Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[Michael W Richards]

Hello George,

The reason that I made the specific point was in response to Michael’s claim that I was suggesting that Eagle found Lamb before the body was discovered and his basis for this claim is that Louis said 1.00 and that Lamb said ‘around 1.00’ or ‘just before 1.00’. So Michael tries to explain that there was little or no gap between Louis and Lamb’s time which isn’t true. This is why I said that no one would disagree with me when I stated this possibility. I assumed that everyone would accept that Lamb’s time could easily have been 1.05 or that Lamb’s clock would have said 12.55 when Louis’ said 1.00 so that there could easily have been a gap of 5 minutes or so between the two.

On your point about the police being ‘legally obliged’ to know the time I’d ask to what extent though? If they had been expected to provide exact times surely they’d have been provided with watches? If, as an example, a police officer had a 30 minute long beat and he only passed a clock once then he couldn’t have been expected to have known the time 20 minutes after seeing it with any great accuracy. I think that this is illustrated by Smith who gives an estimate of 12.30-12.35. So Lamb’s ‘around 1.00’ could certainly have been around 1.05 imo.

I certainly agree with you though George that a police officer would be more likely to estimate the time accurately at any particular point than a civilian would.

The problem in the ongoing argument between myself and Michael is that Michael is using estimates to disprove something. One moment he’s saying that he accepts that clocks can be poorly synchronised and the next minute he’s accusing me of ‘changing’ times when I actually make an allowance for synchronisation issue. Essentially all that has to be show is that the events stated could have occurred and this has been shown to be the case with the timelines (including your own of course) But what Michael has to do is to -rove that they couldn’t possibly have occurred and he can’t do that with doing three things, 1) he doesn’t accept that Lamb’s ‘around 1.00’ could have meant 1.05, 2) he tries to fit the majority of witness in with the 3 that were clearly estimating incorrectly, and 3) he tries to stretch out the time Louis spent at the yard/club so as to make the timeline appearimpossible.

Ive been following this but thought it worth jumping in one last time. Once again by moving the stated time by Lamb, (above in bold), you feel all is well with Louis. Since you have no idea whether Lamb was actually earlier or later than he suggested...(which was "just before" or "around 1").... because as you say no timepieces here were synchronized,... then why would you feel you have any right to move Lambs given time in any direction? Who the f*** do you think you are that we would just re-write the historical data because you "make allowances" to historically stated times. Who are you to state...."the 3 that were clearly estimating incorrectly"? Do you have facts to back that up, or just the anarchist stewards stated arrival time?

Your arrogance matches your disinformation...As to ME "using estimates", perhaps you should re-read the Inquest data. And stop suggesting I am moving the clock arbitrarily, or using the published statements improperly. I know in this day and age lying and misrepresentations are far more prevalent, it seems everyone can claim just about anything these days. It would be so interestring to be with you in the same room and see if you slander me the same way. But this is safe, isnt it? You can be a dick and no-one can teach you a lesson. Im old fashioned that way, I dont think any venue exempts you from stating the truth or using facts. So I suggest you stop lying about my posts and misrepresenting what I post. If you dont understand something, say so. Dont lie about what I say or why I say it...you dont know me any better than you know the actual facts here.

Louis said "precisely at 1", Lamb said "just before or around 1", Issac K said at "about 20 minutes to 1", Heschberg said "It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think", Spooner said "between half past 12 and 1am", and Fanny said, "I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock on Sunday morning, and did not notice anything unusual" and "If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him." The Arbeter Fraint published late in Oct stated the discovery time was "about quarter to 1".

ALL of them suggest an earlier discovery time than Louis, and most suggest it was between 20 and 15 minutes before 1. Just like I have said, more times than there are stars in the sky it feels like. I dont mind correcting newcomers when they post provably false data...I resent having to do it with members who have been hanging around here annoying others for years.

At least now the fraudulent claim guy is without clothes. There are no lies or misrepresentations that you will be able to get away with, because people have this post to check.

What Mike really said and what Herlock lies about....POST # 916. Yes, lies about what I say or said make me angry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ive been following this but thought it worth jumping in one last time. Once again by moving the stated time by Lamb, (above in bold), you feel all is well with Louis. Since you have no idea whether Lamb was actually earlier or later than he suggested...(which was "just before" or "around 1").... because as you say no timepieces here were synchronized,... then why would you feel you have any right to move Lambs given time in any direction? Who the f*** do you think you are that we would just re-write the historical data because you "make allowances" to historically stated times.

