Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Whip and a Prod

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

  • Statements from club members also support a time of death well before 1:03.
    For example:

    Abraham Hoshberg (via Evening News Oct 1): I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter. In the gateway two or three people had collected, and when I got there I saw a short, dark young woman lying on the ground with a gash between four and five inches long in her throat. I should say she was from 25 to 28 years of age. Her head was towards the north wall, against which she was lying. She had a black dress on, with a bunch of flowers pinned on the breast. In her hand there was a little piece of paper containing five or six cachous. The body was found by a man whose name I do not know - a man who goes out with a pony and barrow, and lives up the archway, where he was going, I believe, to put up his barrow on coming home from market.
    So Hoshberg hears the police whistle at around the time Israel Schwartz turns into Berner St.
    Schwartz reaches the gates at about 12:47, so even if we assume that "about a quarter to one o'clock" was more like 12:50, it would seem the murder has already occurred by the time Schwartz witnesses the scene involving two men and one woman.
    Therefore the woman in that scene is not Elizabeth Stride!

    Now you know why BS man behaves so oddly (for a murderer), and pipe man behaves so casually (at least initially).
    Now you know why Stride showed no signs of having been thrown down onto the cobblestones.
    Now you know why - at least for one reason - Stride does not drop the cachous packet.

    Notice also, that Hoshberg makes no mention of actually seeing the pony and barrow he refers to - he only refers to it in the abstract. Why?

    Suppose we push back Diemschutz' arrival from around 1:00, to immediately after the Schwartz event, in an attempt to rescue his story ...

    At 12:48, while pipe man chases the Lipski away from the scene, BSM/JtR cuts Stride's throat, and seconds later, pony and cart pull into the yard.

    Doing this however, is going to once again cause a cascade of issues.
    Firstly:

    Diemschutz: On Saturday I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street.
    Why was he out by so far?
    Was the clock time wrong - the same clock that Schwartz, Lamb, Smith and others would have passed?

    Secondly:

    Evening News re Fanny Mortimer: 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.​​​​
    This is supposedly at about 1:04, which is a fairly good match for Diemschutz' claim to have seen the clock tower at exactly 1:00.
    During the inquest, no one appears to have actually observed the pony and cart in the lane.
    If we move Diemschutz' arrival back to 12:48, we are left with the stunning realisation:

    Other than the man who claims to have discovered the body (and is therefore a person of interest), not a single person appears to have actually seen or heard the pony and cart, on the night of the murder!

    Thirdly:

    Why didn't Fanny see Diemschutz arriving, having gone outside after hearing the footsteps?

    Fourthly:

    Why didn't Leon Goldstein see anything, having walked by the scene at 12:50-something (according to Fanny!), by which time there should have been considerable activity near the body?

    So an earlier arrival time doesn't work any better than 1 am arrival time.
    What is the solution to this dilemma then?

    Consider that, other than the sound of the clip-clop of hooves, the pony and cart play no other important role in Diemschutz' story.
    Furthermore, they can be removed without causing any contradiction with any other witness statement.
    Pony and cart are only required to frighten off the Ripper, without anyone having to enter the yard on foot.
    The notion of the sound of approaching pony and cart, causing JtR to flee the scene, is offered by Diemschutz almost immediately (and by Mrs Mortimer).
    So I think the solution to the problem of Diemschutz' arrival time is:

    There was no pony and cart in Dutfield's Yard, that night.

    Diemschutz' story is a total fabrication.
    Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 01-27-2020, 02:50 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

      Yes, getting Michael to even question one of his theories let alone abandon it would be as productive as trying to convince ice not to be so cold.

      c.d.
      I believe I addressed that in a subsequent post cd, the interpretation of who the Lipski was actually shouted at could easily be , if not a direct insult to Israel which at least Abberline thought out loud, a co-conspirator indicating that a "Lipski" was now in their presence...again directed Israel.

