Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Stride Murder

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    Issac Kozebrodsky, once more...."About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was. When we had got outside he struck a match, and when we looked down on the ground we could see a long stream of blood. It was running down the gutter from the direction of the gate, and reached to the back door of the club. I should think there was blood in the gutter for a distance of five or six yards. I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers.​"

    According to Issac K's statement he met up with Eagle and 2 officers and then they all went to the gates of the club. Lamb says this was at, or just before 1am. Could issac have gone for help and seen Eagle with 2 PC's if Louis is only just arriving and he is the first to find the body? No.

    So, If Louis did actually arrive at 1, and summoned anyone to the passageway to show them what he found shortly thereafter, how is possible that Lamb, Eagle and Issac are already back there after finding a PC at nearly 1..as Lamb said? Is this even possible? No.

    Morris Eagles remarks, again...."On reentering the club he went to see a friend in an upstairs room and later joined him in singing a Russian-language song. He had been there about twenty minutes when a club member named Gilleman came upstairs and said that there was a dead woman in the yard. Eagle rushed down and arriving at the body, struck a match, upon which he saw that it was lying in a pool of blood. He said the time was now 1.00am".

    So, Gilleman comes up to tell him at 1am? How did Gilleman know that any body was there if A) Louis hadnt discovered it yet because he arrived at "precisely at 1"...his words, not mine....and B) If another member already knew about the woman before he came upstairs at 1, how is it that possible considering Louis hadnt even got off his cart yet? Isnt Louis taking credit for first informing the others?

    Heschberg..."Yes; I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock​..". So he not only thinks he saw the woman at around 12:45, but also that he was "ONE of those who first saw the woman. If Louis doesnt even arrive until 1, as he said and Herlock believes, then Heschberg would first be notified around what, 1:05ish? Isnt that after Lamb and Eagle and Issac get to those gates? And if Spooner thinks that he was there around 25 to 1, would that be possible if the men who he saw were not even sent out until around 1:05ish? No.

    People like to think Spooners given time was wrong, so.."...stated that between 12.30am and 1.00am, 30th September 1888, he was standing with a young woman outside the Beehive public house on the corner of Christian Street and Fairclough Street. After talking for about 25 minutes, he saw two Jewish men running up the street shouting 'murder' and 'police'. He saw them run as far as Grove Street and then turn back. When he asked them what was the matter, they explained that a woman had been murdered, so he accompanied them back the Dutfield's Yard. He saw the body of Stride in the yard and estimated that there was about fifteen people standing around it​". ...and from the Inquest, "I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard."

    How is it that he finds 15 men already there, and its after he sees men running for help and running back...as Herlock would like to believe, at around 1am? Then what time did the men he saw first leave for help? If Spooner isnt there until 1, then according to Louis's time and remarks and with Herlocks support, no-one has yet been sent for help. Louis has only just arrived, according to him. If Louis arrives at 1 or just after, then no-one goes for help for at least a few minutes, which means they would have met with Lamb at what...around 1:10? Then how did Johnson already hear about it and had already arrived there at 1:10? Seems like he must have known ...what, 10 minutes at least before arriving? He was only told of the situation by PC Collins who Lamb sent for help. He was home asleep, got up when he heard the news, dressed and went to the site. How long would that take? Surely 10 minutes? That makes him aware of the situation by 1am, before anyone left for help and when Louis says he first discovers the dead woman. Possible? No.

    How is it that Wess, Lave, Eagle and Fanny all state the street was empty when they saw it, yet Israel sees not only the victim, but including himself, 3 people? How do they suddenly appear, and just as suddenly disappear? Improbable, Yes.

    Why did Issac K say that when he was called to the yard, at 12:40, the blood from her wound had travelled "and reached the back door of the club. Five or 6 yards. If Louis didnt discover the body until just after 1, how long would that single artery wound need to travel 15-18 feet on the ground? If Issac K said it almost reached the back, (actually the side/kitchen) door, how long would that have taken? Didnt Blackwell say ... "She would have bled to death comparatively slowly on account of vessels on one side only of the neck being cut and the artery not completely severed.​" Was Issac off on his time not only by 20 minutes leading up to 1am, but then another 10-15 minutes to allow for a "relatively slow" blood flow to the side door? That puts Issac at 1:10 only just being called to the yard by Louis, when we can see that he joined Eagle and came back with Lamb at 1. Do those timings work? No. Would a few minutes either way to allow for discrepancies in timings explain the time gap suggested by the above? No.

