Sequence of comings & goings - Stride

[Herlock Sholmes]

. saying 12.40?
Something which is directly refuted by no less than 4 witnesses, 3 plus Issac K. And only Morris and Louis were employees at the club, again, thought to be and referred to by locals and authorities as an anarchists club.

Then I possibly misunderstood you Michael. I thought that you were saying that 3 witnesses said that they were told of the presence of the body at 12.40.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. .

The mere fact that people are so unaccepting of an idea that anarchists might lie about something in order to protect themselves from suspicion and any income they derive from the operation is no less astounding to me now than the first time I discovered such reluctance

I've never said that your suggestion couldn't be correct Michael. The most important point that I've tried to make is about your stating your theory as if it's a proven fact.

...

Also, as I suggested in a earlier post, if the members where trying to distance themselves (and the club) from the murder by lying why didn't they just distance the body from the club by dumping it elsewhere on Diemschutz cart? Even by getting Schwartz to lie this didn't negate the possibility that the killer came from inside the club or at least was a member (only that he didn't go back inside - and why would he?)

[c.d.]

The mere fact that people are so unaccepting of an idea that anarchists might lie about something in order to protect themselves from suspicion and any income they derive from the operation is no less astounding to me now than the first time I discovered such reluctance.

Hello Michael,

Yes, people do lie to protect themselves. It is not uncommon. But you have turned it into an if A then B argument meaning that all that has to be shown is that the club had a motive and therefore it absolutely follows that they were involved in a conspiracy or coverup. It just doesn't work that way. If it did then a prosecuting attorney in court would simply establish that the defendant had a motive and then say the the prosecution rests.

It is not that posters don't accept your idea it is the fact that it lacks evidence to support it. The key word in your argument is "might."

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Then I possibly misunderstood you Michael. I thought that you were saying that 3 witnesses said that they were told of the presence of the body at 12.40.

Im not trying to re-open a can of worms here, but Issac K, Gillen, Heschberg and Spooners time estimates all happen around 12:40.

[Michael W Richards]

I've never said that your suggestion couldn't be correct Michael. The most important point that I've tried to make is about your stating your theory as if it's a proven fact.

...

Also, as I suggested in a earlier post, if the members where trying to distance themselves (and the club) from the murder by lying why didn't they just distance the body from the club by dumping it elsewhere on Diemschutz cart? Even by getting Schwartz to lie this didn't negate the possibility that the killer came from inside the club or at least was a member (only that he didn't go back inside - and why would he?)

They couldnt just move the body Herlock, the blood trail alone would be problematic, and if the majority of witnesses are correct, there is a small crowd gathering around Liz as early as 12:40ish. No privacy for Louis, or Louis and Eagle to get her legs and hands and place her off the property.

Israel brings into the equation something that didnt obviously exist before...a possibility that someone from the street killed her. The implication of BSM is that in almost every possible model he would be the most likely one to have eventually killed Liz. The timing and proximity to the death site make that the most probable answer here...IF...it could be proven he saw what he says he did. I dont believe that proof ever was produced because I dont believe the event transpired like he said.

Now, if Israel is leaving via the side door and sees Liz with someone just behind the gate on the left..from his view...then is shooed away by a surly man with her, that for me works fine. It could even be around the same time as he says it happened. Maybe a shade earlier, and maybe Louis comes in right after that. And Liz is already cut on the ground. Around 12:40-12-45. Then the majority of witnesses can be accepted for their times. And it would be out of Fannys sightline. All she need miss is Israel leaving, if he does. And of course, Louis's arrival.

[Michael W Richards]

The mere fact that people are so unaccepting of an idea that anarchists might lie about something in order to protect themselves from suspicion and any income they derive from the operation is no less astounding to me now than the first time I discovered such reluctance.

Hello Michael,

Yes, people do lie to protect themselves. It is not uncommon. But you have turned it into an if A then B argument meaning that all that has to be shown is that the club had a motive and therefore it absolutely follows that they were involved in a conspiracy or coverup. It just doesn't work that way. If it did then a prosecuting attorney in court would simply establish that the defendant had a motive and then say the the prosecution rests.

