Sequence of comings & goings - Stride

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Where do you get the "at her door until just after one" from? As far as I can tell she says that, after hearing the commotion at the club "It was just after one o'clock when I went out". So she was indoors until this time. And had been for several minutes;

"Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard the pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband"

So, she goes inside...approximately four minutes pass as she prepares for bed.... she hears a cart go past.... she hears cries of murder and then goes outside just after one.
What time did she go inside?

If you're going to take that report literally, you have to take the good with the bad...

It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so.

Immediately? So she should see Stride and parcel man almost directly opposite her place - apparently she didn't.

Immediately after shortly before 12:45, implies she is on her doorstep by 12:45. No Schwartz incident reported.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How do you know that “came down” meant from further up Berner Street and not from inside the club?

I don't know for a fact, and I definitely don't know for a definitely ascertained fact.
However, Heshburg's comments sound to me like an inquisitive outsider, rather than a club member or guest.
Also, living at 20 or 28, he metaphorically did live 'up' Berner street, and thus if he had been at home at the time, he would have metaphorically 'come down' to the club.

What's your perspective?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

A perfect example of conspiracy thinking

Nothing can be read into the phrase ‘it appears that.’

It could easily be replaced with ‘according to witnesses.’

It appears that the demand for conspiracy thinking greatly exceeds the supply.

Perhaps you could state what is that I'm 'reading into' this phrase, which supposedly deserves the oh-so convenient conspiracy label?
Who is conspiring to do what, and for what purpose?

I think you may have 'read-in' in me 'reading-in'.
For everyone else; is the irony of that lost on you?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Because the ‘ear pressed to the door’ part was sarcasm. I however can see no reference that her door was open or ajar? I’m sure that most people in that crime-free area simply left there front doors ajar.

By 'left' you mean all evening, whereas the situation we are dealing with could be as little as a few minutes in the front room, ground floor.

What was the general case with the front door at 29 Hanbury street?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The best we can say is that Heshburg arrived after Lamb's whistle and before the gates were closed. A fuller account of Lamb's words (briefly summarised above) from the Telegraph makes it clear that there was a delay between his arrival and their closure;

"When I blew my whistle other constables came, and I had the entrance of the yard closed. This was while Dr. Blackwell was looking at the body. Before that the doors were wide open. The feet of the deceased extended just to the swing of the gate, so that the barrier could be closed without disturbing the body. I entered the club and left a constable at the gate to prevent any one passing in or out."

This is confirmed by Dr Blackwell's assistant, Edward Johnson;

"The outer gates were closed shortly after I came."

Since we know Blackwell didn"t arrive until 1:16, Heshburg had a considerable window of opportunity to reach the gates after hearing Lamb's whistle and before the yard was closed.
It's possible that Lamb is confusing Blackwell with Johnson, but even so, there are still several minutes between whistle and closure. No mystery there. Unless you want one.

What you're suggesting here, is that no constable was immediately put on the gates, and also that prior to both Lamb receiving backup, and the arrival of Ed Johnston, there was a significant period of time when a constable was on the gates, Lamb was inside the club, and the victim was left unattended.

Would it not be a breach of police procedure to leave the victim?

The situation would seem to have some parallels with the Coles case, when PC Thompson almost came face-to-face with the killer, but procedure required him to stay with the victim.

Did that not occur in Dutfield's Yard?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Where do you get your logic from?

The door would have been unlocked all day before finally being locked. In no way does this prove that she’d been on the doorstep earlier.

I get some of my logic from 40 Berner street - when Eagle returned to the club at 12:40, the front door was locked and he had to use the side entrance.

Fanny most likely would have locked up by midnight, had she not any intention of going out.
Either that, or she may have heard the singing commence after the meeting, and decided that when household chores were done, she would treat herself to some of that, and decided not to lock-up at the normal time.

As for being outside previously, one argument for that is what she heard versus what she didn't hear.
She supposedly heard Smith walk by when inside, but did not hear the initial running out of Dutfield's Yard in search of police, including the cries of 'police!'.
It were only when a sizeable crowd had started to assemble, that she heard the commotion.
Thus; door open > door closed
Door open implies a previous visit to the doorstep.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Seems like small people get big britches online

Nice.

The details of the subject under discussion apart........you have done yourself no favours with posts #159 and #159.

Pretty much a disgrace.

End of debate as far as I’m concerned.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Have your fantasy killer Herlock, Im not losing any sleep over your delusions. Ive never tried to re-frame imaginations, I only wanted to discuss these cases using evidence, rational arguments and logical extensions. And with grown ups. They seem to have left the building. They were here at one time, bs like you go on and on shovelling is what made them find more reasonable and rational exploits.

More arrogance. Get a grip Michael your responses have become and embarrassment.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. And I dont believe being talked to in a fashion that pretends that we are equals in any way is entertaining anymore

Showing your true colours Michael?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
If you think that in that as soon as the body was discovered the first thing that they thought was "the police might close the club," then they come up with a useless plan to deflect attention, I'm afraid your in the realms of fantasy.

Four fallible witnesses. All estimating times in retrospect. Of course, in conspiracy, world errors don't happen do they?
Assinine comment.

Arrogant response.

The 'evidence for interruption' nonsense that you keep trotting out. Yeah.... none.

Evidence for interruption is nonsense and you and everyone else knows it. You’ve just trotted out unchallenged for so long that you throw your dummy out of the pram when it is challenged and shown for the irrelevant drivel that it is.

The ineffective and unlikely 'plan.' Fooled you and others didnt it?

Keep telling yourself that only you in the entire world saw through it. One day you might find someone that agrees.

The blatant selectivity regarding Mortimer. Including stating as a fact that she had a clock when we know no such thing. Yeah of course, why would anyone have a clock in their house....or a public gathering place. Folly huh?

Anyone who knows anything about the lower classes in this period and area would have no issue accepting the obvious. Unless it doesn’t suit the theory of course.

The stating that she saw Goldstein at 12.55 when no time was ever given by either Mortimer or Goldstein. I thought that 12:55 was in between 12:50 and 1...but of course Im mistaken about that.

So is 12.51 and 12.53 and 12.57 but quoted an exact time to portray that an exact time had been quoted. But it hadn’t of course.

The dismissal of the timing of s Police Officer who had just walked past a clock just because he contradicts one of your 'star' witnesses. Never dismised anything. Oh, except for the garbage your espousing. Yeah, that I do dismiss...outright.

Genius.

Your dismissal of the '5 minutes before Lamb' which should eliminate him from your 'Berner Street 4'. Oh, so you claim your witnesses have accurate times but none of mine did....again, fascinating.

They’re not my witness or yours. Try and apply at least a semblance of objectivity Michael.

Your refusal to accept that witnesses without watches, and who had zero reason to log the time at the time, could have been mistaken in their guesses. All of my witnesses were inside buildings with....yeah, you guessed it, ...clocks. None of yours were.

Please point me toward the statement or report where Fanny Mortimer is proven to own a clock? I accept that there might have been one in the club though (although is it proven?) but the question that you don’t like hearing is...if someone enters a room in a club and says that a woman had been murdered whats the first thing that would have been done? Go for a look or think “wait, I’d better check the clock first so that I can log the exact time in case I’m questioned by the police at some point” I think that we all know the answer to that one Michael.....well, maybe not all.

You have no evidence for this cover up Michael. Zero. Just 4 witnesses guessing times (and for one of them strong evidence exists to dismiss him)

If anything your posting of self serving rebuttal... baseless and inaccurate... help my cause. Not ONE of those witnesses, well maybe except Spooner, needed to guess. They all knew. Sadly you dont.

Yup. That’s why the word ‘about’ keeps being used.

You've lost this argument Michael. Badly.

If I thought convincing you was my goal Id be wasting my time anyway. Lots of better thinkers read these.

Im not saying that there aren’t cleverer people than me Michael. Or that there aren’t people that know more about the case than I do. I’ll leave the arrogance to you. You obviously have enough self esteem to spare. Unlike my ‘low self esteem’ which you insultingly said of me.

