Sequence of comings & goings - Stride

[Michael W Richards]

Witness One.....Eagle.

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

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

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


Witness Two.....Heschberg.



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

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

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

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

Im sorry but this is selective quoting again.

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

Witness Four.....Kozebrodski.


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

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


Summing Up.


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

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

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

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

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

.......

Fanny Mortimer.

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

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

Schwartz

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

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Witness One.....Eagle.

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

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

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

Witness Two.....Heschberg.

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

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

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

Witness Three.......Spooner.

Im sorry but this is selective quoting again.

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

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

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

Witness Four.....Kozebrodski.

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

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

Summing Up.


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

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

.......

Fanny Mortimer.

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

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

.....

Schwartz

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

.....

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

[Michael W Richards]

I didn’t fully quote what Lave said.



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

Morris Eagle said that....



Yet Michael says......



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

"I returned about twenty minutes to one. I tried the front door, but, finding it closed, I went through the gateway into the yard, reaching the club in that way."

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

Heschberg: "It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter."
Kozebrodski: "About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard."
Spooner:"Stated that between 12.30am and 1.00am, 30th September 1888, he was standing with a young woman outside the Beehive public house on the corner of Christian Street and Fairclough Street. "
Mortimer: "At a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact."

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

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

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

None of my witnesses "guessed" the times, they all...but Spooner, came from inside buildings. And they gave times which they felt were correct...of which 4 matched. And the witness at her door from 12:50 until 1 essentially confirms that no-one came or went from 12:50 until just 1am.None can be categorically dismissed..maybe by you and Caz but not by anyone serious about conducting an investigation. Your absolute arrogance and dismissve comments about someone that is using evidence and not making excuses for anything that contradicts an interrupted serial mutilator premise isnt just a disappointment anymore, its a f****** bore. And patently false. And historically innacurate. I still say you folks should start a fictional Casebook, where your pretend stories and dismissal of evidence would be welcomed. You can have your own fiction madman and argue with anything that contradicts you. Because it would be in a fictional setting. This isnt that. Putting your bs here is an insult to anyone looking for truth.

YOU WANT the mutilator so you challenge 4 corroborated statements. YOU WANT to buy Schwartz despite the fact that he very obviously was not believed officially, YOU WANT to smooth over anything that remotely suggests that no outside person came into that yard to kill Liz, and you want to portray me as the one manipulating rthe evidence. Youve tossed evidence aside for your own arguments...sad, and unfortunately, predictable. Just not factual.

Try reading instead of ranting Michael. Take off the conspiracy goggles.

Spooners time WASNT correct. He said that he arrived in the yard 5 minutes before Lamb. How is that correct? On Planet Cover-Up maybe but not on Earth. Spooner is dismissed out of his own mouth.

Eagle saw the body at 1.00 - dismissed.

Hoschberg and Kozebrodski were guessing the time. The words ‘about’ and ‘I should say’ kinda give that away Michael.

These are your witnesses. Your props.

And as for Schwartz....for Christ’s sake can you read???

Abberline, Swanson, Anderson and Warren. Remember them? I think that they were......police In black and white Michael. Still treating Schwartz as a valued witness into November. Over a month after the Inquest!!!

You are hopelessly and irrevocably biased on this issue Michael. Everyone can see this.

[Michael W Richards]

None of my witnesses "guessed" the times, they all...but Spooner, came from inside buildings. And they gave times which they felt were correct...of which 4 matched. And the witness at her door from 12:50 until 1 essentially confirms that no-one came or went from 12:50 until just 1am.None can be categorically dismissed..maybe by you and Caz but not by anyone serious about conducting an investigation. Your absolute arrogance and dismissve comments about someone that is using evidence and not making excuses for anything that contradicts an interrupted serial mutilator premise isnt just a disappointment anymore, its a f****** bore. And patently false. And historically innacurate. I still say you folks should start a fictional Casebook, where your pretend stories and dismissal of evidence would be welcomed. You can have your own fiction madman and argue with anything that contradicts you. Because it would be in a fictional setting. This isnt that. Putting your bs here is an insult to anyone looking for truth.

YOU WANT the mutilator so you challenge 4 corroborated statements. YOU WANT to buy Schwartz despite the fact that he very obviously was not believed officially, YOU WANT to smooth over anything that remotely suggests that no outside person came into that yard to kill Liz, and you want to portray me as the one manipulating rthe evidence. Youve tossed evidence aside for your own arguments...sad, and unfortunately, predictable. Just not factual.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Still contrary just for the sake of it huh?

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



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

Is this accusation any different from that of someone who might suggest that you have a personal belief that the killer came from within the club and that you have been doing anything that you can to keep it alive? Like your endless repeating of the ‘absence of evidence’ thing which everyone on legs can see is an utter non-starter perhaps? Or you’re constantly claim that witnesses who are guessing about times must be taken as gospel especially when one of them is only out by 5 minutes tops and another who can be dismissed without a second thought? Or your constant quoting of what Mortimer said in one report but your convenient omitting of what she said in another? This is called shoehorning. Serious study shouldn’t require this.

So we have Schwartz absence from the Inquest - we can’t say for certain why but it can’t have been because the police dismissed him because we have it from several sources in print that they hadn’t and that he continued to be mentioned well after the Inquest and at least into November.

We have Mortimer in the EN showing that it was more than likely that she was inside when Schwartz past.

And 4 witnesses. One can be dismissed as categorically mistaken. One can be dismissed as he only said that he saw the body a mere 5 minutes before he actually had. And two who used words like ‘about’ and ‘I should think’ when talking times showing that they hadn’t consulted a clock, if one was available, and were simply mistaken.

And on those three shaky props you have built a scenario which you defend to the point of insulting and dismissing everyone that disagrees or questions you.

[Michael W Richards]

Still contrary just for the sake of it huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[caz]

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?

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.

Reminds me of something my dad used to say about cats.

Q: What side of a door does a cat want to be?

A: The other side.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If she was outside, listening to the music from her doorstep for more than a minute or two, is there any reason why she would not have pulled the front door to, to keep the draught and the music from disturbing her old man?

"Close the door behind you, woman. I don't want to hear that ruddy din while I'm freezing me nuts off in here, thanks very much."

A few reasons, actually.

A close-up of some of the addresses along Berner street, suggests there was probably little in the way of a step.
Although the bottom of the doorway of #36 is just out of shot, other doorways suggest she did not have a doorstep similar to the middle step at the back of 29 Hanbury street.

She doesn't say anything about a step...

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock this Sunday morning, and did not notice anything unusual.

Closing the door behind her would put her at the mercy of tipsy men with broad shoulders.

An alternative would have been to close the bedroom door.

Fanny at her door

[caz]

If that is the criterion that you insist on using then in accordance with the laws of logic Stride absolutely could not have been a Ripper victim. But that begs the question why do you insist on using that criterion? To me, it seems extremely simplistic and smacks of very shoddy detective work. Shouldn't the next question be could there be anything which prevented mutilation and then try to determine what that could have been and then decide how plausible that reason is?

You are certainly free to use any criterion that you want but insisting that that criterion be met before Stride can be considered a Ripper victim seems to be very agenda driven.

c.d.

The thing is, the man known as The Yorkshire Ripper left virtually all his victims unripped, which shows that the problem lies in the moniker used, and not in the enigmatic variations of any individual killer's behaviour.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I think there's a fair few books that suggest otherwise.

Incidentally, there's a new one out soon, by some Swedish journalist. Available in the new year from all good book retailers!

I do wonder how this discussion would have looked if the man who killed Nichols had had to scarper immediately after cutting her throat because of approaching footsteps [Cross's footsteps, if the killer was not Cross; Paul's, if the killer was Cross - the timings only had to be very slightly altered]. Nichols would then have been 'a victim unripped', and therefore not a ripper victim, according to Michael's logic. It could have happened that way so easily.

And talking of Cross, I'd imagine a man with a sharp knife, who sought to overpower and mutilate his female victims, could become very cross indeed if the conditions were against him, and would have had no hesitation in taking out his considerable anger on the woman, swiftly and silently, before scarpering.

Alternatively, the kill itself could have been a big part of the thrill for him. Who says it wasn't? Would he have mutilated a woman he found already lying senseless or dead on the street, for instance? I don't think even Michael could have the answer to that one. If there was a sexual element to the murders, the killer could have got off on the considerable risks he took each time of someone coming along at any time, making mutilation a bonus when his luck held. The excitement gained from simply overpowering and cutting a victim's throat, virtually under the noses of potential witnesses, could have compensated in some small way for not being able to hang around after the initial buzz to finish what he started.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that your comment speaks volumes. I think that there’s a desire in some quarters just to disagree because the idea of holding what you call “a mainstream opinion” is a sign of poor thinking or even stupidity. A wish to be different just for the sake of standing out. This is why we get conspiracy theory thinking. Getting excited when we find a discrepancy or error then attempting to weave a scenario around it.

Can you, hand on heart, say that the statements of witnesses like Lave, Eagle, Kozebrodski and Hoschberg are genuine evidence of a cover up? Eagle said he saw the body ar 1.00. Lave said that the yard was empty up until around 1.00. Hoschberg said “around 12.45 I should think,” but talks about a hearing a police whistle which we know occurred later. And Kozebrodski said “about 12.45.” Then, if we add Spooner who is also cited. He says in one breath 12.35, then in another he’s talking to a woman for 25 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00 (whatever this equates to but I’m guessing it’s close to 1.00) then he says that he arrived 5 minutes before PC Lamb. Can we honestly think of 4 less reliable sounding witness when it comes to timings? Or are these statements more ‘forgivable’ when we consider that they were thinking back over extraordinary circumstances. Where excitement and a bit of panic set in and where the men speaking wouldn't in all likelihood have owned watches or had any reason to have attempted to log times of there was a clock around? These are just errors. No more no less. And the poorest ground to build a theory on.

”Lave said that the yard was empty up until around 1.00,” should read “....around 1.10.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Few posters will have spent more time disagreeing with Fish than me but I’m not aware of him using any straw man arguments? Just a difference of opinion. I will say that I’ve never heard Fish say that other posters are on his level though.

“...are on his level,” should read “...aren’t on his level.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who also cannot resist the temptation of erecting strawmen when attempting to undermine any opposition to their weak arguments, and believes this is a valid method of debate?

Few posters will have spent more time disagreeing with Fish than me but I’m not aware of him using any straw man arguments? Just a difference of opinion. I will say that I’ve never heard Fish say that other posters are on his level though.