Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Mike.
Some months back we had a thread on the question of who was "Isaac", and we went through this same problem, if I understand you (above), you have reached the same conclusion I did.

Basically, Diemschutz finds the body, goes inside, up stairs, brings Kozebrodski back with him to the body. They both run for a constable as individuals but, in the same direction, east along Fairclough.
Spooner saw two Jews come running towards him, and Brown heard shouts from men running about the same time.

Eagle came out of the club some few minutes later, he saw neither Diem. nor Koz. they had left, and Eagle left for a constable up on Commercial Rd.
Diem., Koz & Spooner returned to Berner St. - Koz. ran past the club up to Comm. Rd.
Diem & Spooner stopped at the yard, this is where Wess was confused (re: Echo & Scotsman article) he assumed the two men who returned had been the same two that left - he noted that one (Spooner) was not a club member, but it had been Koz. who left with Diem. not Spooner.

Koz. found Eagle in Comm. Rd. - the time difference could be explained by Eagle first running west to find a constable, then turned back to run east where he met PC Lamb & another PC.
Eagle may have missed seeing PC Smith because his beat took him up Back Church Lane to Comm. Rd. (Morning Advertiser, 6 Oct.) which is why they missed each other, so Eagle had to turn and run east, which gave Koz. time to catch up with him just as he found PC Lamb.

Hello Wick,

Basically I think that between us we have two versions which account for two separate journeys to find a Constable. One is the one that you mention above which includes Frank’s suggestion that Eagle initially went west on Commercial Road allowing Kozebrodski to catch up with him before meeting up with Lamb in Commercial Road.

The one that I tend to favour at the moment though Wick is that Eagle went for a Constable after Diemschitz. My thinking is that Diemschitz went inside, found his wife, told the men in the downstairs room, picked up a candle and went outside with Koz and others. He said that he saw the blood before he reached the body and ran for a Constable straight away. So…from that point we possibly still have men coming out from that ground floor room; one of these was Gilleman. A bit of jostling goes on to see the body in the dark; the usual talk. Since Louis left a minute or slightly more has passed. Then it’s decided that the men upstairs need to be informed because when these guys were told they naturally went straight outside for a look. Gilleman goes upstairs and tells everyone at the same time; or he tells the first people he sees in the room near the door then goes over to Eagle. The upstairs guys head downstairs to the yard. Maybe another 30 seconds has passed. Eagle gets through the gathered crowd to the body, strikes a match, sees the blood for himself and decides to go for a Constable. Maybe someone tells him which way Louis has gone so he decides to go the other way. When he gets to the gates, around 2 minutes after Louis left, he sees Kozebrodski running back. Koz tells him that they haven’t found a Constable so Eagle tells him that he’s heading for Commercial Road and Koz goes with him.

[JeffHamm]

I think the actual events are probably similar to the variations being discussed and put forth by Frank, Wickerman, and Herlock. The common unifying idea is that the search north to Commercial starts after some delay relative to the search along Fairclough. In some versions they are strictly sequential (Fairclough search completes, Commercial search commences), in others there's some overlap (Commercial starts before Fairclough completes, but Koz catches up before finding PC Lamb, either because the delay is not long, or the Commercial search includes a westerly portion that misses PC Smith due to his location at that time, be it on his beat or perhaps having a late night cuppa somewhere).

Looking at the various options, the timings we can estimate based upon travel times result in entirely satisfactory results, so the information we have can be seen as consistent with each of these lines of thought, giving us a number of competing possibilities. But, in the end, at one level it doesn't matter if we get the exact details correct, provided all of the competing ideas lead to the same conclusion, that the searches started shortly after 1:00. And all of these ideas are consistent with that, and none of them create any real problems with the information we get from Brown, or Fanny, or Lave, etc.

While Spooner's statement of 12:35 doesn't align with this, if we view that as accurate, then the searches must have started prior to 12:35 since his arrival is due to the search on Fairclough, and since the searches have to begin after the body was found, then the body would have to be found prior to 12:35, and Lamb arrives around 12:40, and so forth. Spooner's time conflicts with everyone else, and that is a clear indication that Spooner's time is the wrong one, although it doesn't mean everything else he says is wrong, just that one detail, so we have to evaluate his other statements independent of that error.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the actual events are probably similar to the variations being discussed and put forth by Frank, Wickerman, and Herlock. The common unifying idea is that the search north to Commercial starts after some delay relative to the search along Fairclough. In some versions they are strictly sequential (Fairclough search completes, Commercial search commences), in others there's some overlap (Commercial starts before Fairclough completes, but Koz catches up before finding PC Lamb, either because the delay is not long, or the Commercial search includes a westerly portion that misses PC Smith due to his location at that time, be it on his beat or perhaps having a late night cuppa somewhere).

