Sequence of comings & goings - Stride

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Frank,

I appreciate the comments/corrections.

.........

On Brown, I was going by his Inquest statement where he said:

“At that time I was going from my own house to get some supper from a chandler’s shop at the corner of Berner-street and Fairclough-street. As I was going across the road I saw a man and woman standing by the Board School in Fairclough-street.”

So he appears to be saying that he’d seen the couple on the way to the Chandler’s shop?

..........

I went by the Wiki entry for Eagle for this one:

“he quickly ran to find a police officer, heading north up Berner Street onto Commercial Road, shouting for help at the top of his voice. At the corner with Grove Street he met PC's Henry Lamband Edward Collins who accompanied him back to Dutfield's Yard.”

Lamb did say PC 426 though - do we have a name for him Frank?

.......

Do we know the circumstances of Collins arrival?

[caz]

It appears to be ok to ask “how come she heard the horse and cart at 1.00 and yet she didn’t hear the Schwartz incident?”

But not to ask “how come she heard a horse and cart at 1.00 but not at 12.35?”

Indeed, Herlock.

If the argument is that the Schwartz incident around 12.45 never happened because Fanny would surely have seen or heard something of it, then the same goes for this:

Witness Three - Abraham Hoschberg

“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. In the gateway two or three people had collected,”

The fact is, Fanny saw and heard no signs of any such commotion going on that early, and neither did Goldstein when she saw him pass by. All the reliable evidence points to the alarm being raised promptly on the pony and cart's arrival, around 1am, the sounds of which alerted Fanny and caused her to open up again to see what the commotion was all about.

The witness was simply out on his estimated time by - ooh - 'about' fifteen minutes, 'I should think', because, by his own admission, he had not looked at a clock to note the time.

Love,

Caz
X

[FrankO]

Yes. And it is interesting that he didn't mention seeing them there on his way to the shop. Suggesting that they only arrived there in the few minutes while he was buying his supper.

Good observation, Joshua!

[Joshua Rogan]

Brown saw the couple after he'd stayed at the Chandler's shop for a couple of minutes. So he saw them on his way back home.

Yes. And it is interesting that he didn't mention seeing them there on his way to the shop. Suggesting that they only arrived there in the few minutes while he was buying his supper.

[FrankO]

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 have a couple of small remarks, Michael.

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.

There's only one newspaper (Evening News of 1 October) out of 6 who have Lave say that he was out for about half an hour, none of the others do. Allthough it remains unclear when it was that that he said he went outside - at around 12:30 or at around 12:40 - I think we can rather safely assume that it wasn't Lave who said he remained outside for half an hour.

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.

Brown saw the couple after he'd stayed at the Chandler's shop for a couple of minutes. So he saw them on his way back home.

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

It wasn't Collins (PC 12 HR) who got back with Eagle and Lamb, but PC 426 H. When Smith arrived, he stated he saw Lamb and Collins, but Collins had arrived after Lamb whistled for assistance, at which point PC 426 H had just been sent for the doctor.

All the best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're good at this!



Not a secret reason - a specific one - they think it likely 'Jack the Ripper' is a gang.
Hence the reason for campaigning for a reward - to incentivize someone to dob them (or the others) in.

So the reason could have been quite simple, and yet you missed this obvious explanation.
Perhaps that was because you wanted to play the man, and not the ball?

Perhaps I just can’t take your constant leaps of faith seriously?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Because they felt that it might have increased the likelihood of the killer being caught?

You're good at this!

Unless there was a secret reason of course? There usually is.

Not a secret reason - a specific one - they think it likely 'Jack the Ripper' is a gang.
Hence the reason for campaigning for a reward - to incentivize someone to dob them (or the others) in.

So the reason could have been quite simple, and yet you missed this obvious explanation.
Perhaps that was because you wanted to play the man, and not the ball?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So how does Fanny hear a pony and cart just after 1am, when she has locked up and retired for the night, but hears no pony and cart between 12.35 and 12.50, when she is still up and about and going to her door when she fancies a nose? Was she in on this Jewish anarchist plot too? Or did the plotters trust to luck that this nosey neighbour hadn't seen or heard anything of their exploits that might throw a spanner in the works? Was it just a happy coincidence for them that she supported Louis's lie about his arrival time because she'd heard some other pony and cart and assumed it was his? Or was she just hopelessly wrong with her timings, because she didn't have an accurate clock after all? Was it another happy coincidence that she happened to be indoors at 12.45, unable to contradict what Schwartz would be claiming he witnessed at that time?

It seems you'd be better off not relying on anything Fanny Mortimer said to bolster your theory. In fact, she's more of a hindrance than a help.

