Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Schwartz, a fraud?

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

  • Originally posted by caz View Post

    You still have this all wrong. Whoever translated for Schwartz had "Lipski" apparently being addressed to Pipeman - not 'yelled' at Schwartz. That was an interpretation put on it by others, who thought it the more likely scenario. If Schwartz or Wess had wanted "Lipski" to represent a slur towards Jews, aimed at Schwartz, that's what the story would have been, and it wouldn't have been confused, ambiguous or open to alternative interpretations. Can you explain how Schwartz and Wess managed between them to screw up this most crucial aspect of the story so spectacularly, that instead of minimising any damage to the club by blaming a thug who had yelled anti-Semitic abuse at Schwartz, the blame was deflected onto two Jews in cahoots, one of whom was called Lipski?

    I can see how it might have been 'just about the most advantageous story to the club that could be concocted', if only it had been concocted and not completely coc*ed up instead.

    I'm not remotely surprised to see that you can't - or won't - see the dirty great hole you have dug in your own theory right there. Schwartz said the opposite of what you needed him to say.
    Lipski was commonly used as slur. Senior investigators that heard the story felt it was directed at Schwartz directly as an anti Semitic slur. Which is precisely what Ive been saying. What he said presented that word in that context, what he said he thought about it doesnt really matter, because he was lying anyway...the only person f**ing this up is.....well....lets just say I have no idea how you come up with your reasoning, I only know that it isnt reasonable in any way.
    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-09-2021, 06:46 PM.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • You jest, surely?

      What Schwartz actually said he thought he had witnessed - two Jews in cahoots, one Jew addressing his accomplice Jew as "Lipski" - 'doesn't really matter'???

      So Schwartz could have said: "Do you want to come back to my place, Lipski, bouncy bouncy?" and it would have made no difference, because senior investigators would still have translated it as an anti-Semitic slur directed at Schwartz?

      I'm not sure this is worth anyone wasting another year trying to demonstrate how nonsensical your argument is, when you are the only one who can't or won't admit it.

      Surreal.
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post
        You jest, surely?

        What Schwartz actually said he thought he had witnessed - two Jews in cahoots, one Jew addressing his accomplice Jew as "Lipski" - 'doesn't really matter'???

        So Schwartz could have said: "Do you want to come back to my place, Lipski, bouncy bouncy?" and it would have made no difference, because senior investigators would still have translated it as an anti-Semitic slur directed at Schwartz?

        I'm not sure this is worth anyone wasting another year trying to demonstrate how nonsensical your argument is, when you are the only one who can't or won't admit it.

        Surreal.
        If the authorities and the men who patrolled the streets knew of the context in which that surname is used on the streets, then would it really matter what a Jew giving a witness statement thought it was intended as? And to whom. He didnt know and couldnt say whether the 2 men were together. Whatever the makeup of the 2 men the fact is that the saying was used commonly to denigrate jews. Since we only know the ethnicity of one man...Schwartz...he was the only man we know that surname might be directed towards.

        When the police already have information about things like street vernacular, area specific slurs, ethnic clashing,...whathave you,... they would certainly interpret remarks with that knowledge. Even if Schwartz didnt know who it was directed at...by his word only, like the rest of the story...the police would.

        Its like when Im unfazed by your dislike of my ideas....Ive made some conclusions here and there that your opinions cant affect. New facts? Thats differenet. You not seeing the existing idea on paper? Not really that consequential. Its there, whether you see it or not.
        Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-10-2021, 12:21 PM.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • 1. Why didn’t they just move the body away from the yard?

          2. Why would they choose a witness that couldn’t speak English?

          3. Why didn’t Diemschutz just say that a man pushed past him and ran away before speaking with an Irish accent?

          4. Why didn’t Schwartz mention a non-Jewish connected accent as a very obvious way of pointing attention away from the club?

          5. Why would the Police have blamed the club for a ripper murder occurring next to their premises?

          6. Why would the police have wanted to appear to have been victimising Jews at that time?

          7. As Fiver pointed out, the body was still in the yard so what use was the plan?

          8. Would anyone really base an entire plan on one word, ‘Lipski?’

          9. Why didn’t Schwartz say that he saw Stride having an argument with two men and that it was obviously a ‘domestic.’

          10. Why would they bother/risk giving a later discovery time when there would have been huge risks of it being uncovered? For eg. Someone seeing Diemschutz return at 12.35?


          These are just 10 off the top of my head. A useless plan concocted to negate a non-existent outcome. And only one person believes that this plan happened.

          Welcome to The Grassy Knoll of Ripperology.
          Regards

          Herlock



          Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            1. Why didn’t they just move the body away from the yard?
            Blood evidence. Couldnt be sure everyone would conceal where it actually was found.

            2. Why would they choose a witness that couldn’t speak English?
            We read he couldnt, do we know that? We know Wess translated for Goldstein, did he also for Schwartz? Might help having a proclub man in the mix.

            3. Why didn’t Diemschutz just say that a man pushed past him and ran away before speaking with an Irish accent?
            Dont know why people tell the tales they do, just that many do tell tales.

            4. Why didn’t Schwartz mention a non-Jewish connected accent as a very obvious way of pointing attention away from the club?
            See 3.

            5. Why would the Police have blamed the club for a ripper murder occurring next to their premises?
            Its on their property, not "next" to it, and the police already thought these men were lawless and anarchistic.

            6. Why would the police have wanted to appear to have been victimising Jews at that time?
            How is blaming Jews for woman murdered on their property when only jewish men were known to be there victimizing them?

