Sequence of comings & goings - Stride

[caz]

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.

So the killer couldn't possibly have been interrupted by anyone or anything, because a witness would have provided evidence of this, but a club member could have blown a whistle without a shred of evidence that anyone blew one before the PC did.

One rule for Michael, another rule for everyone else. He might be better off going into politics.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

That's interesting, Al!

Growing up in Yorkshire I was told that the expression "Cor, Blimey" derived from "God, blind me!"

I wonder if my parents made this up so they didn't have to explain the real meaning behind it to their innocent little girl!!!

Hi Ms Diddles,

Growing up in south west London, I too understood the expression came from "God, blind me!"

Probably even used it on occasion as a teenager, when teaching the kiddies at my old Sunday School, before concluding it was all utter bollocks.

Love,

Caz
X

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

So the killer couldn't possibly have been interrupted by anyone or anything, because a witness would have provided evidence of this, but a club member could have blown a whistle without a shred of evidence that anyone blew one before the PC did.

One rule for Michael, another rule for everyone else. He might be better off going into politics.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi,

In Michaels defence, it was really just a passing remark. I don't think he's relying on it to bolster his case.

The sequence of events gets fogged up by going off of stated times. If four witnesses are to be placed in the gateway about 20 mins prior to them raising the alarm, we should be able to do it regardless of stated times. But it doesn't work. The PC's beat, courting couples, club members walking folks home and returning. Fannys hooves. They all roughly add up until low and behold, Louis Diemschutz says he found the body. And he's the only one who used a clock. Even if he didn't, back tracking from Dr Blackwell will still create the same picture, we'd just be using a rough time for the discovery, around 1am (ish).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank goodness for a good dollop of your common sense, Al.

I'm only sorry Herlock has been wasting his time on this, only to have personal insults chucked at him merely for suggesting that witnesses couldn't be sure of the correct time in those days, and more often than not did not have an accurate clock or watch to consult. How could the average man or woman in the street be expected to know if the nearest clock kept good time, even if they thought to look at it while going about their business? Michael is never going to give an inch, and he's made it clear why over the years. His pet suspect for Nichols and Chapman could not have killed Stride, Eddowes or Kelly, and he has invested too much of his publicly stated position in that theory to change now, giving him no choice - unlike the rest of us - but to come up with a whole series [ironic, or what?] of unsupported theories, one after another, to explain how and why all other victims fell to separate killers, each with a different motive.

While it's legitimate and desirable to investigate each murder on an individual basis, just as the police in 1888 knew and rightly did, before seeking to connect one man to more than one murder, it is not fair, reasonable, logical or sensible in 2020 to find any and every excuse to rule out obvious similarities and potential connections, which the police and medical men took seriously at the time, and which have been taken seriously by a whole raft of researchers, historians, psychologists and criminologists ever since.

A frequent refrain is that because none of these crimes was solved, we should have abandoned the serial killer theory long ago, in favour of looking for a series of individual killers instead, which to my mind is arse about face. Individual murders were and are ten times easier to solve than those committed by a lone wolf with no known connection to the victim; no obvious motive connected with the victim; and no evident connection to the location. Back then, if there was nothing to link a killer to his victim once he was away on his toes, with no credible confession and nothing from the victim found in his possession, the case was almost bound to go cold and remain unsolved to this day. A lone wolf is the best explanation by a country mile for the fact that the murders were not solved at the time and almost certainly never will be. All the while theorists like Michael get no nearer than anyone else to the answers, using the same surviving evidence, they make the case for a lone wolf stronger. Whether this will ever dawn on them is another matter.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I didn’t know that Michael had a suspect for Nichols and Chapman? Who is it? This does explain a lot though if he needs a different killer for the murder of Stride. When someone can still say that the reason that Schwartz wasn’t called to give evidence was because the police placed no value in his testimony after we know that the Police put Schwartz description on the front page of the Police Gazette on 19th October then we’re seeing a blind eye being turned. On this fact alone the argument about his non-attendance should end as far as any talk of the police losing faith but on it goes. It does smack of a real need to discredit Schwartz and now we know why. Then we have 4 of the weakest witnesses that we could think of being promoted as proving that Stride was killed earlier than thought. Almost laughable, one of them (Eagle) actually said that he saw Stride at 1.00. Any reasonable person would dismiss him immediately but still he’s used? Why? Then Spooner....outside the pub until 1.00 - in Dutfield’s Yard at 12.35- and also there 5 minutes before Lamb. But of course Michael seizes on the obviously wrong 12.35. Then two other witnesses making estimates on times are treated as rock solid.

Not to mention the ludicrous and dishonest “absence of evidence” argument which still gets trotted out despite every poster seeing that it’s a non-starter. There’s not a single, solitary smidgeon of evidence for any kind of cover up yet we’ve seen two posters performing contortions to try and shoehorn one into place. One of them throwing two huge tantrums when challenged. This should be a lesson in not looking too hard for conspiracies because you’re bound to find one whether they exist or not.

Have a good Christmas Caz.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Ms Diddles,

Growing up in south west London, I too understood the expression came from "God, blind me!"

Probably even used it on occasion as a teenager, when teaching the kiddies at my old Sunday School, before concluding it was all utter bollocks.

Love,

Caz
X

Well, Caz!

I guess the use of the phrase as defined by Al, would have gone down even less well in Sunday School!

Pun entirely intended!!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Okay pedantic Polly, let's scrub the doorstep [ha ha] and have Fanny standing on the pavement right outside her front door, looking outwards and able to see along Berner Street - or what was the point? Is that all right with you?

Possibly not.

Fanny Mortimer: I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this morning …

Charles Letchford: … my sister was standing at the door at ten minutes to one …

Swanson: … he [Schwartz] saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

If the first two women were standing on the pavement, and in front of a closed door, and Stride was standing in the gateway of DY, how could anyone positively know which of these were prostitutes?

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.

… and not looking like she was selling herself.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t see the point that’s being made here?

Was Fanny’s door open, closed or ajar.......we don’t know.

Fanny saying how long she was on her doorstep.........the EN report of what she did contradicts this.

Why would anyone assume that a woman on her doorstep was selling herself?

Might not a woman living in the same street have known Mrs Mortimer at least by sight?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Caz,

I didn’t know that Michael had a suspect for Nichols and Chapman? Who is it? This does explain a lot though if he needs a different killer for the murder of Stride. When someone can still say that the reason that Schwartz wasn’t called to give evidence was because the police placed no value in his testimony after we know that the Police put Schwartz description on the front page of the Police Gazette on 19th October then we’re seeing a blind eye being turned. On this fact alone the argument about his non-attendance should end as far as any talk of the police losing faith but on it goes. It does smack of a real need to discredit Schwartz and now we know why. Then we have 4 of the weakest witnesses that we could think of being promoted as proving that Stride was killed earlier than thought. Almost laughable, one of them (Eagle) actually said that he saw Stride at 1.00. Any reasonable person would dismiss him immediately but still he’s used? Why? Then Spooner....outside the pub until 1.00 - in Dutfield’s Yard at 12.35- and also there 5 minutes before Lamb. But of course Michael seizes on the obviously wrong 12.35. Then two other witnesses making estimates on times are treated as rock solid.

Not to mention the ludicrous and dishonest “absence of evidence” argument which still gets trotted out despite every poster seeing that it’s a non-starter. There’s not a single, solitary smidgeon of evidence for any kind of cover up yet we’ve seen two posters performing contortions to try and shoehorn one into place. One of them throwing two huge tantrums when challenged. This should be a lesson in not looking too hard for conspiracies because you’re bound to find one whether they exist or not.

Have a good Christmas Caz.

Theres enough dried dung in that post to keep the homefires lit across Victorian London. Not that I consider your interpretations or observations as completely useless, your attempts to bolster your own preferences is always amusing,

First....I have said a million times I do not have any fixed suspect for any of these crimes, (where as you and Caz and others have one suspect for all knife crimes committed in London that Fall...something clearly not felt by the contemporary investigators who grouped 5 of 12 to Jack the Ripper...also without evidence),.. but that Isenschmidt is a very viable one for Polly and Annie. So thats your first misrepresentation,...Second, you keep hoping that Schwartz will magically be some lead balloon for me when in fact I am the one accepting the historical records for what he actually meant to the Inquest into HOW LIZ DIES. You know thats the focus of the Inquest, right? And you know that in Schwartz's story he claims to see the victim assaulted by someone just feet from and within a few minutes of her throat cut. One might imagine that would be very germane to HOW LIZ DIES. But sadly, its not considered of any value in that question at the Inquest. Who says what about believing what means squat. Actions, not words of belief, demonstrate commitment. The distinct lack of incorporating Schwartz's story should be easy for anyone to understand, ...well, almost anyone.

Schwartz means nothing in Liz strides murder story, neither does his cast of fictional characters.

Thirdly, Eagle said he arrived at a time when 4 witnesses you choose to disbelieve were by Liz.. (disbelief despite them being the overwhelming majority of witness accounts and the only ones that verify each others by their virtually identical and specific details)..and he "couldnt be sure a body wasnt there. He lied. 4 people say so, and they all agree with each others, independently given statements. Its so sad when you have to point out basic and easy to arrive at interpretations. Louis lied when he said "precisely at 1". He didnt. Fanny saw no-one arrive or leave from 12:50 until just after 1. She saw someone pass the gates, thats all. Maybe you wish Louis hadnt said "precisely", maybe youd like to presume he actually meant "around 1", and maybe youd like to presume that when Long says something was "Not there" when he passed the entryway off Goulston at 2:20, just like you choose to presume that 4 witnesses were all wrong in their times by roughly 20 minutes and all witnesses who didnt just come out of buildings with clocks guessed the times absolutely correctly.

Its got to be tiring trying so hard to disprove the facts from 130+ years down the road using presumptions and making up stories of interruptions that leave no traces in evidence, maybe if you just used evidence you could sleep knowing youve finally figured something out.

But Ill help you, heres a readers digest version...take notes if you need to...

Liz Stride isnt seen alive by any credible witness after 12:35, 4 witnesses say they saw her on the ground in the passageway at 12:40-12:45, no-one was on that street from 12:35 until 1 but the young couple and Leon Goldstein, no-one left or entered the club by the gates from 12:50 until 1, Louis did not arrive "precisely" at 1, Eagle should have been sure that a body was there at 12:40, and so should Lave, and they also should have seen each other at that time, there are no secondary witness accounts for Eagles return, or for Louis's return, or for Israel and what he claims happened, and there are 3 corroborated accounts for every witnesses who saw Liz, and Louis at 12:40-12:45 by a dying Liz Stride in the passageway. A passageway the led to the yard behind the club, and the side door to the club...an Anarchists Club, that was promoting that people should observe Socialism despite being contrary to the existing political systems.. looked down upon by neighbours and local police, with frequent rows in that passage after meetings, an Anarchists Club that would be the site of a skirmish with police that ends up with Louis and other members being arrested for assaulting the police with clubs the following Spring.

Its probably revealing that people would side with the obvious criminals here, but its also revealing when they imagine interruptions without any evidence, dismiss the majority of accounts in favour of unsubstantiated singular accounts by the people who stood to lose the most if the police found them culpable in this murder, disparage witnesses who disagree with their own beliefs, and imagine that serial mutilators often kill women with one cut then simply leave...unseen by street witnesses.

The gall of you is present in your slags, the ignorance you have is in your rebuttal, and the energy and imagination you employ to sustain what are obviously delusions is remarkable.

Why dont you just use facts Herlock. Liz was killed on Anarchist property with one cut and no-one came from the street to do it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Theres enough dried dung in that post to keep the homefires lit across Victorian London. Not that I consider your interpretations or observations as completely useless, your attempts to bolster your own preferences is always amusing,

First....I have said a million times I do not have any fixed suspect for any of these crimes, (where as you and Caz and others have one suspect for all knife crimes committed in London that Fall...something clearly not felt by the contemporary investigators who grouped 5 of 12 to Jack the Ripper...also without evidence),.. but that Isenschmidt is a very viable one for Polly and Annie. So thats your first misrepresentation,...Second, you keep hoping that Schwartz will magically be some lead balloon for me when in fact I am the one accepting the historical records for what he actually meant to the Inquest into HOW LIZ DIES. You know thats the focus of the Inquest, right? And you know that in Schwartz's story he claims to see the victim assaulted by someone just feet from and within a few minutes of her throat cut. One might imagine that would be very germane to HOW LIZ DIES. But sadly, its not considered of any value in that question at the Inquest. Who says what about believing what means squat. Actions, not words of belief, demonstrate commitment. The distinct lack of incorporating Schwartz's story should be easy for anyone to understand, ...well, almost anyone.

Schwartz means nothing in Liz strides murder story, neither does his cast of fictional characters.

The fact that the Police put a description of a man based directly on Schwartz testimony into the Gazette in late October knock the above drivel for six. To deny this is a demonstration of hopeless bias.

Thirdly, Eagle said he arrived at a time when 4 witnesses you choose to disbelieve were by Liz.. (disbelief despite them being the overwhelming majority of witness accounts and the only ones that verify each others by their virtually identical and specific details)..and he "couldnt be sure a body wasnt there. He lied. 4 people say so, and they all agree with each others, independently given statements. Its so sad when you have to point out basic and easy to arrive at interpretations. Louis lied when he said "precisely at 1". He didnt. Fanny saw no-one arrive or leave from 12:50 until just after 1. She saw someone pass the gates, thats all. Maybe you wish Louis hadnt said "precisely", maybe youd like to presume he actually meant "around 1", and maybe youd like to presume that when Long says something was "Not there" when he passed the entryway off Goulston at 2:20, just like you choose to presume that 4 witnesses were all wrong in their times by roughly 20 minutes and all witnesses who didnt just come out of buildings with clocks guessed the times absolutely correctly.

Embarrassing fantasies. You cling to these witnesses like a drowning man. They only tie up in your own mind. Your clinging on to the word ‘precisely’ again demonstrates your desperation. Typical conspiracy theorist thinking. No one believes your nonsense Michael.

Its got to be tiring trying so hard to disprove the facts from 130+ years down the road using presumptions and making up stories of interruptions that leave no traces in evidence, maybe if you just used evidence you could sleep knowing youve finally figured something out.

You’ve invented a scenario based on selective interpretation.

But Ill help you, heres a readers digest version...take notes if you need to...

Here comes the fiction again.

Liz Stride isnt seen alive by any credible witness after 12:35, 4 witnesses say they saw her on the ground in the passageway at 12:40-12:45,

Eagle said that he saw her at 1.00. So that’s 3. Spooner said he arrived 5 minutes before Lamb, thats 2. The other 2 use words to show that they were guessing the time.

no-one was on that street from 12:35 until 1 but the young couple and Leon Goldstein, no-one left or entered the club by the gates from 12:50 until 1,

No. A more accurate statement would be ‘no one was seen.’ There’s a big difference to those of us that value reason over ego driven fantasy.

Louis did not arrive "precisely" at 1, Eagle should have been sure that a body was there at 12:40, and so should Lave,

But unfortunately for your script they see nothing. Because there was no body there at the time. I know it’s disappointing for you Michael but give it time and you’ll get over it.

and they also should have seen each other at that time,

Again no. When people give times Michael (especially people who in all likelihood didn’t own a watch) we have to apply at least a bit of leeway. And by the way, Eagle returned 5 minutes before Lave went into the yard. Please stop inventing things.

there are no secondary witness accounts for Eagles return, or for Louis's return, or for Israel and what he claims happened, and there are 3 corroborated accounts for every witnesses who saw Liz, and Louis at 12:40-12:45 by a dying Liz Stride in the passageway.

Witnesses who were very obviously mistaken as to time. Unless you’re a conspiracy theorist of course.

A passageway the led to the yard behind the club, and the side door to the club...an Anarchists Club, that was promoting that people should observe Socialism despite being contrary to the existing political systems..

Irrelevant unless you’re claiming that all Socialists are potential cutthroats?

looked down upon by neighbours and local police, with frequent rows in that passage after meetings, an Anarchists Club that would be the site of a skirmish with police that ends up with Louis and other members being arrested for assaulting the police with clubs the following Spring.

Yup. Still utterly irrelevant.

Its probably revealing that people would side with the obvious criminals here, but its also revealing when they imagine interruptions without any evidence, dismiss the majority of accounts in favour of unsubstantiated singular accounts by the people who stood to lose the most if the police found them culpable in this murder, disparage witnesses who disagree with their own beliefs, and imagine that serial mutilators often kill women with one cut then simply leave...unseen by street witnesses.

The gall of you is present in your slags, the ignorance you have is in your rebuttal, and the energy and imagination you employ to sustain what are obviously delusions is remarkable.

Why dont you just use facts Herlock. Liz was killed on Anarchist property with one cut and no-one came from the street to do it.

I do look at facts. You blatantly manipulate them to fuel a very obvious fantasy. The fact that you’re the only person in the world that believes this should speak volumes but your ego won’t allow you to accept it. You come up with nonsense like that tiresome ‘evidence of interruption’ joke which would have been embarrassing had it been suggested by a toddler. Everyone can see it except you apparently.

Who actually thinks like this - in a largely deserted street, because no one saw an incident that would have taken what...20 seconds then it couldn’t have happened. It’s like the tree falling in the forest. What kind of childish logic is this?

Youve based this fantasy on 3 staggeringly weak points.

1. Schwartz non-attendance at the Inquest despite the evidence that the police considered his evidence important into NOVEMBER. Thieevidence against this is in black and white and should never be mentioned again but I know you’ll continue to spout it.

2. Your celebrated 4 witnesses. One said he saw the body at 1.00 so I can’t for the life of me see why you keep trotting him out. One who actually manages, believe it or not, to give conflicting times IN THE SAME STATEMENT. And yet you trust him even though his ‘5 minutes before Lamb’ eliminates him as of value to your fantasy. And the other 2....wow. Even by their own words they show themselves to have been estimating the time. Guess what.....they were wrong.

and 3. Fanny Mortimer. In one statement she’s on her doorstep for most of the time. On another she’s on there for 10 minutes. She also contradicts a police man on time who has just walked past a clock!

You ask....why doesn’t she hear the Schwartz incident it conveniently neglect to ask why she didn’t hear Diemschutz horse and cart allegedly at 12.35 when she heard one at 1.00.

You ask how could Eagle and Lave have missed each other when Eagle returned 5 minutes before Lave went into the yard.

Then you have the gall to say that Eagle and Lave must have lied because there was a body in the yard and they would have seen it. It wasn’t there....that’s why they didn’t see it. Had anyone ever heard more twisted reasoning that this from you?

Its impossible to debate properly with a man with a theory he’s committed to. Your points have all been dismissed and demolished and I’m afraid that it’s taken little effort to do so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So Diemschutz gets back at 12.35 (and of course you see no issue with the fact that no one sees or hears him) and discovers a member has killed a woman. He and the other members all heartlessly decide to cover this up because they for some reason believe that the club will be closed down.

So do they wrap the body, put it on the cart and dump her somewhere away from the club? No they keep her on the premises....great start.

Do they get someone else to say that they found the body in case someone saw Diemschutz horse and cart at 12.35? Of course they don’t.

Do they get someone to say that they saw a man with a Scottish or an Irish accent arguing with Stride? No, too obvious I guess.

Then as an obvious part of the cover up they ensure that the few remaining members all get there stories straight as to timings etc.....err no they don’t. They apparently forget to brief Hoschberg and Kozebrodski.

Then within much less than 24 hours they get a witness to say that he saw the killer walking away. Obviously the best kind of witness is one that doesn’t even speak English!

Then they ensure that no one is available to say either “I was in the street at that time standing outside the pub and I saw nothing.” Apart from Flexible Fanny of course.

Then just to add weight to the story that this murder was nothing to do with this Jewish Club they get Schwartz to claim that BS man calls out a Jewish name. They also get him to say that BS Man tried to pull her into the yard.

This is a terrible plan that there’s no evidence for.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So Diemschutz gets back at 12.35 (and of course you see no issue with the fact that no one sees or hears him) and discovers a member has killed a woman. He and the other members all heartlessly decide to cover this up because they for some reason believe that the club will be closed down.

So do they wrap the body, put it on the cart and dump her somewhere away from the club? No they keep her on the premises....great start.

Do they get someone else to say that they found the body in case someone saw Diemschutz horse and cart at 12.35? Of course they don’t.

Do they get someone to say that they saw a man with a Scottish or an Irish accent arguing with Stride? No, too obvious I guess.

Then as an obvious part of the cover up they ensure that the few remaining members all get there stories straight as to timings etc.....err no they don’t. They apparently forget to brief Hoschberg and Kozebrodski.

Then within much less than 24 hours they get a witness to say that he saw the killer walking away. Obviously the best kind of witness is one that doesn’t even speak English!

Then they ensure that no one is available to say either “I was in the street at that time standing outside the pub and I saw nothing.” Apart from Flexible Fanny of course.

Then just to add weight to the story that this murder was nothing to do with this Jewish Club they get Schwartz to claim that BS man calls out a Jewish name. They also get him to say that BS Man tried to pull her into the yard.

This is a terrible plan that there’s no evidence for.

I’ll add. Diemschutz as the finder of the body was always going to be of special interest to the police and so his movements of that night were there to be checked from the beginning of his evenings journey to his arrival; the time the journey took etc.
......

We also have to question Lave’s validity as, according to him, he was in the yard until 1.10 and saw nothing.
.......


So, without nitpicking and within 5 minutes or so, Diemschutz says 1.00, Eagle says 1.00, Spooner says 5 minutes before Lamb, so 1.00 and Mortimer hears a horse and cart around 1.00. Smith passes at around 12.35 and neither sees or hears any activity in the yard. And Blackwell gives his TOD at no later than 12.55.

Can anyone guess around what time did Diemschutz find the body?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any attempt at recreating a timeline for events in and around Berner Street must involve a certain amount of pruning as well as leeway on times. And so I fully expect/accept criticism from those that disagree. I’m not stating that I must be correct here (no one can make that assertion) but I’ve just re-read the statements and come up with my possible version of events.

I will be accused of bias of course but there’s nothing that I can do to prevent this. For example I’ve dismissed the evidence of Joseph Lave on two grounds. One, I don’t think that Schwartz wasn’t where he said that he was (the police clearly believed him) and two, Lave’s statement was wildly inconsistent with events (he said that he was in the yard at 12.40 for 30 minutes which couldn’t have been the case of course as the yard was teeming by 1.10) I think that he was simply mistaken and was in the yard (if he was there at all) earlier and perhaps not for as long as he’d thought.

On Schwartz and the issue that no one can trace him. This has probably already been suggested but, as he didn’t come forward straight away, mightn’t this indicate reluctance or even fear (and which might explain his non-attendance at the Inquest?) Therefore isn’t it possible that he agreed to inform the police but decided to withhold his name? Meaning that Israel Schwartz might not have been his real name?

