Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I read this post just after you wrote it and I intended to go back and reply but I became distracted by an effort to persuade someone that I wasn’t claiming that Eagle found Lamb before the body had been found!

It’s an excellent but at the same time rather sad post. Excellent in that it’s well-written, well thought out and entirely reasonable and logical as we would expect from you. Sad in that it’s disappointing that you should have to take the time to explain a point that should have gone without needing saying from the outset. A point that we’ve all made more times than we care to remember.

What we have in Berner Street is basically a collection of unknowns and unknowables. We have people giving times based on clocks that we can’t assess and in most cases we don’t even know when they last saw them. We have people estimating times which introduces judgment and the variables of human memory. We have press reports which leave us with, for example, around 3 or 4 versions of when and for how long Joseph Lave was in the yard (what possible use is that?) We have the most often used witness being Fanny Mortimer for whom not one of us can say when she was actually on her doorstep or when she was inside (how can she be used to disprove another witness?)

Aside from all of the detail and the ins and outs one question stands out for me and it’s a very simply one - In a poorly lit Whitechapel backstreet, in the time between around 12.30 and around 1.00, is it impossible that an incident which, in itself, could only have been of 20-30 seconds duration have occurred unseen? We’re not talking of troupe of Morris dancers or a gunfight or a man being savaged by a family of crazed otters! Why do some find this a problem? Incidents go unseen in far more populous, busy, well lit modern day streets everyday without being seen by anyone. It’s simply a fact of life.

Keep up the good work with the timelines (Frank and George too). Common sense and unbiased reason must prevail.

Thanks Herlock.

I do understand that it is jarring when people present a timeline idea, where the events on the timeline are placed at a clock value that doesn't correspond to what a witness says. At first blush, it looks like one is ignoring the evidence and just "making it up". However, what Frank, George, and myself have been doing is far from that. Each of us, using slightly different methods, are attempting to estimate the time interval between events described by the witnesses. We also are attempting to make those estimates using as little "guess work" as possible, meaning we build those intervals using objective measurements, like the distance between two locations and standard speeds of travel for walking, running, and "hurrying". Anybody who re-calculates our values should get interval values very close to what we present, with differences due to the fact that each time you measure those distances the exact measurement will tend to differ slightly. This is why Steven when working on his book, would take multiple distance measurements and then work with the average value. That provides a more reliable and generalisable value. I often forego that in a thread, just to save time for a post. For a more important work, though, that is what one should do. Also, I think it is important to look at witness statements and take into account the general tendency to overestimate short durations, particularly under stressful conditions (like waiting for the police to arrive), although the variability associated for an individual durations estimate is incredibly large.
Anyway, these are objective estimates because the value I get is not selected by me rather it is the result of what the distance estimate is and the speed estimate. By using average walking/running speeds, one does not get to "fiddle" with the speed parameter for different witnesses, again removing the influence of the researcher's beliefs (I can't just slow down or speed up someone to "make them fit" what I want).

It is important to avoid, or at least minimize if unavoidable, introducing intervals based upon "I think this would require X amount of time". We will have a tendency for our estimate of how long something will take to gravitate towards the value that fits our expectations. This is why I have applauded George for taking the time to do as best he could with regards to estimating Deimshutz's time to complete his "arrival sequence". He himself had said he expected it would require around 5 minutes or so, and was surprised to find it was 1m 50s! Knowing an objectively derived value for that key piece of the puzzle is incredibly useful information in rebuilding the events.

Anyway, by rebuilding a temporal sequence, to get something like: Event A (0) -> Event B (1m 50s) - > Event C (2m 30s) -> Event D (1 m 0s), then all that remains is to select a "standard time". If, for example, Event A and B are events where one witness gives a time (say 10:00) for Event A and Witness B also gives the time 10:00, but for Event B, but we know there has to be 1m 50 s between Event A and B, so we have to "standardize" the times. It is good practice to use "30 s" for the seconds value when witnesses give a time, because we don't want to bias the time to be in either the early or later portion of the minute value.

So, to standardize the times to Witness A standard Time:
A (10:00:30) -> B (10:02:20) -> C (10:04:50) -> D (10:05:50)

But if we Standardize to Witness B, we get:
A ( 9:58:40) -> B (10:00:30) -> C (10:03:00) -> D (10:04:00)

These are exactly the same timeline! They refer to the exact same points in " the flow of time", the difference in the values is like having different time zones. We're not "changing times" rather we're adjusting for the fact that the clocks are from different "time zones". And since Witness A and B make their statements based upon "different time zones", the value in the presented timeline has to be different from their statement once we adjust everything to a common time zone.

