Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[c.d.]

I don’t understand this ‘campaign’ against Schwartz.

Nor do I and it is most certainly a "campaign."

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you ever feel on some points that common sense has left the building c.d?

That would seem to imply that it was there to begin with would it not?

Seriously though, I have noticed an increase in the tendency towards an if A then B approach to various aspects of the case. As illustrated here, If A (Schwartz's statement is not corroborated) then B (he must have been lying). But the reality is that he might have been lying but also that he might have been telling the truth. That is what common sense would tell us. An if A then B approach is just way too simplistic for this case where shades of grey abound.

c.d.

Couldn’t agree more c.d. Yes, it would have been preferable if someone else had seen this very short incident but we can’t automatically jump to ‘well it probably didn’t happen.’ When we consider that the majority of witnesses are honest then that immediately increases the odds of him telling the truth but it’s not conclusive proof of course. Then we would have to ask a) why he might have lied or b) could he have been mistaken.

As far as b) goes I’d suggest that ‘mistaken’ is at least a possibility. He might have simply got his time wrong after seeing an unconnected incident that occurred before 12.30 and he mistakenly connected it to the murder and thought that it must have been at around 12.45.

I’d say that it’s also at least a possibility that his inability to speak English might have led him to misinterpret the nature of the incident. Some kind of ‘domestic’ or even some drunken horseplay.

As for a) it’s far more unlikely that he would have lied unless we assume that he was incredibly stupid. That he was so desperate for his 15 minutes of fame he put himself alone at the scene of a murder with no one to back up that he wasn’t the killer. The suggestion that he lied as part of a plot is the stuff of novels of course and is not supported by the evidence.

So the likelihood is extremely high that he told what he thought was the truth. Added to this we have the experienced and competent Abberline, no doubt used to liars and time wasters, having no doubt about his honesty. I don’t understand this ‘campaign’ against Schwartz. He saw a 30 second incident in a dimly lit back street after midnight which only needed to have been deserted for around 90 seconds to 2 minutes for Stride, BS man, Pipeman and Schwartz to have gone unnoticed from the moment that they entered Berner Street until the moment they left.

[c.d.]

Do you ever feel on some points that common sense has left the building c.d?

That would seem to imply that it was there to begin with would it not?

Seriously though, I have noticed an increase in the tendency towards an if A then B approach to various aspects of the case. As illustrated here, If A (Schwartz's statement is not corroborated) then B (he must have been lying). But the reality is that he might have been lying but also that he might have been telling the truth. That is what common sense would tell us. An if A then B approach is just way too simplistic for this case where shades of grey abound.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And nothing he claims he saw, or in fact his own presence there, is confirmed or affirmed by any other witness statement.

So does that simply cast doubt on the truthfulness of his statement or does it automatically confirm that he was lying?

c.d.

Exactly c.d. Corroboration is always a bonus but in the real world it’s not always available. Do we all go around disbelieving anyone without it? Or do we simply accept the possibility or error or dishonesty whilst accepting that the majority of witnesses give their evidence honestly. And very few people deliberately and dishonestly place themselves at the scene of a murder with no witnesses to prove that he wasn’t involved.

Do you ever feel on some points that common sense has left the building c.d?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its never really been the arrogance Ive objected to, its the inaccuracies and fallacies.

Really Michael? You post that you are correct and everyone else in ripperology is wrong and you call me arrogant?

So, once again, to correct the inaccuracies youve posted above;

1. I have never brought up Isenschmidt here, and the evidence is simply the evidence. If It suits one story more than another, you have to accept that.
2. I have stated that I use witnesses I believe can be relied on here, the police, and the medical men. Their times have been given based on their requirements to have records of what happened and when.
3. The witnesses that give stories that suggest the "reliable witnesses" times are all incorrect are the witnesses you choose to use.
4. Using the reliable trustworthy witness timings, its is clear that the discovery of the body must have been before 1am. Lamb could not have seen Eagle calling for help at just before or around 1am if the discovery is after that time.

No Michael, let’s not go down the obvious obfuscation route shall we? What you’ve done is you’ve taken the most reliable witnesses Blackwell (1.16), Johnson (1.10) and Lamb (10 or 12 mins before 1.16) and suggested that they were wrong. So you aren’t relying on reliable witnesses. What you rely on are the very clearly unreliable ones like Heschberg, Kozebrodsky and Spooner. I use the three reliable witnesses and I don’t alter their times one iota.

The fact that you still argue something that is clearly evident within the known evidence...(its right there in print, you cant keep twisting the evidence and think no-one notices, same goes for stated points of view in posts which you constantly misrepresent or misquote).... to suggest that despite all the contradictions and impossibilities, that you know better what the real truth is and it involves an initial discovery after 1am, well.....insisting and solving are another 2 words that are not synonymous. You really should watch that tendency to think you know better than what is actually recorded.