    Before any ridiculous explanations are offered, lets just say that what I quoted above is what those witnesses themselves said. No Michael thoerizing, no Michael tossing out whatever didnt agree with what he proposes, no twisting or excuses. I even left in the time that Herlock believes is accurate, the time given by Louis himself, to help illustrate the plethora of problems with that line of thought, and Louis's arrival and discovery time.

    If Liz is found around 12:40-12:45...by someone...then Issac K, Heschberg, Lamb Spooner and Johnsons times can be approximately accurate. They are all within 5 minutes of each other. IF they can be cumulatively accepted, That would mean that IF Lave was there when he said he would have seen all this, that IF Eagle arrived and did what he said, he would have seen all this, and that Louis lied about his arrival time. Not just got the time wrong, he lied.

    If you want to, try and create and reconcile all the above using an arrival time by Louis at 1, and first sending out people for help around 1:05.
    Your first and your continuing mistake (and one that I think that everyone but you would agree on) is to persist in assuming that these times were a perfectly correct and synchronised. You can never progress until you accept that obvious fact.

    So Diemschitz sees a clock that says 1.00 just as he’s about to turn into Berner Street. He knows that he’ll arrive at the gates 30 seconds or so later so he assumes that this particular clock will still say 1.00 by that time. If he’d spoken more accurately he should just have said “the clock that I saw said 1.00.” Obviously it could have gone onto 1.01 by the time that he arrived. But, and this is the vital point, none of us have any way of confirming the accuracy of that clock. It could have been fast or slow. And if Lamb estimated his time from a different source (which is possible) then those two clocks could have been poorly synchronised.

    Of course police officers needed to keep a reasonable grasp on times but it’s unrealistic to suggest that they could have known the exact time at every point on their beat. Especially for an officer like Lamb who didn’t have a watch. So every single time needs to have an ‘approx’ attached to it with the acceptance of a margin for error. Then a reasonable timeline can be created. Any times that are miles out are likely to have been wrong. Why accept Kosebrodski and Heschberg and yet dismiss Diemschitz, Eagle, Gilleman etc?

    Diemschitz finds the body at approx 1.00 (maybe in real-time it was 12.57 or 12.58 who knows)
    He and Kos go looking for a PC at approx 1.01 (maybe it was actually 12.58 or 12.59)
    Diemschitz and Spooner return at approx 1.03 (maybe it was actually 1.01 or 1.02)
    Eagle finds Lamb at approx 1.05 (maybe it was 1.03 or 1.04)
    Lamb arrives with Eagle at approx 1.06 - 3 0r 4 minutes after Spooner and Diemschitz.

    None are exact because we can’t do exact. Exact is impossible. So we have reasonable estimations based on a reasonable, very understandable margin-for-error.

    FrankO, Jeff, myself and George have all done perfectly workable, feasible timelines. But if you make the false assumption that every stated time was accurate and perfectly synchronised then it’s impossible. Errors are a part and parcel of any assessment. They have to be Michael but you won’t accept this obvious fact.

    An example is Halse and Long who both said that they passed down Goulston Street at the same time but they didn’t see each other. Was one of them lying? Or, in reality, we’re there watches simply poorly synchronised? I know what the vast majority would go for. So what about Mortimer and Schwartz both saying 12.45? Was one of them lying or were there times simply out by a minute or two? A more likely explanation is that whatever time Schwartz passed it was a time when Fanny wasn’t on her doorstep and she herself admitted that she’d gone indoors twice in that 30 minute period.

    So simply, everyday timing disagreement or plot?

    Which is the likelier?

    You say plot. The overwhelming majority would say error.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
      This was the East End of London in 1888, when most people including police officers, did not carry a watch, and in any event, local clocks were not in sync with GMT or even each other. Louis D quotes a clock, which may or may not have been accurate, but just about everyone else except the doctors were estimating times, and they would have been basing their estimates on different time sources. All times are therefore, of necessity, to be taken as approximate. Discrepancies of a few minutes should not be a surprise.

      So Louis D says he arrived at the club at 1 am according to a clock seen in a shop. PC Lamb got the news from the club members "about 1 o'clock as near as I can tell", and went straight to the yard. PC Smith had a beat which took 25 - 30 minutes to cover, and was previously in Berner Street at 12. 30 - 12-35 am, and then returned about 1 am to witness the commotion. He recognised Stride as being someone he had seen on his previous tour. Dr Blackwell says he got the call at 10 minutes past one, and arrived at the scene at 1. 16 am, Johnson puts the call at 5 or 10 past one. All pretty accurate so far.

      Fanny Mortimer's account is somewhat confusing, because her time estimates were reported differently in different newspapers, and there is no definitive version. However, her basic story is that shortly after hearing a policeman pass by (12. 30 - 12. 35 am according to PC Smith, about 12. 45 am according to the paper) she went to her front door, and was there for about ten minutes, or most of the time between 12. 30 and 1 am, according to different versions. She saw nothing of significance except Goldstein rushing past shortly before she closed the door and locked up. About four minutes after this she heard Louis D's pony and cart pass by. Then shortly afterwards she heard the commotion and went to investigate.

      Spooner was standing nearby, "between half past 12 and 1 o'clock" and after "about 25 minutes" he met with the club members who were seeking a policeman - that would be about 1 am. He then repeated that he stood for about 5 minutes at the top of the street, and then 25 minutes outside the public house - that would be 1 am confirmed again. After Spooner went into the yard, PC Lamb arrived about 5 minutes later. Then Spooner is reported as saying "I should say it was about 25 minutes to 1 when I first went into the yard." This contradicts all other evidence, including significantly, his own, puts PC Lamb in the yard about 12. 40 am, twenty minutes before he was called, and therefore makes no sense whatever. Strangely, no-one at the inquest noticed this glaringly obvious error, not the Coroner, the jurors, the police, nor any journalists. The only logical conclusions are a) everyone present was asleep or idiots, or b) it is a misprint. I notice that the previous sentence contained the words "twenty five minutes", so I suspect that the journalist rushing with his shorthand, probably simply accidentally recorded "twenty five" twice.

      In order to consider the possibility of 25 minutes to one being what Spooner really said, and which others are alleged to have confirmed, let us look at the evidence of PC Smith and Fanny Mortimer. She stood on her doorstep for some time shortly after PC Smith went by. But he passed at about 12. 30 - 12. 35 am, and saw Stride in the street, about the same time that Spooner allegedly went into the yard. So the commotion in the yard needed to have happened while Stride was actually seen in the street by the PC, before Fanny was even at her door, and long before she heard Louis D arrive on the scene to find the body. Clearly this is nonsense.

      Much is frequently made of the fact that Fanny didn't see Schwartz. I cannot see this as significant. Sometime between about 12. 35 and perhaps 12. 50 am approximately, either voluntarily or forced, Stride entered the yard. Fanny didn't see this, so as this is claimed to have coincided with the arrival of Schwartz and BS man, Fanny wouldn't have seen them either.
      An excellent and fair-minded summing up Doc.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
        This was the East End of London in 1888, when most people including police officers, did not carry a watch, and in any event, local clocks were not in sync with GMT or even each other. Louis D quotes a clock, which may or may not have been accurate, but just about everyone else except the doctors were estimating times, and they would have been basing their estimates on different time sources. All times are therefore, of necessity, to be taken as approximate. Discrepancies of a few minutes should not be a surprise.

        So Louis D says he arrived at the club at 1 am according to a clock seen in a shop. PC Lamb got the news from the club members "about 1 o'clock as near as I can tell", and went straight to the yard. PC Smith had a beat which took 25 - 30 minutes to cover, and was previously in Berner Street at 12. 30 - 12-35 am, and then returned about 1 am to witness the commotion. He recognised Stride as being someone he had seen on his previous tour. Dr Blackwell says he got the call at 10 minutes past one, and arrived at the scene at 1. 16 am, Johnson puts the call at 5 or 10 past one. All pretty accurate so far.

        Fanny Mortimer's account is somewhat confusing, because her time estimates were reported differently in different newspapers, and there is no definitive version. However, her basic story is that shortly after hearing a policeman pass by (12. 30 - 12. 35 am according to PC Smith, about 12. 45 am according to the paper) she went to her front door, and was there for about ten minutes, or most of the time between 12. 30 and 1 am, according to different versions. She saw nothing of significance except Goldstein rushing past shortly before she closed the door and locked up. About four minutes after this she heard Louis D's pony and cart pass by. Then shortly afterwards she heard the commotion and went to investigate.

        Spooner was standing nearby, "between half past 12 and 1 o'clock" and after "about 25 minutes" he met with the club members who were seeking a policeman - that would be about 1 am. He then repeated that he stood for about 5 minutes at the top of the street, and then 25 minutes outside the public house - that would be 1 am confirmed again. After Spooner went into the yard, PC Lamb arrived about 5 minutes later. Then Spooner is reported as saying "I should say it was about 25 minutes to 1 when I first went into the yard." This contradicts all other evidence, including significantly, his own, puts PC Lamb in the yard about 12. 40 am, twenty minutes before he was called, and therefore makes no sense whatever. Strangely, no-one at the inquest noticed this glaringly obvious error, not the Coroner, the jurors, the police, nor any journalists. The only logical conclusions are a) everyone present was asleep or idiots, or b) it is a misprint. I notice that the previous sentence contained the words "twenty five minutes", so I suspect that the journalist rushing with his shorthand, probably simply accidentally recorded "twenty five" twice.

        In order to consider the possibility of 25 minutes to one being what Spooner really said, and which others are alleged to have confirmed, let us look at the evidence of PC Smith and Fanny Mortimer. She stood on her doorstep for some time shortly after PC Smith went by. But he passed at about 12. 30 - 12. 35 am, and saw Stride in the street, about the same time that Spooner allegedly went into the yard. So the commotion in the yard needed to have happened while Stride was actually seen in the street by the PC, before Fanny was even at her door, and long before she heard Louis D arrive on the scene to find the body. Clearly this is nonsense.

        Much is frequently made of the fact that Fanny didn't see Schwartz. I cannot see this as significant. Sometime between about 12. 35 and perhaps 12. 50 am approximately, either voluntarily or forced, Stride entered the yard. Fanny didn't see this, so as this is claimed to have coincided with the arrival of Schwartz and BS man, Fanny wouldn't have seen them either.
        Fanny didnt see any policeman at 12:45, she heard bootsteps she thought were made by one. She didnt see Louis arrive, she heard a noise that she later interpreted as Louis arriving. If you followed and read what I posted, which is verbatim what the witnesses said, it would be much clearer. And beat PC's tracked their times. Everyone didnt have a watch, and not all timepieces were synchronized, but that doesnt insinuate that they all would be off, in multiple cases, by the same 20 minutes or more. But just use the PC if you like. Could PC Lamb be at the gates with the returning Eagle and Issac k at or near 1am if Louis, supposedly the person who first discovers the body, didnt even arrive until 1 or just after 1? No.

        So, if thats not possible, now using the other witnesses statements, can a timeline be constructed that allows for Lamb to have seen the men then accompanied them back to the gates at around 1? Yes. And that timeline suggests that Eagle and Issac K left searching for police somewhere between 12:40 and 12:45. Returning with Lamb near 1am. Which roughly agrees with Spooners time, and Issac K, and Heshberg and Lamb. Allowing for them each to have been off by a minute or 2. Not by 15 to 20 minutes.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          Fanny didnt see any policeman at 12:45, she heard bootsteps she thought were made by one.

          And we can’t be certain that it was a Constable but it has to be admitted that Mortimer would have heard Constable’s pass thousands of times. So a degree of familiarity with the sound should to be acknowledged.

          She didnt see Louis arrive, she heard a noise that she later interpreted as Louis arriving.

          And in a quiet backstreet like Berner Street, at 1.00 in the morning, how many horses and carts would be going up and down? Fanny just happens to hear a horse and cart, going in the direction that Louis’ cart went, at the time that Louis said that he passed but it was someone else. Really? Perhaps it was someone with a ‘horse and cart’ ringtone?

          If you followed and read what I posted, which is verbatim what the witnesses said, it would be much clearer. And beat PC's tracked their times. Everyone didnt have a watch, and not all timepieces were synchronized, but that doesnt insinuate that they all would be off, in multiple cases, by the same 20 minutes or more.

          But it’s something that shouldn’t be dismissed simply because it’s inconvenient. Which is what you are doing.

          But just use the PC if you like. Could PC Lamb be at the gates with the returning Eagle and Issac k at or near 1am if Louis, supposedly the person who first discovers the body, didnt even arrive until 1 or just after 1? No.

          No, no, no. You are STILL doing it Michael. This simply can’t be a case of not understanding or of error. It has to be deliberate on your part. You are still tying Lamb down to a 1.00 arrival. Why? He was estimating. None of us know what time he arrived. If I said to you “I saw Fred yesterday at around 1.00” would you call Fred (or me) a liar if he said “I saw Herlock yesterday at around 1.10 as far as I can tell.” Or would you say that one of us simply got our time estimate wrong? I suggest that you’d say that the latter was most likely to have been the case. So why don’t you adopt this viewpoint in Berner Street? It’s because you’re starting point is that someone must be lying because there was a plot involved and everything that follows is shaped by that preconception.

