Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[FISHY1118]

Based on that bold line, it would seem that you do get it. Schwartz's story is like all the others..a recorded statement that alleges viewed activities...but many of these witnesses were asked to state their stories on the stand, to record them as formal evidence in the investigation into the murder. Israel....very obviously...was not. Now some might say to me...and have...well then what about Fanny, because she isnt called either....true. But Fanny didnt claim to see Liz or anything that might be related to the death of Elizabeth Stride. Israel very much did claim that. 2 ommissions, 1 for understandable reasons...no valued information for the Inquest mandate. The other can only be, considering the scene that was claimed, the participants, and the activies....unsubstantiated. That is the only reason for leaving Israel out of the discussion. Because his storyline and characters would be very relevant to the Inquest questions.

You want a reason why someone would come forward and introduce an off site character assaulting this victim....even while you are aware that without this sudden appearance of BSM and Israel, not one witness saw anyone on the street after 12:35, just Goldstein at around 5 to 1? Simply...the men at the club were the ONLY men seen anywhere near the street or the gates. With one exception, the young man in the couple that Brown saw.

Israel puts the most probable killer off the premises. Voila. You really expect me to believe you couldnt see that yourself.....or do you change your approach based on your opponents identified weaknesses? The latter, I suspect.

And as for who did kill Liz, it could very well have been Diemshitz, or Lave, or Eagle, because all of them did have access to those gates...right where Liz was found.

Except I'm not making up other alternatives theories without any substance or proof .

Stick to the evidence at hand and go from there .

With all those people around at that time not one person came forward to say I saw the assault on liz stride and its not the way Schwartz said it happened.

Schwartz can't be dismissed just because no one saw what he saw .

You still haven't come up with a valid reason why Schwartz lied twice and supposedly according to some made the whole thing up during a police murder investigation.

.

[The Rookie Detective]

Can you think of any good reason why Schwartz would want to make such a ''detailed'' statement to the police describing the attack on Stride, then be taken to the mortuary to identify her dead body as being the women he saw in said assault ? . If as you say [iyo ] the attack never happen, why the lies on these two occasions to the police during a murder investigation . Surely you dont think Schwartz was Liz Strides Killer ?





''Of course IMO, it still doesn't change the fact that the alleged assault on Stride never happened. (IMO)''



The same could be said for all the witnesses in the Liz Stride murder case then . That their ''Statements'' as with Schwartz were '' Alledged '' ?

I am suggesting that Schwartz was the Ripper incognito


I am also suggesting that he relished being taken to the mortuary, so he could gain satisfaction from seeing his work up close; because he had to leave Stride in a hurry and unlike his other kills, he needed some warped sense of closure with Stride.

I am also suggesting that Parcelman and Schwartz were the same man and that he chose 12.45am because that was after PC Smith had gone and so he knew there were no other witnesses to counter his story.

If for example he had said a time earlier than 12.45am, then there was a chance that either PC Smith, Lave or Eagle could have indicated that Schwartz was lying.


If he was Parcelman, it would have been a case of knowing that when he killed Stride, there was a 90-second window that nobody observed him walking with Stride into the yard. That's because he had been with Stride in the lead-up to killing her. i believe she had no idea who he was, especially after having been kissing him previously.

There is also the unanswered question of where Parcelman went after being seen talking quietly with Stride.


It's also worth noting that in the very first press reports, PArcelman was the focus of the investigation.

But then along came Schwartz and Packer to muddy the waters


All of this is just my own opinion of course


RD

[Michael W Richards]

Except I'm not making up other alternatives theories without any substance or proof .

Stick to the evidence at hand and go from there .

With all those people around at that time not one person came forward to say I saw the assault on liz stride and its not the way Schwartz said it happened.

Schwartz can't be dismissed just because no one saw what he saw .

You still haven't come up with a valid reason why Schwartz lied twice and supposedly according to some made the whole thing up during a police murder investigation.

.

