Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[Wickerman]

I agree 100% Wick. It wasn’t a mishearing or a misprint it was just an inaccurate estimate by Spooner. Whereas his ‘four or five minutes before Lamb’ has a solid basis. There’s no way that anyone could seriously suggest that Lamb arrived at the yard as early as 12.40.

Absolutely, also constables assigned to Fixed Point Duty came off-duty at 1:00 am. This was constable 426H, and he accompanied PC Lamb, which means the two PC's were alerted at or shortly after 1:00am.
If PC Lamb had been alerted at 12:40, the other PC - 426H, could not have accompanied him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Absolutely, also constables assigned to Fixed Point Duty came off-duty at 1:00 am. This was constable 426H, and he accompanied PC Lamb, which means the two PC's were alerted at or shortly after 1:00am.
If PC Lamb had been alerted at 12:40, the other PC - 426H, could not have accompanied him.

I’d forgotten about the Fixed Point Officer Wick. I remember some confusion as to who was PC 426H? I just checked back to a short conversation on JTRForums between myself, Jose Oranto, Debra Arif and Karsten Geise.

In the 2010 A-Z it had PC 426H as being Gunner (which Debra said came from Keith Skinner) but in his book Neil Bell went for Ayliffe. Apparently, in the H Division ledger Gunner is listed as being in service from July 2nd 1888 to October 29th 1897 as PC 426H. Ayliffe is recorded in the same ledger as joining February 6th 1888 also as PC 426H but he transferred to P division on December 21st of the same year. It was a bit strange but it looks certain that 426H was Ayliffe.

[Scott Nelson]

Im happy that I’ve proven that there was no plot. Nothing strange happened in Berner Street.

Yes, but there was nothing to prove. Lots of wasted threads over nothing, really.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, but there was nothing to prove. Lots of wasted threads over nothing, really.

I agree Scott.

[Wickerman]

I’d forgotten about the Fixed Point Officer Wick. I remember some confusion as to who was PC 426H? I just checked back to a short conversation on JTRForums between myself, Jose Oranto, Debra Arif and Karsten Geise.

In the 2010 A-Z it had PC 426H as being Gunner (which Debra said came from Keith Skinner) but in his book Neil Bell went for Ayliffe. Apparently, in the H Division ledger Gunner is listed as being in service from July 2nd 1888 to October 29th 1897 as PC 426H. Ayliffe is recorded in the same ledger as joining February 6th 1888 also as PC 426H but he transferred to P division on December 21st of the same year. It was a bit strange but it looks certain that 426H was Ayliffe.

That could be, the name sounds familiar.
The actual Fixed Point location was on the corner of Commercial Rd & Christian St. as detailed in the Met. Police Manual.

[Michael W Richards]

The witnesses are indeed one-sided:

Louis Diemschitz who said that he arrived at the yard at 1.00.

Mrs. Diemschitz who said that he entered the club at around 1.00.

Mila, the club servant who confirmed the time at 1.00.

Julius Minsky, club member who confirmed Diemschitz’ entry at just after 1.00.

Morris Eagle who confirmed that he was informed about the body at around 1.00.

Gilleman informed Eagle so he could have confirmed the time as around 1.00.

Lamb who said that he saw Eagle at around 1.00.

Brown’s statement points to him hearing the men shouting ‘murder’ at around 1.00.

Spooner who arrived 5 minutes before Lamb arrived, so sometime fairly close to 1.00.

Edward Johnson who received the PC’s call a few minutes after 1.00 (sent by Lamb)

Dr. Blackwell who followed on and arrived at 1.16.


The only way that we can stray from this conclusion is if we make assumptions about a plot and then pick the version that’s thought to favour it but we know that these kind of plots don’t happen in the real world.

Im happy that I’ve proven that there was no plot. Nothing strange happened in Berner Street. A man saw a very short incident in a quiet backstreet in the early hours. A couple of witnesses estimated times incorrectly. That’s it.

Im always taken aback by your unfounded and unsubstantiated claims youve solved the riddles for us all. Whetever would we do without you? Well...I think we would be able to have some progress made instead of just digressing for one.

Ive said a billion times that the men and women paid by the club would have concerns about a potential closure due to this event. Its not that hard to understand. So what is your response? To cite the times given by those same questionable witnesses as some kind of validation of your argument. The only people with reasons to shape their stories so they, or the club, dont look guilty. Did you use any of the other witnesses, you know, the ones who had nothing to gain or lose, and the ones who didnt see Israel, Or BSM, or Pipeman, OR Louis arriving? Nope. Not one. Do you accept that Lamb must have had some sense of what the time was when he saw Eagle. No, you say we need to alter his time. Based on Louis's the anarchists time? Thats....well, I dont want to use the language I might have before, but Ill settle with nonsense.

Thats too bad, because those stories do show something quite different. 3 stories are almost identical "discovery"times...by witnesses who were at the club but not on the payroll, and a bystander who has no reason to "tailor" a statement. And they are all before 12:45. The Arbeter Fraint published after this event started by stating at that the discovery was at 12:45.

Simply put, Louis cannot have arrived at 1 and still have Lamb arrive there at the same time with Eagle, Louis could not have arrived at 1 and not been seen approaching by Fanny still at her door, Lamb could not have seen Eagle before 1:10ish if Louis only arrived at 1, he said it was "just before 1" when he saw Eagle, and most importantly we have evidence that Louis likely created at least part of his story by virtue of the fact that he let people believe that the Issac[s] he went with was really Kozebrodski, who in his own words said he "was sent out by Louis..."..at just after 12:40.

Johnson could not have received the call from the station Eagle reported to around 1 if Eagle hasnt even left the passageway for help yet because Louis hadnt even got off his cart yet,.. and Eagle, Issac K and Louis's search parties did not find help immediately, so some time had ticked by if Louis only arrived at 1, went inside, checked on his wife, summoned help, and went back to check on the body before sending Issac and Eagle and then leaving himself with Issac[s]. I estimate around 10 minutes easily from discovery time to finding Lamb. So, did Eagle find Lamb at 1:10? Nope, at just before 1.

I admit when you post lines like this "Im happy that I’ve proven that there was no plot. Nothing strange happened in Berner Street."...I wonder why you would congratulate yourself on acceptance of an impossible time sequence from Louis. In fact, you havent proven anything Herlock, the counter arguments are still there. Because? They are not my arguments, they are recorded statements that witnesses who were there made. You are just suggesting ignoring the ones that directly contradict your victory lap, and ignoring the dramatic time differences on record.

im fine with my analysis, I understand the human elements here that would be experienced by any paid staff at the club, I am supportive of the statements made by completely unbiased witnesses including the police and the doctors. Maybe you forgot that for your victory lap to be valid, ALL those witnesses had to be wrong and only Louis, his wife, the speaker and some club cronies are the viable times. You are aware that the neighbours and the police and even William Morris thought that radical anarchist doctrines were upheld there...yet you buy their stories over police and men with watches.

Unless you have anything to add, you have just revealed your selective approach to evidence acceptance and your own acceptance of anarchist stories over ones by police and unaffiliated bystanders.

If I am a cop and Im called to investigate a murder outside a bike club, I would expect to hear...."didnt see anything", didnt see no-one", and a story that is intended to clear suspicions about their possible guilt. But if the bikers are the ONLY men anywhere near that site at the time of the murder, perhaps even someone pedantic would realize that the murderer then HAD TO BE one of them. Since club members, hangers on and staff are the ONLY people we know by witness accounts were at that address at the time of the murder...seems one of them was almost certainly involved. Unless she slit her own throat of course. Then again, bikers might not have a Schwartz for insurance.

You cant just shut your eyes, cover your ears and cherry pick times. You have to use them all, and you have to figure out by the cumulative info what is most probably accurate and what isnt. Israel is the second example, Lamb seeing Eagle at just before 1, is the first.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im always taken aback by your unfounded and unsubstantiated claims youve solved the riddles for us all. Whetever would we do without you? Well...I think we would be able to have some progress made instead of just digressing for one.