Is it really necessary to be so angry every time that you post Michael? I wish that sense could be made of the above but it’s difficult to see how can justify what you keep writing?

It’s a fact that we have Lamb saying “around 1.00,”in all but one newspaper. In that one he says “just before 1.00”

It’s a fact that both of those times are estimations. Neither ‘around 1.00’ or ‘just before 1.00’ are times. They are approximations of times.

Therefore it’s a fact that if these aren’t exact times then it’s logically impossible to say that I’m moving them. And yet you do.

It’s a fact that when you have an approximation/estimation then you have no choice but to allow for a plus or minus margin for error.

So it’s a fact that all that I’ve done is exactly the above.

So the fact that you object shows that when you’ve said in the past that you have no issue with a margin for error what you really meant was that you have no issue as long as it’s in favour of your argument. And as you saw from my reply to George I absolutely concede that margins for error have to go both ways.

Who are you to state...."the 3 that were clearly estimating incorrectly"? Do you have facts to back that up, or just the anarchist stewards stated arrival time?

By constantly repeating ‘anarchists’ as a form of propaganda you are simply employing a very obvious tactic. It allows you to sideline witnesses that are unfriendly to your theory (which is all of them except for Kozebrodsky and Heschberg)

Your arrogance matches your disinformation...As to ME "using estimates", perhaps you should re-read the Inquest data. And stop suggesting I am moving the clock arbitrarily, or using the published statements improperly. I know in this day and age lying and misrepresentations are far more prevalent, it seems everyone can claim just about anything these days. It would be so interestring to be with you in the same room and see if you slander me the same way. But this is safe, isnt it? You can be a dick and no-one can teach you a lesson. Im old fashioned that way, I dont think any venue exempts you from stating the truth or using facts. So I suggest you stop lying about my posts and misrepresenting what I post. If you dont understand something, say so. Dont lie about what I say or why I say it...you dont know me any better than you know the actual facts here.

More personal insults. I’ve lost count of how many but I commend it to everyone’s attention that not one has come from me.

I produced a list of all of the witnesses showing that I don’t dispute any of them. I haven’t changed one. The only ones that I disagree with are your three.

Louis said "precisely at 1", Lamb said "just before or around 1", Issac K said at "about 20 minutes to 1", Heschberg said "It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think", Spooner said "between half past 12 and 1am", and Fanny said, "I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock on Sunday morning, and did not notice anything unusual" and "If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him." The Arbeter Fraint published late in Oct stated the discovery time was "about quarter to 1".

I’ll just pick out one untruth. Spooner didn’t say ‘between half past 12 and 1am’ as you well know. He said that he got to the yard at 12.35 which would have the body found at around 12.30. And this is one of the 3 witnesses that you rely on. Embarrassing.

ALL of them suggest an earlier discovery time than Louis, and most suggest it was between 20 and 15 minutes before 1. Just like I have said, more times than there are stars in the sky it feels like. I dont mind correcting newcomers when they post provably false data...I resent having to do it with members who have been hanging around here annoying others for years.

At least now the fraudulent claim guy is without clothes. There are no lies or misrepresentations that you will be able to get away with, because people have this post to check.

What Mike really said and what Herlock lies about....POST # 916. Yes, lies about what I say or said make me angry.

Ditch the anger the personal insults and try reading the evidence in an unbiased way Michael. You might make fewer mistakes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My last post of the night will be a repeat posting. Michael keeps accusing me of changing witnesses times. So, here it is again:

Letchford 12.30 - I haven’t changed this.
Smith 12.30-12.35 - I haven’t changed this.
Fanny an unknown period of time between 12.30 and 1.00 possibly of 10 minutes duration - I haven’t changed this.
Lave general estimate 12.30-12.40ish - I haven’t changed this.
Eagle return 12.40ish - I haven’t changed this.
Goldtein passes at unstated time probably between 12.45 and 12.55 - I haven’t changed this.
Louis returns at 1.00 - I haven’t changed this.
Brown hears men around 1.00 - I haven’t changed this.
Fanny hears horse and cart around 1.00 - I haven’t changed this.
Lamb saw Eagle around 1.00 (which I believe was around 1.05) - I haven’t changed this.
Eagle arrives 10 mins before Blackwell 1.06 - I haven’t changed this.
Johnson arrives at 1.10 - I haven’t changed this.
Blackwell arrives at 1.16 - I haven’t changed this.
Spooner arrives with Louis approx 5 mins before Lamb - I haven’t changed this.

Kozebrodsky’s 12.40, Heschberg’s 12.45 and Spooner’s laughable 12.35 - I believe to have been errors of estimation.

So Michael, are there witnesses in this case that I haven’t heard of? I’ve listed all the witnesses above and accepted the stated times. I haven’t changed one. Any chance of explaining your accusation instead of just repeating the same old angry mantra interspersed with errors?

[Fiver]

Issac K came from inside the club which would have a very visible clock, so did Heschberg.

Why are you assuming that the club had any clock, let alone a "very visible" one? Neither Kozebrodsky nor anyone else mentioned its existence, let alone that they based their time estimates on it.

And you're flat out wrong about Hershberg. He lived nearby and was clearly not a member of the club.

"Abraham Heshburg, a young fellow, living at 28, Berner-street, said: "Yes, I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter. In the gateway two or three people had collected, and when I got there I saw a short, dark young woman lying on the ground with a gash between four and five inches long in her throat. I should say she was from 25 to 28 years of age. Her head was towards the north wall, against which she was lying. She had a black dress on, with a bunch of flowers pinned on the breast. In her hand there was a small piece of paper containing five or six cachous. The body was found by a man whose name I do not know - a man who goes out with a pony and barrow, and lives up the archway, where he was going, I believe, to put up his barrow on coming home from market. He thought it was his wife at first, but when be found her safe at home he got a candle and found this woman. He never touched it till the doctors had been sent for. The little gate is always open, or, at all events, always unfastened. There are some stables up there - Messrs. Duncan, Woollatt, and Co.'s, I believe and there is a place to which a lot of girls take home sacks which they have engaged in making. None of them would be there, though, after about one on Saturday afternoon. None of us recognised the woman, and I do not think she belonged to this neighbourhood. She was dressed very respectably. There seemed to be no wounds on the body." - 1 October 1888 Evening News

[Fiver]

And in your infinite good sense, you just disregard the 3 witnesses who collaboratively said they saw Louis between 12:40 and 12:45.

And you disregard the 12 witnesses who collaboratively support that Diemschutz arrived around 1am. You have yet to provide any reason that we should discard the 12 in favor of the 3.

And the three outliers do not "collaboratively say they saw Louis between 12:40 and 12:45".

* Hershberg didn't even know who Diemschutz was and never claimed to have seen him arrive. He said "It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter."
* Kozebrodsky said "About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard."

Their statements match up for an arrival time of around 12:40am.

But Spooner contradicts their time. Spooner contradicts everyone's times, including his own.
* "I stood at the top of the street for about five minutes, and then 25 minutes outside the publichouse. I should say it was about 25 minutes to 1 when I first went to the yard." Thats Spooner claiming to have been alerted by "two Jews come running along and shouting out "Murder" and "Police." at around 12:30am and reaching Dutfield's Yard at around 12:35am.
* "I stood there about five minutes before a constable came. It was the last witness who first arrived." - Thats Spooner claiming to have arrived about 5 minutes before PC Lamb, a discrepancy with himself of at least 20 minutes

You toss out the witnesses that have secondary verification for their statements in favour of a man who is provably incorrect using just Lambs statement alone, and the man most responsible for explaining what happened to police so he doesnt lose his job and home.

Diemschutz has verification from around a dozen witnesses, including Lamb.

The clearest example is Mortimer. "A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband."

[GBinOz]

Why are you assuming that the club had any clock, let alone a "very visible" one? Neither Kozebrodsky nor anyone else mentioned its existence, let alone that they based their time estimates on it.

Times report of the Inquest 2 Oct:

The CORONER - Did you see any one touch the body?
Witness (Eagle). - I think the policeman touched it, but the other persons appeared afraid to go near it. When I first saw the body of deceased, I should say it was about 1 o'clock, although I did not look at the clock.

[Fiver]

Times report of the Inquest 2 Oct:

The CORONER - Did you see any one touch the body?
Witness (Eagle). - I think the policeman touched it, but the other persons appeared afraid to go near it. When I first saw the body of deceased, I should say it was about 1 o'clock, although I did not look at the clock.

I stand corrected. Unless Eagle is using rather odd wording, it appears the Club did have a clock.

[GBinOz]

And you're flat out wrong about Hershberg. He lived nearby and was clearly not a member of the club.

"[I]Abraham Heshburg, a young fellow, living at 28, Berner-street, said: "Yes, I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter.

