Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

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

  • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    Mortimer also confirms that Diemshutz arrived around 1am.
    Actually Mortimer confirms she heard a cart and horse while inside her house, its you folks that automatically have put Louis on that cart, not her. Same with the boot steps she heard, not only does she not know whose boots they belonged to, but both men and women wore boots at that time. All would sound the same on cobbles.

    If she offers a suggestion as to what she may have heard...such as policemans boots, and the return of Diemshitz, thats just her interpretation of the sounds, not a confirmation that a policeman had walked past her door and she heard Louis arriving.

    On that cart and horse sound, it would be interesting to see what people have decided happened to them once the mayhem began. They were not stabled there.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

      Since there is no record of Israel Scwartz, or of his story...either in part or in full, in any identified documents regarding the Inquest into the death of Liz Stride, nor any press documents publishing the transcripts from the Inquest itself....the answer would have to be yes, wouldnt it? Why thats still debated is a puzzle.

      Israel Schwartz, having given his story on Sunday evening, prior to the Inquest being opened, was not involved at all in the presentation of evidence gathered concerning Liz Strides death, nor any official documents concerning it. Some officials believed in him anyway.
      He’s not asking you if you think that Schwartz wasn’t at the inquest; we know that he wasn’t. He’s asking you - do you think that you know for a fact why he wasn't at the inquest.

      And if you answer yes I’d like to ask you to present your proof.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

        On that cart and horse sound, it would be interesting to see what people have decided happened to them once the mayhem began. They were not stabled there.
        [Coroner] What did you do with the pony? - I left it in the yard by itself, just outside the club door.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

        Comment


        • So what we have is Fanny Mortimer saying that she heard a horse and cart pass at around 1.00.

          Question - in a pretty much deserted Whitechapel backstreet a horse and cart is heard entering the street at around the exact same time that Diemschitz said that he entered the street on his horse and cart. So what is likeliest, a) the horse and cart belonged to Diemschitz, or b) Diemschitz lied (with no one seeing or hearing him arrive at any other time) and another horse and cart coincidentally showed up in this backstreet at just that time?

          It’s not a tough one is it? The cart was Louis Diemschitz returning at around 1.00 just as he said that he did.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

          Comment


          • Issac Kozebroski says he was called by Louis Diemshitz, who he referred to as Mr., at "about 20 minutes to 1". Issac had been inside, the club would have had a visible timepiece being a venue that held speeches, plays and other events. Issac also says he was "sent" by Louis or some "other member" for help. Abe Heschberg said he was alerted "about quarter to 1". Edward Spooner says he thought he accompanied Louis and some other member, (who is on record as being Issac[s]"), not Issac Kozebrodski...who said he was sent out, not accompanied out), as they returned to the club.. after first heading to Fairclough. He says that was "between half-past twelve and one o'clock". Issac Kozebroski finds Eagle at Commercial as Eagle has garnered the attention of PC Lamb, and returns to the club with them.

            And its at this point in time, once Eagle and Lamb and Kozebrodski are already heading back, that we are told by Louis Diemshitz that he is just arriving at the gates.

            This is why I suggest that despite the admirable efforts to recreate steps and times of witnesses....(which is based on a direct A-B progress, without a missed step here or there...or a pause factored in), the above is enough to indicate that based on Louis's timing, all the witness activity recorded up until the time Lamb, Eagle and Issac return to the gates must have happened AFTER 1am. Not 15-20 minutes before the time he claims he even arrived, which is the time multiple witnesses stated they saw and heard Louis and knew of the body in the passageway.

            And If those multiple witnesses were right....then what do we make of Lave and Eagle statements for around 12:40-12:45? Or Israels claims about a sighting on the street right out front of the gates at 12:45?

            If Louis gave an accurate arrival time, then it would be likely that Lamb, Eagle and Issac Kozebrodski actually arrived 10-15 minutes after 1am. After Johnson says he was already there, and 1 minute before Blackwell is there.

            For those who seek to validate an argument supporting Louis's stated arrival time, you would unfortunately be left with ONLY Louis having the correct time, and everyone else being wrong.....Issac K, Abe, Spooner, Lamb, Blackwell and Phillips. Fanny, who was at her door until 1 and saw nothing arriving, would have her time also wrong by 10-15 minutes.

            Anyone who is satisfied with that kind or argument probably shouldnt be debating it with people who can cite evidence that directly contradicts Louis, and evidence that within the known scientific and physical realm, actions that result from an impetus cannot take place before that impetus is present.

            Ergo.....Eagle Lamb and Issac could not have arrived together at the gates at 1 if Louis is just arriving at 1.
            Last edited by Michael W Richards; 05-13-2024, 03:37 PM.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • The general tone of the press regarding Schwartz's story was to portray him as somewhat of a coward, who ran off and let the woman die without at least confronting the perpetrator.
              That is easier said than done and the automated "fight or flight" response exhibited by Schwartz is not something to be criticized.
              If Schwartz was requested to attend the Inquest, then he had no legal mandatory obligation to attend, and if he had the choice, he may have decided he did not want to appear for fear of being judged or ridiculed for just running away and not helping a woman in perilous need.

              It could just be as simple as that.

              The only thing that is a fact, is that we know for certain there was no mandatory obligation for him to attend the inquest, because otherwise he would have appeared because he would of had no choice but to obey the law.

              So that proves he wasn't requested.


              Whether not being quested to attend, and not being
              needed to attend amount to the same thing, is down to opinion.

              The only way for him to have been requested and not attending would involve him braking the law and then going on the run/not being findable by the police. But I doubt this was the case with Schwartz.



              RD
              "Great minds, don't think alike"

              Comment


              • Does such a thing as a "request" to attend an inquest actually exist? I am asking because I don't know. I was under the impression that your appearance was mandatory.

                c.d.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                  Does such a thing as a "request" to attend an inquest actually exist? I am asking because I don't know. I was under the impression that your appearance was mandatory.

                  c.d.
                  This is from our current Judicial Code regarding Inquest witnesses, but I suppose its likely similar to what was the criteria to get witness statements back then...."A coroner can require any person by summons to provide relevant testimony or documentary evidence at the inquest. As such, even if a person or entity elects not to participate in an inquest, they may be compelled to give evidence and testify at the public hearings."
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Thank you, Michael. That is what I thought. So there are legal repercussions for ignoring a subpoena and it is not like politely turning down a wedding invitation.

                    c.d.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      He’s not asking you if you think that Schwartz wasn’t at the inquest; we know that he wasn’t. He’s asking you - do you think that you know for a fact why he wasn't at the inquest.

                      And if you answer yes I’d like to ask you to present your proof.
                      I did. "Since there is no record of Israel Scwartz, or of his story...either in part or in full, in any identified documents regarding the Inquest into the death of Liz Stride, nor any press documents publishing the transcripts from the Inquest itself....the answer would have to be yes, wouldnt it?​"

                      You guys have this all backwards. If you believe that despite what I just posted that Israel, his story, and the recorded followup on his claim WERE a part of the Inquest, then YOU have to provide proof of that. Ive already stated that they do not mention in any way Israel or his story. So, youd like to imagine he was a part of it.

                      So...what records can you show us that support he did attend, was a registered witness, and that his story is now part of the official Inquest transcript?

                      I would suggest looking to see if any documents have been sealed or somehow missed over the past 130 years plus of research.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                        Thank you, Michael. That is what I thought. So there are legal repercussions for ignoring a subpoena and it is not like politely turning down a wedding invitation.

                        c.d.
                        Your welcome cd. Now, how might that affect your opinion on Schwartz and the Inquest...if at all.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          So what we have is Fanny Mortimer saying that she heard a horse and cart pass at around 1.00.

                          Question - in a pretty much deserted Whitechapel backstreet a horse and cart is heard entering the street at around the exact same time that Diemschitz said that he entered the street on his horse and cart. So what is likeliest, a) the horse and cart belonged to Diemschitz, or b) Diemschitz lied (with no one seeing or hearing him arrive at any other time) and another horse and cart coincidentally showed up in this backstreet at just that time?

                          It’s not a tough one is it? The cart was Louis Diemschitz returning at around 1.00 just as he said that he did.
                          Or maybe being led away to stable in George Yard? I mentioned the cart and horse before. You evidently arent concerned whether anyone states they were there throughout the police questioning.

                          Or maybe, since Stride had already been found by 1am, it was some cart and some horse that nobody paid attention to, their focus being the dying woman.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Sorry, but you somehow misinterpreted the question that was asked of you, Michael. The question has nothing to do with his attendance or non-attendance. The question was do you know for a fact why he did not appear or are you simply stating your opinion as to why?

                            c.d.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              I did. "Since there is no record of Israel Scwartz, or of his story...either in part or in full, in any identified documents regarding the Inquest into the death of Liz Stride, nor any press documents publishing the transcripts from the Inquest itself....the answer would have to be yes, wouldnt it?​"

                              You guys have this all backwards. If you believe that despite what I just posted that Israel, his story, and the recorded followup on his claim WERE a part of the Inquest, then YOU have to provide proof of that. Ive already stated that they do not mention in any way Israel or his story. So, youd like to imagine he was a part of it.

                              So...what records can you show us that support he did attend, was a registered witness, and that his story is now part of the official Inquest transcript?

                              I would suggest looking to see if any documents have been sealed or somehow missed over the past 130 years plus of research.
                              How can you not understand this Michael!??

                              No one is saying, suggesting or hinting that Schwartz attended the inquest. I’ll say it again - no one is claiming that Israel Schwartz attended the inquest because he certainly didn’t. Ok…..

                              The question that c.d. was asking was - do you, Michael Richards, believe that you categorically know why he didn’t attend? Are you making that claim?

                              Then I added the quested - if you do claim to know why he didn’t attend could you provide the proof.


                              I really can’t make this clearer for you Michael.

                              And just to avoid any wiggle room I’ll quote the actual question that c.d. put to you.

                              Michael, can we please put this whole inquest business to bed once and for all? Do you know for a fact why Schwartz wasn't called to the inquest?​“

                              See?

                              Do you know for a fact WHY he didn’t attend.

                              Not IF he attended.
                              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-13-2024, 05:51 PM.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                                Your welcome cd. Now, how might that affect your opinion on Schwartz and the Inquest...if at all.
                                It doesn't since I don't know why he did not appear in the first place.

                                c.d.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X