Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[Herlock Sholmes]

Louis found the body, went for a Constable less than two minutes later, returned two minutes later then Eagle left to find a PC and returned 2 minutes later.

1.00-1.06

Simple. That should be the end of it. Unless someone has a theory to defend of course.

[c.d.]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why didnt Fanny see Eagle arrive either Franko? Why didnt Fanny see Israel, or BSM, or Pipeman, or Louis arriving "precisely at 1"..

And why didn’t Fanny see Louis returning at around 12.45?

[Michael W Richards]

If that were all true, Michael, then why didn't Fanny see Eagle run from the yard in the direction of Commercial Road? For Eagle to arrive at where Lamb was at, say, 12:58, Eagle would have to have exited the yard about a minute and a half before that. If Fanny would actually have remained at her door until 1 am, then she couldn't have missed Eagle running right past her.

All the best,
Frank

Why didnt Fanny see Eagle arrive either Franko? Why didnt Fanny see Israel, or BSM, or Pipeman, or Louis arriving "precisely at 1".What Fanny doesnt mention, she obviously didnt see, but she did say that she was at her door nearly that entire last half hour too. Nearly...that obviously infers not the whole time. So how are we to determine whether or not these unseen people were there, because none have any secondary sightings. This line of your is interesting....."For Eagle to arrive at where Lamb was at, say, 12:58, Eagle would have to have exited the yard about a minute and a half before that". Ok, so what time would Louis have to have first arrived, so he can get off the cart, go inside to call upstairs and have Eagle be able to go for help and find it before 1?

Fanny did hear bootsteps Franko, she said that around 12:45, while indoors, she heard the heavy tramp of what she "suggested" were policemans boots. She didnt see anyone, she heard footsteps and thought they were policemans boots. Did she know that some women also wore heavy mens boots, or just regular street folk too? See Strides footwear for one, and Kates. Boots on cobbles are boots on cobbles if unseen, agttributing someone to those same boots is speculation, and she would have been warned about that had she presented this at the Inquest. So....Why isnt she there? Because she didnt see anyone other than Goldstein near the gates, and he walked past. What she didnt see would have zero bearing on what was happening with Liz. 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.

Lets review what Fanny is said to have stated....

" 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....(speculation about who those boots belonged to)... 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 for 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 anyone 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 so it happened that in about four minutes' time she heard the pony cart pass the house,...(she heard a cart and pony about the time I would imagine quite a few people were gathering in that narrow passageway, and since its 1, it would be around the time the pony and cart would be taken to stable in George Yard. remember, Louis said he was going to offload and then stable the cart and pony)...... and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband. Thus, presuming that the body did not lay in the yard when the policeman passed-and it could hardly, it is thought, have escaped his notice-and presuming also that the assassin and his victim did not enter the yard while the woman stood at the door,...(which is consistent with Fannys comments)... it follows that they must have entered it within a minute or two before the arrival of the pony trap....(purely speculative scenario offered by reporter, no evidence supports it). If this be a correct surmise,...(as I said, his speculation).... it is easy to understand that the criminal may have been interrupted at his work. The man who drove the cart says he thinks it quite possible that after he had entered the yard the assassin may have fled out of it,.. (Louis created this scenario, there is no evidence that supports him).. having lurked in the gloom until a favourable moment arrived."

What that statement above suggests that perhaps she didnt see the killer enter the gates or leave by them, because the killer never left the confines of the passageway. It also suggests she heard boots around 12:45 running, and a cart and horse about 4 minutes after she went inside at 1am. it also suggests that Louis created the idea that the killer might have slipped past him, when there is no evidence anyone left that passageway at that time. It also suggests that the boots she heard around 12:45 could be just about anyone, perhaps Eagle, perhaps Issac K....perhaps Schwartz,... if you like cow pies.

There are things that are slightly different in other accounts...

"Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36 Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy says:- "I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. ...(establishes the troubled nature of the club, as both the police and neighbours saw them)...I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gates with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe anyone enter the gates. It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial Road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School. I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in the pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that they could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up, as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. 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)...and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street about twenty yards away.... (identifies Browns couple)....before, and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound."

All the time evidence from people who didnt work for or live at the club differs from the statements about times given by those people who were paid to be there and had accommodations there. Why is that cleanly divided? How come at least some unaffiliated witnesses didnt see what Israel says he saw, or Louis arriving,....How come Issac K himself doesnt back Louis's stated arrival time? How come Eagle didnt see Lave? If the killer didnt come from the street, then the club itself, the yard or the stables are the only places the killer could have come from. How come Lave didnt see anyone there? How come Wess didnt when he was leaving? Did the police think the same As I suggested when they searched the unused stables and the office located in that building? Did the police search the men, and the club, because they initially thought someone from there killed Stride? Is Israel Schwartz's BSM the offsite thug that intends to place the likely killer...from off the property and not from any straggling club attendees?

I freely admit that one must interpret data, it cannot be just accepted at face value, but would a serious investigator suggest changing witnesses given stated times so they better fit some of the evidence, or would an investigator follow the evidence that is corroborated to help ascertain the truth?

The people with the greatest risk of being accused of murder were the legally responsible people of that club. And they are the ones who give stories that without exception....have zero secondary validation.
The way Herlock complains about having this reality out there youd think I was trying to re-write history, when ironically im the one using secondary source statements.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Since I just quoted posts and evidence, hardly "scattergun". And then we have the pompous "when compared with the evidence"....like if you compared everything I posted with existing evidence it would be different. It isnt. It’s just the evidence bucko. Which is apparently a term you need a refresher on.