Looking at the various options, the timings we can estimate based upon travel times result in entirely satisfactory results, so the information we have can be seen as consistent with each of these lines of thought, giving us a number of competing possibilities. But, in the end, at one level it doesn't matter if we get the exact details correct, provided all of the competing ideas lead to the same conclusion, that the searches started shortly after 1:00. And all of these ideas are consistent with that, and none of them create any real problems with the information we get from Brown, or Fanny, or Lave, etc.

While Spooner's statement of 12:35 doesn't align with this, if we view that as accurate, then the searches must have started prior to 12:35 since his arrival is due to the search on Fairclough, and since the searches have to begin after the body was found, then the body would have to be found prior to 12:35, and Lamb arrives around 12:40, and so forth. Spooner's time conflicts with everyone else, and that is a clear indication that Spooner's time is the wrong one, although it doesn't mean everything else he says is wrong, just that one detail, so we have to evaluate his other statements independent of that error.

- Jeff

And as we have a good idea of what approximate time Lamb arrived from his ‘10 minutes before Blackwell’ (approx 1.06) The we can apply Spooner’s 5 minutes before Lamb which has him getting to the yard at around 1.01 which, as you say, is easily in line with Louis getting back at around 1.00.

I’d suggest that the only questions left are - could Schwartz actually have seen the incident prior to 12.30? And if not, did it occur before or after Fanny went on to her doorstep?

[The Rookie Detective]

And as we have a good idea of what approximate time Lamb arrived from his ‘10 minutes before Blackwell’ (approx 1.06) The we can apply Spooner’s 5 minutes before Lamb which has him getting to the yard at around 1.01 which, as you say, is easily in line with Louis getting back at around 1.00.

I’d suggest that the only questions left are - could Schwartz actually have seen the incident prior to 12.30? And if not, did it occur before or after Fanny went on to her doorstep?

Could Schwartz have been referring to "Berners Street" in London's West End?

Can you imagine? haha!


Lost in translation and all that Jazz



RD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I’d suggest that the only questions left are - could Schwartz actually have seen the incident prior to 12.30? And if not, did it occur before or after Fanny went on to her doorstep?

FM: ...the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously...

Could 'previously' refer to a much earlier time than usually supposed?

[Michael W Richards]

No there isn’t. Louis arriving at 12.45 is simply a non-starter, categorically dismissed by at least 11 witnesses. Standing in a minority of one perhaps you should ask yourself why everyone disagrees with your position Michael? And why the police at the time accepted the 1.00 discovery time? There should come a time when it’s accepted that ‘everyone can’t be wrong.’

That the body was found by Diemschitz at around 1.00 is a fact backed by the evidence. Two witnesses making dodgy guesses and an imaginary plot to excuse them will never change that.

The only way that you could have posted the above is if you did not ever try and reconstruct the timelines using the 2 contrasting sources. Which is ironic since that is what is being discussed. Your categorical "dismissal by 11 witnesses" is all bravado and no substance...you certainly do have the drama gene. I dont have to be arguing this with you, all anyone has to do is look at all the relevant witness statements and run the numbers. Anyone does have to select who you believe to be the most trusted of the sources, which for me are the ones that have corroborate elements with statements given by others with no appreciable interest in a particular outcome of any investigation, and the police or medical authority. Those sources had nothing to fear or conceal.

Evidence, as you suggest, can be used to dismiss erroneous arguments, but what you fail to recognize is that within the established Witness Statement Evidence, some of which you actually use, there is also Evidence that contrasts directly with the evidence you prefer to accept. So pop your champagne open if you like, but the case isnt closed just because you say it is. I dont envy you, having to consistently suggest so many witnesses were wrong regarding their timing in order to float your own "reasonable" corrections.

In my argument I use the multiple objective independent civilian witnesses who stated the same approximate event times within a 5 minute range, and the times they gave matched up to the times given by the other witnesses I mentioned I trust, the police and the medical authority. Not one of their times need "changing" at all to work with the objective independent civilians.

In your argument your witnesses give statements that are curiously without any secondary verification...(such as Eagle and Lave saying they were in the same place at the same time yet neither saw anyone),...(or Louis arriving "precisely at 1" when a witness to the street said she was at her door until 1 yet saw no cart or horse approaching),.....they are from subjective sources that are employed by and/or live at that club,...they are given by men who the police and neighbours believed to be Anarchists, which was the equivalent for Criminals in that they broke laws, ...who will be charged with assaulting police officers with clubs within 6 months, an attack that happened right there at that address,...and whose times do not match with any of the times given by the authority figures.

