Sequence of comings & goings - Stride

[Herlock Sholmes]

If guys like Sudgen and Begg had the temerity to challenge mainstream views, they might end up being 'fringe writers'.
At least, that would be the case if people like you were their target audience.

And this is my issue with this type of thinking. It’s often a case of coming up with anything as long as it’s new. As long as the finder can say “I’ve found something new and everyone else is wrong.” It’s almost as if ideas are considered as items of fashion which must be discarded after a certain time whether they are still in good condition or not. I can do no better than the famous Carl Sagan quote that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Of course we should assess and re-assess but it should be done calmly and with reason and we shouldn’t jump up and down with premature excitement when we discover some kind of error or discrepancy and we certainly should begin building a theory around them. This is what Begg, Sugden and others do. We still might disagree with them on certain issues because we can all interpret differently but there are no leaps of faith.

In this case we have Schwartz non-attendance and the oft-quoted 4 witnesses so there must have been a cover up. But we know from actual written evidence that the police still regarded Schwartz as a valuable witness well after the Inquest so the ‘lost faith in him’ hypothesis is just not tenable. We don’t don’t know the reason for him not being at the Inquest (we have ‘possibles’) but we know that it wasn’t because the police dismissed him. And then the 4 witnesses. Eagle said he saw the body at 1.00 (are we really going to quibble over 5 minutes?) Spooner said around 12.35 in one breath and that he arrive 5 minutes before Lamb in the other (one was a baseless guess the other is tied to the arrival of a Constable - Spooner has to be dismissed as a reliable witness on times) And Kozebrodski and Hoschberg, by there own words, were just guessing at the time when they had no reason to log the time when they were first informed about Stride. Is this really sufficient basis for re-assessing what happened and coming up with a cover-up for which there is zero evidence. Again, these are the shakiest of props to support a theory and denying this does no one any favours.

[Michael W Richards]

I didn’t fully quote what Lave said.



Which means that he saw nothing at 1.10 when the yard was full of people. So he was very obviously unreliable as to time.

Morris Eagle said that....



Yet Michael says......



How is 12.35 and 12.40 the same time? So the provably unreliable Levy is used to make the point that he should have seen a man who returned to the club 5 minutes before he went into the yard? Work that one out.

"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."

How is that quote Eagle saying he arrived at 12:35? Lave and Eagle both stated they were there at 12:40, Lave said 10 minutes after the half hour he lingered at the gates and Eagle said the above.

Heschberg: "It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter."
Kozebrodski: "About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard."
Spooner:"Stated that between 12.30am and 1.00am, 30th September 1888, he was standing with a young woman outside the Beehive public house on the corner of Christian Street and Fairclough Street. "
Mortimer: "At 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."

I didnt reference Gillen because he is an attribution, not someone who is quoted directly. And Id add Fanny didnt see anyone at 12:45ish, she heard boots which she labelled as policemans. They could easily have been Issac K's.

So, four people, as I said, at around 12:40-12:45, by the body, in the passageway, with Louis and others. With Mrs Mortimers assurances that no-one entered or left that yard from 12:45-12:50 until 1am. No arrival of Louis then, no arrival or escape of a killer then. Quiet street, established by many witnesses.

Why you cant acknowledge these accounts is something I cant explain, but your insistence that this information is incorrect is frankly nonsense. You want to disregard the majority of corroborated accounts for the sake of some without any second hand corroboration and provable potential motivations for portraying this incident in favorable light for the club.

Arguing that 4 people were all incorrect by the same 20 minutes is one thing, arguing that the killer was interrupted just to suit a preference for seeing this killer as a serial mutilator who for some reason must have been prevented from doing what is expected at this point of Jack the Ripper is another. Each crime, for me, is an individual murder,...I believe as it should be for any serious investigator, amateur or not,..all as yet unsolved. For you and others 5 at least are by one man, who is unknown, and despite the lack of hard connective evidence from over 130 years of cumulative data analysis.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Witness One.....Eagle.

The issue about Eagle isn’t the time that he returned to the club. You have used the 4 witnesses, of which Eagle was one, to show that Stride’s body was discovered earlier. So the relevant part of his statement, which you claim supports your theory, is the time e that the body was discovered (which you claim to have been around 12.40 or so.

And so the part about Eagle being informed about, and first seeing, the body is quoted below. It’s 1.00. Nowhere near 12.40. So why do you ignore this? Why is he used by you at all?