Time to end it though I think. It's strange that you talk of ingrained ideas? You're the one with the theory Michael. Not me or Caz or Frank or Joshua. I've seen you post quite reasonably on other topics so we should ask " why is it that you get so angry on this one?" It's because it's your personal theory and you obviously don't like it being disputed. And this is why it's probably time to wind this one up?

Because stupidity on a board that is supposed to be for serious students angers me.

More arrogance. Those that disagree with you are not only not serious students of the crime but they’re also stupid.

I wish there was a fantasy site for you folks....Jack the one eyed Ripper, Jack Torso Ripper, Jack the killer of all of Londons women,...maybe you should start one up. Invite some of your pals to join in....please.
The fact that youve decided 4 witnesses who substantiate each others accounts in time and activities are "fallible" is the fantasy.

Of course witnesses can’t make mistakes Michael. I’m glad that a serious student of the case like you has pointed this out.

Reality is much harder to swallow when you are so far above such things as statements, facts, and evidence. I understand. I think its screwy logic, rude and without any merit in any known evidence. But I understand what your argument is. A lead balloon.

Of course. That’s why all the serious students of the case agree with you?

In fact....yes, youve heard of those things right, facts?...very few of the serious students and none of the most respected and published researchers stick to this nonsense you folks put forward. Ive communicated with some of the finest authors/researchers here privately and NONE place an unripped woman under Jacks knife.

And, for the ****th time I’ve accepted that the killer might not have been the ripper. The difference is that I don’t claim some kind of infallibility on the subject that comes of an excess of ego.

Just you folks. The fringe. The myth believers...you know I never thought to ask, do you run Ripper tours or have some stake in perpetuating this fantasy? Cause you sure cant handle the truth

I just don’t come up with a scenario and then defend it at all costs which is what your doing. Defending your baby.

[Michael W Richards]

I have no set theories, no suspects. I dont believe in Jack the Ripper killer of the Canonical Group. I dont believe Londons East End had one killer in it from August to Nov. And I dont believe being talked to in a fashion that pretends that we are equals in any way is entertaining anymore.

Have your fantasy killer Herlock, Im not losing any sleep over your delusions. Ive never tried to re-frame imaginations, I only wanted to discuss these cases using evidence, rational arguments and logical extensions. And with grown ups. They seem to have left the building. They were here at one time, bs like you go on and on shovelling is what made them find more reasonable and rational exploits.

So have your drooling madman, have your interruptions that didnt occur, ..it changes nothing, and it answers nothing. But I guess you were never trying legitimately to find truth, just pushing the same crack and hoping to have someone say "good boy" when you fall in line.

I wont say its been a pleasure, but it has been interesting. Seems like small people get big britches online.

[Michael W Richards]

If you think that in that as soon as the body was discovered the first thing that they thought was "the police might close the club," then they come up with a useless plan to deflect attention, I'm afraid your in the realms of fantasy.

Four fallible witnesses. All estimating times in retrospect. Of course, in conspiracy, world errors don't happen do they?
Assinine comment.

The 'evidence for interruption' nonsense that you keep trotting out. Yeah.... none.

The ineffective and unlikely 'plan.' Fooled you and others didnt it?

The blatant selectivity regarding Mortimer. Including stating as a fact that she had a clock when we know no such thing. Yeah of course, why would anyone have a clock in their house....or a public gathering place. Folly huh?

The stating that she saw Goldstein at 12.55 when no time was ever given by either Mortimer or Goldstein. I thought that 12:55 was in between 12:50 and 1...but of course Im mistaken about that.

The dismissal of the timing of s Police Officer who had just walked past a clock just because he contradicts one of your 'star' witnesses. Never dismised anything. Oh, except for the garbage your espousing. Yeah, that I do dismiss...outright.

Your dismissal of the '5 minutes before Lamb' which should eliminate him from your 'Berner Street 4'. Oh, so you claim your witnesses have accurate times but none of mine did....again, fascinating.

Your refusal to accept that witnesses without watches, and who had zero reason to log the time at the time, could have been mistaken in their guesses. All of my witnesses were inside buildings with....yeah, you guessed it, ...clocks. None of yours were.

You have no evidence for this cover up Michael. Zero. Just 4 witnesses guessing times (and for one of them strong evidence exists to dismiss him)

If anything your posting of self serving rebuttal... baseless and inaccurate... help my cause. Not ONE of those witnesses, well maybe except Spooner, needed to guess. They all knew. Sadly you dont.

You've lost this argument Michael. Badly.

If I thought convincing you was my goal Id be wasting my time anyway. Lots of better thinkers read these.

Time to end it though I think. It's strange that you talk of ingrained ideas? You're the one with the theory Michael. Not me or Caz or Frank or Joshua. I've seen you post quite reasonably on other topics so we should ask " why is it that you get so angry on this one?" It's because it's your personal theory and you obviously don't like it being disputed. And this is why it's probably time to wind this one up?

Because stupidity on a board that is supposed to be for serious students angers me. I wish there was a fantasy site for you folks....Jack the one eyed Ripper, Jack Torso Ripper, Jack the killer of all of Londons women,...maybe you should start one up. Invite some of your pals to join in....please.

The fact that youve decided 4 witnesses who substantiate each others accounts in time and activities are "fallible" is the fantasy. Reality is much harder to swallow when you are so far above such things as statements, facts, and evidence. I understand. I think its screwy logic, rude and without any merit in any known evidence. But I understand what your argument is. A lead balloon.

In fact....yes, youve heard of those things right, facts?...very few of the serious students and none of the most respected and published researchers stick to this nonsense you folks put forward. Ive communicated with some of the finest authors/researchers here privately and NONE place an unripped woman under Jacks knife.

Just you folks. The fringe. The myth believers...you know I never thought to ask, do you run Ripper tours or have some stake in perpetuating this fantasy? Cause you sure cant handle the truth.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. So the people with the most to lose are truth tellers and the ones with nothing to lose boldy lied to the police. Interesting if not fascinating departure from any kind of logic known to man. But have it your way...its your ghoul, not mine

If you think that in that as soon as the body was discovered the first thing that they thought was "the police might close the club," then they come up with a useless plan to deflect attention, I'm afraid your in the realms of fantasy.

Four fallible witnesses. All estimating times in retrospect. Of course, in conspiracy, world errors don't happen do they?

The 'evidence for interruption' nonsense that you keep trotting out.

The ineffective and unlikely 'plan.'

The blatant selectivity regarding Mortimer. Including stating as a fact that she had a clock when we know no such thing.

The stating that she saw Goldstein at 12.55 when no time was ever given by either Mortimer or Goldstein.

The dismissal of the timing of s Police Officer who had just walked past a clock just because he contradicts one of your 'star' witnesses.

Your dismissal of the '5 minutes before Lamb' which should eliminate him from your 'Berner Street 4'

Your refusal to accept that witnesses without watches, and who had zero reason to log the time at the time, could have been mistaken in their guesses.

You have no evidence for this cover up Michael. Zero. Just 4 witnesses guessing times (and for one of them strong evidence exists to dismiss him)

You've lost this argument Michael. Badly.

Time to end it though I think. It's strange that you talk of ingrained ideas? You're the one with the theory Michael. Not me or Caz or Frank or Joshua. I've seen you post quite reasonably on other topics so we should ask " why is it that you get so angry on this one?" It's because it's your personal theory and you obviously don't like it being disputed. And this is why it's probably time to wind this one up?

[Michael W Richards]

Where do you get the "at her door until just after one" from? As far as I can tell she says that, after hearing the commotion at the club "It was just after one o'clock when I went out". So she was indoors until this time. And had been for several minutes;

"Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard the pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband"

So, she goes inside...approximately four minutes pass as she prepares for bed.... she hears a cart go past.... she hears cries of murder and then goes outside just after one.
What time did she go inside?

"I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, (after 1) and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. (no cart and horse mentioned) I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the yard with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School.

I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.<sup>[1]

The highlights are for the reading impaired.</sup>

[Michael W Richards]

And if course the police always shut down any business if a murder occurs near it? Obvious really. Did they blame the occupants of 29 Hanbury Street when Annie was killed? Was McCarthy evicted?

Hint...Anarchist club.