I’ve also gone for Smith’s time of passing as opposed to Mortimer’s time of 12.45 on the grounds that Mortimer had no reason for accurately logging the time on (up until the disturbance at the club) a perfectly normal evening. We also can’t be anything like certain that she owned a clock. A Police Officer on a regulated beat passes the same landmarks at approximately the same time numerous times on any given day/night and so would have a better general idea of the time. It’s also possible that he passed a clock or clocks that aided him in calculating the time at any point. He would also, I assume, be ‘tuned in’ to the various chimes in the area (business clocks and churches). He also had a reason to be time aware (as opposed to FM) as he would have to make reports of serious incidents for which a time would be important. And so while we cannot be certain, Smith is fairly obviously the more likely to have been correct.

I haven’t included Marshall because I’m only interested here in events from 12.30 onward


Ok......a timeline.


PC Smith walks along Berner Street at around 12.33 and sees Stride with a man.


Fanny Mortimer hears him pass then goes onto her doorstep at around 12.34/5. She doesn’t see the man and woman who are now either too far away for her to see in the poor light; or have turned a corner; or are standing in a doorway or passageway.


She sees Goldstein pass at around 12.43 then goes back inside.


A 12.44 Brown passes a couple as he goes from his house to the Chandler’s shop. They were around the corner in Fairclough Street so Mortimer didn’t see them.


Stride has moved to the gateway of Dutfield’s Yard.


At 12.45 Schwartz passes and sees the incident at the gates of the yard which take a matter of seconds from beginning to end.


Stride is killed sometime between 12.46 and 12.55 either by BS Man or someone that arrived after he’d left the scene.


Mrs Mortimer hears Diemschutz cart pass her house at approximately 1.00


Diemschutz discovers the body at approximately 1.00. (Futile quibbling about wording apart of course)


Kozebrodski goes into the yard from inside the club with Diemschutz at approximately 1.01 but he mistakenly guesses that it was about 12.40. Although there was a clock in the club he had no reason to check it at the time. The fact that he said “about 12.40” confirms that he was only guessing. Also the fact that he was with the 2 police officers at the same time as Eagle (and Eagle said that he’d first seen the body around 1.00) further confirms this.


James Brown hears Kozebrodski and Diemschutz going toward Grove Street.


Gilleman hears what he says and goes upstairs. Eagle then goes down to the yard. It’s around 1.02.


Hoschberg said that he’d got to the yard at 12.45 but, as he was drawn to the yard after hearing a police whistle. We know that Lamb blew his whistle to tell those in the yard to keep away from the body. As he’d done this just after he’d sent Eagle to the Police Station then Hoschberg heard the whistle at around 1.08. He was very obviously mistaken when he guessed at 12.45.


Diemschutz and Kozebrodski go to look for a policeman in the direction of Grove Street but couldn’t find one. Diemschutz returned to Berner Street. Spooner, who was on the corner of Christian Street and Fairclough Street, returned with him. Kosebrodski continued up Grove Street to the corner of Commercial Road and found Collins on point duty. At the same time Eagle, coming from the opposite direction, meets Lamb between Christian Street and Batty Street. They all go to Berner Street together.


Diemschutz and Spooner get back around 1.06


Eagle, Kozebrodski, Lamb and Collins arrive at around1.07.


According to Smith he gets back to Berner Street around 1.00 but, as Lamb was already there it must have been nearer to 1.07 (if he’d originally passed at 12.35 and his route could take 30 minutes or so then this is about right). He goes for an ambulance as Johnston arrived at around 1.13.


Lamb puts a Constable on the gate and sends Eagle to the station and Collins for a doctor. According to Lamb there are 20-30 people in the yard by then and he tells them to keep away from the body and blew his whistle (which alerts Hoschberg to events in the yard)


At 1.10 Collins arrived at the doctors and informed Johnston of what’s happened. Johnston and Collins arrived back at around 1.13. The gates were closed shortly after they arrived.


As per Johnston, he’d been there for 3 or 4 minutes when Dr Blackwell arrived. Blackwell checked his watch and it was then 1.16.


