Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whistling on Berner Street

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    You know what I mean about Fanny.
    No I don't. Was she lying or on the toilet?

    She supposedly went onto her doorstep at 12.45.

    But she said just after Smith passed.

    Smith said that he passed at 12.30-12.35.

    Can we say that Smith was definitely accurate on time….no.

    Can we say that Fanny was definitely accurate on time…..no.

    Can we say that Schwartz was definitely accurate on time….no.
    If you want her locking up by 12:45 (which you do), then the cart is being heard at about 12:48. Either that or you're cherry-picking.

    However, sticking with 12:48 raises a number of issues, other than that you're now starting to sound a bit like MWR. Goldstein was seen just before Fanny turned in, so we could make that 12:43, to fit the scenario. I think it is fair to say there is about 5 minutes of blood flow, by the time Louis is observing the victim by candlelight. That would place the murder at very close to 12:43 - right when Goldstein should be hurrying by toward Fairclough street. So that means Goldstein should have seen Stride standing in the gateway, right before she died, but apparently he said nothing about this. Is that because Schwartz lied, or was it because...?

    He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

    The other big issue is that Schwartz is now arriving, after the murder.

    And so I’ll say for the 1000th time, Fanny Mortimer cannot be used to prove that Schwartz wasn’t there. And that’s a fact.
    Nor can Schwartz be used to prove that Fanny was on the loo, Brown was in the chandlers shop, and the couple had gone down to Spectacle Alley Cafe, to get takeaway cappuccinos.
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      A complete invention on your part. Why the 3 minute gap? Why not a 30 second gap or a 4t second gap or a minute gap or a minute 15 seconds gap. Etc….?
      Ask Frank
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        Such as why Lamb mentioned that he didn't have a watch. If he regularly checked the time by one or more of the local clocks, why not just say so, and give the exact time when he had last passed one and checked?

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        Hi Caz,

        Lamb testified that he was at the intersection of Commercial and Berner 6-7 minutes before he arrived at the yard. Diemshitz had already testified that he saw a clock at that location, the first time he had ever mentioned seeing a clock. Do you consider it reasonable that Lamb would not have checked the clock as he passed. He didn't have a pocket watch, so how was he to determine times if he ignored local clocks as he passed them. What reason would you put forward for his averting his eyes to avoid seeing the clock as he passed?

        I would issue a challence to anyone to find ONE interview with Diemshitz on 30 Sep 1888 where he mentioned a clock sighting. Just one. But the next day he has suddenly remembered looking at a clock (one account said the Baker's clock) and everyone wants to ignore police times and adopt this newly reviewed one time only you beaut exact and precise time of one o'clock rather than his multiple statements on the day before of his usual time of about one o'clock.

        AFAIK the Star report of Schwartz's story didn't include the word "Lipski".

        "but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.".

        I agree with the points made about errors in translation that may have occurred and the effect they could have on the interpretation. For instance, changing one word here gives a completely different meaning: "and shouting out some sort of warning at the man who was with the woman". I doubt that, when Schwartz was talking to the Star reporter, he meant to portray himself in the role of "the intruder.". What if Pipeman was interviewed by police afterwards, as you suggest, thus validating Schwartz's presence, and Pipeman said he threatened BS to stop bothering Stride and that BS departed as a result?

        Cheers, George
        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Did Schwartz know that they weren’t going to print his name? Did he know that they hadn’t already gotten it from the police?
          If they had gotten it from the police, then there was obviously a reason for telling the Star, and no one else. Or as the Star says, they "got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane." Presumably the police also mentioned the fact that Schwartz could not speak English, so the Star man could come prepared. This suggests the reason for telling the Star, and not a smaller paper - it was more likely that a paper with the Star's financial resources, could afford to obtain an interpreter for the interview.

          The fact is that the Star did not print his name, so this must have been due to an agreement with Schwartz, or the police, or both. Even if Schwartz could not be sure his name would not be printed then - assuming he cares because Israel Schwartz is his real name - then you are back to arguing that the pipe becomes a knife because he was concerned the pipe man story would look lame. If that is the case, he was right.

          Simple explanations over any that hint at cover up or conspiracy because none took place. This was a simple murder. By an unknown person.
          And that's just how you want it stay - forever.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            No I don't. Was she lying or on the toilet?



            If you want her locking up by 12:45 (which you do), then the cart is being heard at about 12:48. Either that or you're cherry-picking.

