Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

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

  • Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

    Disproving a Berner Street plot is hardly difficult (it’s already been done) but I thought that I’d put the case against it all into one thread as there are already threads focused on proving all manner of strange things. In a series of minor events in Berner Street involving fallible human beings relying on memory and clocks and watches (that we have no way of checking) it would be more surprising if errors hadn’t occurred but some seem to be of the opinion that we should have been left with a perfectly coherent, precise timetable of events. Life just isn’t like that and if we start out thinking like that then we will be overrun with plots and mysteries. If someone estimates a time certain people on here believe that we should work with that time just because it’s the one quoted. A recent poll on here showed that no one agrees with this approach. I prefer to ask - how did the witness come by that time? - if he saw a clock then when did they last see if? How long was it between him seeing the clock and being asked to recall the time? How did the time by that clock compare with the times by other clocks? - What were the conditions under which he was operating (stressful, not stressful, drunk, sober, preoccupied or not?) These questions can’t usually be answered but they can all contribute in some ways to the times and periods of time that were given. Every single time or estimation of a period of time has to be allowed a margin for error; a potential for inaccuracy. No investigation can proceed honestly without this. I also think that it should be remembered that the majority of witnesses tell the truth as they saw it.

    And yet we do have a ‘plot’ to deal with. Roughly it’s this…


    That Louis Diemschitz discovered the body earlier than he claimed (sometime around 12.30) and he and the other members feared that the police might hold them responsible for playing host to a ripper murder and close down the club, so they decided over a very few minutes in that yard that they could find a false witness who would claim that he’d seen the woman being attacked and that the killer had called out an anti-Semitic insult (Lipski) proving that the killer wasn’t Jewish and therefore he wasn’t a club member. (Still on their premises though)


    Where to start?
    • The whole plot revolves around the use of the word ‘Lipski’ which could only have been used by a Gentile as an insult to a Jew (proving the killer a Gentile)…couldn’t it?
    Actually, not necessarily. Debra Arif found an example of Lipski clearly being used as an insult by one Jew to another, so we have to ask ourselves what are the chances of her finding in print the only example of this that ever occurred? The likelihood must be vanishingly small…therefore it’s possible, even likely that this was an insult used by Gentiles and Jews. Yes, perhaps more often by Gentiles toward Jews, but not all one way traffic, so this makes it a very tenuous, unreliable (and possibly ineffective) way of creating a non-Jewish killer when it wouldn’t have been even remotely difficult to falsely point to a Gentile killer. Was it beyond the grasp of all of those club members to have the witness claim that BS man shouted “And what are you looking at you Jewish b*****d”? Or that he could have used some of the more well known anti-Jewish insults that we’re all familiar with? It’s not difficult stuff is it? No ambiguity at all. Why would anyone use the alleged ‘Lipski method’ rather than the one I’ve just mentioned? If it was common knowledge at the time that this insult was indeed used to some extent by Jews then the plot crumbles on this point alone. I struggle to trust any explanation which relies on the stupidity of those involved at the time which is what is required for us to believe in this ‘plot’. They would have had to have been unbelievably stupid skin to group madness to have gone with this plan over much more efficient, easier to think of, much less likely to fail ones; some of which I’ve suggested on here (and no doubt more that others could suggest)

    The ‘suspicion’ that feeds the plot is based mainly around 6 witnesses. Louis Diemschitz, Abraham Heschberg, Isaac Kozebrodski, Edward Spooner, Israel Schwartz and Fanny Mortimer.
    • Let’s begin with Diemschitz shall we? For some bizarre reason it’s somehow been considered a sign of guilt or suspicion by some that he used the word ‘exactly 1.00’ when describing the time that he got back in his cart. Yes, hard to believe isn’t it? He was quite clear in what he meant…that he took the time 1.00 from the Bakers Clock and then drove his cart from there to the yard (a journey of less than a minute btw) So did he use it or did it come from the reporter? We have no way of knowing but we do know that English wasn’t his first language. What we do know is that to question Diemschitz honesty on this point is pedantry of the worst kind; the kind that’s done deliberately to create a point. Everything that Diemschitz said was perfectly reasonable and not even remotely suspect.
    • Now let’s remind ourselves what one of Michael’s ‘star witnesses’ Abraham Heschberg said and we can assess how confident he sounded and how reliable he might have been.

    “It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown.”


    “About” and “I should think.” Not exactly Mr Confident is he? So we can say with certainty that this man was estimating (what clock did he see last, when did he see it, how accurate was it, how was it compared to other clocks and how good was Heschberg at estimating periods of time?) So we have no way of knowing when he last saw a clock but it certainly wasn’t immediately prior to finding out about the murder or he’d have been confident of the time. He also supposedly heard a policeman’s whistle blown a full 20 minutes before the police actually became aware of the murder; it’s one thing to claim that witnesses were aware of the murder before 1.00 but it’s a whole different issue to suggest that the police did too? Does that seem likely? Or was he simply and honestly mistaken; arriving after the police had been made aware of the murder and after a whistle had been blown…after 1.00 when the body was undoubtedly discovered. I’d suggest that Heschberg shouldn’t rate very highly on anyone’s reliability scale when it comes to timing.


    - Isaac Kozebrodski like Heschberg also estimated his time so we know that he hadn’t seen a clock immediately prior to Diemschitz entering the club, so he had to think back to whenever he’d last seen a clock and then estimated a period of time (and as Jeff has explained, this is something that human beings are notoriously bad at - we’ve all at times been shockingly far out when estimating a previous of time). We also know that Isaac had been in that club for 6 hours by the time that the body had been found so it’s worth wondering if he’d been drinking and how heavily (and no, before comments are made I’m not trying to imagine that he was drunk, he may not have touched a drop)? Whatever was the case he was simply wrong. There’s no point in someone saying “there was probably a clock in the club” either. I’ve no doubt that there was but when did Koz last see it…that’s the point? We can’t assume that wherever he was sitting in the club the clock in his view. We know roughly what time Diemschitz and he ran shouting murder thanks to Brown (around 1.00). If we could ask Koz do we think that he’d have said “yeah, after Louis found the body we stood around chatting for 15 minutes before someone came up with the idea of going for a Constable?” After the finding of the body, with all of the ensuing excitement, I’d suggest that finding out and logging an accurate time would have been the last thing on witnesses minds leaving them to rely on fallible memory and fallible judgment of periods of time.

    Could there be weaker witnesses to build a plot around than these two? Actually yes there could…step forward Edward Spooner. How can anyone take seriously a witness that gave 2 different times that he supposedly arrived at the yard in the same piece of testimony is beyond comprehension? Yet he’s used as one of Michael’s foundation stones of this ‘plot’. And I really do have to stress this point - Spooner gives two different estimations of the time that he arrived at the yard but Michael turns a repeated blind eye to one to focus every single time on the one that he feels supports his plot.

    Spooner said:

    On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public- house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman. We had left a public- house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police." They ran as far as Grove- street, and then turned back. I stopped them and asked what was the matter, and they replied that a woman had been murdered. I thereupon proceeded down Berner-street and into Dutfield's-yard, adjoining the International Workmen's Club-house, and there saw a woman lying just inside the gate.

    And..

    “I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard.”


    And..

    I stood by the side of the body for four or five minutes, until the last witness (PC Lamb) arrived.

    So where to start with Spooner’s waffle? If he estimated that he arrived at the yard at 12.35 then he must have first seen Diemschitz and Kozebrodski pass between 12.30 and 12.35. A screamingly obvious question then has to be - how many people, when saying that x occurred at location y at say 12.32, would have claimed to have been at y between 12.30 and 1.00? It’s bizarre to give such a pointlessly wide range of times when the event occurred so closely to the first time mentioned. This hardly hints at reliability does it?

    Secondly, if the two men passed him at just after 12.30 how come Koz didn’t get to PC Lamb with Eagle until sometime around 1.00? Did they stop off for a bag of chips and a chat on the way? It’s abject nonsense.

    Then, the point that Michael avoids, Spooner even contradicts his own claim of arriving at the yard at 12.35 by claiming to have arrived at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb got there. Will any plot supporter stand up and suggest therefore that PC Lamb arrived at the yard at 12.40 or anywhere remotely near to it? Even I doubt that anyone would go that far and little surprises me these days. But this estimation at least has a solid basis (unlike the 12.35) in that he actually saw PC Lamb arrive and we know that Lamb arrived sometime around 1.00 (probably around 5 minutes after Diemschitz got back) - so Spooner arrived around 5 minutes before him and nowhere near to 12.35 (at which time Liz Stride was very much alive)

    Then we have the highly inconvenient James Brown who heard men shouting murder at around 1.00 and certainly nowhere near to 12.35 because he gives a reasonably detailed description of what he’d done that night. He’d been to fetch his supper, returned home and had almost finished eating it when he heard the men shouting ‘murder!’ Which means that he heard the men sometime close to 1.00. Spooner’s 12.35 estimate is drivel. A blatant error that shouldn’t be given a second thought.

    So Spooner can safely be put alongside…


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Lamb who said that he saw Eagle at around 1.00.

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

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

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

    Dr. Blackwell who followed on and arrived at 1.16.


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


    And let’s remember. The police would have interviewed all the club members plus the staff plus the locals and not just the few that I’ve mentioned above. So how many would that have been, 40, 50, more, who knows? They had far more information than we are left with and therefore a bigger, clearer picture to make an assessment from and they very obviously accepted the 1.00 discovery time without question and could see that it made no sense to dismiss a whole raft of witnesses in favour of two whose estimated times didn’t fit. That would be silly wouldn’t it? The police would never solve anything if they adopted that approach. So why does that approach get adopted by some on here? Yes, that was a rhetorical question.
    • Then of course we get the Schwartz/ Mortimer nonsense. Of course Mortimer is selected as the paragon of truth but with absolutely no support for it. She said that she was on her doorstep nearly the whole time between 12.30 and 1.00. So not all of the time. She also reckoned that she went onto her doorstep at around 12.45 immediately after hearing a Constable pass. The obvious problem of course is that PC Smith said that he passed 10 minutes or more before that so we have no way of knowing exactly when she was or wasn’t on her doorstep. So what possible use is Fanny? Her testimony is close to useless but she is used to try and dismiss Schwartz, yet equal weight should be given to the suggestion that Schwartz points to her not being on her doorstep at 12.45 because he couldn’t have failed to have seen her had she been there (and certainly not at the time of the incident) The Schwartz incident could only have taken a few seconds to play out so how can it be considered somehow ‘not believable’ that she couldn’t have seen it too or even heard it? Could it get sillier? We can’t even be sure how accurate Schwartz timing was. Perhaps he got it wrong and he’d passed at 12.30 or before? Perhaps she went onto her doorstep at 12.45 but the incident had occurred at 12.43? If she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed then we would have to assume that she’d gone back inside by 12.40 when Eagle returned as she hadn’t seen him and he hadn’t seen her? Nothing can be inferred from these two statements but of course a plot can easily be woven. You can’t dismiss an events that took a very few seconds by using two estimations who accuracy we are in no position to judge.

    Remember Halse and Long? Both said that they’d passed along Goulston Street at 2.20 and yet they didn’t see each other. If we use the plot supporters Schwartz/ Mortimer logic then either Long or Halse was lying. In the real world we accept that Long and Halse simply missed each other…like Schwartz and Mortimer. It’s very simple.

    If we took snapshots of life anywhere in the world and at any time we would see millions of occasions where, in small areas, several people passed but they all managed, purely by chance, not to see or hear each other. It’s happens all of the time, every minute of the day everywhere; it’s just that it doesn’t get noticed, recorded or reported. It’s only when this happens at a location where a murder occurred and we look back on it that chins gets scratched and people say with incredulity “how could this happen?” Or, “it’s a bit of an amazing coincidence isn’t it?” Actually no, there’s nothing remotely remarkable about it. It happens all the time. Nothing that happened in Bucks Row was mysterious with the exception of the killers identity and whether or not he was the ripper?

    These witnesses don’t prove or support a plot. We have no evidence of dishonesty but we certainly have evidence of entirely understandable error; the kind that occur in most criminal cases. Why do some believe that errors can’t occur though? Only that they must point to some dark undercurrent. At least ELEVEN witnesses support a 1.00 discovery time whilst TWO don’t. The police accepted a 1.00 discovery time and they interviewed everyone. Simple. Game over.


    So how is the plot so far? Well the witnesses are feeble at best and in a very tiny minority and everything points to Stride’s body being found when Diemschitz said that he found it. Around 1.00. On we go…

    When the body is found, and in very a short space of time, all members/plotters are of one mind with no dissenters. Getting the killer off the streets is unimportant to them no matter what risks their wives, mothers, daughters and girlfriends might have faced by having a homicidal maniac on the streets. Forget them, the club came first. Later that night the police erased a cryptic piece of graffito hidden away in a doorway because they feared a Jewish backlash. Would they have thought that the Jews would have reacted with more calm if they had decided to close down their club for such a ridiculous reason? Who could believe that?

    And that must have been some super-efficient brainstorming session by the way…30 or so members standing in a yard next to a woman with her throat cut, all put on the spot and not one of them refused to cooperate. Every single member and member of staff stood together and agreed 100% on the course of action, with no dissenters. Not one said that they want no part in this insanely risky idea. Not one said that it’s more important that a madman is taken off the streets. Not one suggested any one of the childishly obvious and better alternative plans. And remember, they must have discussed what to do after someone had the bright spark about the club being closed, then someone comes up with this weird planted witness plot, then everyone present has to agree and either play their part or keep silent…all in the space of what, 20 minutes or so?! How can anyone believe that for a single second? Ok. So how do they point the police away from a Jewish killer and away from the club. I can think of a few very easy, very obvious ways… no doubt we could all come up with more:
    1. They move the body a few doors away and then wash away the blood. The police would have seen that the body had been moved of course but they couldn’t have connected it to the club. No need to point to the killer as a gentile. Job done? Nope….too simple.
    2. Diemschitz could have said that when he arrived a man ran out of the gates carrying a knife. He was blond and with a light moustache so clearly European. He shouted at Diemschitz in a local accent before running away. Job done? Nope….too simple.
    3. They wrap the body and chuck it onto Diemschitz cart and dump it somewhere while Mrs D and Mila washed away the blood. No need to point to the killer as a gentile. Job done? Nope….too simple.
    4. They could have got Eagle (someone else who was ‘in on it’) to say that as he arrived back he disturbed a guy standing over the body with a knife. He tackled him with the man saying “get out of my way you Jewish b*****d!” before fleeing. Killer a non-Jew. Job done? Nope…too simple.
    5. They could have had any member exiting the club to use the outside loo ‘seeing’ a man standing over the body. Blonde, light moustache etc. Job done. Nope…too simple.

    No, apparently they decided to get someone to lie about being in Berner Street and who would say they they’d seen the woman being attacked. This person would claim that the killer used an anti-Semitic insult which would prove that he was a Gentile (despite the fact that we have evidence that Jews also used this insult to fellow Jews too of course and that more reliable insults could have been employed) So on the spot they were totally confident that they could find a willing dupe? How they alighted on the non-English speaking Schwartz as the ‘perfect’ choice is anyone’s guess?

    The first slip up was that they clearly neglected to inform Heschberg and Kozebrodski of the amended discovery time. Louis actually went for a Constable with Koz and so spent extra time with him but the fool still forgot to say:

    “Now don’t forget Isaac, I found the body at 1.00 ok, and not at 12.40…so make sure that’s what you tell the police or we’ll all be in deep s***t.”

    Doh!

    And how careless were these plotters of the risks of lying to the police? The potential problems would have been apparent to anyone:

    What if no one was willing to be the false witness? Would you have said yes?

    What if someone had seen Diemschitz return on his cart earlier than he’d claimed?

    What if someone had been looking out of their window or indeed standing on their doorstep for the whole time between 12.30 and 1.00 and saw nothing?

    What if someone had come forward and said that they’d seen Schwartz elsewhere at 12.45?

    What if someone had actually seen Stride being attacked but by a man that looked nothing like BS man?

    What if someone broke ranks and blabbed to the police? (Perhaps even hoping for financial gain?)


    And they don’t even remember to tell their false witness/ tame interpreter that it was the attacker who needed a knife in his hand and not some unconnected bystander.

    Doh!


    And all of this because someone wishes to keep Jacob Isenschmidt in the game as a killer. It’s surprisingly easy it is to ‘find’ a plot when you really need one and look hard enough. How could anyone have decided to proceed with such a needless, useless, risky plot simply to prevent some entirely unlikely consequence and then forget to tell everyone about it? Whichever way we look at it this plot has more holes than our Swiss butcher’s favourite cheese. There was categorically no plot. How has this gone on so long? The subject as a whole suffers for it.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

  • #2
    Police vs Press


    Much is made of the difference in the 2 versions of Schwartz story. Recently on here it’s been claimed that The Star version was the more likely than the police version but this makes little sense. Context is all important.


    Swanson’s synthesis of the 30th September LSPS interview - written on Oct 19th

    “12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [i.e. Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at that hour on turning into Berner St from Commercial Road & had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road ‘Lipski’ & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far. Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the Mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man who threw the woman down: – age about 30, height 5 ft. 5 in., complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket & trousers, black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands. Second man, age 35, height 5 ft. 11 in., complexion fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.”


    The Star, October 1st.

    “Information which may be important was given to the Leman Street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch Lane. The reporter’s Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner’s English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man’s story was retold just as he had given it to the police. It is, in fact, to the effect that he saw the whole thing. It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner Street to others in Backchurch Lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner Street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man’s hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings. He described the man with the woman as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society. The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man’s statement is not wholly accepted.”


    Leman Street Station interview - This took place under police conditions with Schwartz fully prepared to talk and with a volunteer interpreter present. The Police had one aim - to catch the killer, so they had every incentive to get an accurate version of events. Schwartz would also have been aware that lying to the police could have consequences.

    The Star interview - Schwartz was taken by surprise by a reporter and someone was found at random for interpreting duties and the interview took place in a house with whatever distractions there might have been. The interviewer was a reporter whose aim was also an exciting story that would help sell newspapers; he wasn’t trying to catch a killer; he was under no pressure apart from earning a living. Any discrepancies later pointed out could be put down to the language barrier so they were no real comebacks if his story had been proven inaccurate. And wouldn’t The Star have been quite happy to show the police in a poor light by apparently ‘uncovering’ things that the police had missed?


    So two interviews, under different circumstances and conditions with different motivations going on.


    So immediately we have the very obvious issue of two interpreters. The person that The Star used was already at the scene and so might simply have been the best available at the time which introduces an element of doubt about how competent he was. How good was his Hungarian? How good was his English? Perhaps he had very basic language skills? Enough to get by but no more maybe? The potential difficulties are obvious.

    So…Schwartz story:

    In neither does Schwartz say how far behind BS man he was when he accosted Stride(?) but as the distance from Commercial Road was short it can only have been a very few seconds before he arrived at a position where he decided to cross the street to avoid the confrontation.

    Then in the LS version BS ‘pulls’ Stride into the street but in The Star he ‘pushes’ Stride into the yard. This again could be down to interpretation and the words ‘push’ and ‘pull.’ If the Star interpreter was less clear than the LS interpreter was, it’s understandable that they might have assumed that he meant that BS man ‘pushed’ her into the yard as the body was actually found inside the gates and pushing would have got her to the spot. Or there might have been an element of push and pull that Schwartz only saw part of if he wasn’t actually staring at the couple and instead he was looking in glances, trying to make his interest look less obvious to BS man. These are far more likely explanations than Schwartz giving two conflicting versions of the same event.

    In the LS version after crossing the street he sees the second man lighting his pipe although he doesn’t specifically state which side of the street the second man was on. But when BS man calls out ‘Lipski’ he does so at the man on the ‘opposite side’ of the road - therefore the same side that Schwartz had crossed to. The statement also makes the assumption that BS man directed his ‘Lipski’ at Pipeman and if Pipeman wasn’t on the same side as Schwartz there would have been no uncertainty involved. So Schwartz and Pipeman were both on the opposite side of the road to the club.

    Then we get to the greater discrepancies. In The Star version Schwartz crosses the road and then looked back after hearing a quarrel. He then said “just as he stepped from the kerb a second man…” So this implies that Schwartz was about to cross back so that he could head home along Fairclough Street. It’s then that he supposedly sees the second man coming out of the Lord Nelson pub unlike the LS version which has the man on the other side of the street. This second man then approaches BS man as if he’s going to intervene and Schwartz said that the man had a knife. Wouldn’t it be less likely that Pipeman would have been exiting the Lord Nelson pub a full 45 minutes after closing time? It’s difficult to reconcile the discrepancy which claims that Pipeman had a knife and that he was on the same side of street as BS man and that he advanced toward him though. So what’s the explanation? Maybe he told The Star’s interpreter that Pipeman was ‘across from the pub,’ or that he was ‘opposite the pub,’ but it was translated as ‘outside the pub’ therefore on the same side as the club?

    -So did Schwartz change his story, or embellish it for The Star reporter or did he give a false version to the police but the truth to The Star?

    I see no reason why he’d knowingly have given an inaccurate story to the police if he was willing to give a more ‘accurate’ version to the Press and it’s not difficult to imagine how these discrepancies might have happened when we consider the situation.

    If Schwartz had intended to go to the police with a lie then you would assume that this wasn’t an evolving lie. He’d have had his story sorted before he got there so how could he have got it wrong requiring amendment's a short time later when talking to The Star? Or should we ask - how could the plotter’s tame interpreter have made these supposed errors? And let’s face it, this isn’t a complex story is it? He walks along a street behind a man who confronts a woman. He crosses the street to avoid them and sees a man lighting his pipe. The first man calls out Lipski in their direction and then the both leave the scene. How could he have missed out the knife? How could he have put the guy with the knife (Pipeman) on the other side of the road?

    It’s not difficult to see which of the two is likeliest to be the inaccurate version via a possible combination poor translation and a bit of Press ‘sexing up,’ whether Schwartz was complicit in this or not.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

    Comment


    • #3
      Lave


      Eagle and Lave are often cited as confirmation of duplicity. Why didn’t they see each other? Eagle’s story is consistently told but what about Lave? Andrew has recently said that ‘Schwartz believers’ are reluctant to discuss Lave. I’m not. Let’s look at what we have.


      Daily News - He was in the yard and street from 12.30-12.40.

      Evening News - He was in the yard and street from 12.30-1.00.

      Evening Standard - He was in the yard and street from 12.30-12.40.

      Morning Advertiser - He was in the yard and street 20 minutes before the body was found for 5 minutes or more.

      The Times - He was in the yard and street 20 minutes before the body was found.

      Woodford Times - He was in the yard and street 20 minutes before the body was found and for around 5 minutes.


      So was he in the yard and street for 30 minutes, 10 minutes or 5 minutes? Great, another top drawer witness! Take your pick as to how long he might have been out there. And to when he went out there for that matter. Or did he simply get his time wrong? Naturally ‘Schwartz deniers’ (sorry, couldn’t resist it - and no, it’s not a name that I intend to continue with…tempting thought it is) will go for the longer time. Lave and Eagle either just missed each other or, when Eagle returned Lave had walked into the street and maybe a few yards toward Fairclough Street before strolling back. It was dark and Eagle just didn’t notice him. Simple. No Miss Marple required.


      Isn’t it noticeable though that the witnesses most often quoted to support plots and mysteries are always the flakiest
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

      Comment


      • #4
        ‘Not Very Loudly.’


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


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


        Time to move on from this non-point
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

        Comment


        • #5
          Goldstein The Nobody

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

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

          Comment


          • #6
            A few of points made by Michael that I want to respond to.


            Michael said - “Ive been accused of insisting that the times are absolutely accurate as stated, which is false, I have insisted only that the times as they are given are not to be subjectively "corrected" in order to make some stories work.”

            Me - So what is actually being said is - ‘I don’t assume that stated times are accurate but we shouldn’t consider their possible inaccuracy if it allows for an interpretation of events that I don’t agree with. And it’s me that will be the judge of any ‘motive’ behind any allowance for a margin for error.’

            Is this a fair approach? Every single time in this case should be allowed a margin for error. Even if someone had a watch or looked at a clock. The fact that clocks weren’t all perfectly synchronised has to be accepted too.

            And does Michael actually really accept that we can’t assume that times cannot be assumed accurate? Apparently not because he says this:


            “There would be far less confusion if people were to start using the times by witnesses as the witness gave them.”


            So we’re back to assuming that given times are accurate.

            No one take this kind of thinking seriously as the poll on here showed; with everyone but one accepting that we have to allow margins for error.

            ////////////////////////////////////


            Michael - Now, there is a small snippet by Lamb that many also don't factor into their own investigation..."I was able to close the gates without disturbing the body. I put a constable at the gate and told him not to let any one in or out. I then entered the club and, starting from the front door, examined the place. I turned my light on and had a look at the different persons there, and examined a number of their hands and also their clothing to see if I could detect any marks of blood. I did not take up each one's hand. I should say there were from 15 to 20 persons in the club-room on the ground floor. I then went into every room, including the one in which there was a stage, and I went behind it. A person was there who informed me he was the steward." Now, he said this about the yard when he arrived..."How many people were there in the yard? Witness. - I should think 20 or 30. Some of that number had followed me in."

            So 20 -30 people in the yard, and he estimates another 15-20 on the ground floor when he enters the club. At just after 1am? Thats a lot more people than we are led to believe were there at that time, and it is on the ground floor of the club, inside, that he meets Louis. So Louis is now inside when everyone else is outside?


            Me - Two estimations given to two different people added together by Michael to imply a larger figure.

            Diemschitz, when asked, said that there were 20-30 in the yard but some of that number had come inside when Louis himself had. These were the 15-20 that Lamb counted. So this meant that in total there were around 30 members present in the club and in the yard. Is there any source that corroborated this figure with? Yes. William Wess, in his statement, said that the bulk of the members left at 11.30 but:

            “From twenty to thirty members remained, some staying in the lecture-room and the others going downstairs. Of those upstairs a few continued the discussion, while the rest were singing. The windows of the lecture-room were partly open”

            Under very difficult circumstances Lamb made a very decent estimate of the people that were there. I imagine that people were moving around talking about what went on. All perfectly normal behaviour in these circumstances. And how is Diemschitz being inside in any way strange? Probably having a brandy to calm his nerves after finding a body then running around the streets.

            /////////////////////////


            Michael - “Pc Lamb, Johnson and Mortimer do not "support" Diemshutz, bizarre that you have interpreted the information in such a convoluted way.

            1. Louis stated he arrived at 1am

            2. PC Lamb says he saw Eagle looking for help "just before 1am". Seeing the problem yet?”

            Me - Yes, I can see the problem straight away; we all can. A highly selective use of that quote about Lamb. You always use the only quote that mentions ‘before 1.00.’ Why is that? Why do you ignore all of the others and zero in on this one? Let’s look:

            The Telegraph: Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road

            Daily News: At about one o'clock on Sunday morning last I was in Commercial-road between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running to me, shouting

            East London Advertiser: on Sunday morning when he was in Commercial-road, at about 1 o'clock

            Morning Advertiser: About one o'clock on Sunday morning last I was in Commercial-road

            The Times: About 1 o'clock, as near as I can tell, on Sunday morning


            And let’s remind ourselves….PC Lamb didn’t have a watch.

            But on it goes…cherrypicking…nothing less.

            Then…

            Michael - Once again, if Lamb arrived just before or at 1, it is well known that a beat cop would regularly check time sources on his beat, then it is impossible for Louis to have arrived at that same time.

            Me - Yet another example of this misuse of evidence being repeated because it serves a purpose. Fact - by the majority of quotes Lamb said ‘about 1.00,’ which means just before, exactly 1.00, or just after. Fact - He was estimating because he had no watch. Fact - we have no way of knowing how he estimated that time (specifically by what clock) Fact - as an estimation it could have been just before or just after 1.00 by that specific source. Fact - we can’t assume that he and Louis used the same clock. Fact - if they used different clocks we cannot assume that they were synchronised.

            Therefore - fact - Louis and Lamb can in no way be said to contradict each other as Louis was quoting a clock that he saw that said 1.00 whilst Lamb was estimating a time from an unknown source. You can’t dismiss a given time (of unknown accuracy) with an estimation of a time.

            ​//////////////////////


            Michael - “3. Fanny Mortimer saw nothing on the street for 12:45, we dont know whether she was inside or outside at the time, but she reported nothing for that time.”

            Me - Then how can her ‘reporting nothing’ be relevant? She could have been indoors. Fanny is useless as a witness because we don’t know when she was on her doorstep and when she was indoors.

            ////////////////////

            Michael - “4. Fanny saw Leon at 12:55-12.56”

            Me - No. We don’t know what time she saw Goldstein. No times are ever mentioned.

            ///////////////////

            Michael - “5. Issac Kozebrodski said "About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard ." Mr Heschberg 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. 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 ". Spooner said "We had left a public- house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police." Those 3 statements suggest an approximate discovery time around 12:40-12:45am. This isnt disputable, Im not sure why you are trying to do so anyway.”

            Me - Heschberg and Koz were estimating. Apparently Heschberg heard a psychic policeman blow his whistle before they knew about the murder. And yet again you quote 12.35 for Spooner but completely ignore the fact that he said that he’d arrived 5 minutes before lamb did. Which takes him to just after 1.00. More evidential cherrypicking.

            Question - if Kozebrodski found out about the body from Louis at 12.40 (as he claimed) how did they manage to jog up and down Fairclough Street and arrive back with Spooner in tow at 12.35. Why are you selective as to which timing discrepancies bother you and which don’t?

            ////////////////

            Michael - I dont believe the suggestion was that he saw Liz, only that based on his statement to the press he should have...he claimed that he had gone into Dutfield's Yard at 12.40am to get a breath of fresh air: "So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions."

            He doesnt see Eagle, who said he arrived at 12:40, and apparently he didnt see Israel or BSM or Liz at 12:45 outside on the street. You know if people used the information available some of us wouldnt have to constantly post corrections about times and events the witnesses themselves gave.

            Me - The irony in the above can’t be lost on regular posters. I’ll re-post these versions of what Lave did:


            Daily News - He was in the yard and street from 12.30-12.40.

            Evening News - He was in the yard and street from 12.30-1.00.

            Evening Standard - He was in the yard and street from 12.30-12.40.

            Morning Advertiser - He was in the yard and street 20 minutes before the body was found for 5 minutes or more. (So 12.40-12.45)

            The Times - He was in the yard and street 20 minutes before the body was found.(So she went out at 12.40 but no mention of how long for)

            Woodford Times - He was in the yard and street 20 minutes before the body was found and for around 5 minutes. (So 12.40-12.45)


            If certain people abandoned the cherrypicking of evidence and viewed all of what’s available to us it’s hardly difficult to see how he could easily have missed Eagle (and vice versa)

            It’s a sad state of affairs when these obvious points need making.

            //////////////////////////


            It’s hard to believe that no matter how much has been written on the subject of an Inquest and its aims that the following claim can still be made..


            Michael - It is inconceivable that if Schwartz was believed as the Inquest was held he wouldnt be asked to make his statement there. His story involves the deceased and someone assaulting the deceased minutes before she is killed, it’s very germane to that proceeding if believed...or true. Yet, no sign of his statement in any format with the Inquest documentation.

            Me - We can easily discover the aims of an inquest by reading The Coroner’s Act of 1887, it tells us very clearly what information it wants:

            ‘who the deceased was, and how, and where the deceased came by his death, and if he came by his death by murder and manslaughter, the persons, if any, the jury find to have been guilty of such a murder or manslaughter, or of being accessories to the murder.’
            • Who the deceased was? - This means an actual identification. It doesn’t mean “yes, that’s the woman that I saw.’ It was meant for someone that knew the deceased and could confirm her identity as Elizabeth Stride - Isreal Schwartz was of no use on this.
            • Where the deceased came by his/her death? - This was for the Doctor to confirm that the body hadn’t been moved. That the victim died where he/she was discovered by Diemschitz - Israel Schwartz was of no use on this.
            • How the deceased died? - This is a medical question to be answered by the doctor. - Israel Schwartz was of no use on this.
            • The identity of the killer? - Schwartz couldn’t name BS man or state that he was the killer therefore he was of no use on this.
            • They also had to establish when the murder took place but this wasn’t the time of death. It was purely the day of the murder - Israel Schwartz could make no meaningful contribution to this.

            It also needs pointing out that it’s the coroner who decides who testified at an inquest and not the police.

            Therefore Israel Schwartz absolutely was not vital to an inquest. He might have been called for background info as did occur with other witnesses at inquests but he wasn't (we can often see witness and wonder why they their testimony was taken. Witnesses could also turn up of their own volition and volunteer to testify I believe) What we know for certain though is that Schwartz didn’t not testify because the police didn’t trust him (which Michael would know if he’d read David Orsam’s articles on the subject where I have taken much of my information from…based on his sourced and fully backed up research and not guesswork. David also makes several speculated suggestions as to why Schwartz didn’t appear at the inquest) How can it be said that the police didn’t trust Schwartz…

            His description of BS man was immediately circulated.

            Abberline’s November 1st reports states that through October the police had been searching for someone called Lipski.

            Swanson’s 19th October report for the Home Office shows no hint of doubt about Schwartz and Permanent Under Secretary Godfrey Lushington wrote that Swanson’s report ‘cast no doubt’ on the truth of Schwartz statement.

            Home Secretary Henry Matthew’s wrote on October 27th that Schwartz statement mentioning Lipski ‘seems to furnish a clue which ought to be followed up,’ and asking Abberline to prepare a report for him.

            On a copy of Swanson’s statement Godfrey Lushington wrote, comparing PC Smith’s evidence to Schwartz’s, ‘it is clearly more probable that the man whom Schwartz saw was the murderer.

            In the Police Gazette, October 19th there was a description of the man seen by Schwartz and on the same day the same description was recorded in Swanson’s report proving that this was a authorised description of the probable murderer (the man seen by Schwartz)

            Swanson also wrote a ‘Comparison of the descriptions given of the men who were observed near the scene at the time of the several murders’ which has two columns on the men seen by Schwartz.

            So very clearly the police took Schwartz seriously as a witness. All that we have in the way of evidence of dissent is the report in the Star of October 2nd but closer reading of it shows that it certainly doesn’t prove that the police disbelieved him. One possible explanation (and not the only one) is that some at Leman Street might have felt that the man that Schwartz saw wasn’t actually her killer. Abberline was based at Leman Street and he showed no sign of doubting Schwartz in November so the 2nd October newspaper story with no direct quote carries little or no weight.


            That the police as a whole took Schwartz seriously is a fact.











            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

            Comment


            • #7

              Isaac/ Isaacs/ Kozebrodski


              I think that we might have a misinterpretation going on here in regard to Kozebrodski. Firstly though, a point on the Isaac/Isaacs thing. Do we know how well Diemschitz knew Kozebrodski apart from the fact that they were both club members? Could Louis be expected to know all members intimately? I used to go in a pub where a guy who I’d known to some extent for 20 years used to call me Mac (instead of Mike) It happens. What if Diemschitz had always assumed that his name was Isaacs when Isaac was actually his first name and Koz never bothered correcting him - treating it as a nickname? Second suggestion, an error of reporting. His first name Isaac was reported as a surname, Isaacs?

              But my main point is about this:


              Now, Issac says he went out at the request OF Louis OR some other member”

              This has been used to create confusion about who did or didn’t go. All that it means is that Kozebrodski couldn’t recall whose initial idea it was to go. That he went with Diemschitz is beyond dispute but he couldn’t recall if it was Diemschitz who suggested it or whether some other member had said something like “someone should go and look for a Constable.”

              Why has this been turned into an issue? People sometimes get names wrong:


              Chas. Andrew Cross

              Alfred Malshaw

              Robert Baul

              Sargeant Baugham

              Lewis Dienischitz

              Julia Vanturney/ Van Turney

              And those are only from the inquest testimonies (The Telegraph)

              Kozebrodski is described as someone that spoke English imperfectly as other witness would probably also have done so this should be taken into consideration when we try and assess what he said or how he said it. .


              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

              Comment


              • #8


                If anyone wishes to persist in an earlier discovery time then they need to confront these questions. I’ll keep it to 16 but there are more of course.
                1. If Spooner arrived at the yard at 12.35 and also 5 minutes before Lamb, do they really believe that Lamb arrived at the yard at 12.40? And is it acceptable for Lamb to be 20 minutes out but not for other witnesses?
                2. If Diemschitz and Kozebrodski went for a Constable some time just after 12.40 (as claimed by Koz) how did they manage to get back to the yard at 12.35 with Spooner in tow (as per Spooner)? Or are timing errors ok when it’s suits?
                3. What was Koz doing in the 25 or 30 minutes or so between him returning with Diemschitz (at 12.35 according to Spooner) and meeting up with Eagle and Lamb at around 1.00?
                4. If they returned to the yard at Spooner’s 12.35 who did Brown hear shouting ‘murder’ at around 1.00? Or is it ok to suggest that Brown have been 20 minutes or so out while it’s not ok to make the same claim in regard to Kozebrodski and Heschberg?
                5. Wouldn’t we assume that the police whistle that Heschberg heard came from close-by? Who blew it if not a PC after the body was discovered at1.00?
                6. If Louis and Koz passed Spooner at around 12.30 when was the body found? If it had been found say 5 minutes prior to that (around 12.25) then how do you respond to these two - a) how did Louis and all of the club members decide to lie and come up with the ‘Schwartz Plan’ all in the space of 5 minutes? And b) If the body was discovered at around 12.25 resulting in a yard full of men and some of whom went running in two directions for a Constable, how could PC Smith have passed by and seen and heard nothing of this?
                7. If the body was discovered prior to 12.30 as per the Spooner tale why do we have Kozebrodski and Heschberg saying 12.40 and 12.45? Kozebrodski and Heschberg actually contradict Spooner, they don’t support him. Why is this obvious fact ignored?
                8. If it’s so significant that Fanny didn’t see the short Schwartz incident (supposedly on her doorstep most of the time between 12.30 and 1.00) how come it appears to be insignificant that she didn’t see Kozebrodski and Diemschitz run for a Constable or return with Spooner in tow. According to Spooner’s evidence those events would have taken place between 12.30 and 12.35 - while she was supposedly on her doorstep.
                9. If Fanny came onto her doorstep just after PC Smith passed (around 12.30-12.35) why didn’t she see Morris Eagle return at around 12.40 or Levy for that matter?
                10. As it’s claimed as ‘suspicious’ that Fanny didn’t hear the Schwartz incident and it’s known that Fanny heard a horse and cart around 1.00 (almost certainly Louis) why is it unimportant the she didn’t hear Louis returning earlier as you claim that he did?
                11. If Schwartz end of the plan was to show that the non-Jewish BS man was Stride’s killer why didn’t he put the knife in his hand and not the hand of a bystander who fled the scene when he did? How can that be a part of any adult-created plan?
                12. Do you believe that it’s good methodology to read of two or three witnesses giving times that don’t fit with the rest and then to speculate on a plot to legitimise their testimony when, without those times, we have no actual stand alone evidence for a plot? Anyone can speculate on a motive after all. I could give you a list of 10 with ease.
                13. How could not one single member come up with a better, more reliable, less risky plan than the one suggested when better alternatives are so obvious to all?
                14. How lucky were the plotters to not only find a person willing to lie to the police (having absolutely no level of confidence that his lie wouldn’t be uncovered [by another witness for eg]) but also a ‘witness’ who apparently had a legitimate reason for being in Berner Street that night and at that time (a reason that the police could easily have checked out)?
                15. As we have no way of accurately assessing when Fanny was or wasn’t on her doorstep how can she be used to cast doubt on the Schwartz incident when the duration incident itself would have been just a few seconds?

                And I’ll finish with one last question - can anyone believe, hand on heart, that a group of plotters could be so unutterably stupid as to put together a plan where the whole point was to incriminate a non-existent gentile BS man by having him attacking Stride and then calling out an anti-Semitic word and yet they don’t put a knife into his hands? Then, at a second interview, the knife is introduced but it’s not in the hands of their killer but in the hands of a bystander who previously had supposedly only had a pipe?


                The plot falls on this point alone.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                Comment


                • #9

                  So What Did Schwartz See?


                  We know that unlike today poorer women had far less options clothing-wise than today and so there would have been a level of similarity which could more easily lead to confusion between two women of similar build, hair colour etc than it would today. And even today we know that men aren’t the best at identifying the details of women’s clothing. We probably all have painful memories of not noticing some new item? So I’d say that it’s at least possible that he saw someone else but if he’d seen her when he said that he did then of course the chances of it being someone else are considerably reduced. Two different women attacked at the same spot within 10 minutes would very firmly be in ‘less likely’ territory. Not impossible, but less likely.

                  I’d also say that it’s possible that he was simply mistaken about the time that he walked down Berner Street. Maybe it was closer to12.30 or before? Perhaps the fact that she didn’t scream loudly points more to a domestic situation or some drunken horseplay with BS man calling out Lipski because he felt that Schwartz was paying them too much attention? Another option is that BS man had an altercation with Stride then left leaving the killer to step in. Again, the fact that she didn’t scream loudly might point to a level of familiarity (former client/ boyfriend etc) but of course it could simply illustrate how used to violence of varying forms that these women were. The occasional beating was sadly went with the territory. But of course, the same woman being attacked twice at the same spot pushes us to the outer reaches of unlikelihood.


                  So my opinion, in order of likelihood (at the moment) would be..
                  1. Schwartz saw Stride being attacked by BS man who wasn’t the ripper. (Based on the location with that side door being open)
                  2. Schwartz saw Stride being attacked by BS man the ripper.
                  3. Schwartz saw an unknown women having an altercation with BS man slightly earlier in the evening.
                  4. Schwartz saw Stride having an altercation with BS man who wasn’t her killer; with her killer arriving just as BS man left the scene.

                  Witnesses, like anyone else, are capable of lying but in the vast majority of cases they give their honest opinion as to what they saw. We don’t have a smidgeon of evidence that points us to Schwartz being dishonest. One person saying that they saw something that no one else did is not evidence of dishonesty; it’s the result of circumstances. And unless we believe in some vanishingly unlikely plot then why would he lie? Why place himself at the scene of an attack with no one to confirm that he wasn’t involved? It makes no sense unless we dredge up the ‘15 minutes of fame’ point (which isn’t impossible of course.) He was either correct or mistaken in my opinion. Calling him a liar requires too many baseless leaps of faith into fiction territory for my liking.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    So, was Stride killed by the ripper or not?


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


                    Daily News, Oct 2nd

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

                    The main sources of doubt as to whether this was a ripper murder has always been the location for me. Next to a club, near to chucking out time, with singing going on and next to a gate that opened out onto the street. Risky enough but if Mrs Diemschitz was correct and the side door had been half open I find it almost impossible to believe that the ripper would have chosen that spot to murder and mutilate. An open door spilling out light, the sound of voices from within and an outside loo presenting the possibility of someone coming outside at any time? A proven open door might be the dealbreaker on this question for me.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Good stuff Herlock. The one point I would add is that Schwartz, whose job it was to tell the police that B.S. was a gentile, doesn't tell the police B.S. shouted Lipski at him as an insult, but rather called out to Pipeman. This suggested that Pipeman's name was Lipski, as we see was the interpretation of some officials in the home office for example. It was Abberline who suggested that he felt Schwartz got that bit wrong. If you're going to send someone to set up a false story about a gentile killer, that false story has to ensure that the killer is identified as a Gentile and not a story that implies one of the offenders (Pipeman) was possibly Jewish!

                      Schwartz's story to the police as he told it does the exact opposite of what a conspiracy story has to do.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                        Good stuff Herlock. The one point I would add is that Schwartz, whose job it was to tell the police that B.S. was a gentile, doesn't tell the police B.S. shouted Lipski at him as an insult, but rather called out to Pipeman. This suggested that Pipeman's name was Lipski, as we see was the interpretation of some officials in the home office for example. It was Abberline who suggested that he felt Schwartz got that bit wrong. If you're going to send someone to set up a false story about a gentile killer, that false story has to ensure that the killer is identified as a Gentile and not a story that implies one of the offenders (Pipeman) was possibly Jewish!

                        Schwartz's story to the police as he told it does the exact opposite of what a conspiracy story has to do.

                        - Jeff
                        Cheers Jeff. Yes that’s a good point. Schwartz and the interpreter (if it’s alleged that they were both dishonest) had a very simple message to put across so it’s difficult to see how they could have messed up in the way that you mention. So in the Police version we have the wrong person called Lipski then in the Star version we get the wrong man with the knife. It’s hard to think of any more fundamental errors if this was a plan.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          So, was Stride killed by the ripper or not?


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


                          Daily News, Oct 2nd

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

                          The main sources of doubt as to whether this was a ripper murder has always been the location for me. Next to a club, near to chucking out time, with singing going on and next to a gate that opened out onto the street. Risky enough but if Mrs Diemschitz was correct and the side door had been half open I find it almost impossible to believe that the ripper would have chosen that spot to murder and mutilate. An open door spilling out light, the sound of voices from within and an outside loo presenting the possibility of someone coming outside at any time? A proven open door might be the dealbreaker on this question for me.
                          A point that I forgot to mention concerning the door is that perhaps it might have been this that disturbed the killer? It could have been someone going to the outside loo but as it was left open it’s perhaps more likely that it was left open intentionally - perhaps to let in air? So it may have been the simple fact of the door opening that might have disturbed the killer as opposed to the return of Diemschitz? This is only ‘if’ the killer was disturbed of course; I’m not assuming that he was disturbed.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            hi herlock
                            i see you have been busy during your time off! lol. welcome back
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hello Herlock,

                              Welcome back, sir. Welcome back. You were sorely missed.

                              The level of discourse falls when you are not on the boards.

                              Now try to behave!

                              c.d.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X