Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Double Event

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    I don't get this? How does the statement the police arrived 7 minutes after the discover lead to the discovery being at 12:55?

    He specifically states he was coming home from market at one o'clock, then goes on to say he poked with his whip, thought it was a pile of dirt or something, then he goes and lights a match and realizes it is a woman, whom he presumes is drunk. The then goes and finds his wife, and he gets a club member, and then discovering it was a dead body when they see the blood. Finally, we get him saying the police arrived 7 minutes after the discovery (presumably of the body; but even if we allow him to mean his initial discovery of it being a woman, that just means he's suggesting the police arrived around 1:07 (or 1:08 if we give him a minute of faffing around with the whip until he lights his match - maybe even 1:10 if by discovery he means discovery she was dead), in now way does that lead to the discovery being at 12:55 because he clearly states he was coming home from market at that time and doesn't get to the club until 1:00?

    But nothing in any of that quote you presented allows for a discovery time of 12:55. The earliest time mentioned is 1 o'clock, you're putting the discovery 5 minutes before he even gets there. I don't understand how you came to that conclusion based upon what you presented?

    - Jeff
    The arrival times of police and doctors, precludes the possibility of a 1am arrival time. It's too late.
    Someone discovered the body at about 12:55. I don't think it was Diemschitz.
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Fiver View Post

      Now let's deal with this version of your conspiracy theory.
      There is only one hypothesis of mine, regarding a removed knife. Anything else attributed to me is made up. The remainder of your post is uninteresting.

      Does anyone have a better explanation for both the ten inches of cold steel remark, and the knife discovered on Whitechapel Road, with dried blood on its ten inch blade?
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Fiver View Post

        The Star account does not support your position. It gives no evidence that club members moved Stride's body, nor does it provide a reason for them moving it.
        Actually it does. Across the lane is different to along the lane.

        Deimschutz' account does not support your position. It gives no evidence that club members moved Stride's body, nor does it provide a reason for them moving it.
        In a sense, that is correct. Had the cart actually come into contact with the body, it would have caused obvious injury. Yet there was no injury that could have corresponded to an impact of that nature.
        The pony might have weighed about 200kg. Add that to the cart and driver, and we are dealing with the leading edge of the right wheel colliding with the body, with hundreds of kilograms of mass behind it. Even at very low speed, that amounts to a substantial impact, especially on a slight woman like Liz Stride.
        For Diemschitz to have noticed a collision on that bumpy stony ground, he must have hit her quite hard. So where is the evidence for this?
        Perhaps there is none, because the body was swivelled out of the way just prior to Diemschitz' entry to the lane.

        I would suggest this also partly explains the mystery of the pony and cart never seeming to get in the way, even though Diemschitz' account suggests it should have. He simply drove right through, and the body had already been discovered.
        Who heard the arrival of pony & cart...?

        The Star, Oct 1: M. Rombrow is the editor of The Worker's Friend, whose printing office is in the yard. It was just outside the door of this office that the body was found. M. Rombrow says that he was in this office all the time, and had there been the noise of any struggle, however slight, he should have heard it. He heard nothing, however, until the steward's coming into the yard.

        So Philip Krantz heard it from inside the AF offices, down in the backyard. What about Mrs Diemschitz?

        MA, Oct 2: Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance ... Up till then I had not heard a sound-not even a whisper. Then suddenly I saw my husband enter, looking very scared and frightened ... The door had been, and still was, half open ... Just by the door I saw a pool of blood, and when my husband struck a light I noticed a dark lump lying under the wall. I at once recognised it as the body of a woman ... She was lying on her back with her head against the wall, and the face looked ghastly.

        Apparently not, or if she did, she just heard another cart driving up to the backyard.
        Note also the orientation of the body; she was lying on her back.
        Was she lying on her back when Spooner and the other police arrived? No. Did Dr Phillips say she had mud on her back? No. Did the assault on Stride take place where and when Israel Schwartz said it did? No.
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by caz View Post

          What I don't understand is why NBFN assumes that if anyone at the club had found a knife which could have been the murder weapon, they would a) automatically have presumed the cut throat to be a fellow club member [and therefore possibly Jack the Ripper] and b) immediately have gone into damage control mode and risked getting into very serious trouble, to protect one of their own, when nobody at the club may have needed any such protection. That simply isn't normal behaviour.
          That simply isn't the hypothesis
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            The arrival times of police and doctors, precludes the possibility of a 1am arrival time. It's too late.
            Someone discovered the body at about 12:55. I don't think it was Diemschitz.
            I don't understand that. Finding the body at 1:00 gives and estimated 7 minutes for the police to arrive, around 1:07. The police were found just north and east on Commercial, and not that far away. Even with an initial false turn west on Commercial, still gives plenty of time for the police to be found and get to the crime scene. There's no need for an extra 5 minutes. PC Lamb immediately sends another constable to fetch the doctor, who arrives at 1:10 according to his watch. Most of the times we have are people estimating things, like the 7 minutes, but Deimshutz states he noted the time as being 1 o'clock as he past a clock (can't remember what building it was on off the top of my head, but it was close enough to the crime scene that he would traverse the distance in under a minute). The next clock based time is the arrival of the doctor, 10 minutes later, and he too lives close by. The other comings and goings are only time stamped by estimates, either of how much time has passed or estimates of the actual time, both of which (the latter in particular) will be of various degrees of accuracy. The best we can do is time stamp the known clock based times, and then look at the activities that are supposed to have occurred between them (find the police, send for the doctor, doctor arrives), and 10 minutes is more than enough time for all of that. For reference, that's more time than Eddowes' murderer had to kill and mutilate her after all.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              There is only one hypothesis of mine, regarding a removed knife. Anything else attributed to me is made up. The remainder of your post is uninteresting.