            However, sticking with 12:48 raises a number of issues, other than that you're now starting to sound a bit like MWR. Goldstein was seen just before Fanny turned in, so we could make that 12:43, to fit the scenario. I think it is fair to say there is about 5 minutes of blood flow, by the time Louis is observing the victim by candlelight. That would place the murder at very close to 12:43 - right when Goldstein should be hurrying by toward Fairclough street. So that means Goldstein should have seen Stride standing in the gateway, right before she died, but apparently he said nothing about this. Is that because Schwartz lied, or was it because...?

            He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

            The other big issue is that Schwartz is now arriving, after the murder.



            Nor can Schwartz be used to prove that Fanny was on the loo, Brown was in the chandlers shop, and the couple had gone down to Spectacle Alley Cafe, to get takeaway cappuccinos.
            Its not a case of what I want and it’s certainly not a case of cherry-picking.

            She gave 2 ‘times.’

            12.45 and just after Smith passed.

            How can we 100% disprove Schwartz on this basis? If she went onto her doorstep at 12.45 how can we know that the Schwartz incident didn’t occur at 12.44. If she went on just after Smith passed then she could indeed have been back inside at 12.45. The gap before she heard the cart might just have been a misjudgment.

            We don’t know what time Goldstein passed.

            How can you use so many unknowns to disprove something?


            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              If they had gotten it from the police, then there was obviously a reason for telling the Star, and no one else. Or as the Star says, they "got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane." Presumably the police also mentioned the fact that Schwartz could not speak English, so the Star man could come prepared. This suggests the reason for telling the Star, and not a smaller paper - it was more likely that a paper with the Star's financial resources, could afford to obtain an interpreter for the interview.

              The fact is that the Star did not print his name, so this must have been due to an agreement with Schwartz, or the police, or both. Even if Schwartz could not be sure his name would not be printed then - assuming he cares because Israel Schwartz is his real name - then you are back to arguing that the pipe becomes a knife because he was concerned the pipe man story would look lame. If that is the case, he was right.



              And that's just how you want it stay - forever.
              As ever you’re reading far too much into things and are claiming to know what you can’t possibly know.

              This wasn’t some cheap thriller. Silly plots aren’t real. Murders are. This was a murder. There was no plot or cover up.

              You’re utterly obsessed.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

              “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

              Comment


              • How is 10 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00 ‘nearly the whole time?’
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  How is 10 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00 ‘nearly the whole time?’
                  By being the last 10 minutes, and not the entire 30 minutes.

                  However, it is conceivable that Mortimer saw more than she was willing to admit to the police, and so truncated about 20 minutes, down to 10. She may have been rather like Matthew Packer was initially - adamant that she had seen nothing suspicious, to avoid the possibility of any adverse reaction to herself or her family.

                  There are several scenarios with key witnesses that are never discussed, usually because people are too focused on protecting Schwartz.
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    By being the last 10 minutes, and not the entire 30 minutes.

                    However, it is conceivable that Mortimer saw more than she was willing to admit to the police, and so truncated about 20 minutes, down to 10. She may have been rather like Matthew Packer was initially - adamant that she had seen nothing suspicious, to avoid the possibility of any adverse reaction to herself or her family.

                    There are several scenarios with key witnesses that are never discussed, usually because people are too focused on protecting Schwartz.
                    Whether it was the last 10, the first 10 or the middle 10, 10 minutes out of 30 is still not ‘nearly the whole time.’ I can’t believe that you’re en attempting to argue that it could have been. It says a lot.

                    Ok, so now you’re assuming that Fanny had something to hide. You have the nerve to suggest that I’m trying to protect Schwartz when you’ve accused just about every witness at some point of having something to hide. How big was this conspiracy?

                    And again I’ll ask - why would a man (me) who openly says that Stride might or might not have been a ripper victim have any interest in protecting Schwartz?

