Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[The Rookie Detective]

I think having an individual like Malcolm is a big help to the case; because it demonstrates how someone who claimed to have been so confident with her identification, was completely wrong. It helps us to realize that identifications should be taken with a hint of caution.

Regarding the Stride case; we know that there was another couple in the vicinity at the time, and because of that some of the alleged sightings may have been of this couple and not Stride.

I know that the absent flower is sometimes used as a reason to negate Marshall's sighting, but I feel that a flower by itself isn't enough to rule out Marshall as a witness to Stride.


RD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

For what it's worth, I don't think Marshall or Brown saw Stride that night.
Neither of them were in a position to see the all important flower on her breast.
In my view both witnesses saw two different couples.
After Stride was seen at the Bricklayers Arms in Settles St. about 11:00pm, the next time she was seen was by Packer coming up from the south end of Berner st., about 11:45pm.
I know both Marshall & Brown identified the body, but so did Mary Malcom, who saw the body three times, because she initially had doubts, but finally swore she had "not the slightest doubt" the body was her sister Elizabeth Watts.
So how much confidence should we have in any witness who swears to identify the body?

What was the protocol for mortuary identifications? Did a witness have to give a description of the deceased before viewing, or would they just observe and then give a 'yes' or 'no' or 'not sure'?

I don't see how Marshall could be confident of his identification, having said "There was no lamp near and I did not see the face of the man she was talking to." It was dark and the man was facing directly away from him.

As for Brown, stating that he did not see a flower in the woman's dress, suggests to me she was not much obscured by the man. I picture his right arm being against the wall, so that the woman's front is mostly visible to Brown as he heads home from the shop. The DT quotes him saying "I am certain the woman was the deceased", and then later, "I am almost certain it was the deceased."

[New Waterloo]

[QUOTE=The Rookie Detective;n831910]I think having an individual like Malcolm is a big help to the case; because it demonstrates how someone who claimed to have been so confident with her identification, was completely wrong. It helps us to realize that identifications should be taken with a hint of caution.

Regarding the Stride case; we know that there was another couple in the vicinity at the time, and because of that some of the alleged sightings may have been of this couple and not Stride.

I know that the absent flower is sometimes used as a reason to negate Marshall's sighting, but I feel that a flower by itself isn't enough to rule out Marshall as a witness to Stride.

RD[/QUOTE]


It is a very good point Rookie makes about the couples in the area. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems like there were three 'couples' in the area at about the same time. Spooner and his female friend, the couple Mortimer mentions as standing close by and Stride and her male companion seen by PC Smith.

Is it not the case that several people underestimate the age of Stride. If she did look a little younger are we getting confused and could she be the female Mortimer mentions or could she be Spooner's female friend.

I know that its all about timings but just a thought. Were there really three couples standing around not far from each other within a similar time frame?

Oh and wasn't Morris Eagle taking his girlfriend home from the club a little earlier. (1145hrs) I mean they could have stopped on the way home. He doesn't get back till 1235hrs. If she lived close by then where were they. Standing around having a kiss and cuddle in the street is my bet.

That would be four couples loitering about. Busy little area. Are we getting mixed up a bit or as usual is it me.

NW

[Michael W Richards]

So we are back to your belief that quoted times should be considered set-in-stone. I thought that you accepted that this wasn’t the case? It’s difficult to follow your opinion on this point Michael. Are times all perfect…..do we allow a margin for error…..or do we allow a margin for error except for when it works against your theory?

Pick a trusted time that was stated. Would you favour Dr. Blackwell’s watch? He said that he arrived at 1.16. PC Lamb said that the Doctor arrived at the yard 10 minutes after he did. That doesn’t take us to ‘just before 1.00’ Michael. It takes us to Lamb arriving at around 1.05 - which certain is ‘about 1.00’ as per the non-cherrypicked quotes.

We know that Smith arrived at the yard after Lamb got there because he saw Lamb and Ayliffe already in situ. So PC Smith arrived after 1.05. Does this in anyway jar with the duration time that he gave for his beat? No, because he said that his beat took around 30 minutes and that he’d first passed the yard at 12.30-12.35.

So if he passed at 12.35, and his route took 30 minutes, that puts his return at around 1.05.

Where do you see an issue here? Apart from inconvenience to the plot of course.

There seems to be some confusion about what is being suggested Herlock. Im not speculating about anything here. The quoted times speak volumes for themselves, and its in no-ones interest to keep reminding you of what is within the recorded evidence. Ive never once said times are carved in stone or used any other similar analogy to describe these stated times, though you have posted that many times.

Ive just stated that within the known evidence, (statements that are easily check-able by the way, if you are ever so inclined....), there is a storyline that is consistent and has a reasonable and logical sequential progression of time estimated as more individual accounts are added to it. A discover of the body around 12:40 would be consistent with Eagle and Lamb to be meeting up "just before 1", with Johnson being able to arrive on site at 1:10, and Blackwell at 1:16. It is also consistent with Spooners claim that Lamb and Eagle arrived "about five minutes" after he had arrived there with Louis. The discovery, the gathering of the men, sending out search parties, not find a policeman immediately, Issac being able to catch up with Eagle and Lamb after finding no-one where he originally headed,......these events require time. You seem to believe that Louis arrives as Eagle firsts meets up with Lamb.

The times Ive quoted are the witnesses, not mine, and the timing you suggest we should be adopting instead are all subjective suggestions so you can arrive at some sort of comprehensible story of times and events. You just change the witnesses times as given. You alter the evidence to suit your argument. I dont. Does that mean I believe these times are carved in stone? No, what rubbish that accusation is. It means using their times and allowing for a reasonable variance of a 5 minute maximum, either way, for error...they give a story. One that works time wise as Lamb, Johnson and Blackwell come into view. They knew what time they got the call, and what time they arrived.

3 witnesses with the same stated time...within 5 minutes of each others. Louis by himself, with a claim that is 20 minutes later thant those 3 men, and impossible to reconcile with Lambs estimate that he saw Eagle at "just before 1".

And funnily enough......the witnesses that give these contrary times, and vague recollections, and events and individuals that have no secondary validation of any kind despite the fact there are witnesses there who could have seen or heard the events, are all either paid staff, a paid speaker, or people who live on the property. All directly linked economically with that club and who would be impacted directly by its open or closed status. Israel Schwartz may not have fit into that mold, but he did know Wess.

[The Rookie Detective]

[QUOTE=New Waterloo;n831930]

I think having an individual like Malcolm is a big help to the case; because it demonstrates how someone who claimed to have been so confident with her identification, was completely wrong. It helps us to realize that identifications should be taken with a hint of caution.

Regarding the Stride case; we know that there was another couple in the vicinity at the time, and because of that some of the alleged sightings may have been of this couple and not Stride.

I know that the absent flower is sometimes used as a reason to negate Marshall's sighting, but I feel that a flower by itself isn't enough to rule out Marshall as a witness to Stride.

RD[/QUO

TE]


It is a very good point Rookie makes about the couples in the area. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems like there were three 'couples' in the area at about the same time. Spooner and his female friend, the couple Mortimer mentions as standing close by and Stride and her male companion seen by PC Smith.

Is it not the case that several people underestimate the age of Stride. If she did look a little younger are we getting confused and could she be the female Mortimer mentions or could she be Spooner's female friend.

I know that its all about timings but just a thought. Were there really three couples standing around not far from each other within a similar time frame?

Oh and wasn't Morris Eagle taking his girlfriend home from the club a little earlier. (1145hrs) I mean they could have stopped on the way home. He doesn't get back till 1235hrs. If she lived close by then where were they. Standing around having a kiss and cuddle in the street is my bet.

That would be four couples loitering about. Busy little area. Are we getting mixed up a bit or as usual is it me.

NW

Excellent point New Waterloo

Where did Eagle's girlfriend live?

Which direction would they have gone from the club around 11.45pm and which direction would Eagle have returned to the club after taking his girlfriend home?


It's also interesting to note that the couple seen standing on the corner Berner Street by the Board school, have more often than not been regarded as the other couple and not Stride.
However, according to Packer, the woman he identified as Stride and her companion who bought grapes went over to stand "almost opposite him" on the other side of the street; and stood there in the rain for "over half an hour"

But "almost opposite" is EITHER outside the Board school directly opposite the murder site, or outside the Board school on the corner of Berner Street.

On that basis, it would appear that 2 couples were standing within yards of each other for a substantial amount of time.

And yet nobody sees 2 couples standing yards away from each other.


That means that If Packer was correct, the couple on the corner was Stride and not the sweetheart couple.

The question is; do we have a definite time frame in which the other couple is known to have left the vicinity of the murder site?


The issue is of course that because there was at least another couple as well as Stride, then any couple seen together between 11.05pm to 12.55am may or may not have been Stride.

It would appear that Brown's statement wasn't taken too seriously by the police in the sense that he wasn't seen as a key witness. However, he was almost certain/certain it was Stride, and so if he was correct, then it's very close to the time of her murder.

Marshall is trickier because his sighting was far earlier than Brown's, and so there is more time has passed and therefore more scope for the killer to be someone else.


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

There seems to be some confusion about what is being suggested Herlock. Im not speculating about anything here. The quoted times speak volumes for themselves, and its in no-ones interest to keep reminding you of what is within the recorded evidence. Ive never once said times are carved in stone or used any other similar analogy to describe these stated times, though you have posted that many times.

It’s very easy to keep stating that you’re not suggesting that we should take evidential times as they are stated; the problem is that’s exactly what you are doing.

Ive just stated that within the known evidence, (statements that are easily check-able by the way, if you are ever so inclined....), there is a storyline that is consistent and has a reasonable and logical sequential progression of time estimated as more individual accounts are added to it. A discover of the body around 12:40 would be consistent with Eagle and Lamb to be meeting up "just before 1",

Here is the first example. I’ve asked you several times, Fiver has done the same..never an answer though. I’ll ask again - why do you persist in quoting “just before 1.00” when this is only mentioned in one newspaper? Why do you ignore the SIX others that say ‘around 1.00’? A discovery of the body at around 1.00 (the actual discovery time not an invented one) fits exactly with Eagle meeting Lamb at ‘around 1.00’ as quoted in ALL but one newspaper…I.e around 1.05.

with Johnson being able to arrive on site at 1:10, and Blackwell at 1:16.

And when did Lamb say that Blackwell arrived Michael? 10 minutes after he got there….so Lamb arrived 10 minutes before 1.16.

It is also consistent with Spooners claim that Lamb and Eagle arrived "about five minutes" after he had arrived there with Louis.

But as we know that Eagle saw Lamb at around 1.06 - because we know that Blackwell arrived around 10 minutes after Lamb then we know that Spooner arrived around 5 minutes before Lamb’s 1.06…..so this fantasy about 12.40 is just that. Easily dismissed by evidence.

The discovery, the gathering of the men, sending out search parties, not find a policeman immediately, Issac being able to catch up with Eagle and Lamb after finding no-one where he originally headed,......these events require time. You seem to believe that Louis arrives as Eagle firsts meets up with Lamb.

I can’t keep wasting time explaining the concept of times to you Michael. Of how clocks not being synchronised can affect times. I’ve explained the timeline which fits perfectly with the events described. You just keep trying to make everything fit the obviously mistaken times of Heschberg, Kozebrodski and Spooner (the 12.35 not the 5 minutes before Lamb) You’re quite at liberty to cling desperately to these but they were wrong. Provably wrong. Hesch, Koz and Spooner can be dismissed.

The times Ive quoted are the witnesses, not mine, and the timing you suggest we should be adopting instead are all subjective suggestions so you can arrive at some sort of comprehensible story of times and events. You just change the witnesses times as given. You alter the evidence to suit your argument. I don't.

And here we are again. On the one hand you claim to allow a margin for error but you don’t. You keep posting that times should be accepted as quoted. Please try and get your story straight Michael.

Does that mean I believe these times are carved in stone? No, what rubbish that accusation is.

You’ve done it in this post.

It means using their times and allowing for a reasonable variance of a 5 minute maximum, either way, for error...they give a story. One that works time wise as Lamb, Johnson and Blackwell come into view. They knew what time they got the call, and what time they arrived.

Did they. Remember when you said that Lamb a watch until I corrected you (naturally you didn’t acknowledge this) So Lamb was estimating. And he said ‘around 1.00.’ Not your cherrypicking version.

3 witnesses with the same stated time...within 5 minutes of each others. Louis by himself, with a claim that is 20 minutes later thant those 3 men, and impossible to reconcile with Lambs estimate that he saw Eagle at "just before 1".

ELEVEN witnesses support the 1.00 versus the 3 who were clearly mistaken. And that’s without knowing what other witnesses said in their interviews. The police interviewed everyone Michael…were they idiots? What time did they think that the body was discovered? 1.00.

And funnily enough......the witnesses that give these contrary times, and vague recollections, and events and individuals that have no secondary validation of any kind despite the fact there are witnesses there who could have seen or heard the events, are all either paid staff, a paid speaker, or people who live on the property. All directly linked economically with that club and who would be impacted directly by its open or closed status. Israel Schwartz may not have fit into that mold, but he did know Wess.

We have wasted so much time with this fantasy. The body was discovered at around 1.00. This is an established fact. My opening posts destroyed the idea of plot. It’s been dead-in-the-water for 20 years. You can’t produce a single person that supports your plot and everyone has read it. Not one single supporter. The subject as a whose suffers in the face of this kind of Qanonsense.

