If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Comes from French "bis" (meaning "twice") and "cuit" ("cooked"), referring to the two-stage method originally used to produce them. The first stage was to bake the dough, the second stage was to harden them by drying them in the oven.
Well, that sounds more like a cookie than a biscuit. So once again, the British term makes more sense than the American. I happen to also prefer that Brits refer to the first floor of a building as 'first floor' whereas here we say 'ground floor' and call the 2nd floor the 'first floor'. I've discovered that when writing the Tabram murder for a mixed crowd of Brits and Americans it's hard to keep this straight for the reader.
still trying to figure out why Brits refer to cookies as 'biscuits'.
Comes from French "bis" (meaning "twice") and "cuit" ("cooked"), referring to the two-stage method originally used to produce them. The first stage was to bake the dough, the second stage was to harden them by drying them in the oven.
If you postulate that Schwartz is lying, you create a scenario in which a man gives himself a bogus justification for having run away from the scene of a murder. Such a scenario would have made Schwartz so suspect that an arrest would be more than justified. Is there anything to suggest that such an arrest was ever made? If not, I hold to the belief that the account given by Schwartz was seen as credible.
The fact that the time he gives (12.45am) doesn't accord with those given by other witnesses is of small consequence to anyone who accepts that all such timings can only be approximate, depending on how the individual witness arrived at the time given. Did he/she own a watch? If so, was it accurate and reliable? If not, how was the time arrived at? Guesswork, approximation, a rough calculation of the time which had elapsed since that witness last saw a clock (or heard it chime); then the accuracy, or otherwise of that clock and of the subsequent calculation. All timings have to be seen as approximate. I realise that this is not liked by those who wish to draw hard and fast conclusions based on an assumption of accuracy in such timings. The fact remains that no such assumption can be justified.
If more evidence is needed of the approximate nature of the times given by various witnesses, we need do no more than note how often the minutes of such times are divisible by five, It's not coincidental.
"She had just pulled the packet out from her pocket, or had been handed the packet by someone, then the attack commenced."
Now you're talking.
Cheers.
LC
Hi Lynn.
Either way, there seems to be a disconnect from the assault by BS-man.
She likely did not have them in her hand when BS-man pushed her down.
I would like to see an add from a 19th century British newspaper which shows what cachous did look like then.
Not modern images available on Wiki, but contemporary images.
Swanson knew more about the Whitechapel Murders than anyone and, in the absence of Anderson (who was out of the country until the Double Event), remained the de facto head of the enquiry. Who was in a position to tell him that he was in error?
In regards to someone telling Swanson that he made a boo boo by reporting old news, I can see that happening and then Schwartz never being talked about again. Sound familiar? Because that's what has happened!
Swanson knew more about the Whitechapel Murders than anyone and, in the absence of Anderson (who was out of the country until the Double Event), remained the de facto head of the enquiry. Who was in a position to tell him that he was in error?
Leave a comment: