Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    Eagle: After the discussion, between half-past eleven and a quarter to twelve o'clock, I left the club to take my young lady home, going out through the front door. I returned about twenty minutes to one.

    So if he left at about 11:40, the walk was as much as 30 minutes each way. That means he hadn't looked at a clock for up to 50 minutes! How long do you suppose it had been since Smith last looked at a clock, before he arrived at the top of Berner street?



    Perhaps Eagle had a vastly better sense of time than Smith, or perhaps he got a hint from Diemschitz.



    Do you believe him? I dare say he knew he had seen the victim talking to a man, pretty much right outside the club. If that was true, then he quite possibly recognized the man with the parcel.



    Or if he arrived a bit too late to see them, the Lave saw them instead. How could Lave have been out on the street before 12:40, and not seen Stride with Smith's man?



    If Eagle saw Mortimer's board school couple, then it's basically all over for Israel Schwartz.
    Fanny said she did not recognize the man with the black bag, suggesting that well known club personalities, like Eagle, were known to her in some sense. Whatever the case, to suggest that Fanny confused a man leaving the club with one arriving, and with no bag, is surely a long shot.



    Was this report of Eagle's inquest testimony, reliable? The People, Oct 7:

    I went out, and striking a match found a woman lying with her feet 6ft from the gate, near the club wall, with her head to the wall. Others came with me, but seemed frightened to go near. Assuming it was drunken and not a dead woman, before striking a match, I said, "Get up." There being no reply, I then ignited a match, and was fearfully upset by seeing a woman lying in a lot of blood. I immediately ran away for a policeman, and found two.

    Similar to Arbeter Fraint...

    “Don’t you know that a murdered woman is lying in the yard?” Gilyarovsky breathlessly called out. At first the two comrades did not want to believe him. “What, don’t you believe me?” Gilyarovsky quickly asked: “I saw blood.” Yaffa and Krants immediately ran out and went over to the gate. The gate was open and it was very dark near the gate. A black object was barely discernable near the brick building. Once they got very close, they could notice that it was the shape of a woman that was lying with its face to the wall, with its head toward the yard and with its feet pointing to the gate. Comrades Morris Eygel, Fridenthal and Gilyarovsky were standing around the body. Eygel struck a match and shouted to the figure lying there: “Get up!” “Why are you waking her?” asked Yaffa, who noticed that the woman was lying in a liquid. “Don’t you see that the woman is dead?”

    So at this point Eagle leaves for police - "I immediately ran away for a policeman, and found two."



    AF: In the meantime, there was quite a to-do going on inside the club, and everyone ran out into the yard.

    Yet according to Mrs Diemschitz, it was Louis who struck the match, before everyone ran downstairs and out into the yard...

    Mrs D: I screamed out in fright, and the members of the club, hearing my cries, rushed downstairs in a body out into the yard.

    It would seem that when comrades Eygel, Fridenthal and Gilyarovsky were standing around the body, Louis Diemschitz was not - that occurred later.



    Lave in the Daily News: I was in the club yard this (Sunday) morning about twenty minutes to one. I came out first at half-past twelve to get a breath of fresh air. I passed out into the street, but did not see anything unusual. The district appeared to me to be quiet. I remained out until twenty minutes to one, and during that time no one came into the yard. I should have seen anybody moving about there.

    He should have seen anybody moving about there. Perhaps they were standing too still for him to notice?
    I'm not sure of the point of this entire post? We agree on the first part, he got back at 20 to 1, but you spend time on it as if we don't? Then it just degenerates to a bunch of quotes and what if's, and other unsubstantiated hypotheses? Basically, there's a frightful amount of bits that boil down to "what if we imagine something other than what they said"? Which, while a bit of fun, really isn't likely to lead to anything. Sure, the information we do have isn't conclusive, but imagining we can guess our way to the truth is a losing strategry. We work with what we have, we acknowledge it's flaws, but we still have to build upon what's available. If you don't think the foundation is safe to build upon, then you should just say "stop", not try to build a different structure. that becomes even more unstable.

