Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who has the goods?

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

  • Who has the goods?

    East London Observer, Oct 6th, 1888

    "Lewis Dienischitz [Diemschutz], who is the steward of the club, found the body, and this is his version of the discovery: "On Saturday," he says, "I left home about half-past eleven in the morning and returned home exactly at one a.m. Sunday morning. I noticed the time at a tobacco shop in the Commercial-road. I was driving a pony harnessed to a costermonger's barrow. I do not keep the pony in the yard of the club, but in George-yard, Cable-street. I drove the barrow home in order to leave my goods there."

    I realize to many this is a small point and perhaps not as potentially revealing as I believe it may be, but to me it seems odd that neither Louis or someone else never mentions those goods again. Nor does anyone mention the cart and horse...who took it to George Yard, who unloaded the goods, did police find the unloaded goods in the yard somewhere, was the pony stabled there that night? Did he unload the cart in the morning?

    Based upon no less than 4 individual stories given by witnesses at the scene, Louis was there well before 1am as he had claimed. Fanny Mortimer never saw a pony cart or horse on the street between 12:30 and 1am, nor did she mention one when she came back out just after 1am. We know that she was at her door from approx 12:50 until 1am without interruption and that she stated she saw no-one on that street but a man at 12:55-56 who turned out to be Leon Goldstein. Passing by the yards gated entrance after glancing in.


    Im sure most would agree that Louis and his pony and cart would essentially block the entranceway with little room on either side to spare. People claimed they stood there at around 12:40-12:45 to see the woman lying in the passageway. They mention Louis. Why doesnt anyone mention that cart/pony obstacle that would obviously need to be tended with since Louis stopped at the entrance to the passageway. Did he intended to take it into the yard to unload, or to unload the "goods" by hand and take them into the yard from the entranceway. The implication in his remarks is that he had enough "goods" to make this side drop off viable, so...where did they go? And the vehicle that brought them.
    Michael Richards

  • #2
    The goods and the pony and cart very naturally weren’t mentioned because they were unimportant. There’s no mystery in this.

    It wouldn’t have blocked the gateway because it would have been taken further into the yard and as we know that it did vanish then it must have been moved.

    Fanny Mortimer didn’t see a horse and cart but she heard one. Diemschutz’ s.

    We don’t know that she was on her doorstep between 12.50 and 1.00 without interruption unless you quote selectively (which you usually do) She told the EN that she went onto her doorstep for 10 minutes after Smith had passed. So she could have been back inside before 12.45 which is logically the likeliest as she didn’t see Schwartz (or Stride for that matter).

    Diemschutz discovered the body at 1.00. You’re alleged 4 witnesses can and should be completely dismissed. If you’re relying on those 4 (and you are) then you continue to skate on the thinnest ice imaginable.

    The embarrassing silliness continues from The Grassy Knoll.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

    Comment


    • #3
      Herlock, I know youve posted...I can see you have, even though as I told you Ive blocked your posts. I did however manage to see what you posted and will only say respectfully that your perceptions of what is important are not the issue. Or the baseline for discussions.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • #4
        The points that you’ve made are nothing new and have been discussed in other threads. Your continuing reliance on the ‘4’ witness is the main part of course. 4 witnesses that were very obviously wrong. So you have have a false starting point. Very obviously wrong witnesses. It’s the same old….Eagle (from his own mouth he first saw the body at 1.00) Spooner, at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb (so very obviously wrong when he said around 12.35) Hoschberg, very obviously guessing, ‘around’ 12.45 ‘I should think.’ Yet you keep relying on them.

        Now it’s the cart. What possible reason would anyone have had for mentioning the cart or it’s contents?
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          The points that you’ve made are nothing new and have been discussed in other threads. Your continuing reliance on the ‘4’ witness is the main part of course. 1. 4 witnesses that were very obviously wrong. So you have have a false starting point. Very obviously wrong witnesses. It’s the same old….Eagle (from his own mouth he first saw the body at 1.00) Spooner, at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb (so very obviously wrong when he said around 12.35) Hoschberg, very obviously guessing, ‘around’ 12.45 ‘I should think.’ Yet you keep relying on them.

          Now it’s the cart. What possible reason would anyone have had for mentioning the cart or it’s contents?
          Had to open access to your posts again because it would seem you continue to post things that need to be addressed so your inaccurate representations are identified and understood for their actual value.

