Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, I did.

The one thing I admire most about Herlock; is that he always has something to contribute and bring to the table.

He is passionate about what he believes in.

He is knowledgeable and knows more about the Ripper case than I will ever know.

And in the vast majority of occasions he often proves me wrong, or at the very least has an excellent counterargument that makes my efforts a fruitless waste of time.

I can't argue with your comment, because frankly; why would I if it's true.



When the day comes when you can provide the same level of insight and understanding as Herlock, then I will be more than happy to be the recipient of another excellent comeback from you; just like the one Herlock has demonstrated so eloquently.


The biggest positive for me is that I know I am having an impact when I receive such kind, detailed, analytical, progressive, and constructive comments like the one you gave me.

But jokes aside...

We all know that there is no proof to be had here; and that my comments are full of as much conjecture and speculation as anyone else, and so my chosen use of words; such as "In truth," that present me as someone who knows more than anyone else, is perhaps embedded in more nuanced meaning than is seen at face value.

Consider the possibility that my choice of words are chosen for a reason and are in no way a reflection of the real me or my actual personal beliefs.

I am an actor after all



At least my deliberate approach has inspired multiple responses, and has done some good in giving this thread some much-needed spark.

I tried the same thing over on Forums recently, but was told rather directly that nobody was interested in "Whodunnits" on Forums, and that I should essentially... move on.
This is despite the question of that thread being...

"Was Kosminski Jack the Ripper?"

I mean...if that's not a "whodunnit" question, then I don't know what is.


But i digress...


I very much thank Herlock for his guidance, and his valid comments... and of course, for tearing me a new a**


It didn't hurt too much...



More tea vicar?



RD

Hi RD,

I just re-read my response to your long post. Parts of it came across as more terse than was my intent. My excuse is that I was about to do something and was rushing to complete the post first which is never a good thing to do (it’s got me into trouble in the past)

I also don’t want you to think that I’m denigrating your contributions RD. I’m certainly not. They are just as valid as anyone else’s and let’s face it, most of the things that we debate on here are matters of our own interpretation and we don’t always interpret things the same way. Since you’ve been posting you come up with lots of interesting stuff and different viewpoints which you should keep doing. It’s just my opinion that in your enthusiasm you might get a little carried away at times (and that is just my opinion of course). As I’ve been interested in the case for longer than you I’ve probably become a bit more jaded and perhaps cynical after hearing so many theories, so I can certainly be criticised for perhaps not having the same level of enthusiasm. Maybe it will return? It ebbs and flows.

That said RD, you could be right. It seems very unlikely to me that Schwartz would have lied but I think it’s certainly possible that he could have been mistaken. Let’s consider…


Perhaps sometime, maybe not long, before 12.30 Schwartz passed along Berner Street? The lateness of the hour introduces the possibility (no more) that he might have had a drink or three which wouldn’t exactly help with perception and memory. He sees a minor domestic-type confrontation at the gates (maybe his lack of English led him to misinterpret the seriousness of the incident? Maybe it was just a piece of drunken horseplay between a man and a woman actually knew each other?) The lack of any loud screaming suggests that the woman at least didn’t consider her life under threat. The next morning he hears of the murder from a friend and he tells him about seeing the incident. The friend tells him that he probably saw the killer and his victim. He thinks that it was around 12.20-12.30 but he couldn’t be sure but his friend, knowing more about when the body was found, says that it was more likely to have been around 12.45. Schwartz is now convinced that it must have been around d 12.45 so he goes to the police.

He later ID’s the body in the mortuary but we know how witnesses can be mistaken and when we consider the circumstances of the sighting we see that Schwartz would hardly have stood staring. More likely he saw her in quite fleeting glances as he passed. Women of that class didn’t have extensive wardrobes then so unlike today there wouldn’t have been such a difference in the way two lower class women dressed. So he saw a woman who looked vaguely similar to Stride, dressed similarly and he’d seen her at the very spot where a body was later found. It’s perhaps not difficult to imagine why his confidence level might have increased.

If Schwartz was right (in The Star) that Pipeman came from the doorway of the pub couldn’t he have actually been exiting the pub? This would have been less likely to have happened a full 45 minutes after closing time? What about 12.15-12.30? I don’t know. Maybe he was a barman who had been helping clean up before lights out?

So I really think it’s possible that Schwartz might have seen an unrelated incident sometime prior to 12.30. If we accept that witnesses can be mistaken on timings and we accept problems of synchronicity then we should accept the possibility with Schwartz too.

[Michael W Richards]

Except I'm not making up other alternatives theories without any substance or proof .

Stick to the evidence at hand and go from there .

With all those people around at that time not one person came forward to say I saw the assault on liz stride and its not the way Schwartz said it happened.

Schwartz can't be dismissed just because no one saw what he saw .

You still haven't come up with a valid reason why Schwartz lied twice and supposedly according to some made the whole thing up during a police murder investigation.

.

I guess my estimation that you get it was incorrect. First off, the part I put in bold and underlined above.......the incredible irony of your lecturing anyone on making up theories without any substance or proof was not lost on me, or Im sure anyone who has read any of your nonsense about Jack The Ripper/Torso maker. You have built a house of cards, so its humorous you would critique others for suggesting contradictory "theories".

Schwartz isnt dismissed. His story is on record. Thats not what is being stated though, its that despite knowng his story the authorities saw no value in it for the Inquest into this death.

Israel knew Wess. Wess likely translated for Israel as well. Wess is an authority figure on that property, as is Diemshitz. So why would any of these men offer a story that has the most probable killer of Liz Stride come from off their premises. As I already said....last post....and prior to that, over and over again. Anyone who denies that Dimeshitz and Wess would have concerns about the club or that premises suspected of harbouring the killer is denying basic human traits, and .....(remember that other point? NOT ONE MAN SEEN BY ANY INQUEST APPEARING WITNESS ON THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE GATES between 12:35 and 12:55?)

You ask me what would motivate Louis, Wess or this wild card Israel Schwartz to lie about what they saw and what happened, and when. Its bleeding obvious why they would do such a thing....to deflect any suspicions on themselves. Because Strides killer was a real person, and no real person was seen on that street other than the young couple and Goldstein from 12:36 to 1am. So if he didnt come from OFF the property, where MUST he then have come from?

And what did Anderson say was the working profile of the unknown killer as of September? Yeah.....a poor immigrant Jewish man. Just like virtually all the men at the club between 12:35 and 1am. So they knew its not just this murder they might be suspected for.

[The Rookie Detective]

Can you think of any good reason why Schwartz would want to make such a ''detailed'' statement to the police describing the attack on Stride, then be taken to the mortuary to identify her dead body as being the women he saw in said assault ? . If as you say [iyo ] the attack never happen, why the lies on these two occasions to the police during a murder investigation . Surely you dont think Schwartz was Liz Strides Killer ?





''Of course IMO, it still doesn't change the fact that the alleged assault on Stride never happened. (IMO)''



The same could be said for all the witnesses in the Liz Stride murder case then . That their ''Statements'' as with Schwartz were '' Alledged '' ?

I am suggesting that Schwartz was the Ripper incognito


I am also suggesting that he relished being taken to the mortuary, so he could gain satisfaction from seeing his work up close; because he had to leave Stride in a hurry and unlike his other kills, he needed some warped sense of closure with Stride.

I am also suggesting that Parcelman and Schwartz were the same man and that he chose 12.45am because that was after PC Smith had gone and so he knew there were no other witnesses to counter his story.

If for example he had said a time earlier than 12.45am, then there was a chance that either PC Smith, Lave or Eagle could have indicated that Schwartz was lying.


If he was Parcelman, it would have been a case of knowing that when he killed Stride, there was a 90-second window that nobody observed him walking with Stride into the yard. That's because he had been with Stride in the lead-up to killing her. i believe she had no idea who he was, especially after having been kissing him previously.

There is also the unanswered question of where Parcelman went after being seen talking quietly with Stride.


It's also worth noting that in the very first press reports, PArcelman was the focus of the investigation.