I noticed that you never managed to answer these:

• If Spooner arrived at the yard at 12.35 and also 5 minutes before Lamb, do they really believe that Lamb arrived at the yard at 12.40? And is it acceptable for Lamb to be 20 minutes out but not for other witnesses?
• If Diemschitz and Kozebrodski went for a Constable some time just after 12.40 (as claimed by Koz) how did they manage to get back to the yard at 12.35 with Spooner in tow (as per Spooner)? Or are timing errors ok when it’s suits?
• What was Koz doing in the 25 or 30 minutes or so between him returning with Diemschitz (at 12.35 according to Spooner) and meeting up with Eagle and Lamb at around 1.00?
• If they returned to the yard at Spooner’s 12.35 who did Brown hear shouting ‘murder’ at around 1.00? Or is it ok to suggest that Brown have been 20 minutes or so out while it’s not ok to make the same claim in regard to Kozebrodski and Heschberg?
• Wouldn’t we assume that the police whistle that Heschberg heard came from close-by? Who blew it if not a PC after the body was discovered at1.00?
• If Louis and Koz passed Spooner at around 12.30 when was the body found? If it had been found say 5 minutes prior to that (around 12.25) then how do you respond to these two - a) how did Louis and all of the club members decide to lie and come up with the ‘Schwartz Plan’ all in the space of 5 minutes? And b) If the body was discovered at around 12.25 resulting in a yard full of men and some of whom went running in two directions for a Constable, how could PC Smith have passed by and seen and heard nothing of this?
• If the body was discovered prior to 12.30 as per the Spooner tale why do we have Kozebrodski and Heschberg saying 12.40 and 12.45? Kozebrodski and Heschberg actually contradict Spooner, they don’t support him. Why is this obvious fact ignored?
• If it’s so significant that Fanny didn’t see the short Schwartz incident (supposedly on her doorstep most of the time between 12.30 and 1.00) how come it appears to be insignificant that she didn’t see Kozebrodski and Diemschitz run for a Constable or return with Spooner in tow. According to Spooner’s evidence those events would have taken place between 12.30 and 12.35 - while she was supposedly on her doorstep.
• If Fanny came onto her doorstep just after PC Smith passed (around 12.30-12.35) why didn’t she see Morris Eagle return at around 12.40 or Levy for that matter?
• As it’s claimed as ‘suspicious’ that Fanny didn’t hear the Schwartz incident and it’s known that Fanny heard a horse and cart around 1.00 (almost certainly Louis) why is it unimportant the she didn’t hear Louis returning earlier as you claim that he did?
• If Schwartz end of the plan was to show that the non-Jewish BS man was Stride’s killer why didn’t he put the knife in his hand and not the hand of a bystander who fled the scene when he did? How can that be a part of any adult-created plan?
• Do you believe that it’s good methodology to read of two or three witnesses giving times that don’t fit with the rest and then to speculate on a plot to legitimise their testimony when, without those times, we have no actual stand alone evidence for a plot? Anyone can speculate on a motive after all. I could give you a list of 10 with ease.
• How could not one single member come up with a better, more reliable, less risky plan than the one suggested when better alternatives are so obvious to all?
• How lucky were the plotters to not only find a person willing to lie to the police (having absolutely no level of confidence that his lie wouldn’t be uncovered [by another witness for eg]) but also a ‘witness’ who apparently had a legitimate reason for being in Berner Street that night and at that time (a reason that the police could easily have checked out)?
• As we have no way of accurately assessing when Fanny was or wasn’t on her doorstep how can she be used to cast doubt on the Schwartz incident when the duration incident itself would have been just a few seconds

[Lewis C]

It is a very good point Rookie makes about the couples in the area. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems like there were three 'couples' in the area at about the same time. Spooner and his female friend, the couple Mortimer mentions as standing close by and Stride and her male companion seen by PC Smith.

Is it not the case that several people underestimate the age of Stride. If she did look a little younger are we getting confused and could she be the female Mortimer mentions or could she be Spooner's female friend.

Hi NW,

The female that Mortimer mentioned cannot have been Stride, because Mortimer talked to that woman after the murder.

[Michael W Richards]

I definately agree with the bold line below. if I wasnt misrepresented in your responses there would be no need for mine. You are disputing witness evidence that is factually represented, accurately rendered, and in the words of the people being quoted. Yet......your second bold line quote. Its as if by merely typing words youve resolved ...something, I suppose.

We have wasted so much time with this fantasy. The body was discovered at around 1.00. This is an established fact. My opening posts destroyed the idea of plot. It’s been dead-in-the-water for 20 years. You can’t produce a single person that supports your plot and everyone has read it. Not one single supporter. The subject as a whose suffers in the face of this kind of Qanonsense.

I noticed that you never managed to answer these:[LIST][*]If Spooner arrived at the yard at 12.35 and also 5 minutes before Lamb, do they really believe that Lamb arrived at the yard at 12.40? And is it acceptable for Lamb to be 20 minutes out but not for other witnesses?