              Does anyone have a better explanation for both the ten inches of cold steel remark, and the knife discovered on Whitechapel Road, with dried blood on its ten inch blade?
              "Ten inches of cold steel" just sounds like a dramatic phrase to describe a horrific knife murder. I doubt it was meant literally.
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                That simply isn't the hypothesis
                Glad to hear it.

                So if a knife was found and handled/removed by a club member, he didn't do it because he suspected a fellow club member of dropping it?

                Or am I still not grasping your hypothesis?
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  That simply isn't the hypothesis
                  That is one of the two hypotheses you offered in Post #37

                  NBFNTheory 1 - "As to why they would make the decision to remove the knife, well two things come to mind. If the knife was similar in size and style to the knives of other club members, an obvious inference can be drawn. However, the knife presented at the inquest was a whopper, so that seems like an unlikely problem. Having said that, there may have been an effort to hide knives from the police ..."

                  NBFN Theory 2 - "Perhaps a better reason is that, if the man were disturbed and left in such a hurry that he left his knife behind, why didn't they see him running off? They can get around that difficult question by removing the knife, which eliminates most of the evidence for a drop and run (a few drops of blood might remain)."

                  As I have shown, neither of your theories makes sense.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                    There is only one hypothesis of mine, regarding a removed knife. Anything else attributed to me is made up.
                    You offered two hypotheses in Post #37. Denying it now is just as accurate as you denying that you theorized that club members moved the body.

                    NBFN Knife Theory 1 - "As to why they would make the decision to remove the knife, well two things come to mind. If the knife was similar in size and style to the knives of other club members, an obvious inference can be drawn. However, the knife presented at the inquest was a whopper, so that seems like an unlikely problem. Having said that, there may have been an effort to hide knives from the police ..."

                    NBFN Knife Theory 2 - "Perhaps a better reason is that, if the man were disturbed and left in such a hurry that he left his knife behind, why didn't they see him running off? They can get around that difficult question by removing the knife, which eliminates most of the evidence for a drop and run (a few drops of blood might remain)."

                    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                    The remainder of your post is uninteresting.
                    The remainer of my post shows that you second knife theory makes no more sense than your first knife theory.

                    Now let's deal with this version of your conspiracy theory. Like your first version, it requires evidence tampering, perjury, and conspiracy. The conspirators would be risking execution for doing it. It also gains them nothing - even without the knife, police could still have asked "The murderer was obviously disturbed and left in hurry. Why didn't any of you see or hear him running off?"

                    In your conspiracy theory, dropping the knife was an unplanned act, which means your conspirators have not planned anything ahead of time. They need to find the knife. Then one of the conspirators needs come up with the misguided idea of moving the knife. They then have to spend time persuading the others to become accomplices to murder and risk execution for a plan that gains them nothing and helps a murderer. Potentially putting your neck in a noose for a murderous stranger should be a hard sell that will take a lot of time to convince the others. Then the conspirators will need to spend more time deciding how to dispose of the knife. And even more time deciding who will dispose of the knife.

                    During this extended committee meeting, the conspirators risk more club members entering the yard from the club or the street, which at best means they have to start the discussion over from the beginning, and at worst means they are all going to jail. There's also a significant risk of non-club members coming into Dutfield's Yard from the several houses that also open into Dutfield's Yard or from Berner Street.

                    Your conspiracy theory also requires absolute trust between the conspirators. Goldstein has to unshakably trust that the other conspirators will not wait until he leaves and then scapegoat him as the killer. The other conspirators also have to unshakably trust that Goldstein will dispose of the knife instead of taking it straight to the police. And then all of the conspirators must keep silent on the conspiracy for the rest of their lives, with no attacks of conscience or deathbed confessions.

                    Last I checked membership in the International Working Men's Education Society only required being a Socialist. This version of your conspiracy theory also requires them to be stonehearted monsters willing to die for a murderous stranger. And to have the collective intelligence of a house plant.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post

                      "Ten inches of cold steel" just sounds like a dramatic phrase to describe a horrific knife murder. I doubt it was meant literally.
                      Probably stems from the army and bayonetting.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                        Actually it does. Across the lane is different to along the lane.
                        The Star account uses vague wording when it says "across". The Star account also claims "She lay on her back" which contradicts all testimony at the Inquest.

