When was Elizabeth Stride actually killed?

[Wickerman]

It does sound like ( as Fisherman alluded ) corroboration for Schwartz's story ..

Moonbegger .

Hi Moonbegger.

The problem with it being Schwartz is Swanson's report, that they ran as far as the railway arch. There is no railway arch in that direction.
Schwartz ran the opposite way.

So, let me ask you. How do you compare this press story with Swanson's report?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi c.d.

Old Mike has already employed the use of an atomic clock to determine the exact timings of all witnesses involved in the Liz Stride case. I believe he has the TOD as 12:44 and 800,176,752,715 nanoseconds a.m. I don't reckon he's far out, I'd plump for a couple of nanoseconds either way.

Regards

Observer

Since Ive often quoted Blackwell's estimate, which allows for a cut to have been made between 12:46 and 12:56 by his remarks, I don't see the rational for the above. But Im happy to be blamed for Blackwells timimg, since it neatly fits with far more witness accounts than that of Israel Schwartz. Someone asked why would Israel lie about the circumstances, even if a member...as a favour to Wess, without his knowledge during the translated testimony, to help explain to his wife why he was so late checking to see if she needed some help, to avoid admitting he attended the meeting that night and maybe had a few ales, to avoid explaining how he and his wife came to reside in one of the cottages in the passageway before moving to his new address that day, to avoid stating that he was inside the passageway when he saw the altercation happen..which would incriminate someone attending the club that night, not some "passer-by", to avoid being seen as one of the "anarchists" of the club as perceived by the neighbors and the police.....I can think of many possibilities as to why. And I can see many reasonable reasons, from a members standpoint, why protecting the clubs reputation might also be self serving.

As to my dedication to timing in this particular case, only a fool would ignore the sizable discrepancies in the witness accounts and be blind to the fact that many accounts have no secondary verification. Some do. Some also had timepieces. Some guessed. Maybe some lied. Some had access to clocks.

I use the ones that had access to clocks and watches. Which should keep them within a 5-10 minute error range at worst. Why then do some accounts from men who had access to clocks differ from Louis's story by 20 minutes? 3 men from inside the club. And why if he arrived when he said he did, with horse and cart rattling down the cobblestones, was he not seen by Fanny Mortimer, whose corroborative account of Goldstein's walk past ensures us that she was indeed at her door during the final 10 minute interval before 1am.

Liz Stride was last seen at 12:35 by the most credible witness onsite during the time between 12:30 and 1am. No-one else has a corroborated account of seeing her on that street after that.

If you also recall that the passageway was said to be empty by at least 2 club witnesses, yet we hear from the neighbors that after Saturday night meetings low men were hanging about in that passageway until after 1am. Was'nt it raining earlier...and wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that some members might step out into the freshened air for a smoke and chat. The kitchen door was ajar...was that from people opening and maybe not quite closing it as they came and went through it?

Im hardly unreasonable with my statements about this case, im just more vocal about the points within because they are without marriage to a perceived solution....I don't see a "Ripper" after the Chapman murder, perhaps the Eddowes case too...so Im not spending anytime trying to justify one, nor do I see the need to try and sell one here.

If Liz Stride was killed in the passageway before 12:45 then Spooner, Heschberg, Kozebrodski and Gillen would all have been correct with the statements they made with respect to the time, made within an hour of the murder.

Just like to keep your "Observerpedia" data accurate.

[moonbegger]

Hi Moonbegger.

The problem with it being Schwartz is Swanson's report, that they ran as far as the railway arch. There is no railway arch in that direction.
Schwartz ran the opposite way.

So, let me ask you. How do you compare this press story with Swanson's report?

Hello john ,

I think we have 2 for and 2 against !
There is the "

the two latter running up into Commercial Road

." and the

" Railway Arch"

malarkey

And then we have the time issue

Quarter to one

coupled with the statement that the man chasing was

Not a member of their body

As for Swanson V Press .. I think the press have a lot more local knowledge .

moonbegger

[Barnaby]

Hi BW
I was just thinking about that the other day. He didnt come forward voluntarily did he? Did the police ever check him out?

I guess the language thing could rule him out, unless he was lying about it.

So, fearing he was seen running from the crime, the logical thing to do would be to immediately go and kill someone else and then throw everyone off the trail by writing the "Juwes are not the men who will be blamed" message as a "It wasn't me!" diversion. That must be it!

[lynn cates]

splendid

Hello Jon. Splendid. Your logical skills become you.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Ah!

Hello Barnaby.

"So, fearing he was seen running from the crime, the logical thing to do would be to immediately go and kill someone else and then throw everyone off the trail by writing the "Juwes are not the men who will be blamed" message as a "It wasn't me!" diversion. That must be it!"