On reentering the club he went to see a friend in an upstairs room and later joined him in singing a Russian-language song. He had been there about twenty minutes when a club member named Gilleman came upstairs and said that there was a dead woman in the yard. Eagle rushed down and arriving at the body, struck a match, upon which he saw that it was lying in a pool of blood. He said the time was now 1.00am.^[2]

Witness Two.....Heschberg.

.
Heschberg: "It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter."

What we can’t fail to notice, and we shouldn’t fail to notice, is the use of “about” and “I should think.” The shows, without any doubt, that Heschberg hadn’t consulted a clock. He was simply estimating the time which should ring alarm bells straight away. But when we add these doubts to the fact that he was saying that this time was when he’d heard a policeman’s whistle should tell us all that we need to know. There was categorically no Policeman blowing a whistle at 12.45.

These facts should tell us very strongly that Heschberg was in no way trustworthy on time.

Witness Three.......Spooner.

Im sorry but this is selective quoting again.

Spooner:"Stated that between 12.30am and 1.00am, 30th September 1888, he was standing with a young woman outside the Beehive public house on the corner of Christian Street and Fairclough Street. "

‘One of the crowd lit a match and Spooner lifted the woman's chin, which was still warm and as he did so he could see that blood was flowing from the neck-wound. He noticed that she had a piece of paper folded up in her right hand and a red and white flower pinner to her jacket. Spooner reckoned he was there for about five minutes before a constable (PC Henry Lamb) arrived. In his testimony, Spooner believed that he had first arrived at Dutfield's Yard at "25 minutes to 1", which is plainly erroneous - baring in mind he was fixing times by the closing of the public houses.’

How can you take this seriously Michael. The man says he believed that he first arrived at the yard at 12.35 after he’d said that he’d been outside The Pub from 12.30 until 1.00! Then, just to seal the deal, he claims to have arrived at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb. And so very, very obviously he around nowhere close to 12.35 or 12.45. It’s was obviously some time after 1.00. Spooner is the easiest to dismiss and any sensible approach must do exactly that.

Witness Four.....Kozebrodski.

“About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr Diemschutz called me out into the yard.

Earlier he’d said he’d arrived at about 6.30 and he mentions Diemschutz at about 12.40. Obviously he didn’t check a clock as he was estimating the time. And of course he’d have had no reason to log the time. A simple incorrect guess. No mystery. Human error.

Summing Up.


One saw the body at around 1.00.
One guesses at 12.45 but the policeman’s whistle proves him wrong.
One witness, Spooner, the less said the better. 5 minutes before Lamb. He’s easily dismissed.
One witness guesses at 12.45 but had no reason to log the time.

How can any weight be placed on these witnesses? There’s no ‘agreement’ on time as you claim. One is irrelevant, 2 are provable wrong and one is just guessing.

.......

Fanny Mortimer.

You’ve repeatedly stated that she owned a clock but have yet to provide any proof of this. My question again would be “who would we think was the likeliest to have been correct on timing? A woman who might or might not have owned a clock and who, on a very normal night up until the murder, would have had no reason for logging the time or a Constable on a regulated beat who had just passed a clock?” The vast majority Michael would say that Smith was far more likely to have been correct. And if this was the case then Mortimer was on her doorstep earlier than she thought and was back inside when Schwartz arrived. That she didn’t hear him is no issue as she could have been at the rear of the house at the time. Fanny is hardly the most rock solid of witnesses?

As well as questioning whether Mortimer owned a clock I’d also ask what evidence there is that there was a clock in the club? Can we just assume this? I’m not saying that evidence for the existence of a clock doesn’t exist just that it hasn’t as yet been produced.

.....

Schwartz

We have the convenient assumption that Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest because the police had dismissed his evidence but this is completely refuted by the evidence that we have in black and white. The Inquest took place the next day and yet we have Abberline, Swanson, Anderson and Warren (top to bottom) all treating Schwartz as reliable up until at least November. And we have the police looking for someone called Lipski in November. For the life of me I can’t see how and responsible person can perpetuate this fantasy that Schwartz was dismissed by the police unless they’re claiming that the police immediately dismissed him and then grew to trust him which is obvious nonsense. We don’t know why Schwartz didn’t appear. We could make suggestions but it wasn’t because the police dismissed him. That ship has long sailed.

.....

Ive made no leaps of faith. I haven’t twisted any testimony or conveniently left anything out. I’ve used common sense (as in who would be more likely to the get the time right Mortimer or a Constable) and have invented nothing. There is simply no evidence for a cover-up that’s even remotely credible. It’s there in black and white.