What has impressed, and encouraged, me is the fact that the timelines that George, Frank, and myself have all come up with, while referenced to different time zones, are all very very similar in terms of the temporal sequencing. There's a minute here or there type difference, but given these are estimations that is to be expected. And, given we've tended to standardize to different statements, we end up with "constant shifts", as per the mock lines above.

- Jeff

[Jon Guy]

Michael Kidney was clearly a nasty piece of work and would have been the first person that the police would have had in their sights. It’s a pity that we have no physical description of him though but this got me thinking; well speculating.

Hi Herlock, we do have a newspaper illustration of Kidney, and Debs found his military records.

Michael Kidney

Born Kinsale, Cork
Attested age 22 , occupation net-maker.
24th January 1877

Description on attestation:
5ft 9.5 in. Complexion-fresh, eyes-blue, hair-light brown, religion-Roman Catholic

Description on discharge:
5ft 9.5in., complexion-fresh, eyes-blue, hair-lt brown, intended place of residence 86 St George St., St George in the East.
Next of kin mother Ellen, Kinsale Cork.

Conduct in the service
irregular, bad, moderate. 27/11/83
irregular, bad, intemperate 6/12/84

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, we do have a newspaper illustration of Kidney, and Debs found his military records.

Michael Kidney

Born Kinsale, Cork
Attested age 22 , occupation net-maker.
24th January 1877

Description on attestation:
5ft 9.5 in. Complexion-fresh, eyes-blue, hair-light brown, religion-Roman Catholic

Description on discharge:
5ft 9.5in., complexion-fresh, eyes-blue, hair-lt brown, intended place of residence 86 St George St., St George in the East.
Next of kin mother Ellen, Kinsale Cork.

Conduct in the service
irregular, bad, moderate. 27/11/83
irregular, bad, intemperate 6/12/84

Hi Jon,

It seems a long time since I’ve seen you posting on here or have I missed some posts?

Thanks for the information and the illustration. It’s a pity that we don’t have anything about his build to compare to BS man but we do have points to compare though. Heights are difficult but Schwartz has him at 5’5” compared to Kidney’s 5’9.5” (which we can have confidence in) Schwartz man also had a small brown moustache whilst, in the drawing at least, Kidney has a fine specimen. Schwartz also has BS man with dark hair compared to Kidney’s light brown. So it looks like we can be fairly confident that BS man probably wasnt Michael Kidney.

[Jon Guy]

It seems a long time since I’ve seen you posting on here or have I missed some posts?

Thanks for the information and the illustration. It’s a pity that we don’t have anything about his build to compare to BS man but we do have points to compare though. Heights are difficult but Schwartz has him at 5’5” compared to Kidney’s 5’9.5” (which we can have confidence in) Schwartz man also had a small brown moustache whilst, in the drawing at least, Kidney has a fine specimen. Schwartz also has BS man with dark hair compared to Kidney’s light brown. So it looks like we can be fairly confident that BS man probably wasnt Michael Kidney.

Hi Herlock, yes, it`s been a while since I`ve posted.

I`m quite confident that the Kidney illustration is from 1888, and that moustache keeps him in the clear.

I believe we do have another witness description of BS Man.
William Marshall saw Stride with a man at 11.45pm.
Compare Marshall`s Man and BS Man

Marshall`s Man- black cutaway coat and dark trousers, middle aged, a round cap with a peak, 5`6, appearance of a clerk but couldn`t say if he had whiskers
BS Man - 30 yrs, 5`5, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak, small brown moustache, broad shouldered

What do you think ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, yes, it`s been a while since I`ve posted.

I`m quite confident that the Kidney illustration is from 1888, and that moustache keeps him in the clear.

I believe we do have another witness description of BS Man.
William Marshall saw Stride with a man at 11.45pm.
Compare Marshall`s Man and BS Man

Marshall`s Man- black cutaway coat and dark trousers, middle aged, a round cap with a peak, 5`6, appearance of a clerk but couldn`t say if he had whiskers
BS Man - 30 yrs, 5`5, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak, small brown moustache, broad shouldered

What do you think ?

Good to see you back Jon,

Yes and Marshall also used the word ‘stout’ to describe the man. So Marshall’s man and Schwartz man were both of stocky build, same sort of height and dark clothing. No facial features from Marshall due to the poor lighting though. There’s certainly nothing that would tell us that they couldn’t have been the same man.

Marshall said that neither appeared drunk but how could he really tell if they were just standing talking? If it was the same man then they would have had to have split up with the man ending up in the Commercial Road by around 12.45. Schwartz described him in The Star as walking as if he was ‘partially intoxicated,’ so it’s not impossible that he could have had a drink by the time Marshall had seen him and then some more by the time that he got to the top of Berner Street.

It could have been the same man Jon. I see no reason why not? Where Stride was while he was going into Commercial Road we’ll never know.