It is not that posters don't accept your idea it is the fact that it lacks evidence to support it. The key word in your argument is "might."

c.d.

I think we have evidence that Louis lied, he provably didnt arrive "precisely at 1" as he claimed, that Eagle or Lave or both lied, because they claimed to be in the same place at the same time and yet saw nothing. Its likely Israel lied or at least made embellishments, and we know that Israel can be linked at a later date to that club and Woolf Wess.

So...why did they, if they in fact did, lie? Thats when a possible motive for doing so is sought out...and in my estimation, easily found.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im not trying to re-open a can of worms here, but Issac K, Gillen, Heschberg and Spooners time estimates all happen around 12:40.

I don't know who Gillen is?

Hoschberg said "It was about a quarter to one, I should think,..."

So he's guessing.

Kozebrodski said he was called by Diemschutz at about twenty to one.

So he doesn't sound like he was clock certain either. Compared to Diemschutz who saw a clock and actually found the body.

Spooner got to the yard 5 minutes before Lamb. He said he was standing with a woman outside The Beehive between 12.30 and 1.00. Apparently his original 12.35 was based on pub closures. So it's far more likely that he got to the yard after 1.00.

.....

Stride was killed between 12.45ish and 1.00ish (when Diemschutz discovered her body) at a time when there was no one in the yard and Fanny Mortimer was in her house. The Kozebrodski, Hoschberg and Spooner were obviously mistaken in their guesswork.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't know who Gillen is?

Hoschberg said "It was about a quarter to one, I should think,..."

So he's guessing.

Kozebrodski said he was called by Diemschutz at about twenty to one.

So he doesn't sound like he was clock certain either. Compared to Diemschutz who saw a clock and actually found the body.

Spooner got to the yard 5 minutes before Lamb. He said he was standing with a woman outside The Beehive between 12.30 and 1.00. Apparently his original 12.35 was based on pub closures. So it's far more likely that he got to the yard after 1.00.

.....

Stride was killed between 12.45ish and 1.00ish (when Diemschutz discovered her body) at a time when there was no one in the yard and Fanny Mortimer was in her house. The Kozebrodski, Hoschberg and Spooner were obviously mistaken in their guesswork.

Gillen was another member from inside the club, and both of the other members said about 12:40. Issac said about 10 minutes after he arrived back at the club at half past 12. How did he know when he arrived? Well, I guess he checked the clock inside the club, like the other members likely did, like Fanny did in her home. Spooner thought it was about that time too. Diemshitz CLAIMED to have seen a clock and arrived "PRECISELY" at 1...he claimed it was exactly 1 because he saw the clock. But Fanny, at her door until a little past 1, didnt see or hear him. So, Louis lied or was wrong. Its either one or the other, because he was wrong.

Spooner said..."I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard."

So....Spooner is wrong, Issac K is wrong, Heschberg is wrong, and Gillen is wrong. And the only men that are right are ones that did not come from inside a building which would have a clock, and with not one single soul validating what they said. The corroborated accounts are all wrong, the unsubstantiated ones are correct...is that your position? Do you understand how counter intuitive and illogical that is?

Ive never seen anyone try to sweep obvious contradictory evidence away as invalid...oh yeah, the recent US election and Donald Trump. I have seen it.

[Wickerman]

But Eagle and Diemschutz both said that they saw the body at 1.00. I can only see Kozebrodski saying 12.40?

I don't know if you've noticed but the London Evening News is the only newspaper that actually uses quotation marks when relating Kozebrodsky's statement. And, this is the only version that does not give 12:40 as a definite time. What he actually said was "shortly after".

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/london_evening_news/881001.html

Maybe we shouldn't get hung up on "12:40" if he didn't actually say it. That time could be the assumption of a reporter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Gillen was another member from inside the club, and both of the other members said about 12:40. Issac said about 10 minutes after he arrived back at the club at half past 12. How did he know when he arrived? Well, I guess he checked the clock inside the club, like the other members likely did,

Or he was mistaken. Perhaps he judged the time from the place that he left before arriving at the club and he actually arrived at closer to 12.45. Then perhaps his 10 minutes after was actually 15-20 minutes? Why would he have checked the clock when Diemschutz mentions the body? Errors in time can easily occur.

like Fanny did in her home.

Again, we cannot assume that she owned a clock.

Spooner thought it was about that time too.

He also said that he’d arrived 5 minutes before PC Lamb. Why is this dismissed?

Diemshitz CLAIMED to have seen a clock and arrived "PRECISELY" at 1...he claimed it was exactly 1 because he saw the clock.

We know the clock existed. Are you making a point here just on the inaccurate use of the word ‘precisely?’ A man for whom English wasn’t his first language?

But Fanny, at her door until a little past 1, didnt see or hear him. So, Louis lied or was wrong. Its either one or the other, because he was wrong.

Well in the Evening News she said that she went onto her doorstep at approx 12.45 for 10 minutes, went indoors and then only came back out when she heard the commotion from the yard. After hearing a horse and cart (which you deny was a Diemschutz but fairly certainly was)

Spooner said..."I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard."

But 5 minutes before Lamb. He was very obviously wrong.

So....Spooner is wrong, Issac K is wrong, Heschberg is wrong, and Gillen is wrong. And the only men that are right are ones that did not come from inside a building which would have a clock, and with not one single soul validating what they said. The corroborated accounts are all wrong, the unsubstantiated ones are correct...is that your position? Do you understand how counter intuitive and illogical that is?

These are not rock solid witnesses and I can’t see why you are treating them as such.

Ive never seen anyone try to sweep obvious contradictory evidence away as invalid...oh yeah, the recent US election and Donald Trump. I have seen it.

Trump was the one suggesting a conspiracy I’m afraid.

Is Gillen the same as Gilleman? If he’s not where is his statement as I can’t recall reading it.

The point about contradictory evidence is that there are two sides. One right and one wrong. We assess. I’m not calling you a conspiracy theorist but you are using their methods of treating every single discrepancy as something sinister. When a simple, plausible explanation is available it’s usually the correct one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't know if you've noticed but the London Evening News is the only newspaper that actually uses quotation marks when relating Kozebrodsky's statement. And, this is the only version that does not give 12:40 as a definite time. What he actually said was "shortly after".

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/london_evening_news/881001.html

Maybe we shouldn't get hung up on "12:40" if he didn't actually say it. That time could be the assumption of a reporter.

There are so many differences which can probably be put down to reporting Wick. One thing that I noticed from that link was that Diemschutz said that Stride appeared better dressed than most women in the area whereas I’ve seen it written that he’d said that she was better dressed than the last woman that was murdered! How suspicious might that sound if we didn’t know different?

[FrankO]

Im not trying to re-open a can of worms here, but Issac K, Gillen, Heschberg and Spooners time estimates all happen around 12:40.

Hi Michael,

You keep saying that there were 4 people who support a discovery time of around 12:40 am, but the only one who’s actually given a time that supports it, is Isaac Kozebrodski.

I can’t find anything on Gillen, but if you mean Gilleman or Gildeman, then could you please let me know where I can find what he stated, other than what Eagle told about him?

Abraham Heshburg (assuming you mean him by Heschberg) told a reporter he was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, he should think, when he heard a policeman's whistle blown. As several other posters have already said, the fact that he’d heard a policeman’s whistle, at the very least, suggest that he was wrong on his timing and that it was, in reality, after PC Lamb had arrived at the crime scene. So, unless you can provide us with evidence saying that somebody blew a whistle very shortly before 12:45 am, Heshburg was wrong on his timing by some 20 minutes. This is what the evidence we have points to.