[Michael W Richards]

Witness One.....Eagle.

The issue about Eagle isn’t the time that he returned to the club. You have used the 4 witnesses, of which Eagle was one, to show that Stride’s body was discovered earlier. So the relevant part of his statement, which you claim supports your theory, is the time e that the body was discovered (which you claim to have been around 12.40 or so.

And so the part about Eagle being informed about, and first seeing, the body is quoted below. It’s 1.00. Nowhere near 12.40. So why do you ignore this? Why is he used by you at all?

Because, due to you dismissal and your ignorance of the witness statements that show many people were around the body already at 12:40..Eagle must be lying about what he saw at 12:40 when he entered the passage. Although he does say "I couldnt be sure" a body wasnt there.


Witness Two.....Heschberg.



What we can’t fail to notice, and we shouldn’t fail to notice, is the use of “about” and “I should think.” The shows, without any doubt, that Heschberg hadn’t consulted a clock. He was simply estimating the time which should ring alarm bells straight away. But when we add these doubts to the fact that he was saying that this time was when he’d heard a policeman’s whistle should tell us all that we need to know. There was categorically no Policeman blowing a whistle at 12.45.

These facts should tell us very strongly that Heschberg was in no way trustworthy on time.

Heschberg came from inside the club, which undoubtably had a readily displayed clock, his "estimate" is therefore based upon a recently viewed clock. As Issac did.

[B]Witness Three.......Spooner[/B].

Im sorry but this is selective quoting again.

If you look at his story and walk through his circuit youll see that its quite likely he saw the men leaving for help at around 12:35-12:40. Also, Issac K was not one of them, nor was Louis.

Witness Four.....Kozebrodski.


Earlier he’d said he’d arrived at about 6.30 and he mentions Diemschutz at about 12.40. Obviously he didn’t check a clock as he was estimating the time. And of course he’d have had no reason to log the time. A simple incorrect guess. No mystery. Human error.

You once again dismiss evidence with baseless objections. He said he returned to the club at 12:30, or half past, and 10 minutes later he was called to the passageway. Again, if you are going to argue whether that the club had a clock inside, save your typing. Its a public venue that has members and events..it had a clock. he saw that clock when he returned, and he is certainly able to estimate 10 minutes and not confuse it for a half an hour.


Summing Up.


One saw the body at around 1.00.
4 saw one at between 12:40-12:45, and they also saw other people there as well

One guesses at 12.45 but the policeman’s whistle proves him wrong.
That guess had the benefit of a recently viewed clock, and hearing what he thought was a policemans whistle means nothing. Maybe a member used a whistle while in the passageway for all you know.

One witness, Spooner, the less said the better. 5 minutes before Lamb. He’s easily dismissed.
Dismissed by you, sure, but obviously not from historical record or anybody with intellect. He said at around 12:45 he saw men running. Works absolutely fine with the other statements, who are by the body between 12:40 and 12:45

One witness guesses at 12.45 but had no reason to log the time.
Access to clock, remember? These guess you claim were all by men who had access to a clock before coming outside. The fact you dont see how ridiculous it is pretending they are all incorrect by over 20 minutes isnt evidence of anything but acute obtuseness. And the fact that you argue whether a club open to the general public and members wouldnt have a clock is just nuts. Of course they had one.

How can any weight be placed on these witnesses? There’s no ‘agreement’ on time as you claim. One is irrelevant, 2 are provable wrong and one is just guessing.
I would seriously suggest you read the case files on this murder, the Inquest, the witnesses, because planting your hands over your ears and eyes and guessing everyone else is wrong must be tiring for you. If you read the case files and used the facts it wo0uld be less tiring for me.

.......

Fanny Mortimer.

You’ve repeatedly stated that she owned a clock but have yet to provide any proof of this.

Are you seriously contesting whether someone who gave specific times and was in her house frequently at that time did not use a clock to do so? Hard to believe how ignorant people will appear to suggest the impossible or improbable.
.....

Schwartz

We have the convenient assumption that Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest because the police had dismissed his evidence but this is completely refuted by the evidence that we have in black and white.

Ok,...thats it... PROVE THAT HE WAS RELEVANT IN ANY WAY TO THE FORMAL INQUIRY INTO HOW LIZ STRIDE DIES, which is what I have said over and over and over again. I told you what opinions amount to. Nada. DO IT NOW, WITH QUOTED EVIDENCE, OR ADMIT YOU ARE A LIAR. PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM OR SUFFER THE REPUTATION FALLOUT IN SILENCE.

Im not sure whether a battle of wits or knowledge is for you Herlock, maybe try the easier puzzles first..you know, Wheres Waldo and the like? Although Im sure you would disagree with anyone who finds him first, claiming its not Waldo but just an uncanny resemblance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Witness One.....Eagle.

The issue about Eagle isn’t the time that he returned to the club. You have used the 4 witnesses, of which Eagle was one, to show that Stride’s body was discovered earlier. So the relevant part of his statement, which you claim supports your theory, is the time e that the body was discovered (which you claim to have been around 12.40 or so.

And so the part about Eagle being informed about, and first seeing, the body is quoted below. It’s 1.00. Nowhere near 12.40. So why do you ignore this? Why is he used by you at all?

Because, due to you dismissal and your ignorance of the witness statements that show many people were around the body already at 12:40..Eagle must be lying about what he saw at 12:40 when he entered the passage. Although he does say "I couldnt be sure" a body wasnt there.

Dishonest nonsense. He said that he saw the body at 1.00. Anyone saying that there were people in the yard earlier were wrong.


Witness Two.....Heschberg.



What we can’t fail to notice, and we shouldn’t fail to notice, is the use of “about” and “I should think.” The shows, without any doubt, that Heschberg hadn’t consulted a clock. He was simply estimating the time which should ring alarm bells straight away. But when we add these doubts to the fact that he was saying that this time was when he’d heard a policeman’s whistle should tell us all that we need to know. There was categorically no Policeman blowing a whistle at 12.45.

These facts should tell us very strongly that Heschberg was in no way trustworthy on time.

Heschberg came from inside the club, which undoubtably had a readily displayed clock, his "estimate" is therefore based upon a recently viewed clock. As Issac did.

Dishonest nonsense. Dont waffle, point me at the evidence that says that there was a clock on display. The fact that he estimated raises doubts which you conveniently ignore.

[B]Witness Three.......Spooner[/B].

Im sorry but this is selective quoting again.

If you look at his story and walk through his circuit youll see that its quite likely he saw the men leaving for help at around 12:35-12:40. Also, Issac K was not one of them, nor was Louis.

Dishonest nonsense. Five minutes before Lamb. Outside the pub from 12.30 until 1.00. End of subject.

Witness Four.....Kozebrodski.


Earlier he’d said he’d arrived at about 6.30 and he mentions Diemschutz at about 12.40. Obviously he didn’t check a clock as he was estimating the time. And of course he’d have had no reason to log the time. A simple incorrect guess. No mystery. Human error.

You once again dismiss evidence with baseless objections. He said he returned to the club at 12:30, or half past, and 10 minutes later he was called to the passageway. Again, if you are going to argue whether that the club had a clock inside, save your typing. Its a public venue that has members and events..it had a clock. he saw that clock when he returned, and he is certainly able to estimate 10 minutes and not confuse it for a half an hour.

If you expect me to take your word on any aspect Michael you’re wasting your breath. Show me where a clock is mentioned. He was guessing the time.


Summing Up.


One saw the body at around 1.00.
4 saw one at between 12:40-12:45, and they also saw other people there as well

Dishonest nonsense. Eagle 1.00. Spooner 5 minutes before Lamb arrived.

One guesses at 12.45 but the policeman’s whistle proves him wrong.
That guess had the benefit of a recently viewed clock, and hearing what he thought was a policemans whistle means nothing. Maybe a member used a whistle while in the passageway for all you know.

Dishonest nonsense. I’ve heard it all now.

One witness, Spooner, the less said the better. 5 minutes before Lamb. He’s easily dismissed.
Dismissed by you, sure, but obviously not from historical record or anybody with intellect. He said at around 12:45 he saw men running. Works absolutely fine with the other statements, who are by the body between 12:40 and 12:45

Dishonest nonsense. He was outside the pub apparently from 12.30 until 1.00 then arrived in the yard 5 minutes before Lamb. Only the terminally biased would use him to prop up a theory.

One witness guesses at 12.45 but had no reason to log the time.
Access to clock, remember? These guess you claim were all by men who had access to a clock before coming outside. The fact you dont see how ridiculous it is pretending they are all incorrect by over 20 minutes isnt evidence of anything but acute obtuseness. And the fact that you argue whether a club open to the general public and members wouldnt have a clock is just nuts. Of course they had one.

What clock? Where is it mentioned? And I’m not saying that there couldn’t have been one. There might have. They were still estimating. You can be out by an hour or more easily if you haven’t looked at a clock for a while. Everyone’s done it.

How can any weight be placed on these witnesses? There’s no ‘agreement’ on time as you claim. One is irrelevant, 2 are provable wrong and one is just guessing.
I would seriously suggest you read the case files on this murder, the Inquest, the witnesses, because planting your hands over your ears and eyes and guessing everyone else is wrong must be tiring for you. If you read the case files and used the facts it wo0uld be less tiring for me.

Dishonest nonsense.

.......

Fanny Mortimer.

You’ve repeatedly stated that she owned a clock but have yet to provide any proof of this.

Are you seriously contesting whether someone who gave specific times and was in her house frequently at that time did not use a clock to do so? Hard to believe how ignorant people will appear to suggest the impossible or improbable.

Dishonest nonsense.
.....

Schwartz

We have the convenient assumption that Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest because the police had dismissed his evidence but this is completely refuted by the evidence that we have in black and white.

Ok,...thats it... PROVE THAT HE WAS RELEVANT IN ANY WAY TO THE FORMAL INQUIRY INTO HOW LIZ STRIDE DIES, which is what I have said over and over and over again. I told you what opinions amount to. Nada. DO IT NOW, WITH QUOTED EVIDENCE, OR ADMIT YOU ARE A LIAR. PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM OR SUFFER THE REPUTATION FALLOUT IN SILENCE.

What are you wittering on about? The evidence of police from Abberline through to Warren show that the police considered him a reliable witness.

Please don’t tell me you’re now trying to wriggle your way out of it by saying that he wasn’t relevant to how she died. Because that would be staggering. Even for you. All along, your point has been that he was relevant and therefore should have been called at the Inquest

Im not sure whether a battle of wits or knowledge is for you Herlock, maybe try the easier puzzles first..you know, Wheres Waldo and the like? Although Im sure you would disagree with anyone who finds him first, claiming its not Waldo but just an uncanny resemblance

.......

You appear to (perhaps along with NBFN) the sole pilot of the good ship cover up and of course, like all conspiracists, everyone else is mad or dishonest. Your posting on this subject has been an utter disgrace to the subject. You’ve insulted everyone, thrown two huge, sulking, toddler-like tantrums and continue to twist and distort simply to propagate a scenario which your ego will not allow you to see challenged. It’s impossible to debate with someone as slippery as you. Someone who will go to absolutely any lengths. To plumb any depths. Evidence means nothing to you so there you stand on your own personal fantasy island stamping your feet with your fingers in your ears shouting ‘cover up.’ Your entire scenario crumbles easily. No one believes you Michael. You cannot debate with a brick wall of inflated ego and self interest. You’re welcome to your fantasy. The subject is infected with them. The evidence stands for itself. Your theory doesn’t but what matters is the fact that you cannot cope with it being challenged. Anyone that says that the other posters on the thread are not on his level damns himself with his own words.

Perhaps you can start a “Cover Up Theory Safe Space Thread” where no one will challenge you in your quest for world domination.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The real irony is that the one provable timepiece is the one that's totally dismissed.

As FrankO attempted way back when, all we can do is try and put things into some kind of order, regardless of the specific times stated. The PC's whistle is a clear time stamp, it's a shared event. It's verifiable. It puts Spooner in a relevant place. Even if he swore blind it was definitely 12:35, that whistle settles the matter. Hanging on to his earlier time is pure folly.

For the discussion to have come down to stating as fact that all involved were going off of a single clock, that Fanny also had a clock, which was set to the same time, so only an idiot would suggest that the stated times were, at best, guesses, is a rather sorry level of debate. It's making facts fit the theory. Or, more accurately, it's making up facts to fit a theory. Like a whistleblowing club member. That's seriously on the table here? A PC says he blew his whistle, but since that spanners up the theory, just claim it could have been one of those pesky anarchists earlier. It could have been the Pied Piper, why not?

I'll give this one a miss.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The real irony is that the one provable timepiece is the one that's totally dismissed.

As FrankO attempted way back when, all we can do is try and put things into some kind of order, regardless of the specific times stated. The PC's whistle is a clear time stamp, it's a shared event. It's verifiable. It puts Spooner in a relevant place. Even if he swore blind it was definitely 12:35, that whistle settles the matter. Hanging on to his earlier time is pure folly.

For the discussion to have come down to stating as fact that all involved were going off of a single clock, that Fanny also had a clock, which was set to the same time, so only an idiot would suggest that the stated times were, at best, guesses, is a rather sorry level of debate. It's making facts fit the theory. Or, more accurately, it's making up facts to fit a theory. Like a whistleblowing club member. That's seriously on the table here? A PC says he blew his whistle, but since that spanners up the theory, just claim it could have been one of those pesky anarchists earlier. It could have been the Pied Piper, why not?

I'll give this one a miss.

It’s fatal to challenge a theory Al. Especially one involving a cover up

[Michael W Richards]

Herlock, I see that your obstinate behavior is based on a few things...you inability to rationally fill in missing blanks...like the fact that no inside the club witnesses or Fanny said specifically I looked at the clock on the wall, ....to argue that the club or Fanny didnt have access to one inside is just ridiculous. And your disregard for witnesses that could not in anyway further your personal beliefs about this murder,.. beliefs that began before even reading a sentence about this particular murder. Your just another fell who buys anything as long as its Ripper friendly. Even it seems when Ripping isnt present. Nor suggested. Even when your position isnt supported by any known evidence.

I dont have time to open your mind about this, you are too far down the rabbit hole now. Suggesting that all corroborating witnesses were outright incorrect by using non validated accounts to do so...thats too f***** up for me to deal with any longer. I will add that you should be somewhere where fantasy and naivete is more welcomed, but not here. Legitimate thinkers come here. Its obviously not for you.

Start a Liz wasnt Ripped and I know why thread...in pub talk.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, I see that your obstinate behavior is based on a few things...you inability to rationally fill in missing blanks...like the fact that no inside the club witnesses or Fanny said specifically I looked at the clock on the wall, ....to argue that the club or Fanny didnt have access to one inside is just ridiculous. And your disregard for witnesses that could not in anyway further your personal beliefs about this murder,.. beliefs that began before even reading a sentence about this particular murder. Your just another fell who buys anything as long as its Ripper friendly. Even it seems when Ripping isnt present. Nor suggested. Even when your position isnt supported by any known evidence.

I dont have time to open your mind about this, you are too far down the rabbit hole now. Suggesting that all corroborating witnesses were outright incorrect by using non validated accounts to do so...thats too f***** up for me to deal with any longer. I will add that you should be somewhere where fantasy and naivete is more welcomed, but not here. Legitimate thinkers come here. Its obviously not for you.

Start a Liz wasnt Ripped and I know why thread...in pub talk.

Keeping up the high standard I see

I stick to facts.

I haven’t said that Fanny didn’t own a clock or that there wasn’t a clock in the club. What I’ve said that is that we shouldn’t assume. You saying that Fanny had a clock. This is not a fact. It’s an assumption. And as I said in an earlier post I’m quite prepared to believe that therewas probably/possibly a clock in the club but as there’s no definite proof of this that I’m aware of then to say that there was one is not a fact.

This is simple stuff that I’m saddened to have to explain it.

Filling in the blanks.....ok.....let’s talk about language. The word ‘about’ means approximately. It means estimation/guess. The phrase ‘I should think,’ means that the person saying it isn’t certain that he’s correct. So Hoschberg and Kozebroski were making estimations and weren’t certain how accurate they were.

Simple stuff again?

And so, if there was a clock in the club (and I’m quite happy to accept the possibility or even likelihood) then how do we know when they last saw it to check the time. Not immediately they heard about Stride of course because they wouldn’t have said ‘about’ or ‘I should think.’ And of course their first reaction to hearing the news wouldn’t have been “I must log the time.” And so logically they were estimating the time that they heard about the body from the last time that they had looked at the clock which might have been an hour or more earlier. I’m sure that it’s never happened to you but most of us have at some points in our lives estimated the time by the last time we saw a clock and have been surprised how far out we’ve been.
So these two are interviewed. They then have to think back to when they last looked at the clock and then estimate the time gap until they heard about the body. And they were out by 20 minutes or so. There’s no stretch of imagination or anything untrue in anything I’ve said above.

Of course you won’t accept any of the above because it doesn’t follow the script. Your tactic is obvious. You’re absolutely wedded to your conspiracy and won’t accept anything that challenges it and so to deflect this you try and accuse me of the same. The sad thing for you Michael is that I’ve already stated numerous times that I accept that Stride might not have been a ripper victim so what agenda I’m following is a mystery. I have zero agenda. I don’t know who Jack the Ripper was. I have no theories to defend.

......

You tell me that I should leave the Forum because I’m not a legitimate thinker like you (you definitely are the most arrogant poster I’ve ever come across with the most inflated sense of self importance) Which is surprising considering how childishly easy it’s been to pull apart your scenario.


I’ll ask a question......can you point out the other ‘legitimate thinkers’ who agree with your fantasy Michael please? Is it a long list?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The real irony is that the one provable timepiece is the one that's totally dismissed.

What timepiece are you referring to?

Lamb: Dr. Blackwell was the first doctor to arrive, and he did so in ten or twelve minutes after my arrival. I had no watch with me, and so I only guess the time.

As FrankO attempted way back when, all we can do is try and put things into some kind of order, regardless of the specific times stated. The PC's whistle is a clear time stamp, it's a shared event. It's verifiable. It puts Spooner in a relevant place. Even if he swore blind it was definitely 12:35, that whistle settles the matter. Hanging on to his earlier time is pure folly.

There are actually two matters, which you seem to be conflating.

One: How much earlier does Spooner arrive than Lamb?

Two: Why does Spooner's acquaintance, Mr Harris, hear a whistle prior to the two of them reaching the yard?

The only way that Lamb's whistling could 'settle the matter', is by assuming that Spooner (and Harris) arrive after Lamb.

Spooner: I stood there about five minutes before a constable came. It was the last witness who first arrived.

Lamb was the previous witness.

For the discussion to have come down to stating as fact that all involved were going off of a single clock, that Fanny also had a clock, which was set to the same time, so only an idiot would suggest that the stated times were, at best, guesses, is a rather sorry level of debate. It's making facts fit the theory. Or, more accurately, it's making up facts to fit a theory.

Fanny most likely was guessing the time, and that's why we know she didn't say things like...

It was shortly before a quarter to one o'clock that I heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing my house on his beat.

People who are guessing the time, rarely talk with that sort of pseudo-precision.
Consequently, we can ascertain we are dealing with part reporting, and part supposition of the writer.

Like a whistleblowing club member. That's seriously on the table here? A PC says he blew his whistle, but since that spanners up the theory, just claim it could have been one of those pesky anarchists earlier. It could have been the Pied Piper, why not?

It could have been someone from the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, why not?

It has never been suggested that Lamb did not blow his whistle, or, as far as I know, that someone from the club blew a whistle.
Where are you getting these notions from?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Filling in the blanks.....ok.....let’s talk about language. The word ‘about’ means approximately. It means estimation/guess. The phrase ‘I should think,’ means that the person saying it isn’t certain that he’s correct. So Hoschberg and Kozebroski were making estimations and weren’t certain how accurate they were.

Rather than regarding all estimates as dismissible guesses, how about looking at the average of those estimates?

Instead of using Spooner's rather wonky 12:35 estimate, let's use the much more reasonable 5 minutes prior to Lamb's estimated arrival, so 12:55.

Our estimates are then; Kozebrodsky - 12:40, Heshburg - 12:45, Spooner - 12:55, Brown - 1:00, and Mortimer - 1:00.

These five estimates represented as time prior to 1am are; 20, 15, 5, 0, and 0 minutes.

Thus the average time is; 40 / 5 = 8 minutes prior to 1am, or 12:52.

As the murder could reasonably be presumed to have occurred several minutes prior, we can estimate something similar to this...

Der Arbeter Fraint: The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one.

They were not codding when they gave us the tip.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Andrew,

Sorry for the confusion. The one stated timepiece is the shop front clock.

As for the whistle, it was Michael Richards who suggested a club member blew a whistle earlier. Which could have happened, in theory, like as you say it could have been a member of the vigilance committee. But since we only have a PC stating a whistle blowing, it seems likely it was him.

But the whole club clock thing, why does Louis mention the shop clock, why no mention of the club's? If it was there, Louis certainly doesn't check it.
This whole four witnesses nailing on a time of 12:40 isn't waterproof. There's plenty of scope for error. For Michael to fall back on saying that those times are indisputable because the club definitely had a clock, and they all checked it, and that Fanny also had a clock, which was also in time with the club's, as fact, just isn't right. The times are estimates, guessed recollections. Apart from Louis. But his gets thrown out.

As for Schwartz, how he's involved in all that kerfuffle yet no one sees or hears a thing is beyond me.

(Personally, I'm waiting for Steve "Elamarna" Blomer to write his book. The Bucks Row one was great.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Rather than regarding all estimates as dismissible guesses, how about looking at the average of those estimates?

Instead of using Spooner's rather wonky 12:35 estimate, let's use the much more reasonable 5 minutes prior to Lamb's estimated arrival, so 12:55.

Our estimates are then; Kozebrodsky - 12:40, Heshburg - 12:45, Spooner - 12:55, Brown - 1:00, and Mortimer - 1:00.

These five estimates represented as time prior to 1am are; 20, 15, 5, 0, and 0 minutes.

Thus the average time is; 40 / 5 = 8 minutes prior to 1am, or 12:52.

As the murder could reasonably be presumed to have occurred several minutes prior, we can estimate something similar to this...

Der Arbeter Fraint: The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one.

They were not codding when they gave us the tip.

Spooner also said that he was outside the pub with a woman until 1.00.

So I’d say that we have Eagle, Spooner, Brown, Mortimer and Diemschutz all giving a time of 1.00 and just after. We then have policeman and Doctors arriving just after.

This leaves us with Hoschberg and Kozebrodski saying ‘about’ and ‘I should think,’ which means that they were guessing and so different to the other witnesses that only one conclusion is reasonable. They were honestly mistaken.

When you add that the suggestion that Schwartz wasn’t called to the Inquest because the police dismissed his evidence actually is disproven in black and white, then nothing remains.

[caz]

Still contrary just for the sake of it huh?

When people believe that the evidence must reflect their personal belief that a serial mutilator cut Liz once and didnt show any interest in mutilation at all, they will make any excuse to discard the real for the imagined.

Originally posted by caz View Post
So which side of the door was she? And why would that door need to be open, or even ajar, in either case? I simply can't see her husband being happy if she regularly spent up to thirty minutes after midnight with her eyes and ears on what might be going on in the street, with the front door open, letting the heat out and the weather in, and any noise from the club.

Why would she ever close her door, the fresh night air might have been delightful, and since she is there "nearly the whole friggin time" between 12:30 and 1, thats a lot of opening and closing the door since she was at it "off and on." She commented about what she regularly heard from that club. And what she heard from the street. She comments about the street in front of the gates during that last half hour. Why are you so intent on discrediting the ONLY Inquest witness to the street in front of the club from 12:35 until 1. Oh yeah,... The ghoulish Ripper had to have slipped past her, and everyone else,... and been startled and scared off by Louis arriving at 1. (Which he provably didnt.) Why...because there is only 1 throat slitter in London in the Fall of 1888 and an Anarchist certainly wouldnt ever be violent, and no mutilation doesnt mean that he didnt want to,... even if there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, NOT ONE SHRED OF ONE, that he did want to.

Is this how you want to make your stand Caz,......really? This is your assessment of this event? Use the non-validated statements and some imaginative explanations to counter multiple statements that are corroborated, and an eye witness statement, and a statement from 2 sources that state only the young couple was seen on that street until Goldstein passed. (One additional point....on what grounds can you establish the man who came in with a translator on Sunday, or Tuesday night with Wess, are whom they claim to be. This could easily be a case of Hutchinsonia...someone merely claiming to be someone else seen on a particular night)?

Not only is this a rare after meeting period ...with no-one in the passageway smoking and chatting despite the fact Fanny hears rows from that passage after 1am often, ...with a slippery Ghoul who manages to arrive without anyone seeing him,... cuts just once and gently lays his victim down on her side,.... then is spooked by the cart and horse which didnt arrive at 1,... and leaves without anyone seeing him...just as Fanny has gone indoors?

This all reminds me of storytelling.
Maybe not so appropriate for serious study though.

Blimey, Michael.

Why did you think that post of mine was written to 'discredit' Fanny Mortimer? I was merely suggesting that she could have stood outside her front door for every bit as long as she claimed to do so - or for as long as you want her to have been there, watching out for comings and goings - but unless she actually said she left the door open, or ajar, while she stood there, that wasn't necessarily the case.

I don't know what difference it should make to the Pedantic Pollies either way, but for some reason you and NBFN seem to want Fanny's husband to be happily oblivious to her leaving the front door open whenever she was outside enjoying a nose or the fresh night air.

Either that, or it's not me being 'contrary just for the sake of it'.

[c.d.]

Do British people really say "blimey"? Uh...asking for a friend.

c.d.