Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Childishly simple to answer.

    Why doesn’t this ‘must have seen a clock’ rule apply to Eagle?

    Try honesty for change.
    From The Times account of the inquest 2 Oct 1888, witness: Eagle.
    Witness. - I think the policeman touched it, but the other persons appeared afraid to go near it. When I first saw the body of deceased, I should say it was about 1 o'clock, although I did not look at the clock.

    Herlock, if you are calling for honesty, it does you no credit to keep pretending that you are unaware of Eagle's statement. The "must of seen a clock" rule, as you put it, cannot apply to Eagle because he his admitting that, while there was a clock to be observed, he did not do so.

    Cheers, George
    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

    “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

      From The Times account of the inquest 2 Oct 1888, witness: Eagle.
      Witness. - I think the policeman touched it, but the other persons appeared afraid to go near it. When I first saw the body of deceased, I should say it was about 1 o'clock, although I did not look at the clock.

      Herlock, if you are calling for honesty, it does you no credit to keep pretending that you are unaware of Eagle's statement. The "must of seen a clock" rule, as you put it, cannot apply to Eagle because he his admitting that, while there was a clock to be observed, he did not do so.

      Cheers, George
      I don’t understand your reason for posting this George. The example is perfectly fair as far as I can see. The point I was making is that just because a clock existed at a location is doesn’t mean that the person must have looked at it. We can only assume that person did look at the clock if he specifically said so.

      However 2 men came from inside the club and would have had access to a clock
      As you can see from the above quote Michael assumes exactly as I stated above. The same assumption has been made before. I know very well that Eagle explicitly stated that he didn’t look at the clock and this illustrates the point I was making. We can’t say whether Koz and Hoschberg looked at the clock near to the discovery of the body. It’s reasonable of course to suggest the possibility that they looked at it at some point earlier in the evening and that’s how they estimated their times but we can’t state it as a fact and we can’t state at what time.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        I don’t understand your reason for posting this George. The example is perfectly fair as far as I can see. The point I was making is that just because a clock existed at a location is doesn’t mean that the person must have looked at it. We can only assume that person did look at the clock if he specifically said so.

        As you can see from the above quote Michael assumes exactly as I stated above. The same assumption has been made before. I know very well that Eagle explicitly stated that he didn’t look at the clock and this illustrates the point I was making. We can’t say whether Koz and Hoschberg looked at the clock near to the discovery of the body. It’s reasonable of course to suggest the possibility that they looked at it at some point earlier in the evening and that’s how they estimated their times but we can’t state it as a fact and we can’t state at what time.
        Hi Herlock,

        You keep using Eagle, Gilleman and Wess as validators of Diemshitz's "exactly 1:00" discovery of Stride's body. Eagle's guesstimate was deduced a series of estimates based on an unknown clock time, Gilleman never, AFAIK, said anything regarding time, and Wess wasn't even there when the body was found. The fact is that Diemshitz's last minute story of sighting the Harris clock is rendered suspect by both Lamb and Smith, and can't be legitimised by just adjusting police times to accomodate his alleged sighting. He would have more credibility if he stuck to his original story of arriving at his usual time of about one o'clock. Kozebrodski and Hoschberg made statements about time that can't just be dismissed out of hand as mistakes without any supporting evidence other than they don't agree with Diemshitz. We don't know if they looked at the clock, but we do know that Eagle didn't.

        I am not buying into conspiracy theories, but it is unimaginable that the club members would not have been concerned with the reaction of the public to a Ripper murder taking place near their premises. There had already been anti-semitic attacks on properties as a result of the Leather Apron allegations, and the GSG erasure was based on the same fears. However, I agree with Jeff when he said that adjusting times wasn't going to make any discernable difference to the public perception of the Stride murder.

        Cheers, George
        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

        “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          The fact is that Diemshitz's last minute story of sighting the Harris clock is rendered suspect by both Lamb and Smith, and can't be legitimised by just adjusting police times to accomodate his alleged sighting. He would have more credibility if he stuck to his original story of arriving at his usual time of about one o'clock.
          An interesting but possibly useless thought experiment would be to suppose that Diemschitz had actually said "about one o'clock", at the inquest. With all other other inquest testimony and press reports remaining the same, what time would we suppose Diemschitz arrival actually was? This is almost equivalent to asking; does other evidence support Diemschitz strongly, moderately, weakly, or was there just too much variation in clocks and watches, to give a solid answer?

          Perhaps this thought experiment would be a good idea, because normally people are asking/thinking "is what this witness says credible, given Diemschitz' statement about reading the Harris clock?", whereas this idea turns that thinking inside-out.