There has in the past been some inconclusive discussion on this matter. Some think that "came down to see what was the matter" referred to him coming down from his home, whereas others think he meant he came down from upstairs in the club. There was a lecture that night on why jews should be socialists and I believe attendance was not restricted to club members.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why are you assuming that the club had any clock, let alone a "very visible" one? Neither Kozebrodsky nor anyone else mentioned its existence, let alone that they based their time estimates on it.

And you're flat out wrong about Hershberg. He lived nearby and was clearly not a member of the club.

"Abraham Heshburg, a young fellow, living at 28, Berner-street, said: "Yes, I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter. In the gateway two or three people had collected, and when I got there I saw a short, dark young woman lying on the ground with a gash between four and five inches long in her throat. I should say she was from 25 to 28 years of age. Her head was towards the north wall, against which she was lying. She had a black dress on, with a bunch of flowers pinned on the breast. In her hand there was a small piece of paper containing five or six cachous. The body was found by a man whose name I do not know - a man who goes out with a pony and barrow, and lives up the archway, where he was going, I believe, to put up his barrow on coming home from market. He thought it was his wife at first, but when be found her safe at home he got a candle and found this woman. He never touched it till the doctors had been sent for. The little gate is always open, or, at all events, always unfastened. There are some stables up there - Messrs. Duncan, Woollatt, and Co.'s, I believe and there is a place to which a lot of girls take home sacks which they have engaged in making. None of them would be there, though, after about one on Saturday afternoon. None of us recognised the woman, and I do not think she belonged to this neighbourhood. She was dressed very respectably. There seemed to be no wounds on the body." - 1 October 1888 Evening News

I’ve raised this point before Fiver but Michael simply repeats that they ‘had access to a clock in the club’ or some similar phrase. As you have pointed out no one has ever stated or proven that there was a clock in the club. I’m quite prepared (as I’m sure that you are) to accept that there is a reasonable possibility that there could have been a clock but Michael refuses to accept (when I’ve mentioned it dozens of times) that we don’t know where it was situated or if Koz or Hesch could see it from where they were sitting. We can’t assume that it was in a position visible to all no matter where they were sitting.

When those in the club (downstairs room then upstairs room) were informed of the body do any of us think that Koz and Hesch’s first action would have been to have found out the time and then logged it? Of course not, there would have been a stampede to get to the yard. And all of this is confirmed by the fact that they were both estimating. Heschberg in particular couldn’t really have sounded less confident. So we then have to ask when these two last saw a clock or when they last became aware of the time? Then they had to estimate the gap of time and humans aren’t good at that. These two clearly gave inaccurate estimations but, unbelievable, Michael supports these two clowns and then tries to tailor all the other witnesses to try and get them to fall in line. And then he has the gall to accuse me of changing the times after I produced a list of all of the witnesses showing how I’ve changed none of them.

And finally of course. Two points.

1. According to Michael, all the club members can’t be trusted, so why can these two? (Granted it looks likely that Hesch may not have been a member given that he didn’t appear to know Louis.)
2. And this is the one Michael point blank refuses to answer…if Koz was part of the plot (as he claims) how could Louis not have to,d him about the ‘false’ 1.00 discovery time?

Whenever I make point two you can hear the tumbleweeds and the creaking of the sign over the saloon door.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Times report of the Inquest 2 Oct:

The CORONER - Did you see any one touch the body?
Witness (Eagle). - I think the policeman touched it, but the other persons appeared afraid to go near it. When I first saw the body of deceased, I should say it was about 1 o'clock, although I did not look at the clock.

Good spot George.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

I have to say that I really enjoy your out of the box speculations, but sometimes you base them on a false premise.

Smith testified that he saw Stride with a man between 12:30 and 12:35. Smith didn't carry a pocket watch but his repetition of his beat would have given him a very good idea of the time at any point in his beat. Of course, the accuracy of that time would be better the closer he was to his reference clock, depending on where that may have been located on his beat.

When you say " Which is odd because he wasn't back at the top of Berner St until around 1.07am", I am compelled to ask, according to whose testimony or deduction, and based on whose clock. Smith testified that he was back at the top of Berner St at about one o'clock. On whose evidence is his statement to be challenged on the basis of superior knowledge?

You have stated your suspicions about Eagle, and I have to say that I do have some suspicions in that regard. Eagle testified that he left the yard to escort his soon to be wife home at between 11:30 and 11:45, indicating this was a guess rather than a clock time. He testified variously that he returned to the yard at 12:35 or 12:40, so about an hour return trip. The lady in question lived with her parents at 183 Whitechapel Rd. The numbering in Whitechapel Rd has changed since 1888, but No 183 was in the vicinity of the Cavell St intersection, so a round trip would take a little over half an hour, and the optimum route would take Eagle past his dwelling in New St. As a consequence he would be returning to the yard via Commercial Rd and turning left into Berner St, similar to what was described by Schwartz. So what was Eagle doing in the nearly half hour discrepancy in his absence from the yard? An extended good night with his soon to be wife? A cup of tea with the soon to be in-laws? Or perhaps a few libations in one of the pubs on his route back to the yard giving him cause to be perceived by a casual on-looker as somewhat inebriated?

