Who has the goods?

[caz]

Ive mentioned so many times I should just save the post and re-post it for all the challenged readers, the fact that at one point Israel said he thought that the man was calling to Pipeman calling him Lipski is likely a reference to Israel suddenly on the scene. The authorities saw it as an antisemitic remark to Israel, but what could they possibly know Caz? Oh yeah, they also erased actual evidence they felt was antisemitic that same night. Coincidinky eh?

I really don't know what you were trying to say here, Michael.

The point is surely why Schwartz would have said anything about initially thinking Pipeman was an accomplice called Lipski, if you believe his remit was to give the police 'another' murder by a lone maniac, who was neither Jewish nor associated with the club?? Why introduce the idea of an accomplice to begin with, and then make it ambiguous as to whom the name Lipski may have been addressed?

The interpretation Abberline [the 'authorities'] arrived at may or may not have been the correct one. I don't give a rat's arse either way. But it wasn't Schwartz's when he made his statement.

How hard can this be to grasp?

[mpriestnall]

Reckon the cart was led through the tunnel in the dark.

He could have used 5 different bridges.

He could have swum for all I care.

Was attempting to help,not recreate a Monty Python sketch

Or this!

[Varqm]

Reckon the cart was led through the tunnel in the dark.

He could have used 5 different bridges.

He could have swum for all I care.

Was attempting to help,not recreate a Monty Python sketch

We'll knowing about the possible route Diemschutz took from Crystal Palace, knowing the bridges and tunnel that worked in 1888, is more important than the The Five .

[Varqm]

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

About the gates it's in the inquest, Wess I think.

[DJA]

Crikey,nex minit the Hamster will be doing maps.

[DJA]

Reckon the cart was led through the tunnel in the dark.

He could have used 5 different bridges.

He could have swum for all I care.

Was attempting to help,not recreate a Monty Python sketch

[Joshua Rogan]

The Tunnel was originally built for horse drawn carriages.

That was the original plan, but I think only the pedestrian stairway access made it off of the drawing board - access for vehicles was never built (at least, not until it was turned into a train tunnel).

[DJA]

Still?

The Tunnel was originally built for horse drawn carriages.

[Joshua Rogan]

Thames Tunnel.

Reckon it was still used by horse and cart at night.

Still?

[DJA]

So, omniscient one, which tunnel are you referring to?

Thames Tunnel.

Reckon it was still used by horse and cart at night.

Here is the route referred to by Varqm.



Thames_Tunnel-route.png (PNG Image, 2168 × 3998 pixels) — Scaled (9%)

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=caz;n771710]

I thought the same thing, Gary.

Equally, if the killer was still in the yard to hear the pony and cart, he couldn't have afforded to assume it was going to go straight on past, and he'd have been wrong if he had done so. Surely he'd have erred on the side of caution and ducked out of sight if he might have been visible from the entrance.

Having said that, the place was busy enough in any case to have sent the killer packing - whoever he was - as soon as the deed was done. The knife and the fatal wound are enough proof of his intention to silence this woman for good, regardless of the risks of being seen there.

Love,

Caz
X[/Q]

Sent the killer packing? Why? He could just plop his knife into the soapy water in the kitchen, whose door was ajar, and head upstairs with the rest of the men. It was a single slice, there would be very little on that blade anyway.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi George,

Once again, it's Michael Richards's theory that Schwartz narrated his story as part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, by implicating a Gentile [just the one] he claimed had assaulted Stride out on the street. It's also worth noting that Schwartz put the assault a full fifteen minutes before the time Louis D had already given for his discovery of her body on the club's premises.

But once again, Schwartz did not implicate a Gentile with his initial statement. Not even close. He presumed the assailant had called out "Lipski" to an accomplice of that name, who had then chased him from the scene. He implicated an assailant with a Jewish accomplice. It was down to Abberline to reinterpret this as most probably one Gentile assailant acting alone, who used "Lipski" as an anti-Semitic insult aimed at the obviously Jewish Schwartz, while the third man - Pipeman - was just another innocent witness caught up in the situation.

I think most of us who believe the assault happened have accepted Abberline's reinterpretation as the correct one, and that therefore Schwartz himself was confused over the dynamics of the situation and read it the wrong way. Under further questioning he admitted as much, which makes no sense if he saw it Abberline's way to begin with.

In short, Schwartz didn't set out to implicate a Gentile with his story, as Michael Richards has repeatedly insisted. That only happened through Abberline's intervention.

I apologise if you were not wrong-footed by anything posted by Michael Richards. It just looked that way, from the similar difficulty you had with how Schwartz originally reported the incident.

Love,

Caz
X

Ive mentioned so many times I should just save the post and re-post it for all the challenged readers, the fact that at one point Israel said he thought that the man was calling to Pipeman calling him Lipski is likely a reference to Israel suddenly on the scene. The authorities saw it as an antisemitic remark to Israel, but what could they possibly know Caz? Oh yeah, they also erased actual evidence they felt was antisemitic that same night. Coincidinky eh?

[MrBarnett]

So, omniscient one, which tunnel are you referring to?

[Wickerman]

..... The gates opened outwards to the street,I do not believe he hid there.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

[DJA]