Who was the best witness to have seen Jack the Ripper?

[SirJohnFalstaff]

re: peaked cap

I'm researching about street gangs of the era. I stumbled into an article saying that gangs would often wear a distinctive look. One of them, from Manchester, fancied wearing peaked caps.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Hello Sir John. Good post.

You are correct that Abberline and Helson were merely stating beliefs. Oddly, however, the description of this ginger coloured hair man coincides in many respects with a description of Leather Apron from a newspaper cutting.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks. It's a bit frustrating, isn't it?

[SirJohnFalstaff]

What Schwartz describes is so unlike what we believe any of the other Ripper killings to have been like that, in my view, if Schwartz was telling the truth than Stride must be ruled out as a Ripper victim.

I haven't been here long, and while I consider Stride a JtR victim, I just recently noticed that she's the only "immigrant" victim of the lot.

Could it be another argument ruling out Stride as a JtR victim?

Now would that make Jack too political?

[lynn cates]

L A

Hello Sir John. Good post.

You are correct that Abberline and Helson were merely stating beliefs. Oddly, however, the description of this ginger coloured hair man coincides in many respects with a description of Leather Apron from a newspaper cutting.

Cheers.
LC

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I find Mrs Fiddymont interesting as she seems to corroborate Mrs Long,

For example Hutchinson's JtR could equally have been wearing a pink tutu and skipping sprinkling fairy dust for all the relevance his description matters. Yet millions of words get written on the shape of the hat JtR wore (it was probably a tiara).

No one probably ever saw JtR clearly but common sense (to me) would be ask a simple question.

How many among the pantheon of primary witnesses are there that have a secondary witness independently confirm their description?

I have always liked Mrs Fiddymont / Mr Campbell. The only thing that bugs me is the fact that i couldn't find anything that formerly identify this man as Isenschmid, only "fair assumption".

I'm pretty sure that both witness could have recognized him, since he had such an effect on them.

[Abby Normal]

This nonsense about "Michaels timing fixation" is a useless rebuttal to any post I might make on the subject since its a matter of record that 4 witnesses place the dead body in the passageway before 12:45am.

What some of you are inferring, that we cannot accept witness times to the minute, suggests that some of you believe that all 4 of these witnesses were off on their times by over 20 minutes,.. since that's the discrepancy with Louis's arrival time as stated. To assume such a thing is simply silly, and hardly useful in search of the truth.

Im sorry if this seems contrite, but I have to laugh out loud when I read that Louis Diemshitz is not to be questioned, when we already have those witness statements as a direct refutation of his claim, and not a single corroborating account of Louis's arrival at the club.

But believe what you want, no-one said that anyone here must follow actual solid evidence to form their conclusions, hell, half the posters seem to be second guessing about who could tell time at all. A conclusion by the contemporary police and modern theorists that a Jack the Ripper killed a Canonical Group of women is merely a guess too...so I suppose the company is good.

Cheers

Hi Michael
what 4 witnesses?

[Wickerman]

This nonsense about "Michaels timing fixation" is a useless rebuttal to any post I might make on the subject since its a matter of record that 4 witnesses place the dead body in the passageway before 12:45am.

Michael.

For what its worth, I think contained within your argument is a very salient point.
Blackwell advised the Inquest that he was alerted of the murder at 1:10am, yet if we are to believe Diemschitz, much had occurred within that 10 minutes.
Diemschitz had driven past the clock at 1:00am, down to the yard, discovered the body, ventured inside the club to find his wife. Returned to the yard to investigate the find. Ran across Berner St. then east along Fairclough St. to Grove St.
He returned back along Fairclough St. to Berner St. then Kozebrodski, who was with him ran up Berner St. then east along Commercial Rd. to find the two constables, who returned to Dutfields Yard.
It was one of these constables who sent for the doctor.

To my mind that is far too much goings-on to be limited to 10 minutes.
So to my mind you do have a good point.

The Bakers clock so relied on as the key indicator for the true time of the discovery of Stride's body may not have been correct.

[GUT]

G'day Michael

The club knew exactly when the meeting started and broke up, indicating the clock was used, and one witness who stated her saw the woman and Louis by her at around 12:40 had just arrived back at the club at half past twelve. "I arrived back at half past 12 and about 10 minutes later was summoned by Louis to the passageway." He also said Louis sent him out alone to get help....when by their remarks, only Louis and Morris and some other members went. And after 1am. The witness claimed he returned to the scene just in time to see Eagle and the fetched policeman moving toward the gates.

