Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    ...
    Basically we don’t know why Schwartz wasn’t called but it wasn’t because the police didn’t believe him because documentary evidence shows that not to have been the case.
    Hi Herlock,

    Nice post. I would just like to point out that we can't even be sure he wasn't actually called. While that is one possible starting point for his non-appearance, for all we know he was called, or at least an attempt to call him was made, but in the former situation he for some reason we are unaware of chose, or was not able, to answer that call or, in the latter, the attempt to deliver that call failed.

    All we know is that he does not testify at the inquest (barring, of course, George's previous suggestion that he gave testimony but it was prohibited from being reported on - an option I can't say is entirely impossible but personally I believe the press would have hinted at in some way had that occurred - I would expect to see some cryptic story along the lines of "testimony of an additional witness was given which we are not allowed to comment upon, but we will be apealing to the courts to ensure the public is fully informed" - but maybe that is applying modern day ideas inappropriately? If there were such instances of "we know something but the court won't let us say what it is" stories in the Victorian era, then that would address this issue - I'm digressing now, sorry).

    My view is that we need to focus on what we know for sure, and that is that there is no record of Schwartz giving testimony. So either he did and it's not reported (my personal view is that is unlikely) or he did not. If he did not, either he was "supposed to", but his summons was not delivered to him or it was. If it was, then for some reason he did not answer that summons (and there is no surviving record of consequences to him for not showing, nor any record for his reason).

    There are so many points in the chain where things diverge, that it is entirely unwise (unsafe as Trevor would say), to follow any of those paths with any sense of certainty we're still on the right path. In the end, we have nothing to indicate he testified, and nothing to indicate the reason why. I do think we have enough information to set aside the idea that he wasn't believed (which I've outlined before), but that is a far cry from knowing the actual why. One why not does not a why make.

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
      Now Israel...why isnt he telling his story to the Inquest jury, surely a sighting of the victim being assaulted just before being cut is relevant info to that question of How she dies. Why isnt he there? Dont know, but the fact he isnt makes him irrelevant to these discussions.

      Have you changed your mind, Michael? I thought you knew why Schwartz did not appear or did you simply misspeak?

      c.d.
      The second line is why I think he wasnt there, he was determined to be irrelevant by the authorities. He surely would have been there if the Inquest organizers felt like Abberline and Swanson, but then, they were just offering an opinion. I believe Abberline is on record as having believed Schwartz, believed Hutchinson, and finally believed Chapman was the actual killer. He sure had his opinions.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        And why didn’t Fanny see Louis returning at around 12.45?
        Because at least one witness claimed they were alerted to the body at 12:40. Thats about how I see this. He arrived about then, and within 15 minutes or so we see Lamb arrive. I think you and some folks imagine that the men at the club are poised to jump up and rush to the spots we can place them at just before and after 1. If the discovery actually takes place as Louis stated it did..if he was indeed the first man to find Liz...that is the start of a series of actions in response involving men who had been drinking and singing for at least the past hour. And were up a flight or 2 of stairs. From start to finish line....Lamb spotting Eagle at "just before" or "around 1"....I dont see 3 minutes, I see 10, 12min or more. Louis and Issacs ran to Fairclough first and found no-one, Issac went the other way and found no-one, Eagle went his way and ended up at Commercial where he is spotted, Issac K has made his way to catch up with them. That would be Louis at around 12:40...which would put Eagle and Lave under the microscope....bringing Spooner back with him around 12:55, 5 minutes or so later Eagle is seen by Lamb. That ends up at around 1am. And it works with the officials timing.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
          The woman appeared to me to be respectable judging by her clothes,... (establishes that Liz dressed nicely enough to be considered "respectable, not like a prostitue)..​

          How did prostitutes dress that distinguished them from "respectable" women?

          c.d.
          That term "respectable" carried more weight then than you give it respect for. It delineated the street folk from the lower and middle classes. If you recall at the lodging house she asked to borrow a brush for her skirt. That attention to details, the flowers, the breath mints....I dont think anyone would dispute that street women were not in any position to buy things to attract customers, many wouldnt even be out there if they already had the 4d to get a bed. Which Liz had. And didnt use for that purpose, because it seems she was planning to be out all night. For Cleaning Work or Play...thats where my money is.