[Michael W Richards]

Then why don’t you accept a Police Officer (Lamb) who said that he arrived at the yard 10 minutes before a Doctor (Blackwell) did? You talked about reliable witnesses and how police officers are more trustworthy - so how come Lamb becomes untrustworthy now? And do you think that there was a more trustworthy time than Blackwell’s?

When I went to school 10 minutes from 1.16 left us with 1.06. Which fits perfectly (as I’ve explained 200 times) Diemschitz at 1.00, Lamb found by Eagle a minute or so before at around 1.05.

1.00 comes before 1.05.

Its not difficult.

As you mention often, Lamb is quoted as saying different things in different quotes. Like "just before 1", and "around 1". He is quoted as saying the first doctor was on scene about 10 minutes after he arrived. But the first doctor was not Blackwell. It was Johnson. The fact that Blackwell arrives so soon after is likely why he might have referred to him. And if the "doctor" arrived around 10 minutes after him, then what time was he first at the gates? At, or just before, 1. Like either of his quoted times stated.

Lamb being found at around 1:05 is not a "perfect fit" with any witness statement, which would put the first doctor on scene at 1:15, not 1:10. This is exactly what Ive been saying to you....if you want to debate the facts of the case and suggest ideas for solving some problems, great. Just dont do it IF it requires changing times given by witnesses. The fact that there is discrepancy with those times doesnt imply that they should be corrected by us, in fact it may just show that some witnesses gave times that were incorrect deliberately, and they didnt work with the times that were given by the most trustworthy sources available, the police.

If Louis arrived before 1 as is suggested by several sources, then Lamb could have seen Eagle when he said, at "just before, or at 1". His timing does not have to be changed to accommodate Louis's arrival time, what needs to be done is to see if Louis's arrival time can be substantiated by any other source. In this case, no-one saw Louis arrive. So no-one knows exactly when that happened, so just because he said it happened at 1 doesnt mean it did.

What I have said is the if you look at witnesses who said he arrived 15 to 20 minutes earlier than 1 then the trustworthy sources times work seamlessly without exception. No need to change any times, just to eliminate times that do not work with the authorities times unless they are revised. Lamb knew what time it was where he said he was, so did Johnson, so did Blackwell. They had to enter that onto a report. They were working at the time. None of the other witness were.

[Michael W Richards]

As for these posts scientifically calculating the A to B timings of events and stated times;

1. How fast did each witness walk?
2. How fast did the men upstairs respond to Louis's call for help? How long to get downstairs?
3. How long was it between the initial discovery and the first man, (Issac Kozebrodski) being sent for help?
4. How long did it take Issac until he headed towards Commercial?
5. How fast were Louis and Issac[s] when they first passed Spooner, and how long before they returned? They said they didnt find anyone at first....how long were they looking?
6. How direct was Eagles walk to where Lamb spots him?
7. How long did it take for Spooner and his gal to walk casually to the spot outside the Beehive, and how long was it before they saw Louis?

There are numerous issues like these, so its my opinion that the A to B reconstructions being done have been calculated without all the relevant data. And again, the answers arrived at required changing witness times. No-one here knows better what time things actually occurred vs what time they were reported to have occurred than the witnesses themselves. No-one knows what time sources they all used for their calculations, and how close they might be able to estimate the times specific events occur after that initial time source check. No-one knows if some, like club witnesses, used the same source.

Thats why I use the witness statements to try and determine whose cannot be verified using other "trusted" times. Louis, Morris, Lave, and Mrs D have no verification for their times because no-one saw Morris return, no-one saw Lave, no-one saw Louis return, and Mrs D was inside the whole time. She did not see when he arrived.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As you mention often, Lamb is quoted as saying different things in different quotes. Like "just before 1", and "around 1". He is quoted as saying the first doctor was on scene about 10 minutes after he arrived. But the first doctor was not Blackwell. It was Johnson. The fact that Blackwell arrives so soon after is likely why he might have referred to him. And if the "doctor" arrived around 10 minutes after him, then what time was he first at the gates? At, or just before, 1. Like either of his quoted times stated.

It’s worth pointing out that Blackwell is listed as Dr as is his practice partner Dr. Kay whilst Johnson is listed as Mr. He calls himself an ‘assistant’ so I’d my first question would be - was he a fully qualified doctor? If he was fully qualified (and I’m not stating for a fact that he wasn’t) he wasn’t considered to be ‘the Doctor’ because if he was considered as such then there would have been no need for Blackwell to have got out of bed. The fact that Blackwell did attend strongly suggests the he was ‘the Doctor’ in question and that Johnson was considered as an assistant (as he called himself)

And even if Johnson was the ‘doctor’ in question this would still have had Lamb seeing Eagle at around 1.00 and as we have no way of checking how Lamb and Diemschitz clocks were synchronised it’s entirely possible that when Diemschitz said 1.00 it was 12.55 by Lamb’s. So Louis could actually have arrived at 12.55. So unless you are disputing the possibility of clocks not being synchronised (today) then there is no issue.


Lamb being found at around 1:05 is not a "perfect fit" with any witness statement, which would put the first doctor on scene at 1:15, not 1:10. This is exactly what Ive been saying to you....if you want to debate the facts of the case and suggest ideas for solving some problems, great. Just dont do it IF it requires changing times given by witnesses. The fact that there is discrepancy with those times doesnt imply that they should be corrected by us, in fact it may just show that some witnesses gave times that were incorrect deliberately, and they didnt work with the times that were given by the most trustworthy sources available, the police.

And here we are yet again! You are again saying that we should adhere exactly to stated times. Can you please stop cherrypicking on this point and just for once tell us all if you accept that clocks can be poorly synchronised or not. If you accept this then WHY are you complaining about ‘changing’ times. It’s impossible to discuss the case reasonable if you keep veering one way or another on this point!


If Louis arrived before 1 as is suggested by several sources, then Lamb could have seen Eagle when he said, at "just before, or at 1". His timing does not have to be changed to accommodate Louis's arrival time, what needs to be done is to see if Louis's arrival time can be substantiated by any other source. In this case, no-one saw Louis arrive. So no-one knows exactly when that happened, so just because he said it happened at 1 doesnt mean it did.

And when Lamb said ‘around 1.00’ I’ll remind you that this encompasses 1.05.


What I have said is the if you look at witnesses who said he arrived 15 to 20 minutes earlier than 1 then the trustworthy sources times work seamlessly without exception. No need to change any times, just to eliminate times that do not work with the authorities times unless they are revised. Lamb knew what time it was where he said he was, so did Johnson, so did Blackwell. They had to enter that onto a report. They were working at the time. None of the other witness were.

But they don’t work ‘seemlessly’ Michael unless we are looking at two different series of events which sometimes appears to be the case when discussing it with you.

Example - Spooner said 12.35 - you’ve accepted that this needs ‘changing’ because it doesn’t fit. I’ve already shown that I’m only ‘not accepting 3 times’ which are Spooner, Koz and Hesch but I’m leaving the rest as they are with a minimal allowance for clocks. You are sticking with those three and change all of the others. On what planet is it me doing all of the changing when it’s clearly you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As for these posts scientifically calculating the A to B timings of events and stated times;

Give it up.

1. How fast did each witness walk?

As the distances were so small it makes little difference. Also, when there is an emergency situation people tend not to dawdle around (unless they are in your scenario of course - Louis and Koz become Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.)

2. How fast did the men upstairs respond to Louis's call for help? How long to get downstairs?

We can’t know for certain but can anyone really think that, after being told that there was a dead body in the yard, these men said ‘so what, let’s finish our game of cards first!’ We have to be serious here. They would have gone down straight away but…the point is that we are talking about Diemschitz and when he would have gone for the police so the actions of those upstairs aren’t relevant except when discussing Eagle.

3. How long was it between the initial discovery and the first man, (Issac Kozebrodski) being sent for help?

Kozebrodsky went with Diemschitz. You keep trying to rewrite the script but repetition won’t make it come true Michael. Do I really need to post again the quote that says that Isaacs and Koz were one and the same? Perhaps you missed it?

4. How long did it take Issac until he headed towards Commercial?

He went with Eagle who was leaving as Koz returned with Louis.

5. How fast were Louis and Issac[s] when they first passed Spooner, and how long before they returned? They said they didnt find anyone at first....how long were they looking?

Perhaps you could tell me where Louis said ‘at first’?

[Coroner] Did you touch the body? - No, I ran off at once for the police. I could not find a constable in the direction which I took, so I shouted out "Police!" as loudly as I could.

There no hint of them doing anything else apart from going to Grove Street and back without seeing a Constable.

6. How direct was Eagles walk to where Lamb spots him?

Lamb was between Batty Street and Christian to me so far was that? 50 yards? So he gets to the top of Berner Street, perhaps looks both ways, yes it was dark but we have no evidence that suggests that he didn’t go straight there unless you decide to make some up of course?

7. How long did it take for Spooner and his gal to walk casually to the spot outside the Beehive, and how long was it before they saw Louis?

We have no way of knowing of course but what we know for absolute certainty is that he didn’t get to the yard anywhere remotely close to 12.35. But his ‘5 minutes before Lamb’ works fine allowing for a very minimal margin. A how is this relevant to how long Louis spent in the yard and club?

There are numerous issues like these, so its my opinion that the A to B reconstructions being done have been calculated without all the relevant data.

And what you mean by that is ‘without adding your inventions.’

And again, the answers arrived at required changing witness times.