          I am not buying into conspiracy theories, but it is unimaginable that the club members would not have been concerned with the reaction of the public to a Ripper murder taking place near their premises. There had already been anti-semitic attacks on properties as a result of the Leather Apron allegations, and the GSG erasure was based on the same fears. However, I agree with Jeff when he said that adjusting times wasn't going to make any discernable difference to the public perception of the Stride murder.
          I envisage two general responses...

          Non-Purist: That is a reasonable distinction. Let me think about it...

          Purist: That is a slippery slope argument. Let's not go there.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Hi folks,

            I hardly dare interrupt; but I'm wondering if there's any substantial disagreement about the person who followed whatsisname all the way to the railway arch: is he someone about whose sighting there is serious doubt or agreement? In some ways, he's the most intriguing of the figures...

            Thanks for all observations.

            M.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

              Hi Herlock,

              You keep using Eagle, Gilleman and Wess as validators of Diemshitz's "exactly 1:00" discovery of Stride's body. Eagle's guesstimate was deduced a series of estimates based on an unknown clock time, Gilleman never, AFAIK, said anything regarding time, and Wess wasn't even there when the body was found. The fact is that Diemshitz's last minute story of sighting the Harris clock is rendered suspect by both Lamb and Smith, and can't be legitimised by just adjusting police times to accomodate his alleged sighting. He would have more credibility if he stuck to his original story of arriving at his usual time of about one o'clock. Kozebrodski and Hoschberg made statements about time that can't just be dismissed out of hand as mistakes without any supporting evidence other than they don't agree with Diemshitz. We don't know if they looked at the clock, but we do know that Eagle didn't.

              I am not buying into conspiracy theories, but it is unimaginable that the club members would not have been concerned with the reaction of the public to a Ripper murder taking place near their premises. There had already been anti-semitic attacks on properties as a result of the Leather Apron allegations, and the GSG erasure was based on the same fears. However, I agree with Jeff when he said that adjusting times wasn't going to make any discernable difference to the public perception of the Stride murder.

              Cheers, George
              Hello George,

              Another way of putting it might be - however we assess individual witnesses and however we compare there validity in relation to other witnesses the fact remains that, apart from Kozebrodski and Hoschberg (and Spooner saying the very obvious wrong 12.35) the bulk of the witnesses point us toward a discovery time of close to 1.00 (if not exactly 1.00, which I maintain is definite possibility, in fact I’ll go as far as saying that IMO Diemschutz discovered the body at 1.00) I’m not dismissing Kozebrodski and Hoschberg out of hand, I’m dismissing them because I believe that 12.45 is too far out and cannot be supported. You may disagree. NBFN may disagree. Michael may agree, but I and I’m guessing most interested in the subject (and who have all looked at the evidence and assessed it too) would agree with the Diemschutz discovery time. So at the very least it can’t be said that I’m agreeing with some far out theory.

              What we also have to consider is the police. They interviewed everyone. The results of those interviews don’t survive but what we can say for a fact is that the police (who also spoke to Kozebrodski and Hoschberg as well as Eagle, Gillman, Diemschutz and Mortimer and every single person on site) came to the firm conclusion that Diemschutz discovered the body at 1.00. They themselves heard what Hoschberg and Kozebrodski said and they themselves, with far fuller facts than we have, dismissed them. So I’ll go with the people who were there on the scene and spoke to witnesses face to face.

              On your last point George we will have to agree to disagree. I don’t think that the club members would have thought for a second that they’d get blamed and punished for a ripper murder. And if, as has been suggested recently, the body was discovered at 12.45 and Eagle was found at around 12.50 they didn’t really have time to stand around weighing things up. Not that I think for a minute that she was discovered at 12.45 of course.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


                Just for once, please stop twisting everything. And no we don’t have evidence that Diemschutz didn’t find the body.

                Everything else is speculation, interpretation and, in some quarters, an unhealthy dose of manipulation.
                You need to stop presuming that your opinion on this matter is the final answer, its quite obviously not, and that isnt about whether you can be considered credble enough to have an opinion, youve spewing nothing but opinion to make whatever point you are trying to keep afloat.

                Just a bit about that first line, we have in fact equal amounts of proof that Diemshitz did or didnt actually find the body since there is no actual evidence presented to validate either perception. Him saying he arrived at 1 is essentially hearsay and not evidence of anything other than what time he claimed to arrive. Saying Mrs D validates that, or that Eagle does, is ludicrous. Of course neither could because they didnt actually see him arrive according to their own statements.