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Christer.
The Secretary is retelling a story he has received, not that he was a witness to this.
I believe he is saying that he cannot remember the name he was given, by whoever told him this. And, it was the opinion of whomever, that one of the men was not a club member, not the Secretaries opinion.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong...

Hard to say, Jon - he (the secretary) says that the fleeing man "was seen running down Fairclough Street", and that sounds like second hand information. But it need not be.
And then the secretary says that the chaser was someone he had forgotten the name of, so that sounds like first hand information. But it need not be.

The time, 12.45, however, sounds a lot more like Schwartz/Pipeman than Diemschitz/Kozebrodski!

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Why then do some accounts from men who had access to clocks differ from Louis's story by 20 minutes? 3 men from inside the club. And why if he arrived when he said he did, with horse and cart rattling down the cobblestones, was he not seen by Fanny Mortimer, whose corroborative account of Goldstein's walk past ensures us that she was indeed at her door during the final 10 minute interval before 1am.

Sigh...

A horse and cart was heard by Fanny M, shortly after she had seen Goldstein and gone back indoors, which was shortly before the alarm went up. That fits very nicely thank you with Louis D's 1am, unless one insists on totally unreasonable second-by-second accuracy from Fanny M.

If you believe Louis D arrived some 15-20 minutes earlier, you need to account for Fanny M not seeing or hearing his horse and cart 'rattling down the cobblestones' during that time - especially if you are claiming she would have been at her door to see Schwartz and co if he was telling the truth, and therefore he was full of it. You cannot have this both ways, as I have pointed out umpteen times now.

There is also the little matter of how Louis D could have hoped to protect his fellow club members by pretending the body was not found until 1am, when others were openly admitting it had been there at 12.45. It does not even begin to add up as a conspiracy theory (more like a one-man band), so the far more likely explanation lies in the fact that everyone was relying on a) their powers of recall; b) their ability to judge the passing minutes and seconds; and/or c) the accuracy of any available timepieces (if they even consulted one at the precise moment they realised a murder had been committed). Few, apart from possibly Dr. Blackwell, can be expected to have known the exact time at any given point in the proceedings.

Love,

Caz
X

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Mike

I use the ones that had access to clocks and watches. Which should keep them within a 5-10 minute error range at worst. Why then do some accounts from men who had access to clocks differ from Louis's story by 20 minutes? 3 men from inside the club.

So even these folk who have access to clocks and watches...mostly in need of frequent resetting owing to their cheap nature - from what source do they reset them?

There is no radio...no TV...if they reset them from the local church clock, from where does that timing originate? Actually that timing usually originated from the next church down until you reached "Big Ben" - so how accurate is the next church down? How long since the verger bothered to clamber up all those stairs and adjusted the mrchanism?

It's only about ten years on from when the railways adopted a standardised London time via the Electric Telegraph...you think the rest of the nation caught up with the new technology straight away?

Sorry mate

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Sigh...

A horse and cart was heard by Fanny M, shortly after she had seen Goldstein and gone back indoors, which was shortly before the alarm went up. That fits very nicely thank you with Louis D's 1am, unless one insists on totally unreasonable second-by-second accuracy from Fanny M.

If you believe Louis D arrived some 15-20 minutes earlier, you need to account for Fanny M not seeing or hearing his horse and cart 'rattling down the cobblestones' during that time - especially if you are claiming she would have been at her door to see Schwartz and co if he was telling the truth, and therefore he was full of it. You cannot have this both ways, as I have pointed out umpteen times now.

There is also the little matter of how Louis D could have hoped to protect his fellow club members by pretending the body was not found until 1am, when others were openly admitting it had been there at 12.45. It does not even begin to add up as a conspiracy theory (more like a one-man band), so the far more likely explanation lies in the fact that everyone was relying on a) their powers of recall; b) their ability to judge the passing minutes and seconds; and/or c) the accuracy of any available timepieces (if they even consulted one at the precise moment they realised a murder had been committed). Few, apart from possibly Dr. Blackwell, can be expected to have known the exact time at any given point in the proceedings.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

The missing facts are that Fanny said she heard the cart and horse sometime after 1am when she was back inside, she did not see it, and that Fanny never claimed to be at her door at all times throughout that half hour, only during the last 10 minutes before 1am. Again, immediately preceding the period when Louis says he arrives. She would have had to have seen him and hear him if he arrived at 1am.

There was no time to have everyone onsite agree with what would have been suggested by any ringleader, and Louis is certainly sure to be a ringleader if one is required. He was the Steward, any threat to the clubs operations would be dealt with by him at that time of night. He stated he leaves with 'Issac [s]" for help after his arrival, after 1am, and that cannot be Isaac Kozebrodski as many assume, because Issac stated within that critical first hour that he was asked to go for help alone, by Louis, when he was summoned to the passageway by the dead woman "about 10 minutes after half past 12".

Have you heard Louis mention that anywhere? Or Eagle? Are they not on record to have been the only 2 parties that left for the police? Doesn't that seem contradictory to you, or do you have a rebuttal that requires we dismiss all the witness accounts that place the dead woman in the passageway before 12:45....at least 4 of them.....and assert that Louis flew to the gates in his winged chariot which is why Fanny didn't see him coming before 1?

At the very least, if Louis intended to contend that Issac Kozebrodski joined him to search for help after 1am, then it would appear one of them is lying. If young Issac could remember something for an hour, then his search alone for help was not recognized by the man he says sent him. Did Louis forget he sent him alone, or did he lie?

With a body in the passageway before 12:45, we have 4 witness accounts corroborating each other on the aspect of the time. Do you have a single corroborating witness for Louis, or Morris, or Lave, or Izzy?

Of course you don't, your house of cards theories about this murder are founded on a belief who killed her, despite what any of the evidence might say.

Cheers Caz

[Wickerman]

Hello john ,

I think we have 2 for and 2 against !
There is the "." and the malarkey

And then we have the time issue coupled with the statement that the man chasing was

As for Swanson V Press .. I think the press have a lot more local knowledge .

moonbegger

Hi Moonbegger.

If this was Schwartz chased by Pipeman, why do you think Pipeman would be shouting "murder?".
He wasn't near to the crime scene to determine whether anyone in Dutfields Yard would be dead, hurt, knocked out, or just dazed. He started running from the pub on the corner, so far as we know, Pipeman didn't even see Liz.

Then, if you are Schwartz, being chased, why run away from your home?, he ran in the opposite direction!

Whomever was shouting "murder" must have been someone who had just seen a dead body, don't you think?

If we compare Swanson v Press, it will always be a tough sell to argue that the police were mistaken, they interviewed Schwartz if you recall.
On the other hand, the press have already established their unfortunate tendency to publish stories which contain errors.

As for the issue of 'time', I try to not let the time issue be a deciding factor in any theory, we have learned just how inaccurate estimates of time were.
Perhaps before your time, but there is an 'oldie' song that seems appropriate, "Does anybody really know what time it is?"

[Wickerman]

Hard to say, Jon - he (the secretary) says that the fleeing man "was seen running down Fairclough Street", and that sounds like second hand information. But it need not be.
And then the secretary says that the chaser was someone he had forgotten the name of, so that sounds like first hand information. But it need not be.

Hi Christer.
It is hard to explain the article given what we know, it is easier to list the problems with it being Schwartz/Pipeman, than anything else.
Given the press record for error-prone articles, if anything at all is correct in that article, it must surely be the 'direction of flight'.
If that is the most reliable detail we have to work with then only Diemschitz/Kozebrodski suit this detail.

The time, 12.45, however, sounds a lot more like Schwartz/Pipeman than Diemschitz/Kozebrodski!

"Does anybody really know what time it is?"

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Cog

So even these folk who have access to clocks and watches...mostly in need of frequent resetting owing to their cheap nature - from what source do they reset them?

There is no radio...no TV...if they reset them from the local church clock, from where does that timing originate? Actually that timing usually originated from the next church down until you reached "Big Ben" - so how accurate is the next church down? How long since the verger bothered to clamber up all those stairs and adjusted the mrchanism?

The public clocks chime/strike, people use the sound of the local clock to reset/synchronise their own. The idea that people in London in 1888 didn't have access to accurate time simply isn't true.

Why would vergers have to adjust the mechanism ?

It's only about ten years on from when the railways adopted a standardised London time via the Electric Telegraph...you think the rest of the nation caught up with the new technology straight away?

That nothing to do with the accuracy of clocks, that's just synchronising the running of the railways, effectively the change from local mean time to Greenwich mean time.

[Wickerman]

The public clocks chime/strike, people use the sound of the local clock to reset/synchronise their own. The idea that people in London in 1888 didn't have access to accurate time simply isn't true.

Some time ago I came across an article describing how the clocks of London were periodically reset from Greenwich. Only certain clocks were on the 'sync' list, it was the responsibility of the many private clock owners/operators to set their clocks to ones sychronised by the city.

[drstrange169]

Hello Wickerman,

"Some time ago I came across an article describing how the clocks of London were periodically reset from Greenwich."

You would happen to have a source handy for that? I currently doing some research into Victorian timekeeping and source seem pretty scarce.