I never said Spooner arrived at 12:35, in fact Ive said very plainly I believe he was off on his time. Of course he is one witness who requires estimated timing to begin with, he only knew he left the bar at midnight for certain.[*]

If Diemschitz and Kozebrodski went for a Constable some time just after 12.40 (as claimed by Koz) how did they manage to get back to the yard at 12.35 with Spooner in tow (as per Spooner)? Or are timing errors ok when it’s suits?

First off Louis and Issac Kozebrodski did not go out together as clearly stated by Issac himself within a hour of the discovery. Of course you knew that but wrote what you wrote anyway. Like its ok to make up things. Issac K arrived back at the gates with Eagle and Lamb who he saw returning after searching other streets first. Louis and Issac[s], or whomever...no-one identifies this person...returns with Spooner perhaps between 12:45-12:50. Thats just five minutes different than the time Issac and Heschberg say they were alerted to the body. They came from inside the club, where there was assuredly a clock to reference. Spooner is there five or 6 minutes and Lamb, Issac K and Eagle arrive. Close to 1.[*]

What was Koz doing in the 25 or 30 minutes or so between him returning with Diemschitz (at 12.35 according to Spooner) and meeting up with Eagle and Lamb at around 1.00?

If accuracy isnt important to you then please just preface your posts with "in my opinion". Because, as mentioned once again, Issac K did not go anywhere with Louis, he "went out at the request of Louis or some other member."....now do you remember? In his own words? Issac K was called by Louis into the passageway approximately 10 minutes after Issac had returned to the club at 12:30. He went for help, and at just before 1am he sees Eagle and Lamb heading to the club.[*]

If they returned to the yard at Spooner’s 12.35 who did Brown hear shouting ‘murder’ at around 1.00? Or is it ok to suggest that Brown have been 20 minutes or so out while it’s not ok to make the same claim in regard to Kozebrodski and Heschberg?

Brown didnt see Liz although he says he thinks he did, so what he states does warrant scrutiny, but why wouldnt people coming out when the calls were first made be shouting that kind of thing at 1? Check Lambs statement out...he saw LOTS of people there. In Louis's tale, he is the only one there at that time.[*]

Wouldn’t we assume that the police whistle that Heschberg heard came from close-by? Who blew it if not a PC after the body was discovered at1.00?

Didnt Lamb send Eagle to the station to let them know? How do you know if any police whistle means a woman is found murdered? How would he know? He heard a whistle, not that important. And I note that you think a PC blew his whistle because he was aware that a body was found at 1? Your story has people reacting to an event before 1am that not possibly know about any event because it was before the event happens..wow. And thats your Final Solution to all these timing issues?...


[balance of quote removed]

You continually ask a question using inaccurate information or misrepresented data and Im afraid I lose interest, so I left the balance of the questions aside.

You use a premise that requires changing the times given by virtually every witness, but Louis. The steward of the club of anarchists who along with his wife loses his job and his dwelling if the police thought a club attendee killed Stride. The steward who attacks police with a club within 6 months..in that yard, and is arrested. The steward who claims he arrived "precisely" at 1, which is certainly curious considering Lamb, a policeman whose credibility is sound and opinion unbiased, says he saw Morris Eagle looking for a policeman at "just before 1". A premise that disregards evidence given by several witnesses that stated they were aware of the body at 12:40-12:45, and they were there at that time with Louis.

In purely Objective terms, there is no clear timeline established using any witness statements, not even the ones you choose over others. Its not that you are incorrect when you continue to place your hands over your ears and eyes and mumble something about you solving all the issues......(was it the stolen strawberrys that finally broke you Capt Queeg?)....just triumphant prematurely. Youve proven nothing, and not to counter an idea that runs contrary to this firmly established belief about these events that you claim exists. Not such a done deal after all, huh?

In Subjective terms, the timeline I believe is usable is based on multiple corroborated accounts and details from sources without any visible bias or known nefarious reputations, and the officials times, just as they are given. There is no statement that cannot be reconciled with all the others that would require more than 5 minute deviations in the time stated. A clear timeline is established by those witnesses that begins at 12:40-12:45 and continues on to Phillips arrival at 1:30.

Again, your premise requires all that timing evidence to be wrong, and your paid employee evidence to be the more trustworthy, more that even the officials times. Mine requires that you have read all the evidence, you can understand the difference between a credible and unbiased source and one that is not, and can fully comprehend what youve read.

Im assuming you have read the evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Michael - I never said Spooner arrived at 12:35, in fact Ive said very plainly I believe he was off on his time. Of course he is one witness who requires estimated timing to begin with, he only knew he left the bar at midnight for certain.[*]

Me - It would be much easier if you could decide if we should allow for a margin for error or not (or if we should allow it only when you think that it favours your plot) One minute you’re saying that you’re ok with a margin for error then you say this on the Schwartz/BS man thread:

“There would be far less confusion if people were to start using the times by witnesses as the witness gave them.”

