An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're missing the point.

Smith should have been there by 1.05am (Herlock suggests 1.06am)

But it's not about whether he should; it's the fact that he wasn't.


And whether it's 1.05am, or 1.06am; both those times would have meant that PC Smith would have walked along Berner Street as part of his beat, and thus he would have passed the murder site at virtually the same time everyone was reacting to having discovered the body.

The only explanations for Smith's absence; are that he was useless at time keeping, absconding from his regulated beat, or his walking path did not include walking along Berner Street; specifically along the junction with Fairclough and Berner Street.


Smith walks along Berner Street between 12.30am and 12.35am.

That then means that he should have walked the exact same route again just 25 to 30 minutes later.


But he didn't


That means that Smith should have been walking along Berner St at the same time that Stride was either...in the yard with her killer before he struck, being murdered, or dying on the floor as the killer escaped.


The fact that Smith was not scrutinised more perhaps stems from the fact that nobody would suspect the police to be at fault for anything (a bit like today), when in reality, they're just people.

The only was for Smith to be vindicated would be if he initially saw Stride and Parcelman circa 12.45am.
That rotation would then bring him back around to walk along Berner Street between 1.10am - 1.15am, which appears to be within the parameter of when Smith did finally show up.

There's no mention of him having been delayed on his beat, and there's no real attempt to challenge anything he said.


So just to clarify; it's not Smith's absence from the top of Berner Street that's the issue; it's the fact he didn't walk along Berner Street again, when he should have done; based on his own timings and words.


Funny that.

How would you explain Long and Halse both saying that they walked along Goulston Street at 2.00 and yet they didn’t see each other? Which one was lying? Or was it down to them both ‘thinking’ that it was 2.00?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let’s imagine that I’m looking down on Berner Street on the night of the murder and I’m looking at a clock which will give us THE time; the time against which all others will be compared.

Louis Diemschitz sees that the Baker’s clock tells him that it’s 1.00 by my clock, THE clock, tells me that it’s actually 12.55.

Diemschitz finds the body and he believes that it is still 1.00 by my clock, THE clock, tells me that it’s actually 12.55.30.

Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky go for a Constable but return with Spooner in tow at what he would think was around 1.02 but by my clock, THE clock, it’s actually 12.57.30.

Morris Eagle goes for a Constable and returns with Lamb at what Diemschitz might have felt was 1.05 but my clock, THE clock, tells me that it’s actually 1.00.

Smith turns into Berner Street at what he believed was 1.00 but my clock, THE clock, tells me that it’s actually 1.01.

If Smith’s beat took 25/30 minutes then we have him seeing Stride at between 12.31 and 12.36.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Time and again I point out your illogic. You have never come to terms with the implications of Smith's beat, and his indication that his final beat before reaching the yard was within regulation.



What you don't accept, or perhaps understand, is that if his clock is slow by 6 minutes, it is slow at both ends. If you're going add 6 minutes to 1:00, you also have to add 6 minutes to the starting point. You want to make his starting point 12:36, so let's see if your sums add up.

If Smith was last in Berner St between 12:30 and 12:35 by his clock, we could say that he witnesses Stride in between those times. As she was closer to Commercial Rd than the yard at that point,

Was there a second Liz Stride that only you know about? PC. Smith: “She stood on the pavement a few yards from where the body was found, but on the opposite side of the street.”

So she was nowhere near to Commercial Road and massively closer to the yard.

Smith has a bit further to go when he returns to Berner St, so I'll say that his yard-to-yard round trip starts at 12:33. By regulation, Smith should reach the yard from 25 to 30 minutes later. That would mean 12:58 to 1:03, again by his clock. He tells us he is at the top Berner St at 1:00. At beat pace - remember he continues down Berner St at regulation pace - he is going to be entering the yard at very close to 1:02. That is a 29-minute beat - within regulation.

Now consider your adjustment to his time. Placing him at the top of the street 6 minutes later than his clock indicated, means he gets to the yard at 1:08. To remain consistent with the timespan of his final beat - not just his regulation timespan but also that which he stated under oath - he would have to last be in Berner St between 12:36 and 12:41. He would therefore have witnessed Stride at approximately 12:39. (In your timeline of #517, you have Fanny going to her door at 12.37.30.)

The problem now is that you have a beat lasting from 12:36 to 1:08. That's 32 minutes - outside of regulation and not compatible with Smith's testimony, even if his 6-minute early clock is accepted as reasonable. Granted, you're only about 3 minutes longer than Smith indicated, and only 2 minutes above regulation, so putting your timeline in order may not be too difficult if you can shave 2 or 3 minutes of activity.

I’m suggesting the obvious. That Smith saw a clock which told him that it was 1.00 when he turned into Berner Street. He arrived at his 12.30/35 estimate by deducing 25/30 minutes from 1.00. This is supported by the fact that his 12.30/35 is clearly an estimate.

[The Rookie Detective]

So you're granting that Smith should have been there by 1:05, and Herlock is estimating that he got back at 1:06. If the clocks weren't perfectly synchronized and people's abilities to report the exact time their clocks say aren't perfect, then a one minute discrepancy isn't a problem.

You're missing the point.

Smith should have been there by 1.05am (Herlock suggests 1.06am)

But it's not about whether he should; it's the fact that he wasn't.


And whether it's 1.05am, or 1.06am; both those times would have meant that PC Smith would have walked along Berner Street as part of his beat, and thus he would have passed the murder site at virtually the same time everyone was reacting to having discovered the body.

The only explanations for Smith's absence; are that he was useless at time keeping, absconding from his regulated beat, or his walking path did not include walking along Berner Street; specifically along the junction with Fairclough and Berner Street.


Smith walks along Berner Street between 12.30am and 12.35am.

That then means that he should have walked the exact same route again just 25 to 30 minutes later.


But he didn't


That means that Smith should have been walking along Berner St at the same time that Stride was either...in the yard with her killer before he struck, being murdered, or dying on the floor as the killer escaped.


The fact that Smith was not scrutinised more perhaps stems from the fact that nobody would suspect the police to be at fault for anything (a bit like today), when in reality, they're just people.

The only was for Smith to be vindicated would be if he initially saw Stride and Parcelman circa 12.45am.
That rotation would then bring him back around to walk along Berner Street between 1.10am - 1.15am, which appears to be within the parameter of when Smith did finally show up.

There's no mention of him having been delayed on his beat, and there's no real attempt to challenge anything he said.


So just to clarify; it's not Smith's absence from the top of Berner Street that's the issue; it's the fact he didn't walk along Berner Street again, when he should have done; based on his own timings and words.


Funny that.

[New Waterloo]

Best and Gardner in the Bricklayers pub may have been mistaken however I see no reason ( as with other witnesses) to believe they made up their story. They seem pretty confident that they saw Stride with a man whos description appears to carry through some further witnesses. Just if this respectable short coat wearing man is JTR then he takes a considerable time with Stride before deciding to kill her. Why? There a multitudes of alleyways in the area where he could have taken her. Perhaps he planned to kill in the yard of the jewish club but finds himself hanging around waiting as there are far more comings and goings than he anticipated. He is frustrated by interruptions. He almost gives up when BSM appears who could be Browns man. When BSM is told not tonight. He sees a window of opportunity. Takes Stride into the yard and kills her in seconds.
NW

[c.d.]

I'm yet to read a single intelligent response.

So in other words, that would be any response that doesn't agree with your position. Got it.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What's funny is that, as of #203, I built a model of the Schwartz incident that stays faithful to all relevant reports and comments we have from the police and largely ignores the press account. I'm yet to read a single intelligent response. So far, just the usual accusations of attempting to manufacture mysteries, from the usual suspect.

[c.d.]

I don't recall you posting on any of the above, but now that dear old Israel Schwartz is in a spot of bother again, you spring into action.

I have no dog in the fight with regard to Schwartz. Your comment is a bit strange seeing how any time anyone attempts to defend Schwartz you spring into action. Funny how that works, huh?

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Totally agree cd and herlock

Plus youve got a club where people are singing, and a rainy night...so easily drowning any out noise from the bsman/stride encounter.

Including screams, I presume.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Well I don't understand the point of this entire thread. Is it to establish the whereabouts of every single resident of Whitechapel at any given moment?
What conclusion or conclusions are trying to be reached? I think that goal got lost in the shuffle.

If it is to discredit Schwartz, I think the best you can do in that regard is to conclude that well, his story doesn't account for X. Maybe so, but that still doesn't tell us whether or not he was telling the truth (as he saw it). It can only cast doubt and then we are back to square one again.

My opinion.

c.d.

My opinion is that post #1 sets the purpose of any thread. So, George is on point in #531.

Why did Schwartz cross the road?
Who was the board school couple?
Where and when was Spooner, and what became of his lady friend?

These have all been discussed in this thread, none of which necessarily relate to discrediting Schwartz. I don't recall you posting on any of the above, but now that dear old Israel Schwartz is in a spot of bother again, you spring into action.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I suspect you have lost the plot here Andrew. Smith can indeed be at the top of Berner St at an estimated police time, while Diemshitz is there on on a completely different clock time, such as the Harris clock. Hershburg and Kozebrodsky appear to be yet on another time - possibly that of the clock in the club that Eagle testified he didn't observe. Lamb has Eagle and Kozebrodsky reporting the murder before 1AM (police time), verified by the fixed point officer still being on duty.