When you claim that Louis would have spent 10 minutes in the yard (you’ve even suggested longer) you have no evidence for that. Therefore it’s an invalid assumption and your whole suggestion that the times don’t work is based on that invalid assumption.

[Michael W Richards]

Again you’ve used the scattergun approach which allows you to avoid specifics. Nothing that you’ve said adds up when compared with the evidence.

Since I just quoted posts and evidence, hardly "scattergun". And then we have the pompous "when compared with the evidence"....like if you compared everything I posted with existing evidence it would be different. It isnt. Its just the evidence bucko. Which is apparently a term you need a refresher on.

[FrankO]

But there are none of your witnesses who can explain away why a man charged with tracking his time in his profession said he saw Eagle just before or around 1 when Louis says he didnt arrive until 1. Proven incorrect by the way by virtue of Fanny Mortrimer at her door until 1. No-one arrived after she saw Leon.

If that were all true, Michael, then why didn't Fanny see Eagle run from the yard in the direction of Commercial Road? For Eagle to arrive at where Lamb was at, say, 12:58, Eagle would have to have exited the yard about a minute and a half before that. If Fanny would actually have remained at her door until 1 am, then she couldn't have missed Eagle running right past her.

All the best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Normal text - my original post.
Emboldened - Michael’s response.
Blue - My reply.

Michael: Just cant leave well enough alone, eh. Ok....

Polite as ever Michael.

1.[*]Do you accept that the clock that Lamb used to estimate his time by might not have been synchronised with the Baker’s clock. For example, that if the Bakers clock said 1.00 then Lamb’s clock might have said 12.55 or 12.56 or 12.57 or….?

I have never claimed that any clocks or timepieces that witnesses may have referred to would be synchronized to each other. The fact you even asked makes me sure you dont pay attention to what people write. I did say that Lamb had a job where tracking your locations and times during a shift was mandatory. I know Lamb wasnt wearing a watch,

Ok, I’ll jump in there. You had previously insisted that Lamb had a watch until I told you that he hadn’t.

so that suggests he got his times from publicly displayed time sources along his route. There is no sense tracking times if he is using a multitude of sources because he knew they would not all display the same time. Like anyone would. So he had something he used as a baseline to start his shift, likely the police station clock, and he would use that baseline when seeing other sources around the area. If he saw at the start of his shift the station clock was X, and the next source he sees shows a time earlier than X, he would just estimate based on the initial baseline source. It’s not impossible the Bakers Clock was one of his references.

Clearly we don’t know which clock he used so we cannot assume that the clock that he used was synchronised to the Baker’s Clock. Therefore if you make the claim that Louis spent 5 minutes in the yard then even that could be accounted for by a 5 minute time lag. But of course you don’t recognise a margin for error when it’s not in your favour.

And yes, in the past you have certainly shown resistance to the use of margin for error

2.[*]Do you accept that when a person says ‘around 1.00’ that this is clearly an estimate and that it might actually have been 1.05 (or another time)? Or do you believe that ‘around 1.00’ means 1.00?[/LIST]

I accept that when a witness is quoted as stating in different sources that he saw Eagle "just before 1", and "around 1", that he was estimating his time against a 1pm status. The fact that neither quote suggests he thought it was AFTER 1am, and in fact 1 suggests it was BEFORE 1am, your suggestion that he was actually 5-10 minutes off

And here we are. This 5 or 10 minutes is an invention on your part. You add it because you and you alone believe that Louis Diemschitz spent a ludicrous amount of time in the yard. Two minutes at a push. Follow the evidence. Look at what was done. Pulled in, jabbed with a whip, struck a match which went out but allowed him to see that it was a body, went inside and found his wife on the ground floor, to,d her and the others in the room about the body, got a candle and lit it, went outside, saw the blood before he got back to the body then immediately went for a Constable - there’s no way that anyone can stretch that to 5 or 10 minutes. Absolutely no chance. Two minutes tops - timeline works perfectly.

and it was actually after 1,.... (just because a man who runs the club gave a time that wouldnt work if Lamb DID see Eagle at or just before 1,

I go with the majority 6 or 7 versions. You go with the isolated 1. No further comment required.

and without any substantive reason for suggesting Lamb, not the anarchist who hosted a murder), ... is just moving the goalposts so you can imagine you scored a point. When given a choice between assessing the character of someone I will never meet or know, I can only use what is general available to judge their motivations for giving a set time. Lamb was just recording a location and event by the time, and Louis states "precisely" a time that is in direct conflict with Lambs. The trustworthy source estimated, and the anarchist asserted. Is it Louis said "precisely" that hangs you up here? Because thats "precisely" what your argument is based upon. Louis being honest and straightforward. If I was a policeman and saw people running for help and went with them to see what was up, that starts an event clock for the shift. What happens and when from that point on is Lambs responsibility to know and record. Louis is just trying to be sure he dodges a bullet that night.

All of the above is rendered moot when it’s known that you’re basing every single point on an exaggerated time at the club. You’ve stretched the time simply to make other times seem impossible. No one has ever suggested or implied that Louis was there for 5 or 10. You can’t prove an argument by an act of creation.

3. If you accept 2 (and I seriously can’t think why you wouldn’t) and ignoring for the moment how much time was spent at the club by Louis, then why would you object to a suggestion that Louis arrived at around 1.00 and Eagle found Lamb and returned at approximately 1.05 or 1.06?

