If Schwartz Lied ...

[GBinOz]

Nah.

Publican having a knockoff smoke.

Where in Oz are you?

Hi DJA,

I live on the far south coast of NSW just outside a little town called Narooma. Do you come from the land down under?

Cheers, George

[drstrange169]

So you've avoided lockdown, lucky feller!

[erobitha]

>>I’m losing interest in this case again. It’s like being down a rabbit-hole.<<

Yes, some people are so worried that the Harris clock showed 1:00 a.m. that they need to come up with ever increasingly complicated scenarios, rather than understanding time was fluid in the Victorian East End. There was no such thing as synchronised time. One only need do a cursory search into timekeeping in the 1880's to understand this, but sadly it seems some have no will to research beyond this site. They can only see through the lens of 21 Century's time obsession.

It's the same old story with quotes, the Rubenhold effect, newspaper articles can't be trusted, until they say something they like, then they are to be taken as word for word literal.

There's no new insights, nothing we haven't read people propose a thousand times before. Just argument for arguments sake.

I would be inclined to agree.

You cannot use a modern technology, awareness, access and obsessions with time to be the same as it was 130 years ago.

I’m much more relaxed on things like timings in the case as access was limited compared to today. So if a witness claims they saw a clock or watch then I would be inclined to say it was accurate to that specific timepiece. However, that does not mean everyone’s timepieces were synchronised. The atomic clock would not become a reality until 60-70 years later.

What is far more important is can witnesses corroborate each other’s stories. The more corroboration the higher likelihood that specific event took place.

Obsession over timings does nothing to prove or disprove anything.

[DJA]

Hi DJA,

I live on the far south coast of NSW just outside a little town called Narooma. Do you come from the land down under?

Cheers, George

You are ~ 260 Km from Andrew

I reside in the Otway Ranges.

GUT and Dr Strange are Aussies.

A number of us here

Cheers.

[drstrange169]

Spot on!

A while back one poster investigated public clocks from the era and found that a 15 minute variance was not unusual. People just can't seem to grasp the notion, sadly.

[GBinOz]

lol. no. but get this. tumblety was friends with his fellow hair dresser george chapman aka severin klosowski. they met in the east end as both were quack doctors. dr t was not the type to get his hands dirty but chapman was. abberline had it right all along it was jack the ripper at last only dr t was paying chapman to do his dirty work. suck it.

Hi Abby,

That is interesting. Klowoski not a bad match for the descriptions by Schwartz and Smith. Smith said the man had no whiskers but could have missed a small moustache, not that Klowoski's moustache could be described as small.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Here's a bizarre report in The Times on October 1 that should warm the heart of some new conspiracy theorists:

Conflicting statements are made as to the way in which the body was found, but according to one account a lad first made the discovery and gave information to a man named Costa, who proceeded to the spot, where almost immediately afterwards a constable arrived. The body was then removed to No. 40, Berner-street, which is very near to the now notorious Hanbury-street. These premises are occupied by the International Workmen's Club.

Here's the link:https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18881001.html
Seriously....I'm not making this up!

Cheers, George

The lad may have been Isaac Kozebrodski.

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Irish Times - 1 October 1888

Search: Koster

[DJA]

Spot on!

A while back one poster investigated public clocks from the era and found that a 15 minute variance was not unusual. People just can't seem to grasp the notion, sadly.

Crikey,that was often the variance between our living room clock and the kitchen's in 1950/60s.

[GBinOz]

Hello George.
Yes, somehow Packer has been landed with blame for the debate over whether grapes were seen in Stride's hand or not. He really had nothing to do with that argument.

The police couldn't use Packer as a witness because he was not sure if he saw Stride between 11:00-11:30, or 12:00-12:30, they never questioned him seeing the suspect. In fact they continued to search for that same suspect well into November.

What Packer apparently did not know, at the time he gave his statement, was that Stride had been seen at the Bricklayer's Arms at 11:00pm, which means his sighting had to be the 12:00-12:30 window.
As Stride & the man who bought those grapes stood outside the club, crossing over to stand opposite, between 12:00-12:30, it only stands to reason in my view that the man seen by PC Smith, standing with Stride & carrying a parcel, had to be this same man.

Hi Jon,

I was doing a little research and found this about Packer:

Matthew Packer, a greengrocer who lived at and traded from number 44 Berner Street, two doors to the south of the International Working Men’s Educational Club. An Evening News reporter politely described him as a respectable and hardworking person who was “a little past the prime of life.” At 9am on the 30th September, Sergeant Stephen White called on Packer in the course of his door to door enquiries in the wake of Liz Stride’s murder. Packer was adamant that both he and his wife had neither seen nor heard anything untoward during the night. Two days later, Packer was visited by Grand and Batchelor, two private detectives employed by the Evening News and the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. He had, it seems, remembered an important detail that had somehow slipped his mind when White had called a few days before. He told the two private detectives that he had sold grapes to a man and a woman from his shop window at around 11.45pm on the night of the murder. The man, he said, was aged about thirty five, was around 5 feet 7 inches tall, and was of stout square-build. He wore a wide-awake hat, dark clothes and had a clerkly appearance, or as Packer put it when expanding on his story to an Evening News reporter “…I am certain that he wasn’t what I should call a working man or anything like us folks that live around here.” Packer recalled how the man had asked him, ‘I say, old man, how do you sell your grapes?’ ‘Sixpence a pound the black ‘uns, sir, and fourpence a pound the white ‘uns,’ was Packer’s response. Turning to the woman, the man asked, ‘Which will you have, my dear, black or white? You shall have whichever you ‘like best.’ The woman chose the black ones. Packer insisted that the couple had loitered in the street for more than half an hour and that he had watched them eating the grapes in the rain. By 12.15am the couple had moved across the road to stand in front of the Berner Street Club where they stood listening to the singing. After that Packer, who had begun shutting up shop for the night, lost sight of them.

You've probably seen it before. I found it interesting that he says "By 12.15am the couple had moved across the road to stand in front of the Berner Street Club where they stood listening to the singing.". This would place them at the spot that Smith saw them. Slight problem is that Packer says he sold the grapes at around 11:45 and they had "loitered in the street for more than half an hour and that he had watched them eating the grapes in the rain". Smith, and I think other witnesses stated that the rain had stopped by 11pm. I also didn't know what a wide-awake hat looked like, so googled it. I also googled Smith's described hard, felt, deerstalker, dark hat and they look very much alike.

Cheers, George

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I would be inclined to agree.

You cannot use a modern technology, awareness, access and obsessions with time to be the same as it was 130 years ago.

I’m much more relaxed on things like timings in the case as access was limited compared to today. So if a witness claims they saw a clock or watch then I would be inclined to say it was accurate to that specific timepiece. However, that does not mean everyone’s timepieces were synchronised. The atomic clock would not become a reality until 60-70 years later.

What is far more important is can witnesses corroborate each other’s stories. The more corroboration the higher likelihood that specific event took place.

Obsession over timings does nothing to prove or disprove anything.

My point of view is; did Diemschitz sharpen up his original estimate, and if yes, for what reason? That is not the same as being obsessed over timings.

The other timing issue - which deserves more attention, rather than less - is the mysterious whistle that was heard, seemingly before the arrival of police.

[GBinOz]

Spot on!

A while back one poster investigated public clocks from the era and found that a 15 minute variance was not unusual. People just can't seem to grasp the notion, sadly.

Hi drstrange,

I own an antique pocket watch and I understand the notion just fine. But you can't have any variance if you are looking at the same clock at the same time. And if you are just estimating from a clock that you saw and hour or more before then your time could be more than 15 minutes out. IMO Diemshitz had no need to know the time and was working on his "usual time" and sprucing up his testimony with the addition of the clock. IMO Smith and Lamb would have looked at the Harris clock because in the circumstance they knew they would have to know the time as part of their duties. I accept that others hold other opinions.