                The facts are that Louis may have lied about what time he actually arrived, there is evidence in the form of multiple corroborative statements to that question which suggest it may have been much earlier than he claimed, and the facts are that Eagle and Lave could not be in the same place at the same time and not see each other. The fact is that Lamb said he arrived in the passageway with Eagle before 1am. The facts are that at least 1 witnesses who said he was summoned to the passage at 12:40 from inside the club says he spoke with Louis at that time, outside, by the body. The facts are that not one other person sees Eagle return or what time that happened, or saw Louis return and at what time. The facts are that with a few witnesses having a view to the street from 12:35 until 1am all described the street as empty until Goldstein is seen before 1am passing the gates. The facts are that despite the claims of a witness, not one other person saw Liz Stride alive after 12:35, a Broad shouldered Man, a man smoking a pipe and a theatrical looking Jew at 12:45 outside the gates on the street. Not one other witness claimed to hear anything at that time.

                Using the "facts" that have substance, which are statements that have at least some verification by a secondary independent source, Eagle must have gone for help before Lamb saw him, Issac must also have gone out before seeing Eagle and Lamb on the streets. If Lamb saw them before 1am, then the body was discovered sometime earlier when Eagle and Issac first leave the location to go for help. Ergo, it was not first discovered by Louis when he claimed to have arrived at 1am. It may well be Louis that first discovers the body, but it would be well before 1am if so.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Hi Herlock,

                  You keep using Eagle, Gilleman and Wess as validators of Diemshitz's "exactly 1:00" discovery of Stride's body. Eagle's guesstimate was deduced a series of estimates based on an unknown clock time, Gilleman never, AFAIK, said anything regarding time, and Wess wasn't even there when the body was found. The fact is that Diemshitz's last minute story of sighting the Harris clock is rendered suspect by both Lamb and Smith, and can't be legitimised by just adjusting police times to accomodate his alleged sighting. He would have more credibility if he stuck to his original story of arriving at his usual time of about one o'clock. Kozebrodski and Hoschberg made statements about time that can't just be dismissed out of hand as mistakes without any supporting evidence other than they don't agree with Diemshitz. We don't know if they looked at the clock, but we do know that Eagle didn't.

                  I am not buying into conspiracy theories, but it is unimaginable that the club members would not have been concerned with the reaction of the public to a Ripper murder taking place near their premises. There had already been anti-semitic attacks on properties as a result of the Leather Apron allegations, and the GSG erasure was based on the same fears. However, I agree with Jeff when he said that adjusting times wasn't going to make any discernable difference to the public perception of the Stride murder.

                  Cheers, George
                  George,

                  Ill expand on how I interpret Eagle against Hoschberg and Koz.

                  We can’t say that any of them checked a clock just before being told that there was a body in the yard but we know for a fact that Eagle didn’t. I’d say that we can be confident that Hoschberg didn’t either as he said “about 12.45 I should think,” which leaves us in no doubt that he hadn’t just seen a clock as he was clearly estimating. I might also add that when called he had no reason to have checked the time. This in itself doesn’t preclude him from checking a clock of course but I’d say that were on safe ground to say that it appears that all 3 were estimating and we have no definitive way of assessing how they came by their times (and by that I mean - when they’d previously seen a clock or had been informed of the time by someone)

                  And so we’re left to try and interpret who had the most reason to have checked a clock at some point fairly near to the discovery of the body.

                  Hoschberg/Koz were in the club and there was a clock but everything that I said in my first paragraph applies.

                  So did Eagle have more reason? Well we know that he went to walk his girlfriend home. This introduces the reasonable possibility that she was expected home no later than a certain time. She might have told Eagle the time. Something like “look at the time, I’d better be off.” Or indeed Eagle himself might have noticed that it was time for her to go home (remember Eagle was only saying that he didn’t check the clock when Gillman called him and like the other two he’d have needed to have known the time at some point to have been able to have estimated 1.00) Remember, I’m not stating this as a fact, I’m just suggesting plausible (IMO) opportunities. Then he walks her home which introduces 2 points. a) that he might have passed a clock on his journey or heard a chime? And b) that he might have learned the time when he’d arrived at his girlfriends house? (Maybe her father checking her return time) Then he returned to the club completing 2 short journeys that he’d probably done numerous times and so it would have been easy to have estimate the duration fairly accurately.

                  Now I’ll stress again that I’m not stating anything here as a fact except for the obvious. And so when I assess Eagle against Hoschberg and Koz I give Eagle more weight. He had more plausible, possible reasons to have been aware of the time that the other two.

                  ​​​​​​…..