Make your mind up.


And even if you suggest that Spooner might have been 5 minutes or so ‘off’ it’s still way out and doesn’t fit with the more reliable evidence.

…

Me - If Diemschitz and Kozebrodski went for a Constable some time just after 12.40 (as claimed by Koz) how did they manage to get back to the yard at 12.35 with Spooner in tow (as per Spooner)? Or are timing errors ok when it’s suits?

Michael - First off Louis and Issac Kozebrodski did not go out together as clearly stated by Issac himself within a hour of the discovery. Of course you knew that but wrote what you wrote anyway. Like it’s ok to make up things. Issac K arrived back at the gates with Eagle and Lamb who he saw returning after searching other streets first. Louis and Issac[s], or whomever...no-one identifies this person...returns with Spooner perhaps between 12:45-12:50. Thats just five minutes different than the time Issac and Heschberg say they were alerted to the body. They came from inside the club, where there was assuredly a clock to reference. Spooner is there five or 6 minutes and Lamb, Issac K and Eagle arrive. Close to 1.[*]

Me - It’s a bit rich that you accusing me of knowingly posting something that isn’t true Michael when you continually posting Lamb as saying: “Just before 1.00,” when you’ve been told numerous times by myself and Fiver that this was only stated in one newspaper whereas in SEVEN he said “around 1.00.”

Kozebrodski: I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street.

Diemschitz: “A man whom I met in Grove- street returned with me.”

So your suggestion is that just after the body was discovered both men ran to Grove Street but they didn’t because one was Kozebrodski was lying and the man that actually went was a man called Isaacs who had never been identified or is mentioned anywhere else. You think that’s believable?

…

Me - What was Koz doing in the 25 or 30 minutes or so between him returning with Diemschitz (at 12.35 according to Spooner) and meeting up with Eagle and Lamb at around 1.00?

Michael - If accuracy isnt important to you then please just preface your posts with "in my opinion". Because, as mentioned once again, Issac K did not go anywhere with Louis, he "went out at the request of Louis or some other member."....now do you remember? In his own words? Issac K was called by Louis into the passageway approximately 10 minutes after Issac had returned to the club at 12:30. He went for help, and at just before 1am he sees Eagle and Lamb heading to the club.[*]

Me - I’ve already shown what Kozebrodski said and that the point that you’ve made makes no sense.

…

Me - If they returned to the yard at Spooner’s 12.35 who did Brown hear shouting ‘murder’ at around 1.00? Or is it ok to suggest that Brown have been 20 minutes or so out while it’s not ok to make the same claim in regard to Kozebrodski and Heschberg?

Michael - Brown didnt see Liz although he says he thinks he did, so what he states does warrant scrutiny, but why wouldnt people coming out when the calls were first made be shouting that kind of thing at 1? Check Lambs statement out...he saw LOTS of people there. In Louis's tale, he is the only one there at that time.[*]

Me - An attempt to dismiss anything Brown said on the basis that you think that the woman that he saw might not have been Stride isn’t valid. We have no reason to believe that he didn’t see a woman.

You suggested above that Spooner returned at 12.45-12.50 (strange that when I suggest that Heschberg and Koz were 15 and 20 minutes out in their guess you’re incredulous. Yet you’re perfectly happy to have Spooner 10-15 minutes out. But hey, who expects consistency?) This would also have meant that Diemschitz would have been shouting for a Constable as early as 12.43 which is around 20 minutes after Brown heard them. Another huge discrepancy that you appear to be willing to turn a blind eye to.

…

Me - Wouldn’t we assume that the police whistle that Heschberg heard came from close-by? Who blew it if not a PC after the body was discovered at 1.00?

Michael,- Didnt Lamb send Eagle to the station to let them know? How do you know if any police whistle means a woman is found murdered? How would he know? He heard a whistle, not that important. And I note that you think a PC blew his whistle because he was aware that a body was found at 1? Your story has people reacting to an event before 1am that not possibly know about any event because it was before the event happens..wow. And thats your Final Solution to all these timing issues?...

Me - You know very well what I’m saying. A whistle coming from nearby, which supposedly alerted Heschberg, was likely to have been from the yard. And as we know that the body was discovered at 1.00 beyond any doubt then we know that Heschberg arrived just after 1.00.

…

Michael - You continually ask a question using inaccurate information or misrepresented data and Im afraid I lose interest, so I left the balance of the questions aside.

Me - Translated as - I can’t answer your questions so I’ll pretend to be dismissive of them.

…

Michael - You use a premise that requires changing the times given by virtually every witness, but Louis. The steward of the club of anarchists who along with his wife loses his job and his dwelling if the police thought a club attendee killed Stride.

Me - Which you have no evidence for. You’ve simply imagined this to try and ‘account’ for errors in estimations of timing. It’s not legimate.

…

Michael - The steward who attacks police with a club within 6 months..in that yard, and is arrested. The steward who claims he arrived "precisely" at 1, which is certainly curious considering Lamb, a policeman whose credibility is sound and opinion unbiased, says he saw Morris Eagle looking for a policeman at "just before 1".

Me - What a surprise. The cherrypicked Lamb quote used YET AGAIN!

…

Michael - A premise that disregards evidence given by several witnesses that stated they were aware of the body at 12:40-12:45, and they were there at that time with Louis.

Me - Several? You have 2 and a half at best. Kozebrodski and Heschberg and Spooner’s laughable 12.35 which is definitively contradicted by his ‘5 minutes before Lamb.’ You think it’s credible to pick those against the 11 that say otherwise? And to do this you simply,y add the ‘well they would say that wouldn’t they’ because they were part of a plot that you don’t have a single crumb of evidence for Michael. People have been telling you this for 20 years.

…

Michael -In purely Objective terms, there is no clear timeline established using any witness statements, not even the ones you choose over others. Its not that you are incorrect when you continue to place your hands over your ears and eyes and mumble something about you solving all the issues......(was it the stolen strawberrys that finally broke you Capt Queeg?)

Me - The irony of this can escape no one.

…

Michael - In Subjective terms, the timeline I believe is usable is based on multiple corroborated accounts and details from sources without any visible bias or known nefarious reputations, and the officials times, just as they are given. There is no statement that cannot be reconciled with all the others that would require more than 5 minute deviations in the time stated. A clear timeline is established by those witnesses that begins at 12:40-12:45 and continues on to Phillips arrival at 1:30.

Me - I’ve categorically dismissed every single point that you’ve made using evidence, reason, common sense and an unbiased approach. What you have done is invented a plot purely to justify Isenschmidt as a potential killer. And you’ve spent twenty years defending a theory and you can’t name a single person other than yourself that supports it.

…

Michael -Again, your premise requires all that timing evidence to be wrong, and your paid employee evidence to be the more trustworthy, more that even the officials times. Mine requires that you have read all the evidence, you can understand the difference between a credible and unbiased source and one that is not, and can fully comprehend what youve read.

Im assuming you have read the evidence.

/////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////


Me - I’ve read the evidence. You have re-invented it. As ever I’ve responded to all of your points without exception even though you’ve ducked many of mine. So, I’ll see if you will answer one simple question in three parts:

1. Will you acknowledge that SEVEN quotes out of EIGHT have PC Lamb saying that Eagle got to him ‘around 1.00?’
2. Will you tell us why you persist in using the one quote that says ‘just before 1.00’ while ignoring the seven?
3. Why is it that you won’t accept that Kozebrodski and Heschberg were 15 and 20 minutes out but you are quite prepared to accept that PC Lamb was out by even more? He said that Dr. Blackwell arrived at the yard 10 minutes after he got there. Blackwell, by his own watch, said that he arrived at 1.16; which gets Lamb to the yard around 1.06. If you suggest that Lamb actually got to the yard at around 12.45 then his ‘10 minutes before Blackwell’ was actually ‘31 minutes before Blackwell. Which would make him 20 minutes out.

Give up.

[Michael W Richards]

You certainly have the time to learn, but apparently not the interest. Im not going to bother repeating what has been repeated to you many, many, many times. The problem with responding is that you dont seem to get it. I never questioned Lambs times, nor have I questioned Johnsons, nor Blackwells. In fact they are the people that I have the least problem believing. And not one of their times would support an initial discovery time of 1am, or just after. But their times, along with Issac Kozebrodskis, and Spooners...with a 5 minute buffer,...and Heschbergs do allign. Even when approximated and perhaps out five minutes or so on Spooners time. Eagle couldnt be looking for help BEFORE Louis arrives, Issac couldnt have been sent out "by LOUIS.." at approx 12:40-12:45 if Louis has not yet arrived back at the club, Johnson could not have arrived there at 1:10 if Louis only arrives at 1 or just after, Blackwell says he was there at 1:16, an impossibility if the initial discovery by Louis is after 1am, ....etc, etc.

If Louis had arrived at 1 or just after, then the earliest Eagle would be seen by Lamb is around 1:10, Issac and Heschberg would both be both wrong by the exact same amount of time, 20 minutes, Johnson would have got the call at his home home around 1:15-20..making it impossible to be there before Blackwell, who by your account sort of manifests himself there before anyone has called him.

