If Schwartz Lied ...

[caz]

I think that you are complicating what is a basic principle here caz, which is, would the club do its best to appear as law abiding and harmless as possible to the authorities when a dead MURDERED woman is discovered on their property?

Yes, I do get that this is your starting point, and you worked with this basic premise to arrive at a wholly speculative, overly complicated scenario involving the lengths two or three senior club members supposedly went to, to give a false impression about this murder.

What you haven't demonstrated is that the impression the authorities actually got was false, let alone that this was because certain club members had conspired to give it. It's circular reasoning. You can't use the fact that Stride's killer was not found, or even suspected, to be a club member, to argue that there was misdirection and it worked, despite the fact that the majority of those on the premises at the time could not have been party to any such conspiracy, making it difficult to see how the police could have been so easily hoodwinked.

IF they did hesitate to seek authorities might that be time for the senior men onsite to make some decisions based on that initial basic principle? Would those discussions be among all the men, or just the ones that have senior rank there. Like the Club Steward. Or maybe the speaker. Or the stewards wife?

I wouldn't know, but do you have any evidence to dispute Dusty's post above?

Isnt there evidence that there was a delay in seeking help, if they knew Stride was there when a few members stated they saw her there. And Louis. Isnt there evidence that Louis and Eagles statements seem to support each others but contrast concerningly with these other lesser class members?

No.

This is all conjured up by an imagination that needs it to be so, in order to reach a desired conclusion. If the police had done stuff like this, to try and fit up the club, they'd have been rightly pilloried. Nobody at that time expected witnesses to do more than give rough estimates of their timings, unless they specifically stated how they knew the right time, for instance if they passed a clock. The authorities at the time were able to put all the separate accounts together and reconcile them, using common sense and allowing for the estimated times given to be out by a reasonable margin. They saw nothing remotely sinister in what they were told, which is all the stranger if only two or three had conspired to give a considerably later discovery time, while several others ought to have been able to refute it with solid evidence [such as Fanny hearing/seeing Louis D arriving around 12.40]. Had that happened, the club would have been landed in far more hot water than if everyone had simply told the truth from the outset.

How many club affiliated men did not see another living soul around 12:40-12:45 in that passageway? How many men of lesser stature in the club ranks there saw a few men there at that same time? How many men say they saw Louis Diemshitz there at around 12:45? Seems like Lave and Eagle missed seeing all this, and each other. Could someone be in that passageway between the entrance and the side door at the same time and not see each other?

Surely people can see that what I suggest is already on paper if you follow it logically.

Nope, it looks like you are still the only one in step, Michael. We must all be nit wits.

Or perhaps we are all just aware that following logically what you suggest 'on paper' is not how human behaviour and perception works. Nothing is ever that black and white, and if twelve people, all with smart phones, witnessed an incident outside their local pub or club today, the police would still be hard pressed to get them all to give the same details and the same time for what they saw.

But the post you were responding to was all about one witness, Schwartz, and how impossible it is, without complicating things to the nth degree, to conclude from his own evidence that he was part of a wider plan to protect the club's future. It just doesn't work, on any level.

You'd be better off arguing that Schwartz saw Stride, standing alone by the club, and when he learned about the murder decided independently to make up the rest of it for his fifteen minutes of fame. That doesn't really work either, but at least your club conspirators wouldn't have relied on possibly the worst choice of fake witness in criminal history.

[caz]

We have argued for pages and pages and years and years about saying anything in concrete form about this murder one way or the other. Pro Jack, or not. The truth exists but it can only be revealed when the small connections all click into place.

We have lots of evidence available here to make some solid foundations from, and some that for years should be set aside. 1 is an interruption. There is no evidence that happened, so start thinking of solutions that dont incorporate unsubstantiated theory. Like Israel being relevant at the time of the Inquest and after. There is no evidence that anything he said influenced anyone organizing the Inquest, and later mentions of support by officials isnt validation that he was truthful. Its just that they thought he was. Like Anderson though "it was ascertained" the killer was a local jew. Or Abberlines contention that as Chapman hanged things "dovetailed" and that he was likely the culprit. Or Macnaughten narrowing the search down to a suicide and someone in jail at the time of the murders. Or Monro's Hot Potato. These are just opinions of men, not official validation of facts.