      I think the value of Israels statement was to be two fold. Off site assailant, and an anti-Semitic. Think of the ramifications in broader terms,..there was lots of negative feelings towards the Immigrant Jews, and during that previous month detectives knocked on the doors in these communities to make inquiries into the Ripper murders. Andersons conclusions upon his return was that Jack was an local Jew based on those notes..and since they themselves claimed "another murder" had been committed, then this would show that the Jews have no "blame" in these terrible deeds. But someone who placed the apron section didn't like that.

      That's why we don't see him Sunday morning first thing. And that's why the club staff hesitated before taking substantial action to get help. Spin doctoring takes a few moments.
      Last edited by Michael W Richards; 01-27-2020, 10:42 AM.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

        I believe I addressed that in a subsequent post cd, the interpretation of who the Lipski was actually shouted at could easily be , if not a direct insult to Israel which at least Abberline thought out loud, a co-conspirator indicating that a "Lipski" was now in their presence...again directed Israel.

        I think the value of Israels statement was to be two fold. Off site assailant, and an anti-Semitic. Think of the ramifications in broader terms,..there was lots of negative feelings towards the Immigrant Jews, and during that previous month detectives knocked on the doors in these communities to make inquiries into the Ripper murders. Andersons conclusions upon his return was that Jack was an local Jew based on those notes..and since they themselves claimed "another murder" had been committed, then this would show that the Jews have no "blame" in these terrible deeds. But someone who placed the apron section didn't like that.

        That's why we don't see him Sunday morning first thing. And that's why the club staff hesitated before taking substantial action to get help. Spin doctoring takes a few moments.
        Hi Michael,

        The issue is that your first paragraph is discussing what Schwartz's testimony has been re-interpreted to mean by those other than Schwartz himself. His claim, and that's what is critical to including him as part of the conspiracy, is that Lipski was shouted at pipeman. It doesn't matter if we now think Schwartz was wrong, we can't base the conspiracy's intention based upon correcting Schwartz's statement. His statement, while it would be consistent with a perpetrator who was not in the club, is not consistent with an anti-semitic perpetrator because his statement is given to imply that Pipeman was named Lipski (hence the police, and the home-office in particular, focusing on locating all the Lipski families in the area - because that was Schwartz's testimony as given). Anything based upon changing what he said, while undoubtedly more likely to be true, is not something that can be used to argue for Schwartz being part of the conspiracy. That argument has to be based upon what Schwartz himself initially conveyed - and he initially conveyed Lipski was shouted to Pipeman and from the police response to that testimony, Schwartz's interpretation seems to be that Lipski was pipeman's name. That implicates a Jewish offender (since Jews and Gentiles did not typically socialize, and so probably did not co-offend, as I understand it).

        I agree with you that Schwartz was probably mistaken, and Lipski was used as a derogatory epithet directed at Schwartz himself (as per Abberline's re-framing of Schwartz's testimony). But that re-framing, which does suggest an anti-semitic attitude on the offender's part, was not what Schwartz said or implied - he implied a Jewish offender in the form of pipeman. And if it's a Jewish offender lookout, it's probable that his BS man is also a Jewish offender. And since BS was spotted heading towards the club, there then becomes the possibility that the police would conclude he was going/returning to the club. In other words, taken as given by Schwartz, his story would only serve to increase the risk the police take interest in the club itself. If they wanted to direct attention away from the club, which is the stated goal of the conspiracy, then having BS shout "MacDonald" at pipeman would do it, but shoutling "Lipski" at pipeman does not. You can't use Abberline's changed interpretation of Schwartz's statement as evidence of what Schwartz testified. And it is Shwartz's testimony that would reflect the "story" as concocted by the conspiracy. And since his story contradicts the conspiracy objective, his story cannot have been concocted by the conspiracy.