Because as I said, you suggesting that Lamb was actually after 1am is subjective and assbackwards intuitive judgment. Between Lamb and Diemshiutz, there really is no doubt that Lambs recollections would be more honest and unbiased than the man who is worried about his job and home. And Lamb needs to be at the gates within 10 minutes of the first medical man arriving.....and that would be Johnson, at 1:10.

Where do you get this stuff from. Do you realise that these locations, club, Doctors house etc weren’t miles apart. Constable that Lamb despatched from the yard to fetch a Doctor could have left at 1.08 and still got to the Doctors on time. How slowly do you think people walked? Do you believe that the Constable went for a Doctor using regulation beat step times? There’s just no issue here.

Obviously Johnson could not have been there at 1:10 if Louis first arrived shortly after 1am. Obviously Lamb could not have seen Eagle and have Issac K join them at just before, or at 1, if Louis didnt arrive until just after 1. But Lamb could have seen Eagle just before 1, as he said, and Johnson could be there onsite at 1:10, as he stated, but ONLY if the search parties had discovered the body and left for help 5-10 minutes BEFORE Lamb even enters the picture. And lo and behold, we do have several witnesses who stated the discovery, and subsequent search parties, began at around quarter to 1.

You must be looking at a different case. Louis 1.00 - Louis goes for Constable 1.02 - Louis returns 1.04 - Eagle finds Lamb 1.05 - Eagle/Lamb/Koz return 1.06 - Constable sent for Doctor - arrives at around 1.10 - no issues unless, like you we use the circular argument that Louis and co must have stood around plotting for 10 minutes!

Now your gang.....Eagle says he arrived at 12:40 and couldnt be sure whether he stepped around a body, and he is there when Lave says he is there and neither see each other apparently.

Where about in the yard was Lave when Eagle returned? We don’t know and you don’t know. It’s no issue for Eagle to have got back unseen when he’d only have had to have been out of Lave’s sight for 2 seconds. Unless you think that he was wearing a miners helmet and was playing a trombone at the time.

No secondary source confirms either witness.

No secondary source confirms Heschberg arriving at 12.45. No secondary source said that he saw Kozebrodsky arrive at 12.40. No source corroborates that Fanny Mortimer was actually on her doorstep and yet you have no issue accepting them.

Israel Schwartz says he saw Liz Stride alive and on the street at 12:45, being assaulted by a man while being watched by another. Thats 3 men and 1 woman sudedenly on a street that was said to be deserted, and NO OTHER WITNESS with a view to the street anytime that last half hour either saw, or heard, anything Israel claims. Including his being there at all.

A thirty second incident occurred unseen. We’ve never heard anything like it!

He is also persona non grata at the Inquest.

It’s little short of a disgrace that after all that’s been said and written on this subject, all the pages of in depth research and yet you still keep pushing this point.

Mrs D is Louis's wife, and unlike to do anything but support what Louis said.

Where did you learn of the state of their marriage Michael that you know that she would lie to the police for him. Please tell us.

Eagle is paid by the club for speaking, Lave is a resident of the passageway,

Nothing more than convenient assumptions on your part.

Israel may well have been there, but more probably at the club, not on the street, and certainly he had no need to check if his wife had moved meager belongings over the previous 12 hours.

So you are fully aware of his personal circumstances. Please tell us more Michael.

We dont even know where he moved from.........maybe a cottage in the passageway, who knows. Maybe thats why hes is there. And also maybe he was never there that night...Louis and his wife make their living from the club, and live on the premises. If anyone discovers a dead body on their property they would be shocked and concerned. With these gents, and lady, they are lawless members of a socialist fringe, who believed that civil actions and anarchy are the way to getting what they want. Just like most Fenians. They would have many more reasons to fear any suspicions on them..loss of freedoms, loss of income, loss of housing...IF the police thought they were housing the killer. And for the record, ONLY club men are veritably seen or heard anywhere near those gates that last 15 minutes. Leon. Passing by.

Mere supposition and prejudice on your part I’m afraid. I’m sorry to say it Michael but in that passage you sound like Sir Charles Warren raging at these ‘damned radicals!’

My gang.....3 witnesses, 2 from inside the club, 1 bystander, none with any economic or legal responsibility for what goes on at that club.

Three unverifiable estimates. One of them gives two times in the same statement. And if Kozebrodsky is a part of the plot why didn’t he follow the script? Perhaps it’s because he’d been in the club all day long?

The policemen, Smith and Lamb, the medical authorities....Johnson, Blackwell and Phillips.

Dr. Blackwell, the likeliest to have given an accurate time that night, said that he arrived at 1.16 - Lamb said that he arrived 10 minutes before Blackwell…..that’s 1.06 Michael. Explain how you try and wriggle around that one.

Thats the factual overview. I have a position that is supported and corroborated and uses the professional times offered as is. You have a position that is ONLY possible if all those witnesses were wrong.

And I’ve just torn it to shreds. Sorry.

Now, which seems Objective and which seem Subjective?. Rhetorical, of course. You need people to have been wrong, I just need people to accept the realities of who Louis is, what that club is, and what risks to Louis's overall well being a prolonged investigation into the club and its members might bring.

I’m objective and follow the facts. You have a theory and are trying to shape the evidence to support it instead of simply following it. It’s the only way Michael.

I believe Louis lied to try and deflect any concerns a club person was involved. Because as I pointed out, ONLY club men are veritably there at that time. If he said "I arrived around 12:45, found the body, got help upstairs, sent Issac and then myself and Issac[s] for help, along with Eagle, found Spooner on the way back from Fairclough, and was there for about 5 minutes before Eagle arrived with Lamb, then all the sources I use and quote can be left untouched, there is not one account aside from Spooners that would need to be off by a few minutes. A few minutes. Not 15 or 20, with your storyline.

Mine fits with no problem. So does Jeff’s. So does Frank’s, so does George’s, but then again, none of them have Louis and co standing around in the yard chatting for 10 minutes with a woman lying dead. But then again they are socialists/anarchists and therefore evil.

I wont do this again, you tire me out having to try and further simplify this over and over. Youll either get it, or you wont, but Im done trying to convince you that your theory cannot work without revisions to witness accounts. The witnesses you should be giving reliability cred to, not taking it from them.

If your theory worked you would get at least some support on here but you have zero. Everyone knows that you’re way off the mark. Ditch the 5 or 10 minutes at the club and there isn’t a single issue. You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried but I do wish that you wouldn’t take it so personally.


;

Again you’ve used the scattergun approach which allows you to avoid specifics. Nothing that you’ve said adds up when compared with the evidence.

[Michael W Richards]

You persist in trying to make these discussions personal Michael. I haven’t insulted you and yet you’ve insulted me yet again. What I have said is that you have misused the evidence. You have misinterpreted it so that it falls in line with your theory and I’ve provided documented evidence from the time to back this up.

I’m willing to be accurate. I always try to be accurate. So I’ll give it one more go on one very specific piece of evidence. I’m quite prepared to answer any specific questions that you put (I always have) so it would be good if you could respond directly the the points made and not to spin off into tangents and anger.

This is the relevant point made by you:


“Only you would challenge a statement like "Lamb, Eagle and Issac Kozebrodski could not have returned together at around 1am to the club if Louis first arrived after 1." Lamb said around 1, Louis says he arrived at 1. So how does Eagle know before Liz has even been found that there is a need to go for help.”


So these are the facts that I’d like you to respond to Michael:

Louis said that the Baker’s clock said 1.00 and Lamb said that he saw Eagle at ‘around 1.00.’ So…

1. 1.
2. Do you accept that the clock that Lamb used to estimate his time by might not have been synchronised with the Baker’s clock. For example, that if the Bakers clock said 1.00 then Lamb’s clock might have said 12.55 or 12.56 or 12.57 or….?
   2.
3. Do you accept that when a person says ‘around 1.00’ that this is clearly an estimate and that it might actually have been 1.05 (or another time)? Or do you believe that ‘around 1.00’ means 1.00?

3. If you accept 2 (and I seriously can’t think why you wouldn’t) and ignoring for the moment how much time was spent at the club by Louis, then why would you object to a suggestion that Louis arrived at around 1.00 and Eagle found Lamb and returned at approximately 1.05 or 1.06?


Now the point that I just left out. Your opinion is that Louis would have spent 5 or 10 minutes at the yard. The majority of others who have given an opinion agree with me and Jeff and George and Frank that he would have only been there for a couple of minutes or less. Going on what was said to have occurred at the yard it’s difficult if not impossible to see how you could stretch out this time as you seek to do.

So the final question is 3. Do you accept that the only reason that you claim that the times are impossible is due to the extended time that you allot to Louis in the yard.

So what you are, in effect, saying is that the times are provably impossible purely due to your own disputed opinion as to the time spent in the yard.

Just cant leave well enough alone, eh. Ok....

1.[*]Do you accept that the clock that Lamb used to estimate his time by might not have been synchronised with the Baker’s clock. For example, that if the Bakers clock said 1.00 then Lamb’s clock might have said 12.55 or 12.56 or 12.57 or….?

I have never claimed that any clocks or timepieces that witnesses may have referred to would be synchronized to each other. The fact you even asked makes me sure you dont pay attention to what people write. I did say that Lamb had a job where tracking your locations and times during a shift was mandatory. I know Lamb wasnt wearing a watch, so that suggests he got his times from publicly displayed time sources along his route. There is no sense tracking times if he is using a multitude of sources because he knew they would not all display the same time. Like anyone would. So he had something he used as a baseline to start his shift, likely the police station clock, and he would use that baseline when seeing other sources around the area. If he saw at the start of his shift the station clock was X, and the next source he sees shows a time earlier than X, he would just estimate based on the initial baseline source. Its not impossible the Bakers Clock was one of his references.

2.[*]Do you accept that when a person says ‘around 1.00’ that this is clearly an estimate and that it might actually have been 1.05 (or another time)? Or do you believe that ‘around 1.00’ means 1.00?[/LIST]

I accept that when a witness is quoted as stating in different sources that he saw Eagle "just before 1", and "around 1", that he was estimating his time against a 1pm status. The fact that neither quote suggests he thought it was AFTER 1am, and in fact 1 suggests it was BEFORE 1am, your suggestion that he was actually 5-10 minutes off and it was actually after 1,.... (just because a man who runs the club gave a time that wouldnt work if Lamb DID see Eagle at or just before 1, and without any substantive reason for suggesting Lamb, not the anarchist who hosted a murder), ... is just moving the goalposts so you can imagine you scored a point. When given a choice between assessing the character of someone I will never meet or know, I can only use what is general available to judge their motivations for giving a set time. Lamb was just recording a location and event by the time, and Louis states "precisely" a time that is in direct conflict with Lambs. The trustworthy source estimated, and the anarchist asserted. Is it Louis said "precisely" that hangs you up here? Because thats "precisely" what your argument is based upon. Louis being honest and straightforward. If I was a policeman and saw people running for help and went with them to see what was up, that starts an event clock for the shift. What happens and when from that point on is Lambs responsibility to know and record. Louis is just trying to be sure he dodges a bullet that night.


3. If you accept 2 (and I seriously can’t think why you wouldn’t) and ignoring for the moment how much time was spent at the club by Louis, then why would you object to a suggestion that Louis arrived at around 1.00 and Eagle found Lamb and returned at approximately 1.05 or 1.06?

Because as I said, you suggesting that Lamb was actually after 1am is subjective and assbackwards intuitive judgment. Between Lamb and Diemshiutz, there really is no doubt that Lambs recollections would be more honest and unbiased than the man who is worried about his job and home. And Lamb needs to be at the gates within 10 minutes of the first medical man arriving.....and that would be Johnson, at 1:10.

Obviously Johnson could not have been there at 1:10 if Louis first arrived shortly after 1am. Obviously Lamb could not have seen Eagle and have Issac K join them at just before, or at 1, if Louis didnt arrive until just after 1. But Lamb could have seen Eagle just before 1, as he said, and Johnson could be there onsite at 1:10, as he stated, but ONLY if the search parties had discovered the body and left for help 5-10 minutes BEFORE Lamb even enters the picture. And lo and behold, we do have several witnesses who stated the discovery, and subsequent search parties, began at around quarter to 1.

Now your gang.....Eagle says he arrived at 12:40 and couldnt be sure whether he stepped around a body, and he is there when Lave says he is there and neither see each other apparently. No secondary source confirms either witness. Israel Schwartz says he saw Liz Stride alive and on the street at 12:45, being assaulted by a man while being watched by another. Thats 3 men and 1 woman sudedenly on a street that was said to be deserted, and NO OTHER WITNESS with a view to the street anytime that last half hour either saw, or heard, anything Israel claims. Including his being there at all. He is also persona non grata at the Inquest. Mrs D is Louis's wife, and unlike to do anything but support what Louis said. Eagle is paid by the club for speaking, Lave is a resident of the passageway, Israel may well have been there, but more probably at the club, not on the street, and certainly he had no need to check if his wife had moved meager belongings over the previous 12 hours. We dont even know where he moved from.........maybe a cottage in the passageway, who knows. Maybe thats why hes is there. And also maybe he was never there that night...Louis and his wife make their living from the club, and live on the premises. If anyone discovers a dead body on their property they would be shocked and concerned. With these gents, and lady, they are lawless members of a socialist fringe, who believed that civil actions and anarchy are the way to getting what they want. Just like most Fenians. They would have many more reasons to fear any suspicions on them..loss of freedoms, loss of income, loss of housing...IF the police thought they were housing the killer. And for the record, ONLY club men are veritably seen or heard anywhere near those gates that last 15 minutes. Leon. Passing by.

My gang.....3 witnesses, 2 from inside the club, 1 bystander, none with any economic or legal responsibility for what goes on at that club. The policemen, Smith and Lamb, the medical authorities....Johnson, Blackwell and Phillips.

Thats the factual overview. I have a position that is supported and corroborated and uses the professional times offered as is. You have a position that is ONLY possible if all those witnesses were wrong.

Now, which seems Objective and which seem Subjective?. Rhetorical, of course. You need people to have been wrong, I just need people to accept the realities of who Louis is, what that club is, and what risks to Louis's overall well being a prolonged investigation into the club and its members might bring.

I believe Louis lied to try and deflect any concerns a club person was involved. Because as I pointed out, ONLY club men are veritably there at that time. If he said "I arrived around 12:45, found the body, got help upstairs, sent Issac and then myself and Issac[s] for help, along with Eagle, found Spooner on the way back from Fairclough, and was there for about 5 minutes before Eagle arrived with Lamb, then all the sources I use and quote can be left untouched, there is not one account aside from Spooners that would need to be off by a few minutes. A few minutes. Not 15 or 20, with your storyline.

I wont do this again, you tire me out having to try and further simplify this over and over. Youll either get it, or you wont, but Im done trying to convince you that your theory cannot work without revisions to witness accounts. The witnesses you should be giving reliability cred to, not taking it from them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suppose the thing that troubles me most about you is your suggestion that you post truths and I do not. I dont care if you agree with the idea or not, in fact it has very little to do with any of this area of study because its quite probable she shouldnt even be on record as a Jack the Ripper crime anyway. But I can say without equivocation...(just like your buddy Louis D ), that I may have posted errors here or there but never intentional untruths. And if your honest with yourself, you know you have.

Debate the points, use the evidence as it exists......I have always contended that I favour Spooner being off on his time by perhaps 5 minutes, so Ive also never said I wont accept "allowances"....I just dont accept your "allowing" Lamb, Johnson and Blackwell to be off by as much 15 minutes which is what your theory suggests. What I object to in an academic environment is for someone to propose something that has been modified by themselves as actual "evidence". Youve consistently tried to push Lambs time later and later to support your Louis D's arrival time at or just after 1. Why would you think anyone would consider your opinion and manufactured evidence as factual? Lamb is recorded as having 2 remarks relating to the time he first saw Eagle..."just before 1", and "around 1". Not 1:05 or 6 like you just posted recently. And Louis says he arrived "precisely" at 1. Thats facts. Thats the records. Use the information there, you are not permitted to just modify peoples times so you can post there is no difficulty reconciling times given. There most certainly IS difficulty using all the times as given, they dont work in a single timeline, and therefore they all cannot be accurate. You think the men who hosted the murder are the ones to believe, I believe its the authorities. If you categorize what many olf these exchanges of ours any differently you will be caught red handed in what I stated is your technique.

As for the rest of the tripe, as I said, If you stick to posting truthful and accurate times given by the witnesses...(who knows whether they were right about the times they gave or not, they gave times and you have nothing available to dispute what they said, and no license to just change their times to support your house of cards)...and not some "Herlocked" evidence of estimates made by you, many discussions with you could have been avoided. Something I would have appreciated greatly.

Ill just add that if anyone cares whether either of us have lied when presenting an argument, the posts are all there. Those records allow me to seem righteous when I make some comments, because that is evidence that I did not find conflict with the truth and my personal opinion.

Herlock, you dont have to be a snarling little cornered raccoon, seems to me you can conduct yourself at times with less spite and more accuracy.

And maybe no need to slide behind anyone for protection, you bait the bear you get what you paid for.

You persist in trying to make these discussions personal Michael. I haven’t insulted you and yet you’ve insulted me yet again. What I have said is that you have misused the evidence. You have misinterpreted it so that it falls in line with your theory and I’ve provided documented evidence from the time to back this up.

I’m willing to be accurate. I always try to be accurate. So I’ll give it one more go on one very specific piece of evidence. I’m quite prepared to answer any specific questions that you put (I always have) so it would be good if you could respond directly the the points made and not to spin off into tangents and anger.

This is the relevant point made by you:


“Only you would challenge a statement like "Lamb, Eagle and Issac Kozebrodski could not have returned together at around 1am to the club if Louis first arrived after 1." Lamb said around 1, Louis says he arrived at 1. So how does Eagle know before Liz has even been found that there is a need to go for help.”


So these are the facts that I’d like you to respond to Michael:

Louis said that the Baker’s clock said 1.00 and Lamb said that he saw Eagle at ‘around 1.00.’ So…

1. Do you accept that the clock that Lamb used to estimate his time by might not have been synchronised with the Baker’s clock. For example, that if the Bakers clock said 1.00 then Lamb’s clock might have said 12.55 or 12.56 or 12.57 or….?
2. Do you accept that when a person says ‘around 1.00’ that this is clearly an estimate and that it might actually have been 1.05 (or another time)? Or do you believe that ‘around 1.00’ means 1.00?

If you accept 2 (and I seriously can’t think why you wouldn’t) and ignoring for the moment how much time was spent at the club by Louis, then why would you object to a suggestion that Louis arrived at around 1.00 and Eagle found Lamb and returned at approximately 1.05 or 1.06?


Now the point that I just left out. Your opinion is that Louis would have spent 5 or 10 minutes at the yard. The majority of others who have given an opinion agree with me and Jeff and George and Frank that he would have only been there for a couple of minutes or less. Going on what was said to have occurred at the yard it’s difficult if not impossible to see how you could stretch out this time as you seek to do.

So the final question is 3. Do you accept that the only reason that you claim that the times are impossible is due to the extended time that you allot to Louis in the yard.

So what you are, in effect, saying is that the times are provably impossible purely due to your own disputed opinion as to the time spent in the yard.

[Michael W Richards]

There’s no point in trying to discus this case with you Michael. I read the above with my jaw open wondering how you could possibly justify any of the statements made within it. I could write yet another long rebuttal itemising your deliberate misuse of evidence, your constant use of the ‘one rule for one and one rule for another’ method, your constant jumping between accepting a margin for error and not accepting a margin for error (when it suits you), your clearly biased, defend-your-theory-at-all-costs ethos, you constant presumption of a superior understanding to everyone else, your refusal to address individual points rather than obscuring them in a forest of distractions, your complete lack of care that you can state things that aren’t true, your belief that repetition makes something true and your point blank refusal to ask yourself why not one single named human being accepts and agrees with your plot theory.

No debate can proceed with the tactics that you employ Michael. Until we have a situation when you actually decide to address the individual points and until we get a situation where you will actually answer questions that are specific and not just the kind of scattering that we see above, then no actual debate can occur. The problem is though that I don’t think that you want proper debate. You just want everyone to agree with you and you get angry when you look around and see that not one single poster on here now, or at any time in the past, has ever agreed with you on the plot theory but you still won’t even consider that others (and when I say ‘others’ I mean everyone of course) might just be right and you are wrong.

I suppose the thing that troubles me most about you is your suggestion that you post truths and I do not. I dont care if you agree with the idea or not, in fact it has very little to do with any of this area of study because its quite probable she shouldnt even be on record as a Jack the Ripper crime anyway. But I can say without equivocation...(just like your buddy Louis D ), that I may have posted errors here or there but never intentional untruths. And if your honest with yourself, you know you have.

Debate the points, use the evidence as it exists......I have always contended that I favour Spooner being off on his time by perhaps 5 minutes, so Ive also never said I wont accept "allowances"....I just dont accept your "allowing" Lamb, Johnson and Blackwell to be off by as much 15 minutes which is what your theory suggests. What I object to in an academic environment is for someone to propose something that has been modified by themselves as actual "evidence". Youve consistently tried to push Lambs time later and later to support your Louis D's arrival time at or just after 1. Why would you think anyone would consider your opinion and manufactured evidence as factual? Lamb is recorded as having 2 remarks relating to the time he first saw Eagle..."just before 1", and "around 1". Not 1:05 or 6 like you just posted recently. And Louis says he arrived "precisely" at 1. Thats facts. Thats the records. Use the information there, you are not permitted to just modify peoples times so you can post there is no difficulty reconciling times given. There most certainly IS difficulty using all the times as given, they dont work in a single timeline, and therefore they all cannot be accurate. You think the men who hosted the murder are the ones to believe, I believe its the authorities. If you categorize what many olf these exchanges of ours any differently you will be caught red handed in what I stated is your technique.

As for the rest of the tripe, as I said, If you stick to posting truthful and accurate times given by the witnesses...(who knows whether they were right about the times they gave or not, they gave times and you have nothing available to dispute what they said, and no license to just change their times to support your house of cards)...and not some "Herlocked" evidence of estimates made by you, many discussions with you could have been avoided. Something I would have appreciated greatly.

Ill just add that if anyone cares whether either of us have lied when presenting an argument, the posts are all there. Those records allow me to seem righteous when I make some comments, because that is evidence that I did not find conflict with the truth and my personal opinion.

Herlock, you dont have to be a snarling little cornered raccoon, seems to me you can conduct yourself at times with less spite and more accuracy.

And maybe no need to slide behind anyone for protection, you bait the bear you get what you paid for.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We are assuming that Louis was first to discover Stride. He believes he was first because on entering the yard, the yard was empty. Then surprise surprise the front room has a lot of people standing in it. Maybe somebody in that room had already seen the body and discreetly told somebody in the room. whilst having the discussion Louis turns up. No point discussing matters any more. Lets go for police. In fact the decision could have been made slightly before Louis enters the yard. That is why they are a bit ahead of the timing. Why wasn't this mentioned, because only a couple or few knew of this and it involved a person or persons in that front room.

Just a thought

NW

It’s not impossible that the killer had gone into the club NW and it’s not impossible that he could have told someone before Louis returned but for me we don’t need an explanation for why Louis left to look for a Constable 2 minutes or less after he’s arrived. Michael needs this to have been 5 or 10 minutes to allow him to say that Louis and Lamb’s time don’t tally up but we can see that he’s making a circular argument. Basically, he’s saying - ‘I know that there was a plot because Louis would have been there 5 or 10 minutes discussing the plot which means that his and Lamb’s times don’t fit.’

[New Waterloo]

We are assuming that Louis was first to discover Stride. He believes he was first because on entering the yard, the yard was empty. Then surprise surprise the front room has a lot of people standing in it. Maybe somebody in that room had already seen the body and discreetly told somebody in the room. whilst having the discussion Louis turns up. No point discussing matters any more. Lets go for police. In fact the decision could have been made slightly before Louis enters the yard. That is why they are a bit ahead of the timing. Why wasn't this mentioned, because only a couple or few knew of this and it involved a person or persons in that front room.

Just a thought

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do admire when you try and throw anything at an argument and stand back and state its be "rebutted". Some of the list below fall well within that category.....

I dont know where of if you ever learned what is required of people debating any academic issue, but the facts as they exist can only be used, and personal re-interpretation of documented times or events isnt permitted. Which means for you, you are not in any position to substitute given witness for times that you feel are incorrect, or more likely correct. If you use Louis, I have multiple witnesses that dispute his time...as given. If I use Spoooner, Kozebrodski and Heschberg and Lamb and Johnsons and Blacwells times, then you can cite Louis and other anarchist club affiliates and employees to counter those times. The problem for you is that the officials who gave times, Lamb, Johnson and Blackwell do not support and initial discovery of just after 1.

Are you comprehending this? There is no single timeline that can be made using just the club employees, spouses and residents that isnt disputed by other witnesses, the same can be said for the witnesses I prefer. This is the place to use judgement, reputation, reason, probabilities and potential conflicts to assess who among these witnesses would have no reason to fabricate, falsify, or withold anything because they have no personal stake in the outcome. Who should we believe. I believe in the official witnesses, you believe the men who ran the club that Stride is killed at.

ALL your witnesses fall into that category. Louis, Morris, Mrs D and Lave are financially supported by the club that has a dead body found on its premises, all are in the business of anti establishment and revolutionary ideals, many will demonstrate their lack of respect for the authorities the next Spring when they attack the police with clubs. What law abiding people physically attack police? None.

And you use these anarchists statements to discredit statement of times by innocent non club witnesses, the police, and the medical authorities. I prefer to use the witnesses that I feel are unencumbered by a connection to a livelihood or housing that may be forfeited by the police if the club is suspected of being the place where the killer of this woman came from.

And funny enough, it is ONLY the men at the club that would have the geographical access to Liz during that last 20 minutes. So, the concerns I suggest are real.

I can quote people that state Louis was there at 20 or quarter to 1, and you can quote people that suggest Louis arrived after 1. But there are none of your witnesses who can explain away why a man charged with tracking his time in his profession said he saw Eagle just before or around 1 when Louis says he didnt arrive until 1. Proven incorrect by the way by virtue of Fanny Mortrimer at her door until 1. No-one arrived after she saw Leon.

There’s no point in trying to discus this case with you Michael. I read the above with my jaw open wondering how you could possibly justify any of the statements made within it. I could write yet another long rebuttal itemising your deliberate misuse of evidence, your constant use of the ‘one rule for one and one rule for another’ method, your constant jumping between accepting a margin for error and not accepting a margin for error (when it suits you), your clearly biased, defend-your-theory-at-all-costs ethos, you constant presumption of a superior understanding to everyone else, your refusal to address individual points rather than obscuring them in a forest of distractions, your complete lack of care that you can state things that aren’t true, your belief that repetition makes something true and your point blank refusal to ask yourself why not one single named human being accepts and agrees with your plot theory.

No debate can proceed with the tactics that you employ Michael. Until we have a situation when you actually decide to address the individual points and until we get a situation where you will actually answer questions that are specific and not just the kind of scattering that we see above, then no actual debate can occur. The problem is though that I don’t think that you want proper debate. You just want everyone to agree with you and you get angry when you look around and see that not one single poster on here now, or at any time in the past, has ever agreed with you on the plot theory but you still won’t even consider that others (and when I say ‘others’ I mean everyone of course) might just be right and you are wrong.

[Michael W Richards]

I do admire when you try and throw anything at an argument and stand back and state its be "rebutted". Some of the list below fall well within that category.....

Diemschitz - 1.00 (Steward of Club, resident of the premises where a dead woman is found. Biased)

Mrs Diemschitz - 1.00 (Wife of the steward of the club, also a resident .Biased)

Minsky - 1.00 (Hardly relevant)

Mila - 1.00 (Hardly relevant)

Eagle - 1.00 (twenty minutes after returning at 12.40) (Speaker at the club and on its payroll, was not seen arriving nor does he validate Lave being there too at that same time. Biased)


Gilleman - 1.00 (informed Eagle twenty minutes after he’d returned at 12.40) (Can you post Gilemans quote please)

Brown - 1.00 (heard the men calling for a Constable after he’d returned home and finished eating) (Misidentified the young couple, so not a cracker witness)

Lamb 1.00 (Met Eagle at ‘around 1.00’ which includes 1.05. Arrived 10 mins before Blackwell’s 1.16 so that 1.06) (Almost 1 and around 1 categorically cannot be interpreted to have actually meant 5 minutes after 1, even you should know that. And he said he was 10 minutes before the first medical man is on scene, and Blackwell is not the first medical man there. And Johnson says he arrived at 1:10. If you would be so kind and use the times given by the witness, not your estimate of their actual correctness. I think we would all like to know what the witness actually said, not whether Herlock thinks they were correct)

Fanny - 1.00 (hears a horse and cart at exactly the time that Louis said he’d returned on a horse and cart) (HEARS a cart and horse...and go ahead and you use that to authenticate Louis on the cart and Horse? What if she thought she heard a dog, shall we then assume Lassie was outside)

Johnson - 1.00 (called at a few minutes past 1.00 tying up nicely with the Constable being sent for him not long after 1.05 when he arrived with Lamb) (Johnson was called after 1, after Eagle left the site to go notify the station, and he arrived at 1:10. This witness does not support your claim.)

Spooner - 1.00 (arrived at the yard 5 mins before Lamb - he was with Louis so this ties up) (Spooner said more that that, didnt he? He said he thought that was around 25 to 1....a full 25 minutes before Louis supposedly first arrives. This witness supports the opposite of what you claim, and is within 5 minutes of his estimate of the time Issac and Hescheberg learn of the body)

You have Kozebrodsky who estimated time (which we can’t evaluate how he arrived at it) 12.45 - Jeff has shown us how human beings can easily estimate periods of time incorrectly. (All respect to Jeff, but he has no idea whether Issac knew exactly what time it was based on a clock in the club, and he was interviewed and made that statement within the hour. As for whether people can estimate times, they sure can if they have a source to take a baseline from)


And Heschberg who said “around 12.45 I should think.’ (So another unknown) and a not very confident one at that. ("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." From inside the club, which had a clock available for all to see, being a hall that held timed events.)

I dont know where of if you ever learned what is required of people debating any academic issue, but the facts as they exist can only be used, and personal re-interpretation of documented times or events isnt permitted. Which means for you, you are not in any position to substitute given witness for times that you feel are incorrect, or more likely correct. If you use Louis, I have multiple witnesses that dispute his time...as given. If I use Spoooner, Kozebrodski and Heschberg and Lamb and Johnsons and Blacwells times, then you can cite Louis and other anarchist club affiliates and employees to counter those times. The problem for you is that the officials who gave times, Lamb, Johnson and Blackwell do not support and initial discovery of just after 1.

Are you comprehending this? There is no single timeline that can be made using just the club employees, spouses and residents that isnt disputed by other witnesses, the same can be said for the witnesses I prefer. This is the place to use judgement, reputation, reason, probabilities and potential conflicts to assess who among these witnesses would have no reason to fabricate, falsify, or withold anything because they have no personal stake in the outcome. Who should we believe. I believe in the official witnesses, you believe the men who ran the club that Stride is killed at.

ALL your witnesses fall into that category. Louis, Morris, Mrs D and Lave are financially supported by the club that has a dead body found on its premises, all are in the business of anti establishment and revolutionary ideals, many will demonstrate their lack of respect for the authorities the next Spring when they attack the police with clubs. What law abiding people physically attack police? None.

And you use these anarchists statements to discredit statement of times by innocent non club witnesses, the police, and the medical authorities. I prefer to use the witnesses that I feel are unencumbered by a connection to a livelihood or housing that may be forfeited by the police if the club is suspected of being the place where the killer of this woman came from.

And funny enough, it is ONLY the men at the club that would have the geographical access to Liz during that last 20 minutes. So, the concerns I suggest are real.

I can quote people that state Louis was there at 20 or quarter to 1, and you can quote people that suggest Louis arrived after 1. But there are none of your witnesses who can explain away why a man charged with tracking his time in his profession said he saw Eagle just before or around 1 when Louis says he didnt arrive until 1. Proven incorrect by the way by virtue of Fanny Mortrimer at her door until 1. No-one arrived after she saw Leon.