I guess my estimation that you get it was incorrect. First off, the part I put in bold and underlined above.......the incredible irony of your lecturing anyone on making up theories without any substance or proof was not lost on me, or Im sure anyone who has read any of your nonsense about Jack The Ripper/Torso maker. You have built a house of cards, so its humorous you would critique others for suggesting contradictory "theories".

Schwartz isnt dismissed. His story is on record. Thats not what is being stated though, its that despite knowng his story the authorities saw no value in it for the Inquest into this death.

Israel knew Wess. Wess likely translated for Israel as well. Wess is an authority figure on that property, as is Diemshitz. So why would any of these men offer a story that has the most probable killer of Liz Stride come from off their premises. As I already said....last post....and prior to that, over and over again. Anyone who denies that Dimeshitz and Wess would have concerns about the club or that premises suspected of harbouring the killer is denying basic human traits, and .....(remember that other point? NOT ONE MAN SEEN BY ANY INQUEST APPEARING WITNESS ON THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE GATES between 12:35 and 12:55?)

You ask me what would motivate Louis, Wess or this wild card Israel Schwartz to lie about what they saw and what happened, and when. Its bleeding obvious why they would do such a thing....to deflect any suspicions on themselves. Because Strides killer was a real person, and no real person was seen on that street other than the young couple and Goldstein from 12:36 to 1am. So if he didnt come from OFF the property, where MUST he then have come from?

And what did Anderson say was the working profile of the unknown killer as of September? Yeah.....a poor immigrant Jewish man. Just like virtually all the men at the club between 12:35 and 1am. So they knew its not just this murder they might be suspected for.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, I did.

The one thing I admire most about Herlock; is that he always has something to contribute and bring to the table.

He is passionate about what he believes in.

He is knowledgeable and knows more about the Ripper case than I will ever know.

And in the vast majority of occasions he often proves me wrong, or at the very least has an excellent counterargument that makes my efforts a fruitless waste of time.

I can't argue with your comment, because frankly; why would I if it's true.



When the day comes when you can provide the same level of insight and understanding as Herlock, then I will be more than happy to be the recipient of another excellent comeback from you; just like the one Herlock has demonstrated so eloquently.


The biggest positive for me is that I know I am having an impact when I receive such kind, detailed, analytical, progressive, and constructive comments like the one you gave me.

But jokes aside...

We all know that there is no proof to be had here; and that my comments are full of as much conjecture and speculation as anyone else, and so my chosen use of words; such as "In truth," that present me as someone who knows more than anyone else, is perhaps embedded in more nuanced meaning than is seen at face value.

Consider the possibility that my choice of words are chosen for a reason and are in no way a reflection of the real me or my actual personal beliefs.

I am an actor after all



At least my deliberate approach has inspired multiple responses, and has done some good in giving this thread some much-needed spark.

I tried the same thing over on Forums recently, but was told rather directly that nobody was interested in "Whodunnits" on Forums, and that I should essentially... move on.
This is despite the question of that thread being...

"Was Kosminski Jack the Ripper?"

I mean...if that's not a "whodunnit" question, then I don't know what is.


But i digress...


I very much thank Herlock for his guidance, and his valid comments... and of course, for tearing me a new a**


It didn't hurt too much...



More tea vicar?



RD

Hi RD,

I just re-read my response to your long post. Parts of it came across as more terse than was my intent. My excuse is that I was about to do something and was rushing to complete the post first which is never a good thing to do (it’s got me into trouble in the past)

I also don’t want you to think that I’m denigrating your contributions RD. I’m certainly not. They are just as valid as anyone else’s and let’s face it, most of the things that we debate on here are matters of our own interpretation and we don’t always interpret things the same way. Since you’ve been posting you come up with lots of interesting stuff and different viewpoints which you should keep doing. It’s just my opinion that in your enthusiasm you might get a little carried away at times (and that is just my opinion of course). As I’ve been interested in the case for longer than you I’ve probably become a bit more jaded and perhaps cynical after hearing so many theories, so I can certainly be criticised for perhaps not having the same level of enthusiasm. Maybe it will return? It ebbs and flows.

