Schwartz, a fraud?

[FrankO]

On 20th October of last year (on here) Michael said that he would find the reference to Gillen’s contradictory statement but he’s yet to do so.

Thanks for that, Michael; I missed that.

[FrankO]

I'm saying it is not obvious how he missed him, not that it was impossible to.

Fair enough, Andrew.

However, we are dealing with a narrow street, and the way I interpret Swanson, is that Schwartz is claiming to linger at the gateway.

I've never read it like that; the way I read it is that Schwartz continues walking and, perhaps, only pauses for a second just before Mr. Broad Shoulders shouted. However, the "away" in "& then Schwartz walked away" may also simply mean that he had passed the scene at that point and from then on started to put distance between himself and the scene.

How could he miss the other man, who is just yards away?
Well I guess he could, if he is right up close to the quarrelling pair, and focused on them.

He doesn't need to have been right up close (less than 5 meters) to them, just being focused on them would be enough. Remember, the street was likely not very well lighted and Mr. Pipeman may have stood at a rather shady spot. Also, only the lighting of his pipe may have attracted Schwartz's attention.

Other than that, there is no indication of how Schwartz feels or what he perceives, other than the face value description of what he witnesses. Did he, for example, look at Stride's eyes and express what he saw? Was it fear he felt, when he runs from the scene? There is no mention of it. There is really no indication from either report, that Schwartz has any sense of humanity. He is just an impartial observer, even of his own behaviour. The whole story has a surreal quality to it.

Not to me. Street brawls were quite common, I believe. Schwartz's account gives me the impression that he wasn't a man who wanted to get involved in the quarrel and, in the end, seemed a rather easily scared man.

[DJA]

[Wickerman]

It is impossible to come out of a doorway, if the door is closed and locked.
A doorway refers to the space otherwise occupied by a door when it is closed, and the space immediately adjacent.
The only semi-reasonable interpretation of '[he] came out of the doorway', that is compatible with a closed and locked door, is if the door were recessed.
In this case, the door was not recessed and the shelter available above it was minimal.

Take a closer look at the three doorways of the beerhouse, the doors when closed are set back a distance from the face of the building, possibly 6-9 inches, sufficient depth for a man to face the door to light his pipe.

However, all the above is irrelevant, because...

It is impossible to smoke a knife!

A knife, is not what he told the police.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Easy little man, youre bordering on being outed as a liar. Post 513.."You know as well as I do that Gillen is refered to but not interviewed".

No he’s not. If you can prove that a man called Gillen existed then by all means do so but Frank and I have asked for this verification numerous times and none has been forthcoming.

Youve attempted to discard what you dont like and diss me while doing so....in a format like this you can get away with that I guess. But you are patently incorrect, and intentionally deceitful when you do so...like my first sentence. The reference is there, you even quote it, then ask for more when there is no more...and you know it. The man said 12:40...Issac said about 10 minutes after half past twelve, Heshburg said it was a quarter to 1, Spooner said he believed it was 25 minutes to 1. But yet you post this....."Its very obvious that Diemschutz entered the club at just after 1.00 and told those on the ground floor about Stride." Only to those with their heads up their......

Firstly, I quoted the mention of Gilleman and not someone called Gillen.

Secondly, Gilleman (notice I’m leaving out the mysterious Gillen) alerted Eagle to the discovery of the body. According to Eagle this was at 1.00 (and before you say it, we can’t hold witnesses like him to an exact time so 5 minutes means zero) So Eagle, and therefore Gilleman, do not point to an earlier discovery of the body.

Thirdly, you expect posters on here to ignore the very obvious fact that witnesses can be shown to have been incorrect. You on the other hand accept any error that suits you. Of course Hoschberg said 12.45 but, as he used the words “about” and “I should think” you don’t need to be a genius to understand that this was an estimation which of course you conveniently take as gospel.. But he also tells us that he was alerted the goings on in the yard by a police man’s whistle. This could only have been Lamb who arrived on the scene after 1.00. Therefore Hoschberg was undoubtedly wrong in his guess. This isn’t being untruthful Michael it’s called following his own words. Assessing the value. Hoschberg can safely be dismissed. Spooner said 12.35. Again you use very selective quoting that is convenient to your theory. He also said that he was talking to a woman for 25 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00 which takes it to 12.55 at the earliest. So two contradictory times. But again we have real confirmation from his own lips. He arrived at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb! Game over for Spooner too. So you’re left with Kozebrodski who was also guessing the time.

Your witnesses are as feeble as they could be and do not stand up to the minimum of scrutiny unless you view them with the conspiracy goggles on of course.