In fact your suggestion is that these police witnesses and medical witnesses must have been wrong by 10-15 minutes and the objective civilian witnesses by perhaps 20 minutes. Its like claiming you have an answer even though you know that it is contradictory to many of the known facts.....?? Not only is the argument far from decided, it seems clear that the side you are taking is with the witnesses who are clearly not the most trustworthy of the 2 sides of this coin.

Time you understood that. Past that time actually.

[FrankO]

Your responses are always welcome and worth listening to. I do see what you mean about how the testimony might sound when we have Eagle saying:

“I ran towards the Commercial-road, Dienishitz, the club steward, and another member going in the opposite direction down Fairclough- street.”

This comment is certainly interesting though:

”The search was for some time fruitless“

It’s difficult to see how the search could have been fruitless when Lamb was only between Christian and Batty Streets. I’d have thought that Eagle would have pretty much seen Lamb as soon as he turned into Commercial Road. I know that you’ve wondered if Eagle had first turned left and then turned back which appears a good suggestion.

The delay would certainly have a knock on effect on the times that I used in my earlier scenario when I considered two poorly synchronised clocks but on the other hand Eagle leaving later tied in with what Lamb said in regard to the arrival of Blackwell…that he arrived 10 minutes before Blackwell arrived (at 1.16)

An alternative is that Eagle and an unnamed man found Lamb, Kozebrodsky after returning ran in the same direction and met them coming back but this makes Kozebrodsky a liar. To be honest Frank I can only see one way of reconciling the differences which is my suggestion. I’m not saying that I must be right of course Frank but I find it the least troubling scenario.

Hi Mike,

I have no problem with that, of course. Everyone's entitled to his or her own preferred interpretation and that goes for you and me both.

What is interesting is that the comment "The search was for some time fruitless" is directly preceeded by this bit: "Both men ran off without delay to find a policeman, and at the same time other members of the club, who had by this time found their way into the court, went off with the same object in different directions." That seems to negate the 'fruitless comment'.

But, in the end, it doesn't matter, as I agree with Jeff that either overlapping or sequential searches for a policeman don’t have much influence, if any, on the big picture.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could Schwartz have been referring to "Berners Street" in London's West End?

Can you imagine? haha!


Lost in translation and all that Jazz



RD

Nice try RD

[FrankO]

Eagle may have missed seeing PC Smith because his beat took him up Back Church Lane to Comm. Rd. (Morning Advertiser, 6 Oct.) which is why they missed each other, so Eagle had to turn and run east, which gave Koz. time to catch up with him just as he found PC Lamb.

Hi Jon,

It doesn't sound very plausible to my ears that they would have missed one another. If Eagle did turn west on Commercial Road and ran at least as far as Backchurch Lane, wouldn't he have looked into that street while shouting to see if a PC would surface? Or are you suggesting that he would have just past Backchurch Lane? Or that Smith was out of earshot in Batty's Gardens or some other side alley?

But if he was, where would he have been earlier when Diemshutz and Kozebrodski ran out in search of a PC? He would only have been further south down Backchurch Lane, or even in Fairclough Street and, thus, much closer to where the shouting and running by D & K came from As I said, that doesn't sound plausible.

I presume that I'm missing something. Could you elaborate/explain?

All the best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only way that you could have posted the above is if you did not ever try and reconstruct the timelines using the 2 contrasting sources. Which is ironic since that is what is being discussed. Your categorical "dismissal by 11 witnesses" is all bravado and no substance...you certainly do have the drama gene. I dont have to be arguing this with you, all anyone has to do is look at all the relevant witness statements and run the numbers. Anyone does have to select who you believe to be the most trusted of the sources, which for me are the ones that have corroborate elements with statements given by others with no appreciable interest in a particular outcome of any investigation, and the police or medical authority. Those sources had nothing to fear or conceal.

The problem with this is obvious Michael. You have imagined that the club witnesses have reasons to lie. No one else accepts this apart from yourself so basically what you’ve done is to invent a convenient way of dismissing inconvenient witnesses; something that I’ve had no recourse to do.

And when you speak of the ‘most trusted of the sources’ (as judged by yourself of course…someone with a theory to promote and support) you neglect the witness who has to be the most trustworthy and reliable of that evening..Dr. Blackwell. I’ll add PC Lamb (who I assume that you don’t believe was ‘in on it?’) So I’ll repeat…

Blackwell checks his watch and it’s 1.16.
Lamb, in his own words, got to the yard 10 minutes before him, so that’s around 1.06.
Eagle therefore must have met him in Commercial Road around a minute or so before that, so around 1.05.
Diemschitz must have arrived back a very few minutes before that so…around 1.00.

Beyond dispute. Painful as it might be.

Evidence, as you suggest, can be used to dismiss erroneous arguments, but what you fail to recognize is that within the established Witness Statement Evidence, some of which you actually use, there is also Evidence that contrasts directly with the evidence you prefer to accept. So pop your champagne open if you like, but the case isnt closed just because you say it is. I dont envy you, having to consistently suggest so many witnesses were wrong regarding their timing in order to float your own "reasonable" corrections.

Yes, there is evidence that contradicts. Three men (one of who can categorically be eliminated because he said that he’d arrived 5 minutes before Lamb…and we now approximately what time Lamb around…around 1.06) The other two were simply wrong and their times even conflict with Spooner! So it is indeed 11-2 of the known witnesses and this isn’t even taking into consideration the other people that were interviewed. The police probably spoke to 40 or 50 people and came away certain that the body was found at 1.00.

You prefer to bin them and go with the two that were obviously wrong. One of them is so confident that he said ‘around 12.45 I should think.’

In my argument I use the multiple objective independent civilian witnesses who stated the same approximate event times within a 5 minute range, and the times they gave matched up to the times given by the other witnesses I mentioned I trust, the police and the medical authority. Not one of their times need "changing" at all to work with the objective independent civilians.

It’s difficult to credit how you can make this claim Michael. Again…Blackwell 1.16…Lamb 10 minutes before. Your argument falls at this point.

In your argument your witnesses give statements that are curiously without any secondary verification...(such as Eagle and Lave saying they were in the same place at the same time yet neither saw anyone),...(or Louis arriving "precisely at 1" when a witness to the street said she was at her door until 1 yet saw no cart or horse approaching),.....

Michael, I’m afraid that you are doing yourself no favours with this kind of post.

I’m certain that you won’t answer this but ok…..point me to the stately where Fanny Mortimer was on her doorstep at 1.00….if you can’t….and you can’t……will you admit this invention?

Its also noticeable that you mention Fanny not seeing the horse and cart (because she was indoors even according to her own words - according to her she went onto her doorstep at 12.45 for 10 minutes) but you appear to have forgotten that she heard one at around 1.00. Which is another point that I don’t expect a response to.

they are from subjective sources that are employed by and/or live at that club,...they are given by men who the police and neighbours believed to be Anarchists, which was the equivalent for Criminals in that they broke laws, ...who will be charged with assaulting police officers with clubs within 6 months, an attack that happened right there at that address,...and whose times do not match with any of the times given by the authority figures.

You are scraping the barrel hear Michael. Anarchist doesn’t mean criminal. Do you have evidence that all anarchists are all criminals? I save you the job of researching it….no you don’t. Some club members broke the law on one occasion; it smacks of intolerance (or of convenience) that you use this to assume that they weren’t capable of telling the truth.

The vested interest argument holds no water because there’s no evidence for a plot except for two witnesses making incorrect estimations of time. For these two witnesses you’ve woven this idea of a plot which provably never happened and it’s why you haven’t managed to convince anyone of it.

In fact your suggestion is that these police witnesses and medical witnesses must have been wrong by 10-15 minutes and the objective civilian witnesses by perhaps 20 minutes. Its like claiming you have an answer even though you know that it is contradictory to many of the known facts.....?? Not only is the argument far from decided, it seems clear that the side you are taking is with the witnesses who are clearly not the most trustworthy of the 2 sides of this coin.

Time you understood that. Past that time actually.

I understand the reality. As does Jeff. As does Wickerman. As does Frank. As does…..everyone apart from you actually Michael. Perhaps it’s finally time that you admitted it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Mike,

I have no problem with that, of course. Everyone's entitled to his or her own preferred interpretation and that goes for you and me both.

What is interesting is that the comment "The search was for some time fruitless" is directly preceeded by this bit: "Both men ran off without delay to find a policeman, and at the same time other members of the club, who had by this time found their way into the court, went off with the same object in different directions." That seems to negate the 'fruitless comment'.

But, in the end, it doesn't matter, as I agree with Jeff that either overlapping or sequential searches for a policeman don’t have much influence, if any, on the big picture.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

’The search was for some time fruitless’ is certainly intriguing. If Eagle had immediately turned right into Commercial Road there could have been no issue. Your suggestion is just as possible as mine. Apart from a) he initially went another way, or b) there was a gap between Diemschitz leaving and Eagle leaving….i can’t think of another explanation that explains what Kozebrodsky said.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

’The search was for some time fruitless’ is certainly intriguing. If Eagle had immediately turned right into Commercial Road there could have been no issue. Your suggestion is just as possible as mine. Apart from a) he initially went another way, or b) there was a gap between Diemschitz leaving and Eagle leaving….i can’t think of another explanation that explains what Kozebrodsky said.

Last thing I say about it, because it seems as if you've understood my preferred view as being: Eagle left very shortly (i.e. within a matter of some 10 seconds or so) after Diemshutz. That would not be correct. I believe it would have been closer to half a minute or so, and possibly even somewhat longer still.

If Eagle only went after K had returned, then he ran out of the yard between one and a half and two minutes after D & K. and would have returned with Lamb & PC 426 H within 2 to 3 minutes (probably closer to 2).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Last thing I say about it, because it seems as if you've understood my preferred view as being: Eagle left very shortly (i.e. within a matter of some 10 seconds or so) after Diemshutz. That would not be correct. I believe it would have been closer to half a minute or so, and possibly even somewhat longer still.

If Eagle only went after K had returned, then he ran out of the yard between one and a half and two minutes after D & K. and would have returned with Lamb & PC 426 H within 2 to 3 minutes (probably closer to 2).

Cheers Frank, understood.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d like to make a new suggestion (and that’s all that it is) as to why Stride was at the gates.

What if Stride had separated from Parcelman at the corner, crossed over to the club side and was simply heading toward some location in the direction of Commercial Road (not intending to stop at the gates)? As she got near to the gates she saw a man up ahead approaching that she recognised; someone that she wanted to avoid (perhaps someone that she owed money too) so she ducked inside the gates thinking/hoping that the man (BS man) hadn’t seen her…but he had. He gets to the gates and pulls her out into the street. The reason that she doesn’t scream out loudly is because she knows him and knows that her life isn’t in danger; that she’s just in danger of a beating which was sadly par-for-the-course. He wants his money. He sees Schwartz and after he’s gone he pushes her into the yard out of sight of any further passers by. She can’t or won’t pay up…he loses his temper…pulls a knife and cuts her throat.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only way that you could have posted the above is if you did not ever try and reconstruct the timelines using the 2 contrasting sources. Which is ironic since that is what is being discussed. Your categorical "dismissal by 11 witnesses" is all bravado and no substance...you certainly do have the drama gene. I dont have to be arguing this with you, all anyone has to do is look at all the relevant witness statements and run the numbers. Anyone does have to select who you believe to be the most trusted of the sources, which for me are the ones that have corroborate elements with statements given by others with no appreciable interest in a particular outcome of any investigation, and the police or medical authority. Those sources had nothing to fear or conceal.

Evidence, as you suggest, can be used to dismiss erroneous arguments, but what you fail to recognize is that within the established Witness Statement Evidence, some of which you actually use, there is also Evidence that contrasts directly with the evidence you prefer to accept. So pop your champagne open if you like, but the case isnt closed just because you say it is. I dont envy you, having to consistently suggest so many witnesses were wrong regarding their timing in order to float your own "reasonable" corrections.

In my argument I use the multiple objective independent civilian witnesses who stated the same approximate event times within a 5 minute range, and the times they gave matched up to the times given by the other witnesses I mentioned I trust, the police and the medical authority. Not one of their times need "changing" at all to work with the objective independent civilians.

In your argument your witnesses give statements that are curiously without any secondary verification...(such as Eagle and Lave saying they were in the same place at the same time yet neither saw anyone),...(or Louis arriving "precisely at 1" when a witness to the street said she was at her door until 1 yet saw no cart or horse approaching),.....they are from subjective sources that are employed by and/or live at that club,...they are given by men who the police and neighbours believed to be Anarchists, which was the equivalent for Criminals in that they broke laws, ...who will be charged with assaulting police officers with clubs within 6 months, an attack that happened right there at that address,...and whose times do not match with any of the times given by the authority figures.

In fact your suggestion is that these police witnesses and medical witnesses must have been wrong by 10-15 minutes and the objective civilian witnesses by perhaps 20 minutes. Its like claiming you have an answer even though you know that it is contradictory to many of the known facts.....?? Not only is the argument far from decided, it seems clear that the side you are taking is with the witnesses who are clearly not the most trustworthy of the 2 sides of this coin.

Time you understood that. Past that time actually.

I’ve suggested a timeline as has Jeff, George, Dusty and Frank (who did one without times) You disagree Michael. So why don’t you produce a timeline for discussion?