          Her money seems to have supplied the niceties she had with her, that she didnt have when leaving the boarding house.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
            ...
            We should not be surprised if the timepieces that others based their timings on indicated (slightly) other times.[/COLOR]
            ...
            Hi Frank,

            I know I'm "preaching to the choir" here, but I do think that it is important that it is clear that in the timelines that you, Georage, and myself, have been mulling over are not attempts to "change" testimony, but rather are attempts at trying to deal with testimony about "time" when that testimony comes from individuals all basing their idea of time on a different clock. Clocks are not even synchronized now.
            The other day while at work at the university, I walked by a public clock. I compared the time on that clock with my watch (which I set by my phone and computer, which stay properly synced to the "proper time" through the internet), and the difference was 4 minutes (my watch said 1:02, while the public clock said 12:58, and I verified my watch hadn't strayed by checking my phone, which also said 1:02). I snapped some photos (below). I wanted to get my watch and the clock in the same photo, but the camera on my phone is rubbish, and I'm also a horrid photographer (as the blurry clock photo proves - yes the struggle is real! ).

            Click image for larger version  Name:	Clock01.jpg Views:	0 Size:	113.1 KB ID:	834440Click image for larger version  Name:	Clock02.jpg Views:	3 Size:	158.1 KB ID:	834441

            So, let's say at the time I was passing by, something happened, say a robbery at the bookstore. I see the offender run off. I look at my watch and note the time. Someone from the bookstore comes out, sees the clock, notes the time. I'm going to tell the police I saw this happen at 1:02, and the bookstore worker is going to say it happened at 12:58. While that is just a "one time point timeline", if I were to recreate things then I would say that both I and the bookstore worker reported the crime at ... 1:02 if I'm using my watch as the "standard" or "12:58" if I used the public clock as the standard timepiece. I'm not "adjusting" the time to fit, rather, I'm taking into account the fact that two clocks the two witnesses are using as their reference points are not reading the same time at the time same time.

            I know you get this. I know George gets this. We may each choose a different reference clock, but what impresses (and encourages) me is the fact that despite our different methods in how we reconstruct things, the pacing of the events tends to be very similar - our timelines tend to only differ by a constant, which to me is like how my watch reads 1:02 while the public clock reads 12:58 - any timeline "synced" to my watch will differ by the same timeline synced to the public clock by those 4 minutes.

            The actual numerical values of the time is immaterial though (age, well time, is just a number after all), what is important is the temporal sequence of events. Given all the witnesses are referring to different clocks, if we don't make some attempt to try and work out the pacing through other means, then we are always left with the problem that any two clocks could ready some undertmined amout of difference, making it hard to know what to make of it when we have three witnesses all saying things that cannot have happened simultaneously (Deimshutz arrives at 1 and finds the body, PC Lamb says he was alerted on Commercial about the body at around 1, PC Smith says he reached the top of Berner Street and saw the crowd of people, including PC Lamb, at 1 - it must be obvious that these three events cannot all have happened at the same time, but rather that each of these individuals is referring to a different clock. And given PC Smith has to occur after the other two, that PC Smith's clock has to be the most "out of sync" with Deimshutz, and that PC Lamb's clock is somewhere in between.

            I know it is jarring when one of us presents a timeline and we put a time that doesn't not correspond to what "the witness said". But we're not presenting timelines of "what people said" because those timelines make no sense - the clocks are all reading different times. The timelines are our attempts to align the events, not just in order, but also to try and work out the temporal interval between events. Then, we choose some reference event, and use that witness' stated time as the "standard". I've used Dr. Blackwell's watch in the past, and recently I've been using the Leman Street Police Station clock, based upon the news report that Eagle arrived at 1:10. George has pointed out that if the 1:10 is reliable, then Eagle must have arrived a few minutes earlier. That's fine, I didn't include that but I see what he's getting at. If so, just shift all my other times by that amount. It doesn't really matter, it just means the other clocks/witnesses are a couple more minutes out. But so what? None of them are that far out anyway, so a couple more minutes really just means they still aren't out by very much.

            Sigh, I feel I'm ranting, sorry. I don't expect people to "just believe" things I say, that is never a good policy (not just about what I say, what anyone says), but it is a good policy to understand what someone you disagree with says. And it frustrates me to see concerns raised that are completely at odds with what is being done.

            In short, "We should not be surprised if the timepieces that others based their timings on indicated (slightly) other times.​", to which I would just like to add "...but we should do our best to work out how to align things to remove those differences."

            Ok, I'll step away from speakers corner now.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              Hi c.d.

              Isn't it convenient.

              Michael needs to discredit Schwartz - so he wasn’t trusted to appear at the inquest.
              Michael needs to discredit Diemschitz, Eagle and co - they are all plotters and we’re in on it.
              Michael needs Fanny to be proof that the incident didn’t occur - but he ignores the fact that she doesn’t hear Diemschitz allegedly returning early.

              Its almost as if a script is being created.
              I need nothing of the sort, I do need to recognize what the evidence is. Must be nice freeing yourself of that burden.
              I feel like Im debating freedom with a MAGA, but in any event, As was mentioned many times, the evidence is that Fanny is NOT at her door the entire time, though she suggests she was there much of it. She doesnt mention seeing where Stride went after 12:35. She does see Leon Goldstein 4-6 minutes before 1, passing the gates. Those are the only 2 times she references being at the door. So yeah,.......she may well have been inside and not aware that down the street a cart and horse had arrived around 12:40. She heard one go by later, after 1, but which way, with whom, and to where are all unknown. And as Ive pointed out Lamb arriving around 1 and Louis only first arriving after 1 is impossible.

              People like to use Fanny as some scapegoat for holes in their theory that Israel was actually there, and so was BSM, and Pipeman and Liz Stride. Since we dont know exactly when she was at her door other than those 2 time segments, she must have been inside at that time. Well, Its entirely within reason to surmise that she went in for a moment after seeing Stride and missed street activity until she came back the to the door, maybe briefly, and finally...its where she stood the last 10 minutes of that half hour.

              We do know one additional time she references, when she was indoors. Around 12:45 she hears boots go past the door. Maybe Issac K being sent out by himself?
              Last edited by Michael W Richards; 05-17-2024, 12:14 PM.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                The second line is why I think he wasnt there, he was determined to be irrelevant by the authorities. He surely would have been there if the Inquest organizers felt like Abberline and Swanson, but then, they were just offering an opinion. I believe Abberline is on record as having believed Schwartz, believed Hutchinson, and finally believed Chapman was the actual killer. He sure had his opinions.
                Hi Michael,

                How do we know he wasn't actually called (or was supposed to be called), but that it was Schwartz who was:
                1) unable to attend (unwell for example)
                2) did not receive the summons
                3) did not understand the summons due to his lack of English

                or
                Was not called because:
                1) his information did not pertain to the goals of the inquest but might spark public unrest (see: Leather Apron; GSG)
                2) requested not to be called due to fears for his family's safety, and given his information was not in conflict with the other information being presented, this request was granted.

                I'm sure there are other ideas I've omitted, but I just whipped those off as they seem fairly common suggestions.

                Unless you can point to evidence that rules all of those out, then I would advise not holding any particular belief as to why Schwartz was not there. He apparently wasn't there, and most agree on that he wasn't (but see George for some alternative ideas), but I think most tend to point out that we don't know why he wasn't there. I would suggest, given the information we have - and do not have - that is indeed the correct stance. We cannot know why Schwartz did not attend, or even if he was or was not called to attend.

                Mind you, I also believe that all advice should be listened to, considered, but not always followed. So ...

