Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[Michael W Richards]

Fantasy and pure speculation. Not one shread of evidence to back it up .

Nor anything Israel claimed, so thats a draw then?

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Mike,

If I may?... RD is correct.

When Smith was asked: "When you saw them talking, which way did you go?", his answer was: "Straight up Berner-street into the Commercial-road. In the centre of Berner-street were some courts which led into Backchurch-lane."

And then, when he'd almost gone around his beat after seeing the couple, he stated "I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock."

So, we have him going north on Berner Street when he saw Stride & companion and we have him on the verge of turning into Berner Street and going south on it at one o'clock. From this we might 'conclude' that Smith's usual way of conducting his beat (as far as Berner Street is concerned) was to enter it from Commercial Road, go down on one side and then go up again on the other side.

Cheers,
Frank

Thank you kindly Frank for corroborating the point I was trying to highlight.

It would make PC Smith's physically being in Berner Street slightly longer than anticipated, not by much of course, but that extra 30 to 45 seconds or so, may be significant in the grand scheme of things.

I believe focusing on PC Smith's timing is paramount to formulating a more cemented framework from which others can be incorporated into the mix.

I do agree with George and Herlock to the extent that I may have put too much emphasis onto Mortimer and so I admit that on balance her timings are unreliable at best.

I do think however that it's not her physically being at her door that is particularly useful, it's the notion that she specifically heard the distinct heavy tramping of boots walk past her house. It may be fair to suggest that it may be a sound she was familiar with if the route was a regular one for the beat officer, and so that particular detail of her statement may be the most important. In terms of her being at her door, it only really potentially impacts on Schwartz's account.


Initially, PC Smith stated "at 12.30am" but then that became less rigid and it changed to between 12.30am - 12.35am.

But what if his timing is slightly off and he actually was in Berner Street after Eagle and Lave had already gone, ergo, after 12.40am?

If this is the case, then it makes the sighting of Parcelman with Stride even more significant.

Another key question being; if Pc Smith was there after 12.40am, then where did Parcelman go?


Bearing in mind that a time of after 12.40am for PC Smith supports the following...


He walks past Mortimer's door on his way (up or down?) Berner Street and is heard by Mortimer circa 12.42 to 12.43am, shortly before she comes to her door (allegedly)

His circuit brings him back around to the top of Berner Street within the time frame of 1.07am to 1.10am

He does not see Lave or Eagle.

Lave and Eagle do not mention seeing a policeman, who would stand out and be both recognizable and memorable

Lave is in the street at some point between 12.31am to 12.40am

Eagle gets back and tries the front door before accessing the side door of the club, but the sequence does not occur when Pc Smith is there.


Of course, PC Smith may have indeed been there at 12.35am, But then we would need to explain away a lot more based on my points above.


The issue is that by moving Pc Smith's time to fit in with everyone else, it then obliterates the chances of the Stride assault occurring at 12.45am


There is another time window AFTER Mortimer is no longer at her door; 12.56am - 12.58am in which the assault on Stride could have occurred just in time.


This would then be almost certain proof that Stride's killer was Bs Man who after Schwartz ran off at 12.58am, he moves Stride into the yard, cuts her throat and is gone before 12.59am.

This then supports the physical condition of Stride and reduce her bleed-out time by as much as 16 minutes!

The only way that the entire Schwartz incident can fit into the timeline is if the assault occurs after 12.55am.

The time of 12.45am just doesn't work, especially if Pc Smith's timing is after 12.40am

And even though I am clearly against the idea that Schwartz was genuine, I have to concede that the event could have happened after 12.55am

The entire event beginning with Parcelman leaving (he had to have gone somewhere) Bs man arriving, Schwartz arriving, the assault, the chase/run away, Bs man returning to Stride, the throat-cutting and then the escape by Bs Man, would need 2 minutes to complete.

Of course, there may be some who say it could all go down in under a minute, but that simply does not work.

In real life, things take time and it's not like the Truman Show where everyone runs around in a speedy, choreographed, and organized manner.


