Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[c.d.]

An open door spilling out light, the sound of voices from within and an outside loo presenting the possibility of someone coming outside at any time? A proven open door might be the dealbreaker on this question for me.

Unless for some reason he absolutely wanted to kill Stride and that desire over took his reason and good sense. Or maybe his ego and bravado took over and made him think he was up to the task. Sort of a challenge to his cunning.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi herlock
i see you have been busy during your time off! lol. welcome back

Hi Abby,

Thanks. Yes, I’ve just been having another look. I know that we will disagree on my Cross post though but I know that won’t bother either of us as we disagree on very few aspects of the case and two people are unlikely to agree on absolutely everything (you probably guessed that when I mentioned another poster who disagrees with me on this that I was referring to you)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Herlock,

Welcome back, sir. Welcome back. You were sorely missed.

The level of discourse falls when you are not on the boards.

Now try to behave!

c.d.

Hi c.d.

Nice of you to say so, thanks.

Advice noted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

An open door spilling out light, the sound of voices from within and an outside loo presenting the possibility of someone coming outside at any time? A proven open door might be the dealbreaker on this question for me.

Unless for some reason he absolutely wanted to kill Stride and that desire over took his reason and good sense. Or maybe his ego and bravado took over and made him think he was up to the task. Sort of a challenge to his cunning.

c.d.

Could be c.d. We tend to assume that the killer always intended mutilation but perhaps he was hoping to take her somewhere else? I wonder if it could have been the case that Stride wasn’t actually soliciting but waiting for someone and the killer was a previous client or just someone who had previously seen her soliciting and when she turned him down he became angry. ‘Even rejected by a prostitute’ kind of thing?

[Michael W Richards]

I have to say that these Stride threads tend to require the longest explanations for points and counter points. Because its not just a matter of repeating the details as they were recorded, if it was most of these discussions would have reached some kind of mutually agreed upon positions based on the understanding of the issues as they were recorded. The problem is the subjective Rationalization and Reasoning that takes place over those same details, as they were recorded.

The arguments tend to be self serving, using only elements from the evidence that make sense to that individual, or suggesting modifications to statements and details based solely on the individuals perspective. I do that myself sometimes. No-one here is posting purely Objective analysis in every post. If they claim to be doing so, I would mistrust their every post.

People think times given by witnesses are untrustworthy...I would agree, some are, but what methodology or information is used to assess those statements,....gut hunches?.. or believing that the witnesses themselves all must be giving their evidence objectively? Assuming everyone is well intentioned and fully involved in assisting the investigation?

Well.....Witness testimony is not always forthright and well intentioned,... they are not always trying to help investigators as a priority,...they all have varying circumstantial factors, by the individual witness and by their unique environmental situation. Not all of it can be trusted. So, how do we assess what is truth and what is fiction? When it comes to timing, none will likely match exactly, there was no established time standard at that time, ..but it stands to reason that the vast majority of local people would use the same local public clocks to set their watches by, and their clocks. It also stands to reason that some witness would be required to track their times, like beat cops, or medical personelle when they arrive on the scene...or establish a TOD, for example. There are also witnesses that had the opportunity to see a time source shortly before having the experience or seeing the event they are being interviewed about. And some that only took their times from those public clocks.

With this investigation there are beat cops, medical staff, and people who saw a clock just before the event or experience they are giving evidence about. There are people who gave statements that coincidentally match other statements, without any prior discussions between the witnesses. There are also witness statements that directly conflict with other times given.

I have chosen to use the witnesses that had to record their times, and the witnesses who had access to a clock just before the time they are stating an event or experience took place. I have chosen to question statements by people who clearly might have ulterior motives about how the police interpret their story. And I factored the known data about these individuals before and after the event they are involved with that night.

With those stories, there is a cohesive story and timeline available here. That story does not include an actual sighting by Israel Schwartz of Liz on the street at 12:45, nor does it accept a vehement expression of an arrival time by a witness as an established fact. It does however use primarily corroborated times, by independent unconnected witnesses, who had no tangible economic ties to that club at all. No reasons to tailor a story.

