The Stride Murder

[Michael W Richards]

Between 12.30 and 1.00 she claimed to have been on her doorstep NEARLY the whole time. I’ll just repeat that for you Michael…NEARLY the whole time.

That means that she wasn’t on her doorstep for the whole 30 minutes.

That means that there was a period of time when she wasn’t on her doorstep.

Do you get it now?

She also said that she went onto her doorstep just after a Constable passed (which she estimated at 12.45 but if it was Smith then it was earlier.) She said that she was on her doorstep for around 10 minutes. So either….

a) she goes onto her doorstep just after Smith (approx 12.35) stays there for around 10 minutes then goes back inside (around 12.45) or

b) she goes onto her doorstep at 12.45, stays there for around 10 minutes then goes back inside (around 12.55)

She said if someone had come out of that yard before 1am, she would have seen them. And we know she did see someone at 12:55, so how can you offer the above as some kind of rebuttal of that? Clearly she was not inside at 12:55. I know youd like to orchestrate the comings and goings of witnesses to support whatever it is you are trying to sell, people appearing and disappearing in a schedule that fits with your beliefs, but I suggest before you suggest that Fanny was indoors at 12:55 again, you re-read the evidence.

Nearly the whole time can be easily addressed by the fact we know she didnt see Liz at 12:35, or anyone else at that time. Ergo, she was likely indoors. There is your "nearly" explanation, so dont try removing her ESTABLISHED sighting of Goldstein to explain your own fanciful ideas.

[Michael W Richards]

Ok…you assume that he was ‘in on it.’ I might have guessed.

I mentioned Lave all along with the same group that made statements that are easily proven unacceptable when compared with others who corroborate the timing. Lave lived there, Louis worked there, he ran the club, Mrs D was Louis's wife who worked there, and Morris Eagle is paid to speak there. Those people would lose their "benefits" if the police closed the club because they suspected a club attendee killed Stride. Club attendees were certainly there during that half hour and had easy access to the passageway. Is that clear enough?

Louis claims a 1 am arrival, Fanny doesnt see anyone with a cart and horse approaching at that time. Morris claims he arrived at the gates at 12:40, Lave claims to be there at that same time. Neither see each other. Mrs D backs what her husband claims...hardly shocking.

Spooner....says he was at the gates around "25 to 1", Issac K says he heard of the body at 12:40, Heschberg said "I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock," Fanny says if anyone had come from the yard before 1 she would have seen them, Lamb says he saw the men running on Commercial just before 1, and Johnson says he was there at 1:10. The Arbeter Fraint in late November states a woman was murdered around 12:45 in the passageway.

Should all those witness times be assumed to have been wrong by 20 minutes just to validate Diemshitz's stated arrival and discovery time and to make you happy? No, of course not. Could Louis have arrived just after 1 and still have Lamb there at 1? Not physically possible. Could Johnson have arrived at 1:10 if Morris hadnt even left to find Lamb until roughly 1:05? Not physically possible. When Fanny says she saw no-one on the street during that time excluding Goldstein at 12:55, do we just assume she wasnt at her door at 12:45 and 1am so we can accept Louis and Israels statements? You could. Could Morris and Lave be both standing at the gates at 12:40 and not have seen each other there? Not physically possible. Do 4 people suddenly appear on a street that is at the time being watched by Fanny, off and on, and a young couple on the street, and then just as suddenly disappear, without being seen or heard by Fanny or the young couple, or anyone? Not likely. Does a witness suggesting a source for a noise she hears but does not see become a fact, or just her opinion on what made the noise? No, it remains her opinion.

I feel like Im trying to help someone who had never read the evidence about this crime, or someone who cant understand what he is reading. If either is the case, sorry... Ive been working under the assumption that you do understand English and you have read, at least Diemshitz's version, of the story. If not all versions.

[Michael W Richards]

PC Smith...."On Saturday last I went on duty at ten p.m. My beat was past Berner- street, and would take me twenty-five minutes or half an hour to go round. I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock. I was not called. I saw a crowd outside the gates of No. 40, Berner-street. I heard no cries of "Police." When I came to the spot two constables had already arrived".

So, at 1am he sees people hanging about the gates at #40 Berner. He goes down there, and finds that 2, not just one, 2 constables had "already arrived". Isnt that when Louis says he had just arrived and was the first to discover the woman lying there? "Precisely at 1am", wasnt it?

Add Smith to the ever growing list of people whose statement does not agree with the timing that Louis gave. Thats 2 PC's, 1 medical professional, 2 club members and 1 unaffiliated witness from the street that gave much different story than Louis, and they all agreed, within 5 minutes, with each others account. Responders were already there at 1am.

And I didnt even mention Fanny, who had a vantage point that allowed her to see the street from her doorway during that period.

[Herlock Sholmes]

She said if someone had come out of that yard before 1am, she would have seen them. And we know she did see someone at 12:55, so how can you offer the above as some kind of rebuttal of that? Clearly she was not inside at 12:55. I know youd like to orchestrate the comings and goings of witnesses to support whatever it is you are trying to sell, people appearing and disappearing in a schedule that fits with your beliefs, but I suggest before you suggest that Fanny was indoors at 12:55 again, you re-read the evidence.

Nearly the whole time can be easily addressed by the fact we know she didnt see Liz at 12:35, or anyone else at that time. Ergo, she was likely indoors. There is your "nearly" explanation, so dont try removing her ESTABLISHED sighting of Goldstein to explain your own fanciful ideas.

“the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously [before one] was a young man carrying a black shiny bag,”


Where did she specify 12.55? So again I’ll request that you stop creating ‘certainties’ where none have been stated. She could have seen Goldstein just before 12.55 and then gone inside at 12.55. This isn’t complicated stuff Michael.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I mentioned Lave all along with the same group that made statements that are easily proven unacceptable when compared with others who corroborate the timing. Lave lived there, Louis worked there, he ran the club, Mrs D was Louis's wife who worked there, and Morris Eagle is paid to speak there. Those people would lose their "benefits" if the police closed the club because they suspected a club attendee killed Stride. Club attendees were certainly there during that half hour and had easy access to the passageway. Is that clear enough?

It’s not a matter of being ‘clear.’ It’s a matter of being believable. Would they have been worried about the Police closing down their club because a ripper murder had taken place in the yard? Of course not. The idea is laughable.

Louis claims a 1 am arrival, Fanny doesnt see anyone with a cart and horse approaching at that time.

Because she’d gone back inside.

Morris claims he arrived at the gates at 12:40, Lave claims to be there at that same time. Neither see each other. Mrs D backs what her husband claims...hardly shocking.

And Lave claims to have been in the yard and street for 30 minutes and yet he doesn’t see Mortimer or Smith or Goldstein, or Eagle or the couple seen by Smith or Stride. All people that we know were there. And you take Lave seriously? Up to you.

Spooner....says he was at the gates around "25 to 1",

Convenient editing alert……he also said that he got to the yard around 5 minutes before Lamb arrived. So 12.35 is clearly, obviously an error. It’s not difficult Michael. Come on.

Issac K says he heard of the body at 12:40, Heschberg said "I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock,"

Clearly mistaken.

Fanny says if anyone had come from the yard before 1 she would have seen them, Lamb says he saw the men running on Commercial just before 1,

Desperate and dishonest…..4 out of 5 reports said ‘about 1.00.’

and Johnson says he was there at 1:10.

And?

The Arbeter Fraint in late November states a woman was murdered around 12:45 in the passageway.

And what did it say in The Beano?

Should all those witness times be assumed to have been wrong by 20 minutes just to validate Diemshitz's stated arrival and discovery time and to make you happy? No, of course not. Could Louis have arrived just after 1 and still have Lamb there at 1? Not physically possible. Could Johnson have arrived at 1:10 if Morris hadnt even left to find Lamb until roughly 1:05? Not physically possible. When Fanny says she saw no-one on the street during that time excluding Goldstein at 12:55, do we just assume she wasnt at her door at 12:45 and 1am so we can accept Louis and Israels statements? You could. Could Morris and Lave be both standing at the gates at 12:40 and not have seen each other there? Not physically possible. Do 4 people suddenly appear on a street that is at the time being watched by Fanny, off and on, and a young couple on the street, and then just as suddenly disappear, without being seen or heard by Fanny or the young couple, or anyone? Not likely. Does a witness suggesting a source for a noise she hears but does not see become a fact, or just her opinion on what made the noise? No, it remains her opinion.

I feel like Im trying to help someone who had never read the evidence about this crime, or someone who cant understand what he is reading. If either is the case, sorry... Ive been working under the assumption that you do understand English and you have read, at least Diemshitz's version, of the story. If not all versions.

From a man who keeps selectively quoting.

The last paragraph is too boring to respond to in detail but I’ll repeat the obvious. Thousands have looked into events on Berner Street and yet, according to you, they are all idiots because they haven’t seen what is soooo obvious to you. The reality of the situation is this Michael.