That said RD, you could be right. It seems very unlikely to me that Schwartz would have lied but I think it’s certainly possible that he could have been mistaken. Let’s consider…


Perhaps sometime, maybe not long, before 12.30 Schwartz passed along Berner Street? The lateness of the hour introduces the possibility (no more) that he might have had a drink or three which wouldn’t exactly help with perception and memory. He sees a minor domestic-type confrontation at the gates (maybe his lack of English led him to misinterpret the seriousness of the incident? Maybe it was just a piece of drunken horseplay between a man and a woman actually knew each other?) The lack of any loud screaming suggests that the woman at least didn’t consider her life under threat. The next morning he hears of the murder from a friend and he tells him about seeing the incident. The friend tells him that he probably saw the killer and his victim. He thinks that it was around 12.20-12.30 but he couldn’t be sure but his friend, knowing more about when the body was found, says that it was more likely to have been around 12.45. Schwartz is now convinced that it must have been around d 12.45 so he goes to the police.

He later ID’s the body in the mortuary but we know how witnesses can be mistaken and when we consider the circumstances of the sighting we see that Schwartz would hardly have stood staring. More likely he saw her in quite fleeting glances as he passed. Women of that class didn’t have extensive wardrobes then so unlike today there wouldn’t have been such a difference in the way two lower class women dressed. So he saw a woman who looked vaguely similar to Stride, dressed similarly and he’d seen her at the very spot where a body was later found. It’s perhaps not difficult to imagine why his confidence level might have increased.

If Schwartz was right (in The Star) that Pipeman came from the doorway of the pub couldn’t he have actually been exiting the pub? This would have been less likely to have happened a full 45 minutes after closing time? What about 12.15-12.30? I don’t know. Maybe he was a barman who had been helping clean up before lights out?

So I really think it’s possible that Schwartz might have seen an unrelated incident sometime prior to 12.30. If we accept that witnesses can be mistaken on timings and we accept problems of synchronicity then we should accept the possibility with Schwartz too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem isn’t necessarily whether Diemschitz and the other members might have been worried about the police’s reaction to there being a murder on their premises, the problem is what they might have done about it. Let’s assume for arguments sake that they were extremely worried that the police might close the club what could they have done?

Whatever alternative discovery time is suggested (12.35, 12.40, 12.45?) we know that these men didn’t have long to act. I’m not going to quibble here on how long but I’ll say ‘around 15 minutes.’ What would they come up with as they were all standing in that yard around the body?

Surely in a street on a police beat, with the possibility of anyone walking passed as well as a Constable, someone would have suggested closing the gates? Wouldn’t that have been an obvious thing to have done; not requiring any great level of cunning? Hide the corpse. But no, the gates weren’t closed until after the Doctor got there.

So what could they have done to ‘disconnect’ it from the club? The obvious option would have been for them to have moved the body of course. It was near 1am, dark, a poorly lit backstreet with almost no one around. Someone has a look into the street to ensure that no one is around then how long would it have taken 2 members to have moved the body a dropped it say 5 yards from the club? 10 seconds? Then the blood is washed away. Of course the doctor would have known that she hadn’t been killed where she’d been discovered (whenever the next passer-by or PC Smith passed) but they would have had no reason to have connected her murder to the club. In actual fact they might have had more reason to connect it to the pub on the corner.

More risky perhaps but they could have put her onto Louis’ cart and dumped her elsewhere.

Can we really believe, that under those circumstances, in that short time someone might have suggested ‘why don’t we find someone who will lie about walking along Berner Street and seeing the woman being attacked? And if we get him to say that the attacker called him Lipski then the police will assume that the killer was a gentile and therefore not a club member.’ Would anyone have come up with that? Not a chance. Too obscure for a start. Who’d have thought of it? And who could have thought of that whilst neglecting the far more obvious and far more effective, lower risk suggestions? The risks would have been glaringly obvious to anyone. It remains an absolute non-starter.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

I just re-read my response to your long post. Parts of it came across as more terse than was my intent. My excuse is that I was about to do something and was rushing to complete the post first which is never a good thing to do (it’s got me into trouble in the past)