          1. This is of course your opinion only and has nothing to do with established baseline facts. In fact 4 witnesses, (including 1 outside witness), all stated that they were by the dying woman with Louis there between 12:40-12:45. Issac K, Gillen and Heschberg..in addition to the aforementioned Spooner. That makes 4 corroborative stories. The other ones you choose to believe..you know, those unsubstantiated by anyone stories from people with livelihoods and reputations on the line......all of them...have not one single corroborative witness account.

          2. Since you believe all of the singular unsubstantiated stories, surely the fact that Louis says he stopped his cart as he entered the passageway to see why his horse shied...at 1am according to him...would raise the question of what happened to the cart and horse and "goods"? They effectively blocked the entrance to the yard via the gates, and as such would have to be moved for the rest of the arrivals to get access to where Liz lay. So...if he arrived when he says he did, 1am..(which is contradictory to what Fanny saw or heard from her door up to and including that time), then someone does something with the cart horse and goods before Eagle arrives back with Lamb. Which is seen by Issac Kozebrodski as he returned alone after being sent to seek help by himself.

          As per Lamb himself at the Inquest...."Constable Henry Lamb, 252 H division, examined by the coroner, said: Last Sunday morning,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. I went to meet them, and they called out, "Come on, there has been another murder."

          Because you obtusely state without any factual evidence to support you that 4 witnesses all were "incorrect" about when they saw things even though they see the same things at the same times, and that an impediment as large as a cart and horse are irrelevant to any discovery about this crime, Its important that you are corrected before less studied people are misinformed about what actually is on paper and what isnt.
          Last edited by Michael W Richards; 09-09-2021, 03:34 PM.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • #6
            And no one other than Diemschutz himself mentions his whip. What happened to that?

            It’s a mystery.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post


              2. Since you believe all of the singular unsubstantiated stories, surely the fact that Louis says he stopped his cart as he entered the passageway to see why his horse shied...at 1am according to him...would raise the question of what happened to the cart and horse and "goods"? They effectively blocked the entrance to the yard via the gates, and as such would have to be moved for the rest of the arrivals to get access to where Liz lay. So...if he arrived when he says he did, 1am..(which is contradictory to what Fanny saw or heard from her door up to and including that time), then someone does something with the cart horse and goods before Eagle arrives back with Lamb. Which is seen by Issac Kozebrodski as he returned alone after being sent to seek help by himself.
              There is no confusion about what happened to the pony and cart. Louis D said at the inquest that "he left his pony in the yard, just outside the club door, by itself"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                And no one other than Diemschutz himself mentions his whip. What happened to that?

                It’s a mystery.
                Click image for larger version

Name:	Panto Horse.jpg
Views:	343
Size:	167.0 KB
ID:	767761
                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                  There is no confusion about what happened to the pony and cart. Louis D said at the inquest that "he left his pony in the yard, just outside the club door, by itself"
                  Do you recall what other people stated they also saw the pony and cart after Louis says he left it there? Like the dozens still in the club after 12:30? Or the people who arrived after that? The whole point here is to establish that none of the people who said they were by the body around 12:45 mention the cart or horse, and none of the popel arriving after that do either. So...what time did the cart and horse get taken away? You think thats clear?
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                    And no one other than Diemschutz himself mentions his whip. What happened to that?

                    It’s a mystery.
                    The amount of people who miss the salient points here is growing, no doubt to the overall belief system vs the actual recorded facts.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by DJA View Post

                      Click image for larger version  Name:	Panto Horse.jpg Views:	0 Size:	167.0 KB ID:	767761
                      So...You the rear part of the horse with the lifted leg?
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DJA View Post

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	Panto Horse.jpg
Views:	343
Size:	167.0 KB
ID:	767761
                        A Golden Chestnut Dave.
                        Thems the Vagaries.....

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                          Had to open access to your posts again because it would seem you continue to post things that need to be addressed so your inaccurate representations are identified and understood for their actual value.

                          On we go. A point that you really should give consideration to Michael when discussing who is misrepresenting the truth or not is the entirety of Ripperology. This isn’t some ‘error of judgment’ or ‘conformist plot’ on my part this is everyone. There’s only you (and maybe one or two others of a conspiracist frame of mind) who see any basis for conspiracy. Everyone else has looked into this time and time and time again and seen the same thing. A few timing errors based on incorrect estimations which prove fertile ground for your type of thinking. A cooler, more reasoned, interpretation shows us what is glaringly obvious. That the notion of a cover-up is ill-founding, the suggested plan itself is infantile in its conception and the evidence for it is completely and utterly non-existent. It’s an entirely manufactured scenario. A work of complete fiction. It never happened.

                          1. This is of course your opinion only and has nothing to do with established baseline facts. In fact 4 witnesses, (including 1 outside witness), all stated that they were by the dying woman with Louis there between 12:40-12:45. Issac K, Gillen and Heschberg..in addition to the aforementioned Spooner. That makes 4 corroborative stories. The other ones you choose to believe..you know, those unsubstantiated by anyone stories from people with livelihoods and reputations on the line......all of them...have not one single corroborative witness account.

                          For someone that claims knowledge of the case (and despite our differences I would never deny your knowledge of the case) I really can’t understand for the life of me why you keep talking about ‘Gillen?’ There was no such person. Nowhere in the records anywhere is there mention of a Gillen so WHY Michael do you simply refuse to type GILLEMAN? It’s utterly baffling. And why the hell do you try and use him to claim an earlier discovery time?

                          Lets talk about honesty shall we Michael? You have been asked time and time and time again why you keep using Gilleman to prove an earlier discovery time. WILL YOU FINALLY ANSWER THIS QUESTION MICHAEL…….I DOUBT IT.

                          Gilleman is only mentioned by Eagle who said that he called him to see the body at 1.00. That’s the only mention of Gilleman. So how can you claim integrity when you repeatedly claim a witness who categorically doesn’t prove your point?

                          THE SECOND QUESTION THAT YOU’VE BEEN ASKED NUMEROUS TIMES BUT HAVE ALWAYS IGNORED IS……WHY DO YOU ACCEPT SPOONER’S RANDOM GUESS BASED ON PUB CLOSING TIMES, WALKS ALONG THE STREET AND CONVERSATIONS AND YET YOU IGNORE THE FACT THAT HE SAID THAT HE GOT TO THE YARD 5 MINUTES BEFORE LAMB?

                          Hoschberg was guessing of course. The words ‘about’ and ‘i should think’ are the clues.

                          Obvioysly you won’t address these points because you havent thus far so why would you begin now.


                          2. Since you believe all of the singular unsubstantiated stories, surely the fact that Louis says he stopped his cart as he entered the passageway to see why his horse shied...at 1am according to him...would raise the question of what happened to the cart and horse and "goods"? They effectively blocked the entrance to the yard via the gates, and as such would have to be moved for the rest of the arrivals to get access to where Liz lay. So...if he arrived when he says he did, 1am..(which is contradictory to what Fanny saw or heard from her door up to and including that time), then someone does something with the cart horse and goods before Eagle arrives back with Lamb. Which is seen by Issac Kozebrodski as he returned alone after being sent to seek help by himself.

                          They did not block the gates. Lamb got in, Smith got in, Spooner got in. It’s none point. The horse and cart wasn’t blocking the gate it was in the yard and didn’t get mentioned because it was irrelevant to all but a conspiracy theorist trying to weave a fantasy around it.

                          As per Lamb himself at the Inquest...."Constable Henry Lamb, 252 H division, examined by the coroner, said: Last Sunday morning,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. I went to meet them, and they called out, "Come on, there has been another murder."

                          Lamb didn’t have a watch. He was estimating. He was wrong. Now that’s cleared up we can move on.

                          Because you obtusely state without any factual evidence to support you that 4 witnesses all were "incorrect" about when they saw things even though they see the same things at the same times, and that an impediment as large as a cart and horse are irrelevant to any discovery about this crime, Its important that you are corrected before less studied people are misinformed about what actually is on paper and what isnt.

                          Im not going to keep responding to the same lie.

                          There was no conspiracy. A child could see this. How long can you keep up this pretence?
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            The amount of people who miss the salient points here is growing, no doubt to the overall belief system vs the actual recorded facts.
                            No. People get tired of conspiracist lunacy. It’s all a little bit embarrassing to be honest.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              Do you recall what other people stated they also saw the pony and cart after Louis says he left it there? Like the dozens still in the club after 12:30? Or the people who arrived after that? The whole point here is to establish that none of the people who said they were by the body around 12:45 mention the cart or horse, and none of the popel arriving after that do either. So...what time did the cart and horse get taken away? You think thats clear?
                              None of them mention that Diemschutz was wearing trousers either but I’ll hazard a guess that he was.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X