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
      Hi George,

      Below an orderly beat I've been able to work out with Smith first going down Berner on the eastern side, then going up Batty on the eastern side, then going down Christian Street and turning left until Grove Street, then turning back to Berner, going up on the western side, then turning east and going down Batty Street on the western side, at the southern end turning right into Fairclough and going towards Backchurch Lane and to the starting point of his beat.

      Click image for larger version Name:	Smith's beat - up & down not in 1 go.JPG Views:	0 Size:	166.6 KB ID:	762574

      The only thing about this route that doesn't fit the evidence is that there can't have been (almost) an intire round (i.e. 25-30 minutes) between Smith seeing Stride & companion at around 12.30-12.35 and him arriving back at the top of Berner Street at about 1 o'clock. He must have been about halfway his beat when he saw the couple if he made such a round. But, perhaps, that's what you meant by "I still can't work out an orderly beat with Smith going up Berner St."...

      Cheers,
      Frank
      Hi Frank,

      Thank you for the new map. Can we abbreviate the Commercial Road/Berner St corner to CBC so I can proffer a few comments. If we start our round from CBC at 12:30 then Smith is seeing Stride down Berner St a little after that time, but he is headed in the wrong direction for the inquest testimony. So he continues on his way and is later back at Berner St about half way through his beat at say 12:45. You might get a few arguments presenting a theory that Smith was wandering around near Dutfields Yard again at that time. So he then arrives at CBC for the second time, about halfway through his beat time, proceeds to complete his beat and arrives at the CBC again for a third time. I'd have to say that, if I have your suggestion straight, with all due respect, ....I'm not ...entirely comfortable with that theory. Not that I've come up with anything better. The suggestion that Gowers may have actually been meant to be Grove doesn't improve matters at all either.

      I have put the question of this beat to Neil in the "Ask Monty Thread", and Dusty is hinting that he is in possession of the answer, so I'll mark it, if I may, "ongoing investigation".

      Cheers, George
      Last edited by GBinOz; 07-14-2021, 02:34 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        This totally contradicts Arbeter Fraint, which was presumably written with at least some input by Krantz. Either that or he was the main author.
        It also suggests that Eagle could not have seen Diemschitz or anyone else leave for police, which means there are zero credible witnesses to Diemschitz being part of any search party.

        Now to the biggest clanger of them all...

        From excitement he jumped off the cart, ran through the back door into the club and raised an alarm. Immediately Comrade Gilyarovsky ran into the printing shop and editor’s office that are located in the same building as the club, but separated in the back by the yard.
        There was no one in the printing shop. Comrades Krants and Yaffa were busy in the editor’s office.
        “Don’t you know that a murdered woman is lying in the yard?” Gilyarovsky breathlessly called out. At first the two comrades did not want to believe him. “What, don’t you believe me?” Gilyarovsky quickly asked: “I saw blood.”


        Gilyarovsky discovered the body. What, you don't believe me? He saw blood even though the alarm was supposedly not raised until Diemschitz went into the club, and Gilyarovsky then immediately ran into the printing shop. Clearly he had already seen the body!

        There can be little doubt that Gilyarovsky was Kozebrodski, and little doubt the Kozebrodski was the young lad who informed Joseph Koster of the murder, at about 12:55. This is why Koster was tempted to claim the discovery as his own - Diemschitz was still seconds away from arriving when Koster became aware of the situation.
        Andrew, I'd really be interested in the alternative version of what happened around and during Stride's murder, if that's what you're working on, but just not before you've worked it all out for yourself. Until then, I'm going to stick to the 'traditional' version of events and I'm not going to enlarge upon each & every oddity I might find in the evidence.

        Cheers,
        Frank
        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          This has noted many times. About as many times as it has been ignored or forgotten.

          Coroner: Were there any spots of blood anywhere else?
          Phillips: I could trace none except that which I considered had been transplanted - if I may use the term - from the original flow from the neck. Roughly estimating it, I should say there was an unusual flow of blood, considering the stature and the nourishment of the body.

          They moved the body. They also moved some of the blood.
          They moved the blood? That's one of the most amusing claims I have seen.