You alighted on Diemschitz but found an issue. He couldn’t have killed Stride and Eddowes. So you look at Berner Street, find a couple of obvious timing errors then set to thinking. A couple of beers later and you have your ‘plot.’ No matter how unbelievable, it will do. I’m surprised that you need a plot though. Aren’t you the one who has calling everyone fools for believing that there was a serial killer at large? Why not just say that I was a different killer? But you don’t really believe what you yourself say do you Michael? You know very well that there was a serial killer around and THIS is why you invented your fantasy.

Challenge….provide the names of some of the people who support your ‘plot theory.’

They don’t exist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

PC Smith...."On Saturday last I went on duty at ten p.m. My beat was past Berner- street, and would take me twenty-five minutes or half an hour to go round. I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock. I was not called. I saw a crowd outside the gates of No. 40, Berner-street. I heard no cries of "Police." When I came to the spot two constables had already arrived".

So, at 1am he sees people hanging about the gates at #40 Berner. He goes down there, and finds that 2, not just one, 2 constables had "already arrived". Isnt that when Louis says he had just arrived and was the first to discover the woman lying there? "Precisely at 1am", wasnt it?

Add Smith to the ever growing list of people whose statement does not agree with the timing that Louis gave. Thats 2 PC's, 1 medical professional, 2 club members and 1 unaffiliated witness from the street that gave much different story than Louis, and they all agreed, within 5 minutes, with each others account. Responders were already there at 1am.

And I didnt even mention Fanny, who had a vantage point that allowed her to see the street from her doorway during that period.

You can’t dispute the case with this kind of black and white viewpoint.

Timing estimations….timing estimations…….timing estimations.

Please ask someone to explain this to you. Ask Jeff….he’ll tell you all about the timekeeping of that time.

My new resolution……don’t discuss the case with anyone who refuses to allow for a margin-for-error. It’s such a basic starting point. Ripperology page one.

[c.d.]

My new resolution……don’t discuss the case with anyone who refuses to allow for a margin-for-error.

Yeah, right. And I'm going to cut back on beer and try to get more exercise. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

“the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously [before one] was a young man carrying a black shiny bag,”


Where did she specify 12.55? So again I’ll request that you stop creating ‘certainties’ where none have been stated. She could have seen Goldstein just before 12.55 and then gone inside at 12.55. This isn’t complicated stuff Michael.

The time was mentioned in an article, and Mrs Mortimer said herself that she was at her door until 1, so why do I have to keep repeating this to you? Its uncomplicated for you because you just ignore witnesses that dont agree with your "thinking".

[Michael W Richards]

The last paragraph is too boring to respond to in detail but I’ll repeat the obvious. Thousands have looked into events on Berner Street and yet, according to you, they are all idiots because they haven’t seen what is soooo obvious to you. The reality of the situation is this Michael.

You alighted on Diemschitz but found an issue. He couldn’t have killed Stride and Eddowes. So you look at Berner Street, find a couple of obvious timing errors then set to thinking. A couple of beers later and you have your ‘plot.’ No matter how unbelievable, it will do. I’m surprised that you need a plot though. Aren’t you the one who has calling everyone fools for believing that there was a serial killer at large? Why not just say that I was a different killer? But you don’t really believe what you yourself say do you Michael? You know very well that there was a serial killer around and THIS is why you invented your fantasy.

Challenge….provide the names of some of the people who support your ‘plot theory.’

They don’t exist.

First off I dont drink, although based on your posts, Im sure you do. Secondly, interesting that you accuse me of first deciding on what happened and then finding evidence that backs it up, sorta like what you and many others do when you just assume a serial killer then go looking for one? They are ALL unsolved Genius, always have been, and with intellects like you on the case, they most assuredly always will be. It takes connecting just 2 murders to one killer to claim Serial killings.......but you, nor anyone else, has connected any one murder to another. I have said Isenschmidt is a good candidate for Annies killer based on his mental issues, skill sets and an ID by Mrs Fiddymont about a bloodied and strange man she saw that same morning at 7am that even your demi-god Abberline stated matched Jacob exactly. Thats why.

I could care less how many people think one thing when I see another. And you are in no position to demand anything from me, Ive gone over the obvious and stated so much with you already that I should bill you for wasting my time.

[Michael W Richards]

You can’t dispute the case with this kind of black and white viewpoint.

Timing estimations….timing estimations…….timing estimations.

Please ask someone to explain this to you. Ask Jeff….he’ll tell you all about the timekeeping of that time.

My new resolution……don’t discuss the case with anyone who refuses to allow for a margin-for-error. It’s such a basic starting point. Ripperology page one.

Your margin of error is 20 minutes,....20 minutes..... when the difference in time between that entire list of witnesses I gave you amounts to a 5 minute variance. "Thats 2 PC's, 1 medical professional, 2 club members and 1 unaffiliated witness from the street that gave much different story than Louis, and they all agreed, within 5 minutes, with each others account."

I really would like you to own what you have been shovelling, so how about it? Is it your belief that every witness who stated they were aware of the dead or dying woman between 12:40 and 12:45 lying, or just off by 20 minutes?

Walk your talk bigmouth.

[Michael W Richards]

My new resolution……don’t discuss the case with anyone who refuses to allow for a margin-for-error.

Yeah, right. And I'm going to cut back on beer and try to get more exercise. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

c.d.

And the road to nowhere is paved with denial.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The time was mentioned in an article, and Mrs Mortimer said herself that she was at her door until 1, so why do I have to keep repeating this to you? Its uncomplicated for you because you just ignore witnesses that dont agree with your "thinking".

Where is the quote where she actually specifically says that she was on her doorstep until 1.00?

And where is the quote where she says ‘I saw the man with the bag pass at 12.55?’

[Herlock Sholmes]

First off I dont drink, although based on your posts, Im sure you do. Secondly, interesting that you accuse me of first deciding on what happened and then finding evidence that backs it up, sorta like what you and many others do when you just assume a serial killer then go looking for one? They are ALL unsolved Genius, always have been, and with intellects like you on the case, they most assuredly always will be. It takes connecting just 2 murders to one killer to claim Serial killings.......but you, nor anyone else, has connected any one murder to another. I have said Isenschmidt is a good candidate for Annies killer based on his mental issues, skill sets and an ID by Mrs Fiddymont about a bloodied and strange man she saw that same morning at 7am that even your demi-god Abberline stated matched Jacob exactly. Thats why.

I could care less how many people think one thing when I see another. And you are in no position to demand anything from me, Ive gone over the obvious and stated so much with you already that I should bill you for wasting my time.

You deliberately looked for and then created a storyline to try and back up your Isenschmidt theory which isn’t a great approach is it?

How can anyone claim a serious view of these crimes whilst suggesting that Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes were killed by 2 different killers within two weeks at locations so close together. Perhaps there was a serial killer annual conference in town?

[Elamarna]

The time was mentioned in an article, and Mrs Mortimer said herself that she was at her door until 1, so why do I have to keep repeating this to you? Its uncomplicated for you because you just ignore witnesses that dont agree with your "thinking".

Michael, with all due respect Mortimer is not conclusively reported as claiming she was at the door until 1am.
The timings that are quoted in the press, are not pricise and inconsistent.

I am not even here talking about the issues of syncronizied time keeping, but pure about the different timings quoted in the press.

You insist on repeating 1am, when such is not a view one can reach from the press reports.


You put much faith in SOME of the timings attributed to Mortimer, those which you feel support your view, yet other comments also attributed to Mortimer in the press are etiher rejected by you or ignored.

Of course if we were to follow the logic and reasoning you have expressed for Schwartz being unreliable, we would reject the majority of Mortimer's press comments as being clearly deemed not reliable.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your margin of error is 20 minutes,....20 minutes..... when the difference in time between that entire list of witnesses I gave you amounts to a 5 minute variance. "Thats 2 PC's, 1 medical professional, 2 club members and 1 unaffiliated witness from the street that gave much different story than Louis, and they all agreed, within 5 minutes, with each others account."

I really would like you to own what you have been shovelling, so how about it? Is it your belief that every witness who stated they were aware of the dead or dying woman between 12:40 and 12:45 lying, or just off by 20 minutes?

Walk your talk bigmouth.

I haven’t used one personal insult in these conversations - you’ve called me a sociopath, you’ve said that I have learning difficulties and now you’ve called me bigmouth. It’s amazing that I’m considered the ‘controversial’ one by some.

The whole of ripperology disagrees with you Michael. Are they all as gullible as me? Or have you ever considered that you might be wrong and that your clear bias has clouded your judgment? Your ‘supporters’ are either imaginary or they are too embarrassed to put their heads above the pulpit. How can you expect anyone to believe that people agree with you?

Kosebrodsky and Hoschberg were mistaken. As was Spooner who even explained how he tried to estimate the time (luckily though we can get to the truth by the fact that he got to the yard 5 minutes before Lamb - this PROVES that this kind of error can happen. So if it can happen with Spooner it could happen with Kosebrodski and Hoschberg)

Diemschitz, Eagle, Gilleman, Smith, Lamb and Spooner all tie up without a problem (see the timelines done by FrankO and Jeff) Mortimer was indoors when Schwartz passed (and we can’t know exactly what time he passed so approx 12.45 is all we can say) and she went back inside to lock up for the night just before Diemschitz got back (at 1.00 taking into consideration the vagaries of clicks)