Again Michael, if you are correct, and it’s as obvious as you claim, then it should be no problem at all for you to name those that agrees with you and who disagree with me. But you can’t do it can you? Because no one agrees with you. Because everyone can see very clearly that you’re wrong. The lone voice crying out in the wilderness who expects everyone to concede that he’s right and that everyone else is wrong. Have a re-think Michael…..and answer the Eagle question.

As Frank has pointed out… if you don’t feel able to answer the question about Eagle directly to me (as you have ‘forgotten to address it in your post) then perhaps you might address it to Frank? The importance of it really can’t be understated because your previous long post relied almost entirely on that point…a very clearly false one.

[FrankO]

Can Johnson have been there at 1:10 if the body is only first discovered just after 1am? Is it at all physically possible?
No.

Hi Michael,

First of all, if you follow the evidence, then you'd say that Johnson would have arrived in the yard at 1:12 - 1:13 am, because he's qouted as having said: "I had no watch with me, but Dr. Blackwell looked at his when he arrived, and the time was 1.16 a.m. I preceded him by three or four minutes." This is very clear & precise and not 6 minutes.

Then there's the Irish Times of 1 October that reads: "The information of the crime reached Leman street Police Station at ten minutes past 1 o'clock...". That information reached them in the form of Eagle. As you say, Lamb sent Eagle for the station very shortly after they arrived at the crime scene. But, as Herlock pointed out, not to fetch Johnson, but to fetch inspector Pinhorn.

Anyway, it would have taken Eagle some 5 minutes to arrive at the station, so if he arrived there close to 1:10, then he left the crime scene close to 1:05.

Then we have Lamb saying that he arrived at the crime scene 10 to 12 minutes before Blackwell arrived. According to Blackwell's watch, at least, it would have been 1:04 to 1:06 am then.

Based on a just after 1am initial discovery time, the earliest Lamb could have first seen Eagle would be 1:05-1:10.

The 1:05 goes very well with the above. The 1:10 not so good, as evidenced by the Irish Times of 1 October.

And after going back to the club with Eagle, Lamb sends him to notify the station and call...yes, you guessed it...Johnson. At home in bed.

Again, as Herlock has pointed out, Eagle was sent for the police station to fetch the inspector.

Eagle wouldnt have been at the station until 1:10 at the earliest,..

Which is exacly what happened according to the Irish Times.

If you can point out something that isn't correct, then let me know.

All the best,
Frank

[Michael W Richards]

What I see Michael is a plot theory created to suit a preconception about Isenschmidt with absolutely zero evidence. To propagate this you have the convenient tactic of labelling the witnesses that don’t suit your purpose as ‘unreliable’ when again we have no evidence for this. Then by ‘sidelining’ the vast majority of witness which don’t suit your agenda you home in on three that are so laughably wrong that it’s hard to credit that anyone could take them seriously. One of whom even gives 2 times within the same statement and yet you present him as more reliable than a man who simply related the time given by a clock as he passed it.

You lost this argument years ago and even though it wouldn’t seem possible you’re increasingly weakening your case every time you post. Give up.

Its never really been the arrogance Ive objected to, its the inaccuracies and fallacies.

So, once again, to correct the inaccuracies youve posted above;

1. I have never brought up Isenschmidt here, and the evidence is simply the evidence. If It suits one story more than another, you have to accept that.
2. I have stated that I use witnesses I believe can be relied on here, the police, and the medical men. Their times have been given based on their requirements to have records of what happened and when.
3. The witnesses that give stories that suggest the "reliable witnesses" times are all incorrect are the witnesses you choose to use.
4. Using the reliable trustworthy witness timings, its is clear that the discovery of the body must have been before 1am. Lamb could not have seen Eagle calling for help at just before or around 1am if the discovery is after that time.

The fact that you still argue something that is clearly evident within the known evidence...(its right there in print, you cant keep twisting the evidence and think no-one notices, same goes for stated points of view in posts which you constantly misrepresent or misquote).... to suggest that despite all the contradictions and impossibilities, that you know better what the real truth is and it involves an initial discovery after 1am, well.....insisting and solving are another 2 words that are not synonymous. You really should watch that tendency to think you know better than what is actually recorded.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Youve been confusing your particular take on these matters as being the one most broadly accepted and therefore the one most probably accurate. But they are not synonyms.

But as you are the lone voice on the ‘plot’ it would appear that my position is massively more accepted than yours. If we took a vote how many would suggest that Stride’s body was discovered earlier that 1.00? ( 30 minutes earlier according to Spooner, 20 minutes earlier according to Kozebrodsky and 15 minutes early according to Heschberg - all provably mistaken)

Ive said it many time before, and you even incorporated this concept into your post #512, use reliable markers and work from there. Youve done that but missed seeing what happens when other statements are juxtaposed with the reliable ones.