          Feel free to provide an explanation how "they" would move the blood. And a motive. And how "they" could move the blood withou getting any blood on themselves.

          I expect I'll be waiting a while. So far, in spite of repeated requests, you have provided no evidence that anyone moved Stride's body, nor have you provided any credible motive for anyone to move her body.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
            I don't know if that's true, Fiver. The closest bridge for Diemshutz to take was the London Bridge (thanks to Caz I know that the Tower Bridge was still under construction in 1888 and not finished until 1894), and via London Bridge the best route to Berner Street seems to have been: Fenchurch Street, Aldgate High Street, Commercial Road.

            The best,
            Frank
            Thank you for the information. Based on that, it does make sense for Diemshutz to have entered Berner Street from the north.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              Eagle in the MA, Oct 1: After I had been in the club 20 minutes the steward came in and said there was a woman lying in the yard. I went down into the yard and saw the blood, and afterwards assisted to find the police.

              Even if you choose to ignore that, there several other anomalies that need to be explained away.

              Its not an anomaly. It’s the literal truth. Diemschutz did come in and mention the body - not directly to Eagle though because Eagle was upstairs. And he learned about this from Gilleman.

              E: I struck a light and saw her covered in blood. I could not look at her long, so I ran for the police.

              Was that after Diemschitz had struck a light himself?

              Who knows? Who cares? It’s irrelevant.

              D: I then got a candle and went into the yard, where I could see blood before I reached the body.
              C: Did you touch the body?
              D: No, I ran off at once for the police.


              So how did Eagle manage to see this...?

              When I got outside I saw Jacobs and another going for the police in the direction of Fairclough-street...

              Because he looked….and saw….with his eyes. Glad I could clear that one up for you.

              Did Eagle know who went in the direction of Fairclough street, or was he guessing?
              Again, who cares? You’ll just load the sinister inferences onto any Press version of events anyway.


              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                The Scarlet thread by Gurvich and Ray, about Deeming in Oz.
                No wonder I didn’t recognise it I don’t have that one. Cheers Dusty.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  They moved the blood? That's one of the most amusing claims I have seen.

                  Feel free to provide an explanation how "they" would move the blood. And a motive. And how "they" could move the blood withou getting any blood on themselves.

                  I expect I'll be waiting a while. So far, in spite of repeated requests, you have provided no evidence that anyone moved Stride's body, nor have you provided any credible motive for anyone to move her body.
                  I’d edit your response Fiver…..

                  ”nor have you provided anyTHING credible.” I’d just leave it at that.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



                  "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                  ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    I look forward to seeing your evidence Varqm (as opposed to your opinion.) Tick tock…….


                    First and foremost the evidence is the 2 recorded statement of the witness ,to the police and the press, which conflicted,With no complaints/news from the witness that he was misquoted. And yes just ignore that the police submitted Schwartz's statement to the inquest.

                    We are discussing a witness but you refuse to analyze his statements alone, by itself. It conflicts, you cant even acknowledge that. And instead race to your bias.There is no point in arguing with you. You said nothing so far. I can read the Coroners Act. I can also read the way the Coroners presented it.I do not need Orsam like you.Did he mention the first 2 statements above, he probably just kept inventing scenarios like you.
                    First you invented a scenario where it was an interpreter problem or lack with no info to back it, just based on "just because it's possible". Then you said Schwartz run away,or hid,again based on nothing. Again you rely on Orsam, why can't you make you're own assessment s,for ex. the witness's statements, the Coroners Act and the way the Coroners presented it.Go ahead ignore the witness's statements. Only children believe an assault is not important to a murder inquiry.
                    Last edited by Varqm; 07-15-2021, 03:36 AM.
                    Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                    M. Pacana

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                      First and foremost the evidence is the 2 recorded statement of the witness ,to the police and the press, which conflicted,With no complaints/news from the witness that he was misquoted. And yes just ignore that the police submitted Schwartz's statement to the inquest.

