael. You have 2 utterly useless witnesses. Who both contradict your star witness Fanny by the way. It couldn’t get worse really.

Fannys sighting of Goldstein validates his statement,

Please point us all in the direction of the statement where Goldstein himself says what time he passed.

the young couple are seen on the street by both Fanny and Brown....and yet there is not one single second source validation for Israel Schwartzs story, nor Diemshutz arrival time, nor Eagles return time, nor Lave at the gates at 12:45. All the men Ive said would have reason to protect the club and their incomes. As for your post about watches, we are not talking about everyone having them so why claim we were? Pocket watches, wristwatches and clocks..thats all. And as weve already clearly established, police were mandated to know their beat times, so when Lamb says "before" 1 its highly probable by police official times that night he was accurate. Beats and all schedules had specific timings involved, stop insinuating they were mistaken.

I genuinely don’t know how you have the nerve to post such dishonesty Michael. I was hoping that you’d decided on a more reasoned approach but clearly not. Your obsession continues to warp your judgment.

Lamb: “About 1 o’clock, as near as I can tell,” does that sound accurate to you? Does that sound like someone who couldn’t have been 5 or 6 minutes out. Please end this desperation.

We can see Louis was "mistaken" though, he clearly did not arrive as he said in his own words..."precisely" at 1.00.

More dishonesty I’m afraid. As Frank explained ages ago (and you ignored it because it was inconvenient) it would have taken Diemschutz less than a minute to have gotten from the clock to the yard. So still 1.00. Yes of course it might have been near 1.01 when he saw the clock but surely even you can’t quibble over a minute?

Fanny didnt see anyone arrive at 1 and she was there. To my knowledge, you werent either.

Its not all that Fanny missed though is it Michael. But we can just brush those under the carpet I suppose.

You trust the men running an anarchist club who are at risk of losing income and jobs if this is seen wrong by the police, and you wont trust Fanny Mortimer with no agenda, Spooner with no agenda, and Kozebrodski who tells you in his own words what time he met with Louis in the passageway.

Rubbish. There’s not a chance in the world that when finding a body his thoughts would have been “mein gott, this will get ze club closed!” It’s a joke.

Choices....Ive always said people choose to believe things about these crimes, and many choices are provably incorrect.

We know exactly what’s gone one here in your thinking.

1. You need to show that Stride wasn’t a ripper victim to support your Isenschmidt theory.

2. You come up with the ‘club members plot.’

3. You utilise timing errors that would always occur at that time and in that location.

You’ve invented a plot to bolster a theory. It’s perfectly obvious what you’ve done. And it has to be said (again) after 20 years of peddling it I can’t say that I’m surprised that your still a lone voice on this one. It’s way, way past time that you got the message Michael. Sorry, but it’s embarrassing.

[Michael W Richards]

We know exactly what’s gone one here in your thinking.

1. You need to show that Stride wasn’t a ripper victim to support your Isenschmidt theory.

2. You come up with the ‘club members plot.’

3. You utilise timing errors that would always occur at that time and in that location.

You’ve invented a plot to bolster a theory. It’s perfectly obvious what you’ve done. And it has to be said (again) after 20 years of peddling it I can’t say that I’m surprised that your still a lone voice on this one. It’s way, way past time that you got the message Michael. Sorry, but it’s embarrassing.

I dont need to show Jack didnt Rip Liz Stride, she wasnt ripped and there was no interruption evident. The facts prove it, no need for me to continue to argue it other than to address posts that clearly do not accept the facts.

I dont have an Isenschmidt theory, although I do admit he is a good candidate for C1 and 2.

The club members disagree on events and times, again, not my doing, just reciting records. You choose not to believe the ones that have support and instead support stories that have details that not one other witness verifies. Thats the crux...choice, as I said.

The errors in timing may well be intentional in some cases, and the conflicts in timings cannot be reconciled using all the relevant statements for the time and event.

Herlock, you clearly indicate that you choose not to believe the times I feel are supported, but stop suggesting that by throwing them out summarily, all is well. Prove just one incorrect and I can finally stop correcting those assertions by you. The facts are that the men I suggest modified real times and events had every reason to believe their incomes would be adversely affected by a suspicion by police of their involvement in Strides death. It would be bad for all immigrant Jews there, but worse for ones that made money from the club. Thats a motive to lie. Ive shown motive and cited their non-validated stories and statements by other witnesses that directly contradict them...in some cases, multiple witness accounts that agree with each others.

Ive shown motive, reason and cited real concerning contradictions between the men attached to the club formally and others with no direct responsibility for or to the club, and have used Inquest records to illustrate the red herring Israel Schwartz is here. Ive raised doubt about the accepted versions of what happened there that night, and youve claimed that all the problems go away when you discard all the "concerning contradictions" statements.

Not constructive and certainly not answering the questions posed.