But then along came Schwartz and Packer to muddy the waters


All of this is just my own opinion of course


RD

[FISHY1118]

Based on that bold line, it would seem that you do get it. Schwartz's story is like all the others..a recorded statement that alleges viewed activities...but many of these witnesses were asked to state their stories on the stand, to record them as formal evidence in the investigation into the murder. Israel....very obviously...was not. Now some might say to me...and have...well then what about Fanny, because she isnt called either....true. But Fanny didnt claim to see Liz or anything that might be related to the death of Elizabeth Stride. Israel very much did claim that. 2 ommissions, 1 for understandable reasons...no valued information for the Inquest mandate. The other can only be, considering the scene that was claimed, the participants, and the activies....unsubstantiated. That is the only reason for leaving Israel out of the discussion. Because his storyline and characters would be very relevant to the Inquest questions.

You want a reason why someone would come forward and introduce an off site character assaulting this victim....even while you are aware that without this sudden appearance of BSM and Israel, not one witness saw anyone on the street after 12:35, just Goldstein at around 5 to 1? Simply...the men at the club were the ONLY men seen anywhere near the street or the gates. With one exception, the young man in the couple that Brown saw.

Israel puts the most probable killer off the premises. Voila. You really expect me to believe you couldnt see that yourself.....or do you change your approach based on your opponents identified weaknesses? The latter, I suspect.

And as for who did kill Liz, it could very well have been Diemshitz, or Lave, or Eagle, because all of them did have access to those gates...right where Liz was found.

Except I'm not making up other alternatives theories without any substance or proof .

Stick to the evidence at hand and go from there .

With all those people around at that time not one person came forward to say I saw the assault on liz stride and its not the way Schwartz said it happened.

Schwartz can't be dismissed just because no one saw what he saw .

You still haven't come up with a valid reason why Schwartz lied twice and supposedly according to some made the whole thing up during a police murder investigation.

.

[Michael W Richards]

Can you think of any good reason why Schwartz would want to make such a ''detailed'' statement to the police describing the attack on Stride, then be taken to the mortuary to identify her dead body as being the women he saw in said assault ? . If as you say [iyo ] the attack never happen, why the lies on these two occasions to the police during a murder investigation . Surely you dont think Schwartz was Liz Strides Killer ?

The same could be said for all the witnesses in the Liz Stride murder case then . That their ''Statements'' as with Schwartz were '' Alledged '' ?

Based on that bold line, it would seem that you do get it. Schwartz's story is like all the others..a recorded statement that alleges viewed activities...but many of these witnesses were asked to state their stories on the stand, to record them as formal evidence in the investigation into the murder. Israel....very obviously...was not. Now some might say to me...and have...well then what about Fanny, because she isnt called either....true. But Fanny didnt claim to see Liz or anything that might be related to the death of Elizabeth Stride. Israel very much did claim that. 2 ommissions, 1 for understandable reasons...no valued information for the Inquest mandate. The other can only be, considering the scene that was claimed, the participants, and the activies....unsubstantiated. That is the only reason for leaving Israel out of the discussion. Because his storyline and characters would have been very relevant to the Inquest questions.

You want a reason why someone would come forward and introduce an off site character assaulting this victim....even while you are aware that without this sudden appearance of BSM and Israel, not one witness saw anyone on the street after 12:35, just Goldstein at around 5 to 1? Simply...the men at the club were the ONLY men seen anywhere near the street or the gates. With one exception, the young man in the couple that Brown saw.

Israel puts the most probable killer off the premises. Voila. You really expect me to believe you couldnt see that yourself.....or do you change your approach based on your opponents identified weaknesses? The latter, I suspect.

And as for who did kill Liz, it could very well have been Diemshitz, or Lave, or Eagle, because all of them did have access to those gates...right where Liz was found.

[Michael W Richards]

Exactly. It would be great if anyone quoting times could add this qualification.

Best regards, George

On these timing issues, I do recognize that a lot of work has been made on the reconstruction of beat timing and comparatative analysis of times by witnesses, and I do get your point George about a codicil on all of them based on the fact that the sources used were not set to the same time. But....I believe in many cases here, the primary sources used to set a wrist or pocket watch by, or to set a residence or business clock by, were sources that were displayed publicly around the area. We have many instances where people quote a source for their time given as being a clock that is on display for all the residents in that area. Some set their timing devices, some roughly calculated how long it took to walk from Point A to Point B, and some would refer to those local public sources almost exclusively for their times. The one that live on the street in particular.

