The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Would she have realised that the police would have wanted to know this? Of course she would. Did the police mention this fact anywhere? No they didn’t.

Walter Dew was a policeman, and he mentioned it.

Did Goldstein, who came forward voluntarily, mention an earlier visit to Berner Street? No he didn’t.

Actually a later visit, and no, he didn't mention it - for obvious reasons. Also, Goldstein's 'voluntary' visit to the station was owing to Wess dragging him by the ear - nearly 70 hours after the murder. At least, that's what Wess claimed he did. Who knows what sort of 'encouragement' Goldstein really required? And why such a long delay in coming forward? Did he go missing?

Fanny Mortimer saw Goldstein once sometime between 12.30 and 1.00. That’s what we know.

He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Walter Dew was a policeman, and he mentioned it.



Actually a later visit, and no, he didn't mention it - for obvious reasons. Also, Goldstein's 'voluntary' visit to the station was owing to Wess dragging him by the ear - nearly 70 hours after the murder. At least, that's what Wess claimed he did. Who knows what sort of 'encouragement' Goldstein really required? And why such a long delay in coming forward? Did he go missing?



He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

[GBinOz]

But George you surely can’t be trying to deny the possibility that a Constable on his beat when asked at any point in time might not have been 5 minutes out? That’s basically the only question that’s required. “Is it possible that Lamb might have been 5 mins or so out?”

What if he’d seen another clock 5 minutes earlier on his beat that was 5 minutes slow? And that was the clock that he regularly used me not the one Diemschutz saw? Perhaps something distracted him when he passed Diemschutz’ clock?

All that I’m saying George is that many things are possible. Of course Diemschutz might have been slightly out if the clock was wrong. But we have no reason to suspect him of a) lying, or b) being out by any great length of time (I realise of course that you are suggesting a or b)

Hi Herlock,

Can you not see the inconsistancy in proposing that it is accepted that Lamb may have been 5 minutes out in an estimate of 6-7 minutes but at the same time holding fast that Eagle was spot on with his estimate of nearly an hour and a half starting with a 15 minute uncertainty?

I have posed a question to Monty as to how PC's may have determined and/or maintained accurate times on their beat. I noticed that you also asked him on that thread a question about pocket watches, so hopefully we may glean some useful information from his replies. I rather like the last timeline posted by Frank, that contained no actual times. I did notice that Frank had Letchford, Lave and Eagle (all the pesky street wanderers) off the street before Stride and Parcelman took up position opposite the Club.

I don't think that you can just dismiss the account I coloured blue as a matter of fashion, or dismiss without any evidence the reporter's statement about the woman being the wife of an artisan, and therefore not Mortimer. If this was a different woman she may have left her door around the same time a Mortimer and therefore missed seeing Stride and Schwartz, but she said she saw Goldstein walking up Berner St, and that has to be accepted, like it or not. Besides, Goldstein was seen walking down Berner St on his way home from the coffee shop, so he had to get to the coffee shop in the first place, possibly by walking up Berner St.

I noticed that in one of your posts you referred to Schwartz "turning out of Berner St". My understanding is that he continued in Berner St, but at a faster pace, to the railway arches?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lamb said that he saw Eagle ‘just before’ or ‘around 1.00.’ Take your pick. Can you say that he couldn’t have been 5 minutes out? Can you say that if you’d have asked Lamb the time at any point in time during his beat he’d always have been correct and never 5 minutes or so out? I don’t see why this is such an issue George?

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

or

“Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street.”

Why should one be preferable to another?

Did he have a watch? No.

Did he say “I’d just seen a clock and…?” No

He’s clearly estimating and we know that an estimation can be wrong and that the smaller margin the less objectionable this should be. But Diemschutz wasn’t estimating.

So why should there be an objection to a man simply seeing a clock and telling the time or an estimating police man being 5 minutes out George? I honestly don’t get it.

[Michael W Richards]

Lamb said that he saw Eagle ‘just before’ or ‘around 1.00.’ Take your pick. Can you say that he couldn’t have been 5 minutes out? Can you say that if you’d have asked Lamb the time at any point in time during his beat he’d always have been correct and never 5 minutes or so out? I don’t see why this is such an issue George?