Cheers, George

[erobitha]

My point of view is; did Diemschitz sharpen up his original estimate, and if yes, for what reason? That is not the same as being obsessed over timings.

The other timing issue - which deserves more attention, rather than less - is the mysterious whistle that was heard, seemingly before the arrival of police.

Even if he did what does it prove other than he felt the need to give a specific time in the context of the inquest?

I’m not being drawn into the whistle debate. My issue ultimately is corroboration. We should always give more weight the things that can be corroborated by another and less weight to those things that cannot.

[drstrange169]

>>... you can't have any variance if you are looking at the same clock at the same time.<<

Quite so, but in this case, nobody, but nobody is reported as looking at the same clock and there's the rub.


>> IMO<<

That's the point, you are changing the evidence to suit a theory.

Deimshitz said he saw the Harris clock.
Nobody else did.
Baxter heard all the witnesses, we only have snippets. He accepted the 1:00 a.m. discovery.
Neither Lamb nor Smith challenged Diemshitz's testimony.
None of the police records show any P.C. disputing Deimshitz's timing.
As I've already noted, the fixed point duties finished at 1:00.
Brown and Mortimers stories fit 1:00. As do Goldstein, Eagle, etc.

All of that is not opinion, it is recorded as fact. Therefore if we follow the actual evidence as it exists, there is no problem.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Jon,

I was doing a little research and found this about Packer:

Matthew Packer, a greengrocer who lived at and traded from number 44 Berner Street, two doors to the south of the International Working Men’s Educational Club. An Evening News reporter politely described him as a respectable and hardworking person who was “a little past the prime of life.” At 9am on the 30th September, Sergeant Stephen White called on Packer in the course of his door to door enquiries in the wake of Liz Stride’s murder. Packer was adamant that both he and his wife had neither seen nor heard anything untoward during the night. Two days later, Packer was visited by Grand and Batchelor, two private detectives employed by the Evening News and the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. He had, it seems, remembered an important detail that had somehow slipped his mind when White had called a few days before. He told the two private detectives that he had sold grapes to a man and a woman from his shop window at around 11.45pm on the night of the murder. The man, he said, was aged about thirty five, was around 5 feet 7 inches tall, and was of stout square-build. He wore a wide-awake hat, dark clothes and had a clerkly appearance, or as Packer put it when expanding on his story to an Evening News reporter “…I am certain that he wasn’t what I should call a working man or anything like us folks that live around here.” Packer recalled how the man had asked him, ‘I say, old man, how do you sell your grapes?’ ‘Sixpence a pound the black ‘uns, sir, and fourpence a pound the white ‘uns,’ was Packer’s response. Turning to the woman, the man asked, ‘Which will you have, my dear, black or white? You shall have whichever you ‘like best.’ The woman chose the black ones. Packer insisted that the couple had loitered in the street for more than half an hour and that he had watched them eating the grapes in the rain. By 12.15am the couple had moved across the road to stand in front of the Berner Street Club where they stood listening to the singing. After that Packer, who had begun shutting up shop for the night, lost sight of them.

You've probably seen it before. I found it interesting that he says "By 12.15am the couple had moved across the road to stand in front of the Berner Street Club where they stood listening to the singing.". This would place them at the spot that Smith saw them. Slight problem is that Packer says he sold the grapes at around 11:45 and they had "loitered in the street for more than half an hour and that he had watched them eating the grapes in the rain". Smith, and I think other witnesses stated that the rain had stopped by 11pm. I also didn't know what a wide-awake hat looked like, so googled it. I also googled Smith's described hard, felt, deerstalker, dark hat and they look very much alike.