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                  Hi Frank,

                  I know I'm "preaching to the choir" here, but I do think that it is important that it is clear that in the timelines that you, Georage, and myself, have been mulling over are not attempts to "change" testimony, but rather are attempts at trying to deal with testimony about "time" when that testimony comes from individuals all basing their idea of time on a different clock. Clocks are not even synchronized now.
                  The other day while at work at the university, I walked by a public clock. I compared the time on that clock with my watch (which I set by my phone and computer, which stay properly synced to the "proper time" through the internet), and the difference was 4 minutes (my watch said 1:02, while the public clock said 12:58, and I verified my watch hadn't strayed by checking my phone, which also said 1:02). I snapped some photos (below). I wanted to get my watch and the clock in the same photo, but the camera on my phone is rubbish, and I'm also a horrid photographer (as the blurry clock photo proves - yes the struggle is real! ).

                  Click image for larger version Name:	Clock01.jpg Views:	0 Size:	113.1 KB ID:	834440Click image for larger version Name:	Clock02.jpg Views:	3 Size:	158.1 KB ID:	834441

                  So, let's say at the time I was passing by, something happened, say a robbery at the bookstore. I see the offender run off. I look at my watch and note the time. Someone from the bookstore comes out, sees the clock, notes the time. I'm going to tell the police I saw this happen at 1:02, and the bookstore worker is going to say it happened at 12:58. While that is just a "one time point timeline", if I were to recreate things then I would say that both I and the bookstore worker reported the crime at ... 1:02 if I'm using my watch as the "standard" or "12:58" if I used the public clock as the standard timepiece. I'm not "adjusting" the time to fit, rather, I'm taking into account the fact that two clocks the two witnesses are using as their reference points are not reading the same time at the time same time.

                  I know you get this. I know George gets this. We may each choose a different reference clock, but what impresses (and encourages) me is the fact that despite our different methods in how we reconstruct things, the pacing of the events tends to be very similar - our timelines tend to only differ by a constant, which to me is like how my watch reads 1:02 while the public clock reads 12:58 - any timeline "synced" to my watch will differ by the same timeline synced to the public clock by those 4 minutes.

                  The actual numerical values of the time is immaterial though (age, well time, is just a number after all), what is important is the temporal sequence of events. Given all the witnesses are referring to different clocks, if we don't make some attempt to try and work out the pacing through other means, then we are always left with the problem that any two clocks could ready some undertmined amout of difference, making it hard to know what to make of it when we have three witnesses all saying things that cannot have happened simultaneously (Deimshutz arrives at 1 and finds the body, PC Lamb says he was alerted on Commercial about the body at around 1, PC Smith says he reached the top of Berner Street and saw the crowd of people, including PC Lamb, at 1 - it must be obvious that these three events cannot all have happened at the same time, but rather that each of these individuals is referring to a different clock. And given PC Smith has to occur after the other two, that PC Smith's clock has to be the most "out of sync" with Deimshutz, and that PC Lamb's clock is somewhere in between.

                  I know it is jarring when one of us presents a timeline and we put a time that doesn't not correspond to what "the witness said". But we're not presenting timelines of "what people said" because those timelines make no sense - the clocks are all reading different times. The timelines are our attempts to align the events, not just in order, but also to try and work out the temporal interval between events. Then, we choose some reference event, and use that witness' stated time as the "standard". I've used Dr. Blackwell's watch in the past, and recently I've been using the Leman Street Police Station clock, based upon the news report that Eagle arrived at 1:10. George has pointed out that if the 1:10 is reliable, then Eagle must have arrived a few minutes earlier. That's fine, I didn't include that but I see what he's getting at. If so, just shift all my other times by that amount. It doesn't really matter, it just means the other clocks/witnesses are a couple more minutes out. But so what? None of them are that far out anyway, so a couple more minutes really just means they still aren't out by very much.

                  Sigh, I feel I'm ranting, sorry. I don't expect people to "just believe" things I say, that is never a good policy (not just about what I say, what anyone says), but it is a good policy to understand what someone you disagree with says. And it frustrates me to see concerns raised that are completely at odds with what is being done.