Spooner stated that on Sunday morning between 12.30 and 1 o'clock, he was standing outside the Beehive Tavern with a young woman and that he had been standing there for about 25 minutes when two Jews came running along hallooing out "Murder" and "Police." This would put the time at about 12:55 am. Continuing his account, he said he thought he’d arrived in the yard at about 12:35 am. So, these timings he gave don’t just conflict with each other, but also neither of them was 12:40 - if Kozebrodski is to be believed – or, better yet, a minute or 2 later (so that Kozebrodski could go in search of a PC and return without one, but with Spooner instead). Furthermore, if Spooner would have arrived in the yard at around 12:42 am, then he must have been in the yard for about 20 minutes before Lamb arrived. Why doesn’t his account suggest this? And why didn’t he mention that some men went running and screaming in search of a PC only about 20 minutes after he’d arrived in the yard? All of this is odd, unless, in reality, he arrived in the yard shortly after 1 am.

As far as Kozebrodski is concerned, yes, he did say that it was about 12:40 am when he was called into the yard, but we also have in evidence 1. that Kozebrodski was commonly known as Isaacs and 2. that Diemshutz stated that he went running in search of a policeman shortly after the discovery of the body at about 1 am with “One of the members who is known as Isaacs”. The inference of this, of course, is that Kozebrodski was off on his timing. If we follow that, we see that everything fits.

Then, what stands out in Eagle’s fuller statements is that he only said he couldn’t be certain that there was no body there when he arrived in the yard at about 12:40 am after the persistence of the coroner. His first 2 responses were in the negative (‘did you notice anything lying there?’ and ‘could anything have been lying there?’) and only than he admitted he couldn’t be sure, as it was very dark near the gates. Furthermore, he didn’t state, according to any of his statements, that he walked close to the club wall. He said he walked in the middle, but a little to the right, words to that effect.

This is how I interpret the evidence.

[Michael W Richards]

There are things in the above that are not facts but interpretations of statements and extrapolated ideas based on a perception. That we need to explain why Liz wasnt mutilated if this was Jack. How could he not do that. He may have had 5 minutes or more with the victim, so whats the problem? An interruption as suggested not established, a change of heart and motive for the killer, spooked by something....?

Ill just address one small item in the above, the Issac Kozebrodski that it is said was commonly known as "Issac[s] stated in an interview the same night that he was alerted at around 12:40 and sent out alone by Louis or some other member. That establishes only 1 thing, that he did not accompany Louis. It doesnt establish he was in fact called Issac[s] as claimed, nor does it lock in a time for this event, but it does establish that Louis went with someone named Isaac[s] and that it was then more likely to be the gents surname.

[Joshua Rogan]

There are things in the above that are not facts but interpretations of statements....

Ill just address one small item in the above, the Issac Kozebrodski that it is said was commonly known as "Issac[s] stated in an interview the same night that he was alerted at around 12:40 and sent out alone by Louis or some other member. That establishes only 1 thing, that he did not accompany Louis.

Can you point out where he says he was sent out alone, or is this just your interpretation of his statement?

[FrankO]

There are things in the above that are not facts but interpretations of statements and extrapolated ideas based on a perception. That we need to explain why Liz wasnt mutilated if this was Jack.

As I have doubts about Stride being a Ripper victim, this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with her being a Ripper victim or not. Furthermore, as I've said a couple of times before, I have no intention of trying to establish anything, as there are just too many holes and contradictions to be found in the evidence of this whole case. And I've ended my last post saying that this is how I interpret the evidence. So, there's really no need to, once more, say that what I wrote are interpretations.

Ill just address one small item in the above, the Issac Kozebrodski that it is said was commonly known as "Issac[s] stated in an interview the same night that he was alerted at around 12:40 and sent out alone by Louis or some other member. That establishes only 1 thing, that he did not accompany Louis.

This establishes nothing, Michael. He doesn't mention Diemshutz going with him.

It doesnt establish he was in fact called Issac[s] as claimed,

Again, I don't claim anything, it's my interpretation, an interpretation based on the known evidence. And one I find likelier than that Kozebrodski must be believed. Because if I follow that idea, then I see other evidence become odd and not fitting with other evidence.