Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stride..a victim?

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

  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    I think thats my favourite post. The Arbeter Fraint just following this murder was translated courtesy of Lynn Cates, ( I believe its here somewhere). Sadly we dont see him on much of late. But its interesting how they recall the events and when they occurred.

    Really funny line though, thanks.
    Yes. Strangely they say that the murder occurred at around 12.45 (coincidentally the time that Schwartz saw BS Man) and that Diemschutz found the body at 1.00. What a surprise.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    Does Liz have the choice of going into the yard or scarpering?

    If the situation is such that a man deemed it appropriate to flee incontinently, then why didn't the woman?
    All the more so given that the woman alone can understand the meaning of the words being spoken (if Schwartz is to be believed).

    It's incredible how well the non-English speaking male can read the signs, but not, it would seem, the English speaking female.
    Once again, this defies common sense.
    Stride was actually with the man. She didn’t need to read ‘signs’ as she’d been manhandled to the ground. She was the target of his aggression. Perhaps she didn’t think that she had any chance of out running him? Perhaps she thought that a better option was to try and placate him? Or just to do what he wanted to avoid any further violence?

    Common sense is rarely applied here. This is another example of an attempt to make something out of nothing. When battered wives stay with their violent husbands people say “why didn’t she just leave?” You’ve pretty much just done the same. Stride didn’t run and we don’t know why but we can suggest reasons which may or may not be correct. As a conspiracy theorist you of course go straight to the sinister explanation. The most instructive thing though is the lengths that you continue to go to in the never ending quest to see conspiracy where none exists.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; Yesterday, 04:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Arbeter Fraint's Take

    Yes, where is Lynn? I've read a lot of his old posts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
    The club didn’t have a ‘position.’

    Supposed to have a occurred? What time was that?
    The answer, I suppose, is; sometime between Schwartz and Diemschutz o'clock.
    I think thats my favourite post. The Arbeter Fraint just following this murder was translated courtesy of Lynn Cates, ( I believe its here somewhere). Sadly we dont see him on much of late. But its interesting how they recall the events and when they occurred.

    Really funny line though, thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Because one is based on the other. Schwartz looks over and sees a man throw a woman to the ground. So he knows that this is not a very nice bloke with a tendency to violence. Then this bloke calls out “Lipski” at him which is a known anti-Semitic insult and, as Schwartz is Jewish, he very naturally assumes that not only is this an unpleasant, violent man but he might also dislike Jews. So he has a choice of going over to help or of scarpering? He chooses the latter. He doesn’t need to know the content or even the gist of the conversation between Stride and BS Man to make that decision.
    Does Liz have the choice of going into the yard or scarpering?

    If the situation is such that a man deemed it appropriate to flee incontinently, then why didn't the woman?
    All the more so given that the woman alone can understand the meaning of the words being spoken (if Schwartz is to be believed).

    It's incredible how well the non-English speaking male can read the signs, but not, it would seem, the English speaking female.
    Once again, this defies common sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    The club didn’t have a ‘position.’

    I would suggest that the Arbeter Fraint double event article, could be called the club's unofficial position.
    This differs in significant ways to club member's press statements and inquest testimony.

    However, you're right that the club has no position as such, and that it's all down to individual witnesses.
    Nonetheless, the club is still a collective, and in this case, a political one.
    A murder has occurred, in a sense, on their turf, so conflicting statements could be problematic.

    Individual witnesses were spoken to and gave their statements. Discrepancies are to be expected under the circumstances. The murder occurred sometime between Schwartz and Diemschutz. Any witnesses that don’t conform to this can easily be explained.

    It might not be that simple, in practice.

    The Echo: In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street...

    London Evening News: Diemschitz says he thinks it quite possible that after he had entered the yard the assassin may have fled out of it, having lurked in the gloom until a favourable moment arrived.

    So was the murderer witnessed fleeing the scene at about a quarter to one, or not?
    I would suggest that 'sometime between Schwartz and Diemschutz', is possibly too vague, and is a bit like Wess saying...

    It having come to my knowledge that the man who was seen by Mrs. Mortimer, of 36, Berner-street, passing her house "carrying a black shiny bag," who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road about the time the murder was supposed to have occurred, was a member of the club, ...

    Supposed to have a occurred? What time was that?
    The answer, I suppose, is; sometime between Schwartz and Diemschutz o'clock.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    If particular speech X, results in person Y supposing that Z is true or possibly so, then we should consider the possibility that the intention of X was for Y to suppose Z.

    Less abstractly, what do you suppose was the club's position (at least publicly), on when the murder occurred?
    Was it when or shortly after Schwartz was on Berner street, or was it just prior to Diemschitz' arrival, or did they give conflicting evidence and opinion?

    The club didn’t have a ‘position.’ Individual witnesses were spoken to and gave their statements. Discrepancies are to be expected under the circumstances. The murder occurred sometime between Schwartz and Diemschutz. Any witnesses that don’t conform to this can easily be explained.