But sure, obvious to those who believe the minority of accounts without any validation and discard the multiple accounts that validate each other in almost every minute detail without prior conspiring. Its like youve been told not to walk into a glass door thats closed and do it despite the warning. Obtuse. Your not someone that I enjoy sparring with here because your arguments are almost always misrepresentations...(see liar above)...and your beliefs are based on only what you choose to see. Ive cited so many times ...(its a question now whether there are learning impairment issues with you),...that not one of the witnesses you use to make "obvious' deductions about have any secondary source of validation, and contradict multiple accounts which directly and absolutely tell a very different story than they do. Like "I arrived precisely at 1", when he didnt. You have a witness standing right there at 1am for god sakes and she didnt see squat at 1am.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Im assessing the witness whilst you simply cling to every obvious, blatant errors.

God you keep clinging to the same old stuff! Diemschutz use of the word ‘precisely.’ Please try to understand this.

Man sees clock - clock says 1.00 - journey takes less than 1 minute - arrival time? You guessed it - 1.00. It’s really not difficult. If Diemschutz said precisely 1.00 it would be nitpicking of gargantuan proportions if you held him to have meant that as he’d arrived at the yard the clock ticked onto 1.00!

And the flexible Mrs Mortimer! She heard a horse and cart at around the time that he returned. If she was on her doorstep at 12.45 for 10 minutes as she said then she was inside the house Michael. When you cease to be outside it means that you are now..inside. According to her she went back outside after hearing the cart.


And you quote him and Eagle, the guy who "wasnt sure" whether he had to step around or over a body in the passageway or not. And Schwartz...who apparently has no business in any formal discussions concerning how Liz Stride dies, and zero validation.

Conspiracist nitpicking again. Desperate stuff I’m afraid.

I dont care about proving how petty you are, I do care about how inaccurate and incorrect you are, and people like you, saying "its obvious..." when the inverse is actually obvious. lt misleads new people, those who havent studied this from all angles for over 30 years..which I and others most certainly have.

Of course I’d forgotten. You are an expert and others like myself aren’t on your elevated level. We’ve heard that one before and yet you call me petty? Remind me who this man Gillen is again will you?


So......once again, each witness that I mention gave a time at approximately 12:40 and 12:45 have at least 3 other people who can corroborate almost every detail in the story, and ALL THE WITNESSES YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE...Louis, Morris and Israel, HAVE NO CORROBORATION, NO SECONDARY SOURCE VALIDATION, AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT ELEMENTS OR ALL OF THEIR STORIES CAN BE CONTRADICTED DIRECTLY.

Its amazing that you can say this Michael. What about the elements of Spooners story that flatly contradict 12.35? Or Hoschberg’s mention of a police whistle which contradicts his 13.45. Please explain why you conveniently choose to ignore these and others?

If lying and misrepresenting is the only way you can refute those remarks,...please dont bother. People are trying to learn and investigate, Im sure they get as tired of the Forest Gump Method of Detectivin.

4 people vs....well, none that we can validate. Guess you like the longshots. But your continued denials dont re-write any history.

Ok Michael, if history repeats itself this is how it goes. You again throw out some personal insults. I respond very mildly. Then I get someone accusing me of being insulting

In this post alone you have.....

1. Called me ‘little man.’
2. Intentionally deceitful.
3. A liar ( as in ‘see liar above)
4. That I might have learning impairments.

I’ll ignore the ‘Forest Gump’ because I consider that just mildly insulting, even humorous.

I won’t report you Michael even though this isn’t your first outburst on here which even Caz criticised you for.

Your points have been responded to and shown to be either wrong or extremely weak. Only you and one other poster can’t see it. Both conspiracy minded coincidentally. You’re witnesses crumble under scrutiny. Your cover up didn’t happen and pretty much everyone but you can see it. You have a theory. It’s your baby and you’re protective of it in the face of the facts. It’s ok to keep stressing how important you are to Ripperology and those that disagree with you aren’t but the more we descend into conspiracy theorist nonsense the more ridicule that the subject will get.

[Michael W Richards]

As Frank has mentioned Gilleman is variously called Gidleman, Gigleman, Gidlemann, Giddleman.

In the Evening News on 1st October Eagle told a reporter “I went into at about 12.40 on this night that you are asking about, which was about twenty minutes before the body was found.”

Its very obvious that Diemschutz entered the club at just after 1.00 and told those on the ground floor about Stride. One of these people that heard him was Gilleman who went to tell members upstairs. One of whom was Mortis Eagle. It’s all very simple.

Michael has been using the name Gillen since 2010 and he appears to believe that he makes some contradictory statement. On 20th October of last year (on here) Michael said that he would find the reference to Gillen’s contradictory statement but he’s yet to do so. So I’d say that we are on pretty solid ground in saying that there was no such person as Gillen and that Michael is mistaken. Given that we all make mistakes it’s perhaps more surprising that he studiously avoids admitting it.

Easy little man, youre bordering on being outed as a liar. Post 513.."You know as well as I do that Gillen is refered to but not interviewed".

Youve attempted to discard what you dont like and diss me while doing so....in a format like this you can get away with that I guess. But you are patently incorrect, and intentionally deceitful when you do so...like my first sentence. The reference is there, you even quote it, then ask for more when there is no more...and you know it. The man said 12:40...Issac said about 10 minutes after half past twelve, Heshburg said it was a quarter to 1, Spooner said he believed it was 25 minutes to 1. But yet you post this....."Its very obvious that Diemschutz entered the club at just after 1.00 and told those on the ground floor about Stride." Only to those with their heads up their......

But sure, obvious to those who believe the minority of accounts without any validation and discard the multiple accounts that validate each other in almost every minute detail without prior conspiring. Its like youve been told not to walk into a glass door thats closed and do it despite the warning. Obtuse. Your not someone that I enjoy sparring with here because your arguments are almost always misrepresentations...(see liar above)...and your beliefs are based on only what you choose to see. Ive cited so many times ...(its a question now whether there are learning impairment issues with you),...that not one of the witnesses you use to make "obvious' deductions about have any secondary source of validation, and contradict multiple accounts which directly and absolutely tell a very different story than they do. Like "I arrived precisely at 1", when he didnt. You have a witness standing right there at 1am for god sakes and she didnt see squat at 1am.

And you quote him and Eagle, the guy who "wasnt sure" whether he had to step around or over a body in the passageway or not. And Schwartz...who apparently has no business in any formal discussions concerning how Liz Stride dies, and zero validation.

I dont care about proving how petty you are, I do care about how inaccurate and incorrect you are, and people like you, saying "its obvious..." when the inverse is actually obvious. lt misleads new people, those who havent studied this from all angles for over 30 years..which I and others most certainly have.

So......once again, each witness that I mention gave a time at approximately 12:40 and 12:45 have at least 3 other people who can corroborate almost every detail in the story, and ALL THE WITNESSES YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE...Louis, Morris and Israel, HAVE NO CORROBORATION, NO SECONDARY SOURCE VALIDATION, AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT ELEMENTS OR ALL OF THEIR STORIES CAN BE CONTRADICTED DIRECTLY.

If lying and misrepresenting is the only way you can refute those remarks,...please dont bother. People are trying to learn and investigate, Im sure they get as tired of the Forest Gump Method of Detectivin.

4 people vs....well, none that we can validate. Guess you like the longshots. But your continued denials dont re-write any history.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is quite normal to clean a pipe using a knife

Good point

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The whole story has a surreal quality about it.

No it doesn’t. It’s your overactive imagination weaving mystery from every slight discrepancy or ambiguous phrase. Perhaps Pipeman was initially hiding on the Grassy Knoll?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Isn’t it possible that Schwartz didn’t initially see Pipeman because when he first saw BS Man and Stride Pipeman was around the corner? He then turned the corner and stood in the pub doorway to clean and light his pipe? Schwartz was looking at BS man and Stride for the 2 seconds it would have taken for Pipeman to arrive on the scene?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why not? If Schwartz was focussing his attention on the man walking ahead of him and later on his interaction with the woman, then he might not have noticed Mr. Pipeman until he crossed the street, changing his focus from the couple to where he was heading: the opposite side of the street, where Mr. Pipeman was standing.

I'm saying it is not obvious how he missed him, not that it was impossible to.
However, we are dealing with a narrow street, and the way I interpret Swanson, is that Schwartz is claiming to linger at the gateway.
How could he miss the other man, who is just yards away?
Well I guess he could, if he is right up close to the quarrelling pair, and focused on them.

However, that would mean Schwartz is very close to Stride when she is thrown down.
Yet bizarrely, Schwartz seems to not have mentioned anything about Stride trying to communicate with him, or the pipeman, nor him trying to communicate with her.
So having watched the fracas unfold, he decides it would be best to cross the road. The reason for doing so is only given in the paper edition - apparently Schwartz was 'feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels' - having just stopped to watch that very quarrel, at close range!

