Fanny Mortimer

[Michael W Richards]

I don’t claim it to be a sinister plot, Michael. In fact, it’s quite easy to understand. It’s just that I put very little stock in the timings of the 3 witnesses you put forward as showing that Diemshutz was by the body as early as around 12:40 am.

You confuse me, Michael. I thought that your position is that Diemshutz lied about when he discovered the body, not about his going in search of a policeman along Fairclough Street just after 1 am. Are you now saying that you’ve changed that position?

However, it doesn’t matter with regards to the point I’m making. Which is that, according to you, Spooner was brought back to the yard by 2 unknown club members who’d gone down Fairclough Street as far as Grove Street to find a policeman and then, without finding one, returned with Spooner to the yard at around 12:40 am, where he then lifted the chin of the woman. Then, Diemshutz told press, police & inquest that, shortly after 1 am, he also ran out of the yard along Fairclough Street and, also without finding a policeman, he, too, returned with a man he’d met along the way to the yard who did the exact same thing Spooner did (i.e. lift the woman’s head).

So, the question remains, why would it be a smart thing for a lying Diemshutz to include a copy of what Spooner told if Spooner was supposed to have already arrived in the yard some 20 minutes earlier?

It would have been if timings back then weren’t as unreliable as they were. Especially when there’s no evidence of the estimate of time was made by way of a clock. Only two witnesses claim to have watched a clock: Diemshutz and Blackwell.

Which is another not too smart thing for Diemshutz & Co to do if they were trying to cover up the fact that he had found the body just before 12:40 am.

It would be, at the very least, a rather questionable attempt at a cover up if they couldn’t even get Eagle and Lave to tell stories that would have matched with regards to their timings. It should have been quite easy to achieve that, shouldn’t it? Just have both of them say that they looked at a clock right/shortly after leaving or entering and don’t have these timings intertwine.

Couple of points....anything Diemshitz says is suspect when he can be provably incorrect on an important detail, Spooner never said he accompanied Diemshitz back, Louis did...Spooner said 2 jews. Which brings up another point, if Issac is accurate then 2 search parties were sent out while I suggest Diemshitz and Eagle considered their options. Issac alone, and the 2 Jews Spooner encounters. I think things just transpired, Louis and Morris likely left around the same time they suggest because its then part of a timeline that soon includes reliable witnesses. Cops. Medical personelle. But when you have 4 witness that state they were by Louis and the body a full 20-25 minutes before he says that could have happened, you do not have any justification to believe what he says is bankable data.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bang on what?
According to Lamb in the DN, DT, MA & Times, he was alerted to the situation...

At about one o'clock...

...shortly before one o'clock...

About one o'clock on Sunday morning...

About 1 o'clock, as near as I can tell...

Lamb does not confirm Diemschitz, so how does this...?

Spooner: I stood there about five minutes before a constable came. It was the last witness who first arrived

You’re nitpicking. We should not be talking exact times. It’s pointless.

Spooner was there 5 minutes before Lamb. Minus nitpicking those 5 minutes might have been 3 or 4 minutes. Lamb estimated the time that he’s in Commercial Road and is accosted by Eagle at 1.00. Minus nitpicking that could have been 1.05.

They tie up. There’s no issue.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Hershberg is very easily dismissed, but would that dismissal be valid?

Yes. He’s gone. Move on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. So I take it the planned rethink was a success?

No I didn’t bother. It’s tiring and boring listening to wave after wave after wave of infantile and dishonest conspiracy nonsense for which there’s not a shred of evidence.

Almost every ripper thread these days manages to uncover a ‘conspiracy.’ It’s like being in a ‘let’s see who can come up with the unlikeliest conspiracy competition.” Alice In Wonderiand reasoning combined with cherry-picking will always find one. Diemschutz discovered Stride’s body at around 1.00. This is a a fact.

[FrankO]

Couple of points....anything Diemshitz says is suspect when he can be provably incorrect on an important detail, Spooner never said he accompanied Diemshitz back, Louis did...Spooner said 2 jews.

That’s completely irrelevant to the point I made, Michael. Diemshutz told a copy of what Spooner told with regards to Diemshutz’s unsuccessful search for a PC and bringing back a man to the yard who then lifted the woman’s head.

If we assume for a moment that Diemshutz was trying to cover up the fact that he’d discovered the woman around 12:40 am, then it would simply not have been smart to 1. send at least one person out in search of a PC right after the discovery, 2. not let this person in on the cover up and 3. tell a copy of what Spooner told when Spooner had already been in the yard for some 20 minutes.

Why would Diemshutz want to tell a copy of what Spooner told if what Spooner told happened some 20 minutes earlier? That would not be good to your cover-up attempt. If Diemshutz was lying, wouldn’t it have been much better (and very simple) not to include a story so very similar to Spooner’s?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You’re nitpicking. We should not be talking exact times. It’s pointless.

It's probably pointless arguing with you, but my responses to you are there for everyone to read.

Spooner was there 5 minutes before Lamb. Minus nitpicking those 5 minutes might have been 3 or 4 minutes.