                    The question should be - why are our 2 cover-up merchants so desperate to discredit him?
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                    “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      I would issue a challence to anyone to find ONE interview with Diemshitz on 30 Sep 1888 where he mentioned a clock sighting. Just one. But the next day he has suddenly remembered looking at a clock (one account said the Baker's clock) and everyone wants to ignore police times and adopt this newly reviewed one time only you beaut exact and precise time of one o'clock rather than his multiple statements on the day before of his usual time of about one o'clock.
                      Yes, it is a bit of a joke. However, regarding your challenge, the closest I can find is in the Echo:

                      There are a pair of iron-studded and iron-capped gates at the entrance to the yard, in which are one or two cottage residences, besides stables. These on Sunday morning, at one o'clock, were open- as is usually the case during the night. The steward of the International and Educational Club reached the gate just as the clock struck one. "It was very dark," he said. "There is no light near here, and the darkness is consequently much more intense between these two walls" - pointing to the walls of the Club and a house on the other side of the yard- "than out in the street. The gate was pushed back, and the wheel of my cart bumped against something. I struck a match to see what it was, but the wind blew it out. However, the flash was enough to show me that the person was on the ground either asleep or dead.

                      Supposedly the cart struck something just as the Harris clock struck one.

                      AFAIK the Star report of Schwartz's story didn't include the word "Lipski".

                      "but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.".

                      I agree with the points made about errors in translation that may have occurred and the effect they could have on the interpretation. For instance, changing one word here gives a completely different meaning: "and shouting out some sort of warning at the man who was with the woman". I doubt that, when Schwartz was talking to the Star reporter, he meant to portray himself in the role of "the intruder.". What if Pipeman was interviewed by police afterwards, as you suggest, thus validating Schwartz's presence, and Pipeman said he threatened BS to stop bothering Stride and that BS departed as a result?
                      George,
                      you seem to be avoiding what the evidence suggests - that Schwartz regarded the second man being an accomplice. If that seems far-fetched, that is problem for Schwartz, and not for us (to explain away). Also, you can change the 'to' to 'at' - it still suggests someone with at least basic English. So either Schwartz could indeed speak and understand English to some extent, or it was someone else who heard this interaction.

                      As for Pipeman validating Schwartz' story, what if it were the case that...?

                      The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

                      Suggesting that someone gave a very different account, to that of Schwartz.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Whether it was the last 10, the first 10 or the middle 10, 10 minutes out of 30 is still not ‘nearly the whole time.’ I can’t believe that you’re en attempting to argue that it could have been. It says a lot.
                        It says a lot that a report of unknown origin, containing zero quotes, is given higher priority than a direct quote from the witness.

                        Ok, so now you’re assuming that Fanny had something to hide. You have the nerve to suggest that I’m trying to protect Schwartz when you’ve accused just about every witness at some point of having something to hide.
                        I said it was a possible scenario, not an assumption of mine. It's about considering various possibilities - something you clearly don't believe in.

                        How big was this conspiracy?
                        You seem to be under the impression that calling stuff you don't like the sound of, 'conspiracy', makes your position unassailable. Does anyone who suggests that Packer was initially reticent to tell the police what he had seen, automatically become the peddler of some big conspiracy?

                        And again I’ll ask - why would a man (me) who openly says that Stride might or might not have been a ripper victim have any interest in protecting Schwartz?
                        Because you want the Ripper to remain anonymous.

                        The question should be - why are our 2 cover-up merchants so desperate to discredit him?
                        Because Schwartz' story is so absurd, that it doesn't even pass the giggle test.
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                          It says a lot that a report of unknown origin, containing zero quotes, is given higher priority than a direct quote from the witness.



                          I said it was a possible scenario, not an assumption of mine. It's about considering various possibilities - something you clearly don't believe in.



                          You seem to be under the impression that calling stuff you don't like the sound of, 'conspiracy', makes your position unassailable. Does anyone who suggests that Packer was initially reticent to tell the police what he had seen, automatically become the peddler of some big conspiracy?



                          Because you want the Ripper to remain anonymous.



                          Because Schwartz' story is so absurd, that it doesn't even pass the giggle test.
                          I’m not going to respond to individual nonsense I’ll just respond to the nonsense as a whole. The suggestion that I want the ripper to remain anonymous is a tired old cliché born of desperation and not worthy of a response.

                          The suggestion that Schwartz story is somehow ‘absurd’ is baseless, pointless and plain dumb.



                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                          “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            Yes, it is a bit of a joke. However, regarding your challenge, the closest I can find is in the Echo:

                            There are a pair of iron-studded and iron-capped gates at the entrance to the yard, in which are one or two cottage residences, besides stables. These on Sunday morning, at one o'clock, were open- as is usually the case during the night. The steward of the International and Educational Club reached the gate just as the clock struck one. "It was very dark," he said. "There is no light near here, and the darkness is consequently much more intense between these two walls" - pointing to the walls of the Club and a house on the other side of the yard- "than out in the street. The gate was pushed back, and the wheel of my cart bumped against something. I struck a match to see what it was, but the wind blew it out. However, the flash was enough to show me that the person was on the ground either asleep or dead.

                            Supposedly the cart struck something just as the Harris clock struck one.



                            George,
                            you seem to be avoiding what the evidence suggests - that Schwartz regarded the second man being an accomplice. If that seems far-fetched, that is problem for Schwartz, and not for us (to explain away). Also, you can change the 'to' to 'at' - it still suggests someone with at least basic English. So either Schwartz could indeed speak and understand English to some extent, or it was someone else who heard this interaction.

                            As for Pipeman validating Schwartz' story, what if it were the case that...?

                            The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

                            Suggesting that someone gave a very different account, to that of Schwartz.
                            Hi Andrew,

                            Maybe it was the Club clock striking one???

                            My view of what the evidence suggests is that he crossed the road to avoid what he thought was a domestic. When he reached the Fairclough intersection he looked back to see what was happening. At that moment Pipeman appeared on the opposite corner and someone called out what sounded like Lipski (Lizzie??). Schwartz panicked and ran off down Berner St not knowing who was with who, just not wanting to be involved. In his first interview he thought BSman shouted Lipski but didn't know to whom it was directed. Given that it was dark and Schwartz and Pipeman were about the same 20 yard distance from BSman it is unlikely that he could have known. Second interview it is Pipeman verbalising to (or at?) BSman and making a move at "the intruder".

                            All in all, the is a lot of confusion in these interviews, some of which probably arose from interpretations by the interpreters and embellishments by the Star. I'm puzzled as to what may have been said in the interview with the Star that led them to use the word "intruder", and whether Schwartz's intention was that that word applied to him?

                            BTW Andrew, you're still sniping. When will you roll out the complete plot?

                            Cheers, George
                            Last edited by GBinOz; 11-21-2021, 01:40 AM.
                            “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                              Maybe it was the Club clock striking one???
                              Makes you wonder about Koz. Did Louis hear that Koz had said 12:40 to the press, and decide retrospectively that he'd seen the Harris clock?

                              My view of what the evidence suggests is that he crossed the road to avoid what he thought was a domestic. When he reached the Fairclough intersection he looked back to see what was happening. At that moment Pipeman appeared on the opposite corner and someone called out what sounded like Lipski (Lizzie??). Schwartz panicked and ran off down Berner St not knowing who was with who, just not wanting to be involved. In his first interview he thought BSman shouted Lipski but didn't know to whom it was directed. Given that it was dark and Schwartz and Pipeman were about the same 20 yard distance from BSman it is unlikely that he could have known. Second interview it is Pipeman verbalising to (or at?) BSman and making a move at "the intruder".

                              All in all, the is a lot of confusion in these interviews, some of which probably arose from interpretations by the interpreters and embellishments by the Star. I'm puzzled as to what may have been said in the interview with the Star that led them to use the word "intruder", and whether Schwartz's intention was that that word applied to him?
                              Yeah, I have no idea who these men could be, who appear to be together or know each other

                              Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                              Koster, Herschburg, Spooner and Harris, all worked for the vigilance committee.
                              BTW Andrew, you're still sniping. When will you roll out the complete plot?
                              Charles Letchford was Jack the Ripper. Unfortunately, George, I don't have a plot. I did have one at one stage, but I lost it
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                                Indeed it is plausible that 'Lipski' was called out to Schwartz, and not the man Schwartz first stated it was aimed at - obviously because Schwartz was the man of Jewish appearance. But plausibility can be a trap, and I think it's a trap that Abberline fell into. Don't you think it would have occurred to Schwartz; "Hey, I'm the Jewish guy, and 'Lipski' is a epithet directed at Jews, so the man that said that word must have been saying it to me". I think Schwartz knew exactly what he intended to convey.
                                It would only have occurred to Schwartz if he knew "Lipski" was an epithet directed at Jews and the story behind it. With no English, he'd have needed someone who spoke both languages to explain this to him at some point before he heard it being used by Stride's assailant. But assuming he did know, why would he have fannied around with it and suggested it was called out to an accomplice? If he 'knew exactly what he intended to convey' - that this thug had hurled an insult at him for being Jewish - he could have done it in the first place and left no room for interpretation.
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X