Ive said before, perhaps youve been looking at the club with rose colored glasses for some reason, but they were in deep trouble when a body is found on their property, with no-one seen on the street and 30 or so people at that site at that time. From a distance it appears that Strides killer could have only come from the club. Thats the only evidence read possible. Unless of course you choose to believe magically appearing people who vanish like they appeared, and stories that are given by the men with the most to lose. I dont.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I dont need to show Jack didnt Rip Liz Stride, she wasnt ripped and there was no interruption evident. The facts prove it, no need for me to continue to argue it other than to address posts that clearly do not accept the facts.

So you still have no sense of embarrassment about making this laughable statement? An intent is a thought. I can sit here intending to get up and make a cup of tea but if I change my mind what evidence would there be of my ‘intent?’ Answer of course….none. We cannot expect to have seen evidence of interruption. If the killer was interrupted as he cut her throat then no evidence of interruption would exist. Your suggestion is an offence to reason and possibly the silliest thing that anyone has ever said on the subject. As ever Michael, you do yourself no favours by repeating it.

I dont have an Isenschmidt theory, although I do admit he is a good candidate for C1 and 2.

But not for c4 and c5 therefore he didn’t kill c1 and c2 and he wasn’t the ripper. The chances of a different person killing Chapman and Eddowes must be millions to one.

The club members disagree on events and times, again, not my doing, just reciting records. You choose not to believe the ones that have support and instead support stories that have details that not one other witness verifies. Thats the crux...choice, as I said.

They don’t have support. You avoid assessing them with reason and common sense. You simply latch onto very obvious errors.

The errors in timing may well be intentional in some cases, and the conflicts in timings cannot be reconciled using all the relevant statements for the time and event.

Yes they can and they have been. We can reconstruct events and pick out the ones that are mistaken. And the obviously mistaken ones are the ones that you choose to believe because it suits you.

Herlock, you clearly indicate that you choose not to believe the times I feel are supported, but stop suggesting that by throwing them out summarily, all is well. Prove just one incorrect and I can finally stop correcting those assertions by you.

We have PROVEN Spooner to have been incorrect. For Christ’s sake Michael he even contradicts himself and yet you ignore this.

Eagle, backed by Gilleman, puts the discovery at around 1.00. But you put your fingers in your ears and repeat “liar” without a shred of evidence. How is that evidence?

The facts are that the men I suggest modified real times and events had every reason to believe their incomes would be adversely affected by a suspicion by police of their involvement in Strides death.

Drivel.

It would be bad for all immigrant Jews there, but worse for ones that made money from the club. Thats a motive to lie. Ive shown motive and cited their non-validated stories and statements by other witnesses that directly contradict them...in some cases, multiple witness accounts that agree with each others.

Drivel.

Ive shown motive, reason and cited real concerning contradictions between the men attached to the club formally and others with no direct responsibility for or to the club, and have used Inquest records to illustrate the red herring Israel Schwartz is here. Ive raised doubt about the accepted versions of what happened there that night, and youve claimed that all the problems go away when you discard all the "concerning contradictions" statements.

Biased drivel.

Not constructive and certainly not answering the questions posed.

How childish. You refuse to answer questions because you CANNOT! It’s your ongoing tactic Michael. Anything tat you can’t answer you ignore and hope that I forget about it. It’s desperate stuff.

Ive said before, perhaps youve been looking at the club with rose colored glasses for some reason,

And we know why you view events with the conspiracy goggles on. I have no bias on this issue. I’m not reliant on any facts to propose a suspect and I’ve always accepted that Stride might not have been a ripper victim. So who has reason to be biased. I’ll give you a clue Michael….it’s not me.

but they were in deep trouble when a body is found on their property,

They were in no trouble. Everyone alive at the time would have considered this a ripper killing (whether it was or not) on what planet would club members think that the police would blame them for where Jack the Ripper committed a murder. Your ‘motive’ beggars belief. Probably why only you believe it I guess.

with no-one seen on the street and 30 or so people at that site at that time. From a distance it appears that Strides killer could have only come from the club. Thats the only evidence read possible.

If you use the logic of a 6 year old yes. No one saw an incident that took a matter of seconds in a deserted street. Of course nothing ever happens without it being witnessed does it? Very silly thinking.

Unless of course you choose to believe magically appearing people who vanish like they appeared, and stories that are given by the men with the most to lose. I dont.

And you can continue to propose a self serving theory based on a laughable premise to achieve a set purpose by using the most feeble evidence ever.

However we disagree at least I don’t embarrassingly and shamefully refuse to answer inconvenient questions. This is not honest debate. You can’t have honest debate when one person deliberately ignores the inconvenient and invents evidence (Gilleman). Ok, I’ll try one more…

Please tell us on what basis you continue to quote Gilleman (remember that there’s no Gillen) as proof of an earlier discovery time when the only mention of him in the entire case by Eagle who said that he called him to the body at around 1.00?

[harry]

But Herlock,if you did make a cup of tea,that would show an intent existed.Intent,in most murders,is obvious.It is shown quite clearly in the Whitechapel killings.The killer intended to kill.I agree however that it would be difficult to show if killing Stride was the sole intent.