A final word about telling the time. I counted up and currently we have no fewer than fifteen clocks, kitchen appliances and devices [laptops, mobile phones] around the home that we can consult, not counting wrist watches. And still I very rarely think to check what time it is when I go to my front door to take delivery of a parcel, or take out the rubbish or pop to the nearest shop. I had a parcel delivered earlier, but I couldn't tell you now whether it was over an hour ago, or less than 45 minutes ago.

It appears to be ok to ask “how come she heard the horse and cart at 1.00 and yet she didn’t hear the Schwartz incident?”

But not to ask “how come she heard a horse and cart at 1.00 but not at 12.35?”

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s disappointing, but hardly surprising, that you persist in your ‘4 witnesses’ charade despite the very obvious and very real objections. How many times do these have to be pointed out until you stop parroting the same untruths? It’s getting boring but I’ve got time so I’ll try again.

Witnesses that you inexplicably claim concur and therefore point to an earlier discovery time.....

Witness One - Morris Eagle


“He returned to the club about 25 minutes to 1. As he found the front door closed he went through the gateway leading into the yard, and through the back door leading into the club.”


“When I first saw the body of deceased, I should say it was about 1 o’clock, although I did not look at the clock.”

So she wasn’t in the yard at 12.35. Eagle was told about the body. He went straight outside and first saw it about 1.00. In absolutely no way does Eagle confirm an earlier discovery of the body. He’s dismissed. Categorically. Indisputably. He should not be mentioned again in terms of concurring with other witnesses.


Witness Two - Isaac Kozebrodski


“About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard.”

How accurate was his timing? Yes there was a clock in the club but his use of the word ‘about’ points to the fact that he hadn’t referenced it. And why would he have? He’d just been told about a body in the yard and his first thought would have been to get to the yard for a look. Logging the time wouldn’t have occurred to him. So how accurate, as an individual witness, can he be said to have been? He was a man estimating a time and estimations can be wrong. For all we know he might have had half a dozen pints to cloud his memory. Kozebroski’ s time is about as unreliable as it gets.


Witness Three - Abraham Hoschberg


“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. In the gateway two or three people had collected,”


If we thought that Kozebrodski was unreliable then Hoschberg is far easier to dismiss as very obviously mistaken. Firstly we know that it was Lamb who blew his whistle to tell everyone to get away from the body and we know that Lamb arrived somewhere around 1.07. Secondly, there were no people gathered around the gates at 12.45 but there were later on. This ties in with the time that Lamb was there. Hoschberg is dismissed as a reliable witness on timing. Absolutely no doubt.


Witness Four - Edward Spooner

“Between half-past 12 and 1 o’clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman. I had previously been in another beershop at the top of the street, and afterwards walked down. After talking for about 25 minutes I saw two Jews come running along and shouting out “Murder” and “Police.” They then ran as far as Grove-street and turned back. I stopped them and asked..”

Clear as mud! So between 12.30-1.00 stands talking for 25 minutes. So if we go furthest back (to 12.30) 25 minutes still takes him to 12.55. He’s sees Diemschutz and Kozebroski so we know that this is after one because we know that Kozebrodski ran into PC Collins on point duty.

“The only means I had of fixing the time was by the closing of the publichouses. I stood at the top of the street for about five minutes, and then 25 minutes outside the publichouse. I should say it was about 25 minutes to 1 when I first went to the yard.”

So he stood talking outside the pub for 25 minutes from at least 12.30 and yet he guesses it 12.35 when he got to the yard. On what planet? He admits that he’s only estimating by the closing of the pub. He was only outside the pub so he’s obviously talking about seeing people leaving. So let’s have a stab in the dark.....he saw some people leaving the pub late and assumed this was the 12.30 closing time.


“I stood there about five minutes before a constable came.”

This is Lamb of course who couldn’t have arrived before around 1.07. Obviously a guessed 5 minutes could have been 3 or 4 minutes. There can be no doubt that Spooner arrived at the yard sometime after 1.00. The facts tell us this. Up against the facts we have a guess based on people leaving a pub. The conspiracy conclusion is that the guess was right. The logical, evidence-based conclusion is that Spooner very obviously arrived after 1.00 at can very safely be dismissed as supporting a conspiracy.


..........

So members of the Jury we have the case of the 4 ‘concurring’ witnesses. Can anyone see any concurring going on? I certainly can’t. Viewed honestly and dispassionately this really should put this nonsense to bed once and for all but I’ll take an educated guess and say that it won’t. We will still hear talk of 4 witnesses who all concur to show that Stride’s body was found earlier than claimed but its desperate stuff and all rather embarrassing. I’ve always been prepared to accept that Stride might not have been a ripper victim. I’ll even accept that it’s not impossible that the killer might have hidden inside the club (and might have been a member) as we can’t prove otherwise. But I won’t accept this talk of 4 witnesses pointing to an earlier discovery because the very, very obviously don’t.