But it’s ok to change Spooners time? Just so that we’re clear. You can ‘change’ times but no one else can. Yes?

No-one here knows better what time things actually occurred vs what time they were reported to have occurred than the witnesses themselves.

Which is why you shouldn’t add actions that we have no evidence for.

No-one knows what time sources they all used for their calculations, and how close they might be able to estimate the times specific events occur after that initial time source check. No-one knows if some, like club witnesses, used the same source.

After I’ve picked my jaw up from the floor and after recovering from the staggering irony of that last paragraph I’ll respond. These are the points that I’ve been making as to why we should take times simply as they are stated but it’s you that won’t accept this Michael not me. You INSIST that Kozebrodski, Heschberg and Spooner couldn’t have been mistaken. What is the point of all of this when the goalposts move more often than a gypsies caravan!

Thats why I use the witness statements to try and determine whose cannot be verified using other "trusted" times. Louis, Morris, Lave, and Mrs D have no verification for their times because no-one saw Morris return, no-one saw Lave, no-one saw Louis return, and Mrs D was inside the whole time. She did not see when he arrived.

What!? “Mrs D was inside the whole time”? Then why do you use her to try and dismiss Schwartz?

And no Michael, you can’t simply appoint yourself as the Judge of who is reliable or not. You’re trying (and failing miserably) to prove a plot. You can’t do that by categorising those members as being untrustworthy. What you are basically saying is this:

Q - How do you know that there was a plot?

A - Because some witnesses can’t be trusted?

Q - Why can’t they be trusted?

A - Because they’re part of the plot!!

You must be able to see this.

Surely???

[Michael W Richards]

But they don’t work ‘seemlessly’ Michael unless we are looking at two different series of events which sometimes appears to be the case when discussing it with you.

Example - Spooner said 12.35 - you’ve accepted that this needs ‘changing’ because it doesn’t fit. I’ve already shown that I’m only ‘not accepting 3 times’ which are Spooner, Koz and Hesch but I’m leaving the rest as they are with a minimal allowance for clocks. You are sticking with those three and change all of the others. On what planet is it me doing all of the changing when it’s clearly you.

Cmon, are you kidding me? You see you dont read my posts. I have already said that Spooner, since he is the one witness we know didnt have a time source to refer to shortly before his entry into this mess, is allowed leeway. Issac K came from inside the club which would have a very visible clock, so did Heschberg. Fnny would have closk in her house, and Lamb, Johnson and Blackwell and Phillips all had keeping time records as part of their professional responsibilities. If Eagle and Lave had seen each other in their statements...since they both claim to be virtually in the same place at the same time, it might help your case, but they both said they saw nothing. In fact, Eagle says clearly "I couldnt be sure a body was not there when I passed" At what he says was "12:40". I would allow the same Spooner leeway to Louis if his time stated was within a few minutes here or there of his entry into this mess. But accepting Louis's time at face value very obviously leaves 15-20 minute difference with Issac K, Heschberg and Spooner, and CLEARLY, OBVIOUSLY and UNDENIABLY Lamb could not have physically seen Eagle at just before or at 1 if Louis hasnt arrived yet. Im amazed at how many times that has to be repeated.

No search party can be sent before the discovery. Youd think that was self explanatory.

Weak denials, because youve changed Lambs time every post. What time did HE SAY he first saw Eagle Herlock? Can you show us where that he said the "around 1:05 or later" you keep espousing?" And in your infinite good sense, you just disregard the 3 witnesses who collaboratively said they saw Louis between 12:40 and 12:45. You toss out the witnesses that have secondary verification for their statements in favour of a man who is provably incorrect using just Lambs statement alone, and the man most responsible for explaining what happened to police so he doesnt lose his job and home.

Im not sure that you realize all this repetitive reminding you of the actual facts and how you mistreat them is here for all to read. Youre not able to pretend you didnt say something, or accuse me of something people can easily check and see the inaccuracy of. Not after you hit Post or Post Reply.

I really would like to spend my time here discussing the materials with people that use the facts to prove their theory,... not this garbage denial, changing times, arbitrarily ignoring corroborated witness accounts that disagree with your ideas. I am to blame for allowing you to keep posting the tripe, but its because I have decided to spend so much time correcting, reminding and directing you to actual evidence and insisting that you do not have any authority to question authorities times. Which do validate an earlier discovery time,....period. Denying the obvious has to end.

So, let summarize shall we... and move on ....you back the time given by the anarchist operator of the club without any secondary source validation...so its just his own word, and I back the stated times that have multiple corroboration, by sources without risk should the police think the killer came from the club, and the authorities, who kept track of their times as a function of their jobs, and whose times do not work with the anarchists stated arrival time. "Precisely at 1", but do work with the 3 witness times that corroborate each other.

You choose unverified and therefore unsubstantiated over secondary source verified. Thats the reality. Any attempt to argue that will just expose your flawed attempts at trying to re-write history, like with the witness accounts, to suit your own tastes.

Thats it for me on this thread, any falsehoods you post from here on someone else can deal with.

[FrankO]

The fact that Blackwell did attend strongly suggests the he was ‘the Doctor’ in question and that Johnson was considered as an assistant (as he called himself)

Hi Mike,

That Diemshutz mistook Johnston for Blackwell is quite clear, but this can’t be said of Lamb. If Lamb did, however, also mistake him for Blackwell, then some things don’t add up much.

Firstly, he actually called the man he thought to be the doctor “Blackwell” and didn’t just say “the doctor”. Secondly, PC 426 H would have known that Blackwell’s assistant was coming with him and that the actual doctor would be coming as soon as he would be dressed, and it would seem odd if PC 426 H would not have let Lamb in on this. Thirdly, as soon as Blackwell arrived, Johnston handed the case over to Blackwell. That would have been a good sign for Lamb to know who was who. And fourthly, if Lamb still believed Johnston was Blackwell, then what would he have thought of the man who arrived some minutes later and who took over from Johnston (whom he thought to be Blackwell)? It certainly doesn’t seem as if he thought that to be Phillips. So, who did he think that man was? And why, then, wouldn’t he have mentioned him?

What also seems interesting in this respect, is that Smith doesn’t seem to have had any problems recognizing Johnston as assistant Johnston, even though he didn't see Johnston on the day Smith gave his testimony. In other words, he couldn't have learnt who Johnston was because he saw him giving his testimony on that same day. With Lamb, this is different. Lamb did give his testimony on the same day as Blackwell, so there's a good possibility that he would have learnt who Blackwell was on that day - if he didn't know him already, that is.

In short, it seems oddish to say the least if Lamb wouldn’t have known or understood which of the men that examined Stride was Blackwell.

I'm not saying that Lamb couldn't have been mistaken, but to me it just seems not to be the case.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cmon, are you kidding me? You see you dont read my posts. I have already said that Spooner, since he is the one witness we know didnt have a time source to refer to shortly before his entry into this mess, is allowed leeway. I would allow the same leeway to Louis if his time stated was within a few minutes here or there of his entry into this mess. But accepting Louis's time at face value very obviously leaves 15-20 minute difference with Issac K, Heschberg and Spooner, and CLEARLY, OBVIOUSLY and UNDENIABLY Lamb could not have physically seen Eagle at just before or at 1 if Louis hasnt arrived yet. Im amazed at how many times that has to be repeated.

No search party can be sent before the discovery. Youd think that was self explanatory.

Weak denials, because youve changed Lambs time every post. What time did HE SAY he first saw Eagle Herlock? Can you show us where that he said the "around 1:05 or later" you keep espousing?" And in your infinite good sense, you just disregard the 3 witnesses who collaboratively said they saw Louis between 12:40 and 12:45. You toss out the witnesses that have secondary verification for their statements in favour of a man who is provably incorrect using just Lambs statement alone, and the man most responsible for explaining what happened to police so he doesnt lose his job and home.

Im not sure that you realize all this repetitive reminding you of the actual facts and how you mistreat them is here for all to read. Youre not able to pretend you didnt say something, or accuse me of something people can easily check and see the inaccuracy of. Not after you hit Post or Post Reply.

I really would like to spend my time here discussing the materials with people that use the facts to prove their theory,... not this garbage denial, changing times, arbitrarily ignoring corroborated witness accounts that disagree with your ideas. I am to blame for allowing you to keep posting the tripe, but its because I have decided to spend so much time correcting, reminding and directing you to actual evidence and insisting that you do not have any authority to question authorities times. Which do validate an earlier discovery time,....period. Denying the obvious has to end.

So, let summarize shall we... and move on ....you back the time given by the anarchist operator of the club without any secondary source validation...so its just his own word, and I back the stated times that have multiple corroboration, by sources without risk should the police think the killer came from the club, and the authorities, who kept track of their times as a function of their jobs, and whose times do not work with the anarchists stated arrival time. "Precisely at 1", but do work with the 3 witness times that corroborate each other.

You choose unverified and therefore unsubstantiated over secondary source verified. Thats the reality. Any attempt to argue that will just expose your flawed attempts at trying to re-write history, like with the witness accounts, to suit your own tastes.

Thats it for me on this thread, any falsehoods you post from here on someone else can deal with.

As long as you keep repeating the same untruth…that Lamb’s time can only be interpreted as before 1.00 or exactly 1.00 then you’re wasting everyone’s time Michael. It just allows you to repeat the nonsense about Lamb being called before the body is found.

For the 1467th time….

LOUIS AROUND 1.00

EAGLE FINDS LAMB AROUND 1.05

THEY RETURN TO THE YARD AROUND 1.06

You’re the one that’s repeating falsehoods. Notice the complete lack of ‘hey Herlock, you’ve got that wrong’ from anyone. And we both know why. Because you are inventing things to make your theory fit. I’ve proved it 100’s of times but you just keep repeating the same old inventions.

So am I right or are you. If we put it to a vote I’d predict a score of 50-0 in my favour.

You began with an empty sack, you’ve run with an empty sack for 20 years and here you are still holding the same empty sack. Find another cause Michael.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll try and make clear what I think happened just to assure Michael that I’m not suggesting that Lamb called Eagle before Louis found the body. Accepting of course that we can’t state precise times I’m still going to use precise times simply as a way of illustrating what I think happened. I’ll repeat though (even though I’m probably wasting my time doing so) I am not setting these times in stone. The starting point is Louis seeing the clock at 1.00 (what the time was by other clocks, who knows?)


1.00 - Louis passes the clock.

1.00.30s - Louis finds the body.

1.02.30s - Louis and Kozebrodski go for a Constable. I think it would have been under 2 minutes but I’ll go with 2.

1.03 - Someone in the yard suggests that the men upstairs need to be told

1.03.10s - Gilleman goes upstairs and tells them all.

1.03.40s - Eagle is in the yard.

1.04 - He’s near the gate; perhaps preparing to go for a Constable.

1.04.20s - Kozebrodski, Louis and Spooner get back

1.04.30s - Eagle and Koz head off in the direction of Commercial Road.

1.05.10s - Eagle and Koz reach Lamb.

1.06 - Eagle, Koz and Lamb reach the yard. (In the excitement of the situation Spooner’s ‘5 mins before Lamb’ is nearer to 2 minutes. It just seemed longer when remembering.

1.06.10s - Lamb sends Eagle to Leman Street and Ayliffe for a Doctor.

1.06.20s - Smith arrives. (The clock he had used to estimate the time leads him to believe that it’s actually nearer to 1.01 when he got there)

1.07.40s - Eagle informs Johnson.

1.07.50s - Johnson informs Blackwell.

1.10 - Johnson arrives at the yard.

1.16 - Blackwell arrives at the yard.


No times are ‘changed.’ No one goes too quickly or too slowly. There are no added actions to fill out the time or action missed to reduce the time.

[The Rookie Detective]

I’ll try and make clear what I think happened just to assure Michael that I’m not suggesting that Lamb called Eagle before Louis found the body. Accepting of course that we can’t state precise times I’m still going to use precise times simply as a way of illustrating what I think happened. I’ll repeat though (even though I’m probably wasting my time doing so) I am not setting these times in stone. The starting point is Louis seeing the clock at 1.00 (what the time was by other clocks, who knows?)


1.00 - Louis passes the clock.

1.00.30s - Louis finds the body.

1.02.30s - Louis and Kozebrodski go for a Constable. I think it would have been under 2 minutes but I’ll go with 2.

1.03 - Someone in the yard suggests that the men upstairs need to be told

1.03.10s - Gilleman goes upstairs and tells them all.

1.03.40s - Eagle is in the yard.

1.04 - He’s near the gate; perhaps preparing to go for a Constable.

1.04.20s - Kozebrodski, Louis and Spooner get back

1.04.30s - Eagle and Koz head off in the direction of Commercial Road.

1.05.10s - Eagle and Koz reach Lamb.

1.06 - Eagle, Koz and Lamb reach the yard. (In the excitement of the situation Spooner’s ‘5 mins before Lamb’ is nearer to 2 minutes. It just seemed longer when remembering.

1.06.10s - Lamb sends Eagle to Leman Street and Ayliffe for a Doctor.

1.06.20s - Smith arrives. (The clock he had used to estimate the time leads him to believe that it’s actually nearer to 1.01 when he got there)

1.07.40s - Eagle informs Johnson.

1.07.50s - Johnson informs Blackwell.

1.10 - Johnson arrives at the yard.

1.16 - Blackwell arrives at the yard.


No times are ‘changed.’ No one goes too quickly or too slowly. There are no added actions to fill out the time or action missed to reduce the time.

So, based on this timing, Smith is running 5 minutes later than he believes.

That would be supported by the fact that he initially stated he saw Stride with Parcelman at 12.30am.

It later becomes 12.30am-12.35am.

In other words, the correct time that PC Smith would have passed and seen Stride with Parcelman based on him being 5 minutes later than he thought (based on your timeline) would have been 12.35am and not 12.30am.

That then increases the likelihood that the man he saw with Stride was Lave.
It can't have been Eagle, because Smith would have recognised him after Eagles post-discovery involvement.


But Lave?