Yes, I’ve avoided preferring the unreliable over the reliable. That’s the whole point of judging the most reliable witnesses. Johnson, Blackwell and Lamb trump Kozebrodski, Heschberg and Spooner every day of the week and yet you go for the latter because it’s suits you to do so.

Youve suggested Blackwell at 1:16, which is a good reliable marker, I would add Johnson to that for 1:10. No reason to suspect he was inept at telling what time it was when he was woken. Lets add Lamb too, around 1am...a beat officer, tracking his beat times based on a foundation time...which was likely established at the station before heading out then supplemented by various clocks around the designated area throughout the shift. Its why most people accept Smith as likely the last person to see Stride alive at 12:35 based on the fact he has credibility as a police officer to recall accurately what he has seen, and a mandate to know roughly where he was and at what time.

So. There are some markers in time that are reliable.

Can Johnson have been there at 1:10 if the body is only first discovered just after 1am? Is it at all physically possible?
No. Based on a just after 1am initial discovery time, the earliest Lamb could have first seen Eagle would be 1:05-1:10.

So we’re still trying to have the witness walking around like men on the moon then. 1.10 doesn’t come into it. Body found at 1.00, Lamb was less than 2 minutes walk away. Around 1.05.

And after going back to the club with Eagle, Lamb sends him to notify the station and call...yes, you guessed it...Johnson. At home in bed. Eagle wouldnt have been at the station until 1:10 at the earliest,..so...now you have the first 2 reliable time markers assessed based on a discovery time just after 1...and they are apparently woefully off on their times. By at least 10 minutes.

I had to keep re-reading this Michael. Telling myself “he surely can’t be making this obvious mistake can he?” But it seems that you are. You actually appear to be suggesting that Lamb sent Eagle to the police station AND to fetch Blackwell!

From the inquest:[Coroner] Was any one in the yard then? - Yes, a few persons - some members of the club and some strangers. One of the policemen turned his lamp on the deceased and sent me to the station for the inspector, at the same time telling his comrade to fetch a doctor

Lamb sent his colleague to fetch Blackwell…not Eagle.

That of course would mean that Blackwell was woefully wrong as well, even the man with the watch that marked his arrival time.

Your whole premise has collapsed. Diemschitz 1.00, Eagle/Lamb 1.05, Johnson 1.10, Blackwell 1.16.

I think if you have reliable sources to use, then you frame the events using their times, you dont use the unreliable sources, (comparatively) for establishing a reliable framework.

I’m using a Doctor, his assistant and a police Constable. You’re using 3 random blokes; one of whom is 25 minutes out whilst the other two are 15 and 20 minutes out. Please get real Michael.

It’s not that hard. If Lamb saw Eagle at or just before 1am, if Spooner had arrived a few minutes earlier with Louis and Issac[s] as he stated...before Lamb arrives there with Eagle, with Issac Kozebrodski joining them,.... and if Johnson is at that scene at 1:10 like he said he was and Blackwell was there at 1:16,.... then the initial discovery could not have been at, or just after, 1am.

Old ground, old inventions Michael. Diemschitz finds the body at around 1.00 - he returns to the yard at around 1.03 - Lamb and Eagle arrive at around 1.05 or 1.06 - Spooner is there 2 or 3 minutes before Lamb arrives instead of a full 5. There are no issues apart from invented ones.

Either the discovery was not at, or just after, 1am...and all the reliable witnesses and markers for times were approximately accurate, OR...the discovery was at, or just after, 1am, and every reliable witness that we started with was wrong by 10-20 minutes. All of them.

I’m tired of responding to this kind of stuff when you just ignore it and plough on with the same old errors. You can’t be doing this by accident. It’s quite deliberate.

Which is it.........Louis was being honest and accurate and the reliable witnesses were ALL wrong...or Louis wasnt accurate or honest and the reliable witnesses are ALL correct.

I’ll keep repeating it - Diemschitz 1.00/ Lamb and Eagle 1.05/6ish/ Spooners 5 minutes was actually 2 or 3. Johnson at 1.10/ Blackwell at 1.16.

THOSE are the reliable times from a starting point of the most reliable of all Blackwell.

My position is that I defer to witnesses that I can presume kept records of their times and events as part of their jobs.
You defer to the man who ran the anarchist club where the murder happened.