Ive said a billion times that the men and women paid by the club would have concerns about a potential closure due to this event. Its not that hard to understand. So what is your response?

I’ve responded to that point. I don’t think that there is even the slightest chance that the members would have thought that. And certainly not on the spur of the moment after the extreme shock of a woman being found with her throat cut. I also think it’s a major stretch to say the least that they would have come up with the ‘plan’ that they did under those circumstances and in such a short space of time with so many people all having to agree to go along with it.. Especially knowing that their plan would require someone willing to lie to the police about being in Berner Street. And as it happens I find that I’m in an overwhelming majority who also don’t believe in such a reaction and plan.

To cite the times given by those same questionable witnesses as some kind of validation of your argument. The only people with reasons to shape their stories so they, or the club, dont look guilty. Did you use any of the other witnesses, you know, the ones who had nothing to gain or lose, and the ones who didnt see Israel, Or BSM, or Pipeman, OR Louis arriving? Nope. Not one. Do you accept that Lamb must have had some sense of what the time was when he saw Eagle. No, you say we need to alter his time. Based on Louis's the anarchists time? Thats....well, I dont want to use the language I might have before, but Ill settle with nonsense.

You surely must be aware of the other side of this argument Michael. You are only using those witnesses that you feel support your plot. The main difference is that I’m going with the large majority whilst you are basing your claims on 2 or 3. When we look at the situation we have to do it without preconception. It’s not as if there is evidence of a plot and then you’ve found things to support or confirm it.

I can’t understand why you claim that I’ve somehow missed out witnesses when I haven’t. What I certainly haven’t done though is to accuse witnesses of lying when there’s no solid evidence for it; purely because of a couple of timing discrepancies.

Thats too bad, because those stories do show something quite different. 3 stories are almost identical "discovery"times...by witnesses who were at the club but not on the payroll, and a bystander who has no reason to "tailor" a statement. And they are all before 12:45. The Arbeter Fraint published after this event started by stating at that the discovery was at 12:45.

I appear to have to keep repeating points in the hope that one day you will acknowledge and actually respond to them instead of ignoring them.

Heschberg - Look at how uncertain his statement was. Look how he heard a police whistle even though no police officer had been made aware of the body by the time he alleged it. Why does Heschberg seem a reliable witness to you? And by the way, unlike your opinion of Diemschitz, I’m not accusing Heschberg of lying.

Kozebrodski - According to him heard about the body at 12.40 then went running up Fairclough Street and managed to get back with Spooner 5 minutes before he left. And somehow Brown didn’t hear them shouting murder until around 1.00. And not to mention who it took him 20 minutes or more to get to Lamb and Eagle.

Spooner - In the same statement he estimates 12.35 (unseen by Smith or Fanny for that matter) and also around 1.00 as he said ‘5 minutes before Lamb.’

These three were very clearly mistaken and yet you favour them over the others and you use the ‘well they were in on it’ ploy as a tool to justify using them to support a plot that we all know never occurred in the first place. Not only didn’t occur but couldn’t possibly have occurred.

Simply put, Louis cannot have arrived at 1 and still have Lamb arrive there at the same time with Eagle,

I really can’t understand why you persist with this point Michael? Louis simply said that the Baker’s clock said 1.00 as he passed and we have no reason to accuse him of lying. We also have no way of knowing if that clock was synchronised with the clock that Lamb took his estimated time from. So no one is suggesting that he and Lamb entered Berner Street at spot on 1.00. Louis entered Berner Street and Lamb entered a few minutes later.

Louis could not have arrived at 1 and not been seen approaching by Fanny still at her door,

Which would be a valid point if we could say that it was true. Fanny did hear a horse and cart pass at around that time and we can only assume that Whitechapel backstreet at 1.00am was hardly Oxford Street and that this was extremely likely (almost to a point of certainty) Diemschitz passing. It’s also worth pointing out that no one saw Louis on his horse and cart returning earlier as you suggest that he did.

The truth is that we have no way of knowing when Fanny was or wasn’t on her doorstep but for some strange reason the logical conclusion - that she was inside when things occurred that she didn’t see - is treated as if it’s somehow science fiction.

