Sequence of comings & goings - Stride

[Wickerman]

Also, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for Schwartz to be running towards Grove St. if he was on his way home as the story he gave indicates.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Unless he went home via the railway arch

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is quite simply untrue. The killer could have been interrupted. This is a fact.

Yes, but is this a definitely ascertained fact, or one of the another types?

[Wickerman]

Unless he went home via the railway arch

Which railway arch do you mean, going in the direction of Grove St.?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Well Swanson's report doesn't tell us, so neither can I, but if pressed I would suppose it was a route that went via the new address (so that he ends up doubling-back a way, to get home eventually).
So turn off Fairclough almost immediately into Providence, then right into Ellen, down to Backchurch Lane, and then left, going as far as Pinchin street and the rail arch there.
Presumably when he got to 22 Ellen, he didn't feel safe enough to try the door, so kept going.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, but is this a definitely ascertained fact, or one of the another types?

I’d say it’s a definite fact or you might call it a ‘definite maybe?’

[Michael W Richards]

There can be no doubt that they were one and the same Frank

Unless of course you read what Issac Kozebrodski says himself. Disregarding first hand information for information that is from the same source that is provably wrong about his arrival time seems prudent? Of course youve demonstrated that you prefer the unsubstantiated accounts to multiple corroborated ones.

[FrankO]

Disregarding first hand information for information that is from the same source that is provably wrong about his arrival time seems prudent?

What information that is from the same source are you referring to, Michael?

[Michael W Richards]

What information that is from the same source are you referring to, Michael?

By both Issac Kozebrodski's comments and Fannys. Louis did not arrive at 1am. Issac says it was 12:40 when he went out at Louis or some other members request. Fanny saw no-one arriving by 1am. Ergo, Louis was either there at 12:40, or he arrived after 1. Since there are official witnesses that state they were there just after 1:05 ish, it seems Issac K was likely on the mark. As were 3 other witnesses who gave the same time he did.

[FrankO]

By both Issac Kozebrodski's comments and Fannys. Louis did not arrive at 1am. Issac says it was 12:40 when he went out at Louis or some other members request. Fanny saw no-one arriving by 1am. Ergo, Louis was either there at 12:40, or he arrived after 1. Since there are official witnesses that state they were there just after 1:05 ish, it seems Issac K was likely on the mark. As were 3 other witnesses who gave the same time he did.

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

By both Issac Kozebrodski's comments and Fannys. Louis did not arrive at 1am. Issac says it was 12:40 when he went out at Louis or some other members request. Fanny saw no-one arriving by 1am. Ergo, Louis was either there at 12:40, or he arrived after 1. Since there are official witnesses that state they were there just after 1:05 ish, it seems Issac K was likely on the mark. As were 3 other witnesses who gave the same time he did.

This is only because you're focusing on one word in one version. The word 'precisely.' You can't dismiss someone on one word when it could very easily be either a simple example of mis-speaking or an error by the reporter. Diemschutz said that he passed the clock at 1.00. How long would it have taken to get to the club? A minute? He obviously got to the club at around 1.00 or 1.01 or 1.02 and Fanny heard a horse and cart at just the right time.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Herlock,
here are some of the time related comments you've made in this thread.

#45:

Where does it say that she had clock access?

She didn't, as far as I'm aware, say that she was in and out.

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

In #55, you gave this reply to one of MWR's points:

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)

#89:

The only reason I mentioned distance was that ‘a few seconds or more’ would equate to a sizeable distance between them (20 or 30 yards or more perhaps)

Could be that someone just conflated to two events. Schwartz/Pipeman at 12.45 and Diemschutz/Kozebrodski just after.

#101:

This is only because you're focusing on one word in one version. The word 'precisely.' You can't dismiss someone on one word when it could very easily be either a simple example of mis-speaking or an error by the reporter. Diemschutz said that he passed the clock at 1.00. How long would it have taken to get to the club? A minute? He obviously got to the club at around 1.00 or 1.01 or 1.02 and Fanny heard a horse and cart at just the right time.

Would it be fair to say that you don't have a coherent picture of either the times of or the order of events?

By the way, there is no reference to a commotion in the Evening News report. It ends:

Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is only because you're focusing on one word in one version. The word 'precisely.' You can't dismiss someone on one word when it could very easily be either a simple example of mis-speaking or an error by the reporter. Diemschutz said that he passed the clock at 1.00. How long would it have taken to get to the club? A minute? He obviously got to the club at around 1.00 or 1.01 or 1.02 and Fanny heard a horse and cart at just the right time.

Here is how Diemschitz words at the inquest were captured in 3 papers...

Daily News: On Saturday I left home about half-past 11 in the morning and returned home exactly at 1 a.m. Sunday morning. I noticed the time at a tobacco shop in the Commercial-road.

Daily Telegraph: On Saturday I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street.

Morning Advertiser: I left home about half-past eleven on Saturday morning, and returned home exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at Harris's tobacco shop at the corner of Commercial-road and Berner-street. It was one o'clock.