                      We are discussing a witness but you refuse to analyze his statements alone, by itself. It conflicts, you cant even acknowledge that. And instead race to your bias.There is no point in arguing with you. You said nothing so far. I can read the Coroners Act. I can also read the way the Coroners presented it.I do not need Orsam like you.Did he mention the first 2 statements above, he probably just kept inventing scenarios like you.
                      First you invented a scenario where it was an interpreter problem or lack with no info to back it, just based on "just because it's possible". Then you said Schwartz run away,or hid,again based on nothing. Again you rely on Orsam, why can't you make you're own assessment s,for ex. the witness's statements, the Coroners Act and the way the Coroners presented it.Go ahead ignore the witness's statements. Only children believe an assault is not important to a murder inquiry.
                      Well, that’s about as weak a response as it’s possible to have given.

                      Firstly, just because there’s a ‘possible’ reason for something to have happened it doesn’t mean that it ‘actually’ happened. The Police statement and The Star interview are certainly not proof that the Coroner distrusted or dismissed him. Secondly, we have no evidence of Coroner’s making any kind decision to leave out a witness (especially at a time when Swanson and Abberline weren’t exhibiting any doubts.) David even provided an example of Wynn Baxter telling a witness at an Inquest that he didn’t believe a word that he’d said. And that

                      “At the end of the day's hearing, Baxter said 'that the whole afternoon had been practically wasted through the lies and mistakes of the witnesses' (East London Observer, 8 June 1901).”

                      (The Big Coroner’s Inquiry Inquiry by David Orsam)

                      ……

                      Why do you say that I can’t even acknowledge the difference between his Police and Star interviews? Of course I can. I’m perfectly capable of reading. In fact, I’ve just read your post…..that’s how I’m able to respond to it. Of course there are differences but Baxter would have wanted these questioned at the Inquest and not merely thrown out.

                      ……

                      If you haven’t read David’s article then I fail to see how you can criticise it or even make comment?

                      …..

                      I didn’t invent a scenario and say “that’s definitely what happened.” That’s what you have done. What I did was just make an alternative suggestion (in fact, I’ve made a few) I didn’t say that it was what happened. And what David did was to mention around 8 ‘possible’ reasons why Schwartz might not have attended the Inquest. Like me, David states none of them as a proven fact. They are simply plausible, possible explanations. What you have done however is to take the discrepancies between the Police and Star interviews and stated as a fact that the Coroner would have not have called Schwartz on that basis. We know that this is nonsense and yet you seem to think that a Coroner had time to comb through the newspapers to find one with a discrepancy and then refuse to put questions to that witness. Be serious.

                      ​​​​​​…..

                      I have made my own assessment and I’ll state this as a 100% FACT. We do not know why Israel Schwartz did not attend the Inquest and we probably never will. We can make various suggestions and individual posters might favour one particular suggestion or they might not but we can say for certain that you favour the one that can be dismissed. When you accuse me of ‘relying on Orsam,’ and the fact that you ‘don’t need Orsam,’ you sound more than a little childish. I read what David writes because he’s an excellent researcher researches in depth and analyses his findings properly. He looks for facts and follows them. He doesn’t come up with a half-baked theory then go to any lengths to defend it. I’d suggest reading something before you criticise or try to dismiss Varqm.
                      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-15-2021, 07:16 AM.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                        Thank you for the new map. Can we abbreviate the Commercial Road/Berner St corner to CBC so I can proffer a few comments. If we start our round from CBC at 12:30 then Smith is seeing Stride down Berner St a little after that time, but he is headed in the wrong direction for the inquest testimony. So he continues on his way and is later back at Berner St about half way through his beat at say 12:45. You might get a few arguments presenting a theory that Smith was wandering around near Dutfields Yard again at that time. So he then arrives at CBC for the second time, about halfway through his beat time, proceeds to complete his beat and arrives at the CBC again for a third time. I'd have to say that, if I have your suggestion straight, with all due respect, ....I'm not ...entirely comfortable with that theory. Not that I've come up with anything better. The suggestion that Gowers may have actually been meant to be Grove doesn't improve matters at all either.
                        Hi George,

                        I see I must have expressed myself poorly, as I wasn't suggesting the route I posted as an actual possibility. It was just to say: there is a route that would seperate the trips up & down Berner Street by, say, 10 minutes, BUT it doesn't fit the timings given by Smith in his evidence. Therefore, Dusty's very sensible suggestion in post #2010 becomes quite doubtful.