I have no doubt the club had the right time, or close to, nor that most of the Church clocks were close, but it still comes down to:

1. How long since the witness looked at it AND
2. If the witness was working from their own timepiece, how long since they had set it and how accurate it was.

[Michael W Richards]

This nonsense about "Michaels timing fixation" is a useless rebuttal to any post I might make on the subject since its a matter of record that 4 witnesses place the dead body in the passageway before 12:45am.

What some of you are inferring, that we cannot accept witness times to the minute, suggests that some of you believe that all 4 of these witnesses were off on their times by over 20 minutes,.. since that's the discrepancy with Louis's arrival time as stated. To assume such a thing is simply silly, and hardly useful in search of the truth.

Im sorry if this seems contrite, but I have to laugh out loud when I read that Louis Diemshitz is not to be questioned, when we already have those witness statements as a direct refutation of his claim, and not a single corroborating account of Louis's arrival at the club.

But believe what you want, no-one said that anyone here must follow actual solid evidence to form their conclusions, hell, half the posters seem to be second guessing about who could tell time at all. A conclusion by the contemporary police and modern theorists that a Jack the Ripper killed a Canonical Group of women is merely a guess too...so I suppose the company is good.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Into the nineteen sixties my grandmother used to judge time by the nearby railway rather than trust the (pretty accurate) clock which was one of grandad's retirement presents...if the BBC time differed from "railway time" she tended to trust the latter rather than the former...she can't have been a lone eccentric survivor...

That reply of yours to Michael, you took the words right out of my mouth, almost word for word.

Yes, when I was a nipper, some of the old dears in the street judged time by normal everyday events, like when the milkman arrived, it must be 8 o'clock, or when her neighbour came home from work, it must be 5 o'clock.
One lady didn't bother with her clock she couldn't stand the 'ticking' noise.
Everyone got by, old habits die hard...

[Cogidubnus]

Posted from another thread:

So even these folk who have access to clocks and watches...mostly in need of frequent resetting owing to their cheap nature - from what source do they reset them?

There is no radio...no TV...if they reset them from the local church clock, from where does that timing originate? Actually that timing usually originated from the next church down until you reached "Big Ben" - so how accurate is the next church down? How long since the verger bothered to clamber up all those stairs and adjusted the mrchanism?

It's only about ten years on from when the railways adopted a standardised London time via the Electric Telegraph...you think the rest of the nation caught up with the new technology straight away?

ALL timings in the LVP have to be treated with great caution.

Some folk brought up in this era, (AND their children), tended to view time in a far more fluid sense than would be viewed as normal now...My grandfather (born 1885) apparently often used to turn up for work, up to an hour early - because he didn't regard the family clock as accurate enough to prevent him being sacked...

Into the nineteen sixties my grandmother used to judge time by the nearby railway rather than trust the (pretty accurate) clock which was one of grandad's retirement presents...if the BBC time differed from "railway time" she tended to trust the latter rather than the former...she can't have been a lone eccentric survivor...

Even basing time on an estimate of minutes passed since a reliable timing is pretty iffy, isn't it? Try putting your family into a clockless/watchless room and asking them to estimate when twenty minutes have passed...you'll be amazed...

All the best

Dave

[caz]

As to your point concerning times Caz, Brown, Schwartz, Diemshutz, Eagle and Lave were not wearing watches, and Kozebrodski, Gillen, Heschberg and Mortimer were in dwellings........... with clocks. I don't hold anyone accountable to a minute or 2...

You could have fooled me, Mike.

...its just a fact that using Kozebrodski's, Gillen's, Spooner's and Heschberg's remarks.... that same morning.... it appears they all were standing by the dying woman between 12:35 and approximately 12:45....

It's just a 'fact' that using certain people's 'remarks' it 'appears'...??

That's that then. Very persuasive.

...and using Fannys remarks, no cart and horse were seen or heard approaching the gates between 12:50 and 1am...

Nor between 12.35 and 12.45, when you would have Louis D arriving, so Fanny M clearly could have missed Schwartz and co too, by your own reckoning. Something you consistently fail to reconcile.

And since Louis D put his own arrival at 1am, Fanny M could have been indoors by then to hear him go past, having missed sight of him by just a minute or two, but remembering the interval as more like four minutes. So you do hold her 'accountable to a minute or two'.

As you can see, the evidence contrary to Louis, Eagle and Lave, and Israel is right there in print, and its not a matter of a minute or two in deviation.....for Louis to have told the truth at the Inquest Issac , Heschberg, Spooner and Gillen would all have to be wrong by about the same amount....20 minutes.

4 witnesses, 3 from a club with a clock, are out by 20 minutes? When one of them had just marked his return to the club by checking the clock and verifying it was half past twelve?

Sure.

But where does it all lead, Mike? Why do you think Louis D deliberately and unilaterally put the time of discovery forward to 1am, if he knew very well it was a lie and, more to the point, a useless and risky lie if others were just going to spill the beans anyway?

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

They also have to be set to the correct time, and keep time.

The club knew exactly when the meeting started and broke up, indicating the clock was used, and one witness who stated her saw the woman and Louis by her at around 12:40 had just arrived back at the club at half past twelve. "I arrived back at half past 12 and about 10 minutes later was summoned by Louis to the passageway." He also said Louis sent him out alone to get help....when by their remarks, only Louis and Morris and some other members went. And after 1am. The witness claimed he returned to the scene just in time to see Eagle and the fetched policeman moving toward the gates.

I wont address the issue of setting the time correctly, or whether all timepieces were universally synched,..but I will say that 4 witnesses who disagreed with Louis and Lave and Morris remarks all had access to clocks where they were at that time. Brown, Louis, Israel, Morris and Lave, did not.

Cheers GUT

[Michael W Richards]

Reasonable overview? Hardly. With regard to the remainder of your message, it's obvious you're trying very hard to sell something, but I'm not sure just what. Admittedly, I haven't gone back over your earlier posts, but can you state simply and briefly what you believe happened that night and the evidence that you rely on? No need to justify anything; I'd just like know where you're coming from.

John

My post Dr John was to support the notion that; Israel Schwartz has zero corroboration for his story within any other witness account, and Fanny Mortimer has the advantage of access to a clock and corroboration for her story, based on her seeing Leon Goldstein pass the club at the same time he said he did when giving his statement on that Tuesday night. As for the "tutus" element of his remarks I personally agree with cd that the incident sounds more like a typical street whore-client interaction...problem here is that Berner Street was not typically on a "whores" route, we do not have any evidence that the woman was soliciting,.. and again, we don't have any corroboration.

To catch you up to my concerns with Israel, Morris and Louis of the International Club, aside from the fact that none have any corroboration for their stories, my concern is this....within 1 hour of the murder the occupants of the club property were interviewed, and immediately after that they gave the first press interviews about their recollections. 3 club members gave statements that put them in the passageway by the dying woman before 12:45, and 1 outside witness does as well. The 3 witnesses from the club were inside and called out, so they had access to the time inside the club. Fanny had access to the time in her house, and she stated with accuracy that she saw someone pass the gates at around 12:55, verifying her assertion that she stood at her door to the street continuously from 12:50 until 1am.

None of those witnesses had any role of responsibility for what happened on that property that night. The steward would, and perhaps the speaker that night. 2 men with stories that conflict with the aforementioned witnesses. And without corroberation....in fact, by virtue of Fannys accurate account of the passer by at 12:55, it could be stated since she saw nothing else on that street or heard nothing at that time,....that her statement proves Louis was not arriving at 1am promptly...as he stated. Again, she had a time reference.

People who are responsible for actions at the club portray the accidental finding of the body at just after 1am, 5 witnesses who have nothing to do with the clubs operations disagreed with that timing.

Since this thread is supposed to be about who saw Jack, the point in this case is moot...its very unlikely that Liz Stride was killed by a multiple mutilator anyway, so any witness in this murder case is unlikely "the best" to have seen Jack.

Cheers

[GUT]

G'day c.d.

With regard to watches and clocks, the individual in question has to be looking at them in order for them to relay the necessary information. Just because you are in possession of a watch or have access to a clock doesn't necessarily mean that you know what time it is.

c.d.

They also have to be set to the correct time, and keep time.