John Richardson

[Michael W Richards]

Another example is this one….



Naturally this is seen as ‘suspicious’ when it’s nothing more than a slight imprecision of language from someone for whom English wasn’t his first language. He saw a clock as he got to the top of Berner Street which said 1.00 (of course this clock could have been accurate, fast or slow - we have no way of knowing) but from the time that he saw the clock to the time that he arrived at the gates would have been less than a minute. So Diemschitz was simply speaking as if the clock had just struck 1.00 when he saw it. It might have done, he might have seen the second hand. But it might not have done but he made an assumption. It’s a non-point which is considered conveniently suspicious. There’s nothing at all suspicious about it.

I never said its suspicious, I said it is provably false. Fanny was at her door until 1, which would make seeing an approaching cart, horse and steward arriving at 1 a guarantee. If one was arriving. Apparently one wasnt.

[Michael W Richards]

Is there any evidence this guy murdered or mutilated anyone? If not it doesn't add up to much at all. He looked like a someone acting suspciously is about the sum of it. Have you seen the news recently? That bloke Malkinson spent 17 years inside based on nothing more than being picked out of a line up for looking like someone else. There was no evidence linking him to any crime. He had nothing to do with the crime and DNA of another man was found (criminal was found).

Has anyone here ever withheld their belief in a Suspect based on whether they were ever caught or charged for murder? Few of the umpteen people others have tried to hang these murders on, previously or subsequently killed anyone? Pleeze.

[Michael W Richards]

Also, the claim that the police might have closed down the club because a ripper victim was killed on their premises is about as weak as it gets as the starting point for a theory.

Weaker than asserting a serial abdominal mutilator killed Liz.? Weaker than creating an interruption theory based on nothing? Hmm

That these men would have, on the spot, come up with a plan where they would use a false witness doesn’t hold water.

What plan have you concocted in your head? All they had to do was try to establish a time when they discovered the woman, Louis and Eagle and Lave. Which explains why Issac K gives a time of 12:40, as does Heschberg. Oopsie. The witness isnt even presented until Sunday night, and needed a translator...so in steps Wess to translate. The man who ran the Arbeter Fraint and says he left at 12:30 and the street was deserted. So who is planning to use a false witness "on the spot"? Get your facts right and maybe others might take anything you say seriously.

Why didn’t Diemschitz just say that a man pushed past him with a knife in his hand and that he said something to him in English? Why would they have chosen a man that couldn’t speak English as their false witness?

Seriously dude? Because the translator could say anything and claim its what the witness said. The translator was Wess.

How could they or Schwartz have known that some neighbour wasn’t looking out of their window from 12.30 to 1.00 with the gates in full view and saw no sign of any scuffle or of Schwartz?

That did happen, Fanny was at her door "almost the whole time" between 12:30 and 1, and at the door continuously from 12:50 until 1.


It just doesn’t hold up to the mildest of scrutiny. It relies on simple timing errors by men who were provably estimating.

Your assessment that these are simple timing errors seems to forget that A)we are talking about 15 to 20 minutes difference, B) 2 witnesses that came from in the club must have had access to clocks, and 1 policeman who says he was there "just before 1" had to keep his times straight for his shift reports, and C) Fanny Mortimer did not see anyone or anything approaching the gates from 12:50 until 1, other than Goldstein at 12:55..which proves she was where she said she was at the time she said she was there...and D) if you have several witnesses state they saw and heard something of the dead woman at 12:40-45, and you have other witnesses say they were also there at that same time and the dead woman was alive and on the street, another saying he was there, and another man saying he "couldnt be sure" when he arrived at 12:40 that a dead body was just inside the gates...(which he would have to avoid stepping on to get close to the club wall, as he said he did...its hardly a matter of "simple timing errors". In fact Lave and Eagle say they were by the gates at 12:40, and neither saw the other. In fact Lave says the street was empty. Interesting huh?

The fact that you would buy the Israel Schwartz story is evidence of something in and of itself. Not one other person saw any BSM, or a Pipeman, or Liz alive after 12:35, but youre ok with them all just materializing there when Israel says he saw them. Even though nobody saw him there either. Nice detective work bud.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I never said its suspicious, I said it is provably false. Fanny was at her door until 1, which would make seeing an approaching cart, horse and steward arriving at 1 a guarantee. If one was arriving. Apparently one wasnt.

Selective quoting alert.

We know that in one report she said that she went onto her doorstep at around 12.45 where she stayed for around 10 minutes.

12.45 + 10 minutes means that she could have gone back inside at 12.55. Before Diemschitz returned.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The fact that you would buy the Israel Schwartz story is evidence of something in and of itself. Not one other person saw any BSM, or a Pipeman, or Liz alive after 12:45, but youre ok with them all just materializing there when Israel says he saw them. Even though nobody saw him there either. Nice detective work bud.