Dr Phillips arrived 20-30 minutes later (so 1.36-1.46) after being called at Leman Street Police Station at 1.20. Chief Inspector West and Inspector Pinhorn are at the yard.


DI Reid received a telegram at Commercial Street Police Station at 1.35 and went to Berner Street

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the issue of Stride’s non-appearance at the Inquest and the claim by some that this was due to the police having no faith in his evidence (even though we know that this claim is untrue) I was just reading through some back issues of Ripperologist when I came across an very good article by Cris Malone in #135 where he addresses this issue. I wasn’t receiving Ripperologist at this time so I hadn’t seen the article before. Cris explains that a Coroner could decide not to call a witness to an Inquest for a number reasons.

My comments are emboldened:

“The risks for himself (he could be recognised and had been threatened by a potential murderer), the community (anti-Jewish feeling), the ongoing investigation (the police might wish to withhold certain information), and the witness outweighed any possible benefit in having his evidence on the public record.”

Cris then quotes The Coroner’s Act; 1887, section 3. Part 3:

“..Many things may be disclosed to those who are to decide, the publication of which to the world at large would be productive of mischief, without any possibility of good. Even in cases in which absolute privacy may not be required, the exclusion of particular persons may be necessary and proper. Of the necessity of this privacy or exclusion the coroner is the judge...”

The emboldening is my own.

Continued in a footnote....

“...It may be requisite that the party suspected should not, in so early a stage, be informed of the suspicion that may be entertained against him, and of the evidence upon which that suspicion is founded, lest he should elude justice by flight, by tampering with the witnesses, or by any other means. Accusation may begin at the moment when the evidence commences. Cases may also occur, in which privacy may be requisite for the sake of decency; others, in which it may be due to the family of the deceased. Many things may be disclosed to those who are to decide, the publication of which to the world at large would be productive of mischief, without any possibility of good. Even in cases in which absolute privacy may not be required, the exclusion of particular persons may be necessary and proper. Of the necessity of this privacy or exclusion the coroner is the judge...”

.........

In view of how much quoting is done on these threads it’s perhaps surprising that no one has quoted this article, including the Coroner’s Act, before. Or perhaps not, considering how inconvenient it is to some theories.

We can’t say anything for certain of the specific reason Schwartz non-attendance of course but we can see that there was ample scope for a decision not to call him to the Inquest. All of them very reasonable, plausible and understandable and none of them because of a doubt over Schwartz evidence which is a suggestion that we can and should eliminate with confidence.

[Michael W Richards]

Very nice, but is there evidence that this was applied to Schwartz and his testimony? No. Is there evidence that when suppression was requested of a witness, either fully or in part, it was disclosed at the Inquest. Lawende was sequestered. Was Israel? Not that we know of. The absence of evidence here is the same issue that affects the interruption theory to explain why someone would think a mutilator didnt mutilate. Ver nice, but where is there some evidence of this?

Its the difference between conjecture and probabilities, its a storyline. As Ive always asserted, follow the evidence and build something from that.

If everyone agreed on all points of the broadly accepted versions of these murders not only would they be boring discussions but they would also just self perpetuate beliefs. I think most of us want something more tangible.

[Wickerman]

...

In view of how much quoting is done on these threads it’s perhaps surprising that no one has quoted this article, including the Coroner’s Act, before. Or perhaps not, considering how inconvenient it is to some theories.

:-)
Trust me Mike, absolutely everything has been debated at one time or another.

Here, back in 2012 Cris posted that very point:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...136#post320136

And here, I replied:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...140#post320140

The flaw in the 'privacy' argument is, that Schwartz had already told his story to the press. The fact his name was not used in the article is of little consequence when even the reporter said he managed to run the Hungarian to ground. He had no trouble in locating his address.
In the Coles murder, the witness was kept out of sight and his statement/testimony was read to the court by a detective, which was another way of dealing with a witness who the court did not want to be recognised.