Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[GBinOz]

This is a very important point; 12:45, by whose clock?

- Jeff

Exactly. It would be great if anyone quoting times could add this qualification.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I have to offer my compliments on the commendable work that you have done on producing a viable model of Smith's beat. However, I do have some reservations and observations that I would like to share regarding the most relevant portions of the beat, those being his sighting of Stride with Parcelman and his arrival at the Berner St corner at 1am.

You say that "From his testimony, it appears he patrols both sides of Berner Street, so one side heading south and the other side when heading north.". I have read the accounts of his testimony in the Daily Telegraph, The Times and the Morning Advertiser and have been unable to draw that conclusion from those publications. Can you direct me to the reference that persuaded you of this fact please?

The Times 6 Oct:
When you saw them talking, which way did you go? - Straight up Berner-street into the Commercial-road.
Inspector Reid. - Did you see these people more than once? - No.

Morning Advertiser 6 Oct:
I did not see the man and woman more than once.

If Smith walked south down Berner and then turned around and walked back up Berner, to see the couple only once they must have emerged from somewhere to the north, behind him, shortly after he passed the gateway. But Marshall saw a couple to the south of the gateway and testified that they departed to the south. Packer observed his couple arrive from the south and take up position where Smith had seen them, and stated they stayed there for a long time, and were still there when he went to bed. Mortimer only stated that she heard one "measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat.". Brown's observation of a couple was also to the south, although IMO he was viewing the Mortimer couple rather than Stride. While it is possible that they emerged from the yard or from Hampshire Ct, IMO it is not probable. As I was writing the above it occurred to me that, conversely, he may have considered seeing them as he walked down the street and back as one event, although I think he might then have mentioned this as part of his testimony.

I would think that the level of detail in the description provided by Smith would suggest that he was on the same side of the street as the couple, and I think it is possible that Smith may have turned from Fairclough into Berner and walked up the eastern side of the street to encounter Stride and Parcelman. With regard to times, Smith testified to the range of time that it took to complete his beat. This indicates to me that he had a reference clock on his beat to provide him with the data to deduce that range. I acknowledge that you have conceded this possibility, and we have agreed to disagree as to how closely it it may have been in sync with the Leman St Police clock (GMT).

In summary, I am still unsure that we have enough solid data to be able to construct a model for Smith's beat superior to the knowledge of that beat, and the times involved, possessed by Smith himself.

On another note, on the slim chance that you are not aware of its existence, I'd like to draw your attention to some reports that I find interesting in The Echo on 6 Oct,

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881006.html

beginning with the heading "THE MAN AT THE FRUIT SHOP" through to "THE BLACK SHINY BAG".

Best regards, George

Hi George,

When PC Smith talks about his beat, he says as per above he heads north to Commercial, so we know he goes north on Commercial. The other point is that he also says he sees the crowd outside the club when he turned into Berner from Commercial on his next round, which would have him going south at that point. Combined with the need to cover his perimeter, and the internal streets, etc, to provide complete coverage given the layout of the streets involved, the most efficient pattern is for him to go down then back up Berner, over to the next street, down and back up, then over again, down and then east to cover the south-east "spike" on Fairclough, and then straight over to BackChurch Lane to go North, etc. I'm leaning towards Sander being covered during his northern patrol of Back Church Lane, but obviously can't say that for sure. Anyway, what I'm suggesting (and I hope it is clear), ensures he covers all bits of the beat without doubling any of the sections (counting each side of the internal streets as separate sections - police were to check locks and so forth of some buildings and gates I believe, so each side of the street would have it's duties). It is difficult to construct a path that covers all of the perimeter without him going in both directions on the internal streets that run North-South.

Also, given I'm suggesting he heads south then back north, his sighting of Stride would be "one sighting" during his entire time in Berner Street. He would emphasize the point in time when he gets the best look at time (passes by them while on the same side of the street), but that doesn't mean he hadn't noticed them for longer. I take his statement of not seeing them again as to mean not seeing them other than during the time he was in Berner Street (i.e. he didn't pass them elsewhere during his beat, such as later on Fairclough as he was heading towards Back Church Lane).

I agree that we have to consider the possibility that his identification of the woman as being Stride could be a mistake, but he does say that the woman was Stride so I tend to treat that as the "hypothesis we would have to disprove". But, I'm open to considering the implications of what it would mean if he was wrong. I don't think Stride could be dead at that time given I think he walks past where she's later found, and she wasn't so far into the yard that he would have missed her (he may even had been required to look into the alley by the club after all). If it wasn't her, then she has to come from elsewhere after he's passed.