Some of the key questions are...


Where did Parcelman go?

When did Pc Smith observe Parcelman?

Where was Pc Smith when he came around the eastern section of his beat and made his way west along Faircloth Street towards the junction with Berner Street?

Could Parcelman and BS Man have been the same person?

Why does nobody seem to acknowledge that the Schwartz incident could have occurred within a 2 minute window after 12.55sam?

Why does everyone stand by the 12.45am assault time, when Mortimer was most likely at her door after having heard the heavy tramping outside, when Brown witnessed a couple on the corner at 12.45am who would have heard the assault moments later, including Brown himself.

I find it baffling how everything seems to revolve around Schwartz's timing of 12.45am

It seems to override everyone else's timings and questions Mortimer, Brown, and the other couple at the very least.


By simply placing Schwartz's timing 10 minutes later, then everything has the POTENTIAL to fit in, even IF Pc Smith was there at 12.35am OR 12.42-12.43am.


RD

[GBinOz]

Stride may have been perceived as a threat by someone who could well have been intoxicated and in less control of his impulses than desirable.

Hi Michael,

I think this is a definite possibility.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I do think however that it's not her physically being at her door that is particularly useful, it's the notion that she specifically heard the distinct heavy tramping of boots walk past her house. It may be fair to suggest that it may be a sound she was familiar with if the route was a regular one for the beat officer, and so that particular detail of her statement may be the most important.

Hi RD,

This is the detail that is worth taking away. Well done.

Cheers, George

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

There is, of course, the possibility that our rendition of Smith's postulated beat is incorrect, and he actually turned into Berner St from Fairclough and headed north. His testimony referred only to the perimeter of his beat, so the fact of the matter is that we are really only guessing at the actual internal configuration of his beat. Only Smith knows the truth.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

"I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock."

To me, he seems to be saying that the patrol of Berner Street during which he saw of Stride & companion also began at the top corner of Berner Street, or else he couldn't have stated that he was there "again at one o'clock".

But if Smith actually turned into Berner Street from Fairclough heading north, then I would be interested in your idea of how he only went up Berner Street on the round in which he saw the couple at 12:30 to 12:35 and ended up at the top of Berner Street 25 to 30 minutes later at 1 o'clock, about to turn into Berner on his way south.

Cheers,
Frank

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

"I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock."

To me, he seems to be saying that the patrol of Berner Street during which he saw of Stride & companion also began at the top corner of Berner Street, or else he couldn't have stated that he was there "again at one o'clock".

But if that's Smith actually turned into Berner Street from Fairclough heading north, then I would be interested in your idea of how he only went up Berner Street on the round in which he saw the couple at 12:30 to 12:35 and ended up at the top of Berner Street 25 to 30 minutes later at 1 o'clock, about to turn into Berner on his way south.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

The short answer to your question is.... I don't have the slightest idea. As I said, Smith's testimony only outlined the perimeter of his beat with a comment regarding the internal possibilities, which I interpret as random with regard to Smith's judgement in each particular case on the night. At one stage I spent some considerable hours trying to work out a feasible beat, but with no joy. I have formed the opinion that we have no way of deducing the internal configuration of Smith's beat, so the logical conclusion is that we can only accept Smith's testimony that he saw Stride with Parcelman as he was proceeding north along Berner St, and accept that, in his experienced professional opinion, that occurred between 12:30 and 12:35 police time. The fact is that he is the ONLY ONE that knew his beat on that night. I shall remain obdurate in this opinion until evidence is produced to the contrary, such evidence not to include the unsubstantiated times of Fanny Mortimer.

Best regards, George

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

I think this is a definite possibility.

Cheers, George

Well,... I certainly feel compelled to address a poster that actually agrees with something I posted. There is very little that is remarkable about Liz Strides murder, in my opinion anyway. A single slice, men that we know had been drinking having easy access to the location she is murdered without being seen from or on the street, left to bleed out after the single cut is made, a knife unlike the one used on previous alleged JtR murders, Phillips finding little to compare favourably with what he saw with Annies killing, and her reasons for being there seem to be either related to cleaning work or a social excursion. Either one would likely mean she wouldnt know what time she would return to the lodging house, which explains her leaving her small treasure with another resident until she returns, and her desire to clean lint from her skirt. I doubt whether any clients of "Working women" got the breath freshener, flower arrangement, lint brushed skirt treatment as part of their "servicing".

She is scrutinized today because she was bundled into an unsolved mystery that took place in the same geographical area and with the same chronological timing.

This is why I debate the preconceptions about this murder in particular, and why I suspect that one of the men at that location is likely her killer. This isnt slippery silent rubber soled Jack the serial mutilator, its more probably a tipsy attendee knee-jerk reacting to something about Liz, something she said, something she did, something she might represent. Street women were recruited by the police to spy on these kinds of clubs and organizations, and the men at the club, in particular the ones in charge at the club, would know that. One arrived without being seen by anyone and "discovered" the body, ....discovered, or......

Yes.....I did suggest between the lines that its within the realm of possibility that Louis killed her, then created a timeline that suggested he couldnt have. She was obviously cut before 1....so... he arrived precisely at 1. Its possible he could have done just that, and it would explain why we have an abundance of witnesses that said they knew of the body well before 1am, which contradicts Louis's contention...and I think the assumption by many...that he must have discovered her first, at 1.

[FISHY1118]

Nor anything Israel claimed, so thats a draw then?

Your kidding right ? , Schwartz gave an official statement to the police , he was taken to the mortuary to officially identify the dead body of the women he saw b.s man assault.

You had better have a good reason for why this witness lied twice to the police in a murder investigation

The evidence of this is where exactly?

I've said it before, the only reason ppl want to eliminate Schwartz is because he conflicts with their chosen suspect or theory . .

[c.d.]

I doubt whether any clients of "Working women" got the breath freshener, flower arrangement, lint brushed skirt treatment as part of their "servicing".

Exactly. Ask any woman and they will tell you the best way to attract men is to have bad breath and dirty clothes and make zero effort to look attractive.

Her situation and intentions at the start of the evening didn't have to correspond with what took place at the end of the evening.

c.d.

[c.d.]

And once again, Stride actively soliciting is not a requirement for her being a Ripper victim. So her breath, clothes, flowers etc. are a moot point.

c.d.

[Robert St Devil]

So to reply to your question, I think that the constable had come off of fixed-point duty at 1am, but that the conclusion of his duty coincided with Lamb's encounter with Eagle. JMO.

{yawns, stretches & opens Casebook} “hey look… a response… bonus points!”

appreciate the reply, always welcomed HOWEVER an alternate interpretation regarding fixed-duty being:

the constable’s work-shift went from 9pm to 5am; there was a specific task assigned to constables during that period of time, that being: fixed-duty; fixed-duty concluded at 1am WHEN the fixed-duty constable (possibly) returned to regular beat operations.

so NO I don’t think the fixed-duty constable was readying to head to home & hearth because his shift was readying to end at 1 o’clock
It can be read as… he had come off fixed-duty shift at 1 o’clock AND THAT was when Lamb saw him

my presumption being: fixed-duty was a task assigned to constables during their shift, during peak hours of activity, provided as a convenience to the public HOWEVER it concluded city-wide at 1am when street-activity began to slow down (ie. after the closure of public-houses, after all the drunks had gone home, after most of the rows had occurred).
This may have prompted the Coroner to assert a rumor that SOMETIMES constables had remained on fixed-duty for the duration of the night TO WHICH the inspector dismissed the claim as a rare occurrence (iow NOT in this particular instance).

- - - - - -

my thoughts on The Times and 1:10. The transcription from pencil to print was botched, someone read the circle scribble of “6” as a “0” AFTER ALL it wouldn’t make sense for the doctor to say that the constable arrived at 1:10 AND SUBSEQUENTLY he himself arrived at Dutfield Yard at 1:10.



Cheers george, ripperologists… and DJA (hope life is well, ol’ buddy)

[The Rookie Detective]

At the time the sale of Cachou were marketed/aimed at middle class women who smoked and wanted to freshen their breath.

It was seen as part of the experience; relax and enjoy a smoke like a sophisticated lady before taking a Cachou to freshen up that breath and move on with the rest of the day.

The idea of Stride having Cachou on her person may not just have been for practical use, but also for show, ergo, to look classier in front of others.

When you incorporate Stride's choice of attire that night/morning it could be considered reasonable to suggest that she was trying to impress someone.

The idea that she was out to solicit that night just doesn't hold water because all of the accumulated evidence, both actual and circumstantial points towards Stride not out to pull a punter.


RD

[c.d.]

The idea that she was out to solicit that night just doesn't hold water because all of the accumulated evidence, both actual and circumstantial points towards Stride not out to pull a punter.

But here is the problem, R.D., even if we can say with absolute certainly that she was not out to actively solicit that night we have no way of knowing her response if approached by Jack and let's say offered more money than usual for her favors. Is she going to turn that down? Remember, she was not well off financially and had just left Kidney and is now on her own. Plus, apparently she had a drinking problem which takes money. The expression don't look a gift horse in the mouth comes to mind.

We simply don't know what she would do. So whether or not she was actively soliciting really doesn't matter.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Your kidding right ? , Schwartz gave an official statement to the police , he was taken to the mortuary to officially identify the dead body of the women he saw b.s man assault.

You had better have a good reason for why this witness lied twice to the police in a murder investigation

The evidence of this is where exactly?

I've said it before, the only reason ppl want to eliminate Schwartz is because he conflicts with their chosen suspect or theory . .

I dont recall Abberline championing Israels statement other than just stating he believed it, same for Swanson....so, how you figure this is a vetted, verified, validated accurate story given by a reputable witness is beyond me. The mere fact that his story includes the victim minutes before her death would make him the last to see her alive if true, and that would be one of the first people the Inquest would want to hear from. Couple that with an alleged victim assault in that sighting...hard to imagine that would be considered irrelevant. But it appears it was just that. He, nor his story, are not found in any documents relating to Strides Inquest,...he was not called to appear, nor was his story entered on its own.

Perhaps you might want to revisit the quote "not wholly accepted" as relates to Israel and the investigation into his claim. It may not refer to the man they questioned....."The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted." Yes, It is ambiguous as to whether they are skeptical about the man who gave the original statement, or the man they refer to as "prisoner", but it seems to me since they referred to him as Prisoner in the previous line and the questioning, the "man's statement" may well refer to the original statement by the original "man".

So we dont get caught up in semantics, there is no official document made concerning the statement given Sunday night by Schwartz that indicates the details of his story should be considered an empirical fact of any kind. People believed it...well, you above all should know that people can believe anything they wish to. Providing evidence of it can be quite another thing.

In addition, the translator may well be Wess, who knew Israel before this incident, and who later translated for Goldstein. One wonders, would Wess translate for any club attendees or members that didnt speak English. And How, if at all, might Israel fit in with that.

So...taking umbrage at me for pointing out the well documented and obvious, isnt getting anyone anywhere.

[Michael W Richards]

I doubt whether any clients of "Working women" got the breath freshener, flower arrangement, lint brushed skirt treatment as part of their "servicing".

Exactly. Ask any woman and they will tell you the best way to attract men is to have bad breath and dirty clothes and make zero effort to look attractive.

Her situation and intentions at the start of the evening didn't have to correspond with what took place at the end of the evening.

c.d.

I know you are aware of how poor these women and men were, how dirty and smelly dock workers and warehouse men were while working, how disgusting a smock covered with animal blood on the slaughterhouse men would be.....all of which would be in the client pool of those working the streets after midnight in that area. Now factor in the cost of presenting yourself to smelly dirty men with fresh breath, brushed skits and flowers on her jacket.

"To look attractive" got me...like either party gave a rats ass about that. It was cheap, dirty street sex. And Liz was not dressed, nor prepared, for that kind of encounter with anyone.