I also don’t want you to think that I’m denigrating your contributions RD. I’m certainly not. They are just as valid as anyone else’s and let’s face it, most of the things that we debate on here are matters of our own interpretation and we don’t always interpret things the same way. Since you’ve been posting you come up with lots of interesting stuff and different viewpoints which you should keep doing. It’s just my opinion that in your enthusiasm you might get a little carried away at times (and that is just my opinion of course). As I’ve been interested in the case for longer than you I’ve probably become a bit more jaded and perhaps cynical after hearing so many theories, so I can certainly be criticised for perhaps not having the same level of enthusiasm. Maybe it will return? It ebbs and flows.

That said RD, you could be right. It seems very unlikely to me that Schwartz would have lied but I think it’s certainly possible that he could have been mistaken. Let’s consider…


Perhaps sometime, maybe not long, before 12.30 Schwartz passed along Berner Street? The lateness of the hour introduces the possibility (no more) that he might have had a drink or three which wouldn’t exactly help with perception and memory. He sees a minor domestic-type confrontation at the gates (maybe his lack of English led him to misinterpret the seriousness of the incident? Maybe it was just a piece of drunken horseplay between a man and a woman actually knew each other?) The lack of any loud screaming suggests that the woman at least didn’t consider her life under threat. The next morning he hears of the murder from a friend and he tells him about seeing the incident. The friend tells him that he probably saw the killer and his victim. He thinks that it was around 12.20-12.30 but he couldn’t be sure but his friend, knowing more about when the body was found, says that it was more likely to have been around 12.45. Schwartz is now convinced that it must have been around d 12.45 so he goes to the police.

He later ID’s the body in the mortuary but we know how witnesses can be mistaken and when we consider the circumstances of the sighting we see that Schwartz would hardly have stood staring. More likely he saw her in quite fleeting glances as he passed. Women of that class didn’t have extensive wardrobes then so unlike today there wouldn’t have been such a difference in the way two lower class women dressed. So he saw a woman who looked vaguely similar to Stride, dressed similarly and he’d seen her at the very spot where a body was later found. It’s perhaps not difficult to imagine why his confidence level might have increased.

If Schwartz was right (in The Star) that Pipeman came from the doorway of the pub couldn’t he have actually been exiting the pub? This would have been less likely to have happened a full 45 minutes after closing time? What about 12.15-12.30? I don’t know. Maybe he was a barman who had been helping clean up before lights out?

So I really think it’s possible that Schwartz might have seen an unrelated incident sometime prior to 12.30. If we accept that witnesses can be mistaken on timings and we accept problems of synchronicity then we should accept the possibility with Schwartz too.

And that post illustrates exactly why you're one of the very best on this site.

That is a fact btw and not just an opinion.


Respect and admiration for you as always


Kind regards


RD

[Michael W Richards]

I know its less desirable to respond within the post being addressed, but it is more time efficient to do so. So....

The problem isn’t necessarily whether Diemschitz and the other members might have been worried about the police’s reaction to there being a murder on their premises, the problem is what they might have done about it. Let’s assume for arguments sake that they were extremely worried that the police might close the club what could they have done?

They could present their stories in such a way as to point accusing fingers away from the club. Since, as Ive said, only club members onsite would have access to Stride without using the street or gates based on the Inquest statements. That would certainly make the initial focus on those same men...the only ones who could have done it without being seen. So Louis says he discovers the body after she is cut, at 1, not just before or at the same time as. Lamb confirms that the search party for help had reached Commercial at, or just before 1. Some have criticized that I continue to use Lambs quote of "just before 1" rather than "at 1". It really is irrelevant whether it was just before or at 1, either way Eagle must have known of the body sometime before then to be where Lamb sees him at that time. Ergo...he did not first learn of this from Louis after he says he arrived at "precisely" 1.

Whatever alternative discovery time is suggested (12.35, 12.40, 12.45?) we know that these men didn’t have long to act. I’m not going to quibble here on how long but I’ll say ‘around 15 minutes.’ What would they come up with as they were all standing in that yard around the body?