          Diemschitz arrives at approximately 1.00. P.C. Lamb gets there approximately 1.05. It’s as simple as that. The Schwartz incident either occurred just before Fanny came onto her doorstep or just after she went back inside. It’s as simple as that. Spooner got there a few minutes before Lamb (who probably got there around 1.05 or 1.06) so, just after 1.00. it’s as simple as that. Eagle was alerted by Gilkeman about the body at approximately 1.00. It’s as simple as that.

          Absolutely everything ties up except for Lave (whose statement just makes no sense at all [and you haven’t managed to explain it yet Btw) And of course Kosebrodsky and Heschberg. Neither of whom tell us how they came by there timing. Yes there was probably a clock in the club but how can we know when they last looked at it? What was the gap of time between them seeing a clock and them being interviewed? It could have been 2 hours or more for all that we know. Simple human error. And how can we be sure that whilst waiting to be interviewed they didn’t talk to the other and one asked the other what time he thought that it had occurred?


          So, if thats not possible, now using the other witnesses statements, can a timeline be constructed that allows for Lamb to have seen the men then accompanied them back to the gates at around 1? Yes.

          No.

          And that timeline suggests that Eagle and Issac K left searching for police somewhere between 12:40 and 12:45. Returning with Lamb near 1am. Which roughly agrees with Spooners time, and Issac K, and Heshberg and Lamb. Allowing for them each to have been off by a minute or 2. Not by 15 to 20 minutes.
          Diemschitz, Gilleman, Eagle, Spooner, Lamb. All point to a 1.00 discovery. The fact that the police would have interviewed all club members and some neighbours point to a 1.00 discovery else the police would have raised doubts. They clearly dismissed Kosebrodsky and Heschberg’s times as obviously wrong because they are so far out compared to everyone else.

          And finally of course, if there was a plot to lie to the police, what would be the chances of Diemschitz not telling Kosebrodsky about the 1.00 discovery time? Absolutely zero.
          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-24-2023, 08:27 PM.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

            Fanny didnt see any policeman at 12:45, she heard bootsteps she thought were made by one. She didnt see Louis arrive, she heard a noise that she later interpreted as Louis arriving. If you followed and read what I posted, which is verbatim what the witnesses said, it would be much clearer. And beat PC's tracked their times. Everyone didnt have a watch, and not all timepieces were synchronized, but that doesnt insinuate that they all would be off, in multiple cases, by the same 20 minutes or more. But just use the PC if you like. Could PC Lamb be at the gates with the returning Eagle and Issac k at or near 1am if Louis, supposedly the person who first discovers the body, didnt even arrive until 1 or just after 1? No.

            So, if thats not possible, now using the other witnesses statements, can a timeline be constructed that allows for Lamb to have seen the men then accompanied them back to the gates at around 1? Yes. And that timeline suggests that Eagle and Issac K left searching for police somewhere between 12:40 and 12:45. Returning with Lamb near 1am. Which roughly agrees with Spooners time, and Issac K, and Heshberg and Lamb. Allowing for them each to have been off by a minute or 2. Not by 15 to 20 minutes.
            So, Fanny M heard a noise which she took to be a policeman's steady tread, but it wasn't, and she believed that she heard a pony and cart, but it wasn't Louis D.She didn't hear him or see him when he did arrive, despite being on her doorstep for much of the time between the two supposed events. She didn't see or hear the activity in the yard as the members discovered the body, and didn't see or hear them rushing about and shouting for a policeman, although she was possibly on the doorstep, or if not she didn't hear the shouting, but could hear a policeman merely walking past the house! PC Smith didn't see Stride at about 12. 30 - 35 am, because she was probably already in the yard.

            Have you considered the possibility that the clock in the club was misleading the members because it was running slow?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
              Note that the interviewee is described as "a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, and formed a strong contrast to many of those around her". This can't have been Mortimer as her husband was a carman. Her statement was quite different to that of Mortimer and she said the she saw "a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand", and that "He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club". This appears to be a sighting of Goldstein on his way to the coffee shop (or was he leaving the yard after murdering Stride?). Curious that she sees Diemshitz (Mr Lewis) at the yard after the alarm had been sounded since Diemshitz testified at the inquest that he was running through the street sounding the alarm. The other interesting thing to note is the report of the voice in the street referring to "10 inches of cold steel" - the blade of the Coram knife which was found the next day was 10 inches.​
              If this isn't Fanny Mortimer, then we have two women who saw Leon Goldstein. Or this reporter could be making assumptions based on how well she is dressed and it is Fanny Mortimer. Has anyone done a layout of Berber Street, determining who lived where?

              And I'm looking at this for Mortimer to confirm Diemshutz arrival time.

              "A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband."
              Last edited by Fiver; 08-24-2023, 11:53 PM.
              "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

              "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                It bugs me when I see general acceptance of the club staff members statements when they very clearly differ from the majority of witness statements given by those who had nothing to lose or gain by simply telling what the time was when they saw something.
                You repeating an incorrect statement does not make it correct.

                PC Lamb, Johnston, and Mortimer support Diemschutz, Eagle, and West.

                Hershberg and Kozebrodsky give an early discovery story that the body was found 15 to 20 minutes before 1am. Kozebrodsky was a member of the club. Apparently he didn't get the Conspiracy memo.

                Spooner gives a time that contradicts everybody, placing the discovery 10 or more minutes before anyone else.. He contradicts Hershberg and Kozebrodsky. He contradicts Schwartz. He contradicts Mortimer. He contradicts Goldstein. He contradicts Diemschutz, Eagle, West, Lamb, and Johnston. Spooner even contradicts Spooner.

                "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Hi George,

                  Fair points of course. Do you think though that the mention of ‘apparently the wife of a well-to-do-artisan’ when Mortimer’s other half was actually a Carman (hopefully not a bigamous Charles Cross) might have come from a bit of exaggeration by her? Maybe trying to place herself slightly ‘above’ her neighbours? When the reporter first saw her the woman was standing outside Mortimer’s house after all. She also mentions hearing the music from the club. The use of the word ‘up’ might just have been down to a different reporter writing it up and, perhaps unintentionally, slipping in his word rather than hers.

                  Im wondering if this is an example of a reporter doing a bit of ‘fleshing out?’
                  Hi Herlock,

                  Thanks for locating and posting the relevant press releases for the incident. I am amazed at how often the accounts vary, even when they are reporting on an inquest where we know they are all hearing the same words.

                  I note that in the Mortimer interviews she refers to Diemshitz as "the manager or steward of the club", and not by name. When Diemshitz is referred to by name it is the reporter commenting. The Artisan's wife refers to "Mr Lewis who travels in cheap drapery things a bit now and again​". Mortimer states that she saw a man hurrying down the street, and qualifies the statement with "from Commercial Road". She also states that "If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him". The Artisan's wife states that she saw "a young man walking up Berner-street" and adds that "He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club". This directly contradicts Mortimer's statement of "If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him".

                  I inferred that it was the reporter who placed her "slightly ‘above’ her neighbours", and he noted they were standing in front of the location of Mortimer's house, not that the artisan's wife lived there. I don't see anything unusual about neighbourhood women gossiping in the street, particularly if they enjoyed observing the street at night from their doorstep. The group may even have included Letchford's sister, who we know was also engaged in some door-stoop snooping that evening.

                  I acknowledge that we disagree on most topics, but hope that we can sustain a friendly and civil dialogue on our differences......with perhaps the occasional sprinkling of humorous sarcasm or comical bagging.

                  Cheers, George​​
                  Last edited by GBinOz; 08-25-2023, 06:36 AM.
                  Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

                  All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                  ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                    If this isn't Fanny Mortimer, then we have two women who saw Leon Goldstein. Or this reporter could be making assumptions based on how well she is dressed and it is Fanny Mortimer. Has anyone done a layout of Berber Street, determining who lived where?

                    And I'm looking at this for Mortimer to confirm Diemshutz arrival time.

                    "A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband."
                    There’s a layout here Fiver.

                    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-25-2023, 08:27 AM.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Hi Herlock,

                      Thanks for locating and posting the relevant press releases for the incident. I am amazed at how often the accounts vary, even when they are reporting on an inquest where we know they are all hearing the same words.

                      I note that in the Mortimer interviews she refers to Diemshitz as "the manager or steward of the club", and not by name. When Diemshitz is referred to by name it is the reporter commenting. The Artisan's wife refers to "Mr Lewis who travels in cheap drapery things a bit now and again​". Mortimer states that she saw a man hurrying down the street, and qualifies the statement with "from Commercial Road". She also states that "If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him". The Artisan's wife states that she saw "a young man walking up Berner-street" and adds that "He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club". This directly contradicts Mortimer's statement of "If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him".

