Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whistling on Berner Street

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

  • #31
    . I am not Michael. This seems to be something you struggle with.
    Conspiracy minded posters. How’s that?
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

    Comment


    • #32
      .
      Anyone who disagrees with you must have a conspiracist agenda. Therefore your position is unassailable. Or so you think.
      No, only those who believe that some kind of conspiracy occurred.

      I might say that both you and Michael have occurred those who disagree with you of simply defending an ‘orthodoxy’ just for the sake of it. It works both ways Andrew.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • #33
        . You obviously don't understand that all this applies to you too. However, you move on if you want to.
        The only opinion that I state as a fact is that we have to make allowances for times. Apart from that I make no claims.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • #34
          .
          This is lame. I contradicted your claim then I am holding Schwartz to an exact time. I wonder if you will continue to use this 'exact times' tactic?
          Ive already quote where you first used an exact time. Then you used an average. I didn’t ‘plant’ your original post.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • #35
            . I disagree with the police about Schwartz, and they did not have any idea who the Ripper was. If everyone here just agreed with the police view about everything (which I'm sure you would prefer), would there be any point to this forum?
            I was simply making the point that the police, who interviewed Schwartz face to face, like all of the other witnesses including ones that we don’t know about, and saw no issues.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              I was simply making the point that the police, who interviewed Schwartz face to face, like all of the other witnesses including ones that we don’t know about, and saw no issues.
              Swanston hinted that there were doubts about Schwartz. A curious Ripperologist would want to delve into why that may have been so.
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                Swanston hinted that there were doubts about Schwartz. A curious Ripperologist would want to delve into why that may have been so.
                True enough, but there seems little room for doubt here:

                “If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it,”
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Too early for what. I believe that I estimated around 1.05 for Lamb. Again, you appear struggle with the principle of estimation. Lamb arrived before Smith whatever the exact time was.
                  When you know that Lamb himself said, from Inquest transcripts, he arrived before 1am. With Eagle and by Issacs statement, Kozebrodski. Your estimating takes a back seat to witness direct accounts.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    When you know that Lamb himself said, from Inquest transcripts, he arrived before 1am. With Eagle and by Issacs statement, Kozebrodski. Your estimating takes a back seat to witness direct accounts.
                    Why is this ignored?

                    About 1 o’clock, as near as I can tell, on Sunday morning I was in the Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street.”

                    This one appears to be preferred for some unknown reason

                    “Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road”

                    Now…..’shortly before.’ How do we quantify that? A minute before? Thirty seconds before? Two minutes before?

                    Either way Lamb, who didn’t own a watch and was estimating, gives us a time of around 1.00 and possibly shortly before. So less likely to have been between 12.45 and 12.50.

                    And as Johnston said that PC 426H got to his door between 1.05 and 1.10 you would have to explain why it would have taken so long for 426H to get to Blackwell’s.

                    So we can say with a level of confidence that Eagle got to Lamb close to 1.00 (with our reasonable + or - of course)

                    ……

                    No mystery. Koz and Hoschberg can be ignored. Diemschutz discovered the body at 1.00 (given any discrepancy of clock synchronisation)

                    I really don’t think that I’m inclined to discuss Berner Street any longer. I keep meaning to walk away but I keep allowing myself to get dragged back in.

                    The subject is being made a mockery of.

                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Why is this ignored?

                      About 1 o’clock, as near as I can tell, on Sunday morning I was in the Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street.”

                      This one appears to be preferred for some unknown reason

                      “Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road”

                      Now…..’shortly before.’ How do we quantify that? A minute before? Thirty seconds before? Two minutes before?

                      Either way Lamb, who didn’t own a watch and was estimating, gives us a time of around 1.00 and possibly shortly before. So less likely to have been between 12.45 and 12.50.

                      And as Johnston said that PC 426H got to his door between 1.05 and 1.10 you would have to explain why it would have taken so long for 426H to get to Blackwell’s.

                      So we can say with a level of confidence that Eagle got to Lamb close to 1.00 (with our reasonable + or - of course)

                      ……

                      No mystery. Koz and Hoschberg can be ignored. Diemschutz discovered the body at 1.00 (given any discrepancy of clock synchronisation)

                      I really don’t think that I’m inclined to discuss Berner Street any longer. I keep meaning to walk away but I keep allowing myself to get dragged back in.

                      The subject is being made a mockery of.
                      You want to quote where you got the Lamb line from, cause I know I use the Inquest transcripts here, Daily Telegraph Oct 2nd, and in that transcript he says "shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting."

                      Since he cannot have seen these men unless they went for help before that point in time, you can track back their departure for help to around 12:45ish. Meeting him around 12:55ish. What do you know about that, that fits exactly with the 3 witnesses who said they were by the body at around 12:40-12:45. Small world huh?