This is true but irrelevant, or should I say it misses the point. The purpose of a timeline is not to point out the discrepancies between clocks and witness time estimates - it is the opposite - the purpose is to reconcile those ambiguous estimates and different clocks showing different times, into a cohesive sequence of events and times. That timeline can use a known clock/watch as a reference, or it can be based on true time. If Herlock decides Diemschitz timing is true timing, he cannot imply Smith would have been at the top of the street when Diemschitz arrives at the yard. Now that he has nominated Smith's final time to correct this error, he also needs to correct his initial time, otherwise he is fudging it.

It is interesting that you should promote Eagle as an example of your times theory. You quote him as saying:
Eagle: About one o'clock was the time that I first saw the body. I did not notice the time, but I have calculated it from the time I left home to return to the club.
What is this "time I left home to return to the club"? Is this some time before the meeting? That doesn't seem likely as he says "return to the club". Here is his reported statement to The Evening News dated 1 Oct:
"I had been in the club before that evening, and had left the premises at midnight in order to see my girl home, with whom I was keeping company. I saw my sweetheart to the door of the house where she was living, and then walked back to the club through little small streets.".

I don't have a theory as such. All I'm saying is that, in theory, witness times should be all over the place - in practice, they show remarkable consistency.

It could be noted that here he doesn't mention calling in at his home on the the way back, and his recollection of his departure time is 12 midnight rather than 11:30 to 11:45. Either Eagle is very poor at estimations of time intervals and recollections of his actions on that night, or he is covering up.

Someone else care to comment?

[c.d.]

Thanks, Tom. Your insights are always appreciated.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You must do this deliberately Andrew because there can be no alternative explanation. Time and time again you do it. We keep talking about clocks being poorly synchronised so that we cannot assume all times are accurate but whenever it’s convenient to do so you impose this ‘all times are set-in-stone’ ruling. This kind of thing is what makes discussion with you so irritating and it’s why I say that you are always looking at situations with an attitude of “there must be something dodgy going on here…I just have to find it.”

Time and again I point out your illogic. You have never come to terms with the implications of Smith's beat, and his indication that his final beat before reaching the yard was within regulation.

My timeline has an estimated time of his passing at 12.36. He said that his beat took twenty five to thirty minutes..I’ve gone for thirty. This has him back at the corner of Commercial Road and Berner Street at approximately 1.06 but he said that it was 1.00. Answer..the clock that he used for his time was around 6 minutes or so slow.

What you don't accept, or perhaps understand, is that if his clock is slow by 6 minutes, it is slow at both ends. If you're going add 6 minutes to 1:00, you also have to add 6 minutes to the starting point. You want to make his starting point 12:36, so let's see if your sums add up.

If Smith was last in Berner St between 12:30 and 12:35 by his clock, we could say that he witnesses Stride in between those times. As she was closer to Commercial Rd than the yard at that point, Smith has a bit further to go when he returns to Berner St, so I'll say that his yard-to-yard round trip starts at 12:33. By regulation, Smith should reach the yard from 25 to 30 minutes later. That would mean 12:58 to 1:03, again by his clock. He tells us he is at the top Berner St at 1:00. At beat pace - remember he continues down Berner St at regulation pace - he is going to be entering the yard at very close to 1:02. That is a 29-minute beat - within regulation.

Now consider your adjustment to his time. Placing him at the top of the street 6 minutes later than his clock indicated, means he gets to the yard at 1:08. To remain consistent with the timespan of his final beat - not just his regulation timespan but also that which he stated under oath - he would have to last be in Berner St between 12:36 and 12:41. He would therefore have witnessed Stride at approximately 12:39. (In your timeline of #517, you have Fanny going to her door at 12.37.30.)

The problem now is that you have a beat lasting from 12:36 to 1:08. That's 32 minutes - outside of regulation and not compatible with Smith's testimony, even if his 6-minute early clock is accepted as reasonable. Granted, you're only about 3 minutes longer than Smith indicated, and only 2 minutes above regulation, so putting your timeline in order may not be too difficult if you can shave 2 or 3 minutes of activity.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

Nice analysis. So if it was a "prelude" do you think the B.S. man went on to kill her? If so, was he the Ripper? If not, do you think her killer came on the scene after Schwartz left? If so, was he the Ripper?

c.d.

Thanks, CD. I do believe Stride was a Ripper victim. I also believe that Stride was killed very close to 1am and not at the time Schwartz was on the street. I suspect Brown's man was her killer. Was Brown's man BS Man, as Bern suggests, or Pipeman, or someone altogether different? That's the question. But odds are he was one of those two men. And he wore a dark overcoat.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi Tom,

Nice analysis. So if it was a "prelude" do you think the B.S. man went on to kill her? If so, was he the Ripper? If not, do you think her killer came on the scene after Schwartz left? If so, was he the Ripper?

c.d.