                      I inferred that it was the reporter who placed her "slightly ‘above’ her neighbours", and he noted they were standing in front of the location of Mortimer's house, not that the artisan's wife lived there. I don't see anything unusual about neighbourhood women gossiping in the street, particularly if they enjoyed observing the street at night from their doorstep. The group may even have included Letchford's sister, who we know was also engaged in some door-stoop snooping that evening.

                      I acknowledge that we disagree on most topics, but hope that we can sustain a friendly and civil dialogue on our differences......with perhaps the occasional sprinkling of humorous sarcasm or comical bagging.

                      Cheers, George​​
                      Hi George,

                      To be honest we probably agree on more things than we realise. (Probably a lot more things than we disagree on actually) It’s just that there have been issues in recent times where we do disagree strongly. We are on completely opposite sides of the JFK debate of course and we disagree on the value of John Richardson as a witness but there’s probably not that much apart from those.

                      There are certainly differences and those differences are certainly worth pointing out but I do tend to think that these might have been down to reporting.

                      ​​​​​​…..

                      There’s one point that I would make though George and it’s one that I believe illustrates how something that can easily go from something casually and repeatedly stated to accepted fact. It’s about Goldstein. Michael always says that Fanny saw him at 12.55 and to be honest I just assumed that this was correct (I know….we should never assume….guilty as charged). But it appears that Goldstein never mentioned what time he passed along Berner Street. Not that it’s a massively important point of course but I think it’s worth noting.

                      …..

                      By the way George, from previous discussions I recall that FrankO and Jeff did estimated timelines for events in Berner Street (didn’t you do one too?) I’d saved them but it looks like I’ve deleted them. I don’t supposed that you saved them did you? I don’t fancy trawling all the way back through the other threads.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        No one will be surprised to hear that I have a real issue with any plot that totally relied on the use of the word ‘Lipski.’

                        Firstly, I’d ask what would the likelihood have been for someone to have come up with this kind of plan in the alleged 15 minutes or so between the discovery of the body and the act of going for a Constable….in those circumstances? Even if the initial premise was likely (that they felt that the police might have closed down the club - and I don’t for a minute think that it was) then the issue was with the location of the body therefore their initial thought would surely have been around changing the location (moving the body) resulting in them deciding against this (even of dragging the body out into the street a door or two away.) Diemschitz had a cart of course.

                        Then secondly, if someone did, as an alternative option, suggest the use of a false witness they’d have had to have assessed the ramifications of the police questioning everyone (members and neighbours). They would have had to have been sure that everyone was singing from the same hymn sheet. This is basic stuff and yet apparently Heschberg and Kosebrodsky weren’t told of the plan. Kosebrodsky is of course the most egregious error as he actually went with Diemschitz to look for a Constable. How could he have not known about the plan? It’s just not believable.

                        And thirdly, why would they have come up with the suggestion of using a false witness who would use the word ‘Lipski’ to show that the killer was a Gentile? We know that it was used as an anti-Semitic insult but how could they have been sure that a Jew wouldn’t insult a fellow Jew by using the same name? Lipski was a convicted murderer after all….someone that might have been said to have brought shame onto the Jewish community. It’s a plan that adds doubt. Then the police might have considered that the attacker might have said something else which Schwartz misheard as ‘Lipski.’ Could they really have risked lying to the police in such an important issue by a method that might not even have succeeded inconvincing the police that the killer was a gentile?

                        Fourth, Diemschitz and his fellow plotters would have known that just one neighbour that they were unaware of steps forward to show that Schwartz was lying and it’s over. They had absolutely no control over neighbours and passers-by. (It appears that he couldn’t even control the guy who went with him to find a Constable!)

                        And fifth, what’s wrong with doing something obvious? Why do these kind of plots always have to be over complicated? Why not have Diemschitz say “as I got down from my cart a bloke came out of the shadows holding a knife. He pushed me to the ground, swore at me in a Scottish accent, then fled. By the time that I looked into the street he’d gone.” Or why didn’t they just get Schwartz to say “the guy threw the woman to the ground. He had a knife in his hand. He shouted over at me ‘get lost you Jewish ****” It hardly takes a Napoleon or even a Moriarty to come up with something so obvious does it?