Cheers, George

Cheers, George

Packer's description looks fairly similar to Prophecy Man. Morning Advertiser, Oct 2:

On Saturday night last, about half-past ten o'clock, a man entered the bar of the "Red Lion" public-house, in Batty-street, Commercial-road, and calling for half a pint of beer, plunged at once into a conversation with the landlord and the customers present about the murders in Hanbury-street and Buck's-row. He declared that he knew the man who committed them very well, that more would take place yet, and there would be another before the morning. The landlord observed that he thought he was talking very foolishly, and that as he seemed to know so much about the man who did them, perhaps he was the man himself. The man, who had indulged in a good deal more talk of a suspicious nature, upon this hastily put down a penny for his beer and decamped without another word. Information was given to the police of the above facts after the murders of Sunday morning, and they are now anxiously looking for the man, who is thus described:-Height about 5ft. 8in., dark hair, dark moustache of stubbly growth, dark complexion, smoothly shaven chin and cheeks, and dark blue eyes. The man wore a dark single-breasted coat and waistcoat, black corduroy trousers the worse for wear, a felt hat with a narrow brim, and had a comforter round his neck. He had no jewellery, and looked like a common man cleaned up for the evening. The landlord took particular notice of him, and would know him again among a thousand. Mrs. Warwick, of 19, Batty-street, who was also in the house at the time getting her supper beer, says she could also identify him, and so could, it is said, others who were present in the bar at the time. Batty-street is the next street eastward to Berner-street, and is the street in which Lipski's crime was committed.

The Red Lion was next door to Mrs Kuer's lodging house, on Batty street.

Comparing this description with Packer's description in the Evening News, Oct 4, we get:

Prophecy Man: Height about 5ft. 8in., dark hair, dark moustache of stubbly growth, dark complexion, smoothly shaven chin and cheeks, and dark blue eyes. The man wore a dark single-breasted coat and waistcoat, black corduroy trousers the worse for wear, a felt hat with a narrow brim, and had a comforter round his neck. He had no jewellery, and looked like a common man cleaned up for the evening.

Packer's Customer: The man was about thirty to thirty five years of age, medium height, and with rather a dark complexion. He wore a black coat and a black, soft felt hat. He looked to me like a clerk or something of that sort.

The main difference is the comforter. Would the fruit stained handkerchief, found on Liz, have been too small to be worn around a man's neck?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You questioned the validity of the Star report, which mentioned an approximate arrival time, and a donkey. So I showed you another report that mentioned 3 relevant things - the approximate arrival time, the species of animal pulling the cart, and the tendency of that animal to pull to the left, when entering the yard.

The only way the cart could have contacted the body, is for the body to have been laying across the passage, to some extent. The Star, Oct 1:

The precise spot where the woman was found lying is marked by a small splash of blood. She lay on her back, her head was near the grating of the cellar, and her body stretched across the passage. There is a severe bruise on the cheek of the unfortunate woman, which may be explained by the theory that the throat was cut while she was standing, and the body allowed to fall heavily upon its side, bringing the cheek into contact with a stone that abuts from the wall just at this point.

The Times, Oct 3:

Lamb: I scarcely could see her boots. She looked as if she had been laid quietly down. Her clothes were not in the least rumpled.
Lamb: When I got there I had the gates shut.
Baxter: But did not the feet of the deceased touch the gate?
Lamb: No; they went just behind it, and I was able to close the gates without disturbing the body.

Seems like the body was moved and tidied up a bit, although there was no evidence for the cart having contacted the victim.



It's obvious what happened. Diemschitz realized his collision story had a major flaw - the victim would show no physical signs of this. So he changed to the whip and prod story. Still nonsense, of course, but not as easy to disprove.

There was no ‘collision story.’ The pony shied to the left.

You could trawl through hundreds of press reports about this or any other case and find discrepancies. Unless you are suggesting that Diemschutz gave hundreds of individual press interviews then we have to accept that these were simply transcription errors. Are you really suggesting that he didn’t know that he owned a donkey rather than a pony? There was no evidence of the cart contacting the body because it clearly didn’t. A couple of mistaken press reports can and should be ignored.