Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[NotBlamedForNothing]

• 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 was estimating the time, but it's funny that you think "I should think" makes him sound any less confident of the time than if he had just said "about ...". Herschburg was an astute observer - "I should think" was his way of making it clear to the reporter that he wasn't totally sure of the time - it's not reason for supposing that his estimate was a wild guess.

While it's true that the times suggested by Kozebrodski and Herschburg were quite different to those of other witnesses, when we read reports like the following (Irish Times, Oct 1), and recognise that no witness estimated a time significantly after 1am, we do have to consider the accuracy of the Harris clock.

Lewis, who is now found to have been on the spot rather than Koster, is the steward at the Socialist Club at No. 40, and in addition he travels in some drapery goods, the purchase of which, according to his friends necessitated his attending last night's market. He seems to have returned home about a quarter to 1, and to have proceeded up the entry which, though not narrow, is a very dark one, for the purpose of putting up his pony and trap.

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.

If you suppose Herschburg arrived after the police, you will need to explain away the following.

Herschburg: I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to 1 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 4 and 5 inches long in her throat. I should think she was 25 to 28 years of age. Her head was towards the north wall, against which she was lying. She had a black dress on, with a bunch of flowers pinned on the breast. In her hand there was a little piece of paper containing five or six cachous.

How close must Herschburg have been to the body, to count cachous?

Coroner: Was any one touching the body when you arrived?
Lamb: No. There was no one within a yard of it. As I was examining the body some crowded round. I begged them to keep back...

You also seem to be forgetting (or is it denying?) that the WVC patrolmen carried whistles.

[Herlock Sholmes]

At no point am I suggesting Schwartz's story would have been necessary for the inquest, only that his statement was not forwarded to the coroner because the police had not completed their investigation of his story. This doesn't mean Schwartz was lying, I'm not saying that at all.
The Coroner chose James Brown, his statement fulfilled the 12:45 time slot, even though my own feeling is that Brown saw the 'sweetheart' couple, that Mortimer referred to standing on the corner.

I understand that Wick. I think that your suggestion as to why he might not have been called is a valid one. I know that David O made some suggestions (admitting that that’s all that they were)

1. That the payment of an interpreter would have been down to the Coroner and as Schwartz wasn’t vital he might have decided against the expense.
2. That the police wanted to keep Schwartz evidence about ‘Lipski’ out of the Press for their own operational reasons. Or maybe even for public order reasons with Lipski being a Jewish name.
3. That Schwartz asked not to be called for personal reasons and the Coroner agreed.
4. That Schwartz was taken ill (or an addition from me, that he feigned illness?)
5. That he was called but failed to attend - perhaps scared of reprisals from BS man? Perhaps he left town and the police couldn’t find him or made little effort?
6. That Schwartz changed his address and the police couldn’t find him.
7. An administrative oversight with the police not forwarding his statement to the Coroner who was therefore unaware of him.
8. Administrative error from within the Coroner’s office.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You don’t have to speak a language to be able to repeat two words phonetically. Also if Schwartz was chosen as a false witness by club members then they would also have provided the interpreter, so it would have been him that ensured that the police got an accurate account of what BS man had said. The police couldn’t have queried what someone had said in Hungarian.

I see you've immediately reverted to the small target tactic. Perhaps Schwartz was able to phonetically recall the sounds made by the man with the knife, such that the interpreter and reporter were able to decipher that the man shouted some sort of warning to the other man.

I don't know why you say the police couldn't have queried what someone had said in Hungarian. Do you not think they had access to interpreters for various languages?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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?

Diemschitz stated that he returned home exactly at 1 o'clock, and Mortimer said, "It was just after one o'clock when I went out". Their timings are in close agreement. If Fanny is of "no use", then neither is Louis. That leaves us with Smith returning to Berner St at 1am, owing to his 25-30-minute beat. Once everything is pushed back in time in accordance with this, we get some rather interesting results.

It has to be said that your dismissal of Fanny is in contradiction to your stated philosophy regarding the comparison of times...

How did the time by that clock compare with the times by other clocks?

Exactly! So, we are dealing with different clocks when comparing Smith to Mortimer and Diemschitz. By dismissing Fanny as a witness, you are simultaneously claiming that all clocks cannot be supposed to have been synchronised, but if an inconvenient witness gives a time that does not accord with one of those clocks, they become "useless". That is arbitrary and unhelpful.

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)

I'd suggest equal weight being given to Mortimer being able to hear the plod of boots, but somehow not shouting and screaming, while she is inside.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Is that right? The report tells us that the interpreter was conveniently "at hand". That does not sound like someone was grabbed off the street at random. The report also tells us that "He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them." How do you find someone without a name, address, or photo? Clearly, someone has tipped-off the Star as to where the Hungarian can be found. His willingness to do the interview hardly suggests his "running to earth" was a surprise to him.

So immediately we have the very obvious issue of two interpreters.

You don't know that. The "at hand" interpreter could well have been the friend who accompanied Schwartz to Leman St.

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.

I think you need to reread Swanson:

Israel Schwartz ... 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.

He was at the gateway when the man stopped to speak to the woman. Doesn't sound very realistic, does it? So, this will need to be altered to bring it into line with common sense.

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?

This overlooks the dynamic nature of the situation. Men are being arrested based on Schwartz's account. The outcome of these arrests could be placing pressure on Schwartz, which results in his story 'evolving'.

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.

While it is true that the second man is 'amped-up' in the press account compared to the police account, it is also true that the first man is 'amped-down'. Schwartz believers are seemingly in permanent denial about this.

[Wickerman]

...

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…...

I agree with your main criticism of Spooner, it's just that I accept his arrival time of 12:35 as an error, but as it was widely reported in various newspapers it cannot have been a misprint or a mishearing by the journalist. And, as he says he stood beside the body for "four or five minutes" before PC Lamb arrived, who claims to have arrived about five minutes before Dr Blackwell, who arrived at 1.16 precisely. Therefore, Spooner may have arrived about 1:06 which would be nearer the expected time when taking into account Diemshutz & Kozebrodski's run along Fairclough & back.
This time is consistent with what James Brown claimed. Brown said he saw a couple on the corner at 12:45, as he returned from the shop, that after something like 15 minutes he heard voices shouting "police" and "murder", from people running eastward along Fairclough St. Which coordinates with Spooner so we can estimate the time Spooner met Diemschutz & Koz. looking for a constable, after which he returns to Dutfields Yard with Diemschutz, at about 1:06, or thereabouts. Spooner's estimate of 12:35 is therefore irrelevant.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

That's not quite what I said, but who's checking?

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.

While we're having a look, let's also play a quick game of "which of these things is different from the other things". Clearly the reference to 1am is an error. Is it beyond your imagination that, after a very long night, a man speaking on the street with a Russian accent might be a little hard to understand?

The timings for Lave in various newspapers, fall roughly into two groups - 12:30-40 and 12:40-45, or a little longer. It's not difficult to realise that the earlier period coincides with Smith, and the later with Schwartz. So, what did Lave tell the police? Had he given a time for being at the gates that coincided with their own PC, he might have had some serious questions to answer. Presumably then, he referred to the later period, which doesn't appear to have caused any problems for him. Indeed, why would it, as his claim to have seen nothing unusual is compatible with statements by Mortimer, Eagle, Brown, the young couple, and Charles Letchford's sister.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see you've immediately reverted to the small target tactic. Perhaps Schwartz was able to phonetically recall the sounds made by the man with the knife, such that the interpreter and reporter were able to decipher that the man shouted some sort of warning to the other man.

I don't know why you say the police couldn't have queried what someone had said in Hungarian. Do you not think they had access to interpreters for various languages?

There’s no tactic involved. It’s simply a fact that people can recall words phonetically. The main point though is that if Schwartz was sent as part of a plan of misinformation and he took his own interpreter can it sensibly be claimed that the interpreter wasn’t ’in the loop’ in regard to the plan?

And I’m certainly not claiming any knowledge about the Police interpreting capacity but as Schwartz took his own interpreter no other was needed. And as the statement was taken in English how could a Police interpreter have checked Schwartz own interpreter's translation?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Diemschitz stated that he returned home exactly at 1 o'clock, and Mortimer said, "It was just after one o'clock when I went out". Their timings are in close agreement. If Fanny is of "no use", then neither is Louis. That leaves us with Smith returning to Berner St at 1am, owing to his 25-30-minute beat. Once everything is pushed back in time in accordance with this, we get some rather interesting results.

It has to be said that your dismissal of Fanny is in contradiction to your stated philosophy regarding the comparison of times...



Exactly! So, we are dealing with different clocks when comparing Smith to Mortimer and Diemschitz. By dismissing Fanny as a witness, you are simultaneously claiming that all clocks cannot be supposed to have been synchronised, but if an inconvenient witness gives a time that does not accord with one of those clocks, they become "useless". That is arbitrary and unhelpful.



I'd suggest equal weight being given to Mortimer being able to hear the plod of boots, but somehow not shouting and screaming, while she is inside.

When describing Fanny as ‘useless’ i meant in regard to using her to dismiss Schwartz. We know that Louis saw the Baker’s clock (unless it’s being suggested that he lied of course….for which we have no evidence) but we have no way of assessing that clock in comparison with others. We have no way of knowing how Fanny arrived at her estimation (when she last saw a clock for example…..perhaps there was no clock in the house but her husband had a watch - then the question would be when he last told her the time.) The same applies to Schwartz.

On the point about Mortimer hearing the boots but not the incident I’d say that it would have been down to her location within the house at the time…something that we don’t know but we can’t assume that once inside she remained at the same spot. It could have been the case that she was near to her front door when Smith passed but she was in the kitchen (or even the outside loo) when the incident occurred.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is that right? The report tells us that the interpreter was conveniently "at hand". That does not sound like someone was grabbed off the street at random. The report also tells us that "He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them." How do you find someone without a name, address, or photo? Clearly, someone has tipped-off the Star as to where the Hungarian can be found. His willingness to do the interview hardly suggests his "running to earth" was a surprise to him.



You don't know that. The "at hand" interpreter could well have been the friend who accompanied Schwartz to Leman St.

But nowhere does it suggest that the reporter took an interpreter with him. To me ‘at hand’ suggests a family member or neighbour. ‘At hand’ would mean ‘at that location.’


I think you need to reread Swanson:

Israel Schwartz ... 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.

He was at the gateway when the man stopped to speak to the woman. Doesn't sound very realistic, does it? So, this will need to be altered to bring it into line with common sense.

Schwartz saw the man walking along Berner Street. All that statement means is that when the man stopped to talk to Stride, Schwartz wasn’t far behind him (at the gateway…as per Swanson) Are you really suggesting that Swanson was saying that Schwartz hadn’t seen the man until he met Stride?

This overlooks the dynamic nature of the situation. Men are being arrested based on Schwartz's account. The outcome of these arrests could be placing pressure on Schwartz, which results in his story 'evolving'.

Men weren’t being arrested in the period between the two interviews though.

While it is true that the second man is 'amped-up' in the press account compared to the police account, it is also true that the first man is 'amped-down'. Schwartz believers are seemingly in permanent denial about this.

There’s no ‘denial’ involved. It suggests that Schwartz, over a short space of time, was telling an evolving story which makes no sense. The police interview was clearly the more credible.

[New Waterloo]

Excellent piece of analysis by Herlock and thought provoking looking at what we have and putting times aside is important. We only have what we have. Which thankfully is a great deal. I believe we should look at what we have, Forget for one moment anything about JTR. A woman is murdered in the gateway of a troublesome club where previously there has been violence and disturbance. A woman's body is found in the yard. What do members of the club say. Nothing to do with us, all quiet, don't know anything about it. Can you see how their evidence is very good about activity around the body. Very detailed in fact, what they did, lighting matches, in and out the kitchen door, all details. Well no choice really because they cant deny there is a body there. But before the body is discovered well all patchy. not sure, didn't see anyone, all very quiet. They were just keeping their mouths shut. Lots of potential witnesses do this all the time. Don't want to get involved. No conspiracy is required as such they all just looked the other way because it will cause too much trouble. NW

[Michael W Richards]

Yet they aren’t cohesive are they? I’ll stick to one small point.

If, as you suggest, Spooner arrived at the yard at 12.35 then you must also believe two things that follow on from this:

a) That the body was discovered at around 12.30 - unseen by PC Smith or Fanny (and also that Brown imagined men shouting murder at around 1.00.) And..

b) If Spooner arrived at the yard 5 minutes before PC Lamb arrived then Lamb must have arrived at 12.40 - also unseen by Fanny and contrary to Morris Eagle’s statement that he’d returned from his taking his girlfriend home at 12.40 (something that the police were at liberty to check - I’d suggest that asking them to lie to the police wouldn’t have been a good way of getting into the future in-laws good books.) This would also suggest that it took them a full 35 minutes to get Dr Blackwell to the scene.

Do you believe that the above is all true?

Ive never said that Spooner must have arrived at 12:35, havent even suggested that its probable. Liz is seen by Smith at 12:35, of that Im fairly confident. And Issac K and Heschberg dont hear of this until 12:40 or slightly later, because Isaac stated that he heard about this 10 minutes after he had arrived back at the club, at 12:30 or half past as he says. I believe in my last post I referred to Spooners stated time likely to be off a few minutes. He was one witness here, along with others, that hadnt had a time source to refer to shortly before his stated time. Interesting though that Louis was comfortable putting his foot down about his arrival time. He didnt allow for any wobble room, which is something I personally think would be very natural to do, lacking a watch or timepiece on your person. Even Morris said he "couldnt be sure a body wasnt there".... when he would have had to literally step around it. These witnesses that were "certain" of the time concern me. Whatever Ive suggested on this topic Ive always left allowances of a few minutes open on these times, but Ive strenuously objected to acceptance of a 25 or 30 minute variance. Particularly when that later discovery time would essentially make all subsequent official times off by that amount. Lamb could have seen Eagle at just before 1... had he left the gates around 12:45-50 timeframe, Issac around the same time in the opposite direction, Louis and Issac[s] head out and after seeking someone down the road, they are heading back when he joins them. So Louis and Spooner and Issac[s] arrive back at the gates at 12:50-52. Fanny is at her door now and sees Goldstein going past the gates. Just before or at 1 she goes back indoors. Lamb, Kozebrodski and Eagle return, about 5 minutes after Spooner had arrived there. Lamb sends Eagle to the station to report it. There are already a large amount of people gathered there. All the witnesses stated that. From the station someone calls Johnson, Johnson calls Blackwell, Johnson dresses and heads out a few minutes before 1:10 and arrives at the scene around 1:10ish. Blackwell steps out of the carriage and checks his watch for the time he arrives, 1:16.

I think the majority of the evidence supports an earlier discovery time. Because Lamb could not have arrived at the gates at, or just before, 1am if Louis is only just arriving then. There is time required to notify and gather people, time needed for the search parties to go and search without success for a few minutes, time needed to then gather back at the gates with help. I would estimate around 10 minutes would be needed for all that to transpire. Thats why the earlier discovery time is highly likely...because thats the only way the most trustworthy witnesses at that scene..the police, medical men and qualified objective bystanders...will have given times that are approximately along that same timeline.

If Louis really arrived at 1, then we wont see Lamb for 10 minutes or so, and then another 10 min or so for Johnson, then more than half that for Blackwell. That would put Blackwell and Phillips both arriving at around 1:30, instead of what is stated as about 15 minutes before Phillips arrives.

Rather than respond to you based on how you phrased the question, I felt it more beneficial if I offered my reasons why I choose this route in my own context.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree with your main criticism of Spooner, it's just that I accept his arrival time of 12:35 as an error, but as it was widely reported in various newspapers it cannot have been a misprint or a mishearing by the journalist. And, as he says he stood beside the body for "four or five minutes" before PC Lamb arrived, who claims to have arrived about five minutes before Dr Blackwell, who arrived at 1.16 precisely. Therefore, Spooner may have arrived about 1:06 which would be nearer the expected time when taking into account Diemshutz & Kozebrodski's run along Fairclough & back.
This time is consistent with what James Brown claimed. Brown said he saw a couple on the corner at 12:45, as he returned from the shop, that after something like 15 minutes he heard voices shouting "police" and "murder", from people running eastward along Fairclough St. Which coordinates with Spooner so we can estimate the time Spooner met Diemschutz & Koz. looking for a constable, after which he returns to Dutfields Yard with Diemschutz, at about 1:06, or thereabouts. Spooner's estimate of 12:35 is therefore irrelevant.

I agree 100% Wick. It wasn’t a mishearing or a misprint it was just an inaccurate estimate by Spooner. Whereas his ‘four or five minutes before Lamb’ has a solid basis. There’s no way that anyone could seriously suggest that Lamb arrived at the yard as early as 12.40.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excellent piece of analysis by Herlock and thought provoking looking at what we have and putting times aside is important. We only have what we have. Which thankfully is a great deal. I believe we should look at what we have, Forget for one moment anything about JTR. A woman is murdered in the gateway of a troublesome club where previously there has been violence and disturbance. A woman's body is found in the yard. What do members of the club say. Nothing to do with us, all quiet, don't know anything about it. Can you see how their evidence is very good about activity around the body. Very detailed in fact, what they did, lighting matches, in and out the kitchen door, all details. Well no choice really because they cant deny there is a body there. But before the body is discovered well all patchy. not sure, didn't see anyone, all very quiet. They were just keeping their mouths shut. Lots of potential witnesses do this all the time. Don't want to get involved. No conspiracy is required as such they all just looked the other way because it will cause too much trouble. NW

Thanks NW.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ive never said that Spooner must have arrived at 12:35, havent even suggested that its probable. Liz is seen by Smith at 12:35, of that Im fairly confident. And Issac K and Heschberg dont hear of this until 12:40 or slightly later, because Isaac stated that he heard about this 10 minutes after he had arrived back at the club, at 12:30 or half past as he says.

I can’t see where Kozebrodski said that he heard about the murder 10 minutes after he’d returned? Have I missed something or are you conflating him with Eagle?

I believe in my last post I referred to Spooners stated time likely to be off a few minutes. He was one witness here, along with others, that hadnt had a time source to refer to shortly before his stated time. Interesting though that Louis was comfortable putting his foot down about his arrival time. He didnt allow for any wobble room, which is something I personally think would be very natural to do, lacking a watch or timepiece on your person.

But Louis didn’t ‘put his foot down’ he simply stated the time that the clock said which is what any witness would have done; it’s all that he could have done. If a witness in a crime says ‘I arrived at 2.30’ we wouldn’t expect him to start querying his watch or questioning whether it was synchronised to other timepieces. That would be the police’s job.

Even Morris said he "couldnt be sure a body wasnt there".... when he would have had to literally step around it. These witnesses that were "certain" of the time concern me. Whatever Ive suggested on this topic Ive always left allowances of a few minutes open on these times, but Ive strenuously objected to acceptance of a 25 or 30 minute variance. Particularly when that later discovery time would essentially make all subsequent official times off by that amount.

Which times have I were suggested were that far out apart from Spooner’s 12.35? Koz and Hesch were 15-20 minutes off - and if, as is entirely possible, the Baker’s clock was 5 minutes fast then they would only have been 10-15 minutes out. These aren’t huge numbers when it comes to estimation considering the factors - no need to log the time at the time, don’t know which clock (by Heschberg at least) how long since they’d last seen the clock etc.

Lamb could have seen Eagle at just before 1... had he left the gates around 12:45-50 timeframe, Issac around the same time in the opposite direction, Louis and Issac[s] head out and after seeking someone down the road, they are heading back when he joins them. So Louis and Spooner and Issac[s] arrive back at the gates at 12:50-52.

And Lamb could have seen Eagle just after 1.00 if he left the gates just after 1.00 (as per Louis’ Baker’s clock time)

Fanny is at her door now and sees Goldstein going past the gates. Just before or at 1 she goes back indoors. Lamb, Kozebrodski and Eagle return, about 5 minutes after Spooner had arrived there. Lamb sends Eagle to the station to report it. There are already a large amount of people gathered there. All the witnesses stated that. From the station someone calls Johnson, Johnson calls Blackwell, Johnson dresses and heads out a few minutes before 1:10 and arrives at the scene around 1:10ish. Blackwell steps out of the carriage and checks his watch for the time he arrives, 1:16.

You can’t know when Fanny was at her door. It’s impossible for anyone to know. According to her she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed so this would be around 12.35. She was on there, according to her for around 10 minutes, which has her back inside at around 12.45. I’ll repeat…Fanny is just of no use to anyone.

I think the majority of the evidence supports an earlier discovery time. Because Lamb could not have arrived at the gates at, or just before, 1am if Louis is only just arriving then.

You still appear to be using times as if they are exact. Lamb and Diemschitz don’t cancel each other out. If Louis passed at 1.00 then Eagle probably got to Lamb at around 1.05 which is in line with the majority of reports were Lamb states ‘around 1.00.’ 1.05 is around 1.00.

There is time required to notify and gather people, time needed for the search parties to go and search without success for a few minutes, time needed to then gather back at the gates with help. I would estimate around 10 minutes would be needed for all that to transpire. Thats why the earlier discovery time is highly likely...because thats the only way the most trustworthy witnesses at that scene..the police, medical men and qualified objective bystanders...will have given times that are approximately along that same timeline.

If Louis really arrived at 1, then we wont see Lamb for 10 minutes or so,

Nearer 5, possibly less.

and then another 10 min or so for Johnson, then more than half that for Blackwell. That would put Blackwell and Phillips both arriving at around 1:30, instead of what is stated as about 15 minutes before Phillips arrives.

Rather than respond to you based on how you phrased the question, I felt it more beneficial if I offered my reasons why I choose this route in my own context.

The witnesses are indeed one-sided:

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.


The only way that we can stray from this conclusion is if we make assumptions about a plot and then pick the version that’s thought to favour it but we know that these kind of plots don’t happen in the real world.

Im happy that I’ve proven that there was no plot. Nothing strange happened in Berner Street. A man saw a very short incident in a quiet backstreet in the early hours. A couple of witnesses estimated times incorrectly. That’s it.