Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
. Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
If Schwartz was indeed lying and was using the ‘not very loudly’ as an excuse for why the ‘screams’ weren’t heard then I have to ask why he didn’t he simply not mention the ‘screams’ in the first place?
In the next passage you accuse me of conjecture. The statement above is conjecture. It’s simply your opinion.
When the word ‘screamed’ was used, either directly by Schwartz or by an interpreter in error, I’d suggest that volume wouldn’t have appeared relevant or significant to Schwartz. Then, when the police said something like “so these were loud screams.” Schwartz said “no, they weren’t very loud.”
There is no ‘police account’ it’s a Press account which isn’t corroborated. We don’t even know where it might have come from. Basically it’s little more than tittle-tattle.
If the Police doubted every event that went unseen or unheard in a populated area they would spend most of their time at the station playing cards with nothing to do. And yet here we are with something so prosaic being turned into a mystery. For a start people were doing other things; they weren’t on guard for unusual sounds. They were distracted. And of course…the screams weren’t very loud.
If every man should be arrested who was known to have been seen in company with an abandoned woman in that locality on last Saturday night, the police-stations would not hold them. There are many people in that district who volunteer information to the police on the principle of securing lenient treatment for their own offences, and there are others who turn in descriptions on the chance of coming near enough the mark to claim a portion of the reward if the man should be caught, just as one buys a ticket in a lottery. Even where such information is given in good faith, it can rarely be looked upon in the light of a clue.
.[/I]
Again you are clinging to random newspaper articles. We have no evidence that Schwartz lied but you are using this to try a bolster your own theory. Nothing mysterious happened in Berner Street. The subject is plagued by people trying to twist things to suit their own theories.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
What I did was to suggest two perfectly reasonable explanations as to why no one saw or heard the incident. Both of these are possible and are far more likely than a pretend witness.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
If Schwartz was indeed lying and was using the ‘not very loudly’ as an excuse for why the ‘screams’ weren’t heard then I have to ask why he didn’t he simply not mention the ‘screams’ in the first place?
When the word ‘screamed’ was used, either directly by Schwartz or by an interpreter in error, I’d suggest that volume wouldn’t have appeared relevant or significant to Schwartz. Then, when the police said something like “so these were loud screams.” Schwartz said “no, they weren’t very loud.”
If the Police doubted every event that went unseen or unheard in a populated area they would spend most of their time at the station playing cards with nothing to do. And yet here we are with something so prosaic being turned into a mystery. For a start people were doing other things; they weren’t on guard for unusual sounds. They were distracted. And of course…the screams weren’t very loud.
If every man should be arrested who was known to have been seen in company with an abandoned woman in that locality on last Saturday night, the police-stations would not hold them. There are many people in that district who volunteer information to the police on the principle of securing lenient treatment for their own offences, and there are others who turn in descriptions on the chance of coming near enough the mark to claim a portion of the reward if the man should be caught, just as one buys a ticket in a lottery. Even where such information is given in good faith, it can rarely be looked upon in the light of a clue.
Leave a comment:
-
Looking at that pic, I can honestly say I have never drank that much in my life...
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by c.d. View Post
Well then it looks like you are in the clear with these lovely ladies. Enjoy!..
c.d.
Fabulous photo!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by c.d. View Post
Well then it looks like you are in the clear with these lovely ladies. Enjoy!..
c.d.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by c.d. View PostMainly because of people (like you) recommending books to me.
Ok, I'll take some responsibility on this one but your beer drinking is all on you.
c.d.
Leave a comment:
-
Mainly because of people (like you) recommending books to me.
Ok, I'll take some responsibility on this one but your beer drinking is all on you.
c.d.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Absolutely, if there’s a murder in the street but no one saw or heard it then the explanation is far more likely to be that there was no one around at the time that it occurred and that not a great deal of noise was made.
c.d.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by c.d. View PostAs the Amazing Randi used to say -- when you hear hoof beats think Horses before you think Zebras and think Zebras before you think Unicorns.
Hope I didn't screw that quote up but that was pretty much the gist of it. I think it really applies with respect to Schwartz.
c.d.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by c.d. View Post
I love Randi and he is sorely missed. I have Flim-Flam on my list. Let me know what you think of it.
c.d.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: