The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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)

I don't think Lamb arrived that early myself. However, let's say for the sake of argument that he did arrive a few minutes before 1am, or at least no later than 1am. Blackwell and Kaye's surgery was about 1 minutes jog away from Dutfield's Yard. Perhaps 90 seconds. So Ayliffe should be meeting Johnston, well before 1:05. It's as though Ayliffe did not go directly to the surgery. Is that possible?

What does Arbeter Fraint say about relative and arrival times?

Dimshits, Eygel and Gilyarovsky ran to look for a policeman; ten minutes later they had found a pair of peace-keepers.

Assuming this to be true, this would take us from 12:50 to 1am, at the latest. Continuing...

One of the policemen ran for a doctor, and Morris Eygel ran to the police station on Leman Street to report the murder. In the meantime, the commotion about the murder drew people, and the street that had been asleep began to become lively.

So Ayliffe runs for a doctor, as we know. He should really be arriving at about 1:02, at the latest. From that point, Johnston should be getting to the yard no more than 5 minutes later. So what does AF say next...?

The doctor arrived ten minutes later along with a lot of policemen.

Ten minutes later? That would take us from 1:00 to 1:10. Possibly a little later, as this assumes the time that elapses from the finding of the police to Ayliffe's departure, to be zero seconds. According to Johnston, Dr. Blackwell arrived 3 or 4 minutes after he did, and on checking his watch on arrival, Blackwell read 1:16. So it all works out to within a few minutes or even less.

Tentative conclusion: Ayliffe's round trip to the surgery, took significantly longer than is normally supposed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Point me to the post where I say that I dismiss Mackenzie as a victim…….I’ll wait.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Right. The 'commotion time' could be minutes after the discovery.

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.

I was being sarcastic. Schwartz' story is fake.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Schwartz' story is fake.

Opinion as fact…..again.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Opinion as fact…..again.

It is a fact, and not an opinion, that a quiet scream is an oxymoron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Point me to the post where I say that I dismiss Mackenzie as a victim…….I’ll wait.

Previously I’d accused The Baron of making no contribution to a thread before just appearing from nowhere to have a dig at me using Druitt (even when Druitt has nothing to do with the subject at hand) I recall one poster doubting this…..well, lo and behold here we go again.


Ill tell you what Baron. I’ll help you on the accusation that I claim that Mackenzie definitely wasn’t a victim ok…….there’s this

“Im doubtful about Mackenzie as a ripper victim (although she might have been one) but her murder is far, far more similar to a ripper murder than that of Ellen Bury.?

Or this….

“ I’ve always admitted the possibility that she might have been but that it’s a point that’s been debated without conclusion for years”

Or this….

“It’s pointless for you to keep resorting to this desperation. Tabram and Mackenzie were not definite ripper victims. They might have been; they might not have been”

Or this….

“Just a very simple example. You speak of the Mackenzie murder as if it’s an accepted fact that she was a ripper victim. This poll showed that 27 posters felt that she was and 21 thought that she wasn’t and 19 were undecided.”

Or this…..

“This doesn’t prove anything at all but it certainly shows that it’s far from being proven that she was a victim”

Or this…..

“She might or might not have been. No one can possibly know because we weren’t there.”

…….

Don’t anyone hold their breath for The Baron to apologise and admit that he’s wrong even though I’ve proved beyond doubt that he is. It never happens. He says stuff like this then he usually disappears and hopes that I’ll forget.

Ok Baron, let’s see you try and wriggle out of this one.

[Michael W Richards]

Opinion as fact…..again.

Ok, Schwartz' story was considered irrelevant to the question of how Liz Stride dies by the people organizing the Inquest witnesses. So why keep using it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is a fact, and not an opinion, that a quiet scream is an oxymoron

No it’s not a fact. Schwartz spoke no English. He was working through an interpreter. Poor use of language or a mistranslation.

”…screamed three times, but not very loudly.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, Schwartz' story was considered irrelevant to the question of how Liz Stride dies by the people organizing the Inquest witnesses. So why keep using it?

Because the aims of the Inquest are different from the aims of a Police Investigation.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No it’s not a fact. Schwartz spoke no English. He was working through an interpreter. Poor use of language or a mistranslation.

”…screamed three times, but not very loudly.”

Moderately loud screams would have been heard by everyone in the vicinity. They were heard by no one. Schwartz' story is a pile of garbage.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Moderately loud screams would have been heard by everyone in the vicinity. They were heard by no one. Schwartz' story is a pile of garbage.

What person with a good understanding of the English language would use the phrase “scream but not very loudly?” You’re reading between lines. He could simply have meant ‘called out but not very loudly.’

But hey, I don’t mind. Keep claiming opinion as fact. It just goes to prove what I’ve been saying all along.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What person with a good understanding of the English language would use the phrase “scream but not very loudly?” You’re reading between lines. He could simply have meant ‘called out but not very loudly.’

That's BS, man

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Mark,

My reading of the interviews suggests that Schwartz was stepping off the kerb on the north east corner of Fairclough and Berner, on his way to his new home in Ellen St, when Pipeman made a move toward him. Schwartz then hurried away south along Berner St to the Arches, but he said he did not know how far pipeman followed, whether he was following him or just also avoiding the altercation, or whether Pipeman and BS were accomplices. Andrew does not agree with my view.

I agree that Pipeman is a person of interest, and would have to be included on any suspect list.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's BS, man

No, it’s the rational acceptance that not everyone uses language in the same way. It’s the acceptance that Schwartz words come down to us via an interpreter which adds a possibility of misinterpretation. It’s also the acceptance that what you’ve claimed about knowing for a fact that Schwartz lied simply can’t be true. How loud is not very loud? How do we quantify it? Can we even begin to be sure that that someone ‘must’ have heard whatever sound she made? You can suspect it; you can even speculate but if you try and state it as true then you’re definitely stating an opinion as fact.

We also have to consider Schwartz himself. It’s not impossible that he lied of course but we have to ask why he would? The 15 minutes of fame argument surely holds a little less weight in the those days. And how unaware would he have had to have been about simple facts? If he wasn’t there then he couldn’t have know who might have been there in that vicinity. Someone that could have easily had him branded a liar. How stupid would he have had to have been not to have realised this?

Then we have to consider experienced officers like Abberline. Could he have been fooled? Certainly, he was human. But he still interviewed him face to face and was in a massively better position than we are to have judged Schwartz. He wouldn’t have recognised the term ‘body language’ but he’d have had experience of liars. Not proof of course but it’s still in favour of Schwartz.

An incident of a few seconds containing no really loud noise in a backstreet with hardly anyone around. And those that were around could easily have missed him. There’s no valid reason of any real weight to suggest that Schwartz lied. So unless someone comes up with real proof I’ll continue to say that he was likely to have been there and that he saw some kind of incident between 2 people. One of whom was almost certainly Stride.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Previously I’d accused The Baron of making no contribution to a thread before just appearing from nowhere to have a dig at me using Druitt (even when Druitt has nothing to do with the subject at hand) I recall one poster doubting this…..well, lo and behold here we go again.


Ill tell you what Baron. I’ll help you on the accusation that I claim that Mackenzie definitely wasn’t a victim ok…….there’s this

“Im doubtful about Mackenzie as a ripper victim (although she might have been one) but her murder is far, far more similar to a ripper murder than that of Ellen Bury.?

Or this….

“ I’ve always admitted the possibility that she might have been but that it’s a point that’s been debated without conclusion for years”

Or this….

“It’s pointless for you to keep resorting to this desperation. Tabram and Mackenzie were not definite ripper victims. They might have been; they might not have been”

Or this….

“Just a very simple example. You speak of the Mackenzie murder as if it’s an accepted fact that she was a ripper victim. This poll showed that 27 posters felt that she was and 21 thought that she wasn’t and 19 were undecided.”

Or this…..

“This doesn’t prove anything at all but it certainly shows that it’s far from being proven that she was a victim”

Or this…..

“She might or might not have been. No one can possibly know because we weren’t there.”

…….

Don’t anyone hold their breath for The Baron to apologise and admit that he’s wrong even though I’ve proved beyond doubt that he is. It never happens. He says stuff like this then he usually disappears and hopes that I’ll forget.

Ok Baron, let’s see you try and wriggle out of this one.

No response from The Baron I see.

What a surprise.