                  In short, "We should not be surprised if the timepieces that others based their timings on indicated (slightly) other times.​", to which I would just like to add "...but we should do our best to work out how to align things to remove those differences."

                  Ok, I'll step away from speakers corner now.

                  - Jeff
                  Great post Jeff. Sequences and intervals, not clock times.

                  Best regards, George
                  It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                  All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                  ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                  Comment


                  • How did prostitutes dress that distinguished them from "respectable" women?

                    Hello Michael,

                    What I was asking was there a certain way that prostitutes dressed to indicate they were in fact soliciting? A certain article of clothing or wearing a particular color or maybe a certain way of standing? How could someone seeing them on the street know what they were up to?

                    c.d.

                    Comment


                    • We cannot know why Schwartz did not attend, or even if he was or was not called to attend.

                      All reasonable possibilities in your short list, Jeff. But I will add another. Maybe he was in the habit of belting out Hungarian show tunes in the middle of a sentence much to everyone's annoyance. Yes, I am being facetious but as you stated we simply don't know and that should be the bottom line.

                      c.d.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                        The actual numerical values of the time is immaterial though (age, well time, is just a number after all), what is important is the temporal sequence of events. Given all the witnesses are referring to different clocks, if we don't make some attempt to try and work out the pacing through other means, then we are always left with the problem that any two clocks could ready some undertmined amout of difference, making it hard to know what to make of it when we have three witnesses all saying things that cannot have happened simultaneously (Deimshutz arrives at 1 and finds the body, PC Lamb says he was alerted on Commercial about the body at around 1, PC Smith says he reached the top of Berner Street and saw the crowd of people, including PC Lamb, at 1 - it must be obvious that these three events cannot all have happened at the same time, but rather that each of these individuals is referring to a different clock. And given PC Smith has to occur after the other two, that PC Smith's clock has to be the most "out of sync" with Deimshutz, and that PC Lamb's clock is somewhere in between.

                        - Jeff
                        Actually Jeff you are suggesting 1 possibility for interpretation, it is not the ONLY nor the "obvious" solution. I agree, those three "1 o'clock" sightings cannot co-exist in a timeline reconstruction and your suggestion is certainly a probability, but deliberately giving an incorrect time that then contrasts with other recorded times might cause the same confusion, yes? If Louis didnt actually arrive at 1 but said he did, then Lamb still seeing Eagle at "just before, or "at 1" is plausible. If he did arrive at precisely 1 as he said, then Lamb is way off on his estimate, Johnson couldnt have been there for 1:10, nor Blackwell at 1:16, and three witnesses who said they saw Louis before 1am would all be categorized as just being mistaken. Like they did with Spooner.

                        There is no universal conformity when it comes to stating what you believe is the truth, some people believe things are true without formal verification. One mans truth is anothers fabrication. But there is in fact scientifically just 1 truth. Someone is incorrect. I have no issues at all accepting that none of the time sources used to estimate sighting times would have been the same, but I dont believe that we should presume errors, because perhaps multiple times were given based on publicly displayed timepieces, which would be quite close in timing to each other. The men servicing the clocks would refer to a source before setting those times, but once set, they may have been the basis for several witnesses. Spooner said he left the pub at 12. Did he see a clock that he referenced, or did he just know that they closed at 12? Did Lamb see Bakers Clock? Where did the beat cops get their times to base there estimates on? Israel said he saw things at 12:45...where did he get that time from? Where did Issac Kozebodski get his time from to estimate it was 20 to 1 when he learned Louis wanted him in the passageway.? Where did Eagle get his time?

                        Which if any of those sources, over time, would be off from a few minutes due to a slow mechanism, or a stoppage..perhaps when re-setting it?

                        Why I ask all these things is to demonstrate that these issues are built into ANY investigation that has witnesses. Thats the way it is, not all clocks or watches will be the same, even today with standardized time sources.

                        That being said, when witness timings conflict with others there is no reason to assume its because of that universal truth. Particularly in this case. Louis Diemshitz could not have just arrived at 1am if Lamb saw Eagle just before or at that time. Its impossible. Differing time sources? Maybe. But using a 1am arrival time by Louis then makes all the official time estimates wrong..police and doctors...and contradicts what 3 other witnesses claimed....who by the way ALL gave the approximate same time for the activity they were recalling. 12:40 "ish". Thats 20 minutes before Louis claimed he arrived. If you believe that Louis may have lied so that it appears the response to the discovery was essentially an instantaneous co-ordinated search for assistance, then those sources that would be incorrect using Louis's time are suddenly on on a viable consistent timeline. From Discovery to finding Lamb, Johnsons arrival and the subsequent medical team times, all those estimates work within a minute or 2 of the other.

                        So...If you are trying to suggest that those discrepancy issues disappear by assuming all​ the time sources were different and none would be close to another, well, I submit that 3 independent people giving the same approximate time suggests that even different sources might well be just seconds or minutes different to another.

                        But not all by the same 20 minutes.
                        Last edited by Michael W Richards; 05-17-2024, 03:27 PM.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                          How did prostitutes dress that distinguished them from "respectable" women?

                          Hello Michael,

                          What I was asking was there a certain way that prostitutes dressed to indicate they were in fact soliciting? A certain article of clothing or wearing a particular color or maybe a certain way of standing? How could someone seeing them on the street know what they were up to?

                          c.d.
                          My feeling is that they solicited cd, it would be the only sure way you'd know. Some prostitutes may have only shabby clothing to choose from, some may have clothes from a decent life they have now lost. Like Mary. How would you know if Mary was out trawling if she was wearing one of her fancy dress pieces from her former higher status on the prostitute heirarchy? She would approach you. She would make flirty eye contact. She would expose a bit of leg. Advertise, promote. It was competitive out there.

                          So yes, your point that beacuse she is well dressed can we assume she isnt prostituting? No. But she didnt need money. She had her bed doss before leaving the house, and its gone..but she has flowers and cashous, and is sober. She has had steady work in the weeks leading up to that day. She was recognized as a clean woman and charwoman, but someone who would resort to the humiliation of selling herself if she needed food, a bed, booze. It also seems to me like she had plans for somewhere to spend the night before leaving the lodginghouse, and wasnt drinking.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • But she didnt need money.

                            I would disagree with this. She no longer had Kidney to rely on and she had a drinking problem. She was a poor woman. Having money for your needs for a day or two does not indicate financial security long term or even for the next few days.

                            c.d.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              Because at least one witness claimed they were alerted to the body at 12:40. Thats about how I see this. He arrived about then, and within 15 minutes or so we see Lamb arrive. I think you and some folks imagine that the men at the club are poised to jump up and rush to the spots we can place them at just before and after 1. If the discovery actually takes place as Louis stated it did..if he was indeed the first man to find Liz...that is the start of a series of actions in response involving men who had been drinking and singing for at least the past hour. And were up a flight or 2 of stairs. From start to finish line....Lamb spotting Eagle at "just before" or "around 1"....I dont see 3 minutes, I see 10, 12min or more. Louis and Issacs ran to Fairclough first and found no-one, Issac went the other way and found no-one, Eagle went his way and ended up at Commercial where he is spotted, Issac K has made his way to catch up with them. That would be Louis at around 12:40...which would put Eagle and Lave under the microscope....bringing Spooner back with him around 12:55, 5 minutes or so later Eagle is seen by Lamb. That ends up at around 1am. And it works with the officials timing.
                              But we know what Louis did unless you simply assume that he lied in which case you have a circular argument - there was a plot which is proved by the times not fitting and they don’t fit because the men were plotting and spent more time in the yard/club before going for a Constable.

                              If we switch on a stop watch and run through what Louis did we even have to slow it down to get to two minutes. He stops the cart, reaches over and pokes the body with a whip then gets down off the cart (how could that take longer than 20 or 30 seconds?) He strikes a match which goes out but it gave him enough time to see that’s it’s a woman so he heads inside (so from entering the yard to go inside is a minute absolutely tops - I’d suggest that it was probably less but I’ll go with a minute) ONE MINUTE

                              This wasn’t the Pentagon, it was a fairly small club and we know that on the ground floor there was a kitchen and another room, maybe there was more than one room but we know of only two. This means that there could have been no lengthy search for his wife, and remember, if he’s concerned about his wife he’s not going to be walking at a snails pace. He finds his wife in the front from (no more than 15 seconds could have passed since he entered the building) He tells his wife and the members in the room ‘there’s a woman lying in the yard.’ He gets a candle, maybe from a table in the room that he’s in or else his wife goes to the kitchen a few feet away. He lights it and goes outside (even at a stretch it’s only another minute since he went inside) ONE MINUTE

                              He gets outside and sees the blood straight away, before he’s even got to the body. He then said that he immediately went for a Constable. So what? 10 SECONDS.

                              How can we stretch that out anymore unless we start imagining conversations and plots? In those kind of emergency circumstances people don’t loiter around chatting. There’s an element of panic. People are basically thinking ‘quick, do something.’ And what they decided upon was absolutely obvious, no discussion was required. I think it probably all occurred in closer to 90 seconds easily.

                              So Louis arrives and in 2 minutes has gone for a Constable. We only know that he said that the clock that he saw said 1.00. Other clocks might have said 12.55. So Louis is then back at around 1.04 when Eagle goes for Lamb.

                              There isn’t a single issue with this scenario unless you start adding things that never happened or assuming plotting meetings.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                                I need nothing of the sort, I do need to recognize what the evidence is. Must be nice freeing yourself of that burden.
                                I feel like Im debating freedom with a MAGA, but in any event, As was mentioned many times, the evidence is that Fanny is NOT at her door the entire time, though she suggests she was there much of it. She doesnt mention seeing where Stride went after 12:35. She does see Leon Goldstein 4-6 minutes before 1, passing the gates. Those are the only 2 times she references being at the door. So yeah,.......she may well have been inside and not aware that down the street a cart and horse had arrived around 12:40. She heard one go by later, after 1, but which way, with whom, and to where are all unknown. And as Ive pointed out Lamb arriving around 1 and Louis only first arriving after 1 is impossible.

                                I don’t know what a MAGA is but I’m assuming yet another personal insult.

                                Michael, I don’t care how many times you ‘point out’ that Louis and Lamb’s time contradict each other. I’m telling you that they do and you know that they do. I feel like I’m banging my head against a brick wall.

                                Lamb’s ‘around 1.00’ isn’t a time Michael. It’s an approximation of a time which must include other times INCLUDING 1.05
                                So there’s a gap of time between the two. And if Louis clock was fast then the gap would have been even bigger.

                                AGAIN - LOUIS ARRIVES AT 1.00, AROUND 5 MINUTES OR SO LATER EAGLE FINDS LAMB. IT FITS ABSOLUTELY SEAMLESSLY UNLESS YOU START INVENTING TIMES.


                                People like to use Fanny as some scapegoat for holes in their theory that Israel was actually there, and so was BSM, and Pipeman and Liz Stride. Since we dont know exactly when she was at her door other than those 2 time segments, she must have been inside at that time. Well, Its entirely within reason to surmise that she went in for a moment after seeing Stride and missed street activity until she came back the to the door, maybe briefly, and finally...its where she stood the last 10 minutes of that half hour.

                                ​​​​​​​We don’t know when she was on her doorstep and when she wasn’t. That’s a fact.

                                We do know one additional time she references, when she was indoors. Around 12:45 she hears boots go past the door. Maybe Issac K being sent out by himself?
                                And maybe Louis lied about arriving at 1.00 on a horse and cart then miraculously at 1.00 in a Whitechapel backstreet another horse and cart arrives. Yeah right. It was Louis and you know it.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X