But none would likely mention brief stoppages en route, or a short chat with someone out at night, so all this researched detail about probable speeds of PCs and distances from A-B still needs to be posted with codicils as well.

The answer here isnt we cant know for sure on times because everyone used a different source for their time.... because its quite likely many did use the same sources.

[FISHY1118]

That's more like it!

At last I have got a valid response from you

Far better than one liners

I am grateful for your feedback and you are of course correct that my omission of the phrase...

"In my opinion"

...could be deemed as arrogant and obnoxious.

But honestly;

Everyone knows that everything I write is just my opinion, and has no value or worth, but I understand that by not specifying that it's just my opinion, then it is likely to inadvertently rub people up the wrong way; particularly those folk who have spent years believing stuff that never even happened. (IMO)


I apologise to you personally if that is indeed the case.

Of course IMO, it still doesn't change the fact that the alleged assault on Stride never happened. (IMO)

I have no proof of that... (IMO)

Yes, it my own opinion that I have no proof of my own opinion.

But neither do those who believe in Schwartz either.

So at least we are on an even playing field.



RD

Can you think of any good reason why Schwartz would want to make such a ''detailed'' statement to the police describing the attack on Stride, then be taken to the mortuary to identify her dead body as being the women he saw in said assault ? . If as you say [iyo ] the attack never happen, why the lies on these two occasions to the police during a murder investigation . Surely you dont think Schwartz was Liz Strides Killer ?





''Of course IMO, it still doesn't change the fact that the alleged assault on Stride never happened. (IMO)''



The same could be said for all the witnesses in the Liz Stride murder case then . That their ''Statements'' as with Schwartz were '' Alledged '' ?

[FrankO]

Hi, would it be possible for a one post summary so far for the late guy to the thread please? Muchas grassy arse...

Hi Geddy,

A very brief one post summery, hope it's enough…

On the one hand, there’s Jeff, George and myself who are trying to confirm or discard possibilities based on different walking speeds and the distances involved & see where everybody can be placed along a timeline. While doing so, we stress that, if one is going to suggest a timeline, it’s wise to use one common clock/watch to tie all the comings & goings to. If one’s going to use, for instance, Blackwell’s time/watch as a basis for the appearances of some witnesses, but another clock for other witnesses, then we get nowhere. All timelines should have one common reference point (clock/watch).

At the same time, there are others who are discussing mostly witnesses like Mortimer and Schwartz, who played a part before the discovery. I think (almost) everybody sees that Mortimer is, at best, not very useful for confirming or discarding any happenings that took place in this period, except that she confirms Goldstein’s passing through the street somewhere before one o’clock.

The best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Excellent post

Thanks, RD.

Would it therefore be accurate to work back from where PC Smith was at the point when he learned of the murder...and then work back 25 to 30 minutes to reach an approximate time that Pc Smith was likely to have passed by Stride and Parcelman?

I’ve used 2 ways to calculate this. The first is that I’ve calculated that, if he started his shift at 10 pm, then going round his beat in an average time of 26 minutes, he would arrive at the point where he saw Stride & companion at around 12:36 and then again at around 1:02. So, that would fit with the timings given by Smith (and they would be on the clock that Smith based his timings on). Using averages time of 25, 27, 28, 29 or 30 for the whole of his beat wouldn’t fit as well as 26 with his stated timings.

Then, I’ve measured Smith’s beat, including Sander Street, Batty’s Gardens, Hampshire Court, Queen Court and Batty’s Court. It measures 1890 m/1.17 miles. Going by the 26 minutes above, his average walking speed would have been 2.7 mph/4.36 kmph.

Now, if he would have been at the point where he saw Stride & companion (and I’m suggesting that would have been somewhere on the eastern side of the street, roughly opposite the numbers 34 to 30), and the time on Smith’s clock would then have been 12:35, then he would have arrived at the top of Berner Street on Commercial Road 1710 m/1.06 miles and 23 minutes and 31 seconds later. Smith’s clock would at that point indicate 12:58:31.

If we’d do that the other way around and say that at 1:00 (on Smith’s clock) Smith was at the top of Berner Street, then he would have been at the spot where he saw Stride & companion at 12:36:29.

Equally, If we take the time that Mortimer said she heard the policeman walk past her door and then add 25 to 30 minutes, does it fit into the time and location that PC Smith was in when he learned of the murder?

That would be practically the same. If we assume, as I do, that Smith passed along the western side of Berner Street (and Fanny’s house), then crossed the street just before the intersection with Fairclough and then went up Berner Street where he saw the couple, then there would be 69 m/226 feet between passing Fanny’s house and where Smith saw the couple. This would add 57 seconds to the 23 minutes and 31 seconds. So, Smith would have arrived at the top of Berner Street on his next round 24 minutes and 28 seconds after he’d passed Fanny’s house. Of course, the time one would read would depend on whose clock one would be looking at. Smith’s may well have indicated a slightly different time than Fanny’s.

Now if that works, then there's your answer

It works for me, but I'm not you...

The best,
Frank

[The Rookie Detective]

Yer heres the thing tho ,The difference between Herlock and myself is he too often suffers fools ,i dont .

Ive spent many many a night on these theads giving detailed, analytical, progressive, and constructive comments just as Herlock has done [ yes he is good at it, ill agree to that ] but when posters ignore , fly off the cuff ,make baseless comments with no evidence to back them up then claim they have found the truth about the ripper murders, well i get a little tired of the same old B.S . Hence why i dont spend time posting longgggggg drawn out replies only for them to be ignored and or ridicule or dismissed without any proof .

So forgive me if im boring you with my one liners, but if you want more imput from me in regards to debating the topic at hand ,then try using this simple term at the end of your future post ''Im My Opinion'' instead of dismissing evidence and witnesses as ''fact'' just because you dont agree with it or them .

That's more like it!

At last I have got a valid response from you

Far better than one liners

I am grateful for your feedback and you are of course correct that my omission of the phrase...

"In my opinion"

...could be deemed as arrogant and obnoxious.

But honestly;

Everyone knows that everything I write is just my opinion, and has no value or worth, but I understand that by not specifying that it's just my opinion, then it is likely to inadvertently rub people up the wrong way; particularly those folk who have spent years believing stuff that never even happened. (IMO)


I apologise to you personally if that is indeed the case.

Of course IMO, it still doesn't change the fact that the alleged assault on Stride never happened. (IMO)

I have no proof of that... (IMO)

Yes, it my own opinion that I have no proof of my own opinion.

But neither do those who believe in Schwartz either.

So at least we are on an even playing field.



RD

[FISHY1118]

Yes, I did.

The one thing I admire most about Herlock; is that he always has something to contribute and bring to the table.

He is passionate about what he believes in.

He is knowledgeable and knows more about the Ripper case than I will ever know.

And in the vast majority of occasions he often proves me wrong, or at the very least has an excellent counterargument that makes my efforts a fruitless waste of time.

I can't argue with your comment, because frankly; why would I if it's true.



When the day comes when you can provide the same level of insight and understanding as Herlock, then I will be more than happy to be the recipient of another excellent comeback from you; just like the one Herlock has demonstrated so eloquently.


The biggest positive for me is that I know I am having an impact when I receive such kind, detailed, analytical, progressive, and constructive comments like the one you gave me.

But jokes aside...

We all know that there is no proof to be had here; and that my comments are full of as much conjecture and speculation as anyone else, and so my chosen use of words; such as "In truth," that present me as someone who knows more than anyone else, is perhaps embedded in more nuanced meaning than is seen at face value.

Consider the possibility that my choice of words are chosen for a reason and are in no way a reflection of the real me or my actual personal beliefs.

I am an actor after all



At least my deliberate approach has inspired multiple responses, and has done some good in giving this thread some much-needed spark.

I tried the same thing over on Forums recently, but was told rather directly that nobody was interested in "Whodunnits" on Forums, and that I should essentially... move on.
This is despite the question of that thread being...

"Was Kosminski Jack the Ripper?"

I mean...if that's not a "whodunnit" question, then I don't know what is.


But i digress...


I very much thank Herlock for his guidance, and his valid comments... and of course, for tearing me a new a**


It didn't hurt too much...



More tea vicar?



RD

Yer heres the thing tho ,The difference between Herlock and myself is he too often suffers fools ,i dont .

Ive spent many many a night on these theads giving detailed, analytical, progressive, and constructive comments just as Herlock has done [ yes he is good at it, ill agree to that ] but when posters ignore , fly off the cuff ,make baseless comments with no evidence to back them up then claim they have found the truth about the ripper murders, well i get a little tired of the same old B.S . Hence why i dont spend time posting longgggggg drawn out replies only for them to be ignored and or ridicule or dismissed without any proof .

So forgive me if im boring you with my one liners, but if you want more imput from me in regards to debating the topic at hand ,then try using this simple term at the end of your future post ''Im My Opinion'' instead of dismissing evidence and witnesses as ''fact'' just because you dont agree with it or them .

[FrankO]

It is difficult to construct a path that covers all of the perimeter without him going in both directions on the internal streets that run North-South.

Hi Jeff,

As I wrote in my post #754 to George, so far I've come up with 5 possible routes Smith could have taken with the going up & down one street not in one go. So, I don't think it's very difficult to construct paths that cover all of the perimeter without him going in both directions, but what these 5 routes would show is that there wouldn't be 25 to 30 minutes between the 2 important events that Smith described in his testimony (seeing Stride & companion and arriving at the top of Berner Street).

All the best,
Frank

[Geddy2112]

Hi, would it be possible for a one post summary so far for the late guy to the thread please? Muchas grassy arse...

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi George,

I see that Jeff has beaten me to it to react to your post. Our responses are somewhat different, but our conclusions are rather similar. Anyway, here it goes.

I think you’re a bit too pessimistic about this. Of course, we can’t and will never know how Smith precisely walked his beat on each and every round he went, including the one when he saw Stride & companion. But that doesn’t matter much.

If he was at the top of Berner Street at 12:30 and then patrolled it first down and then up and went around his beat (which would take him 25 to 30 minutes), then he would arrive back at the top of Berner Street again at 12:55 to 1 am.

Now, if we would split the patrolling down Berner Street from the patrolling up the street, then those times (the 12:30 & the 12:55 to 1 am) would no longer be 25 to 30 minutes apart. They would be longer.

An example. Let’s say he was at the top of Berner Street at 12:30 and he patrolled it south where he would turn right or left on Fairclough. Then, let’s just, as an example, say, he then patrolled Batty Street first up and then down again and then went to Berner Street through Fairclough and then patrolled it in the northern direction.

In this example it would have taken, at least, some 4 to 5 minutes to first go to Batty Street, patrol it up and down and then to return to Berner Street, before he could arrive at the spot where he saw Stride & companion. So, then 12:30 to 35 should have been at least 12:35 to 12:40. The longer, however, it would have taken Smith to return to Berner Street to do the stretch in the northern direction, the less what Smith testified would correspond with the actual truth.

What we’re stuck with is a route that places Smith where he saw Stride & companion and places him almost there again 25 to 30 minutes or almost one beat-round later. There’s no way around it. And no orderly or easy-to-remember route that would fit. I have come up with 5 examples of Smith doing Berner Street in seperate goes and none of them fit. That is what we can deduce from all the information we do have, however little it may seem.

The best,
Frank

Excellent post


Would it therefore be accurate to work back from where PC Smith was at the point when he learned of the murder...and then work back 25 to 30 minutes to reach an approximate time that Pc Smith was likely to have passed by Stride and Parcelman?

Equally, If we take the time that Mortimer said she heard the policeman walk past her door and then add 25 to 30 minutes, does it fit into the time and location that PC Smith was in when he learned of the murder?

The top of Berner Street


Now if that works, then there's your answer


If it doesn't then it's back to square one


RD

[FrankO]

Hi George,

Indeed, working out the beats of the various PC's is never a sure thing. I'm sure Steve could give a fair lecture on the complications of working out PC Neil's beat in the Nichols case, for example. On the other hand, we're not completely in the dark.
...

None of that will ensure we've got it right, of course, but there is no way to know the specifics of truth, only ways to deal with the information we have to see what we can extract from it to guide our interpretations. This sort of thing is probably the best we can do with the information we have, but I think it could be very interesting.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Great post there. I agree that we don't have much and shall never know 'the specifics of the truth' (great book title there ), but we still have enough to work out a number of things.

Cheers,
Frank