        There's no way around that, Schwartz, by his statement, is not part of the conspiracy. He might still be wrong, and/or unreliable, but that's a different issue. What he is not is part of a grand scheme to deflect attention away from a Jewish offender and/or the club. His tale, as he gave it, does the direct opposite.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

          Hi Michael,

          The issue is that your first paragraph is discussing what Schwartz's testimony has been re-interpreted to mean by those other than Schwartz himself. His claim, and that's what is critical to including him as part of the conspiracy, is that Lipski was shouted at pipeman. It doesn't matter if we now think Schwartz was wrong, we can't base the conspiracy's intention based upon correcting Schwartz's statement. His statement, while it would be consistent with a perpetrator who was not in the club, is not consistent with an anti-semitic perpetrator because his statement is given to imply that Pipeman was named Lipski (hence the police, and the home-office in particular, focusing on locating all the Lipski families in the area - because that was Schwartz's testimony as given). Anything based upon changing what he said, while undoubtedly more likely to be true, is not something that can be used to argue for Schwartz being part of the conspiracy. That argument has to be based upon what Schwartz himself initially conveyed - and he initially conveyed Lipski was shouted to Pipeman and from the police response to that testimony, Schwartz's interpretation seems to be that Lipski was pipeman's name. That implicates a Jewish offender (since Jews and Gentiles did not typically socialize, and so probably did not co-offend, as I understand it).

          I agree with you that Schwartz was probably mistaken, and Lipski was used as a derogatory epithet directed at Schwartz himself (as per Abberline's re-framing of Schwartz's testimony). But that re-framing, which does suggest an anti-semitic attitude on the offender's part, was not what Schwartz said or implied - he implied a Jewish offender in the form of pipeman. And if it's a Jewish offender lookout, it's probable that his BS man is also a Jewish offender. And since BS was spotted heading towards the club, there then becomes the possibility that the police would conclude he was going/returning to the club. In other words, taken as given by Schwartz, his story would only serve to increase the risk the police take interest in the club itself. If they wanted to direct attention away from the club, which is the stated goal of the conspiracy, then having BS shout "MacDonald" at pipeman would do it, but shoutling "Lipski" at pipeman does not. You can't use Abberline's changed interpretation of Schwartz's statement as evidence of what Schwartz testified. And it is Shwartz's testimony that would reflect the "story" as concocted by the conspiracy. And since his story contradicts the conspiracy objective, his story cannot have been concocted by the conspiracy.

          There's no way around that, Schwartz, by his statement, is not part of the conspiracy. He might still be wrong, and/or unreliable, but that's a different issue. What he is not is part of a grand scheme to deflect attention away from a Jewish offender and/or the club. His tale, as he gave it, does the direct opposite.

          - Jeff
          "The interpretation of who the Lipski was actually shouted at could easily be , if not a direct insult to Israel which at least Abberline thought out loud, a co-conspirator indicating that a "Lipski" was now in their presence...again directed Israel."

          I posted that to show Jeff that even if he directed the cry to Lipski it might have been conspiratorial. I don't see any evidence contradicting what Abberline perceived to be an insult directed at an unwanted spectator. Israel was Lipski, therefore its an anti-Semitic slur...as has been described here and by contemporary investigators.

          Since was Israel claimed he saw was never part of the Inquest in Strides death, one need not be to quick to dismiss what is, for what might have been.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
            "The interpretation of who the Lipski was actually shouted at could easily be , if not a direct insult to Israel which at least Abberline thought out loud, a co-conspirator indicating that a "Lipski" was now in their presence...again directed Israel."


            I posted that to show Jeff that even if he directed the cry to Lipski it might have been conspiratorial. I don't see any evidence contradicting what Abberline perceived to be an insult directed at an unwanted spectator. Israel was Lipski, therefore its an anti-Semitic slur...as has been described here and by contemporary investigators.

            Since was Israel claimed he saw was never part of the Inquest in Strides death, one need not be to quick to dismiss what is, for what might have been.
            You're still focusing on what Abberline changed Schwartz's testimony to, so unless you're arguing Abberline was part of the conspiracy, Abberline's view is irrelevant for this context. All that is relevant is that Schwartz's original story because that is the story the conspiracy is supposed to have authored - and that story is that pipeman is Lipski, making pipeman a Jewish offender and by implication BS a Jewish offender. Everything after that (changing what Schwartz's story was originally into "Lipski as an insult directed as Schwartz himself") is not the conspiracy's story but a story authored by others.

