Sequence of comings & goings - Stride

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts - means the door was unlocked at the time, probably because it is open - the reason for that being that Fanny had previously been standing on the front doorstep, and wasn't ready to lock-up when she last came in.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.    

[I]she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat[/I] - means she can hear stuff on the street, from inside. That could well include things like; a man and woman quarrelling, a woman screaming but not loudly, a man yelling an anti-Semitic slur, a man with a knife shouting at another man, and possibly even a man running away, starting from down on the corner

Depends on what part of the house she was in I suppose but I’m guessing that you have ‘evidence’ that she stood with her ear pressed to the door for 20 minutes. Sometimes you pick up some sounds and not others it’s a fact of life. Oh and the horse and cart passed directly outside of her house of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
To believe in something not only for which there is no evidence, but for which there can be no evidence, is the very definition of faith

Ok. Michael couldn’t answer this properly so I’ll ask you. What evidence of interruption would you expect to have been present had the killer been interrupted just after cutting Stride’s throat.

Whats the definition of the denial of the obvious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Selective and false quoting. In the Evening News (you’ll recall this one Herlock as it’s the one that you are keen to ignore) we are told she said that she went onto her doorstep at 12.45, stayed there for 10 minutes then went inside (12.55) and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

As for your summing up, let's see where that leaves us...

You have Fanny back inside at 12:45, and yet you suppose that Louis really did get home at 1am or very soon after.
So by the time the body has been found, then observed by other club people, then police searched for by LD and IK, who are unsuccessful but return with Ed Spooner, the time must be getting close to 1:10.
It is only at that point (whatever the true time may be), that Fanny enters the yard. We know this to be true for two reasons.

One: Louis is in the yard...

I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife.

Two: Someone who sounds very like Spooner is also in the yard...

...on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gates with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm...

This occurs soon after Fanny has gone inside for the night...

I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out...

So if (according to you), Fanny is inside by 12:45, and Louis does not see the clock until 1am, then the 'just' in Fanny's 'just gone indoors', amounts to all of 25 minutes.

Your ‘selective and false’ quoting comment is a joke. The reason that I’ve mentioned it so often because it’s been systematically ignored by you and Michael to make points. It’s you that have been selective I’m afraid. This is was conspiracy theorists do.

....

Your alternative is that Smith was lying or mistaken about what time he passed on his beat by 10 or 15 minutes after passing a clock? If you prefer to believe Mortimer over Smith then that’s your prerogative of course. A woman who, to one source, says that she was on her doorstep for almost the whole of the half an hour and yet, to another, says that she spent 10 minutes of 30 on her doorstep.

Ill go with the Constable and suggest that Mortimer was in error.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You keep asking for evidence of interruption when everyone knows that no such evidence can exist.

To believe in something not only for which there is no evidence, but for which there can be no evidence, is the very definition of faith

You and NBFN keep ignoring what Mortimer said to the Evening News because it’s inconvenient.

Actually, the reverse is closer to the truth.

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 ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. 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 Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat - means she can hear stuff on the street, from inside. That could well include things like; a man and woman quarrelling, a woman screaming but not loudly, a man yelling an anti-Semitic slur, a man with a knife shouting at another man, and possibly even a man running away, starting from down on the corner.

she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts - means the door was unlocked at the time, probably because it is open - the reason for that being that Fanny had previously been standing on the front doorstep, and wasn't ready to lock-up when she last came in.

she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor - so even when she is away from the doorstep, she may still be right near the street, close to that open door, and even if she weren't...

remarked upon the circumstance to her husband - ...her husband William probably was.

That Diemschutz arrived at just after 1.00 is beyond doubt.

Imagine believing both that, and this...

Smith: At 1 o'clock I went to Berner-street in my ordinary round. I saw a crowd of people outside the gates of No. 40. I did not hear any cries of "Police." When I got there I saw constables 12 H R and 252 H.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Nope. I genuinly don’t understand the point you’re making. Can anyone help?

I doubt it

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Selective quoting. In the Evening News (you’ll recall this one Michael as it’s the one that you are keen to ignore) she said that she went onto her doorstep at 12.45, stayed there for 10 minutes then went inside (12.55) then came back out when she heard the commotion from the yard at whatever time that was?

So to sum up.......she came back onto her doorstep whenever that commotion occurred.

And if PC Smith was correct, which is far more likely, she went onto her doorstep at around 12.35 until 12.45 when she went back inside and came out again at whatever time the commotion occurred.

Selective and false quoting. In the Evening News (you’ll recall this one Herlock as it’s the one that you are keen to ignore) we are told she said that she went onto her doorstep at 12.45, stayed there for 10 minutes then went inside (12.55) and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

As for your summing up, let's see where that leaves us...

You have Fanny back inside at 12:45, and yet you suppose that Louis really did get home at 1am or very soon after.
So by the time the body has been found, then observed by other club people, then police searched for by LD and IK, who are unsuccessful but return with Ed Spooner, the time must be getting close to 1:10.
It is only at that point (whatever the true time may be), that Fanny enters the yard. We know this to be true for two reasons.

One: Louis is in the yard...

I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife.

Two: Someone who sounds very like Spooner is also in the yard...

...on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gates with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm...

This occurs soon after Fanny has gone inside for the night...

I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out...

So if (according to you), Fanny is inside by 12:45, and Louis does not see the clock until 1am, then the 'just' in Fanny's 'just gone indoors', amounts to all of 25 minutes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nonsense, almost all of that makes my head shake but alter no facts. You have the facts, you still choose to imagine interruptions as one example. Youve said 4 witnesses were obviously mistaken and one that we can prove lied, is somehow correct. Like discussing reality with Trump.

Why couldn’t those witnesses have been mistaken? Because you don’t want them to be. It’s like discussing the case with David Icke.

[Michael W Richards]

Sorry Michael but there’s only one person being biased here and I’m afraid that it’s you. You have your scenario and you’re sticking to it no matter what. You are pointing to errors/discrepancies and investing them with mystery and conspiracy rather than taking a more balanced view. You keep asking for evidence of interruption when everyone knows that no such evidence can exist. Witnesses like Kozebroski, Henschburg and Spooner were very obviously mistaken. Spooner can very simply be dismissed. You and NBFN keep ignoring what Mortimer said to the Evening News because it’s inconvenient. You state that Mortimer had a clock based on zero but purely to add weight to challenging Smiths timing when everyone can understand why Smith was likely to have been correct. Now you are postulating that, in this backstreet at 1.00, another cart passed at exactly the time that Diemschutz lied about arriving at the yard. Come on!

That Diemschutz arrived at just after 1.00 is beyond doubt. That the killer could have been interrupted is beyond doubt. Was Stride killed by the ripper? It’s likely that she was but there’s is at least doubt.

Nonsense, almost all of that makes my head shake but alter no facts. You have the facts, you still choose to imagine interruptions as one example. Youve said 4 witnesses were obviously mistaken and one that we can prove lied, is somehow correct. Like discussing reality with Trump.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I beginning to think that despite all efforts to demonstrate which witnesses are contentious, which have bias, and which are directly refuted, there is no getting around peoples mindsets. You believe Jack must have killed Liz so you disregard or challenge anything that clearly shows the witnesses you need to rely on gave fraudulent (a perfect example of conspiracy thinking. What about ‘mistaken’ Micheal. People do make mistakes you know.)stories or imagine events that have no validity within known evidence. You say what are the odds that 2 killers slit throats on the same night...well, what are the odds that someone proven to be a mutilator suddenly doesnt mutilate? What are the odds that every knife wielding criminal but this Jack fellow leaves town for 2 1/2 months? What are the odds of seeing regular violent knife crimes in the most violent crime ridden part of London, when knives are the most common weapon? What are the odds that a boy would be cut in half and stuffed in a barrel in Bradford during that same period and not be the serial mutilator, or the Torso maker? What are the odds that a killer who demonstrates both repetitive acts and repetitive methods suddenly abandons both? What are the odds that the man preying on working street women happens to show up in a small courtyard, in someones room, likely while they were sleeping?

This has become tedious. Its one thing to debate actual evidence, its quite another to deal with imagination and preconceptions.

Sorry Michael but there’s only one person being biased here and I’m afraid that it’s you. You have your scenario and you’re sticking to it no matter what. You are pointing to errors/discrepancies and investing them with mystery and conspiracy rather than taking a more balanced view. You keep asking for evidence of interruption when everyone knows that no such evidence can exist. Witnesses like Kozebroski, Henschburg and Spooner were very obviously mistaken. Spooner can very simply be dismissed. You and NBFN keep ignoring what Mortimer said to the Evening News because it’s inconvenient. You state that Mortimer had a clock based on zero but purely to add weight to challenging Smiths timing when everyone can understand why Smith was likely to have been correct. Now you are postulating that, in this backstreet at 1.00, another cart passed at exactly the time that Diemschutz lied about arriving at the yard. Come on!

That Diemschutz arrived at just after 1.00 is beyond doubt. That the killer could have been interrupted is beyond doubt. Was Stride killed by the ripper? It’s likely that she was but there’s is at least doubt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To quote yourself back at you...

And, if Smith was correct in his timing (which is not only plausible but likely) then she'd gone back inside by 12.45.

That's why!



And my reply was in regard to what you suggested about LD mis-speaking or being misheard by 'the' reporter.
Where did you get the idea that what Louis (or anyone) said at the inquest, was only captured by one reporter?



So he said. He also said to a reporter...

Her hands were tightly clenched, and when they were opened by the doctor I saw immediately that one had been holding sweetmeats and the other grapes.

Was that the truth?

Nope. I genuinly don’t understand the point you’re making. Can anyone help?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again with misrepresentaions. Fanny went in just after 1, and after a few more mninutes heard a cart and horse. She could not know which way it was heading, or whom was driving it, but at around 1:03-1:04 we are about to have officials arrive there. Is it your contention that they came to see what happened before Louis even arrives?

Selective quoting. In the Evening News (you’ll recall this one Michael as it’s the one that you are keen to ignore) she said that she went onto her doorstep at 12.45, stayed there for 10 minutes then went inside (12.55) then came back out when she heard the commotion from the yard at whatever time that was?

So to sum up.......she came back onto her doorstep whenever that commotion occurred.

And if PC Smith was correct, which is far more likely, she went onto her doorstep at around 12.35 until 12.45 when she went back inside and came out again at whatever time the commotion occurred.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Lewis Dienishitz [Diemschutz], having affirmed, deposed: I reside at No. 40 Berner-street, and am steward of the International Workmen's Club. I am married, and my wife lives at the club too, and assists in the management. On Saturday I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning".

Shall we proceed with that point now established? This of course contradicts Issac Kozebrodski, members Gillen and Heschberg, Spooner and Fanny Mortimer.

Are you trying to win Nitpicker Of The Year Michael?

Yes, he couldn’t have passed the clock at 1.00 and arrived at the yard at exactly 1.00. It must have been all of a minute past. Inaccurate wording. Utterly irrelevant.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Michael, if you're sticking to the exact timings of everyone involved, then you should also stick to the timing(s) given by Spooner, for example. He claimed to have arrived in the yard at 12:55 am (which is not 12:40, or thereabouts). Or you should stick to 12:35 am (which isn't 12:40 either). But even if you're claiming that he arrived in the yard at, say, 12:42 am, his inquest testimony becomes quite odd. Why didn't he mention seeing Kozebrodski pass and return (if Kozebrodski wasn't one of the 2 Jews that he saw)? Why doesn't his account suggest that he was in the yard for about 20 minutes when PC Lamb arrived? Why didn't he mention that 2 pairs of men went looking for a policaman while he was there? Wouldn't he have found it odd that it took some 15 minutes before anyone went looking for a policeman?

But regardless of that, you disregard the information I've posted in post #72 - the one to which Herlock reacted - that further supports the notion that Kozebrodski and Isaacs (not Issacs) were the same man.

Good points

[Michael W Richards]

I beginning to think that despite all efforts to demonstrate which witnesses are contentious, which have bias, and which are directly refuted, there is no getting around peoples mindsets. You believe Jack must have killed Liz so you disregard or challenge anything that clearly shows the witnesses you need to rely on gave fraudulent stories or imagine events that have no validity within known evidence. You say what are the odds that 2 killers slit throats on the same night...well, what are the odds that someone proven to be a mutilator suddenly doesnt mutilate? What are the odds that every knife wielding criminal but this Jack fellow leaves town for 2 1/2 months? What are the odds of seeing regular violent knife crimes in the most violent crime ridden part of London, when knives are the most common weapon? What are the odds that a boy would be cut in half and stuffed in a barrel in Bradford during that same period and not be the serial mutilator, or the Torso maker? What are the odds that a killer who demonstrates both repetitive acts and repetitive methods suddenly abandons both? What are the odds that the man preying on working street women happens to show up in a small courtyard, in someones room, likely while they were sleeping?

This has become tedious. Its one thing to debate actual evidence, its quite another to deal with imagination and preconceptions.