                        Cheers,
                        Frank



                        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Well, that’s about as weak a response as it’s possible to have given.

                          Firstly, just because there’s a ‘possible’ reason for something to have happened it doesn’t mean that it ‘actually’ happened. The Police statement and The Star interview are certainly not proof that the Coroner distrusted or dismissed him. Secondly, we have no evidence of Coroner’s making any kind decision to leave out a witness (especially at a time when Swanson and Abberline weren’t exhibiting any doubts.) David even provided an example of Wynn Baxter telling a witness at an Inquest that he didn’t believe a word that he’d said. And that

                          “At the end of the day's hearing, Baxter said 'that the whole afternoon had been practically wasted through the lies and mistakes of the witnesses' (East London Observer, 8 June 1901).”

                          (The Big Coroner’s Inquiry Inquiry by David Orsam)

                          ……

                          Why do you say that I can’t even acknowledge the difference between his Police and Star interviews? Of course I can. I’m perfectly capable of reading. In fact, I’ve just read your post…..that’s how I’m able to respond to it. Of course there are differences but Baxter would have wanted these questioned at the Inquest and not merely thrown out.

                          ……

                          If you haven’t read David’s article then I fail to see how you can criticise it or even make comment?

                          …..

                          I didn’t invent a scenario and say “that’s definitely what happened.” That’s what you have done. What I did was just make an alternative suggestion (in fact, I’ve made a few) I didn’t say that it was what happened. And what David did was to mention around 8 ‘possible’ reasons why Schwartz might not have attended the Inquest. Like me, David states none of them as a proven fact. They are simply plausible, possible explanations. What you have done however is to take the discrepancies between the Police and Star interviews and stated as a fact that the Coroner would have not have called Schwartz on that basis. We know that this is nonsense and yet you seem to think that a Coroner had time to comb through the newspapers to find one with a discrepancy and then refuse to put questions to that witness. Be serious.

                          ​​​​​​…..

                          I have made my own assessment and I’ll state this as a 100% FACT. We do not know why Israel Schwartz did not attend the Inquest and we probably never will. We can make various suggestions and individual posters might favour one particular suggestion or they might not but we can say for certain that you favour the one that can be dismissed. When you accuse me of ‘relying on Orsam,’ and the fact that you ‘don’t need Orsam,’ you sound more than a little childish. I read what David writes because he’s an excellent researcher researches in depth and analyses his findings properly. He looks for facts and follows them. He doesn’t come up with a half-baked theory then go to any lengths to defend it. I’d suggest reading something before you criticise or try to dismiss Varqm.
                          Keep inventing scenarios with no basis behind it .Based on the recorded statements of the witness,the police giving Schwartz's statement to the inquest, the coroners act, the way the Coroners present inquests and the importance of an assault before the murder are reasons/evidence.
                          Yours are inventions with no basis. You present nothing to prove your point.
                          Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                          M. Pacana

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                            Keep inventing scenarios with no basis behind it .Based on the recorded statements of the witness,the police giving Schwartz's statement to the inquest, the coroners act, the way the Coroners present inquests and the importance of an assault before the murder are reasons/evidence.
                            Yours are inventions with no basis. You present nothing to prove your point.
                            This should be really easy to understand Varqm. This isn’t a competition to see who can get it right because it would be unwinnable.
                            We can’t know the answer to the question “why wasn’t Schwartz at the Inquest?” But it wasn’t because the Police or the Coroner had no faith in his evidence.

                            How many times do a have to tell you I have never claimed to know the answer (nor has David btw) One suggestion is pretty much as likely as the next although yours is very obviously the least likely. Just because you want it to be true won’t make it so. None of what you’ve said is evidence. I don’t need to ‘prove’ any ‘point’ because neither I nor David made any ‘points.’ They we’re just possible reasons.

                            The suggestion that a Coroner might skim through a rag like The Star, place it next to a copy of Schwartz statement, spot a couple of discrepancies and then, without even considering the possibility of a translation error or a Press transcription error, he completely casts Schwartz aside as worthless is laughable. He’d have wanted him at the Inquest so that he could be questioned on which version was correct. Of all of the suggestions I’m afraid that yours is the only one that can and should be abandoned.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              This should be really easy to understand Varqm. This isn’t a competition to see who can get it right because it would be unwinnable.
                              We can’t know the answer to the question “why wasn’t Schwartz at the Inquest?” But it wasn’t because the Police or the Coroner had no faith in his evidence.

                              How many times do a have to tell you I have never claimed to know the answer (nor has David btw) One suggestion is pretty much as likely as the next although yours is very obviously the least likely. Just because you want it to be true won’t make it so. None of what you’ve said is evidence. I don’t need to ‘prove’ any ‘point’ because neither I nor David made any ‘points.’ They we’re just possible reasons.

                              The suggestion that a Coroner might skim through a rag like The Star, place it next to a copy of Schwartz statement, spot a couple of discrepancies and then, without even considering the possibility of a translation error or a Press transcription error, he completely casts Schwartz aside as worthless is laughable. He’d have wanted him at the Inquest so that he could be questioned on which version was correct. Of all of the suggestions I’m afraid that yours is the only one that can and should be abandoned.
                              Hi Herlock,

                              Given Schwartz made a statement to the police, upon which they questioned him and felt his report was worthy of guiding their investigation (i.e. the search for Lipsky families in the area; the search for pipeman, who may have been identified and also questioned, etc) and given Schwartz was also taken to identify Stride as the women he saw (which he did), even if we assume Baxter saw the non-official report in The Star and felt the contradictions were noteworthy, then the inquest would be exactly the place for those differences in detail to be explored because Schwartz would have to testify under oath. To decide not to call him without actually questioning Schwartz under oath, would be a decision out of character for Baxter (note his refusal to allow the descriptions of the post-mortem injuries on Chapman to be left out, despite the fact they were injuries committed after death and therefore could not have contributed to death - Baxter's actions and decisions all reflect those of someone of the view that all information be officially recorded; even questionable information, like the initial misidentification of Stride, was presented for recording).

                              I have no idea why Schwartz does not testify at the inquest as there is every reason to expect him to, but it is apparent he did not. However, I can see no justification for adopting the view that it was Baxter who decided not to call him based upon a newspaper story in which details did not correspond to Schwartz's police statement. That speculation neither corresponds to Baxter's approach to how he ran his inquests, nor does it make any logical sense, and there have been far more plausible suggestions offered at various times. If we ever were to uncover information that reveals to us why Schwartz does not appear at the inquest, I rather suspect it will either be something mundane about Schwartz or will be related to procedural issues about how it was determined which statements were passed on to the coroner for him to call witnesses to the inquiry.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                                Hi George,

                                I see I must have expressed myself poorly, as I wasn't suggesting the route I posted as an actual possibility. It was just to say: there is a route that would seperate the trips up & down Berner Street by, say, 10 minutes, BUT it doesn't fit the timings given by Smith in his evidence. Therefore, Dusty's very sensible suggestion in post #2010 becomes quite doubtful.

                                Cheers,
                                Frank
                                Hi Frank,

                                Sorry, my mistake. I entirely agree with Dusty's suggestion, except second visits to Berner St has Smith passing the ears of Mortimer again. Neil replied to my post asking for clarification of Smith's beat saying he will check and get back to me if he finds anything. What is your opinion on Mortimer having heard someone other that Smith? I think that if she was hearing BSM, or anyone that had just murdered Stride, he would have been anything but slow plodding.

                                Frank, I live in Australia so my experience if of residential lots of 1/2 acre size. Looking at the map it is hard for me to get my head around Smith covering his beat in half and hour, let alone duplicating streets, or posters questioning why Smith didn't hear the whistle. I guess that is why I tend to attribute longer times to events that would a native born Londener.

                                Cheers, George

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X