Everyone is welcome to view the evidence any way they choose, and conclude what seems to make sense to the individual. Ive just been trying to emphasize that there is a viable story with viable times right there in the known evidence, without any subjective analysis required, or dramatic time alterations. And that the lack of evidence is never proof of anything. But with this murder, whats very important is what evidence isnt there. Interruptions and Rippers included.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yet they aren’t cohesive are they? I’ll stick to one small point.

If, as you suggest, Spooner arrived at the yard at 12.35 then you must also believe two things that follow on from this:

a) That the body was discovered at around 12.30 - unseen by PC Smith or Fanny (and also that Brown imagined men shouting murder at around 1.00.) And..

b) If Spooner arrived at the yard 5 minutes before PC Lamb arrived then Lamb must have arrived at 12.40 - also unseen by Fanny and contrary to Morris Eagle’s statement that he’d returned from his taking his girlfriend home at 12.40 (something that the police were at liberty to check - I’d suggest that asking them to lie to the police wouldn’t have been a good way of getting into the future in-laws good books.) This would also suggest that it took them a full 35 minutes to get Dr Blackwell to the scene.

Do you believe that the above is all true?

[Ms Diddles]

So, was Stride killed by the ripper or not?


I’ve wavered for years on this subject but this one point pushes me toward a no.


Daily News, Oct 2nd

> The day after the murder she told the press that although the side door of the club, close to the kitchen, had been half open, she had not heard anything suspicious whatsoever: ‘I am positive I did not hear any screams or sound of any kind.’

The main sources of doubt as to whether this was a ripper murder has always been the location for me. Next to a club, near to chucking out time, with singing going on and next to a gate that opened out onto the street. Risky enough but if Mrs Diemschitz was correct and the side door had been half open I find it almost impossible to believe that the ripper would have chosen that spot to murder and mutilate. An open door spilling out light, the sound of voices from within and an outside loo presenting the possibility of someone coming outside at any time? A proven open door might be the dealbreaker on this question for me.

That's interesting, Herlock!

I too swither on Stride as a Ripper victim, but strangely I perceive the risky location at Berner St as a point in favour of a Ripper kill.

To me it's not incongruous with the other risky locations.

It may inch into the lead as the most apparently kamikaze location, but Hanbury St with all those windows overlooking it and Mitre Square with the heightened police patrols were not far off.

An argument could be made that if the murder took place in such close proximity to an open door yet nobody heard a peep, that suggests a blitz attack by an experienced killer.

Anyway good to see you back

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's interesting, Herlock!

I too swither on Stride as a Ripper victim, but strangely I perceive the risky location at Berner St as a point in favour of a Ripper kill.

To me it's not incongruous with the other risky locations.

It may inch into the lead as the most apparently kamikaze location, but Hanbury St with all those windows overlooking it and Mitre Square with the heightened police patrols were not far off.

An argument could be made that if the murder took place in such close proximity to an open door yet nobody heard a peep, that suggests a blitz attack by an experienced killer.

Anyway good to see you back

Hi Ms D, thanks.

You certainly could be right, especially if the killer didn’t intend on mutilations. Maybe she turned him down or just said something that angered him and he killed her in a sudden rage and that put him ‘in the mood’ (not the best phrase) for a full on murder with mutilation?

[Wickerman]

...

That the police as a whole took Schwartz seriously is a fact.

I like the whole analysis, where we may differ is the subsequent question of why, if the police accepted Schwartz's story without question, did the coroner not choose him to testify at the inquest?

The report by the Star, of 1st Oct. suggests there was another witness that has not come to light through press interviews.

...the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

I think this situation contradicts the traditional interpretation of Swanson's words - "If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it...."
It has been my belief for some time now that we have misunderstood Swanson here, likely due to a mannerism where he is applying the first "if" to both statement. That is to say, 'if Schwartz is to be believed', and if 'the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it'.

Swanson was comparing the statement of PC Smith with the statement of Schwartz, and from his choice of wording it appears he accepts the statement of PC Smith because he doesn't use the preposition "if" when relating PC Smith's statement, only with Schwartz.
Which I think indicates Swanson holds some doubt against Schwartz, but not against PC Smith.