I really dont care that you disagree, better people than you have done that before, but I do care that you apparently cant read, or count, and that you constantly misrepresent what you are being told. EVEN THOUGH ALL YOU DISAGREE WITH IS IN THE ACTUAL RECORDS and reported as it appears. You prefer to alter all the witness times you disagree with, and change the most reliable accounts by 15 to 20 minutes.

Enough please. You have no argument, just an argumentative personality. This isnt the first thread youve been corrected on over and over,...so why not, for a change, debate the evidence not your interpretation of what you believe happened.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Pretending that you’re somehow trying to teach me something won’t work as an obvious tactic of obfuscation. The fact that no one agrees or accepts your theory should really tell you all that you need to know, but your approach is always that you are right and everyone else that has ever studied the subject is wrong. You have never once named a Ripperologist that agrees with you. Not one. Ever. You are on your own Michael - why do you feel that this puts you onto some kind of evidential moral high ground? And why do you feel the need to get personal with a slur against my ‘personality.’ Why don’t you leave out the slur and respond to the very simple question that I asked ? These boards are for addressing points not dodging them. I address all of yours; I never duck a question but you’ve ducked several because they are inconvenient. But to address your points (even though you refuse to return that courtesy)

“Eagle couldnt be looking for help BEFORE Louis arrives.”

He wasn’t of course. Louis arrived at around 1.00 and Eagle found Lamb at around 1.05. This time aligns with Lamb’s ‘around 1.00’ which 12.40-12.45 doesn’t. It also aligns perfectly with Lamb’s claim that Blackwell arrived 10 minutes after he arrived. So 10 minutes before 1.16 is 1.06. This confirms Lamb’s time - so that’s 2 confirmations - it conforms with the ‘around 1.00’ which 12.40/45 doesn’t and it aligns with Blackwell.

Then we have Brown, he passed the corner at 12.45, bought his supper, went home and ate it then heard the shouts of murder - at around 1.00. Confirming the discovery time at around 1.00. Spooner arrived around 5 minutes before Lamb and we know from the evidence that Lamb arrived at around 1.05.

So all of these align perfectly with a discovery time of around 1.00. The problem is that you aren’t looking at the evidence as a whole you’re just making sure to skew everything to fit Kozebrodski, Heschberg and Spooner’s laughable 12.35. The majority wins Michael. Eleven against Kozebrodski and Heschberg.

This part is even worse from you:


“Johnson could not have arrived there at 1:10 if Louis only arrives at 1 or just after, Blackwell says he was there at 1:16, an impossibility if the initial discovery by Louis is after 1am, ....etc, etc.”


This ‘impossibility’ is based solely on your exaggeration of how long things take and how quickly people move and your point black refusal to accept that clocks can be poorly synchronised. When Lamb got to the yard around 1.05/06 he sent an officer to get a Doctor. You realise of course that the Doctor was located in Commercial Road and not near Tower Bridge? So a four minutes there and back but of course of Lamb’s time wasn’t synchronised with Johnston’s then we can easily make it longer than 4. So, as we can see, the ‘issue’ is an invented one.

Then we have another couple of personal insults saying that I can’t read or write but hey.

The body was discovered at around 1.00. It has been proven. There’s only one person that disagrees.

….

Again….i never duck a question so will you do the honourable thing Michael?

1. Will you acknowledge that SEVEN quotes out of EIGHT have PC Lamb saying that Eagle got to him ‘around 1.00?’
2. Will you tell us why you persist in using the one quote that says ‘just before 1.00’ while ignoring the seven?
3. Why is it that you won’t accept that Kozebrodski and Heschberg were 15 and 20 minutes out but you are quite prepared to accept that PC Lamb was out by even more? He said that Dr. Blackwell arrived at the yard 10 minutes after he got there. Blackwell, by his own watch, said that he arrived at 1.16; which gets Lamb to the yard around 1.06. If you suggest that Lamb actually got to the yard at around 12.45 then his ‘10 minutes before Blackwell’ was actually ‘31 minutes before Blackwell. Which would make him 20 minutes out.

[c.d.]

Yo Herlock and Michael,

Easy there, boys. Easy. I'm sure neither of you wants to be taken out to the woodshed for a talking to. Capisce?

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yo Herlock and Michael,

Easy there, boys. Easy. I'm sure neither of you wants to be taken out to the woodshed for a talking to. Capisce?

c.d.

I’m sticking to the facts c.d. Nothing personal from my side.

[c.d.]

I’m sticking to the facts c.d. Nothing personal from my side.

Maybe so but my warning still stands.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A point that I forgot to mention which I’ll throw out to anyone. Michael is suggesting that Eagle ran into Lamb at around 12.40-12.45. Lamb himself said that it was ‘around 1.00’. I don’t know the duration of Lamb’s beat but does anyone think it feasible that at any given point, if asked, a Constable would have been 15 or 20 minutes out in his estimation of the time?