                        "[Coroner] How was she lying? - On her left side, with her face towards the club wall." - Lewis Deimschutz

                        "She was lying on her left side, with her left hand on the ground." - PC Lamb

                        "Her face was turned towards the club wall." - Edward Spooner

                        "The deceased was lying on her left side obliquely across the passage, her face looking towards the right wall. Her legs were drawn up, her feet close against the wall of the right side of the passage." - Dr Blackwell

                        "I accompanied the officer to Berner-street, and in a courtyard adjoining No. 40 I was shown the figure of a woman lying on her left side." - Edward Johnson

                        "The body was lying on its left side, the face being turned towards the wall, the head towards the yard, and the feet toward the street.' - Police Surgeon George Baxter Phillips

                        The Star account does not say Stride's body was moved. The Star account claims that when Stride's body was found "She lay on her back, her head was near the grating of the cellar, and her body stretched across the passage." The Star account of the body's position is contradicted by 6 eyewitnesses, only one of which was a member of the International Working Men's Education Society.

                        The Star account still does not support your position. The Star account still gives no evidence that club members moved Stride's body, nor does it provide a reason for them moving it.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          I don't understand that. Finding the body at 1:00 gives and estimated 7 minutes for the police to arrive, around 1:07.
                          1:07 is a good estimate for Smith's arrival time. To suppose any later is to suggest that an experienced PC on his beat was out in his time estimate by more than 2 or 3 minutes. Do you suppose the same of Watkins or Harvey?
                          When Smith arrived at the top of Berner street, Lamb and Ayliffe had already reached the yard, yet Smith is unaware of their running to the scene. At beat pace, he is about 2 minutes from the yard, so Lamb must have arrived at least 3 minutes prior to Smith. That would be 1:04 at the latest. Spooner arrived around 1:00. The body was discovery about 12:55, and the murder occurred about 12:50.
                          By the way, the approximate murder time was known by the WVC's hired detectives...

                          EN, Oct 4: What they go to establish is that the perpetrator of the Berner street crime was seen and spoken to whilst in the company of his victim, within forty minutes of the commission of the crime and only passed from the sight of a witness TEN MINUTES BEFORE THE MURDER and within ten yards of the scene of the awful deed. We proceed to five hereunder the story of the two detectives, Messrs. Grand and J.H. Batchelor, of 283 Strand: ...

                          Smith passed Stride and parcel man at about 12:40. Smith is the probable witness referred to.
                          If it is supposed that the murder occurred at ~1am, then the probable witness is Fanny Mortimer. Yet that would mean she were at her doorstep between about 12:40 and 12:50. No Schwartz incident witnessed.
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post

                            "Ten inches of cold steel" just sounds like a dramatic phrase to describe a horrific knife murder. I doubt it was meant literally.
                            Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                            Probably stems from the army and bayonetting.
                            So tell me about the knife found on Whitechapel Road, the following night.
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post

                              Glad to hear it.

                              So if a knife was found and handled/removed by a club member, he didn't do it because he suspected a fellow club member of dropping it?

                              Or am I still not grasping your hypothesis?
                              I would suggest that maintaining a collection of poster's arguments and important questions, would be a good idea.
                              Just something simple like a folder with one text file per thread, each containing comments like; #post NBFN argued ...
                              That way there would less chance of inadvertently misrepresenting poster's, and wasting people's time, reading and writing corrections.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                                That is one of the two hypotheses you offered in Post #37

                                NBFNTheory 1 - "As to why they would make the decision to remove the knife, well two things come to mind. If the knife was similar in size and style to the knives of other club members, an obvious inference can be drawn. However, the knife presented at the inquest was a whopper, so that seems like an unlikely problem. Having said that, there may have been an effort to hide knives from the police ..."

                                NBFN Theory 2 - "Perhaps a better reason is that, if the man were disturbed and left in such a hurry that he left his knife behind, why didn't they see him running off? They can get around that difficult question by removing the knife, which eliminates most of the evidence for a drop and run (a few drops of blood might remain)."

                                As I have shown, neither of your theories makes sense.
                                There is only one hypothesis - that the knife was left behind, and when found, a small number of club members decided it prudent to remove it.
                                What you have quoted above, are the two reasons I originally gave for supposing that decision had been made, given the assumptions of the hypothesis.
                                If you (or anyone else) don't like the hypothesis, that's fine by me, yet the knife found by Thomas Coram still begs for an explanation.

                                The knife was large, of high quality, and had blood on both the blade and around the handkerchief tied to the handle. It was found on a doorstep within a fixed point zone. It could not have sat there unnoticed for 23 hours - it was evidently placed where police would soon find it. Who is throwing away a knife like that, with no definite connection to either double event murders, so that we could suppose that it were a prank? Did the murderer himself throw it away? Maybe, but that means Mishter Lusk won't have it sent to him, no matter how long he wates.
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X