The Stride Murder

[The Rookie Detective]

Joseph Lave....can someone please explain how this man placed himself at the crime scene for the entire duration of the time frame between which Stride could have been murdered, and claimed to have not seen or heard anything the entire time he was in the yard?

He also said it was dark...

As did Diemschutz when he turned into the yard and up to him discovering the body....but when subsequently asked whether he thought the killer could have moved further into the yard without being seen, he was sure that he would have seen the killer, had the killer done so, due to the yard (from the side door of the club moving west) being partially lit from the light emanating from the upstairs room and illuminating the yard from the club door, ergo, the only dark area was from the gate to the club door.

Diemschutz believed the only time the killer could have escaped unseen by him, was within the few moments AFTER he went into the club to find his wife.

And so based on this, it begs the question...IF the killer was disturbed, where did he hide?...

Diemschutz was certain that the killer didn't go past him
He was also sure that the killer couldn't have moved further into the yard while he was there, otherwise, he would have seen the killer move. It would then suggest that the killer was either standing in the dark between the body and the side door, or the killer managed to run past the door and further into the yard which was dark further up the yard...but how did the killer then move so quickly before Diemschutz was upon him?

Unless the killer went into the club?...

Suggesting that the killer had previously come out from the club, and must have known the layout.

Interestingly..one newspaper misprinted the term "Goulston Street Graffiti"... instead stating "Goldstein Street Graffiti"

What a rather curious typo to print...why Goldstein and not Goulston?


And as for Joseph Lave... his placing himself at the crime scene at the time of the murder...when we KNOW that Stride was murdered, is so blatantly a lie, that it is astounding how Lave wasn't scrutinized further.

The yard between the side door to the club and the gate was pitch black...but the space directly under the doorway and along the side yard to the end just before the northwest alcove, was at least partially lit.

Unless of course...



Diemschutz was the killer... He got there earlier than he said...he pulled into the yard and she was standing there and the horse knocked her down. Diemschutz jumped down just as his horse licked and kissed Stride on her face...(it was trying to eat her flower)...which tasted vile and so she reached for the Cachous, at the same time calling the horse a "donkey"...which offended Diemschutz because that animal meant everything to him... so he cut her throat and then went into the club to find his wife...while Lave was wondering around in the dark trying to find the door back into the club...


Clearly joking on that last bit...


RD

[Wickerman]

It’s a problem of wording in my opinion (at least, in part) I can’t imagine anyone who has English as a first language talking in terms of a ‘not very loud scream.’

Definitions:

“a long, loud, piercing cry expressing extreme emotion or pain.”

“a loud sharp penetrating cry or noise.”

“a loud and high cry or sound.”

“a loud high sound you make when you are frightened, excited, or angry.”

So by definition ‘scream’ and ‘loud’ are inseparable and a ‘not very loud scream’ is an oxymoron.

So I think that we might be allowing ourselves to be misled by a poor choice of wording coming from a man that couldn’t speak English and who was communicating via an interpreter. ‘Scream’ makes us assume ‘loud.’ If we replace ‘screamed’ with ‘called’ (simply as an example) it doesn’t appear so contradictory.

Thank you Herlock, I wonder if a "not very loud" cry (hardly a scream), was because her saviour was only feet away.
My thinking is she was in the yard with Parcel-man, he is the one who kills her after the fracas dies down.
If she had been alone, wouldn't she cry out louder to raise attention from neighbours?, but because he was close, and she expected him (Parcel-man) to come to her aid, she let out only a muffled cry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Sherlock,

Agreed. Scream suggests someone who feels threatened. "Protested" might be another alternative suggestion

Cheers, George

Hello George,

Good suggestion. It reminds me of a clip from Brats (by my heroes Laurel and Hardy), where Stan Laurel tells the kids “if you’re going to make a noise do it quietly.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you Herlock, I wonder if a "not very loud" cry (hardly a scream), was because her saviour was only feet away.
My thinking is she was in the yard with Parcel-man, he is the one who kills her after the fracas dies down.
If she had been alone, wouldn't she cry out louder to raise attention from neighbours?, but because he was close, and she expected him (Parcel-man) to come to her aid, she let out only a muffled cry.

It’s a possible Wick. A suggestion I made elsewhere was that Liz might have been with a man who either, a) left her waiting at the gate while he went to use the clubs outside loo, or b) told her to wait there as he needed to go inside to have a quick word with someone.

Another alternative of course is that BS man was someone that she knew, perhaps a previous client who she saw as a nuisance rather than a real danger. I also made the suggestion that the guy she was with might have been a boyfriend whereas BS man was a client and she didn’t want the BF finding out about her ‘other life.’

Or, as you suggested, the incident was at another time and the woman and BS man were unconnected? Plenty of ‘possibles’ Wick.

[The Rookie Detective]

Am I correct when I say that the following cast of characters/scenes...


BS Man
Pipeman
The Stride Assault including the 3 screams
The term "Lipski" being shouted
The following of Schwartz by Pipeman


...only exist through the words of Israel Schwartz?


A man who nobody else saw
A man who nobody else knew
A man whose observed sequence of events was not seen by anyone else
A man who gave a statement that potentially resembles/coincides with the giving of a statement by Leon Goldstein; the man was seen moving at pace down Berner St close to the time of the murder.
A man who can't be conclusively identified
A man who hasn't been found or traced?


If we were to omit Bs man, Pipeman, the screams and shouting of Lipski...PLUS everything and everyone mentioned by Packer, who was told what to say by Le Grand...where does that leave us?

The sighting made by Mortimer of Goldstein
...and the Policeman in Berner Street who saw her with a man holding the parcel.

James Brown's sighting is also questionable BUT still worth consideration.


The reason why Schwartz was created, was to confuse the police as to the course of events and move focus away from the club.

Looking at Lave, Diemschultz, Eagle and Co... has a higher probability of success because we at least know they were there.

All their timings clash and when you map out their combined versions of timings relative to each other, then Lave was there when Stride had her throat cut, yet saw nothing...unless he was lying, was wrong about his timings by a country mile, or he killed her.


We have spent so much time and energy on Bs Man and Pipeman...and they almost certainly didn't even exist.

Stride wasn't assaulted prior to her murder...she was preparing to kiss a man she was already with, in the dark of the inside of the gateway. A man who she had been waiting for and who had come out of the club after the main discussion had finished. The man came out of the club door and just as she was handed Cachous to sweeten her breath to kiss him, he drew his knife, grabbed and pulled her neckerchief so tight and with such force, that he had severed her windpipe before her brain had even realized what had happened to her...and then went back inside the club, hid the knife and then waited for her body to be found.

He never left the scene prior because nobody saw anyone leave the yard...

That's because his entire physical journey was from the club to the yard and back into the club.


The idea that a man was chased down the road, or that the killer exited the yard, is unlikely; because the couple on the corner saw and heard nothing.

A useful divergent counter-surveillance tactic is to incorporate the use of misdirection and keep people guessing and looking in all the wrong places, whereas in reality, the killer didn't go anywhere and it took under a minute to go out, feign to kiss her, cut her throat and then reenter the club...less than the time it takes to go out and get a bit of fresh air from all that smoke inside the club.


RD

[Michael W Richards]

We've already identified at least three potential 'time' sources:
- a possible clock in Commercial Rd. opposite Grove street.
- the clock in the tobacconist at 64 Commercial Rd.
- doctor Blackwell's watch
and a clock in the club, would be four, which makes it highly unlikely all four had the same time. Therefore it is pointless arguing about accurate times within a minute or two this way or that.

Can't you for once take the path of least resistance, and go with the obvious rational explanation?
All the characters that refer to "1:00" are only estimating, even if they saw an actual clock (Diemshutz or PC Lamb?) we cannot possibly know if the clocks were accurate to the same minute.

You have clocks in peoples houses and in businesses,... like Fannys house for example, and the club, or Johnsons house,... you have people who track their times because they had to, like the beat police, you have the odd person with pocket watches, the issue with you folks is that you negate any of those sources as what the witnesses might have had available to them before they give their time estimates formally, in legal context. The other problem is that when times are given by witnesses, they are used by investigators to reconstruct actions and sightings as best as can be done so that they can try and understand what transpired, and where clues, or guillt... if any, may lie. Ive never ever suggested that clocks were, or had to be synchronized, though you both accuse me of it repeatedly. Ive only said that you and Herlock do not have the right to challenge any of those times given by witnesses. Thats the evidence, it isnt flexible depending on how accurate you perceive them to be. Or whether you think they saw a timepiece that they could use to gauge what time something relevant occurred. No-one on the planet expects all timepieces to be synchronized, not even in modern times, so when you accuse me of requiring that line of thought I am left wondering whether you get the actual point being made. The time that are given, are the evidence. Use the evidence, dont try and explain discrepancies or contradictions based on your assessment of whether the source they referred to, if any, was telling the same time that other witnesses used.

The time evidence isnt for you, or I, to interpret for some subjective accuracy determination, you can only try and use it AS IS to reconstruct something. When you cannot accurately recreate something using that evidence because some of the evidence contradicts other evidence, or is questionable, then you have to try and assess what is the most reasonable rational and logical timing based on the most trustworthy evidence. Thats it. No-one will ever know the exact time this happened or that happened, they can know however whose timing contradicts others, what stories can be validated, and with a reasonable buffer, how much time they may have been off. As an estimated time.

Almost all the witnesses in the Stride investigation and Inquest were asked to give times. Those times are the evidence. If they do not work together, it doesnt automatically suggest its because their timepieces were not synchronized. It could be because some of the witnesses didnt tell the truth. You ask me and others to disregard the fact that some of the witnesses who gave times for that half hour from 12:30 to 1am have serious discrepancies of 20 minutes or more with other witness times. When multiple witnesses agree on a time, as in this case, and other individual witnesses times contradict those witnesses, you have to assess A) is there any proof for that contradictive accounts, B) who provides that contradictory account, and C) is there any reason for that witness to be less than 100% truthful.

In this Stride case the witness timings that dramatically contradict other times given by other witnesses that are essentially the same times, 5 minutes here or there, are ALL from club staff. And this event happens at a time historically where the authorities, according to Anderson anyway, are working on the assumption that this Jack the Ripper fellow is a European Immigrant Jew. "An ascertained fact" Anderson claims. That the club houses anarchists, another word for suspected criminals. This is a time where very negative sentiment is being directed at those same people due to their numbers and the overcrowding of neighbourhoods around East London in particular. The people at the club knew they were not "trusted" by the neighbours, or the police.

That raises the real possibility, that as I indicated above, point C) that those witnesses may have reasons for shaping their stories to ensure they are not validating the negativity they knew existed. No witness would be more cognizant of that than the people who worked at the club. And in fact in this case, those are the stories that directly conflict with stories that are from sources that are neutral, from people with nothing to gain or lose by stating things as they saw them.

As you can clearly see, Ive been getting angry having to pound on these points because I dont see any acceptance of those realities in the rebuttals. I just see and read insults and accusations.

Im not going to readdress this again, so put down you weapons, Ive put it down here now as best as I can, so dont bother posting accusations or insults as rebuttal. You either get it, or you dont.

[Wickerman]

Joseph Lave....can someone please explain how this man placed himself at the crime scene for the entire duration of the time frame between which Stride could have been murdered, and claimed to have not seen or heard anything the entire time he was in the yard?...

If we read through the various press versions, it's not clear how long he was outside.

In the Evening News..
"I was in the yard of the club this morning about twenty minutes to one. At half-past twelve I had come out into the street to get a breath of fresh air. There was nothing unusual in the street. So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions."

If Lave came out at 12:30, and was in the street for 30 minutes, how could he miss everything?

Yet, in the Woodford Times, he is only outside for 5 minutes or more.
Joseph Lave, feeling oppressed by the smoke in the large room, went down into the court about 20 minutes before the body was discovered, and walked about in the open air for about five minutes or more. He strolled into the street, which was very quiet at the time, and returned to the concert-room without having encountered anything unusual.

In the Evening Standard, he was out for 10 minutes, but came in before the incident happened.
"I was in the Club yard this morning about twenty minutes to one. I came out first at half-past twelve to get a breath of fresh air. I passed out into the street, but did not see anything unusual. The district appeared to me to be quiet. I remained out until twenty minutes to one, and during that time no one came into the yard. I should have seen any body moving about there."

He came out at 12:30, back in at 12:40, so missed everything?

The sources are not consistent.

[Michael W Richards]

There is an interesting anomaly that happens with what Wess says, what Lave says, and what Eagle says. Wess was asked about when he left that night..."Q: Did you look towards the yard gates? - A: Not so much to the gates as to the ground, but nothing unusual attracted my attention." Then..."Q:Can you say that there was no object on the ground? - A: I could not say that." Then the following question..."Q: Do you think it possible that anything can have been there without your observing it? - A: "It was dark, and I am a little shortsighted, so that it is possible."

Morris Eagle is asked about his return to the club. "Q: Do you think you are able to say that the deceased was not lying there then? - A: " I do not know, I am sure, because it was rather dark. There was a light from the upper part of the club, but that would not throw any illumination upon the ground. It was dark near the gates.". Then he is asked...."Q:You have formed no opinion, I take it, then, as to whether there was anything there? - A: "No."

Lave, who lived there, said the following..."In a statement to the press, he claimed that he had gone into Dutfield's Yard at 12.40am to get a breath of fresh air: "Lave: So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions".


Im sure others will not be bothered by the above, but to me its potentially revealing about how open and honest some answers were by these men. In Wess's case his answer was about what he saw as he was preparing to leave. He is not able to state that he saw nothing by the gates. In fact he agrees that it was possible something was there. In Morris's case, he said he returned and entered via the gates around 12:40. And he couldnt say whether anything was lying inside the passageway at that time. He did say that he could not say for certain that deceased was not there at that time.

And Lave, who lived there, says he was there for some time....about a half hour. He says he went out at 12:40, and into the street, and saw nobody come into the yard during that time. He says that he saw nothing on the street at around 12:40-45.

These three men are all benefiting from the club. One houses his business in the yard, one is paid to speak at events there, and 1 lives there. All 3 men saw nothing lying on the ground inside the gates, although 2 stated that they could not rule out that there may have been. The last witness claims to have been there when Eagle says he arrived, yet doesnt see anyone come into the yard, and he claims he was out on the street and saw no-one, at around the same time that Israel Schwartz, someone known to Wess...who also acted as his translator Sunday night, claims he was there, and Liz was there, a man smoking a pipe was there, and a brute was there pulling Liz into the street. Laves story suggests if he was there when he said, he didnt see any of the 4 people in the street that Schwartz claims were there, nor did he see Eagle come into the passageway. So someone isnt truthful here. Morris also didnt see any of those people.

Lets not get semantic about times,..(please)... just the overall accounts. Can these three accounts be considered neutral? No, they all are connected by benefit to the club. Can these three accounts all be accurate? Laves cant if the others are. Nor can Israels if Laves is accurate. Can we say without doubt that Liz Stride is not inside the gates on the ground for certain at around 12:40? No, even Eagle didnt want to say that, and Lave it seems cannot be considered as being truthful if Eagle is being so.

The cumulative result? It cannot be established that anyone was on the street in front of the gates around 12:40, 12:45, nor can it be established beyond reasonable doubt that Liz Stride was not lying on the ground inside the gates at 12:40-45. Certainly multiple witnesses believed the latter is accurate.

[Michael W Richards]

If we read through the various press versions, it's not clear how long he was outside.

In the Evening News..
"I was in the yard of the club this morning about twenty minutes to one. At half-past twelve I had come out into the street to get a breath of fresh air. There was nothing unusual in the street. So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions."

If Lave came out at 12:30, and was in the street for 30 minutes, how could he miss everything?

Yet, in the Woodford Times, he is only outside for 5 minutes or more.
Joseph Lave, feeling oppressed by the smoke in the large room, went down into the court about 20 minutes before the body was discovered, and walked about in the open air for about five minutes or more. He strolled into the street, which was very quiet at the time, and returned to the concert-room without having encountered anything unusual.

In the Evening Standard, he was out for 10 minutes, but came in before the incident happened.
"I was in the Club yard this morning about twenty minutes to one. I came out first at half-past twelve to get a breath of fresh air. I passed out into the street, but did not see anything unusual. The district appeared to me to be quiet. I remained out until twenty minutes to one, and during that time no one came into the yard. I should have seen any body moving about there."

He came out at 12:30, back in at 12:40, so missed everything?

The sources are not consistent.

The part I highlighted above suggests he said he went into the passageway about 20 minutes before the alleged discovery at 1, and that he walked into the street. That account cannot be reconciled with Israel Schwartz's statement. As a matter of fact, there is no-one but Israel who claims to have seen Liz Stride, alive or dead, during that time. Yet she is there somewhere.

[The Rookie Detective]

The part I highlighted above suggests he said he went into the passageway about 20 minutes before the alleged discovery at 1, and that he walked into the street. That account cannot be reconciled with Israel Schwartz's statement. As a matter of fact, there is no-one but Israel who claims to have seen Liz Stride, alive or dead, during that time. Yet she is there somewhere.

Which may suggest that either Schwartz was lying and concocted a story to try and explain why he was there and how Stride could have met her end...meaning he was actually involved and the club members were all telling the truth and theres no cover up...

OR

Schwartz is telling the truth, he saw the start of Stride being assaulted and just missed out on her throat being cut...meaning that BS man and Pipeman are 2 of the men from the club and they covered her murder through threat of violence to the locals who then say they saw nothing.


Or is the truth somewhere in between?


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have clocks in peoples houses and in businesses,... like Fannys house for example, and the club, or Johnsons house,... you have people who track their times because they had to, like the beat police, you have the odd person with pocket watches, the issue with you folks is that you negate any of those sources as what the witnesses might have had available to them before they give their time estimates formally, in legal context. The other problem is that when times are given by witnesses, they are used by investigators to reconstruct actions and sightings as best as can be done so that they can try and understand what transpired, and where clues, or guillt... if any, may lie. Ive never ever suggested that clocks were, or had to be synchronized, though you both accuse me of it repeatedly. Ive only said that you and Herlock do not have the right to challenge any of those times given by witnesses. Thats the evidence, it isnt flexible depending on how accurate you perceive them to be. Or whether you think they saw a timepiece that they could use to gauge what time something relevant occurred. No-one on the planet expects all timepieces to be synchronized, not even in modern times, so when you accuse me of requiring that line of thought I am left wondering whether you get the actual point being made. The time that are given, are the evidence. Use the evidence, dont try and explain discrepancies or contradictions based on your assessment of whether the source they referred to, if any, was telling the same time that other witnesses used.

The time evidence isnt for you, or I, to interpret for some subjective accuracy determination, you can only try and use it AS IS to reconstruct something. When you cannot accurately recreate something using that evidence because some of the evidence contradicts other evidence, or is questionable, then you have to try and assess what is the most reasonable rational and logical timing based on the most trustworthy evidence. Thats it. No-one will ever know the exact time this happened or that happened, they can know however whose timing contradicts others, what stories can be validated, and with a reasonable buffer, how much time they may have been off. As an estimated time.

Almost all the witnesses in the Stride investigation and Inquest were asked to give times. Those times are the evidence. If they do not work together, it doesnt automatically suggest its because their timepieces were not synchronized. It could be because some of the witnesses didnt tell the truth. You ask me and others to disregard the fact that some of the witnesses who gave times for that half hour from 12:30 to 1am have serious discrepancies of 20 minutes or more with other witness times. When multiple witnesses agree on a time, as in this case, and other individual witnesses times contradict those witnesses, you have to assess A) is there any proof for that contradictive accounts, B) who provides that contradictory account, and C) is there any reason for that witness to be less than 100% truthful.

In this Stride case the witness timings that dramatically contradict other times given by other witnesses that are essentially the same times, 5 minutes here or there, are ALL from club staff. And this event happens at a time historically where the authorities, according to Anderson anyway, are working on the assumption that this Jack the Ripper fellow is a European Immigrant Jew. "An ascertained fact" Anderson claims. That the club houses anarchists, another word for suspected criminals. This is a time where very negative sentiment is being directed at those same people due to their numbers and the overcrowding of neighbourhoods around East London in particular. The people at the club knew they were not "trusted" by the neighbours, or the police.

That raises the real possibility, that as I indicated above, point C) that those witnesses may have reasons for shaping their stories to ensure they are not validating the negativity they knew existed. No witness would be more cognizant of that than the people who worked at the club. And in fact in this case, those are the stories that directly conflict with stories that are from sources that are neutral, from people with nothing to gain or lose by stating things as they saw them.

As you can clearly see, Ive been getting angry having to pound on these points because I dont see any acceptance of those realities in the rebuttals. I just see and read insults and accusations.

Im not going to readdress this again, so put down you weapons, Ive put it down here now as best as I can, so dont bother posting accusations or insults as rebuttal. You either get it, or you dont.

The only person throwing insults is you. Dolt, special needs, learning difficulties? Pleasant stuff. But I guess you’re exempt.

No one is claiming that clocks or watches had to be wrong or were always wrong. But…..and this is what you won’t allow for…..if a point or theory relies on times we should all be obliged to consider if any discrepancies might be explained by clock or watch errors or by human error in estimation?

You seem reluctant to consider Heschberg in detail (you just choose to blindly accept the time that he gave.) Why?

“it was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think.”

Now, does that sound like a man giving an exact time? Does it even sound like a man giving an estimation with any particular level of confidence? I’d say that it doesn’t.

The next 2 question for you are:

1) Should we assume that when an event occurs the first thing that someone does is stop and verify the time?

2) Have we any way of knowing when this witness last saw a clock?

I’d say that the answers are a definite ‘no’ to both. I’d further add that we can say with confidence that he didn’t check the clock when he heard the alarm because he wouldn’t have given an estimate (and one so lacking in confidence at that)

The next question is:

Have we any way of knowing at what time Heschberg was interviewed by the police?

I’d say that the answer is a definite ‘no’ to that. So by the time that he was interviewed he might have seen the clock 2 or more hours previous to that.

So, we have a guy who sees a clock at some unknown point and then estimated the period from memory of time between him seeing that clock and hearing the alarm to give an approximate time which he expresses in a manner which hardly inspires confidence.

Now we add to the mix that we gave no way of comparing the Whitechapel Road clock (seen by Diemschitz) with the club clock to see how closely synchronised they were or how accurate either were.

And after all of these points you just assume that he was spot on and that the time was exactly 12.45 despite the fact that this time in no way corresponds to the other witnesses, except Kosebrodsky.

Their errors can be explained. The fact that they don’t fit the rest of the testimonies weighs very heavily in favour of those two simply being wrong. And no, Spooner doesn’t help you. He made a flaky estimate using pub closing times but, most importantly, he testified to being at the yard around 5 minutes before PC Lamb. Therefore if the time that you rely on was correct (the pub closing time guess)we would have Lamb at the yard by 12.40 which can very obviously be dismissed without further need for discussion.

Two witnesses, estimating times, both very, very obviously wrong. The is no case to answer for the suggestion that Diemschitz lied. It’s a fantasy the crumbles easily at even the slightest scrutiny and yet you desperately cling to it. And the fact that you cling to it in the face of the evidence proves beyond doubt that you only do so because you are too heavily invested in your theory to admit that you are wrong (which you clearly are). A theory that you didn’t come by through assessing the evidence by the way. A theory that you invented when you thought ‘damn, Isenschmidt couldn’t have killed Stride and Chapman so can I come up with some kind of theory which allows for Stride to have been a non-victim?’ Then voila…the club conspiracy complete with the most unbelievable motive imaginable. A complete waste of time because the fact is that she might not have been a victim. You could have avoided the need for the plot and avoided 20+ years of rejection on the subject.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The part I highlighted above suggests he said he went into the passageway about 20 minutes before the alleged discovery at 1, and that he walked into the street. That account cannot be reconciled with Israel Schwartz's statement. As a matter of fact, there is no-one but Israel who claims to have seen Liz Stride, alive or dead, during that time. Yet she is there somewhere.

ABOUT 20 minutes. Not EXACTLY 20 minutes. ABOUT 20 minutes. Would you like me to post a dictionary definition of the word ABOUT perhaps?

So he says that he went into the yard at about 12.40 for 5 minutes so until 12.45 by his estimation. And you call that proof? On what planet? You’re playing the all clocks were spit on and perfectly synchronised yet again. It can’t be taken seriously.

[Michael W Richards]

ABOUT 20 minutes. Not EXACTLY 20 minutes. ABOUT 20 minutes. Would you like me to post a dictionary definition of the word ABOUT perhaps?

So he says that he went into the yard at about 12.40 for 5 minutes so until 12.45 by his estimation. And you call that proof? On what planet? You’re playing the all clocks were spit on and perfectly synchronised yet again. It can’t be taken seriously.

What you say is completely irrelevant, weve already established that, what he said is. You still dont get this and its not for a lack of trying, it has nothing to do with me subjectively deciding what was said is the "truth", its just using what was said instead of claiming its wrong. You dont know he was wrong, you have no idea where he got the time, you have no idea how his estimating skills were, you have no idea whether he was blatantly lying, the only thing you do know is how to be an a**h***. The fact Ive wasted any time on someone like you at all shows my interest in getting at the truth and trying to assist you in seeing it. Whats your interest here besides being a pain in the ass?

[Michael W Richards]

The only person throwing insults is you. Dolt, special needs, learning difficulties? Pleasant stuff. But I guess you’re exempt.

No one is claiming that clocks or watches had to be wrong or were always wrong. But…..and this is what you won’t allow for…..if a point or theory relies on times we should all be obliged to consider if any discrepancies might be explained by clock or watch errors or by human error in estimation?

