Sequence of comings & goings - Stride

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Mortimer doesn’t claim to have seen Brown pass, so it would seem that Mortimer wasn’t at her door when this happened; in other words, she must have come at her door after he passed

There are two reasons this doesn't necessarily follow.

One: Brown is up around the Fairclough/Berner intersection - passing through it in seconds - and it's dark.

Two: She did see him - she just didn't regard that as being an unusual event...

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

It has to be remembered that Fanny Mortimer is not standing on her doorstep for much of that half-hour, carefully journaling the visible comings and goings, as though she were witnessing the lead-up to what would become a world famous event. It's just another night...

So, this is the sequence based on the above 4 points:

1. couple arrives at the corner of the board school
2. Brown passes and sees the couple
3. Mortimer comes to her door
4. Leon Goldstein passes
5. Mortimer goes back inside

Starting at #3, this is what we can ascertain from Mortimer's comment's...

1. Mortimer comes to her door
2. Leon Goldstein passes
3. Mortimer goes back inside
4. Some minutes pass (Smith, Stride, parcel man)
5. Mortimer goes back outside
6. Leon Goldstein passes
7. Mortimer goes back inside (and presumably 'shoots the bolts')

Evening News: I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.
He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

Central News: ...the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man, carrying a shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the Club, and then went round the corner by the Board School.

In this context, 'previously' refers in effect to between my #1 & 3.

4. Eagle returns to the club
5. Stride & companion arrive close to the club
6. Smith arrives and sees Stride & companion opposite the club

If Smith's beat lasts a minimum of 25 minutes, and a maximum of 30, we can work out an ETA and LTA based on the following times (which you may disagree with, of course).

4. 12:40:00
5. 12:42:30
6. 12:45:00

ETA: 1:10
LTA: 1:15

This is Smith in the Times, Oct 6:

At 1 o'clock I went to Berner-street in my ordinary round. I saw a crowd of people outside the gates of No. 40. I did not hear any cries of "Police." When I got there I saw constables 12 H R and 252 H. I then saw the deceased, and, on looking at her, found she was dead. I then went to the station for the ambulance. Dr. Blackwell's assistant came just as I was going away.

So the Johnston & Blackwell timings are already tight, but we also have this...

The Foreman: Was the man or the woman acting in a suspicious manner?
Smith: No.
Inspector Reid: Did you see these people more than once?
Smith: No. When I saw deceased lying on the ground I recognized her at once and made a report of what I had seen.

How long did that report take to write?
Whatever the case, Smith's testimony is arguably the most reliable in the entire case, because he wrote down what he had seen, soon after seeing it. The reliability of his info, arguably includes his times.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Since that is plainly impossible (nothing wrong with your map reading) it's useful to check multiple reports rather than rely on one. The Times does get the street right in Baxter's summing up on the 24th, although he doesn't mention the house number that they were opposite;

"William Marshall, who lived at 64, Berner-street, was standing at his doorway from half-past 11 till midnight. About a quarter to 12 o'clock he saw the deceased talking to a man between Fairclough-street and Boyd-street"

Oh, and happy birthday for yesterday.

Thanks Joshua

[Michael W Richards]

Hi FrankO;

As per the Woodford Times of 5 and the Illustrated Police News of 6 October, Kozebrodski was familiarly known as “Isaacs”. These 2 newspapers wrote that Diemshutz discovered Stride’s body at around 1 am and that after returning to the yard & having alerted people inside the club, he went running for a policeman together with Kozebrodski, familiarly known as Isaacs. Make of that what you will, Michael.

Yes, the reports reflect what is said by Diemshutz, the statements also reflect what people perceived. Why would Issac K be commonly called Issac[s]? Who says he was? What about what he himself said?

I'm not doing anything of the sort, Michael. I just tried to make sense of the evidence and put all comings & goings in a sequence that does as little violence as possible to said evidence. It's just a starting point and I invited anyone who has something sensible to add or say about it to do just that.

You attempted to establish things that are based on no foundation in known evidence. Like the man running with Louis was someone from the club commonly called Issac[s]. Thats hearsay...anyone corroborate that? Issak K not only says he went alone, but he says that it was at the insistence of Louis or "some other member'", ...at around 12:40. Issac K had been back to the club since 12:30.

It’s not quite clear what Kozebrodski/Isaacs does; it’s possible that he returns with Diemshutz & Spooner to the yard and only then runs with Eagle in the direction of Commercial Road to find a policeman, but also that he leaves Diemshutz & Spooner, goes up Christian Street or Batty Street and, together with Eagle, finds Lamb. Since, according to Eagle’s own statement versions, he seems to have left for a policeman very shortly after Diemshutz & Kozebrodski/Isaacs left the yard in search of a policeman, the latter possibility seems more likely. That Kozebrodski only meets Eagle upon his return is contradicted by Lamb’s testimony, as he clearly stated that he 2 men came running towards him.


Actually its possible Issac K went by himself as he says he did, and that Spooner met 2 Jews of which neither is Diemshitz or Kozebrodski running for help at around 12:40-12:42, its possible that there was no sighting of Liz Stride being assaulted at around 12:45 since she was already cut and bleeding out, its possible that the fact that 4 witnesses gave the exact times and events were telling the truth.

In fact its possible that three men who were principals at the club, paid by the club for services or staying on the premises, lied about the time the body was discovered and the time lapse between that and when they actually personally sought help. Its possible they lied to avoid investigators suspecting someone from the club...which is the obvious conclusion based on an otherwise empty street.

Why doesnt Issac K say he went out with Louis, why does he say he went alone 20 minutes earlier than Louis says he went with Issac[s]? Why doesnt Spooner identify Louis as one of the men he met..they were both at the Inquest. Because Spooner met "2 jews" around 12:40, and Issac went out at 12:40 alone, and Louis didnt do diddly himself until after 1. Why does Eagle say "he couldnt be sure" a dying was there when he arrives back at 12:40? Because there actually was one there at that time but his bud Louis gave a different story which he feels he has to try and support. He doesnt see Lave either...even though Lave says he was standing right at the gates at that time.

Their Stories have holes, and they can be directly refuted by other independent witnesses whose stories do match each others.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. In fact its possible that three men who were principals at the club, paid by the club for services or staying on the premises, lied about the time the body was discovered and the time

I know that Kozebrodski is 1 but who are the other 2?

[FrankO]

Yes, the reports reflect what is said by Diemshutz,…

There’s a statement in the IPN by Diemshutz that, obviously, reflect what is said by Diemshitz, but this isn’t necessarily true of the ‘overviews’ carried by both newspapers (and others, like the Morning Advertiser of 1 October). In fact, it seems likely to me that they spoke to more than just one person to get the whole overview.

Why would Issac K be commonly called Issac[s]?

Why couldn’t he be commonly known as Isaacs? Why should it be odd, or even impossible? I have a friend, whose surname is Bakker, but he has been called Baak by many since we were 13-14 years old (and we’re 55 now).

You attempted to establish things that are based on no foundation in known evidence.

Firstly, I attempted to establish nothing, simply because there’s very little to establish in this whole case. I was just curious if I could manage to get a decent sequence of comings & goings written down in the hope of getting an even more decent list with the help of other posters.
Furthermore, the list I’ve made is based on foundation in the known evidence, as what’s written in both newspapers is known evidence.

Like the man running with Louis was someone from the club commonly called Issac[s]. Thats hearsay...anyone corroborate that?

If that’s hearsay, then there’s a lot more hearsay going around, like Mortimer being at her doorstep between 12:30 and 12:45, and Kozebrodski being called into the yard at 12:40 as a result of the discovery of the body, and Kozebrodski going in search for a PC alone and at the insistence of Diemshutz or some other member…

Issak K not only says he went alone, …

Didn’t Robert Paul also say he went in search of a policeman alone, when we know that he didn’t? If we’re supposed to believe/stick to everything we read, then I’m sure we’ll be getting nowhere with so many holes & contradictions. Then we could also create a story in which Spooner actually arrived after PC Lamb (when we know he didn’t), as, in going from the pub where he stood to the yard, he saw Mr. Harris coming out of his house in Tiger Bay, having heard the police whistle.

Issac K had been back to the club since 12:30.

One out of 4 newspapers stated that he had arrived at the club at 12:30, while the 3 other state 6:30 in the evening.

Actually its possible Issac K went by himself as he says he did, and that Spooner met 2 Jews of which neither is Diemshitz or Kozebrodski running for help at around 12:40-12:42, its possible that there was no sighting of Liz Stride being assaulted at around 12:45 since she was already cut and bleeding out, its possible that the fact that 4 witnesses gave the exact times and events were telling the truth.

Kozebrodski said 12:40; Spooner suggests 2 different times, i.e. 12:55 AND 12:35 (but not 12:40); like Spooner, Diemshutz didn’t say either that he arrived in the yard at 12:40 and Eagle says he arrived back at the club at 12:40, but saw no one, and no one claims to have seen him at that hour. What’s also odd is that Diemshutz told the newspapers right from the start that he’d discovered the body around 1 am. Is Kozebrodski supposed to have been left out of the group who wanted to hide the fact that the body was found some 20 minutes earlier?

In fact its possible that three men who were principals at the club, paid by the club for services or staying on the premises, lied about the time the body was discovered and the time lapse between that and when they actually personally sought help. Its possible they lied to avoid investigators suspecting someone from the club...which is the obvious conclusion based on an otherwise empty street.

Why doesnt Issac K say he went out with Louis, why does he say he went alone 20 minutes earlier than Louis says he went with Issac[s]? Why doesnt Spooner identify Louis as one of the men he met..they were both at the Inquest. Because Spooner met "2 jews" around 12:40, and Issac went out at 12:40 alone, and Louis didnt do diddly himself until after 1. Why does Eagle say "he couldnt be sure" a dying was there when he arrives back at 12:40? Because there actually was one there at that time but his bud Louis gave a different story which he feels he has to try and support. He doesnt see Lave either...even though Lave says he was standing right at the gates at that time.

Their Stories have holes, and they can be directly refuted by other independent witnesses whose stories do match each others.

I the see the holes and inconsistencies, too, Michael, but what you make of them just goes a little too far for me.

[Michael W Richards]

On the point of Issac Kozebrodski and your comparative, a more appropriate one would be calling the person Bakkers. Plural. Like Issac[s]. Isnt it more probable that when he said Issacs it referred to a surname? As to whether Issac was "in on it", I dont see why he would be. He is sent out by someone just after being aware of the body, and anything Eagle and Louis might discuss is about the club and its reputation and possible consequences of reporting the murder on their property. Eagle and Louis are paid to attend the club, each in his own fashion. Its economic issues as well as being dangerous to the clubs continuance.

What you object to i9s my interpretation of the known circumstantial evidence, the physical evidence leave no doubt that the murderer was not intent on mutilation. Ive suggested that Israel is a red herring, and Louis, Lave and Eagle likely concocted the timings. Which perhaps necessitated allowing the perception that the Issac[s] Louis went out with was actually Issac K..a long standing presumption, nothing more. Issac K says differently, and as I said, he wasnt privy to the machinations of the story to present.

Louis arrived at a time when Fanny was indoors, around 12:39ish, I dont suspect him so I imagine its at that time that he sees the woman and calls for help from inside. They gather quickly around the woman, Heschberg, Gillen, Issac K...and 2 jews go running for help. Issac K is told to go, and Louis and Eagle and the remaining members huddle around with morbid curiousity. The 2 jews who went for help return now with Spooner, and they all gathers around while some poke and prod a bit. Louis and Eagle leave after 1 for help.

That all fits with the majority of the witness accounts.

[Wickerman]

Why would Issac K be commonly called Issac[s]?

That is such a lame question Michael.
The fact you have never heard of a christian name used as a nickname only shows you have not done your research.
The fault lies with you Michael, not the press story.

Are you too young to have heard of the actress Megs Jenkins?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megs_Jenkins

Her name was Muguette, but she was known as "Megs" to her friends.
No different than Isaac K. being known as "Isaacs".

[Michael W Richards]

That is such a lame question Michael.
The fact you have never heard of a christian name used as a nickname only shows you have not done your research.
The fault lies with you Michael, not the press story.

Are you too young to have heard of the actress Megs Jenkins?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megs_Jenkins

Her name was Muguette, but she was known as "Megs" to her friends.
No different than Isaac K. being known as "Isaacs".

I think the point being made was that this nickname is mentioned by whom...?? Validated by who else? He was commonly referred to as that...says who? I have heard of such things, like Wills for William, and have evidence for them being referred to as such. Though to suggest what you did so snidely is a surprise. And you have to support your position that Issac was indeed called Issac[s] is...? Hearsay. Your comments about research only reveals your elitist views of yourself, which for the record, arent flattering. Since I consistently use evidence to support my claims, and other folks imagine interruptions to support theirs, I hardly think Im the one not using available research data.

I suppose if Louis said he was a giraffe people some would believe him, its funny just by saying something youd assume it to be true. No filters? No corroboration? No understanding of how human nature works? Just take a guys word for something.

When I say Fanny was at her door, just as she said, the last 10 minutes of the hour I use Goldsteins sighting to corroberate it. See how that works Wick...validation for something? Instead of simply believing your opinion is above anothers validated accounts.

[Michael W Richards]

I know that Kozebrodski is 1 but who are the other 2?

Morris and Louis

[Herlock Sholmes]

. the physical evidence leave no doubt that the murderer was not intent on mutilation.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
When I say Fanny was at her door, just as she said, the last 10 minutes of the hour I use Goldsteins sighting to corroberate it.

But Goldstein never gave a specific time that he'd passed the club did he?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Morris and Louis

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

[Michael W Richards]

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

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.

Even if none of these club members actually killed Liz, the club still did have to take the responsibility for the murder on their grounds with the authorities. That they wouldnt frame their story to be favourable to the club and to protect it is the astonishing claim here. Not that anarchists wouldnt lie to establishment authorities. Thats clearly a falsehood. That Issac K disagrees with Louis for example is likely due to Issac not being privy to what Louis was going to say, not that he was incorrect with his recollections. He directly refutes Louis, although we can assume they are friendly. So, why else would that happen?

[Michael W Richards]

But Goldstein never gave a specific time that he'd passed the club did he?

No, he said he passed the club that night. Fanny saw him, she said what time it was..since she had been in and out and had clock access, and was at her door for 10 straight minutes, probably not so farfetched an approximation. Though I know you dont like filling in blanks with the bleeding obvious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, he said he passed the club that night. Fanny saw him, she said what time it was..since she had been in and out and had clock access, and was at her door for 10 straight minutes, probably not so farfetched an approximation. Though I know you dont like filling in blanks with the bleeding obvious.

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.