Because if it were 5, Spooner would be arriving at the same time Diemschitz claimed to see the clock.
So what you mean by 'might have' is, 'it was' - there's no other option if contradicting Diemschitz is to be avoided.
However, even if we 'minus the nitpicking', you have Spooner arriving 60-120 seconds after Diemschitz passes the clock at the top of Berner street. Ludicrous!

Lamb estimated the time that he’s in Commercial Road and is accosted by Eagle at 1.00. Minus nitpicking that could have been 1.05.

From the time the pony cart entered the yard, how much time would have elapsed by the point the search for police begins?
What sense of time did you get from reading The Workers Friend article?
Then, how much more time to find police...?

LD: A member named Isaacs went down into the yard with me, and we struck a match. We saw blood right from the gate up the yard. Then we both went for the police, but unfortunately it was several minutes before we could find a constable. At last another member of the club named Eagle, who ran out after us and went in a different direction, found one in Commercial road.

According to The Workers Friend, the searching alone took 10 minutes. Apparently you know better though.

They tie up. There’s no issue.

So after banging-on about people ignoring the experienced PC Smith on his regulated beat, it seems you have finally realized that it comes down to a choice - Smith or Diemschitz - and you have made your choice in favour of the steward of the Socialist club.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No I didn’t bother. It’s tiring and boring listening to wave after wave after wave of infantile and dishonest conspiracy nonsense for which there’s not a shred of evidence.

Almost every ripper thread these days manages to uncover a ‘conspiracy.’ It’s like being in a ‘let’s see who can come up with the unlikeliest conspiracy competition.” Alice In Wonderiand reasoning combined with cherry-picking will always find one. Diemschutz discovered Stride’s body at around 1.00. This is a a fact.

This is a quite revealing post. What it amounts to is...

Why should I bother doing any research, thinking, or informative writing, when I can just use the tactic of labelling anyone who argues against The Old Theories, a conspiracy theorist peddling conspiracy nonsense? It's much easier to do the later!

Who else is going to fall into the same trap as Herlock?

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is a quite revealing post. What it amounts to is...

Why should I bother doing any research, thinking, or informative writing, when I can just use the tactic of labelling anyone who argues against The Old Theories, a conspiracy theorist peddling conspiracy nonsense? It's much easier to do the later!

Who else is going to fall into the same trap as Herlock?

It means nothing of the kind. It means remaining within the realms of reason and avoiding silly, baseless conspiracy theories. Your thread on the whip is a perfect illustration of trying to build a case for conspiracy around an unknown. That thread should have been two posts long. The first response should have been - Can we say with 100% accuracy that we know the height of Diemschutz cart and can know with 100% accuracy the length of Diemschutz whip? If the answer to either of those is ‘no’ and it is, then it’s theory over. You can’t come up with a ‘known’ from unknowns. But you continue chasing a dead duck because of the conspiracist mentality.

On the Chapman thread you came up with Mrs Richardson running a brothel in her cellar.

......

I’d never criticise re-thinking an issue. But you seem absolutely determined to find some kind of conspiracy/cover-up at all costs. Slight timing discrepancies aren’t enough. They’re not nearly enough. Frank came up with a timeline; it’s possible by allowing for error. Therefore there’s no issue. Yes, I can sense the hackles rising, but that’s how I dismiss this conspiracy without the slightest concern that I might be missing something. No issue at all. In fact it should be everyone’s default position when looking at any situation. A scenario isn’t good enough; even if it provides a ‘reason’ for cover up.

I’ll be boring and repeat the famous Carl Sagan saying “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Or, in this case, just evidence would help. All we have are discrepancies in timing in the dirt poor East End of 1888 where few people would have owned watches and clocks. I’d be more suspicious if all of the times tied up perfectly! Errors are absolutely to be expected so they should be viewed as errors unless you can prove that weren’t or that they were lies.

There are errors; that’s all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have...

The Richardson’s covering up the fact that she’s running a basement brothel.
The members of the club conspiring to shield a murderer in their midst.
Eddowes being killed elsewhere but dumped in Mitre Square.
Another women killed in Miller’s Court and mutilated to make people think that it was Kelly.

Poor old Polly Nichols must be feeling left out? Obviously I’m not suggesting that all of these are supported by you but how many conspiracies can be ‘uncovered’ in a short series of murders?

So what’s more likely, there were conspiracies and cover-ups or was there a serial killer around? Was there a cover up in Berner Street or did the witnesses make understandable timing errors?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It means nothing of the kind. It means remaining within the realms of reason and avoiding silly, baseless conspiracy theories. Your thread on the whip is a perfect illustration of trying to build a case for conspiracy around an unknown. That thread should have been two posts long. The first response should have been - Can we say with 100% accuracy that we know the height of Diemschutz cart and can know with 100% accuracy the length of Diemschutz whip? If the answer to either of those is ‘no’ and it is, then it’s theory over. You can’t come up with a ‘known’ from unknowns. But you continue chasing a dead duck because of the conspiracist mentality.

Yet I now have people asserting or suggesting that Diemschitz had an ordinary cart, rather than a barrow!

On the Chapman thread you came up with Mrs Richardson running a brothel in her cellar.

My suspicions about the security of the cellar, turned out to be justified.

I’d never criticise re-thinking an issue. But you seem absolutely determined to find some kind of conspiracy/cover-up at all costs.

I'm interested in the details of the case. You're interested in sweeping generalizations.
And what, by the way, are all costs?

Slight timing discrepancies aren’t enough. They’re not nearly enough. Frank came up with a timeline; it’s possible by allowing for error. Therefore there’s no issue. Yes, I can sense the hackles rising, but that’s how I dismiss this conspiracy without the slightest concern that I might be missing something. No issue at all. In fact it should be everyone’s default position when looking at any situation. A scenario isn’t good enough; even if it provides a ‘reason’ for cover up.

I’ll be boring and repeat the famous Carl Sagan saying “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Or, in this case, just evidence would help. All we have are discrepancies in timing in the dirt poor East End of 1888 where few people would have owned watches and clocks. I’d be more suspicious if all of the times tied up perfectly! Errors are absolutely to be expected so they should be viewed as errors unless you can prove that weren’t or that they were lies.

There are errors; that’s all.

This is a strawman argument.
I've never said 'slight timing discrepancies' added up to a cover-up.
I explained what I thought might be going on with Diemschitz and Schwartz in this post...
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...689#post749689
Rather typically, you replied by completely misrepresenting what I'd said - I made no mention of the '4 witnesses', and yet you carried on as though that was the basis for each of the scenarios I'd offered.

You seem to have a problem understanding the differences in people's points of view, what they have said on particular issues - often on multiple and recent occasions, or even who people are referring to or quoting, in their posts.

Now that you've name-dropped Carl Sagan, perhaps you'd like to go back to #141, and actually respond, specifically, to some of those points?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We have...

Who's 'we'? The Ripperological Establishment?

The Richardson’s covering up the fact that she’s running a basement brothel.

Given the time and place, suggesting that people did what they had to do, to keep their heads above water, is not radical at all.
On the other hand, to suppose that the cellar just went unused, yet still had to be paid for, is naive.

The members of the club conspiring to shield a murderer in their midst.

Anarchists doing anarchist ****. What a surprise!

Eddowes being killed elsewhere but dumped in Mitre Square.
Another women killed in Miller’s Court and mutilated to make people think that it was Kelly.

Poor old Polly Nichols must be feeling left out? Obviously I’m not suggesting that all of these are supported by you but how many conspiracies can be ‘uncovered’ in a short series of murders?

People are suspicious about different elements of the case - you cannot just add these things up.
As I said in my last post, you're not good at differentiating people's positions.

So what’s more likely, there were conspiracies and cover-ups or was there a serial killer around? Was there a cover up in Berner Street or did the witnesses make understandable timing errors?

That's up to you to argue, but I'm not buying your false dichotomy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
We have...

“Who's 'we'? The Ripperological Establishment?”

There is no Ripperological Establishment. As you nitpick on times you appear to nitpick on a mere phrase.

The Richardson’s covering up the fact that she’s running a basement brothel.

“Given the time and place, suggesting that people did what they had to do, to keep their heads above water, is not radical at all.
On the other hand, to suppose that the cellar just went unused, yet still had to be paid for, is naive.”

No it’s not. To suggest a basement brothel you need evidence to back it up. And you don’t.

“The members of the club conspiring to shield a murderer in their midst.
Anarchists doing anarchist ****. What a surprise!”

As I’ve aid before, just because someone ‘might’ have a reason for doing x it doesn’t mean that x occurred.

Eddowes being killed elsewhere but dumped in Mitre Square.
Another women killed in Miller’s Court and mutilated to make people think that it was Kelly.

Poor old Polly Nichols must be feeling left out? Obviously I’m not suggesting that all of these are supported by you but how many conspiracies can be ‘uncovered’ in a short series of murders?

“People are suspicious about different elements of the case - you cannot just add these things up.
As I said in my last post, you're not good at differentiating people's positions.”

I didn’t say that all of these came from the same person.

So what’s more likely, there were conspiracies and cover-ups or was there a serial killer around? Was there a cover up in Berner Street or did the witnesses make understandable timing errors?

“That's up to you to argue, but I'm not buying your false dichotomy”

And without proper, solid evidence conspiracy theories should be treated with the contempt that they deserve.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
This is a strawman argument.
I've never said 'slight timing discrepancies' added up to a cover-up.
I explained what I thought might be going on with Diemschitz and Schwartz in this post...
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...689#post749689
Rather typically, you replied by completely misrepresenting what I'd said - I made no mention of the '4 witnesses', and yet you carried on as though that was the basis for each of the scenarios I'd offered

Its noticeable that in none of the variants do you consider that Diemschutz was correct in that he arrived at 1.00 and that any timings that don’t tally exactly were errors.