                        Whichever way you look at it the ‘plot’ just doesn’t hold water.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          By the way George, from previous discussions I recall that FrankO and Jeff did estimated timelines for events in Berner Street (didn’t you do one too?) I’d saved them but it looks like I’ve deleted them. I don’t supposed that you saved them did you? I don’t fancy trawling all the way back through the other threads.
                          Hi Herlock,

                          The timeline that Frank produced was sequential and didn't include times, which is, IMO, a step in the right direction. Frank's timeline can be seen here:

                          The situation looks to me as if he starts pulling her from the gateway into the street but then in a split second (maybe because of her hesitancy to move or some sort of anger - something that's over within a second or less), throws her down into the gateway with an intent to strike her - because of what has just spiked him.


                          My post after his raises the question of Victorian time keeping. It has to be realised that there can be times quoted that are up to twenty minutes different because the people involved are looking at, or estimating after having seen, different clocks, one ten minutes slow and another ten minutes fast. The people involved believe they are quoting genuine times when they are actually quoting their clock times, not GMT.

                          Jeff and I both did timelines. I based mine on Police times and Jeff based his on Blackwell times. Jeff analysed them and, after applying clock corrections, concluded that there was no significant difference. As to finding them....as you say, not so easy. I'll let you know if I locate them.

                          Cheers, George
                          Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

                          All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                          ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                            Hi Herlock,

                            The timeline that Frank produced was sequential and didn't include times, which is, IMO, a step in the right direction. Frank's timeline can be seen here:

                            The situation looks to me as if he starts pulling her from the gateway into the street but then in a split second (maybe because of her hesitancy to move or some sort of anger - something that's over within a second or less), throws her down into the gateway with an intent to strike her - because of what has just spiked him.


                            My post after his raises the question of Victorian time keeping. It has to be realised that there can be times quoted that are up to twenty minutes different because the people involved are looking at, or estimating after having seen, different clocks, one ten minutes slow and another ten minutes fast. The people involved believe they are quoting genuine times when they are actually quoting their clock times, not GMT.

                            Jeff and I both did timelines. I based mine on Police times and Jeff based his on Blackwell times. Jeff analysed them and, after applying clock corrections, concluded that there was no significant difference. As to finding them....as you say, not so easy. I'll let you know if I locate them.

                            Cheers, George
                            Thanks George,

                            I certainly agree on doing it sequentially. I recall you also making the point that Diemschitz might have seen ‘his’ clock from an unfavourable angle or in poor lighting. The same issue gets mentioned in the Wallace case where a young lad looked up at a church clock but from an angle which might have meant a difference of a couple of minutes. Not much of course but it can make the difference between a seeing b or not. Halse and Long is an example that I mentioned earlier. Both passed down Goulston Street at, according to them, exactly the same time but they didn’t see each other.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                              Hi Herlock,

                              The timeline that Frank produced was sequential and didn't include times, which is, IMO, a step in the right direction. Frank's timeline can be seen here:

                              The situation looks to me as if he starts pulling her from the gateway into the street but then in a split second (maybe because of her hesitancy to move or some sort of anger - something that's over within a second or less), throws her down into the gateway with an intent to strike her - because of what has just spiked him.


                              My post after his raises the question of Victorian time keeping. It has to be realised that there can be times quoted that are up to twenty minutes different because the people involved are looking at, or estimating after having seen, different clocks, one ten minutes slow and another ten minutes fast. The people involved believe they are quoting genuine times when they are actually quoting their clock times, not GMT.

                              Jeff and I both did timelines. I based mine on Police times and Jeff based his on Blackwell times. Jeff analysed them and, after applying clock corrections, concluded that there was no significant difference. As to finding them....as you say, not so easy. I'll let you know if I locate them.

                              Cheers, George
                              George, all of whigh is completely in accordance with my own ongoing work on timings during the murders
                              There is a podcast with slides on Rippercast of the talk given last year.




                              A fuller work is planned for publication in the future.

                              Trying to give actual times to any event is in my view a fools errand.

                              Steve

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                Thank you.

                                I noticed something.

                                "A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement."

                                "Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours."

                                "Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy,"

                                According to the map, Fanny Mortimer lived two doors down from the club, unless you British count differently, like you do for building stories. Which reinforces the idea that all three accounts are Fanny Mortimer.
                                Last edited by Fiver; 08-25-2023, 02:19 PM.
                                "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                                "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X