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

or

“Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street.”

Why should one be preferable to another?

Did he have a watch? No.

Did he say “I’d just seen a clock and…?” No

He’s clearly estimating and we know that an estimation can be wrong and that the smaller margin the less objectionable this should be. But Diemschutz wasn’t estimating.

So why should there be an objection to a man simply seeing a clock and telling the time or an estimating police man being 5 minutes out George? I honestly don’t get it.

Ok, youve already been advised that policemen would be giving fairly precise timings based on their own clock and their timing mandates, you know that virtually every timepiece available outdoors isnt sncy'd with any specific source like policemen would sync their own times by station clocks, and you have people who are estimating times with varying intervals between time acquisition and the actual time claimed, like Issac K and Heschberg estimating a time based on what time was available to them in the club with its clock...this was a meeting hall, there would be a very visible clock for anyone to see.

Stop alleging that people who just had access to a clock wouldnt be able to guesstimate if 10 minutes had expired.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, youve already been advised that policemen would be giving fairly precise timings based on their own clock

Which policemen are you talking about who ‘have their own clock?’ Certainly not Smith or Lamb. Without a clock/watch and unless every other building that they passed had a prominent clock we cannot state with confidence that a Constable, at any given time, could have given a ‘fairly precise’ time (whatever that means) Certainly they would have been likely to have been likely to have been ‘fairly close’ to the correct time but that’s all.

and their timing mandates,

Yes, they were expected to maintain a steady pace and beat was expected to take a fairly consistent time.

you know that virtually every timepiece available outdoors isnt sncy'd with any specific source like policemen would sync their own times by station clocks,

Again, you say “their own times” insinuating that they had watches. Why?

and you have people who are estimating times with varying intervals between time acquisition and the actual time claimed, like Issac K and Heschberg estimating a time based on what time was available to them in the club with its clock...this was a meeting hall, there would be a very visible clock for anyone to see.

I’ve said this before Michael but because it does suit your script you ignore it. Just because a clock exists does NOT mean that someone must have used it. And unless you visited the IWMEC in 1888 you cannot say where in the club this clock was located. Look at the facts (I know you hate facts but…)

Eagle, Kozebrodski and Hoschberg were all in the club with a clock available and yet all of them estimated their times. Which, as any child could understand, means that they didn’t check the clock near to the time stated.

Stop alleging that people who just had access to a clock wouldnt be able to guesstimate if 10 minutes had expired.

When you stop assuming that because a clock existed that someone looked at it. And when you stop ignoring the facts.

.

Ive re-read your post 3 times just to try and evaluate whether you just simply get things wrong or whether it’s deliberate misinformation and I have to say that I have to go for the latter. You just can’t continually do this unintentionally.

Kozebrodski and Hoschberg were wrong. Grow up and understand this.

[GBinOz]

Lamb said that he saw Eagle ‘just before’ or ‘around 1.00.’ Take your pick. Can you say that he couldn’t have been 5 minutes out? Can you say that if you’d have asked Lamb the time at any point in time during his beat he’d always have been correct and never 5 minutes or so out? I don’t see why this is such an issue George?

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

or

“Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street.”

Why should one be preferable to another?

Did he have a watch? No.

Did he say “I’d just seen a clock and…?” No

He’s clearly estimating and we know that an estimation can be wrong and that the smaller margin the less objectionable this should be. But Diemschutz wasn’t estimating.

So why should there be an objection to a man simply seeing a clock and telling the time or an estimating police man being 5 minutes out George? I honestly don’t get it.

Hi Herlock,

Sorry, but you have completely avoided the question, which was:
Can you not see the inconsistancy in proposing that it is accepted that Lamb may have been 5 minutes out in an estimate of 6-7 minutes but at the same time holding fast that Eagle was spot on with his estimate of nearly an hour and a half starting with a 15 minute uncertainty?

From the Morning Advertiser 1 Oct 1888:
Morris Eagle states:- "I am a Russian, and am a traveller in the jewellery line. I am a member of the club, and was present last (Saturday) night at the discussion. I went away about 12 o'clock, to take my young lady home. I was away with her about 40 minutes, and then I came back to the club with the intention of having supper. There were plenty of people about then, both men and women. The front door of the club was closed when I returned, so I passed through the yard and entered at the back. I walked up the middle of the yard. I noticed nothing then. After I had been in the club 20 minutes the steward came in and said there was a woman lying in the yard. I went down into the yard and saw the blood, and afterwards assisted to find the police."

Daily Telegraph report of the Inquest:
Morris Eagle, who also affirmed, said: I live at No. 4, New-road, Commercial-road, and travel in jewellery. I am a member of the International Workmen's Club, which meets at 40, Berner-street. I was there on Saturday, several times during the day, and was in the chair during the discussion in the evening. After the discussion, between half-past eleven and a quarter to twelve o'clock, I left the club to take my young lady home, going out through the front door. I returned about twenty minutes to one. I tried the front door, but, finding it closed, I went through the gateway into the yard, reaching the club in that way.

Are you are saying that a man who didn't know, from one day to the next, what time he left the club within a half hour, and is estimating a time of one and a half hours, can deduce a more accurate time than a police constable estimating 6-7 minutes? You insist that Lamb was five minutes out but that Eagle was precise in his estimate of 1am. Can you say that Eagle couldn't have been 15 minutes out? And there is no question of whether he looked at a clock because he specifically said he didn't - you provided that reference yourself in another thread.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

'Remembering that in every other statement before the inquest he said he turned into Berner St at his usual time of about one o'clock, except for one statement where he said 12:45 because he came home early due to the rain...'

Hi George,

Could you source this for me please, as I could have sworn the report you appear to be thinking of said something quite different? I thought Louis consistently said he noted the time as being one o'clock, but expanded on this in one article to say this was not his usual time, because he had left the Westow Hill market early due to the poor weather, so would normally have arrived back later than one o'clock. At the time I read the article in question, I thought this sounded consistent with his wife saying he had "suddenly" appeared at the kitchen door, as if she hadn't expected him back quite so soon. And she confirmed the one o'clock time, didn't she?

I don't recall reading anything to suggest that Louis had deviated from his one o'clock arrival/discovery time, let alone that he had slipped up somewhere along the line and said it was 12.45. Perhaps someone should have alerted Michael Richards to this bombshell a lot sooner.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I have been living in fear and dread that someone was going to ask for that reference. I'm sure you've experienced the frustration of looking for a reference that you read sometime in the past.
Never the less I have found the one I was thinking of....sort of...my memory seems to have mixed it in with the poor weather quote to which you referred. Anyway here it is:-
From the Irish Times 1 Oct 1888:
Lewis, who is now found to have been on the spot rather than Koster, is the steward at the Socialist Club at No. 40, and in addition he travels in some drapery goods, the purchase of which, according to his friends necessitated his attending last night's market. He seems to have returned home about a quarter to 1, and to have proceeded up the entry which, though not narrow, is a very dark one, for the purpose of putting up his pony and trap.

With regard to your comment that "his wife saying he had "suddenly" appeared at the kitchen door, as if she hadn't expected him back quite so soon", wouldn't that also apply if she was expecting him at his usual time of about one o'clock but he turned up 15-20 minutes early?

The whole clock time debate is very frustrating. Fanny Mortimer was quoting times between 12:30 and 1am and referred to a young couple in the street that she thought were there at the time of the murder - the couple that Brown probably mistook for Stride et al. But then there is this:-
From The Echo, 1 Oct 1888:
From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.
"We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."

I suspect that she considered her last sentance to be significant, I just can't figure out why? If this timing were correct then the couple were gone before Smith arrived, and Brown's times would need to be adjusted.

With regard to your comment that I have shown bold, in nearly all the interviews with Diemshitz on 1 Oct, he stated he arrived back at his "usual time of about one o'clock" (there was one that spoke of the clock striking one - pleeeese don't ask for a reference). The next day at the inquest he suddenly remembers that he looked at the Harris/Tobacconist/Baker's clock and it was exactly one o'clock. To accept this you have to believe that a man, tired from a long day, on a small horse drawn cart turning right across a major thoroughfare with an oblique view of a small clock in the front window of a shop that was unlikey to be lit, at that hour, by anything but the street gaslamp was able to discern that the clock read exactly one o'clock but then completely forgot about it until the day after at the inquest.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I’ve said this before Michael but because it does suit your script you ignore it. Just because a clock exists does NOT mean that someone must have used it.

Kozebrodski and Hoschberg were wrong. Grow up and understand this.

“Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.”

Herlock......You have maintained that while Diemshitz and Lamb passed the tobacconist clock, Diemshitz said he looked at the clock, so he did, and Lamb didn't specifically say that he did, so he probably didn't. On that logic, Eagle, Kozebrodski and Hoschberg were all in the club with a clock available. Eagle specifically said he didn't look at the clock, so he didn't, and Kozebrodski and Hoschenberg didn't specifically say they didn't look at the clock, so they probably did.

You can't know that Kozebrodski and Hoschberg were wrong or that they didn't look at a clock in the club. The only person that you can know was estimating was Eagle, from and hour and a half before with a half hour margin for starting time.

"Just because a clock exists does NOT mean that someone must have used it." It also doesn't mean that you can deduce as a fact that they didn't use it.

People usually look at clocks when they need to know the time. If I were told that there was a body in my front yard and there was a clock available, I would look at it. If I were a police officer called to a murder site and there was a clock available I would most certainly look at it as my career may depend on it. If I were a pedlar on a horse drawn cart crossing a road one minute from home would I need to know the time...nah...I'll look at the clock in the club when I get there.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Caz,

I have been living in fear and dread that someone was going to ask for that reference. I'm sure you've experienced the frustration of looking for a reference that you read sometime in the past.
Never the less I have found the one I was thinking of....sort of...my memory seems to have mixed it in with the poor weather quote to which you referred. Anyway here it is:-
From the Irish Times 1 Oct 1888:
Lewis, who is now found to have been on the spot rather than Koster, is the steward at the Socialist Club at No. 40, and in addition he travels in some drapery goods, the purchase of which, according to his friends necessitated his attending last night's market. He seems to have returned home about a quarter to 1, and to have proceeded up the entry which, though not narrow, is a very dark one, for the purpose of putting up his pony and trap.

George,
the fear was that the real discoverer of the body - Isaac Kozebrodsky - was going to have the finger pointed at him. So the story became that Diemschitz made the discovery at 1am - which was perhaps 5 or 10 minutes after the murder - and who then called Isaacs into the yard. Why do you suppose there was blood running all the way to side door by the time Diemschitz' wife first saw the body, even though the sound of pony & cart supposedly caused the murderer to flee? Why do you suppose that 17 year-old Kozebrodsky, with only partial English, insisted on talking to the press?

With regard to your comment that "his wife saying he had "suddenly" appeared at the kitchen door, as if she hadn't expected him back quite so soon", wouldn't that also apply if she was expecting him at his usual time of about one o'clock but he turned up 15-20 minutes early?

Mrs D: I am positive I did not hear any screams or sound of any kind. Even the singing on the floor above would not have prevented me from hearing them, had there been any. In the yard itself all was as silent as the grave.

I reckon she heard him come home, just fine.

The whole clock time debate is very frustrating. Fanny Mortimer was quoting times between 12:30 and 1am and referred to a young couple in the street that she thought were there at the time of the murder - the couple that Brown probably mistook for Stride et al. But then there is this:-
From The Echo, 1 Oct 1888:
From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.
"We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."

I suspect that she considered her last sentance to be significant, I just can't figure out why? If this timing were correct then the couple were gone before Smith arrived, and Brown's times would need to be adjusted.

The first couple had gone by 12:30 (although the girl may have subsequently come out again, after hearing the commotion). The second couple were at the board school corner in the period leading up to the murder, and then spoke to Fanny Mortimer. There were two couples. This is more evidence that there were people on and near Berner street in the last hour before the murder. The notion that Fanny only saw one man the entire time she were outside, is highly improbable.

With regard to your comment that I have shown bold, in nearly all the interviews with Diemshitz on 1 Oct, he stated he arrived back at his "usual time of about one o'clock" (there was one that spoke of the clock striking one - pleeeese don't ask for a reference). The next day at the inquest he suddenly remembers that he looked at the Harris/Tobacconist/Baker's clock and it was exactly one o'clock. To accept this you have to believe that a man, tired from a long day, on a small horse drawn cart turning right across a major thoroughfare with an oblique view of a small clock in the front window of a shop that was unlikey to be lit, at that hour, by anything but the street gaslamp was able to discern that the clock read exactly one o'clock but then completely forgot about it until the day after at the inquest.

The Times, Oct 1:

On the arrival of the superintendent from Leman-street police-station, steps were immediately taken to ascertain whether the members of the club were in any way connected with the murder. The names and addresses of all the men present were taken, and a rigorous search of the premises was instituted, much to the annoyance of the members. The residents in the court had to submit to a similar scrutiny. In neither case, however, was any incriminating evidence discovered. It was 5 o'clock before the police had finished their investigations at the club for, in addition to the search referred to above, inquiries were made which resulted in a number of written statements which had to be signed.

Did Louis sign one of those statements? After 5am, he said this to the press:

In her right hand were tightly clasped some grapes, and in her left she held a number of sweetmeats.

The next day, he told the coroner:

I did not notice what position her hands were in. I only noticed that the dress buttons of her dress were undone.

So what do you suppose he said about grapes, in his initial statement? What do you suppose he said about his arrival time?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Sorry, but you have completely avoided the question, which was:
Can you not see the inconsistancy in proposing that it is accepted that Lamb may have been 5 minutes out in an estimate of 6-7 minutes but at the same time holding fast that Eagle was spot on with his estimate of nearly an hour and a half starting with a 15 minute uncertainty?

From the Morning Advertiser 1 Oct 1888:
Morris Eagle states:- "I am a Russian, and am a traveller in the jewellery line. I am a member of the club, and was present last (Saturday) night at the discussion. I went away about 12 o'clock, to take my young lady home. I was away with her about 40 minutes, and then I came back to the club with the intention of having supper. There were plenty of people about then, both men and women. The front door of the club was closed when I returned, so I passed through the yard and entered at the back. I walked up the middle of the yard. I noticed nothing then. After I had been in the club 20 minutes the steward came in and said there was a woman lying in the yard. I went down into the yard and saw the blood, and afterwards assisted to find the police."

Daily Telegraph report of the Inquest:
Morris Eagle, who also affirmed, said: I live at No. 4, New-road, Commercial-road, and travel in jewellery. I am a member of the International Workmen's Club, which meets at 40, Berner-street. I was there on Saturday, several times during the day, and was in the chair during the discussion in the evening. After the discussion, between half-past eleven and a quarter to twelve o'clock, I left the club to take my young lady home, going out through the front door. I returned about twenty minutes to one. I tried the front door, but, finding it closed, I went through the gateway into the yard, reaching the club in that way.

Are you are saying that a man who didn't know, from one day to the next, what time he left the club within a half hour, and is estimating a time of one and a half hours, can deduce a more accurate time than a police constable estimating 6-7 minutes? You insist that Lamb was five minutes out but that Eagle was precise in his estimate of 1am. Can you say that Eagle couldn't have been 15 minutes out? And there is no question of whether he looked at a clock because he specifically said he didn't - you provided that reference yourself in another thread.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

Im not deliberately avoiding any question I’m simply trying to make sense of a series of estimated times. Anyone who estimates a time could have been wrong, including Lamb and Eagle (whilst accepting that a policeman would be likelier to have been accurate due to the nature of their jobs.) We can only do this by judging them in relation to other events (that we can also assess the likely accuracy of)

Setting aside the possibility of clocks being unsynchronised just for the purpose of this point we have Louis Diemschutz. Using my own assessment (posted on the other thread) as far as times were concerned Diemschutz was a Category A witness. He specifically stated that he’d seen a clock and he was adamant that he’d seen it clearly enough to state that it was 1.00 when he’d passed it. Could he have been mistaken? Not impossible I guess but we just can’t assume it and because of his level of confidence I’d say that it was unlikely. So I see no issue with saying, on the information that we have available to us, it’s very likely that Louis Diemschutz passed that clock at 1.00 (according to that specific clock of course)

So if there’s a high likelihood of this being correct (and I maintain that there is) then we have to accept that Lamb first saw Morris Eagle after this; therefore after 1.00 (and not before it)

Your point about Eagle is worth noting of course but there would also have been Gilleman to interview (who Eagle said called him down to see the body around 1.00) Then we have Brown who went to a shop then walked the short distance home and then ate his supper which allowed him to estimate a time of hearing the men shouting for a Constable (again, around 1.00)

……

Now, of course it’s possible that Lamb didn’t use the same clock as Diemschutz to gauge his time. Maybe experience had told him that he couldn’t rely on its accuracy? So perhaps it was fast and that when Louis saw it the actual time was 12.55. And that when Eagle got to Lamb it was actually 1.00. Does this change anything? Does this strengthen any claim of cover up? (and again George, I know that you’re not proposing one) It doesn’t. It all comes within the ‘reasonable margin for error’ allowance that we should apply to all.

So I’m not saying that Eagle must have been exact in his timing. To be totally honest George (and I’ve said this before) I’m not hung up on times. I only end up discussing them in response to some who try to skew things in favour of a cover up. So my preferred way of looking at events is Stride was killed by unknown man…..Diemschutz found the body…..they went looking for the police….the police arrived….then the doctors. There’s nothing suspicious in the slightest about any of this unless we take a position (and you don’t) that we have to take every stated time as the literal truth.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.”

Herlock......You have maintained that while Diemshitz and Lamb passed the tobacconist clock, Diemshitz said he looked at the clock, so he did, and Lamb didn't specifically say that he did, so he probably didn't. On that logic, Eagle, Kozebrodski and Hoschberg were all in the club with a clock available. Eagle specifically said he didn't look at the clock, so he didn't, and Kozebrodski and Hoschenberg didn't specifically say they didn't look at the clock, so they probably did.

You can't know that Kozebrodski and Hoschberg were wrong or that they didn't look at a clock in the club. The only person that you can know was estimating was Eagle, from and hour and a half before with a half hour margin for starting time.

"Just because a clock exists does NOT mean that someone must have used it." It also doesn't mean that you can deduce as a fact that they didn't use it.

People usually look at clocks when they need to know the time. If I were told that there was a body in my front yard and there was a clock available, I would look at it. If I were a police officer called to a murder site and there was a clock available I would most certainly look at it as my career may depend on it. If I were a pedlar on a horse drawn cart crossing a road one minute from home would I need to know the time...nah...I'll look at the clock in the club when I get there.

Cheers, George

Im not saying or implying these things George. If anyone, no matter who, doesn’t mention seeing a clock then we can’t assume that they did. Obviously if Hoschberg had said, for example, “I know for a fact that it was definitely 12.45” then we would have to conclude that his confidence could only have been due to him seeing a clock at the time.

So, to be accurate, I can’t say that Lamb didn’t look at that clock, only that he didn’t mention looking at that specific clock. As I said in the above post maybe he knew that it was unreliable and so took his times from a different clock. I don’t see anything implausible about this George.

In your last paragraph George you are suggesting how you would think or act. That can’t always be applied to Victorians. You’re surely not suggesting that Diemschutz would have said to himself “I wonder what the time is? Shall I turn my head to look at the clock in the shop window? No I’ll wait until I get back?”

Hoschberg’s wording implies about as strongly as possible that he didn’t check a clock at the time.

“ It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think.”

He couldn’t really sound less confident could he? He then said:

”…when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter.”

Could that have been anyone but Lamb? Close enough to be heard in the club above the voices. So how could this have occurred at 12.45?

[Herlock Sholmes]

George,
the fear was that the real discoverer of the body - Isaac Kozebrodsky - was going to have the finger pointed at him. So the story became that Diemschitz made the discovery at 1am - which was perhaps 5 or 10 minutes after the murder - and who then called Isaacs into the yard. Why do you suppose there was blood running all the way to side door by the time Diemschitz' wife first saw the body, even though the sound of pony & cart supposedly caused the murderer to flee? Why do you suppose that 17 year-old Kozebrodsky, with only partial English, insisted on talking to the press?



Mrs D: I am positive I did not hear any screams or sound of any kind. Even the singing on the floor above would not have prevented me from hearing them, had there been any. In the yard itself all was as silent as the grave.

I reckon she heard him come home, just fine.



The first couple had gone by 12:30 (although the girl may have subsequently come out again, after hearing the commotion). The second couple were at the board school corner in the period leading up to the murder, and then spoke to Fanny Mortimer. There were two couples. This is more evidence that there were people on and near Berner street in the last hour before the murder. The notion that Fanny only saw one man the entire time she were outside, is highly improbable.



The Times, Oct 1:

On the arrival of the superintendent from Leman-street police-station, steps were immediately taken to ascertain whether the members of the club were in any way connected with the murder. The names and addresses of all the men present were taken, and a rigorous search of the premises was instituted, much to the annoyance of the members. The residents in the court had to submit to a similar scrutiny. In neither case, however, was any incriminating evidence discovered. It was 5 o'clock before the police had finished their investigations at the club for, in addition to the search referred to above, inquiries were made which resulted in a number of written statements which had to be signed.

Did Louis sign one of those statements? After 5am, he said this to the press:

In her right hand were tightly clasped some grapes, and in her left she held a number of sweetmeats.

The next day, he told the coroner:

I did not notice what position her hands were in. I only noticed that the dress buttons of her dress were undone.

So what do you suppose he said about grapes, in his initial statement? What do you suppose he said about his arrival time?

This one isn’t quite as good as your ‘theory’ that Mrs Richardson ran The Pink Pussycat brothel from the cellar of 29 Hanbury Street but it’s still generous of you to try and lighten the mood with another of your classic joke theories.

So off you go again to rummage around for a different word used in The East London Advertiser or a slight time discrepancy in The Wandsworth And Battersea District Times. Then you can dig away and find that Kozebrodski had a distant uncle called Louis Dumschtein which is too close to have been a coincidence Or that Morris Eagle’s Granny’s brother once lived next door to a Freemason. Or that Abraham Hoschberg once almost choked to death on a grape!

Its just more white noise confirming the public view that Ripperologist are just barking mad, obsessive conspiracy theorists. Halle Rubenhold will love you for it.

Any poster on here that prefers taking a calm, reasoned, evidence-based, logical, common sense approach (which is most posters) look away now. The subject is yet again being dragged kicking and screaming down another ego-filled rabbit hole.

The lunatics are taking over the asylum. I think it’s sad.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So NBFN has realised that the alleged motive for Michael’s plot is so unbelievable that even he can’t support it so he’s taken a side step and proposed that the ‘plot’ was to protect the actual discoverer of the body - Isaac Kozebrodski. Is this believable? Of course not but what can you do?

To suggest that the body was discovered at 12.45 (Michael) or 12.50-12.55 (NBFN) we have to susumu that in a very short space of time these men decided to risk lying to the police without having the remotest chance of controlling the risk that this cover up might have be discovered. Did they get all of the club members together in the yard (unseen by Goldstein passing by of course) with Diemschutz saying “now listen chaps, if the police ask we need you to lie and say that I found the body at 1.00, ok?” With no one saying “err, I’m not lying to the police,” off course. Most remarkable of all of course is the fact that apparently Kozebrodski himself wasn’t even informed of the plan because he failed to stick to the 1.00 script.

So basically, as with Michael’s plot, we have to accept colossal stupidity on the part of the plotters. Firstly of course anyone discovering a body would be questioned closely so why would Kozebrodski have been under a greater risk of suspicion? Then there’s the old question of how they came up with the Schwartz plan (involving a shouted insult!) in such a short time and yet they completely missed the childishly obvious alternative. That someone saw a man with knife leaving the yard shouting at Diemschutz as he left in a discernible accent. No they prefer a vaguer plan. So they select a non-English speaker who doesn’t mind lying about being at the scene of a murder and they don’t mind at all about the risk of someone saying “well I was looking through my window and I saw no incident.” Then we have tame interpreter who can’t even stick to the simplest of scripts. He invents a pointless Pipeman and gives the impression that he can’t even be certain who BS Man was shouting at.


It’s all too silly for words and yet on it goes. And on and on.

[GBinOz]

Im not saying or implying these things George. If anyone, no matter who, doesn’t mention seeing a clock then we can’t assume that they did. Obviously if Hoschberg had said, for example, “I know for a fact that it was definitely 12.45” then we would have to conclude that his confidence could only have been due to him seeing a clock at the time.

So, to be accurate, I can’t say that Lamb didn’t look at that clock, only that he didn’t mention looking at that specific clock. As I said in the above post maybe he knew that it was unreliable and so took his times from a different clock. I don’t see anything implausible about this George.

In your last paragraph George you are suggesting how you would think or act. That can’t always be applied to Victorians. You’re surely not suggesting that Diemschutz would have said to himself “I wonder what the time is? Shall I turn my head to look at the clock in the shop window? No I’ll wait until I get back?”

Hoschberg’s wording implies about as strongly as possible that he didn’t check a clock at the time.

“ It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think.”

He couldn’t really sound less confident could he? He then said:

”…when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter.”

Could that have been anyone but Lamb? Close enough to be heard in the club above the voices. So how could this have occurred at 12.45?

Hi Herlock,

I think that we are in agreement on many points, although that may not be immediately apparent. I am experiencing difficulty in persuading you that the magnitude of error in a long estimate of time is highly likely to be inherently larger than in a short estimate of time. Eagle's estimates are for long periods of time and have a guessed starting time. Estimates are all very well but at some time one has to have seen a clock to establish a starting point, and for Eagle this is an undisclosed time before 11:30. Eagle said he didn't look at the clock when he was back at the club, Gilleman said nothing about time and is unavailable for interview unless you have a functional time machine. The only conclusion that can be arrived at is that on your Category System, Eagle rates down amongst the x,y and z's. Can you accept that Eagle could have been 10-15 minutes out in his hour and a half estimate based on an indeterminate starting time?

For Kozebrodski, he was turning up for work at 12:30, so he probably checked the clock to see if he was on time (according to the club clock's time zone). His ten minute estimate would not be subject to the magnitude of error possible in Eagle's estimate. "I should think" was victorian speak for "I believe this to be true" Hoschberg was estimating, but being in the Club where there was a clock this was likely a shorter estimate than Eagle's.

I am aware that you have labelled FM as an unreliable witness, but I am also aware that you have promoted the idea of recalibrated her times to Smith's passing. So she arrives at her door stoop just after Stride has crossed into the yard so she doesn't see her. She goes back inside just before the Schwartz incident, which is over in a minute or less. Due to clock sync and estimate errors, Eagle and Lave are back in the yard, Brown and Letchford are over before she arrives on the stoop. Here is the point where you and I conflict. FM said she heard Diemshitz pass 4 minutes after going inside, so ABOUT 12:50 plus or minus a few minutes. Given the nature of clock syncs and estimates, we're getting close. I acknowedge that you think Diemshitz looked at the tobacconist clock, but I think he did so only in his head. Or maybe the clock did show 1 o'clock due to sync errors and Lamb was applying a correction. Lamb's "shortly before one o'clock" fits. Johnson's "a few minutes after one o'clock fits Lamb's times but not Blackwell's time of 1:10. I think his pocket watch was fast. If you accept the evidence of the inquest testimony that both Diemshitz and Lamb mistook Johnson for Blackwell, the other times also fit within estimate boundaries.

But as you say, exact times don't really matter that much....until we try to assess the time between the Schwartz incident and the discovery of the body by Diemshitz. If we accepy FM's recalibrated time periods, this could be as short as five minutes or less, rather than the traditional 15 minutes. The shorter the time between the Schwartz incident and the discovery of the body, the fewer the likely suspects and the higher the possibilty that the murder was interrupted.

Cheers, George