And your opinions are not just the opinions of one man, based on your unique reading of the few facts we have?

[Michael W Richards]

And your opinions are not just the opinions of one man, based on your unique reading of the few facts we have?

Yup, one man who uses the actual evidence to make statements. Evidence that supports any conclusions I suggest. Try using the evidence too caz, and stop looking at all the individual murders as A murder in A series. Not starting from that point will be refreshing for you. Enlightening too.

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.

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.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, I do get that this is your starting point, and you worked with this basic premise to arrive at a wholly speculative, overly complicated scenario involving the lengths two or three senior club members supposedly went to, to give a false impression about this murder.

What you haven't demonstrated is that the impression the authorities actually got was false, let alone that this was because certain club members had conspired to give it. It's circular reasoning. You can't use the fact that Stride's killer was not found, or even suspected, to be a club member, to argue that there was misdirection and it worked, despite the fact that the majority of those on the premises at the time could not have been party to any such conspiracy, making it difficult to see how the police could have been so easily hoodwinked.



I wouldn't know, but do you have any evidence to dispute Dusty's post above?



No.

This is all conjured up by an imagination that needs it to be so, in order to reach a desired conclusion. If the police had done stuff like this, to try and fit up the club, they'd have been rightly pilloried. Nobody at that time expected witnesses to do more than give rough estimates of their timings, unless they specifically stated how they knew the right time, for instance if they passed a clock. The authorities at the time were able to put all the separate accounts together and reconcile them, using common sense and allowing for the estimated times given to be out by a reasonable margin. They saw nothing remotely sinister in what they were told, which is all the stranger if only two or three had conspired to give a considerably later discovery time, while several others ought to have been able to refute it with solid evidence [such as Fanny hearing/seeing Louis D arriving around 12.40]. Had that happened, the club would have been landed in far more hot water than if everyone had simply told the truth from the outset.



Nope, it looks like you are still the only one in step, Michael. We must all be nit wits.

Or perhaps we are all just aware that following logically what you suggest 'on paper' is not how human behaviour and perception works. Nothing is ever that black and white, and if twelve people, all with smart phones, witnessed an incident outside their local pub or club today, the police would still be hard pressed to get them all to give the same details and the same time for what they saw.

But the post you were responding to was all about one witness, Schwartz, and how impossible it is, without complicating things to the nth degree, to conclude from his own evidence that he was part of a wider plan to protect the club's future. It just doesn't work, on any level.

You'd be better off arguing that Schwartz saw Stride, standing alone by the club, and when he learned about the murder decided independently to make up the rest of it for his fifteen minutes of fame. That doesn't really work either, but at least your club conspirators wouldn't have relied on possibly the worst choice of fake witness in criminal history.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yup, one man who uses the actual evidence to make statements. Evidence that supports any conclusions I suggest. Try using the evidence too caz, and stop looking at all the individual murders as A murder in A series. Not starting from that point will be refreshing for you. Enlightening too.

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.

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.

Thats a typo....

You surely meant to type “...who manipulates the actual evidence.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

I believe that Mr Theatrical was a good choice because he spoke no English. Unless you have 2 people within earshot who both understand his native language, then the translator has leeway to present any story he likes really. Or format the testimony in his own manner, not necessarily as delivered.

The bottom line to what I suggest is that there is undeniable evidence that is well known that supports my contention. We have witnesses who said they saw Louis by the body at around 12:40-12:45. We have witnesses from the "senior" ranks in the club that have statements that contain impossibilities....like Morris and Joseph being in the exact same location at the exact same time and not even seeing each other. We have a statement from one club "official" that at 12:40 when he entered that passageway, he couldnt be sure There is no evidence from any witness who can confirm exactly when Louis arrives, and 1 that makes it obvious it was not "precisely" at one as claimed. There is no statement within the transcripts from the Inquest into this death that suggests anyone was seen with the victim outside the gates struggling with an unknown assailant, there is no-one in fact who saw Liz Stride alive after 12:35 according to those documents. A witness on record who believed he saw her with someone by the board school was incorrect, proven by the fact the woman wore no color on her upper clothing, and the earliest time of her cut is within just a minute of his alleged sighting. There are a number of witnesses who statements indicate they were made aware of this dying woman between 12:40-45. All said Louis was seen there at that time. That would suggest the cut was actually made slightly earlier than 12:46..which would be supportable by Phillips contention that as of 1:30 when he arrived he felt the murder had happened within the previous hour.

If Israel Schwartz's statement wasnt trustworthy enough to put on record at the Inquest, then was the very presentation of it assuredly in the best interest of serving justice? Or was it for the clubs benefit?

A fantasy from start to finish reliant on 4 witnesses that a child could see were very obviously mistaken. One of them even says so in the very statement which you completely ignore and refuse even to speak about.

The fact that you keep mention Eagle beggars belief. He confirms the 1.00 discovery time.

Any sign of that Gilleman statement that you invented to try and prove your point? No? Ok.

Stride was discovered by Diemschutz at 1.00. This is a fact. The cover-up is a baseless fantasy that easily disproven. As it has been. Only desperation would make someone continue with it.

By the way, check the vote. 19-1 against your silly idea about evidence for interruption.

[drstrange169]

>>If you imagine there was no hierarchy with a club that regularly took in cash, then thats your call.<<

That there was not the kind of hierarchy you described? Yes that's my call.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The fact that you keep mention Eagle beggars belief. He confirms the 1.00 discovery time.

No, he does not.

Baxter: Can you fix the time when the discovery was first made?
Eagle: It must have been about one o'clock.

Heschburg: I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to 1 o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway.

Both men were approximating the time. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Eagle: In Commercial-road I found two constables at the corner of Grove-street.

One of the those constables was on fixed point duty - 426H PC Ayliffe.
Fixed point officers went off shift at 1am. Eagle found the fixed point officer at his station.
Either the clock had not quite ticked over to 1:00, or it had just gone 1:00, and Ayliffe was on his way back to the station.

Baxter thought this time was important to the case - https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...795#post757795

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, he does not.

Im sorry but yes he does.

Baxter: Can you fix the time when the discovery was first made?
Eagle: It must have been about one o'clock.

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.

Heschburg: I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to 1 o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway.

He uses ‘about’ and ‘I should think’ so he was obviously guessing, as you say. The fact that Lamb blew his whistle after 1.00 shows that Henschberg was very obviously mistaken.

Both men were approximating the time. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

I’d say that it’s pretty obvious that Heschburg was wrong but Eagle was right.

Eagle: In Commercial-road I found two constables at the corner of Grove-street.

One of the those constables was on fixed point duty - 426H PC Ayliffe.
Fixed point officers went off shift at 1am. Eagle found the fixed point officer at his station.
Either the clock had not quite ticked over to 1:00, or it had just gone 1:00, and Ayliffe was on his way back to the station.

Baxter thought this time was important to the case - https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...795#post757795

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?

Eagle confirms 1.00 because it was 1.00.

[caz]

Yup, one man who uses the actual evidence to make statements. Evidence that supports any conclusions I suggest. Try using the evidence too caz, and stop looking at all the individual murders as A murder in A series. Not starting from that point will be refreshing for you. Enlightening too.

Pot kettle. The actual evidence indicates that Louis discovered Stride's body just as he said he did, shortly after seeing a clock which showed the time to be 1am. Nobody at the time saw any reason to doubt this. The police rightly investigated each murder on an individual basis, but nobody was able to rule out Stride as a ripper victim on the actual evidence. That's all I have ever argued.

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.

What? Start with the conclusion that Stride was 'very apparently' not murdered by the man with the knife who knew how to kill efficiently with a single slice? You do not even allow for the remote possibility that Stride was another victim of this man. But you criticise me and others for keeping our minds open on the subject, neither ruling her out nor expressing certainty that her murder was linked with others. Don't judge us all by your standards.

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.

Please, not this rubbish yet again. You're like a broken record.

The summing up at Stride's inquest allowed for the possibility that Eddowes was the victim of an imitator, while observing factors that the Berner Street murder had in common with the previous two cases, regarding the skill, efficiency and daring shown by the killer on each occasion. This is called actual evidence, while you are reversing it by acknowledging 'some matching details' between Eddowes, Chapman and Nichols, but claiming - against the actual evidence - that the only thing connecting Stride to any of the others was that she was killed on the same night as Eddowes. It's quite bizarre that you keep wheeling out the third murder that night, a solved domestic case over in Westminster, which could not have had less in common with Stride's murder or any of the other Whitechapel cases, as if this somehow adds anything at all to your argument. Find ten more female murder victims across the East End that night, that week, that month or even that year - any weapon, I'm not fussed - and your appeal to statistics might be taken more seriously. But the case of Mr and Mrs Brown can't possibly affect the validity of arguments for or against the 'double event', which has uncanny similarities to the phenomenon as we know it in modern times, where violent predators have gone looking for a second victim, close in time and place to the first.

[caz]

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.

I don't know what any of this has to do with the post of mine you quoted. Any idea of the relevance?

I was under the impression that the police did question everyone at the club immediately after the murder, and rightly so. If they didn't do it thoroughly enough, I can assure you it wasn't because I told them not to bother.

Yes, a club based killer could have committed the murder, assuming he knew how to kill with a single cut to the throat without getting covered in the red stuff, but the police apparently found no reason to suspect anyone there. He'd have been wise to leave the premises at the earliest opportunity, so it's possible he was gone before the police could question him, and nobody noticed his swift departure or mentioned it.

What I struggle with is the idea that anyone in the club would have protected an individual in their midst if they suspected he could have committed this murder, because for all they knew he could have done it before or could do it again. Next time it really could be Louis D's missus lying there in a pool of blood. I dare say that thought would have given the poor bar steward a few sleepless nights, if he thought for one second that the killer could have been under their roof all the time.

[caz]

I believe that Mr Theatrical was a good choice because he spoke no English. Unless you have 2 people within earshot who both understand his native language, then the translator has leeway to present any story he likes really. Or format the testimony in his own manner, not necessarily as delivered.

So now it was the translator who could have put two Jews in the frame by mistake, when the brief was to have one Gentile ripper outside the club, roughing up Stride before committing 'another' murder?

Thank goodness Abberline was able to straighten it all out and give Mr Theatrical, his pea-brained translator and the other clots involved in the plot the desired outcome.

Can this get any sillier? Really?

If Israel Schwartz's statement wasnt trustworthy enough to put on record at the Inquest, then was the very presentation of it assuredly in the best interest of serving justice? Or was it for the clubs benefit?

Yes, definitely for the club's benefit to have two Jews, seen by a third Jew, assaulting the next Whitechapel victim just before she is found dead inside the yard of that club.

What could possibly have gone wrong, if Abberline had taken the statement at face value and endorsed it as trustworthy, before passing it on to the Coroner?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Eagle confirms 1.00 because it was 1.00.

Confirmation bias at work.

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

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)?

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.

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=caz;n758077]

So now it was the translator who could have put two Jews in the frame by mistake, when the brief was to have one Gentile ripper outside the club, roughing up Stride before committing 'another' murder?



Frankly I dont know how to respond to the above, you seem to misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent any comments you reply to. Im not even sure what your point is here...I didnt say or suggest anything you are trying to mock.

[Michael W Richards]

The actual evidence indicates that Louis discovered Stride's body just as he said he did, shortly after seeing a clock which showed the time to be 1am. Nobody at the time saw any reason to doubt this.

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.