If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

See...this again. Your statement above is patently false, he did not arrive when he said he did because someone facing that street was at their door at the time when he says he arrived and they didnt see or hear anyone. And multiple witnesses said they saw him by the body between 12:40-and 12:45. Dear god, are you that far divorced from the facts here that you dont even know that?

Or like all the evidence you dont like, are they all wrong too...and they just let the Ripper slip by them? Hard to fathom there is a need for rebuttal posts like I have to make here.

More manipulation.

Mortimer told theEvening News that she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed. Smith said that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35.

She said that she stood there for 10 minutes then went back inside.

Therefore using elementary maths we see that it’s entirely likely (to a point of near certainty) that she was back inside when Schwartz passed.

See.....without the conspiracy goggles we can arrive at a reasonable explanation.

We can avoid the Grassy Knoll.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Eagle confirms 1.00 because it was 1.00.

>Confirmation bias at work.<

Nope. It’s called reading the evidence.

Yes he’s estimating but he’s doing this by taking the time that he arrived back at the club (12.45) and adding the approximate period of time before Gilleman informed him that there was a body in the yard. Around 1.00.

>Eagle didn't give any indication of knowing exactly when he arrived back at the club ...

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.<

He said that he first saw the body at around 1.00. There’s no need for further discussion on this. The body was discovered at 1.00. This is a fact.

He uses ‘about’ and ‘I should think’ so he was obviously guessing, as you say.

>Herschburg is a fascinating character. He appears to know a great deal about the club, the yard, the people there, reputations, and the discovery of the body.
Why does he have all this knowledge? What was he really up to that night - just sitting at home?<

Local man, Jewish. Yes he was just sitting at home, people do it all the time. Nothing weird about this. No mystery of course except an invented one.

Anyway, Herschburg seems like a man 'on the ball', whereas Eagle had probably put away a few drinks.

Absolutely no evidence of that of course.

The fact that Lamb blew his whistle after 1.00 shows that Henschberg was very obviously mistaken.

>Or does it? Perhaps you could explain the following...? Evening News, Oct 1:

Charles Letchford, living at 30, Berner-street, says: I passed through the street at half-past 12 and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual, and my sister was standing at the door at ten minutes to one, but did not see any one pass by. I heard the commotion when the body was found, and heard the policeman's whistles, but did not take any notice of the matter, as disturbances are very frequent at the club, and I thought it was only another row.

So that's policeman's (plural), and whistles (plural).

So if Lamb blew his whistle, who blew the other(s)?<

Another police office I assume. But we know that it was after 1.00 when the body was discovered. Heschburg was mistaken. It’s very obvious.

A question (I genuinly don’t know) how would Ayliffe have known when his shift had ended if he didn’t have a watch? We know that Lamb didn’t own a watch. Did he rely on someone telling him? Surely you can’t think it a stretch to say that it was after 1.00 before he set off for the station? Maybe he’d been talking to someone? As Eagle found 2 Constables on the corner of Grove Street this surely points to the suggestion that he was talking to a fellow officer? Maybe the person who told him that it was the end of his shift was a bit late?

>Ayliffe was probably stationed near a clock.

DT, Oct 3:

Lamb: Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting. I went to meet them, and they called out, "Come on, there has been another murder." I asked where, and as they got to the corner of Berner-street they pointed down and said, "There." I saw people moving some distance down the street. I ran, followed by another constable - 426 H.

Baxter: When you were found what direction were you going in?

Lamb: I was coming towards Berner-street. A constable named Smith was on the Berner-street beat. He did not accompany me, but the constable who was on fixed-point duty between Grove-street and Christian-street in Commercial-road.

So it seems Lamb was not with Ayliffe, when alerted to the murder<

So are we saying that all point duty officers had to be stationed near a clock? There’s absolutely nothing mysterious in suggesting that he might still have been on the spot near to 1.05. You keep trying to create mysteries out of nothing?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

He said that he first saw the body at around 1.00. There’s no need for further discussion on this. The body was discovered at 1.00. This is a fact.

Fact or dogma?

Local man, Jewish. Yes he was just sitting at home, people do it all the time. Nothing weird about this. No mystery of course except an invented one.

His buddy Joseph is a bit of a mystery

Another police office I assume. But we know that it was after 1.00 when the body was discovered. Heschburg was mistaken. It’s very obvious.

Why assume when you can read evidence instead ... as you claim to?

Herschburg: She had a black dress on, with a bunch of flowers pinned on the breast. In her hand there was a little piece of paper containing five or six cachous.

How does he get so close to work that out, if police are there?

Lamb: On my arrival there were about thirty people in the yard, and others followed me in. No one was nearer than a yard to the body. As I was examining the deceased the crowd gathered round, but I begged them to keep back, otherwise they might have their clothes soiled with blood, and thus get into trouble.

So are we saying that all point duty officers had to be stationed near a clock? There’s absolutely nothing mysterious in suggesting that he might still have been on the spot near to 1.05. You keep trying to create mysteries out of nothing?

There is no evidence for Ayliffe hanging around until 1:05.
Yet if he did, Smith is not arriving until about 1:10 (remember he hears no whistles or cries for police).
So then what is Smith's last time passing the yard? Shortly before a quarter to one, perhaps...?

A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so.

Who didn't she see on the street between 12:45 and 12:55?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Policeman's whistle's. The word "whistle's" clearly refers to the sound, the PC likely blows more than once, so in reporting the noise it means (to me) 'the whistle sounds belonging to a policeman'. It's not a plural on policeman, it's possessive, indicating the whistling came from a PC. A bit like a bosun's pipes.

[Ms Diddles]

Policeman's whistle's. The word "whistle's" clearly refers to the sound, the PC likely blows more than once, so in reporting the noise it means (to me) 'the whistle sounds belonging to a policeman'. It's not a plural on policeman, it's possessive, indicating the whistling came from a PC. A bit like a bosun's pipes.

You beat me to it, Al!

That's how I interpreted the statement too!

I'm the first to admit that my grammar can be a bit shoddy at times, but doesn't the apostrophe nail it as a possessive rather than a plural?

[Ms Diddles]

You beat me to it, Al!

That's how I interpreted the statement too!

I'm the first to admit that my grammar can be a bit shoddy at times, but doesn't the apostrophe nail it as a possessive rather than a plural?

To clarify, I meant the apostrophe in "policemen's".

The apostrophe in "whistle's" is erroneous isn't it?

It should just be "whistles"....?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

To clarify, I meant the apostrophe in "policemen's".

The apostrophe in "whistle's" is erroneous isn't it?

It should just be "whistles"....?

It's actually " policeman's", as I see now, but regardless of apostrophes, phonetically it's fairly clear what he's saying.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Policeman's whistle's. The word "whistle's" clearly refers to the sound, the PC likely blows more than once, so in reporting the noise it means (to me) 'the whistle sounds belonging to a policeman'. It's not a plural on policeman, it's possessive, indicating the whistling came from a PC. A bit like a bosun's pipes.

j

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Another police office I assume. But we know that it was after 1.00 when the body was discovered. Heschburg was mistaken. It’s very obvious.
Why assume when you can read evidence instead ... as you claim to?

Herschburg: She had a black dress on, with a bunch of flowers pinned on the breast. In her hand there was a little piece of paper containing five or six cachous.

How does he get so close to work that out, if police are there?

Lamb: On my arrival there were about thirty people in the yard, and others followed me in. No one was nearer than a yard to the body. As I was examining the deceased the crowd gathered round, but I begged them to keep back, otherwise they might have their clothes soiled with blood, and thus get into trouble

You’ve asked a question and then posted the answer.

People were a yard or so from the body (no doubt including Hoschberg who we can assume wasn’t Mr Magoo) He might have got the details about the cachous from someone else if he couldn’t make out what was in her hand.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. There is no evidence for Ayliffe hanging around until 1:05

Yes there is. Eagle said that he first saw the body at around one. He then goes for a Constable and finds Lamb and Ayliffe. And so Ayliffe must still have either been on the spot or he had begun walking away but was still within calling distance. QED.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. So then what is Smith's last time passing the yard? Shortly before a quarter to one, perhaps...?

A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so.

Who didn't she see on the street between 12:45 and 12:55

Again there’s just no mystery here. PC Smith:

“I was last in Berner-street about half-past 12 or 12.35.”

Fanny said 12.45.

So if Smith was correct and, for example, passed at 12.33 we would have Fanny coming onto her doorstep at 12.34 where she remained for around 10 minutes then she would have been back inside before Schwartz passed at 12.45. Why is this very simple, very plausible explanation anathema to some? It’s a constant and wilful ignoring of anything that might be termed a prosaic explanation in favour of anything that might imply lies or conspiracies and I don’t get it. Why would you want to create a mystery when there’s mystery enough already in this case.

[Scott Nelson]

I can't help feeling that people view events like Berner St. as a slow-moving play, where actors enter from one side of the stage, do their bits and exit, before being replaced with a new scene and players in one continuous production where everybody involved is aware of each scene. In actuality, events probably moved very quickly, with one person or persons passing through, a few seconds later there's another person or persons, where neither group may have seen or heard the other.

[Fiver]

In your case its more like cant see the trees for the forest. Your JtR one size fits all blanket obviously doesnt fit for some of the Canonical Group, Stride is one example. There is not one shred of physical evidence, or even any viable circumstantial evidence, that matches anything learned from prior victims attributed to this Jack fellow. Elizabeth Stride very apparently did not die at the hands of a serial abdominal mutilator. Start there.

Every person who disagrees with your Jewish Conspiracy has said that Stride might not be a Ripper victim. Every single one. You are arguing against a position that nobody on this thread has taken. Nobody is assuming that Stride was a Ripper victim.

Your supposed conspiracy is based on the club altering the time of death, but that would do nothing to make the club less suspicious. It could even be worse than useless if they are caught lying. Your conspiracy also requires them picking a man who did not speak English and who made a statement that pointed towards Jews, not away from them.

You also ignore that if Schwartz' statement is true, it would be one of the strongest pieces of evidence that Stride's killer was not the Ripper. But you're too wedding to your Jewish Conspiracy to see that,

As to your claim that "There is not one shred of physical evidence, or even any viable circumstantial evidence, that matches anything learned from prior victims attributed to this Jack fellow" the Coroner at the Stride Inquest strongly disagreed with you, noting several similarities.

* "the age and class of woman selected as victim"
* "the place and time of the crime"
* "the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped"
* "the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator"
* "the same daring defiance of immediate detection"

[Fiver]

Another murder later than night somewhere else that does include abdominal mutilation...now, maybe that was Jack. If you cannot reconcile yourself with the actual facts in the Berner Street case, then focus on Kates murder which at least does have some matching details with Jack priors. Saying they were connected only because they happened on one night doesnt match prior patterns of single murders in a night, and saying 2 violent acts with knives occurring on the same night suggests the same killer is proven invalid because a 3rd violent act definitely wasnt.

Nobody on this thread has claimed that the murders taking place on the same night proves that Stride and Eddowes were killed by the same man.

The actual similarities were noted by the Coroner at the time.

* "the age and class of woman selected as victim"
* "the place and time of the crime"
* "the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped"
* "the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator"
* "the same daring defiance of immediate detection"

The third murder that occurred that night shared none of those points in common. It proves or disproves nothing about whether Stride and Eddowes were killed by the same person.

[Fiver]

A club based killer could have slit her throat with a kitchen knife in the passageway, gone back into the club via the side door...and just dropped it into a sink full of dirty dishes and soap.

What your evading admitting is that based upon the reputation of that club and the fact a woman is found murdered on the property, the initial response by any law authority would be to clear those onsite before considering anyone else. Even a phantom menace.

A club based killer certainly could have done that. So could any of the people that lived in "On the left side of the yard is a house, which is divided into three tenements, and occupied, I believe, by that number of families." Of course they aren't club members, so you ignore them.

The initial response by the authorities was to clear those onsite before considering anyone else. And unlike you, they didn't focus on just the club.

"A thorough search was made by the police of the yard and the houses in it, but no trace could be found of any person who might have committed the murder. As soon as the search was over the whole of the persons who had come into the yard and the members of the club were interrogated, their names and addresses taken, their pockets searched by the police, and their clothes and hands examined by the doctors. The people were twenty-eight in number. Each was dealt with separately, and they properly accounted for themselves. The houses were inspected a second time and the occupants examined and their rooms searched. A loft close by was searched, but no trace could be found of the murderer." - Detective Inspector Reid.