The Times does not quote Diemschitz, instead saying; Witness left home about half-past 11 on Saturday morning, and he returned home exactly at 1 o'clock on Sunday morning. He was certain about the time.

So what about Diemschitz' command of the English language? This London Evening News Oct 1 segment, makes for interesting reading:

Diemschitz being then asked to describe the body as well as he could, said: "In my opinion the woman was about 27 or 28 years old. Her skin and complexion were fair." This is not correct, according to the latest accounts that we have received, but the man was evidently too frightened at the time to be able to remember. "Her clothes were in decent order, but her neck and throat had been fearfully gashed and presented a frightful spectacle. There was a cut between two and three inches wide in it. All her clothes were black, even to the bonnet, which had crape on it. Her hands were tightly clenched, and when they were opened by the doctor I saw immediately that one had been holding sweetmeats and the other grapes. I should not like to say whether or not she had been knocked about at all in the face; but speaking roughly, she seemed to me to be a more respectable sort of woman than we generally see about these parts. I conclude this because it appears that nobody about here had ever seen or heard anything about her before. The police removed the body to the mortuary at Cable-street. When I first of all came across the woman, she was lying on her left side, her left hand was on the ground, while the right was lying across her breast. Her head was on the ground of the yard, while her feet pointed towards the entrance. The body was only a yard or so within the entrance. I keep my pony and trap in Cable-street, but I am in the habit of going to the club first to leave my goods there." The above is an accurate statement of what Diemschitz told our representative. Diemschitz is a Russian Jew, but he speaks English perfectly. He is a man with more intelligence than is usually to be found amongst men of his class, and in every way is a credit to the neighbourhood in which he resides. This may not seem to be a compliment; but we mean it as such, for our informant is, so far as we are able to judge, an honest, truth-speaking man, on whose evidence we feel that we are able to rely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,
here are some of the time related comments you've made in this thread.

#45:



In #55, you gave this reply to one of MWR's points:

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)

#89:



#101:



Would it be fair to say that you don't have a coherent picture of either the times of or the order of events?

By the way, there is no reference to a commotion in the Evening News report. It ends:

Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

I see no issue with anything that I’ve said. Id be eternally grateful if you would point out the evidence of my incoherence. And when and if you do I’ll admit to my error. Unlike you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here is how Diemschitz words at the inquest were captured in 3 papers...

Daily News: On Saturday I left home about half-past 11 in the morning and returned home exactly at 1 a.m. Sunday morning. I noticed the time at a tobacco shop in the Commercial-road.

Daily Telegraph: On Saturday I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street.

Morning Advertiser: I left home about half-past eleven on Saturday morning, and returned home exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at Harris's tobacco shop at the corner of Commercial-road and Berner-street. It was one o'clock.

The Times does not quote Diemschitz, instead saying; Witness left home about half-past 11 on Saturday morning, and he returned home exactly at 1 o'clock on Sunday morning. He was certain about the time.

So what about Diemschitz' command of the English language? This London Evening News Oct 1 segment, makes for interesting reading:

Diemschitz being then asked to describe the body as well as he could, said: "In my opinion the woman was about 27 or 28 years old. Her skin and complexion were fair." This is not correct, according to the latest accounts that we have received, but the man was evidently too frightened at the time to be able to remember. "Her clothes were in decent order, but her neck and throat had been fearfully gashed and presented a frightful spectacle. There was a cut between two and three inches wide in it. All her clothes were black, even to the bonnet, which had crape on it. Her hands were tightly clenched, and when they were opened by the doctor I saw immediately that one had been holding sweetmeats and the other grapes. I should not like to say whether or not she had been knocked about at all in the face; but speaking roughly, she seemed to me to be a more respectable sort of woman than we generally see about these parts. I conclude this because it appears that nobody about here had ever seen or heard anything about her before. The police removed the body to the mortuary at Cable-street. When I first of all came across the woman, she was lying on her left side, her left hand was on the ground, while the right was lying across her breast. Her head was on the ground of the yard, while her feet pointed towards the entrance. The body was only a yard or so within the entrance. I keep my pony and trap in Cable-street, but I am in the habit of going to the club first to leave my goods there." The above is an accurate statement of what Diemschitz told our representative. Diemschitz is a Russian Jew, but he speaks English perfectly. He is a man with more intelligence than is usually to be found amongst men of his class, and in every way is a credit to the neighbourhood in which he resides. This may not seem to be a compliment; but we mean it as such, for our informant is, so far as we are able to judge, an honest, truth-speaking man, on whose evidence we feel that we are able to rely.

And yet it’s still being suggested that Diemschutz returned much earlier. I mentioned the previous use of the word ‘precisely’ because I believe that the point was being made that Diemschutz saw the clock at ‘precisely’ 1.00 and therefore couldn’t have arrived at exactly 1.00. If I misinterpreted the point being made then Michael hasn’t mentioned it. And if I have then I hold my hands up.

Diemschutz arrived at 1.00ish. The famous three witnesses were quite obviously mistaken. Spooner provably so.