Because Swanson refers to 'a police report of his statement', I think Swanson is waiting for this report to see if it confirms what Schwartz has said, which means Schwartz's story was still under investigation at the time Swanson penned this part of his report.
It is unfortunate that these notes are not dated, we only have the completion date of the whole report on the four murders, which was 19th Oct. but that does not mean this particular observation by Swanson was written on that date.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Always good to get your take on things Wick, especially when it comes to Press and police reports (which I never manage to keep track of) I don’t quite understand your point though, Swanson said:

“If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered.”

[Wickerman]

Always good to get your take on things Wick, especially when it comes to Press and police reports (which I never manage to keep track of) I don’t quite understand your point though, Swanson said:

“If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered.”

Yes, I'm pointing out a tendency that some people often have for using one "if" when making two statements, instead of saying "if" twice.
Instead of saying "and if the police report of his statement...etc.", he simply omitted the second "if".

When we have a police report of a witness statement, it means that statement had been investigated.
Swanson was meaning - providing the report substantiates his story, but the report didn't exist at the moment Swanson made that note.

Given all the witness statements we read of in this case - how often have we heard of a police report of a witness statement?
I can't think of one myself. This tells me the Schwartz situation was an exception.
Swanson was meaning, "If Schwartz is to be believed, and if our investigation/report of his story confirms it, then...."etc...etc..

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Debra Arif found an example of Lipski clearly being used as an insult by one Jew to another, so we have to ask ourselves what are the chances of her finding in print the only example of this that ever occurred? The likelihood must be vanishingly small…therefore it’s possible, even likely that this was an insult used by Gentiles and Jews. Yes, perhaps more often by Gentiles toward Jews, but not all one way traffic, so this makes it a very tenuous, unreliable (and possibly ineffective) way of creating a non-Jewish killer when it wouldn’t have been even remotely difficult to falsely point to a Gentile killer. Was it beyond the grasp of all of those club members to have the witness claim that BS man shouted “And what are you looking at you Jewish b*****d”? Or that he could have used some of the more well known anti-Jewish insults that we’re all familiar with? It’s not difficult stuff is it? No ambiguity at all. Why would anyone use the alleged ‘Lipski method’ rather than the one I’ve just mentioned?

You're asking why BS didn't shout an insult in English, rather than being restricted to a word that Schwartz would recognise. Perhaps because Schwartz would then be obliged to:

- speak for himself, rather than having the convenience of speaking through an interpreter
- explain what the man and woman were talking about, as he had reached the gates

[Wickerman]

At no point am I suggesting Schwartz's story would have been necessary for the inquest, only that his statement was not forwarded to the coroner because the police had not completed their investigation of his story. This doesn't mean Schwartz was lying, I'm not saying that at all.
The Coroner chose James Brown, his statement fulfilled the 12:45 time slot, even though my own feeling is that Brown saw the 'sweetheart' couple, that Mortimer referred to standing on the corner.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, I'm pointing out a tendency that some people often have for using one "if" when making two statements, instead of saying "if" twice.
Instead of saying "and if the police report of his statement...etc.", he simply omitted the second "if".

When we have a police report of a witness statement, it means that statement had been investigated.
Swanson was meaning - providing the report substantiates his story, but the report didn't exist at the moment Swanson made that note.

Given all the witness statements we read of in this case - how often have we heard of a police report of a witness statement?
I can't think of one myself. This tells me the Schwartz situation was an exception.
Swanson was meaning, "If Schwartz is to be believed, and if our investigation/report of his story confirms it, then...."etc...etc..

I’ll blame tiredness Wick (late night). I understand your point now.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're asking why BS didn't shout an insult in English, rather than being restricted to a word that Schwartz would recognise. Perhaps because Schwartz would then be obliged to:

- speak for himself, rather than having the convenience of speaking through an interpreter
- explain what the man and woman were talking about, as he had reached the gates

You don’t have to speak a language to be able to repeat two words phonetically. Also if Schwartz was chosen as a false witness by club members then they would also have provided the interpreter, so it would have been him that ensured that the police got an accurate account of what BS man had said. The police couldn’t have queried what someone had said in Hungarian.