AGAIN - Dr. BLACKWELL (NOT A CLUB MEMBER) JOHNSON (NOT A CLUB MEMBER) PC LAMB AND HIS COLLEAGUE (NOT CLUB MEMBERS) AND SPOONER WITH HIS 5 MINUTES BEFORE LAMB (NOT A CLUB MEMBER)

And of course, this ‘club members being unreliable’ is predicated on one thing…an club-related plot which is nothing more than a figment of your imagination. So you’re simply using a tactic…label the witnesses that you don’t like as untrustworthy. This isn’t a valid approach.

Why you see that answer as the most probable, rational or reasonable interpretation of the data....when it clearly is in direct contrast to the timelines established by the "reliable" witnesses, is unclear.

What I see Michael is a plot theory created to suit a preconception about Isenschmidt with absolutely zero evidence. To propagate this you have the convenient tactic of labelling the witnesses that don’t suit your purpose as ‘unreliable’ when again we have no evidence for this. Then by ‘sidelining’ the vast majority of witness which don’t suit your agenda you home in on three that are so laughably wrong that it’s hard to credit that anyone could take them seriously. One of whom even gives 2 times within the same statement and yet you present him as more reliable than a man who simply related the time given by a clock as he passed it.

You lost this argument years ago and even though it wouldn’t seem possible you’re increasingly weakening your case every time you post. Give up.

[c.d.]

And nothing he claims he saw, or in fact his own presence there, is confirmed or affirmed by any other witness statement.

So does that simply cast doubt on the truthfulness of his statement or does it automatically confirm that he was lying?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

When you find somebody who claims that they saw the attack on stride and its not what Schwartz claimed happened, you let me know . Until then its his statement and official eyewitness account, just as all the rest of the witnesses in this case . They could be all labeled "Alleged " if one doesn't like their version of what they saw or heard.

Schwartz is just as credible a witness as anybody who gave testimony that night, and the top brass at the time thought so as well..

Ahh. I see. The act of merely providing a statement infers that the information is not just "alleged", but presumed to be the facts? When a witness "alleges" something that can be verified by corroborative witness accounts then it becomes more "credible", but its still just "alleged".

Evidence establishes, and statements contribute to that evidence. So yes, Israel is part of the evidence taken in this investigation,.. not from the scene of the crime or at the time of the crime, by virtue of some translated remarks made at the station much later that night. And nothing he claims he saw, or in fact his own presence there, is confirmed or affirmed by any other witness statement.

Comments made by investigators about his statement mean nothing towards establishing the veracity of his account. These investigators said lots of things, many without any substantive proof. Just like Israels statement was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Hello George, I’ve put my comments in blue and left yours in black as these kind of post can sometimes be difficult to follow.

I put the Doctor above the police in terms of reliability due to the fact that he had his own watch whereas they were relying on clocks that they had seen some time previously followed by an estimate of the time that had elapsed since they had seen it. The doctor deliberately checked and logged the time of his arrival by his own watch. That said, I certainly wouldn’t argue with you that we can’t be certain about any timepiece but if we were to select any stated time that evening and judge which was the likeliest to have been the most ‘reliable’ then I’d certainly stick with Dr. Blackwell.


Mr. Edward Johnson: I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kaye and Blackwell. On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H. After informing Dr. Blackwell, who was in bed, of the case, I accompanied the officer to Berner-street, and in a courtyard adjoining No. 40.

So Johnson gets called a few minutes past one. Ten minutes past is a few minutes past but the question appears to be ‘did Johnson immediately check the time or was he approximating 1.10.


But Blackwell testified:
Mr. Frederick William Blackwell deposed: I reside at No. 100, Commercial-road, and am a physician and surgeon. On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman. My assistant, Mr. Johnston, went back with the constable, and I followed immediately I was dressed. I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was 1.16 a.m.

This seems straightforward although it appears to have Blackwell answering the door which we know wasn’t the case. I’d suggest though that this was either a Press error or perhaps more likely Dr. Blackwell was using the ‘I was called’ to mean ‘a Constable called at my premises.’


So immediately we see that we have about a 7 minute difference between the Medical Practice clock and Blackwell's pocket watch. Since Lamb testified that he first learned of the murder "shortly before" or "around 1am", it appears that Blackwell's pocket watch was running about 7 minutes fast

I see no 7 minutes George. It all aligns with Johnson answering the door at around 1.10, leaving straight away after informing the Doctor then Blackwell getting ready and leaving to arrive at the yard at 1.16.


But before we get comfortable with this suggestion, we have these reports of testimony in the Times:

Edward Johnston said:- I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kay and Blackwell. About five or ten minutes past 1 on Sunday morning, I received a call from constable 436 H.

Mr. Frederick William Blackwell said, - I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am a surgeon. At 10 minutes past 1 on Sunday morning I was called to 40, Berner-street. I was called by a policeman, and my assistant, Mr. Johnson, went back with him. I followed immediately I had dressed. I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was just 1:10.

Blackwell wouldn’t knowingly have said that he was called and arrived at the same time. I’d suggest an error of reporting.


The next anomaly is that both Lamb and Diemshitz testified that Blackwell arrived 10-12 minutes after Lamb. But both Diemshitz and Lamb mistook Johnson for Blackwell, and Johnson arrived 3-4 minutes before Blackwell.

Constable Henry Lamb : Dr. Blackwell was the first doctor to arrive; he came ten or twelve minutes after myself, but I had no watch with me.

[Coroner] Did any one of the crowd say whether the body had been touched before your arrival? - No. Dr. Blackwell examined the body and its surroundings. Dr. Phillips came ten minutes later. Inspector Pinhorn arrived directly after Dr. Blackwell. When I blew my whistle other constables came, and I had the entrance of the yard closed. This was while Dr. Blackwell was looking at the body. Before that the doors were wide open.

Mr. Frederick William Blackwell : The double doors of the yard were closed when I arrived, so that the previous witness must have made a mistake on that point.

Mr. Edward Johnson: [Coroner] Did you undo the dress? - The dress was not undone when I came. I undid it to see if the chest was warm. The outer gates were closed shortly after I came.

Mr. Frederick William Blackwell : Her dress was unbuttoned at the top.

Lewis Dienishchitz: I only noticed that the doctor, when he came, unbuttoned the dress of the deceased, and, patting his hand on her on her bosom, told a constable standing by that she was quite warm.

Under difficult circumstances it certainly appears that Lamb misremembered the order of events and that he incorrectly suggested that it was Blackwell that opened Stride’s dress when it was actually Johnson and that the gates were closed after Blackwell had arrived when it was clearly after Johnson had arrived and before Blackwell got there. Certainly valid to point these errors out George but I don’t see them as significant.


Spooner said that Lamb arrived around 5 minutes after he’d got there, but Diemshitz said:

"A man whom I met in Grove- street returned with me, and when we reached the yard he took hold of the head of the deceased. As he lifted it up I saw the wound in the throat.

[Coroner] Had the constables arrived then? - At the very same moment Eagle and the constables arrived".

Brown and Eagle both stated that they didn't look at the clock in the Chandler's or the Club respectively, so they were guesstimating from a clock that they saw an indeterminate time before.

Another point that it’s entirely valid to point out but it also points to perhaps the vagaries of memory. Spooner arrived and go straight to the body or was there a bit of chat? Jeff has told us how people can estimate incorrectly so perhaps as he was lifting the head and Lamb arrived a couple of minutes instead of 5 had elapsed.


I am unpersuaded that the times "simply couldn’t be more conclusive".

Then we will have to agree to disagree on that one George. For me there’s no doubt.


But is the time of discovery as important as the time of the actual throat cut"?

Blackwell testified:

Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead? - From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived. The clothes were not wet with rain. She would have bled to death comparatively slowly on account of vessels on one side only of the neck being cut and the artery not completely severed.

So if Blackwell's pocket watch was running about 7 minutes fast, his estimate of the TOD would be 12:40 to 12:50. It is difficult to assign a time interval to "She would have bled to death comparatively slowly " but the actual attack would seem have been some minutes before the TOD's.

But Blackwell’s watch clearly wasn’t running 7 minutes fast George. The evidence tells us this conclusively. We can’t rely on one report where it’s clearly incorrectly stated that Blackwell was informed at 1.10 and arrived at the yard 1.00.

Everything ties up fairly neatly with an allowance required for the vagaries of memory under stressful circumstances. Pointing to a 1.00 discovery time we have Dienschitz, Mrs Dienschitz, Mila, Minsky, Eagle, Gilleman, Brown, Lamb, Johnson, Blackwell, Spooner, Mortimer (hearing Louis cart) and the other members who were interviewed who left the police in no doubt as to what time the body was discovered .

[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Verda. Frank's timeline went one step further and eliminated times in favour of sequences - a step in to right direction IMO.

Cheers, George

I’m certainly in favour of Frank’s suggestion too George because we can all get bogged down with minutes. If I was going to try and sum things up in one sentence I’d say - can it really be so difficult to conceive of an incident, which could only have taken a matter of seconds, to have occurred in a quiet, poorly lit backstreet between 12.35ish and 1.00ish and not get seen by anyone apart from a man passing along the street at the time?

[Michael W Richards]

Common sense, acceptance of timing issues, the avoidance of cherrypicking, the avoidance of an imaginary plot as a way of eliminating inconvenient witnesses, the avoidance of seeing mystery at every turn and phantoms behind each door and false witnesses allows us to take a reasoned view and see quite clearly that nothing mysteries went on. My new slogan “Free Ripperology From Fantasy.”

Youve been confusing your particular take on these matters as being the one most broadly accepted and therefore the one most probably accurate. But they are not synonyms.