Other than that, there is no indication of how Schwartz feels or what he perceives, other than the face value description of what he witnesses. Did he, for example, look at Stride's eyes and express what he saw? Was it fear he felt, when he runs from the scene? There is no mention of it. There is really no indication from either report, that Schwartz has any sense of humanity. He is just an impartial observer, even of his own behaviour. The whole story has a surreal quality to it.

[Joshua Rogan]

It is quite normal to clean a pipe using a knife

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The second man did not come out of the beerhouse, he came out of the doorway of the beerhouse.
It is pretty common for a pipe smoker to step into a sheltered recess to light his pipe. There is no suggestion in either report that the beerhouse was still open.

It is impossible to come out of a doorway, if the door is closed and locked.
A doorway refers to the space otherwise occupied by a door when it is closed, and the space immediately adjacent.
The only semi-reasonable interpretation of '[he] came out of the doorway', that is compatible with a closed and locked door, is if the door were recessed.
In this case, the door was not recessed and the shelter available above it was minimal.

However, all the above is irrelevant, because...

It is impossible to smoke a knife!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your way of viewing the evidence Michael is a simply staggering example of tunnel vision. Your witnesses simply do not tally with an earlier discovery time. They just don’t. You are manipulating statements to suit by cherry picking errors over proper evidence. Hoschberg is a perfect illustration of this. He was obviously, blatantly, transparently, provably wrong when he ‘guessed’ at 12.45 but does that bother you? Of course not.

Frank keeps asking you about Gillen. I’ve asked you as well. Could you please cut and paste anything with the name Gillen on please because you seem unwilling to respond. I’ll ask the question again:

Is the person that you keep referring to as Gillen actually Gilleman?

As Frank has mentioned Gilleman is variously called Gidleman, Gigleman, Gidlemann, Giddleman.

In the Evening News on 1st October Eagle told a reporter “I went into at about 12.40 on this night that you are asking about, which was about twenty minutes before the body was found.”

Its very obvious that Diemschutz entered the club at just after 1.00 and told those on the ground floor about Stride. One of these people that heard him was Gilleman who went to tell members upstairs. One of whom was Mortis Eagle. It’s all very simple.

Michael has been using the name Gillen since 2010 and he appears to believe that he makes some contradictory statement. On 20th October of last year (on here) Michael said that he would find the reference to Gillen’s contradictory statement but he’s yet to do so. So I’d say that we are on pretty solid ground in saying that there was no such person as Gillen and that Michael is mistaken. Given that we all make mistakes it’s perhaps more surprising that he studiously avoids admitting it.

[FrankO]

3. Pipeman was standing in that location, prior to Schwartz entering Berner street. He could have come from anywhere, including the club.
However, this possibility does not explain why Schwartz does not see the man before reaching the gateway.

Why not? If Schwartz was focussing his attention on the man walking ahead of him and later on his interaction with the woman, then he might not have noticed Mr. Pipeman until he crossed the street, changing his focus from the couple to where he was heading: the opposite side of the street, where Mr. Pipeman was standing.

[FrankO]

You know as well as I do that Gillen is refered to but not interviewed, the point nevertheless doesnt change.

Actually, I don’t know anything about Gillen, Michael. I haven’t been able to find anything about him, either on Casebook or over at JtR Forums. Of course, I have found Gilleman/Gildeman/Gidleman, but since the only thing that’s known about him is that he was the one alerting Eagle to the murder some 20 minutes after the latter arrived back at the club, I concluded that you didn’t confuse Gillen with Gilleman. And so, I seriously wondered if there is a Gillen and, if so, what he stated, directly interviewed or only in reference. So, if there really is a Gillen (and you don’t mean Gilleman), then I’d still like to see the statement in which he’s referred to.

The main club characters, including Schwartz, have no corroberation for anything they say.

I beg to differ. Spooner is corroborating Diemshutz when it comes to the 2 Jews running along Fairclough Street, shouting for the police, not finding a policeman but instead bringing back a man to the yard, this man lifting the woman’s head right after arriving there. Mortimer also mentions a man touching Stride’s face, saying it was quite warm, just as Spooner (and only Spooner) stated.

The very fact that Eagle and Louis cannot be verified in any details while a group of witnesses can, should raise a red flag for anyone. A closer inspection verifies those concerns.

As you know, I disagree, Michael. The timings of at least 2 (Heshburg & Spooner) of the 3 witnesses are questionable, even though you don’t want to admit it. And if that closer inspection also raises a couple of questions as to how seriously these 2 men should be taken as conspiracists, then I have no trouble putting down the red flag and lay it to rest.