One possibility as to why Mortimer doesn't see the couple after PC Smith's passes them is that, if it is Stride, then having a PC walk past them could very well have spooked a potential punter, and so they leave (to the south I would think) after PC Smith has gone past them, so that by the time Fanny emerges they've left. Of course, Fanny's "young couple" have to be fit in at some point too, as they have to arrive from somewhere. So if you're correct, and PC Smith mistook the "young couple" for Stride, that would suggest the murder takes place post-vigil. Except the young couple I think gets a mention as being at the crime scene when the police are there. If the murder couldn't have taken place before PC Smith's patrol, and can't happen after, there's a problem as it has to happen at some point (I'm not even talking about the Schwartz event here, just the murder itself, whether that involves Schwartz event or not is another question).

If it has to happen post-Smith and pre-young couple, then it must happen pre-Fanny's vigil. That might suggest that the fellow PC Smith sees with Stride is also B.S., and he left Stride after PC Smith went by and headed north, then when Smith exits, he turns around and heads back, and Schwartz enters behind him. B.S. is angry, perhaps because Stride was trying to convince him the area was "safe", and then along came a PC! He roughs her up, Schwartz passes etc. He's now really upset at her because look how busy this place is, and in a rage kills her and takes off south. Fanny them comes out on to her door step, and the young couple show a few minutes later. (I am totally speculating here, and more or less just creating this idea as I type it out, and am not expecting it to be viewed as the definitive solution by any stretch of the imagination - which my story has probably stretched more than enough already! )

Anyway, I realise I went a bit beyond just explaining why I think PC Smith had to have gone both south and north on the internal Streets. And also, I don't think he would have counted it as "two sightings" if he saw Stride while going south and then passed them when going north. I can't see anyone counting that as seeing them on "another occasion" because it's all part of the same "event" (his patrol of Berner Street).

- Jeff

[The Rookie Detective]

If it has to happen post-Smith and pre-young couple, then it must happen pre-Fanny's vigil. That might suggest that the fellow PC Smith sees with Stride is also B.S., and he left Stride after PC Smith went by and headed north, then when Smith exits, he turns around and heads back, and Schwartz enters behind him. B.S. is angry, perhaps because Stride was trying to convince him the area was "safe", and then along came a PC! He roughs her up, Schwartz passes etc. He's now really upset at her because look how busy this place is, and in a rage kills her and takes off south. Fanny them comes out on to her door step, and the young couple show a few minutes later.

- Jeff

Not to dissimilar from my version...


After Pc Smith sees Stride and Parcelman opposite the yard, he heads north up Berner Street and is heard by Mortimer as he passes her door.
The PC turns left into Sanders Street
After ensuring the PC has turned the corner, Parcelman and Stride walk into the yard in a gesture to go and have a more private interaction.
Stride takes out some Cachou as she walks slightly ahead of him. Parcelman opens the unsealed parcel that conceals his knife at the same time and as they go through the gateway, he pulls her back savagely by her neck attire, essentially garroting her as he violently cuts her throat; almost decapitating her with one cut.
It's so quick that it takes a second longer for the initial blood to exit the wound (a bit like if you were to chop your finger off quick and cleanly, it will in the very first moment have a delay before spurting or oozing blood compared to a slower ragged cut)
He has time to lower her to the floor just as the blood starts running.
He then replaces the knife into his faux parcel and casually walks off, exiting the yard and immediately walking across the road and sneaking down the alleyway that runs into Batty Street before turning left and heading north into the busier Commercial Road

From the moment that Pc Smith turns left into Sanders Street to the moment that the Ripper sneaks through the alleyway, after killing Stride, takes no more than 90 seconds.
After hearing Pc Smith pass her door, Mortimer delays her going to begin her vigil at her door, but by the time she stands at her door, the Ripper is already in Batty Street.