                      And how many times do you need to read this before it sinks in......police times were the ones to count on, they are the ONLY men in these stories whose job it was to know the time.
                      Last edited by Michael W Richards; 11-09-2021, 07:45 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        I really don’t think that I’m inclined to discuss Berner Street any longer. I keep meaning to walk away but I keep allowing myself to get dragged back in.

                        The subject is being made a mockery of.
                        Youve made a mockery of rational argument your own self by your self serving manner of discarding whats inconvenient to your own theories without using a single piece of actual evidence to justify it. It might better if you stick with threads like "What do you think happened" or "People not to believe because they get in the way of the story I want to put forward", or " If someone claims a tree fell in a forest when no-one was around who actually saw or heard it, and after searching the forest no fallen tree is later found, did a tree fall at all?" That last one is for Israel of course.

                        Maybe try lighter fictional threads. Then using only your opinion to make points is fine. Here we try and solve puzzles using evidence...ALL of the evidence cumulatively, not just the parts we prefer.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Ok I’ll quote The Times Inquest transcript, October 3rd…..happy?

                          “Police-constable Henry Lamb, 252H, deposed as follows:- About 1 o’clock, as near as I can tell, on Sunday morning”

                          So is there some unwritten rule that The Telegraph trumps The Times? So we can take our pick. I’m not saying that The Times must be correct so are you saying that The Telegraph must be?

                          you can track back their departure for help to around 12:45ish. Meeting him around 12:55ish
                          So it took Morris Eagle 10 minutes to get to Lamb? Did he go via Mitre Square? You’re very obviously stretching things to suit your theory as usual.

                          I’m not stretching anything.

                          Again “around 1.00” or “shortly before 1.00” doesn’t mean a specific time. You claim 12.45ish because it suits you, it could just as easily be 12.57ish. And as one quote says “about 1.00” I’d say the closer to 1.00 would be the more likely. So you’re deliberately and quite falsely trying to link Lamb’s time to Hoschberg and Koz. You cannot ‘link’ them just because you believe 12.45 can be called “shortly before 1.00.”

                          And how many times do you need to read this before it sinks in......police times were the ones to count on, they are the ONLY men in these stories whose job it was to know the time.
                          You don’t give in with the manipulations do you? I’ve said numerous times that the police were the more likely to have been time aware, but…….and this is important……we can’t exclude the possibility of error. Lamb pointed out that he didn’t have a watch, he did not mention how he came by his time but we know that he was estimating. Yes he wouldn’t have been out by much if anything but he was estimating nonetheless.

                          Michael it says it all if you need 10 minutes for Eagle to get to Lamb.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            Youve made a mockery of rational argument your own self by your self serving manner of discarding whats inconvenient to your own theories without using a single piece of actual evidence to justify it. It might better if you stick with threads like "What do you think happened" or "People not to believe because they get in the way of the story I want to put forward", or " If someone claims a tree fell in a forest when no-one was around who actually saw or heard it, and after searching the forest no fallen tree is later found, did a tree fall at all?" That last one is for Israel of course.

                            Maybe try lighter fictional threads. Then using only your opinion to make points is fine. Here we try and solve puzzles using evidence...ALL of the evidence cumulatively, not just the parts we prefer.
                            It gives me a headache trying to think down to your level.

                            I no longer what to converse with the delusion so I really want to move away from this boring madness.

                            No one in the whole of Ripperology agrees with you but like a petulant toddler you keep jumping up and down saying “it was a cover up, it was a cover up.”

                            Its pathetic Michael but you obviously don’t mind because you’ve had 20 years of utter rejection.

                            Prepare yourself for a well deserved 20 more.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              True enough, but there seems little room for doubt here:

                              “If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it,”
                              Little room for doubt about Swanston's opinion, and he never met Schwartz. So the doubt must have come from someone else. Quite possibly the duty officer at Leman street, when Schwartz visited. Whoever it was, someone has expressed doubts about Schwartz, and the Star reporter who met him seems to have been dubious also. The normally curious would want to know why these doubts existed.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                Little room for doubt about Swanston's opinion, and he never met Schwartz. So the doubt must have come from someone else. Quite possibly the duty officer at Leman street, when Schwartz visited. Whoever it was, someone has expressed doubts about Schwartz, and the Star reporter who met him seems to have been dubious also. The normally curious would want to know why these doubts existed.
                                I don't think we will ever know. It could be that Leman Street thought he was lying through his teeth. But I think the more plausible explanation is that because of the language barrier and his short time on the scene they couldn't be sure of just what the hell he saw.

                                c.d.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X