[caz]

So how does Fanny hear a pony and cart just after 1am, when she has locked up and retired for the night, but hears no pony and cart between 12.35 and 12.50, when she is still up and about and going to her door when she fancies a nose? Was she in on this Jewish anarchist plot too? Or did the plotters trust to luck that this nosey neighbour hadn't seen or heard anything of their exploits that might throw a spanner in the works? Was it just a happy coincidence for them that she supported Louis's lie about his arrival time because she'd heard some other pony and cart and assumed it was his? Or was she just hopelessly wrong with her timings, because she didn't have an accurate clock after all? Was it another happy coincidence that she happened to be indoors at 12.45, unable to contradict what Schwartz would be claiming he witnessed at that time?

It seems you'd be better off not relying on anything Fanny Mortimer said to bolster your theory. In fact, she's more of a hindrance than a help.

A final word about telling the time. I counted up and currently we have no fewer than fifteen clocks, kitchen appliances and devices [laptops, mobile phones] around the home that we can consult, not counting wrist watches. And still I very rarely think to check what time it is when I go to my front door to take delivery of a parcel, or take out the rubbish or pop to the nearest shop. I had a parcel delivered earlier, but I couldn't tell you now whether it was over an hour ago, or less than 45 minutes ago.

[Michael W Richards]

Maybe you could help me with Michael's theory, Herlock.

It would seem to depend on several club members getting together to come up with a cockandbull story designed to prevent the police suspecting one of their own of this latest murder and closing the club? For some reason they needed to claim the body was discovered a good fifteen to twenty minutes after it actually was discovered? So they had Schwartz claiming to see Stride, at 12.45, being roughed up by an invented Gentile hurling anti-Semitic abuse at him, and presumably they wanted the police to believe this Gentile went on to kill her, even though they didn't want the body 'discovered' until 1am, so they got Louis to lie about the time, and possibly to persuade Fanny Mortimer that she heard his cart then too?

So what I'm not grasping is how Michael has determined which witnesses were in on this and lying through their teeth, and which were telling the truth, if his argument is that because his 4 favourite witnesses gave the same earlier time for the discovery [I know, Herlock, they didn't] they must have been the truthful ones, with access to an accurate clock. Surely, if he is arguing for a conspiracy among the Jews on Berner Street that night, then the number of witnesses apparently singing from the same hymn sheet is not a useful pointer to their honesty, because they could have been the ones involved in a plan to give a false picture of events, trying to stick to their story.

Love,

Confused Caz
X

I dislike when people re-envision a position taken, but so the theory is correctly articulated......I believe Louis came to the gates before 12:50 and after 12:35, he found Liz dying, and that he and the next most senior man there who arrives minutes later, Eagle, then considered how they needed to respond. I believe they sent a few people out for help and then, after considering how they should present this to the police, they themselves went out for help shortly after 1am. I believe Eagle met Issac Kozebrodski on the way back to the club just after 1am. I dont not believe Spooner saw Issac Kozebrodski with Louis Diemshitz 5 minutes or so after 1. I believe 4 witnesses who all substantiate the other without any prior contrivance. I do not believe Israel Schwartz as his story is given, however I dont discount him seeing something when leaving the club via the kitchen, perhaps slightly earlier than he said.

Liz disappears from view after 12:35, Fanny goes indoors for a few minutes, Louis arrives, club members are summoned from upstairs, Eagle arrives..consults with Diemshitz and Lave, Spooner comes into the passageway with 2 of the club members who were sent running for help around 12:40, Fanny comes to her door at 12:50, Goldstein walks past around 12:55 and thinks twice about going into the passageway,..while carrying empty cigarette cartons, while some cigarette makers were awake in the cottages there,... Louis and Eagle leave shortly after 1am, Issac K arrives back after seeking help when he spots Eagle and the constable heading to the club.

That scenario explains some inconsistencies, validates the majority of club witnesses, works with Fannys recollections, works with the officials timings, works with the young couple in the area who also saw nothing on the street. It is also founded on a belief that the poor reputation of this club and the dislike for Socialist anarchists by police, would have influenced their response. They knew how they were perceived, they also knew other murders would be looked at.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because they felt that it might have increased the likelihood of the killer being caught?

Unless there was a secret reason of course? There usually is.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You forgot the very non Jewish anarchist Edward Spooner. He's in on it too.

Evening News, Oct 1:

The silence and secrecy in which the [double event] atrocities were perpetrated wrap them in an impenetrable veil of mystery for the moment. As in former cases the murderer seems to have been almost miraculously successful in securing his retreat. His success in this respect seems to indicate a wonderful power of combination and organisation - an amazing gift for calculating the chances against the success of his schemes or purposes. In fact, the similarity of the murders leads to the conclusion that they have been committed by the one man or the one gang. The worst of it is that we do not know what a "gang" may mean. It might mean an organisation of great extent, or only the partnership between a criminal and his "pal." Recent events seem to suggest that there is more than one individual in the horrid business.