            The story that fits the conspiracy, therefore, is the one authored by Abberline, not the one authored by Schwartz. So Schwartz is not part of the conspiracy, but as you focus on Abberline's version, you appear to be arguing that Abberline is part of the conspiracy. And if he was, then Abberline would have ensured the club was avoided anyway, and so the whole need for the conspiracy disoloves since the police are already in on it. In other words, no matter how you slice it, trying to tie Schwartz into the conspiracy creates paradoxes - the conspiracy either authors a story that implicates Jewish offenders as a way to deflect attention away from Jewish offenders OR the conspiracy has a man in the police (Abberline) capable of deflecting attention away from the club by changing Schwartz's evidence, in which case, the club didn't need to conspire in the first place as they already have a man on the inside.

            These paradoxes refute Schwartz as a member of the conspiracy and refute Abberline as a member of the conspiracy.

            - Jeff
            Last edited by JeffHamm; 01-27-2020, 05:31 PM.

            Comment


            • That Schwartz's statement benefited the Club is completely immaterial. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether his statement is wrong or unreliable as Jeff pointed out. Even if it could be proven that his statement benefited the club it still has to be proven that he deliberately lied. And that unfortunately can not be inferred from his failure to appear at the inquest. If that is all it takes then we have to dismiss Fanny's statement as well.

              c.d.

              Comment


              • I don't assume that 'Lipski' was an antisemitic insult (at least not to all people):

                Ripperologist 96 - Berner Street (Henriques Street) Revisited:

                The International Working Men’s Club had a very mixed reputation amongst the locals. Despite their efforts to aid the most deprived of their fellow Jews in getting better working conditions, there was a great deal of antagonism between local Jewry and members of the club, which was equally reciprocated by the club members for the more orthodox Jews. This was mainly because the Rabbis condemned the radicals as being heretics and atheists, and the Jewish Chronicle constantly spoke against them. Most orthodox Jews considered them to be ‘bad Jews’ because of their political views and policy of agitation, and also because they dismissed religion as irrelevant and they were mainly atheists.
                'Lipski' doesn't mean 'dirty Jew', it means 'orthodox Jew' and/or 'Capitalist Jew'.
                It is an insult from one type of Jew to another - not (or not necessarily) from a Gentile to a Jew.

                Also from that article:

                Radical Jews used to meet at this club often, prior to taking their demonstrations to The Great Synagogue in Mitre Square, which was close to the spot where Catherine Eddowes was murdered shortly after Liz Stride.
                Fascinating!
                Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 01-28-2020, 03:42 AM.

                Comment


                • Not only does Schwartz fail to make any pro club/Jewish statement to Abberline, given the golden opportunity to spread a conspiracy story to the wider public via the Star, he fails to make any mention of a "Lipski" exclamation in that article.

                  Add to that, Wess's story in the Echo that seems to accuse Schwartz of being the killer and a non-club member chasing him away.

                  The final nail in the coffin, is the total failure of the club's propaganda paper to mention the story.

                  It's very hard to dismiss many things in this case, but the Schwartz conspiracy concoction is one we reasonably can.
                  Last edited by drstrange169; 01-28-2020, 04:35 AM.
                  dustymiller
                  aka drstrange

                  Comment


                  • >> It is an insult from one type of Jew to another - not (or not necessarily) from a Gentile to a Jew.<<

                    "Lipski" was an anti semetic slur.

                    According to a Home Office report, it was also a verb, as in, I'm going to "Lipski" someone.



                    >> Radical Jews used to meet at this club often, prior to taking their demonstrations to The Great Synagogue in Mitre Square, which was close to the spot where Catherine Eddowes...<<

                    They also held meetings in Buck's Row, by the board school, within a few feet of where Mrs Nichols was found.

                    They also held meetings at a hall virtually opposite 29 Hanbury Street.
                    Last edited by drstrange169; 01-28-2020, 04:37 AM.
                    dustymiller
                    aka drstrange

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post

                      They also held meetings in Buck's Row, by the board school, within a few feet of where Mrs Nichols was found.