I'll conclude my ramblings by saying that the evidence in our possession at this point in time will not reveal the truth in this murder mystery, and short of new evidence we will be eternally damned to the realm of speculation.

Cheers, George

Hi George


May I ask where it states that PC Smith saw the couple at 12.35am?

Every article I have read that covered the Inquest all report 12.30am

Am I missing something?


Many thanks


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

RD,

William Smith, 452 H Division: On Saturday last I went on duty at ten p.m. My beat was past Berner- street, and would take me twenty-five minutes or half an hour to go round. I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock

[The Rookie Detective]

RD,

William Smith, 452 H Division: On Saturday last I went on duty at ten p.m. My beat was past Berner- street, and would take me twenty-five minutes or half an hour to go round. I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock

Thankyou for clarifying that for me Herlock; I know it sits within the realms of basic knowledge (that I should already know) but sometimes I think it's good to get those basics reaffirmed by someone who has more knowledge, understanding and experience of the case.

That's not me trying to suck up to you; it's just a matter of fact.


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

If PC Smith testified he saw Stride between 12.30am - 12.35am with another man (parcelman) a few yards up Berner Street on the opposite side to the yard, ergo they were standing outside the board school, then why didn't he see Lave?

Lave said he left the club around 12.30am, went as far as the street and returned inside the club at 12.40am.

This must have been just moments before Eagle returned and tried the front door of the club before walking down the side of the yard.

I find it odd that PC Smith never mentions Lave.


Of course, we can excuse the fact by manipulating times for Lave as he was comparatively vague.

But the fact remains, if he was mistaken about the timing and duration he was outside in the street; where else does he fit in?

I also find it odd that despite Smith testifying the time frame of 12.30am-12.35am (thankyou to Herlock for correcting me) , then how comes he seemed oblivious to the entire aftermath of the murder IF he was back at the top of Berner Street around 1am?

Is it not strange that PC Smith seems to be one of the last to know about the murder; especially considering it was his beat.

Perhaps the claim of some of the club members who tried to find a policeman and raise the alarm found it hard to locate a policeman, is more relevant that we realise.

Was PC Smith slacking off?

After seeing Stride at 12.30-12.35am he doesn't seem to be around until the 11th hour.

So where was he in the meantime?

How could he have been at the top of Berner Street around 1am?

Around 1.10am is more accurate

This suddenly feels like a case of him having to state by the book where he SHOULD have been at the time he states, and not where he actually was at the timing he gave.

What reason would Smith have to give false or inaccurate timings?

Was it a case of him telling a generic time based on his shift pattern as directed by his superiors?

Has anyone found it odd that nobody; literally nobody saw PC Smith at any stage until AFTER the discovery of the body?

What if Smith wasn't where he should have been, and the sighting of Parcelman is an invention to cover his own a**e?

If he truly was at the top of Berner Street around 1am, then everyone else's timings have to move in order to fit.

Around 1am could be extended to 1.05am, but when we talk about timings after 1.05am then it becomes unviable IMO.

With all the commotion after the discovery of Stride's body; at least 4 different men running around looking for the police within a 5 minute time period...how can Smith just turn up and have as much awareness as a sleepy sloth?

It's perhaps an error of judgement to rely on the police for the correct timings because their superiors may have ordered them to adjust things accordingly.

The Police are not objective enough in this particular instance.

However, the Doctors would have no reason or any orders to alter their timings to fit into a correct beat pattern.

On that basis, is it not best to use the Doctors timings as the foundation and then work from there?

Doctors and Coroners at a murder scene are likely to have been the most objective.



RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thankyou for clarifying that for me Herlock; I know it sits within the realms of basic knowledge (that I should already know) but sometimes I think it's good to get those basics reaffirmed by someone who has more knowledge, understanding and experience of the case.

That's not me trying to suck up to you; it's just a matter of fact.


RD

I’m always having to double check stuff RD. There are some on here who have far better memories and who can lay their hands on any obscure quote at a minutes notice. It’s the good thing about the forum….someone will know or someone will find the relevant info.