The public cannot fail to be impressed with one fact-the apparent bravado of the assassin. He seems to revel in brutality-and the more energetic the police become in tracking him, the more contemptuously does he defy their efforts. At first he seems to have lost nerve at the critical part of his operation. Now he holds the fancied interruptions of the police patrol in contempt, and commits his murder, and hacks his victim's body, almost within their sight and hearing. Nay, he does this in spite of the fact that Sir Charles Warren has trebled his patrols in the region of the murders, and that it is under the close supervision of a vigilance committee. Cui bono? The assassin it is clear can baffle all ordinary means of detection, and till he commits a singular act of indiscretion-which murderers usually do sooner or later-it appears to use very unlikely that he will ever be discovered. If he has a "pal" that will increase the chance of detection. If he has many and is a member of a gang, his secret will probably be betrayed when a suitable reward is offered as "blood money." The revolting details of the last murders need not be specified here.

Why do you suppose the WVC lobbied so hard for a reward to be offered?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Maybe you could help me with Michael's theory, Herlock.

It would seem to depend on several club members getting together to come up with a cockandbull story designed to prevent the police suspecting one of their own of this latest murder and closing the club? For some reason they needed to claim the body was discovered a good fifteen to twenty minutes after it actually was discovered? So they had Schwartz claiming to see Stride, at 12.45, being roughed up by an invented Gentile hurling anti-Semitic abuse at him, and presumably they wanted the police to believe this Gentile went on to kill her, even though they didn't want the body 'discovered' until 1am, so they got Louis to lie about the time, and possibly to persuade Fanny Mortimer that she heard his cart then too?

So what I'm not grasping is how Michael has determined which witnesses were in on this and lying through their teeth, and which were telling the truth, if his argument is that because his 4 favourite witnesses gave the same earlier time for the discovery [I know, Herlock, they didn't] they must have been the truthful ones, with access to an accurate clock. Surely, if he is arguing for a conspiracy among the Jews on Berner Street that night, then the number of witnesses apparently singing from the same hymn sheet is not a useful pointer to their honesty, because they could have been the ones involved in a plan to give a false picture of events, trying to stick to their story.

Love,

Confused Caz
X

You forgot the very non Jewish anarchist Edward Spooner. He's in on it too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe you could help me with Michael's theory, Herlock.

It would seem to depend on several club members getting together to come up with a cockandbull story designed to prevent the police suspecting one of their own of this latest murder and closing the club? For some reason they needed to claim the body was discovered a good fifteen to twenty minutes after it actually was discovered? So they had Schwartz claiming to see Stride, at 12.45, being roughed up by an invented Gentile hurling anti-Semitic abuse at him, and presumably they wanted the police to believe this Gentile went on to kill her, even though they didn't want the body 'discovered' until 1am, so they got Louis to lie about the time, and possibly to persuade Fanny Mortimer that she heard his cart then too?

So what I'm not grasping is how Michael has determined which witnesses were in on this and lying through their teeth, and which were telling the truth, if his argument is that because his 4 favourite witnesses gave the same earlier time for the discovery [I know, Herlock, they didn't] they must have been the truthful ones, with access to an accurate clock. Surely, if he is arguing for a conspiracy among the Jews on Berner Street that night, then the number of witnesses apparently singing from the same hymn sheet is not a useful pointer to their honesty, because they could have been the ones involved in a plan to give a false picture of events, trying to stick to their story.

Love,

Confused Caz
X

Stumps me too Caz. Considering that most of the members had gone home by then how difficult could it have been to have told them what was going on knowing of course that they would all have been interviewed by the rozzers?

Why didn't the plotters send everyone home leaving say half a dozen at the club. I nice easy number to explain the script too.

Stating on the night that the body was discovered later than it actually was can have had no benefit to the club concerned at the the reaction of the police. It was only when Schwartz was added to the mix. So how could they have been sure that they would be able to find someone who could claim to have been passing along Berner Street at that time and that there wouldn’t be anyone coming forward saying “well I was looking out of my window from 12.30 until 12.50 a few yards from the club and I saw no one?”

Why did they need to lie about the time that the body was discovered? They didn’t know about Schwartz so they didn’t need to place the discovery of the body after Schwartz passed. All they had to do was make sure that the killer had left the premises before the police got there........the theory appears to be the wrong way around with the plotters changing the timing to fit an event that they didn’t know was going to happen! And even if (and this is a stretch even for a conspiracy theory) they’d thought at the time “tomorrow we’ll get someone to say that they passed and saw an incident) then why bother changing the time? They could simply have got this lying witness to have said that he saw the incident at 12.30! Whichever way you look at it this scenario just doesn’t hold water.