No problem. It’s called making an unbiased assessment as opposed to creating a theory out of thin air purely to support your Isenschmidt theory. If that’s how you think an assessment should go then fine. Many of us have wasted time going through this with you before but you’re far too invested in it to admit to error now.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually I get a fair amount of support from people whose opinions I respect, which is why I dont mind that you dont agree with me.

People who remain nameless of course.

[Michael W Richards]

Selective quoting alert.

We know that in one report she said that she went onto her doorstep at around 12.45 where she stayed for around 10 minutes.

12.45 + 10 minutes means that she could have gone back inside at 12.55. Before Diemschitz returned.

From Fanny Mortimer herself, Evening News Oct 1st..."I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the yard with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School.

I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found."

She says she came back out just after 1, and she also says clearly that she would have seen anyone come out or go into the yard before 1am, and she didnt. Using the timing you offered, doesnt that have her at the door when Israel says he saw Liz and 2 men? And to be back inside when she stated she saw Goldstein? Doesnt she say that she observed nothing unusual within that half hour until 1am? No scuffles, no "Lipski" calls, no Israel running home incontinently, and no arriving cart and horse.

As I said, if you started with the actual facts you might not have to argue so much.

[Michael W Richards]

People who remain nameless of course.

Some people whose names are among the most respected in this study over the past 50 years. Not that actually studying the facts would have any appeal for you.

[Michael W Richards]

No problem. It’s called making an unbiased assessment as opposed to creating a theory out of thin air purely to support your Isenschmidt theory. If that’s how you think an assessment should go then fine. Many of us have wasted time going through this with you before but you’re far too invested in it to admit to error now.

vs..accepting a story from someone you cant prove was even there talking about people no-one saw or heard....so, what was that about thin air again?

Sorry if you feel being corrected because of your lack of knowledge and distorted view of what the facts really are here is a waste of time. Just trying to help out.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Some people whose names are among the most respected in this study over the past 50 years. Not that actually studying the facts would have any appeal for you.

Who remain nameless.

[Herlock Sholmes]

From Fanny Mortimer herself, Evening News Oct 1st..."I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the yard with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School.

I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found."

She says she came back out just after 1, and she also says clearly that she would have seen anyone come out or go into the yard before 1am, and she didnt. Using the timing you offered, doesnt that have her at the door when Israel says he saw Liz and 2 men? And to be back inside when she stated she saw Goldstein? Doesnt she say that she observed nothing unusual within that half hour until 1am? No scuffles, no "Lipski" calls, no Israel running home incontinently, and no arriving cart and horse.

As I said, if you started with the actual facts you might not have to argue so much.

You may not have noticed so I’ve put it in red for you. “….nearly the whole time….” That means ‘not literally the whole time,’ or ‘a time less than the entire period between 12.45 and 1.00.’ So she could have gone inside at around 12.55 or 12.56 or 12.57 or 12.58. Started preparing for bed. Diemschitz returns at 1.00. She hears the commotion just after 1.00 and then left her house.

The fact that she didn’t see anyone is also easily explainable when we consider the very obvious fact that these times were estimations. She said that she went onto her doorstep at 12.45 and Schwartz quoted the same time. You claim to like corroboration….how can you corroborate these times exactly? How can we be certain that Schwartz didn’t pass and see Stride at say 12.43 while Mortimer was still indoors? How can you be certain that Mortimer didn’t go onto her doorstep at 12.46 just after the incident?

[Herlock Sholmes]

vs..accepting a story from someone you cant prove was even there talking about people no-one saw or heard....so, what was that about thin air again?

Sorry if you feel being corrected because of your lack of knowledge and distorted view of what the facts really are here is a waste of time. Just trying to help out.

Schwartz has no corroboration so……weave a story based on selective quoting.

[Fiver]

Actually I get a fair amount of support from people whose opinions I respect....

I've got a friend who's always boasting about his really hot girlfriend that no one has ever seen.

[Fiver]

I never said its suspicious, I said it is provably false. Fanny was at her door until 1, which would make seeing an approaching cart, horse and steward arriving at 1 a guarantee. If one was arriving. Apparently one wasnt.

Perhaps you should read the 1 October, 1888 Evening News. Fanny Mortimer thought there was.

"I should think I must have heard it if the poor creature screamed at all, for I hadn't long come in from the door when I was roused, as I tell you, by that call for the police. But that was from the people as found the body. Mr. Lewis, who travels in cheap drapery things a bit now and again, had just drove into the yard when his horse shied at something that was lying in the corner. He thought 'twas a bundle of some kind till he got down from his cart and struck a light. Then he saw what it was and gave the alarm."

[c.d.]

Hello Fiver,

In all fairness, I don't think the above quote is saying that Fanny saw the horse and cart herself. Rather she seems to be quoting what Louis said. That is my take on it. Besides, how could Fanny know that his horse had shied unless she heard it from him?

c.d.