                  So I add this to Diemschutz and to Brown who heard them go for the police and Lamb (yes we can debate the minutiae of clock synchronicity) but his “about” 1.00 or “just before” 1.00 speaks more of a time nearer to 1.00 than it does of one nearer to 12.45. And finally, an earlier time for the Lamb/Eagle meeting gives us an increased gap between the time they arrived at the yard and the time that 426H got to Blackwell’s (which Johnston estimated at between 1.05 and 1.10.) so if Lamb arrived at the yard at 12.50 why did it take 426H 15 or 20 minutes to get to an address which I believe was only a short distance away (FrankO did say how far but I’ve forgotten)

                  Therefore I believe that what’s known as the ‘official version’ is correct (with a reasonable + or - of course)

                  If that assessment is considered unreasonable then the case is impossible to discuss.

                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    You need to stop presuming that your opinion on this matter is the final answer, its quite obviously not, and that isnt about whether you can be considered credble enough to have an opinion, youve spewing nothing but opinion to make whatever point you are trying to keep afloat.

                    Just a bit about that first line, we have in fact equal amounts of proof that Diemshitz did or didnt actually find the body since there is no actual evidence presented to validate either perception. Him saying he arrived at 1 is essentially hearsay and not evidence of anything other than what time he claimed to arrive. Saying Mrs D validates that, or that Eagle does, is ludicrous. Of course neither could because they didnt actually see him arrive according to their own statements.

                    The facts are that Louis may have lied about what time he actually arrived, there is evidence in the form of multiple corroborative statements to that question which suggest it may have been much earlier than he claimed, and the facts are that Eagle and Lave could not be in the same place at the same time and not see each other. The fact is that Lamb said he arrived in the passageway with Eagle before 1am. The facts are that at least 1 witnesses who said he was summoned to the passage at 12:40 from inside the club says he spoke with Louis at that time, outside, by the body. The facts are that not one other person sees Eagle return or what time that happened, or saw Louis return and at what time. The facts are that with a few witnesses having a view to the street from 12:35 until 1am all described the street as empty until Goldstein is seen before 1am passing the gates. The facts are that despite the claims of a witness, not one other person saw Liz Stride alive after 12:35, a Broad shouldered Man, a man smoking a pipe and a theatrical looking Jew at 12:45 outside the gates on the street. Not one other witness claimed to hear anything at that time.

                    Using the "facts" that have substance, which are statements that have at least some verification by a secondary independent source, Eagle must have gone for help before Lamb saw him, Issac must also have gone out before seeing Eagle and Lamb on the streets. If Lamb saw them before 1am, then the body was discovered sometime earlier when Eagle and Issac first leave the location to go for help. Ergo, it was not first discovered by Louis when he claimed to have arrived at 1am. It may well be Louis that first discovers the body, but it would be well before 1am if so.
                    I haven’t read this post and have no intention of doing so. I know it’s biased nonsense.

                    And it’s not my opinion……it’s pretty much the entirety of ripperology’s who consider you’re theory a joke. So continue to sit in the corner spouting. I have better things to do.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post
                      Hi folks,

                      I hardly dare interrupt; but I'm wondering if there's any substantial disagreement about the person who followed whatsisname all the way to the railway arch: is he someone about whose sighting there is serious doubt or agreement? In some ways, he's the most intriguing of the figures...

                      Thanks for all observations.

                      M.
                      Hello Mark.

                      Yes there is disagreement. I have a completely different view of what is going on with the man who supposedly followed Schwartz. Let me get back with the details, fairly soon.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        George,

                        Ill expand on how I interpret Eagle against Hoschberg and Koz.

                        You dont have to, nor were you asked to, interpret anything. You have quotes, but you dont like what they suggest so you decide what they merely meant. Just like the Monty Python sketch. Or where they made their errors. But Eagles a liar anyway....or what I merely meant is that he must just have been confused about the questions. He cannot be considered accurate with his time or other aspects of what he says because he was out looking for help just after 12:40, and back with Lamb BEFORE 1AM. When he says he went inside for a while, passing by a spot where "he couldnt be sure" whether Liz Stride was lying there, and where Lave says he was standing at the time and didnt see Eagle arrive.....its all bull the way they told it. Just Like Louis. And Israel.

                        Since you havent grasped where you lost your way, Lamb seeing the men before 1am should have been your lifeline to reason....the police are among the most trustworthy witnesses for times...as you been told over, and over, and over....
                        Last edited by Michael W Richards; 11-11-2021, 07:41 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          I’m not dismissing Kozebrodski and Hoschberg out of hand, I’m dismissing them because I believe that 12.45 is too far out and cannot be supported.
                          This is not the right way to consider the evidence of these witnesses. Kozebrodsky's 12:40 estimate may not have been the actual clock time, but his estimate still contributes to the weight of evidence. Same for Herschburg. Dismissing a time estimate is equivalent to sponging out the GSG - it is destroying evidence.