The Schwartz incident never happened


All my opinion though obviously


No truth to be had here



RD

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

The short answer to your question is.... I don't have the slightest idea. As I said, Smith's testimony only outlined the perimeter of his beat with a comment regarding the internal possibilities, which I interpret as random with regard to Smith's judgement in each particular case on the night. At one stage I spent some considerable hours trying to work out a feasible beat, but with no joy. I have formed the opinion that we have no way of deducing the internal configuration of Smith's beat, so the logical conclusion is that we can only accept Smith's testimony that he saw Stride with Parcelman as he was proceeding north along Berner St, and accept that, in his experienced professional opinion, that occurred between 12:30 and 12:35 police time. The fact is that he is the ONLY ONE that knew his beat on that night. I shall remain obdurate in this opinion until evidence is produced to the contrary, such evidence not to include the unsubstantiated times of Fanny Mortimer.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I see that Jeff has beaten me to it to react to your post. Our responses are somewhat different, but our conclusions are rather similar. Anyway, here it goes.

I think you’re a bit too pessimistic about this. Of course, we can’t and will never know how Smith precisely walked his beat on each and every round he went, including the one when he saw Stride & companion. But that doesn’t matter much.

If he was at the top of Berner Street at 12:30 and then patrolled it first down and then up and went around his beat (which would take him 25 to 30 minutes), then he would arrive back at the top of Berner Street again at 12:55 to 1 am.

Now, if we would split the patrolling down Berner Street from the patrolling up the street, then those times (the 12:30 & the 12:55 to 1 am) would no longer be 25 to 30 minutes apart. They would be longer.

An example. Let’s say he was at the top of Berner Street at 12:30 and he patrolled it south where he would turn right or left on Fairclough. Then, let’s just, as an example, say, he then patrolled Batty Street first up and then down again and then went to Berner Street through Fairclough and then patrolled it in the northern direction.

In this example it would have taken, at least, some 4 to 5 minutes to first go to Batty Street, patrol it up and down and then to return to Berner Street, before he could arrive at the spot where he saw Stride & companion. So, then 12:30 to 35 should have been at least 12:35 to 12:40. The longer, however, it would have taken Smith to return to Berner Street to do the stretch in the northern direction, the less what Smith testified would correspond with the actual truth.

What we’re stuck with is a route that places Smith where he saw Stride & companion and places him almost there again 25 to 30 minutes or almost one beat-round later. There’s no way around it. And no orderly or easy-to-remember route that would fit. I have come up with 5 examples of Smith doing Berner Street in seperate goes and none of them fit. That is what we can deduce from all the information we do have, however little it may seem.

The best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi George,

Indeed, working out the beats of the various PC's is never a sure thing. I'm sure Steve could give a fair lecture on the complications of working out PC Neil's beat in the Nichols case, for example. On the other hand, we're not completely in the dark.
...

None of that will ensure we've got it right, of course, but there is no way to know the specifics of truth, only ways to deal with the information we have to see what we can extract from it to guide our interpretations. This sort of thing is probably the best we can do with the information we have, but I think it could be very interesting.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Great post there. I agree that we don't have much and shall never know 'the specifics of the truth' (great book title there ), but we still have enough to work out a number of things.

Cheers,
Frank

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi George,

I see that Jeff has beaten me to it to react to your post. Our responses are somewhat different, but our conclusions are rather similar. Anyway, here it goes.

I think you’re a bit too pessimistic about this. Of course, we can’t and will never know how Smith precisely walked his beat on each and every round he went, including the one when he saw Stride & companion. But that doesn’t matter much.

If he was at the top of Berner Street at 12:30 and then patrolled it first down and then up and went around his beat (which would take him 25 to 30 minutes), then he would arrive back at the top of Berner Street again at 12:55 to 1 am.

Now, if we would split the patrolling down Berner Street from the patrolling up the street, then those times (the 12:30 & the 12:55 to 1 am) would no longer be 25 to 30 minutes apart. They would be longer.

An example. Let’s say he was at the top of Berner Street at 12:30 and he patrolled it south where he would turn right or left on Fairclough. Then, let’s just, as an example, say, he then patrolled Batty Street first up and then down again and then went to Berner Street through Fairclough and then patrolled it in the northern direction.

In this example it would have taken, at least, some 4 to 5 minutes to first go to Batty Street, patrol it up and down and then to return to Berner Street, before he could arrive at the spot where he saw Stride & companion. So, then 12:30 to 35 should have been at least 12:35 to 12:40. The longer, however, it would have taken Smith to return to Berner Street to do the stretch in the northern direction, the less what Smith testified would correspond with the actual truth.

What we’re stuck with is a route that places Smith where he saw Stride & companion and places him almost there again 25 to 30 minutes or almost one beat-round later. There’s no way around it. And no orderly or easy-to-remember route that would fit. I have come up with 5 examples of Smith doing Berner Street in seperate goes and none of them fit. That is what we can deduce from all the information we do have, however little it may seem.

The best,
Frank

Excellent post


Would it therefore be accurate to work back from where PC Smith was at the point when he learned of the murder...and then work back 25 to 30 minutes to reach an approximate time that Pc Smith was likely to have passed by Stride and Parcelman?

Equally, If we take the time that Mortimer said she heard the policeman walk past her door and then add 25 to 30 minutes, does it fit into the time and location that PC Smith was in when he learned of the murder?

The top of Berner Street


Now if that works, then there's your answer


If it doesn't then it's back to square one


RD

[Geddy2112]

Hi, would it be possible for a one post summary so far for the late guy to the thread please? Muchas grassy arse...

[FrankO]

It is difficult to construct a path that covers all of the perimeter without him going in both directions on the internal streets that run North-South.

Hi Jeff,

As I wrote in my post #754 to George, so far I've come up with 5 possible routes Smith could have taken with the going up & down one street not in one go. So, I don't think it's very difficult to construct paths that cover all of the perimeter without him going in both directions, but what these 5 routes would show is that there wouldn't be 25 to 30 minutes between the 2 important events that Smith described in his testimony (seeing Stride & companion and arriving at the top of Berner Street).

All the best,
Frank

[FISHY1118]

Yes, I did.

The one thing I admire most about Herlock; is that he always has something to contribute and bring to the table.

He is passionate about what he believes in.

He is knowledgeable and knows more about the Ripper case than I will ever know.

And in the vast majority of occasions he often proves me wrong, or at the very least has an excellent counterargument that makes my efforts a fruitless waste of time.

I can't argue with your comment, because frankly; why would I if it's true.



When the day comes when you can provide the same level of insight and understanding as Herlock, then I will be more than happy to be the recipient of another excellent comeback from you; just like the one Herlock has demonstrated so eloquently.


The biggest positive for me is that I know I am having an impact when I receive such kind, detailed, analytical, progressive, and constructive comments like the one you gave me.

But jokes aside...

We all know that there is no proof to be had here; and that my comments are full of as much conjecture and speculation as anyone else, and so my chosen use of words; such as "In truth," that present me as someone who knows more than anyone else, is perhaps embedded in more nuanced meaning than is seen at face value.

Consider the possibility that my choice of words are chosen for a reason and are in no way a reflection of the real me or my actual personal beliefs.

I am an actor after all



At least my deliberate approach has inspired multiple responses, and has done some good in giving this thread some much-needed spark.

I tried the same thing over on Forums recently, but was told rather directly that nobody was interested in "Whodunnits" on Forums, and that I should essentially... move on.
This is despite the question of that thread being...

"Was Kosminski Jack the Ripper?"

I mean...if that's not a "whodunnit" question, then I don't know what is.


But i digress...


I very much thank Herlock for his guidance, and his valid comments... and of course, for tearing me a new a**


It didn't hurt too much...



More tea vicar?



RD

Yer heres the thing tho ,The difference between Herlock and myself is he too often suffers fools ,i dont .

Ive spent many many a night on these theads giving detailed, analytical, progressive, and constructive comments just as Herlock has done [ yes he is good at it, ill agree to that ] but when posters ignore , fly off the cuff ,make baseless comments with no evidence to back them up then claim they have found the truth about the ripper murders, well i get a little tired of the same old B.S . Hence why i dont spend time posting longgggggg drawn out replies only for them to be ignored and or ridicule or dismissed without any proof .

So forgive me if im boring you with my one liners, but if you want more imput from me in regards to debating the topic at hand ,then try using this simple term at the end of your future post ''Im My Opinion'' instead of dismissing evidence and witnesses as ''fact'' just because you dont agree with it or them .

[The Rookie Detective]

Yer heres the thing tho ,The difference between Herlock and myself is he too often suffers fools ,i dont .

Ive spent many many a night on these theads giving detailed, analytical, progressive, and constructive comments just as Herlock has done [ yes he is good at it, ill agree to that ] but when posters ignore , fly off the cuff ,make baseless comments with no evidence to back them up then claim they have found the truth about the ripper murders, well i get a little tired of the same old B.S . Hence why i dont spend time posting longgggggg drawn out replies only for them to be ignored and or ridicule or dismissed without any proof .

So forgive me if im boring you with my one liners, but if you want more imput from me in regards to debating the topic at hand ,then try using this simple term at the end of your future post ''Im My Opinion'' instead of dismissing evidence and witnesses as ''fact'' just because you dont agree with it or them .

That's more like it!

At last I have got a valid response from you

Far better than one liners

I am grateful for your feedback and you are of course correct that my omission of the phrase...

"In my opinion"

...could be deemed as arrogant and obnoxious.

But honestly;

Everyone knows that everything I write is just my opinion, and has no value or worth, but I understand that by not specifying that it's just my opinion, then it is likely to inadvertently rub people up the wrong way; particularly those folk who have spent years believing stuff that never even happened. (IMO)


I apologise to you personally if that is indeed the case.

Of course IMO, it still doesn't change the fact that the alleged assault on Stride never happened. (IMO)

I have no proof of that... (IMO)

Yes, it my own opinion that I have no proof of my own opinion.

But neither do those who believe in Schwartz either.

So at least we are on an even playing field.



RD

[FrankO]

Excellent post

Thanks, RD.

Would it therefore be accurate to work back from where PC Smith was at the point when he learned of the murder...and then work back 25 to 30 minutes to reach an approximate time that Pc Smith was likely to have passed by Stride and Parcelman?

I’ve used 2 ways to calculate this. The first is that I’ve calculated that, if he started his shift at 10 pm, then going round his beat in an average time of 26 minutes, he would arrive at the point where he saw Stride & companion at around 12:36 and then again at around 1:02. So, that would fit with the timings given by Smith (and they would be on the clock that Smith based his timings on). Using averages time of 25, 27, 28, 29 or 30 for the whole of his beat wouldn’t fit as well as 26 with his stated timings.

Then, I’ve measured Smith’s beat, including Sander Street, Batty’s Gardens, Hampshire Court, Queen Court and Batty’s Court. It measures 1890 m/1.17 miles. Going by the 26 minutes above, his average walking speed would have been 2.7 mph/4.36 kmph.

Now, if he would have been at the point where he saw Stride & companion (and I’m suggesting that would have been somewhere on the eastern side of the street, roughly opposite the numbers 34 to 30), and the time on Smith’s clock would then have been 12:35, then he would have arrived at the top of Berner Street on Commercial Road 1710 m/1.06 miles and 23 minutes and 31 seconds later. Smith’s clock would at that point indicate 12:58:31.

If we’d do that the other way around and say that at 1:00 (on Smith’s clock) Smith was at the top of Berner Street, then he would have been at the spot where he saw Stride & companion at 12:36:29.

Equally, If we take the time that Mortimer said she heard the policeman walk past her door and then add 25 to 30 minutes, does it fit into the time and location that PC Smith was in when he learned of the murder?

That would be practically the same. If we assume, as I do, that Smith passed along the western side of Berner Street (and Fanny’s house), then crossed the street just before the intersection with Fairclough and then went up Berner Street where he saw the couple, then there would be 69 m/226 feet between passing Fanny’s house and where Smith saw the couple. This would add 57 seconds to the 23 minutes and 31 seconds. So, Smith would have arrived at the top of Berner Street on his next round 24 minutes and 28 seconds after he’d passed Fanny’s house. Of course, the time one would read would depend on whose clock one would be looking at. Smith’s may well have indicated a slightly different time than Fanny’s.

Now if that works, then there's your answer

It works for me, but I'm not you...

The best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi, would it be possible for a one post summary so far for the late guy to the thread please? Muchas grassy arse...

Hi Geddy,

A very brief one post summery, hope it's enough…

On the one hand, there’s Jeff, George and myself who are trying to confirm or discard possibilities based on different walking speeds and the distances involved & see where everybody can be placed along a timeline. While doing so, we stress that, if one is going to suggest a timeline, it’s wise to use one common clock/watch to tie all the comings & goings to. If one’s going to use, for instance, Blackwell’s time/watch as a basis for the appearances of some witnesses, but another clock for other witnesses, then we get nowhere. All timelines should have one common reference point (clock/watch).

At the same time, there are others who are discussing mostly witnesses like Mortimer and Schwartz, who played a part before the discovery. I think (almost) everybody sees that Mortimer is, at best, not very useful for confirming or discarding any happenings that took place in this period, except that she confirms Goldstein’s passing through the street somewhere before one o’clock.

The best,
Frank

[FISHY1118]

That's more like it!

At last I have got a valid response from you

Far better than one liners

I am grateful for your feedback and you are of course correct that my omission of the phrase...

"In my opinion"

...could be deemed as arrogant and obnoxious.

But honestly;

Everyone knows that everything I write is just my opinion, and has no value or worth, but I understand that by not specifying that it's just my opinion, then it is likely to inadvertently rub people up the wrong way; particularly those folk who have spent years believing stuff that never even happened. (IMO)


I apologise to you personally if that is indeed the case.

Of course IMO, it still doesn't change the fact that the alleged assault on Stride never happened. (IMO)

I have no proof of that... (IMO)

Yes, it my own opinion that I have no proof of my own opinion.

But neither do those who believe in Schwartz either.

So at least we are on an even playing field.



RD

Can you think of any good reason why Schwartz would want to make such a ''detailed'' statement to the police describing the attack on Stride, then be taken to the mortuary to identify her dead body as being the women he saw in said assault ? . If as you say [iyo ] the attack never happen, why the lies on these two occasions to the police during a murder investigation . Surely you dont think Schwartz was Liz Strides Killer ?





''Of course IMO, it still doesn't change the fact that the alleged assault on Stride never happened. (IMO)''



The same could be said for all the witnesses in the Liz Stride murder case then . That their ''Statements'' as with Schwartz were '' Alledged '' ?

[Michael W Richards]

Exactly. It would be great if anyone quoting times could add this qualification.

Best regards, George

On these timing issues, I do recognize that a lot of work has been made on the reconstruction of beat timing and comparatative analysis of times by witnesses, and I do get your point George about a codicil on all of them based on the fact that the sources used were not set to the same time. But....I believe in many cases here, the primary sources used to set a wrist or pocket watch by, or to set a residence or business clock by, were sources that were displayed publicly around the area. We have many instances where people quote a source for their time given as being a clock that is on display for all the residents in that area. Some set their timing devices, some roughly calculated how long it took to walk from Point A to Point B, and some would refer to those local public sources almost exclusively for their times. The one that live on the street in particular.

But none would likely mention brief stoppages en route, or a short chat with someone out at night, so all this researched detail about probable speeds of PCs and distances from A-B still needs to be posted with codicils as well.

The answer here isnt we cant know for sure on times because everyone used a different source for their time.... because its quite likely many did use the same sources.

[Michael W Richards]

Can you think of any good reason why Schwartz would want to make such a ''detailed'' statement to the police describing the attack on Stride, then be taken to the mortuary to identify her dead body as being the women he saw in said assault ? . If as you say [iyo ] the attack never happen, why the lies on these two occasions to the police during a murder investigation . Surely you dont think Schwartz was Liz Strides Killer ?

The same could be said for all the witnesses in the Liz Stride murder case then . That their ''Statements'' as with Schwartz were '' Alledged '' ?

Based on that bold line, it would seem that you do get it. Schwartz's story is like all the others..a recorded statement that alleges viewed activities...but many of these witnesses were asked to state their stories on the stand, to record them as formal evidence in the investigation into the murder. Israel....very obviously...was not. Now some might say to me...and have...well then what about Fanny, because she isnt called either....true. But Fanny didnt claim to see Liz or anything that might be related to the death of Elizabeth Stride. Israel very much did claim that. 2 ommissions, 1 for understandable reasons...no valued information for the Inquest mandate. The other can only be, considering the scene that was claimed, the participants, and the activies....unsubstantiated. That is the only reason for leaving Israel out of the discussion. Because his storyline and characters would have been very relevant to the Inquest questions.

You want a reason why someone would come forward and introduce an off site character assaulting this victim....even while you are aware that without this sudden appearance of BSM and Israel, not one witness saw anyone on the street after 12:35, just Goldstein at around 5 to 1? Simply...the men at the club were the ONLY men seen anywhere near the street or the gates. With one exception, the young man in the couple that Brown saw.

Israel puts the most probable killer off the premises. Voila. You really expect me to believe you couldnt see that yourself.....or do you change your approach based on your opponents identified weaknesses? The latter, I suspect.

And as for who did kill Liz, it could very well have been Diemshitz, or Lave, or Eagle, because all of them did have access to those gates...right where Liz was found.