Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[Michael W Richards]

I was meant to state that IF Schwartz was asked to attend the Inquest, then he WAS legally required to do so.

And his non-attendance tells us what?

c.d.

He wasnt asked. Or called. Or however you wish to categorize it. His evidence was deemed not of value in determining how Liz Stride dies.....considering his story is about her being visibly assaulted within minutes of her murder, a few steps from its location, and just around the earliest cut time of Blackwell...hard to imagine why they wouldnt see that as valuable. But clearly, they didnt.

[c.d.]

I was meant to state that IF Schwartz was asked to attend the Inquest, then he WAS legally required to do so.

And his non-attendance tells us what?

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

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

Hi all


My apologies


I made a typo in the post quoted above.


I was meant to state that IF Schwartz was asked to attend the Inquest, then he WAS legally required to do so.


Not important in the grand scheme of things, but still important to right a written wrong.


For some reason I had mistakenly written the direct opposite; not sure why but I will put it down to fatigue as an excuse.


If there's one thing that really grates on me; it's when I make a typo and then don't edit the post in time, so that it reads completely wrong.



My apologies


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

An embarrassing start because I’d previously (and accurately) said that we have no idea of the location of the club clock (which we have no concrete proof even existed in the first place) and that we can’t know if Kozebrodsky would have been able to have seen it from his position, so you slip in the word ‘visible.’ How can you possibly know that Kozebrodsky could have seen the clock from where he’d been sitting when he heard about the body. Why do you have to resort to these kinds of leaps simply to defend the indefensible?

Abe Heschberg said he was alerted "about quarter to 1".

For a fuller picture he said “about a quarter to one I should think.” So, because he was using words, and words have meaning, we can see that Heshberg was merely estimating without a great deal of certainty. And exactly like Kozebrodsky we can’t know exactly when he’d last seen a clock.

Both these men were estimating but you prefer to rely on their estimates rather than a man who actual stated that he’d seen a clock.

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),

And despite posting the quote where it says that Isaacs and Kozebrodski were one and the same you turn a plotters blind eye so that you can deliberately alter the evidence.

as they returned to the club.. after first heading to Fairclough. He says that was "between half-past twelve and one o'clock".

Amazing! You’ve blatantly made that up. Spooner doesn’t mention between 12.30 and 1.00. He said 12.35 which simply cannot have been correct. But in the same piece he contradicts himself and says that he arrived 5 minutes before Lamb. You use the above invention ‘between 12.30 and 1.00’ because you know that you can’t defend a suggestion which would have Lamb getting to the yard at 12.40.

Why would you stoop to this?

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),

For ‘a pause’ you mean your humongous exaggeration in claiming that they’d have stood around for 10 or 15 minutes like statues before going for a Constable. If you can’t make a case fit…fabricate it.

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.

You’re the only person who looks at evidence and rather than seeing that a minority of witnesses ( two and a half) were simply in error you seek to believe the clueless minority and then suggest that the majority were all wrong. Good old conspiracy theory thinking.

And If those multiple witnesses were right....then what do we make of Lave and Eagle statements for around 12:40-12:45?

Which one if Lave’s do you refer to? Take your pick. But if Lave didn’t go back inside until 12.40 then the body couldn’t have been discovered at 12.45 or just before as you claim.

Or Israels claims about a sighting on the street right out front of the gates at 12:45?

No issue with that.

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.

“It would be likely…” This is your opinion which no one really agrees with though. And of course, despite saying in the past that you are ok with accepting poorly synchronised clocks, you clearly aren’t because you are still quibbling over 5 minutes here and there. You refuse to consider that although the Bakers Clock said 1.00 the other clocks may have differed.

Blackwell 1.16, Lamb, in his own words, 10 minutes before him….so 1.06. That all that we need to know. Your three witnesses were wrong. The majority were right.

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.

Repeating it won’t make it true. No one agrees with you….because you’re wrong.

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.

Meaningless.

Ergo.....Eagle Lamb and Issac could not have arrived together at the gates at 1 if Louis is just arriving at 1.

Yes they could and not only could they, they did.

I have no worries about defending reality against someone who believes something that no one else does. We’re still waiting for that one brave soul to pop up and say “there was a plot.” Perhaps we’re being too impatient for him or her to show up? It’s only been 20 years after all.

[c.d.]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[c.d.]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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 W Richards]

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 W Richards]

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.

[c.d.]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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."

[c.d.]

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.

[The Rookie Detective]

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

[Michael W Richards]

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.