                          You may disagree. NBFN may disagree. Michael may agree, but I and I’m guessing most interested in the subject (and who have all looked at the evidence and assessed it too) would agree with the Diemschutz discovery time. So at the very least it can’t be said that I’m agreeing with some far out theory.
                          I think James Brown would have agreed with Diemschitz discovery time.

                          I did not know deceased, but I saw her about a quarter to one on Sunday morning last.

                          I was going from my house to the chandler's shop at the corner of the Berner-street and Fairclough-street, to get some supper. I stayed there three or four minutes, and then went back home, when I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of the Board School. I was in the road just by the kerb, and they were near the wall.

                          When I had nearly finished my supper I heard screams of "Murder" and "Police." This was a quarter of an hour after I had got home.


                          James Brown seems to have heard the screams at close to 1am. They were loud screams. Neither he nor the board school couple nor anyone else heard the screams at 12:45, because they were quiet screams. The sound of these screams did not travel the 20 yards necessary for these people to have heard them. In fact these screams were so quiet, I'm sure Schwartz could barely hear them himself.
                          Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 11-11-2021, 07:46 PM.
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            This is not the right way to consider the evidence of these witnesses. Kozebrodsky's 12:40 estimate may not have been the actual clock time, but his estimate still contributes to the weight of evidence. Same for Herschburg. Dismissing a time estimate is equivalent to sponging out the GSG - it is destroying evidence.


                            James Brown seems to have heard the screams at close to 1am. They were loud screams. Neither he nor the board school couple nor anyone else heard the screams at 12:45, because they were quiet screams. The sound of these screams did not travel the 20 yards necessary for these people to have heard them. In fact these screams were so quiet, I'm sure Schwartz could barely hear them himself.
                            On the first paragraph, I obviously agree and have been trying to point that out repeatedly.

                            On the second, Mortimer also joined in the group shortly after 1, she heard noise also. That doesnt mean thats when the body was first discovered, it means someone there was shocked or scared to the point of vocalizing it. The same way that "oh-murder" didnt indicate someone was being murdered at that same moment in Millers Court. Sarah and Mary were both awake and listening after that, and neither heard anything.

                            Also, where is it written that "lipski" was "screamed" quietly?, the man apparently was calling to someone across the road. How do we know what a scuffle with 2 people wearing boots on cobblestones sounded like? Or men running down the road. Fanny heard bootsteps pass by while she was indoors.

                            Last edited by Michael W Richards; 11-11-2021, 08:45 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              You dont have to, nor were you asked to, interpret anything. You have quotes, but you dont like what they suggest so you decide what they merely meant. Just like the Monty Python sketch. Or where they made their errors. But Eagles a liar anyway....or what I merely meant is that he must just have been confused about the questions. He cannot be considered accurate with his time or other aspects of what he says because he was out looking for help just after 12:40, and back with Lamb BEFORE 1AM. When he says he went inside for a while, passing by a spot where "he couldnt be sure" whether Liz Stride was lying there, and where Lave says he was standing at the time and didnt see Eagle arrive.....its all bull the way they told it. Just Like Louis. And Israel.

                              Since you havent grasped where you lost your way, Lamb seeing the men before 1am should have been your lifeline to reason....the police are among the most trustworthy witnesses for times...as you been told over, and over, and over....
                              I’m not going to keep wasting my time reading your comedic interludes. You’re theory is held as a joke in ripperology. It was dismissed and derided 20 years ago and it still is today. It was created for utterly self-serving and cynical motives. You believed that Nichols and Chapman were killed by Issendschmidt but unfortunately he wasn’t available to kill Stride and Eddowes so you needed a plan to explain this. Lo and behold up pops your silly theory that the club members would think that the police would blame them for the rippers actions and you try and prove the unprovable…that the ripper definitely wasn’t a ripper victim. Most people prefer honesty. This waffle has been shredded so many times but you cling to it like a baby with a comfort blanket. So much so that you will stoop to any depths of manipulation, avoidance and fantasy to prop it up. You’re one man jumping up and down shout “but I’m right, I’m right” and the whole world is telling you that you’re not whilst barely suppressing a snig ger. Try starting a fiction thread and post there with those that agree with you……..​​​​​……..on your own.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                              Comment


                              • But of course, dismissing Mckenzie, who is more a ripper victim than Stride ever will, to support a Druitt theory is very welcome and accepted!

                                Double standards! Some only need a mirror to see themselves.


                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X