                      They also held meetings at a hall virtually opposite 29 Hanbury Street.
                      Which of the following do people believe, regarding these quotes, and the 2nd quote in #217:
                      1. False
                      2. News to me
                      3. True, but so what?
                      4. True, but I'd rather not think about the possible implications
                      5. True, and this is a vital clue!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                        That Schwartz's statement benefited the Club is completely immaterial. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether his statement is wrong or unreliable as Jeff pointed out. Even if it could be proven that his statement benefited the club it still has to be proven that he deliberately lied. And that unfortunately can not be inferred from his failure to appear at the inquest. If that is all it takes then we have to dismiss Fanny's statement as well.

                        c.d.
                        Absolutely. Schwartz's statement if argued to benefit the club could simply reflect that the club was not involved in any meaningful way (being the scene of the crime doesn't mean the club or a club member was involved in the crime) and Schwartz simply reported what he perceived and remembered the events he witnessed to be. Distilling what happened and when based upon his description as recorded is the researcher's job. Some details will be incorrect, because his memory and how he conveys that through words, filtered through a translator, are imperfect transfers of information. He, like everyone, will have some details wrong (errors of recollection), he may have witnessed an unrelated event (as some have argued), he may have misinterpreted what he say (Abberline's argument for Lipski), and so forth. All I'm pointing out is that those errors are immaterial with regards to whether what he reported was concocted by the club to distract attention away from a Jewish offender, and what he reported as he reported it does the exact opposite. All corrections, or reinterpretations if you will, are irrelevant with regards to that analysis (though they are highly important with respect to deciding if his statement is important to the case as a whole).

                        As for why he didn't appear at the inquest, we don't know. He may, due to his lack of English, simply not shown. He may have feared for his safety, given his testimony would implicate a Jewish offender (the unrest after Annie's murder would not have gone unnoticed by him after all). I suppose the police may even have decided they had enough information to ensure a finding of murder, and withheld his testimony as making it public might re-enflame anti-Jewish tensions (though I would expect there to be indications of that decision in the files, which there isn't). He may have been found to have been unreliable (but again, i would expect that to have been mentioned, given Home Office seemed to view his statement as vital leading to Abberline's letter indicating the likely meaning of the use of Lipski, if they found him unreliable I would think that would be passed on as well). In the end, for some reason, he doesn't appear at the inquest. There is one letter, though, which I don't have my books with me to reference, which includes a statement that one reading of sounds like he did present at the inquest, but I'm pretty sure that's a red-herring/unfortunate wording.

                        Ahhh, found a previous post where I mention this:

                        The last part is evidenced by a report from Sir Charles Warren to the Home Office, stamped as received on the 7th of NOV, 1888) and found on page 135 of Evans and Skinner's "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion" (and excellent source material reference by the way), which reads:

                        ------------------------------

                        Confidential

                        4 Whitehall Place, S.W.
                        6th November, 1888

                        Sir,
                        With reference to your letter of the 29th ulto. I have to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name "Lipski", which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berners [sic] Street on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself. It appears that since the Lipski case it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or speaking of Jews.

                        With regards to the latter portion of your letter I have to state that searching enquiries were made by an officer in Aberdeen Place, St. John's Wood, the last known address of the insane medical student named "John Sanders", but the only information that could be obtained was that a lady named Sanders did reside with her son at No. 20, but left that address to go abroad about two years ago.

                        I am,
                        Sir,
                        Your most obedient Servant,
                        C. Warren.
                        --------------------

                        That bolded statement seems to indicate that Schwartz testified at the inquest, but we know he did not. Either Warren mis-stated when the opinion was arrived at (meaning, he should have said "before" or "in preparation for" the inquest, rather than "at the inquest"). Regardless, such a mistake seems unlikely to have happened if the police had found Schwartz to have been unreliable, or if they deliberately withheld his testimony. It suggests that Schwartz was expected to testify, and Warren may have, while writing this letter, simply "misspoke" overlooking the fact that Schwartz did not appear for some reason.

                        So while I believe Warren's statement indicating Schwartz gave testimony is incorrect, it looks to me like the kind of error that suggests the police still had some faith in Schwartz's testimony as useful information.