Lamb could not have seen Eagle before 1:10ish if Louis only arrived at 1, he said it was "just before 1" when he saw Eagle,

Michael, I’ve told you about this a few times as have others and we’ve done it reasonably and without rancour. So could you please stop cherrypicking these quotes. Lamb said ‘just before 1.00’ in only one newspaper but ‘around 1.00’ in all of the others.

To clarify, and in the interest of fairness, perhaps you could explain why you consistently quote the one that’s used once and ignore the one that’s used all of the other times?

and most importantly we have evidence that Louis likely created at least part of his story by virtue of the fact that he let people believe that the Issac[s] he went with was really Kozebrodski, who in his own words said he "was sent out by Louis..."..at just after 12:40.

You feel that this point is somehow important? I’ve already dealt with it in my original post.

Johnson could not have received the call from the station Eagle reported to around 1 if Eagle hasnt even left the passageway for help yet because Louis hadnt even got off his cart yet,.. and Eagle, Issac K and Louis's search parties did not find help immediately, so some time had ticked by if Louis only arrived at 1, went inside, checked on his wife, summoned help, and went back to check on the body before sending Issac and Eagle and then leaving himself with Issac[s]. I estimate around 10 minutes easily from discovery time to finding Lamb. So, did Eagle find Lamb at 1:10? Nope, at just before 1.

This of course returns to you cherrypicking the ‘just before 1.00’ quote. Louis returned at around 1.00. Lamb and Eagle returned 5 minutes or so later. Then Johnson then Blackwell at 1.16. There is no mystery.

I admit when you post lines like this "Im happy that I’ve proven that there was no plot. Nothing strange happened in Berner Street."...I wonder why you would congratulate yourself on acceptance of an impossible time sequence from Louis. In fact, you havent proven anything Herlock, the counter arguments are still there. Because? They are not my arguments, they are recorded statements that witnesses who were there made. You are just suggesting ignoring the ones that directly contradict your victory lap, and ignoring the dramatic time differences on record.

But they are ‘your’ arguments Michael because you’re the only one making them. This is why no one else agrees with the plot theory. That really should tell you something. All that I, and others have done, is to look at events without believing that we have to make them fit into a plot scenario. All that we have done is to suggest that the majority of witnesses are usually the ones that got it right. All that we are suggesting is that just because a couple of witnesses times don’t gel with the rest we should automatically assume that something was afoot. It’s the acceptance that people make errors and that this is massively more likely to occur than are plots of the kind that you’re proposing.

im fine with my analysis, I understand the human elements here that would be experienced by any paid staff at the club, I am supportive of the statements made by completely unbiased witnesses including the police and the doctors. Maybe you forgot that for your victory lap to be valid, ALL those witnesses had to be wrong and only Louis, his wife, the speaker and some club cronies are the viable times. You are aware that the neighbours and the police and even William Morris thought that radical anarchist doctrines were upheld there...yet you buy their stories over police and men with watches.

We’re just going over the same old ground Michael. You have 20 years invested in this theory so I can understand and why you are reluctant to let it go no matter how many have told you that there’s nothing to it.

Unless you have anything to add, you have just revealed your selective approach to evidence acceptance and your own acceptance of anarchist stories over ones by police and unaffiliated bystanders.

Im not bothered about any ‘evil anarchist’ stories Michael. I’ve just given a totally unbiased assessment of the facts and I notice that every reaction apart from yours has been positive.

If I am a cop and Im called to investigate a murder outside a bike club, I would expect to hear...."didnt see anything", didnt see no-one", and a story that is intended to clear suspicions about their possible guilt. But if the bikers are the ONLY men anywhere near that site at the time of the murder, perhaps even someone pedantic would realize that the murderer then HAD TO BE one of them. Since club members, hangers on and staff are the ONLY people we know by witness accounts were at that address at the time of the murder...seems one of them was almost certainly involved. Unless she slit her own throat of course. Then again, bikers might not have a Schwartz for insurance.

Plots like the ones that you suggest don’t happen. And they certainly didn’t happen here.

You cant just shut your eyes, cover your ears and cherry pick times. You have to use them all, and you have to figure out by the cumulative info what is most probably accurate and what isnt. Israel is the second example, Lamb seeing Eagle at just before 1, is the first.

That last three lines is a classic of irony.

You accuse me of cherrypicking….then you proceed to cherrypick the Lamb quote….again


We should move on Michael.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

‘Not Very Loudly.’

Plots always require nitpicking and a perfect example of this is Schwartz use of the phrase ‘screamed but not very loudly.’ This is seen as a way of explaining how the plotters explained away why no one heard the incident. Not mentioning screaming in the first place might have been a better tactic for the plotters but hey, perhaps they didn’t think of telling their tame interpreter this? Or they could even have said that BS man put his hand over her mouth and pulled her into the yard? But ‘screamed but not very loudly’ isn’t the most logical of phrases is it? Who would have said such a thing?


I’d suggest a man that couldn’t speak English and who was communicating via an interpreter of unknown competence and whose words were being heard and written down by a journalist looking for an exciting a story as possible?


Time to move on from this non-point

Just a quick question before we move on. In #10 you credit the comments of Mrs Diemschitz in pushing you away from the notion of Stride being a Ripper victim...

So, was Stride killed by the ripper or not?


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


Daily News, Oct 2nd

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

Do you suppose that "screams or sound of any kind" would be inclusive of three not very loud screams?

[Fiver]

So Spooner can safely be put alongside…


Louis Diemschitz who said that he arrived at the yard at 1.00.

Mrs. Diemschitz who said that he entered the club at around 1.00.

Mila, the club servant who confirmed the time at 1.00.

Julius Minsky, club member who confirmed Diemschitz’ entry at just after 1.00.

Morris Eagle who confirmed that he was informed about the body at around 1.00.

Gilleman informed Eagle so he could have confirmed the time as around 1.00.

Lamb who said that he saw Eagle at around 1.00.

Brown’s statement points to him hearing the men shouting ‘murder’ at around 1.00.

Spooner who arrived 5 minutes before Lamb arrived, so sometime fairly close to 1.00.

Edward Johnson who received the PC’s call a few minutes after 1.00 (sent by Lamb)

Dr. Blackwell who followed on and arrived at 1.16.


That’s 11 witnesses who all support that Louis Diemschitz found the body at around 1.00 versus the clearly mistaken Heschberg and Kozebrodski plus Spooner who gave a clearly incorrect estimation of 12.35 but a correct ‘5 minutes before Lamb - so just around 1.00). Guess which ones the plot supporters opt to believe? You guessed it. Michael loves to point out that some of these were connected to the club - but it’s just the old ‘well they would say that wouldn’t they’ chestnut. Desperate stuff I’m afraid.

Actually, it's 13 witnesses who support that Louis Diemschitz found the body at around 1.00.

Mortimer said she heard Diemshutz' cart arrive at 12:59 and that she remarked on at the time to her husband.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You can’t know when Fanny was at her door. It’s impossible for anyone to know. According to her she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed so this would be around 12.35. She was on there, according to her for around 10 minutes, which has her back inside at around 12.45. I’ll repeat…Fanny is just of no use to anyone.

She could be of some use. The report you refer to that has Fanny at her doorstep for about 10 minutes, also refers to her hearing the arriving pony and cart about 4 minutes after she locks up. There is a strong consensus here that the reference to 4 minutes can be attributed to the words of Fanny, and not the reporter playing with numbers from various sources. In that case, we can place the arrival of Diemschitz at about 12:49.

Goldstein The Nobody

Everything and everyone gets roped into the non-existent mystery…like Leon Goldstein for example. Goldstein played no part in this case. Zero. He is no more important than Mrs Fiddymont or Mog Cheeks or any number of other peripheral figures and yet mystery-seekers can’t leave this guy alone. Why? We know where he was going and where he’d been and it’s likely that the police checked his story out and they clearly had no interest in him but Goldstein has become the ripperological equivalent of a man in black. He was a nobody. Entirely unimportant. A distraction

If Fanny saw Goldstein The Nobody just before she turned in for the night, when do you suppose Schwartz made his way down Berner St?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Men weren’t being arrested in the period between the two interviews though.

The Star account begins...

Information which may be important was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder.

The most likely time for the Star interview to have occurred is on Monday morning, in time for that evening's issue.

Evening News, Oct 1: Two men at present detained at Leman-street Police-station in connection with the Commercial-road murder. One was arrested late last night, and the other this morning. They are now waiting for the arrival of detectives from Scotland-yard for identification.

There’s no ‘denial’ involved. It suggests that Schwartz, over a short space of time, was telling an evolving story which makes no sense. The police interview was clearly the more credible.

You're blaming the Star for the discrepancies in the two accounts, claiming that the paper exaggerated things to sell more papers. However, a side-by-side comparison of the two accounts does not support this view.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a quick question before we move on. In #10 you credit the comments of Mrs Diemschitz in pushing you away from the notion of Stride being a Ripper victim...



Do you suppose that "screams or sound of any kind" would be inclusive of three not very loud screams?

Mrs Diemschitz said that she thought that if there had been screams from the yard she would have heard them but, as we know from Schwartz, the screams that he heard weren’t loud. It also has to be said that Mrs Diemschitz was inside a club with many other people so there would have been at least some level of noise in there. Basically she’s saying that if there were loud screams she would have heard them…but there weren’t any…so she didn’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually, it's 13 witnesses who support that Louis Diemschitz found the body at around 1.00.

Mortimer said she heard Diemshutz' cart arrive at 12:59 and that she remarked on at the time to her husband.

Good point Fiver.

[Herlock Sholmes]

She could be of some use. The report you refer to that has Fanny at her doorstep for about 10 minutes, also refers to her hearing the arriving pony and cart about 4 minutes after she locks up. There is a strong consensus here that the reference to 4 minutes can be attributed to the words of Fanny, and not the reporter playing with numbers from various sources. In that case, we can place the arrival of Diemschitz at about 12:49.

If Fanny saw Goldstein The Nobody just before she turned in for the night, when do you suppose Schwartz made his way down Berner St?

The Schwartz incident could have occurred before Fanny went onto her doorstep at around (perhaps the footsteps that he heard were Schwartz or BS man instead of PC Smith?) and if we accept the inexactness of times given then perhaps…

The Schwartz incident occurs at 12.44/12.45 (Fanny is indoors)
Fanny comes onto her doorstep at 12.46
Goldstein passes between 12.46 and 12.56
Fanny stays for around 10 minutes then goes back inside around 12.56
Fanny hears Louis pass at around 1.00

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Star account begins...

Information which may be important was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder.

The most likely time for the Star interview to have occurred is on Monday morning, in time for that evening's issue.

Evening News, Oct 1: Two men at present detained at Leman-street Police-station in connection with the Commercial-road murder. One was arrested late last night, and the other this morning. They are now waiting for the arrival of detectives from Scotland-yard for identification.



You're blaming the Star for the discrepancies in the two accounts, claiming that the paper exaggerated things to sell more papers. However, a side-by-side comparison of the two accounts does not support this view.

My point was a response to this point from you:

‘The outcome of these arrests could be placing pressure on Schwartz, which results in his story 'evolving'.’

How would Schwartz have been aware of what was going on with the police’s investigation and who was or wasn’t being arrested?

The problem with trusting the Star version is that we would have to assume incredible stupidity on the part of Schwartz in that, a) he would suddenly remember something as important as a knife at the scene of a confrontation involving a woman that had had her throat cut; something that he’d ‘forgotten’ to tell the police when interviewed, and b) that the police wouldn’t hear of this and haul him back in and that Schwartz wouldn’t be aware of this possibility.

Although we have no record of it I do wonder if the police questioned him again to clarify the point?

It would also be strange (to say the very least) that a man lying in order to claim that he’d seen the killer attack Stride (for whatever motive) would put the knife in the hand of a bystander and not the man that he was actually trying to implicate as the murderer. To me this makes no sense.

We will have to disagree on this point but I really can’t see any reason for favouring a newspaper report over a police interview.