    That is a very generic argument - it could apply to anyone making up any story - but it's not my fault if no one witnessed my far-fetched story!
    We know about possible/probable witnesses on Berner street, and in the club, so arguments about witnesses should generally refer to these people.
    He was lucky though that no one was watching the area around the yard say from 12.40 to 12.50. Maybe someone on a doorstep or looking out of a window.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post



    The capacity to recognize that a quarrel is occurring, and the decision to get involved in it, are two quite different things.
    Because one is based on the other. Schwartz looks over and sees a man throw a woman to the ground. So he knows that this is not a very nice bloke with a tendency to violence. Then this bloke calls out “Lipski” at him which is a known anti-Semitic insult and, as Schwartz is Jewish, he very naturally assumes that not only is this an unpleasant, violent man but he might also dislike Jews. So he has a choice of going over to help or of scarpering? He chooses the latter. He doesn’t need to know the content or even the gist of the conversation between Stride and BS Man to make that decision.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post

    Discredited, likely because no one saw or heard any of it.

    That would be because an incident on Berner street involving shouting, quarreling and screaming, not being noticed by anyone, defies common sense.


    But yet we have Swanson's report alluding to Schwartz possibly seeing just a not uncommon Whitechapel street hassle which is why he allowed for the possibility of Stride's killer coming along shortly after the B.S. man had left the scene.
    If particular speech X, results in person Y supposing that Z is true or possibly so, then we should consider the possibility that the intention of X was for Y to suppose Z.

    Less abstractly, what do you suppose was the club's position (at least publicly), on when the murder occurred?
    Was it when or shortly after Schwartz was on Berner street, or was it just prior to Diemschitz' arrival, or did they give conflicting evidence and opinion?

    Schwartz can hardly be blamed if no one else witnessed what he said took place. Could he be lying? Sure. But simply there being no other witnesses doesn't warrant that conclusion. Such things happen all the time.

    c.d.
    That is a very generic argument - it could apply to anyone making up any story - but it's not my fault if no one witnessed my far-fetched story!
    We know about possible/probable witnesses on Berner street, and in the club, so arguments about witnesses should generally refer to these people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Please explain how, for example, Morris Eagle saying that he first saw the body at 1.00 cites a discovery time of 12.40/12.45?

    Or how Hoschberg being alerted to events in the yard by a policeman's whistle confirms an earlier discovery time?

    Or how Spooner arriving 5 minutes before Lamb confirms an early discovery time?

    How are these, by any stretch of the wildest imagination, 'virtually identical?'
    Ok.......I’ll answer.....they’re not.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    The choice to not get involved in a quarrel, presupposes that the quarrel is occurring in a language that is understood.

    I disagree completely with that conclusion. Tone and loudness of voice, facial expressions and gestures probably indicate a quarrel is taking place even if the language is not understood.

    I recall being thrown out of a youth hostel in Germany many years ago by a very irate German woman. I have no idea what I did or what she was saying but it was pretty clear that the thrower outer was not happy with me. No translation needed.

    c.d.
    Originally posted by Bridewell View Post

    Why is it necessary to understand the language being spoken in order to appreciate that an altercation is taking place in which you don't want to get involved? The only word he quotes anyone as using was "Lipski" which is evidentially worthless in determining his knowledge of the English language.
    The capacity to recognize that a quarrel is occurring, and the decision to get involved in it, are two quite different things.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street.

    The choice to not get involved in a quarrel, presupposes that the quarrel is occurring in a language that is understood.
    That language was either Swedish (low probability), or English (high probability).
    Ergo, it is reasonable to assume that Schwartz could speak and understand English, at least moderately well.
    Why is it necessary to understand the language being spoken in order to appreciate that an altercation is taking place in which you don't want to get involved? The only word he quotes anyone as using was "Lipski" which is evidentially worthless in determining his knowledge of the English language.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    On the suggestion that club members were trying to distance themselves from the murder it’s difficult to see how they could have believed that the club might have been closed down in the first place (which is the motivation for the cover up?)

    A throat cutting murder of a woman at that time would naturally be connected to the ripper murders. Club members would have been well aware of this. Diemschutz arrival again very obviously would raise the possibility that he’d interrupted the killer. Is it believable the the members would have suspected that the po,ice would have blamed them for Jack the Ripper killing on their property? Could the police by any stretch of the imagination have used the murder as an excuse to have closed down the club? I don’t see it as at all likely.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    "A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises".
    Daily News, 1st Oct. 1888.

    If what is reported by the girl is true, Schwartz's story must be questioned, surely?

    Jon S.
    Do we have a time for this couple Wick? Aren't they the couple that Brown saw on his Chandler Shop visit?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Absolutely, nice to see the young coupled quoted too. No-one saw anything or anyone during the minutes Israel claimed he and three other people were in the street. 1 being Liz. And no less than 4 witnesses...once again....cite a discovery time around 12:40 and 12:45. Their stories are virtually identical, and so are the times given.
    Please explain how, for example, Morris Eagle saying that he first saw the body at 1.00 cites a discovery time of 12.40/12.45?

    Or how Hoschberg being alerted to events in the yard by a policeman's whistle confirms an earlier discovery time?

    Or how Spooner arriving 5 minutes before Lamb confirms an early discovery time?

    How are these, by any stretch of the wildest imagination, 'virtually identical?'

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X