                        - Jeff

                        NOTE: it is, of course, possible that Warren meant the opinion was reached at the Stride inquest (between members of the police), not that the testimony itself was given at the inquest. But that would require a number of senior police, including Abberline, to have been there discussing Schwartz's statement while the inquest was going on, and I don't think that happened either.
                        Last edited by JeffHamm; 01-28-2020, 10:20 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Thought BS Man was telling Liz she needed to get some cachous for her bottom lip.

                          Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia - Wikipedia

                          Catechu - Wikipedia
                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • After all that kissing?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              You're still focusing on what Abberline changed Schwartz's testimony to, so unless you're arguing Abberline was part of the conspiracy, Abberline's view is irrelevant for this context. All that is relevant is that Schwartz's original story because that is the story the conspiracy is supposed to have authored - and that story is that pipeman is Lipski, making pipeman a Jewish offender and by implication BS a Jewish offender. Everything after that (changing what Schwartz's story was originally into "Lipski as an insult directed as Schwartz himself") is not the conspiracy's story but a story authored by others.

                              The story that fits the conspiracy, therefore, is the one authored by Abberline, not the one authored by Schwartz. So Schwartz is not part of the conspiracy, but as you focus on Abberline's version, you appear to be arguing that Abberline is part of the conspiracy. And if he was, then Abberline would have ensured the club was avoided anyway, and so the whole need for the conspiracy disoloves since the police are already in on it. In other words, no matter how you slice it, trying to tie Schwartz into the conspiracy creates paradoxes - the conspiracy either authors a story that implicates Jewish offenders as a way to deflect attention away from Jewish offenders OR the conspiracy has a man in the police (Abberline) capable of deflecting attention away from the club by changing Schwartz's evidence, in which case, the club didn't need to conspire in the first place as they already have a man on the inside.

                              These paradoxes refute Schwartz as a member of the conspiracy and refute Abberline as a member of the conspiracy.

                              - Jeff
                              The paradoxes exist Jeff because we are talking about the opinions of certain people, their perspectives can be extremely different, and often subjective. The harder evidence here....Schwartz being a known associate of Wess's, Schwartz's unknown residence the day before, the delay in coming forward, the likelihood that Wess translated for him...as he apparently did for Goldstein on Tuesday night, the fact that Fanny Mortimer could hear footsteps outside while in her home, and even if not at the door, and did not hear 3 sets of them running nor a slur called across the street, the fact that Fanny Mortimers statement that she was at her door from 12:50 until 1am is corroborated, and that she did not see or hear any cart arriving at "precisely 1am" as was claimed, the fact that the only people seen by anyone in the area from 12:35 until Spooner sees the Jews running for help..(he believed that to be around 12:40-12:45),...was the young couple, the fact that 3 other witnesses that came from inside the club believed they were also there around 12:45 by the dying woman, the fact that Blackwell estimated the earliest cut time from 12:46-12:56, the fact that the club paid staff all said they saw no-one at the times they recorded their close proximity to the murder scene...even though they state they were there at the very same times, the fact that Isaac K's statement taken that night indicated that he was sent alone to get help, something no other club staffer even mentioned, the fact that Strides actual murder might have taken 2 seconds which makes it possible to have taken place right around the time 4 witnesses said they were there...

                              I could cite lots of things one can use in lieu of possibly tainted opinion to formulate a most probable landscape. And that is for me, that Liz Stride was off the street shortly after 12:35, likely in the passageway to a private club,...which is why Fanny at her off and on times at her door didn't see her,... and that an argument turned deadly in 2 seconds which resulted in a dying woman just inside the gates. The members left at the club heard something was going on, rushed down to see, and among the senior members a quick assessment of her was made and a discussion about what they needed to do took place. Someone not needed there, a junior member, was sent to look for help. Goldstein has empty cigarette cartons destined for the cigarette makers still awake in the cottages in the passageway, turns his head to see whats going on at the gates, and is waved to move on by some members, which he does. Louis and Eagle leave for help at the time they say they did.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                                After all that kissing?
                                So what do you think happened if you assume that Diemschutz was lying?

                                Tristan

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X