Ive said it many time before, and you even incorporated this concept into your post #512, use reliable markers and work from there. Youve done that but missed seeing what happens when other statements are juxtaposed with the reliable ones.

Youve suggested Blackwell at 1:16, which is a good reliable marker, I would add Johnson to that for 1:10. No reason to suspect he was inept at telling what time it was when he was woken. Lets add Lamb too, around 1am...a beat officer, tracking his beat times based on a foundation time...which was likely established at the station before heading out then supplemented by various clocks around the designated area throughout the shift. Its why most people accept Smith as likely the last person to see Stride alive at 12:35 based on the fact he has credibility as a police officer to recall accurately what he has seen, and a mandate to know roughly where he was and at what time.

So. There are some markers in time that are reliable.

Can Johnson have been there at 1:10 if the body is only first discovered just after 1am? Is it at all physically possible?
No. Based on a just after 1am initial discovery time, the earliest Lamb could have first seen Eagle would be 1:05-1:10. And after going back to the club with Eagle, Lamb sends him to notify the station and call...yes, you guessed it...Johnson. At home in bed. Eagle wouldnt have been at the station until 1:10 at the earliest,..so...now you have the first 2 reliable time markers assessed based on a discovery time just after 1...and they are apparently woefully off on their times. By at least 10 minutes.

That of course would mean that Blackwell was woefully wrong as well, even the man with the watch that marked his arrival time.

I think if you have reliable sources to use, then you frame the events using their times, you dont use the unreliable sources, (comparatively) for establishing a reliable framework.

Its not that hard. If Lamb saw Eagle at or just before 1am, if Spooner had arrived a few minutes earlier with Louis and Issac[s] as he stated...before Lamb arrives there with Eagle, with Issac Kozebrodski joining them,.... and if Johnson is at that scene at 1:10 like he said he was and Blackwell was there at 1:16,.... then the initial discovery could not have been at, or just after, 1am.

Either the discovery was not at, or just after, 1am...and all the reliable witnesses and markers for times were approximately accurate, OR...the discovery was at, or just after, 1am, and every reliable witness that we started with was wrong by 10-20 minutes. All of them.

Which is it.........Louis was being honest and accurate and the reliable witnesses were ALL wrong...or Louis wasnt accurate or honest and the reliable witnesses are ALL correct.

My position is that I defer to witnesses that I can presume kept records of their times and events as part of their jobs.
You defer to the man who ran the anarchist club where the murder happened.

Why you see that answer as the most probable, rational or reasonable interpretation of the data....when it clearly is in direct contrast to the timelines established by the "reliable" witnesses, is unclear.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Herlock,

As always in ripperology, not all is as straight forward as it may seem. You begin your chain with "the reliable time of Dr. Blackwell - 1.16.". But how reliable was this time?

It is generally consider that reliability of times were:
1. Police time
2. Medical practitioner time
3. General public time, including the Club.

The reports of the Inquest in the Daily Telegraph, The Daily News and The Morning Advertiser were all relatively consistent in stating:

Mr. Edward Johnson: I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kaye and Blackwell. On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H. After informing Dr. Blackwell, who was in bed, of the case, I accompanied the officer to Berner-street, and in a courtyard adjoining No. 40.

But Blackwell testified:
Mr. Frederick William Blackwell deposed: I reside at No. 100, Commercial-road, and am a physician and surgeon. On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman. My assistant, Mr. Johnston, went back with the constable, and I followed immediately I was dressed. I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was 1.16 a.m.

So immediately we see that we have about a 7 minute difference between the Medical Practice clock and Blackwell's pocket watch. Since Lamb testified that he first learned of the murder "shortly before" or "around 1am", it appears that Blackwell's pocket watch was running about 7 minutes fast. But before we get comfortable with this suggestion, we have these reports of testimony in the Times:

Edward Johnston said:- I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kay and Blackwell. About five or ten minutes past 1 on Sunday morning, I received a call from constable 436 H.

Mr. Frederick William Blackwell said, - I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am a surgeon. At 10 minutes past 1 on Sunday morning I was called to 40, Berner-street. I was called by a policeman, and my assistant, Mr. Johnson, went back with him. I followed immediately I had dressed. I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was just 1:10.

The next anomaly is that both Lamb and Diemshitz testified that Blackwell arrived 10-12 minutes after Lamb. But both Diemshitz and Lamb mistook Johnson for Blackwell, and Johnson arrived 3-4 minutes before Blackwell.

Constable Henry Lamb: Dr. Blackwell was the first doctor to arrive; he came ten or twelve minutes after myself, but I had no watch with me.
[Coroner] Did any one of the crowd say whether the body had been touched before your arrival? - No. Dr. Blackwell examined the body and its surroundings. Dr. Phillips came ten minutes later. Inspector Pinhorn arrived directly after Dr. Blackwell. When I blew my whistle other constables came, and I had the entrance of the yard closed. This was while Dr. Blackwell was looking at the body. Before that the doors were wide open.

Mr. Frederick William Blackwell: The double doors of the yard were closed when I arrived, so that the previous witness must have made a mistake on that point.

Mr. Edward Johnson: [Coroner] Did you undo the dress? - The dress was not undone when I came. I undid it to see if the chest was warm. The outer gates were closed shortly after I came.

Mr. Frederick William Blackwell: Her dress was unbuttoned at the top.

Lewis Dienishchitz: I only noticed that the doctor, when he came, unbuttoned the dress of the deceased, and, patting his hand on her on her bosom, told a constable standing by that she was quite warm.

Spooner said that Lamb arrived around 5 minutes after he’d got there, but Diemshitz said:
"A man whom I met in Grove- street returned with me, and when we reached the yard he took hold of the head of the deceased. As he lifted it up I saw the wound in the throat.
[Coroner] Had the constables arrived then? - At the very same moment Eagle and the constables arrived".

Brown and Eagle both stated that they didn't look at the clock in the Chandler's or the Club respectively, so they were guesstimating from a clock that they saw an indeterminate time before.

I am unpersuaded that the times "simply couldn’t be more conclusive". But is the time of discovery as important as the time of the actual throat cut"?

Blackwell testified:
Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead? - From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived. The clothes were not wet with rain. She would have bled to death comparatively slowly on account of vessels on one side only of the neck being cut and the artery not completely severed.

So if Blackwell's pocket watch was running about 7 minutes fast, his estimate of the TOD would be 12:40 to 12:50. It is difficult to assign a time interval to "She would have bled to death comparatively slowly " but the actual attack would seem have been some minutes before the TOD's.

I recall that when Jeff and I did our timelines, I worked on Police Times and he worked on Blackwell Pocket Watch Times. When a correction of 7 minutes was applied there were no substantial differences. Frank's timeline went one step further and eliminated times in favour of sequences - a step in to right direction IMO.

Cheers, George

I've read this post 3 times it was that good!


Great stuff George!


A potential earlier kill time makes things rather interesting; If Stride was CUT (not yet dead) by 12.50am, that really makes things interesting.

We tend to focus on TOD and Time of Discovery but its the moment Stride was cut that is most important.


If Stride did bleed out slower than we think, it moves the goalposts so to speak.


At 12.50am when Miss Letchford stood at the door of no.30. and when Mortimer was standing at her door, and when Goldstein may have passed: the attack may have already taken place.

It's interesting that nobody when into the yard after 12.50am and so the attack could have occured anytime after Eagle and Lave had gone back into the club and after the BS man had just assaulted her (according to Schwartz)

That either means that Schwartz was telling the truth and BS man cut her throat moments after Schwartz had run off, or perhaps either Eagle, Lave or Schwartz were the killer.


Stride may have been discovered at 1am
She may have died just a few minutes earlier

But she was CUT earlier and that implies an earlier kill time circa 12.50am.


Did Schwartz see the murder?

A disgruntled customer?

A violent ex?

A club member?


The Ripper?



RD

[GBinOz]

I couldn’t agree more. So we begin our chain at the strongest point, which in this case means the time given that was most likely to have been accurate. Few, if any, would dispute that this was a Doctor using his own pocket watch which he was almost certain to regularly check for accuracy; a watch that he deliberately checked on his arrival at the yard. Dr. Blackwell of course.

So we begin with the reliable time of Dr. Blackwell - 1.16.

Our next witness was a Police Officer with no watch but nevertheless was someone with no reason to lie.

PC. Lamb of course who said that he’d been at the yard for 10 minutes before Dr. Blackwell arrived; so - around 1.06.

And because we know that PC. Lamb had no reason to lie we can be absolutely certain that he did indeed go straight to the yard as soon as Eagle had told him about the body.

So I’d suggest that Eagle arrived no more than 30 seconds before they set off back to Dutfield’s Yard - around 1.05.

As we know how far it was from the yard to where Lamb was we can give an easy estimate of what time Eagle left the yard - around 1.03/04.

If we estimate that Eagle left the yard around 2 minutes after the discovery we get a discovery time of - around 1.01 (close enough to 1.00)

Spooner said that Lamb arrived around 5 minutes after he’d got there (Spooner had no reason to lie either) so - around 1.01.

James Brown, who also had absolutely no reason to lie, heard the men shouting for a Constable at..you guessed it - around 1.00

And what time did Gilleman inform Eagle about the body? Around 20 minutes after Eagle had returned (at 12.40) which gives a discovery time of, surprise, surprise - 1.00.


It simply couldn’t be more conclusive. Confirmed by Mrs. D, confirmed by Mila, confirmed by Minsky. And then after interviewing all of the members and the neighbours and the locals which discovery time did the police settle on….hardly surprising is it….1.00.

Hi Herlock,

As always in ripperology, not all is as straight forward as it may seem. You begin your chain with "the reliable time of Dr. Blackwell - 1.16.". But how reliable was this time?

It is generally consider that reliability of times were:
1. Police time
2. Medical practitioner time
3. General public time, including the Club.

The reports of the Inquest in the Daily Telegraph, The Daily News and The Morning Advertiser were all relatively consistent in stating:

Mr. Edward Johnson: I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kaye and Blackwell. On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H. After informing Dr. Blackwell, who was in bed, of the case, I accompanied the officer to Berner-street, and in a courtyard adjoining No. 40.

But Blackwell testified:
Mr. Frederick William Blackwell deposed: I reside at No. 100, Commercial-road, and am a physician and surgeon. On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman. My assistant, Mr. Johnston, went back with the constable, and I followed immediately I was dressed. I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was 1.16 a.m.

So immediately we see that we have about a 7 minute difference between the Medical Practice clock and Blackwell's pocket watch. Since Lamb testified that he first learned of the murder "shortly before" or "around 1am", it appears that Blackwell's pocket watch was running about 7 minutes fast. But before we get comfortable with this suggestion, we have these reports of testimony in the Times:

Edward Johnston said:- I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kay and Blackwell. About five or ten minutes past 1 on Sunday morning, I received a call from constable 436 H.

Mr. Frederick William Blackwell said, - I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am a surgeon. At 10 minutes past 1 on Sunday morning I was called to 40, Berner-street. I was called by a policeman, and my assistant, Mr. Johnson, went back with him. I followed immediately I had dressed. I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was just 1:10.

The next anomaly is that both Lamb and Diemshitz testified that Blackwell arrived 10-12 minutes after Lamb. But both Diemshitz and Lamb mistook Johnson for Blackwell, and Johnson arrived 3-4 minutes before Blackwell.

Constable Henry Lamb: Dr. Blackwell was the first doctor to arrive; he came ten or twelve minutes after myself, but I had no watch with me.
[Coroner] Did any one of the crowd say whether the body had been touched before your arrival? - No. Dr. Blackwell examined the body and its surroundings. Dr. Phillips came ten minutes later. Inspector Pinhorn arrived directly after Dr. Blackwell. When I blew my whistle other constables came, and I had the entrance of the yard closed. This was while Dr. Blackwell was looking at the body. Before that the doors were wide open.

Mr. Frederick William Blackwell: The double doors of the yard were closed when I arrived, so that the previous witness must have made a mistake on that point.

Mr. Edward Johnson: [Coroner] Did you undo the dress? - The dress was not undone when I came. I undid it to see if the chest was warm. The outer gates were closed shortly after I came.

Mr. Frederick William Blackwell: Her dress was unbuttoned at the top.

Lewis Dienishchitz: I only noticed that the doctor, when he came, unbuttoned the dress of the deceased, and, patting his hand on her on her bosom, told a constable standing by that she was quite warm.

Spooner said that Lamb arrived around 5 minutes after he’d got there, but Diemshitz said:
"A man whom I met in Grove- street returned with me, and when we reached the yard he took hold of the head of the deceased. As he lifted it up I saw the wound in the throat.
[Coroner] Had the constables arrived then? - At the very same moment Eagle and the constables arrived".

Brown and Eagle both stated that they didn't look at the clock in the Chandler's or the Club respectively, so they were guesstimating from a clock that they saw an indeterminate time before.

I am unpersuaded that the times "simply couldn’t be more conclusive". But is the time of discovery as important as the time of the actual throat cut"?

Blackwell testified:
Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead? - From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived. The clothes were not wet with rain. She would have bled to death comparatively slowly on account of vessels on one side only of the neck being cut and the artery not completely severed.

So if Blackwell's pocket watch was running about 7 minutes fast, his estimate of the TOD would be 12:40 to 12:50. It is difficult to assign a time interval to "She would have bled to death comparatively slowly " but the actual attack would seem have been some minutes before the TOD's.

I recall that when Jeff and I did our timelines, I worked on Police Times and he worked on Blackwell Pocket Watch Times. When a correction of 7 minutes was applied there were no substantial differences. Frank's timeline went one step further and eliminated times in favour of sequences - a step in to right direction IMO.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Excellent post Michael, fully agree with you on this.


RD

On speculation without proof. , Every witness in all 5 murders should be labeled "Alledged" from now on from what he saw and heard . Great stuff guys