He disappears after claiming to have gone back into the.club at 12.40am.
That is tricky because why do Lave and Eagle not cross paths.

Interesting



RD

[GBinOz]

Hi Mike,

That Diemshutz mistook Johnston for Blackwell is quite clear, but this can’t be said of Lamb. If Lamb did, however, also mistake him for Blackwell, then some things don’t add up much.

Firstly, he actually called the man he thought to be the doctor “Blackwell” and didn’t just say “the doctor”. Secondly, PC 426 H would have known that Blackwell’s assistant was coming with him and that the actual doctor would be coming as soon as he would be dressed, and it would seem odd if PC 426 H would not have let Lamb in on this. Thirdly, as soon as Blackwell arrived, Johnston handed the case over to Blackwell. That would have been a good sign for Lamb to know who was who. And fourthly, if Lamb still believed Johnston was Blackwell, then what would he have thought of the man who arrived some minutes later and who took over from Johnston (whom he thought to be Blackwell)? It certainly doesn’t seem as if he thought that to be Phillips. So, who did he think that man was? And why, then, wouldn’t he have mentioned him?

What also seems interesting in this respect, is that Smith doesn’t seem to have had any problems recognizing Johnston as assistant Johnston, even though he didn't see Johnston on the day Smith gave his testimony. In other words, he couldn't have learnt who Johnston was because he saw him giving his testimony on that same day. With Lamb, this is different. Lamb did give his testimony on the same day as Blackwell, so there's a good possibility that he would have learnt who Blackwell was on that day - if he didn't know him already, that is.

In short, it seems oddish to say the least if Lamb wouldn’t have known or understood which of the men that examined Stride was Blackwell.

I'm not saying that Lamb couldn't have been mistaken, but to me it just seems not to be the case.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

As always you present a logical sequence in support of your reservations, and I hope that my response will also be seen to have some logic attached.

Firstly, I'm not sure that there would have been introductions when Ayliffe arrived at the doctor's surgery. I would imagine that he would have stated that there was a woman requiring urgent medical attention in Berner St, and Johnson would have disappeared inside and returned a few minutes later to accompany Ayliffe to the site.

I then look at the testimonies from the inquest as reported by the Daily Telegraph:

P.C. Lamb: Dr. Blackwell was the first doctor to arrive; he came ten or twelve minutes after myself, but I had no watch with me.
[Coroner] Did any one of the crowd say whether the body had been touched before your arrival? - No. Dr. Blackwell examined the body and its surroundings. Dr. Phillips came ten minutes later. Inspector Pinhorn arrived directly after Dr. Blackwell. When I blew my whistle other constables came, and I had the entrance of the yard closed. This was while Dr. Blackwell was looking at the body. Before that the doors were wide open. The feet of the deceased extended just to the swing of the gate, so that the barrier could be closed without disturbing the body. I entered the club and left a constable at the gate to prevent any one passing in or out. I examined the hands and clothes of all the members of the club. There were from fifteen to twenty present, and they were on the ground floor.

Johnson: [Coroner] Can you say whether any one had stepped into the stream of blood? - There was no mark of it.
[Coroner] Did you look for any? - Yes. I had no watch with me, but Dr. Blackwell looked at his when he arrived, and the time was 1.16 a.m. I preceded him by three or four minutes. The bonnet of the deceased was lying three or four inches beyond the head on the ground. The outer gates were closed shortly after I came.

Dr. Blackwell: The double doors of the yard were closed when I arrived, so that the previous witness must have made a mistake on that point.

It can be seen that Lamb is testifying that he had the gates closed while the doctor, who he thought was Blackwell but who I think was Johnson, was looking at the body. This seems to be corroborated by Johnson when he testified "The outer gates were closed shortly after I came.". Lamb then testified that he went into the club and examined the hands and clothes of all the members, giving rise to the probability that he didn't see Blackwell arrive, and that Blackwell was afforded admission through the gates by the constable on duty at the gate. I see as further corroboration the testimony of Blackwell that the gates were closed when he arrived, and that the previous witness ( the one who testified on that point rather than the chronological previous witnesses) was mistaken. So was Blackwell implying than Lamb was mistaken about closing the gates after he arrived. From Blackwell's perspective that would seem to be the case, but not from the perspective of Lamb and Johnson. Blackwell consider that Lamb was mistaken as to when he closed the gates in relation to his (Blackwell's) arrival, but perhaps Blackwell didn't consider a mistake in identity? While Lamb did give his testimony on the same day as Blackwell, it was well before Blackwell and Lamb may have only become aware of his mistake when Blackwell gave his testimony, and actually pointed out that mistake?

Far from conclusive either way, but I am persuaded that Lamb was mistaken but, at the time, the mistake was not considered to be of great import of consequence as it has become 136 years later.

Best regards, George