You seem reluctant to consider Heschberg in detail (you just choose to blindly accept the time that he gave.) Why?

“it was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think.”

Now, does that sound like a man giving an exact time? Does it even sound like a man giving an estimation with any particular level of confidence? I’d say that it doesn’t.

The next 2 question for you are:

1) Should we assume that when an event occurs the first thing that someone does is stop and verify the time?

2) Have we any way of knowing when this witness last saw a clock?

I’d say that the answers are a definite ‘no’ to both. I’d further add that we can say with confidence that he didn’t check the clock when he heard the alarm because he wouldn’t have given an estimate (and one so lacking in confidence at that)

The next question is:

Have we any way of knowing at what time Heschberg was interviewed by the police?

I’d say that the answer is a definite ‘no’ to that. So by the time that he was interviewed he might have seen the clock 2 or more hours previous to that.

So, we have a guy who sees a clock at some unknown point and then estimated the period from memory of time between him seeing that clock and hearing the alarm to give an approximate time which he expresses in a manner which hardly inspires confidence.

Now we add to the mix that we gave no way of comparing the Whitechapel Road clock (seen by Diemschitz) with the club clock to see how closely synchronised they were or how accurate either were.

And after all of these points you just assume that he was spot on and that the time was exactly 12.45 despite the fact that this time in no way corresponds to the other witnesses, except Kosebrodsky.

Their errors can be explained. The fact that they don’t fit the rest of the testimonies weighs very heavily in favour of those two simply being wrong. And no, Spooner doesn’t help you. He made a flaky estimate using pub closing times but, most importantly, he testified to being at the yard around 5 minutes before PC Lamb. Therefore if the time that you rely on was correct (the pub closing time guess)we would have Lamb at the yard by 12.40 which can very obviously be dismissed without further need for discussion. And by doing so you have run into direct conflict with Lambs times, and Johnsons.

Two witnesses, estimating times, both very, very obviously wrong. The is no case to answer for the suggestion that Diemschitz lied. It’s a fantasy the crumbles easily at even the slightest scrutiny and yet you desperately cling to it. And the fact that you cling to it in the face of the evidence proves beyond doubt that you only do so because you are too heavily invested in your theory to admit that you are wrong (which you clearly are). A theory that you didn’t come by through assessing the evidence by the way. A theory that you invented when you thought ‘damn, Isenschmidt couldn’t have killed Stride and Chapman so can I come up with some kind of theory which allows for Stride to have been a non-victim?’ Then voila…the club conspiracy complete with the most unbelievable motive imaginable. A complete waste of time because the fact is that she might not have been a victim. You could have avoided the need for the plot and avoided 20+ years of rejection on the subject.

Heschbergs time roughly matches Issac Kozebroski's time and roughly matches Spooners time. You might want to revisit the time Spooner gives for being at the gate, if you read it ever before. All within 5 minutes of each other. Louis said he didnt even arrive until at least 15 minutes later. Which has the help posse's going out around 1:05-1:10, which is 5 minutes after Lamb says he was there with Eagle, and at the same time Johnson says he was there. Remember, the times given are not yours to adjust according to some twisted beliefs, they are what was given. You do not know better than any of them what time it was. Youve chosen to believe Louis uncorroborated time against 3 witnesses whose times are within 5 minutes of each other, all describing the same scene they witnessed. And by doing so youve run into direct conflict with Lambs given times and Johnsons. You seem to be fine with accusing everyone else of errors.....but accepting no possibility of that for yourself.

Im sure there is a good name for that kind of "logic", but as youve pointed out, Ive used almost every derogatory term for you by now anyway. People can see you provoke and I respond angrily. Its no secret. I am just tired of you and that kind of crap, its not why Im here. Im here to learn and share ideas. I have no idea why youre here other than to troll my posts.

[Wickerman]

It's precisely because the quotes attributed to Joseph Lave are so contestable that I never include him, if you notice, neither did the coroner.

I also don't trust Mortimer, I only mention her with regard to her seeing another young couple across the street - but the times Mortimer talks about are not trustworthy.
And, for those who choose to include any one of the Lave quotes, or Mortimer quotes, I think it is incumbent on the poster to justify why we should believe that particular quote, as opposed to any other.

Any theory that depends on a questionable 'quote' becomes questionable in itself.