I think you already have the answer to that....Lave saw nothing, Eagle saw nothing, despite saying independently that they were in the same location at the same time. If Louis admitted he arrived earlier than 1, then he leaves open the suggestion he hesitated before sending men for help. Which is precisely what I believe happened.

Surely in a street on a police beat, with the possibility of anyone walking passed as well as a Constable, someone would have suggested closing the gates? Wouldn’t that have been an obvious thing to have done; not requiring any great level of cunning? Hide the corpse. But no, the gates weren’t closed until after the Doctor got there.

Hide it... then what? The blood stream to the door? Dont you really think a small adjustment to what time things happened is preferable to them having to mop up blood and smuggle the body off premises?

More risky perhaps but they could have put her onto Louis’ cart and dumped her elsewhere.

Uh yeah, much more risky.

Can we really believe, that under those circumstances, in that short time someone might have suggested ‘why don’t we find someone who will lie about walking along Berner Street and seeing the woman being attacked? And if we get him to say that the attacker called him Lipski then the police will assume that the killer was a gentile and therefore not a club member.’ Would anyone have come up with that? Not a chance. Too obscure for a start. Who’d have thought of it? And who could have thought of that whilst neglecting the far more obvious and far more effective, lower risk suggestions? The risks would have been glaringly obvious to anyone. It remains an absolute non-starter.

There you have what I described before, your summary suggesting this matter is now sufficiently addressed. The Truth is much different though isnt it? What that comment does not reflect is that there is no record at all that has been found or known to exist that states Israel Schwartz's tale was verified, corroborated, supported by known evidence or witness statements, or that the authorities believed it was important enough evidence to present at the Inquest. Personal notes by a few investigators that they believed him are completely worthless in this investigation, because they do not prove or support its value by adding it to the Inquest records. We only know of him because of the press, he adds nothing of value to the investigation.

See the real Truth is that for anyone to presume Israel Schwartz's encounter really happened in the way he described..via translator, they must also recognize the value it would have had at the Inquest. How Liz Died is perhaps addressed by that alleged encounter. The BSM guy likely takes her in the alley and kills her.

But alas, Israel did not inspire the officials of the moment that his story was at all relevant to Strides death, despite them investigating it before the Inquest. You can accept Israel as a valid witness and his story as factual, but that would be a great disadvantage to you if you are inclined to determine what actually happened.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And that post illustrates exactly why you're one of the very best on this site.

That is a fact btw and not just an opinion.


Respect and admiration for you as always


Kind regards


RD

Thanks RD.

[c.d.]

Michael, can we please put this whole inquest business to bed once and for all? Do you know for a fact why Schwartz wasn't called to the inquest?

A simple yes or no would be appreciated.

c.d.

[Fiver]

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.

That makes no sense. Changing the time when the body was found does not eliminate the possibility that Diemshutz killed killed Stride. Fanny Mortimer directly supports the 1am discovery time. Only three witnesses contradict the 1am discovery time and they contradict each other as well.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem isn’t necessarily whether Diemschitz and the other members might have been worried about the police’s reaction to there being a murder on their premises, the problem is what they might have done about it. Let’s assume for arguments sake that they were extremely worried that the police might close the club what could they have done?

They could present their stories in such a way as to point accusing fingers away from the club. Since, as Ive said, only club members onsite would have access to Stride without using the street or gates based on the Inquest statements. That would certainly make the initial focus on those same men...the only ones who could have done it without being seen. So Louis says he discovers the body after she is cut, at 1, not just before or at the same time as. Lamb confirms that the search party for help had reached Commercial at, or just before 1. Some have criticized that I continue to use Lambs quote of "just before 1" rather than "at 1". It really is irrelevant whether it was just before or at 1, either way Eagle must have known of the body sometime before then to be where Lamb sees him at that time. Ergo...he did not first learn of this from Louis after he says he arrived at "precisely" 1.

You continue to create problems where none exist - Diemschitz finds the body at approx 1.00 - Eagle find Lamb at approx 1.05 - Eagle and Lamb get to the club at approx 1.06. Why do you see a problem with this Michael when no one else does. It’s perfectly straightforward.

Whatever alternative discovery time is suggested (12.35, 12.40, 12.45?) we know that these men didn’t have long to act. I’m not going to quibble here on how long but I’ll say ‘around 15 minutes.’ What would they come up with as they were all standing in that yard around the body?

I think you already have the answer to that....Lave saw nothing, Eagle saw nothing, despite saying independently that they were in the same location at the same time. If Louis admitted he arrived earlier than 1, then he leaves open the suggestion he hesitated before sending men for help. Which is precisely what I believe happened.

I don’t know why you’ve brought Eagle and Lave into it because my point is about what these men could have come up with in such a short space of time.

Surely in a street on a police beat, with the possibility of anyone walking passed as well as a Constable, someone would have suggested closing the gates? Wouldn’t that have been an obvious thing to have done; not requiring any great level of cunning? Hide the corpse. But no, the gates weren’t closed until after the Doctor got there.

Hide it... then what? The blood stream to the door? Dont you really think a small adjustment to what time things happened is preferable to them having to mop up blood and smuggle the body off premises?

Of course not. Your plot requires these men to have spent time discussing what to do so do you really think that they would have congregated in a yard, around a body, at 12.45am with the gates wide open? How would they explain themselves if Smith had passed and wondered why this group of men where there. “What corpse officer? Oh, that one. Well, you probably won’t believe this but…”

More risky perhaps but they could have put her onto Louis’ cart and dumped her elsewhere.

Uh yeah, much more risky.

The police didn’t do ‘stop and search’ in those days so unless he was careless how could he have been caught dumping the body. But if we’re talking ‘risky’ how about one neighbour showing up and saying that they were looking out of their window the whole time between 12.30 and 1.00 and didn’t see Schwartz passing or the incident…only a man and a women totally alone. Plan scuppered, club members all exposed as liars, police now totally focused on the club. Would they have risked something so everyday and obvious?

Can we really believe, that under those circumstances, in that short time someone might have suggested ‘why don’t we find someone who will lie about walking along Berner Street and seeing the woman being attacked? And if we get him to say that the attacker called him Lipski then the police will assume that the killer was a gentile and therefore not a club member.’ Would anyone have come up with that? Not a chance. Too obscure for a start. Who’d have thought of it? And who could have thought of that whilst neglecting the far more obvious and far more effective, lower risk suggestions? The risks would have been glaringly obvious to anyone. It remains an absolute non-starter.

There you have what I described before, your summary suggesting this matter is now sufficiently addressed. The Truth is much different though isnt it? What that comment does not reflect is that there is no record at all that has been found or known to exist that states Israel Schwartz's tale was verified, corroborated, supported by known evidence or witness statements, or that the authorities believed it was important enough evidence to present at the Inquest.

See the real Truth is that for anyone to presume Israel Schwartz's encounter really happened in the way he described..via translator, they must also recognize the value it would have had at the Inquest. How Liz Died is perhaps addressed by that alleged encounter. The BSM guy likely takes her in the alley and kills her.

But alas, Israel did not inspire the officials of the moment that his story was at all relevant to Strides death, despite them investigating it before the Inquest. You can accept Israel as a valid witness and his story as factual, but that would be a great disadvantage to you if you are inclined to determine what actually happened

It’s really difficult to make excuses for you simply repeating this untruth when it’s been explained to you around 20 times. An inquest isn’t a police investigation. The police don’t choose who does or doesn’t appear. An inquest also isn’t just a chat about the case it has specific aims.

To identify the body - by name, not by someone saying ‘yes, that’s the woman I saw.’ Schwartz couldn’t name Stride because he didn’t know her.

The time of death - and by this we mean the date, not the actual time. Just a date. They didn’t need Schwartz for that.

How she was killed and if it was murder - Schwartz didn’t see her die so he couldn’t contribute. That information would come from the Doctor alone.

If it was murder do they have a suspect - Schwartz would only have been useful if he could have said ‘I saw Fred Smith attacking her.’ A broad shouldered man was no good to the inquest as he simply becomes ‘person or persons unknown.’

So the coroner wasn’t obliged to call Schwartz but he could have done. David Orsam made, I believe 8 suggestions as to why he might not have been called. We don’t know why he wasn’t called but it was nothing to do with the police. It was the coroner’s decision. Plus of course…Abberline trusted him which is pretty much all that counted at the time.


.

You avoided the sheer unlikeliness of the plot of course. And in my OP I mentioned Debra Arif finding a newspaper quote where a Jewish man insulted another Jewish man by calling him Lipski. So if the phrase was used by Jews against Jews you’re plot collapses at the first hurdle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Michael, can we please put this whole inquest business to bed once and for all? Do you know for a fact why Schwartz wasn't called to the inquest?

A simple yes or no would be appreciated.

c.d.

I said that the aims of an inquest have been explained to him 20 times c.d. but I swear I’m undercooking it. It has to be more. It’s just not sinking in. It’s black and white. We have even posted the relevant pages of the law regarding inquests and we still get the same point being made.

[c.d.]

Hello Herlock,

I have no problem with any poster saying I think it is highly suspicious that Schwartz did not appear at the inquest and that fact along with others makes me doubt his story. It is when a poster says there cannot possibly be any other reason other than Schwartz was not believed by the police.

And interesting that Mortimer was not called but apparently there was a reason for that. But doesn't that fact alone establish the conclusion that it is possible for a witness not to be called but still believed? Apparently not by some.

c.d.

[Lewis C]

The problem isn’t necessarily whether Diemschitz and the other members might have been worried about the police’s reaction to there being a murder on their premises, the problem is what they might have done about it. Let’s assume for arguments sake that they were extremely worried that the police might close the club what could they have done?

Whatever alternative discovery time is suggested (12.35, 12.40, 12.45?) we know that these men didn’t have long to act. I’m not going to quibble here on how long but I’ll say ‘around 15 minutes.’ What would they come up with as they were all standing in that yard around the body?

Surely in a street on a police beat, with the possibility of anyone walking passed as well as a Constable, someone would have suggested closing the gates? Wouldn’t that have been an obvious thing to have done; not requiring any great level of cunning? Hide the corpse. But no, the gates weren’t closed until after the Doctor got there.

So what could they have done to ‘disconnect’ it from the club? The obvious option would have been for them to have moved the body of course. It was near 1am, dark, a poorly lit backstreet with almost no one around. Someone has a look into the street to ensure that no one is around then how long would it have taken 2 members to have moved the body a dropped it say 5 yards from the club? 10 seconds? Then the blood is washed away. Of course the doctor would have known that she hadn’t been killed where she’d been discovered (whenever the next passer-by or PC Smith passed) but they would have had no reason to have connected her murder to the club. In actual fact they might have had more reason to connect it to the pub on the corner.

More risky perhaps but they could have put her onto Louis’ cart and dumped her elsewhere.

Can we really believe, that under those circumstances, in that short time someone might have suggested ‘why don’t we find someone who will lie about walking along Berner Street and seeing the woman being attacked? And if we get him to say that the attacker called him Lipski then the police will assume that the killer was a gentile and therefore not a club member.’ Would anyone have come up with that? Not a chance. Too obscure for a start. Who’d have thought of it? And who could have thought of that whilst neglecting the far more obvious and far more effective, lower risk suggestions? The risks would have been glaringly obvious to anyone. It remains an absolute non-starter.

[bolding added]

Hi Herlock,

What makes it even more unlikely is that Israel initially said that he thought BS man was talking to Pipeman. If they wanted to make the police assume that the killer was gentile, then why lead them to believe that a man that may have been BS man's accomplice was Jewish, or appeared to BS man to be Jewish?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi c.d.

‘Mortimer wasn’t called to the inquest because the police knew that she was a lying busybody who was in bed by 12.30.’

Will that one be allowed to stand do you think?

Arguments of convenience repeated over time in the hope that they will be accepted as true.