            7. As Fiver pointed out, the body was still in the yard so what use was the plan?
            There is no great plan like you people keep arguing with...it was what do we do, who goes where for help, lets get on board with each others stories. What anyone would do when finding someone dying on your property.

            8. Would anyone really base an entire plan on one word, ‘Lipski?’
            Lipski was added I believe to secure an idea that the broadshouldered man, most probable killer of Liz if the story is accurate, was antisemtitic. Like much of the East End and Government officials. They were using the predjudice to cast off suspicions.

            9. Why didn’t Schwartz say that he saw Stride having an argument with two men and that it was obviously a ‘domestic.’

            Why make this a domestic, they called out "another murder", so they were suggesting jack and also that he wasnt a jew.

            10. Why would they bother/risk giving a later discovery time when there would have been huge risks of it being uncovered? For eg. Someone seeing Diemschutz return at 12.35?

            If someone had seen Louis, or Eagle, arrive...it wouldnt have worked at all. No-one did.

            These are just 10 off the top of my head. A useless plan concocted to negate a non-existent outcome. And only one person believes that this plan happened.

            Welcome to The Grassy Knoll of Ripperology.
            Simple equation, simple answers and they all fit with the majority of, and only corroborated, witness statements.

            Sorry though...you were suggesting a serial mutilaror without any evidence of interruption or mutilation...which of course is so much more sensible even without supporting evidence. Im curious, is this man also the only gentile in the area? Because it seems that ONLY club attendees and cottage residents were there at the time and they were all Jewish. Or does he appear after BSMs assault, then slip out before Louis's 1:02-1:05 arrival? Fanny just happens to miss him while at her door? Like anything Israel said happened? Sorry...just hard to keep youre theory straight when there is no evidence at all framing it.

            And You shake YOUR head?

            Have it any you want, I really dont care. Your particular buyin is not required. It is what it is. 4 corroborated witnesses win over 3 witness who are biased, contradict the comparison validated accounts and do not have any corroboration for their stories themselves.
            Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-10-2021, 01:51 PM.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              If the authorities and the men who patrolled the streets knew of the context in which that surname is used on the streets, then would it really matter what a Jew giving a witness statement thought it was intended as? And to whom. He didnt know and couldnt say whether the 2 men were together. Whatever the makeup of the 2 men the fact is that the saying was used commonly to denigrate jews. Since we only know the ethnicity of one man...Schwartz...he was the only man we know that surname might be directed towards.
              Oh for heaven's sake, wake up Michael and think through what you are arguing. WHY didn't Schwartz know, or couldn't say, whether the two men were together? Your argument is that he was fed the lines to say, to make it crystal clear that Stride was the victim of a non-Jewish thug, who had hurled anti-Semitic abuse at Schwartz. Why did he introduce a third party and have BS man addressing him - a Jewish accomplice - as "Lipski" [because that was his name], if the message was supposed to be that "Lipski" was a slur aimed at Schwartz? The man could speak no English, so he could not have known the 'slur' context unless it had been explained to him by someone who could speak his language. And if that had been the case, he wouldn't have made a complete balls-up of the incident, by implicating a Jewish man named Lipski in the run up to the murder.

              When the police already have information about things like street vernacular, area specific slurs, ethnic clashing,...whathave you,... they would certainly interpret remarks with that knowledge. Even if Schwartz didnt know who it was directed at...by his word only, like the rest of the story...the police would.
              With hindsight, we know that this was how the story was interpreted by some, but it was NOT the story as Schwartz told it, and Pipeman was the extra cook who spoiled the broth.

              Its like when Im unfazed by your dislike of my ideas....Ive made some conclusions here and there that your opinions cant affect. New facts? Thats differenet. You not seeing the existing idea on paper? Not really that consequential. Its there, whether you see it or not.
              It's hardly 'dislike' of your ideas. It's whether there is any evidence to support them, and it's worse than that here, because the evidence refutes your idea that Schwartz's account was designed to deflect blame onto a Gentile. The fact that some interpreted it that way is neither here nor there. Others took his account at face value and went looking for men named Lipski, who matched Schwartz's description of the man he thought was being addressed by that name.

              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • 10. Why would they bother/risk giving a later discovery time when there would have been huge risks of it being uncovered? For eg. Someone seeing Diemschutz return at 12.35?

                If someone had seen Louis, or Eagle, arrive...it wouldnt have worked at all. No-one did.
                No-one did, Michael, because Louis was still making his way back from Westow Hill [where, incidentally, I did jury service in 1985] and wouldn't arrive for another 25 minutes.

                Sometimes, the simple truth really is that simple.

                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Actually Caz, if you 2 would get your heads out of the sand and review all the witness accounts, who corroborates who, who had bias, who had no secondary support at all, the physical evidence and the circumstantial evidence youll find that I, not you, am using that data. I use witnesses that have corroboration..you do not. I use data regarding her wounds to determine if a mutilator was there. You feel an interuption explains all that missing cutting away, though there is no interuption evidence at all. You claim this was done by Jack, though not one shred of evidence definatively links any single canonical kill with any other. You believe Israel, though its clear the men holding the Inquest didnt. You question Fanny, why, because you think she missed seeing things, while AT HER DOOR "NEARLY THE WHOLE tIME" that final half hour. You accept Louis arrived just after 1, though at least 4 people said he was already there 15-20 minutes earlier, and you are comfortable with Eagle and Lave returning to the club after seeking help, at around the same time Louis could have arrived "precisely at 1" but it was really after 1. Neither seeing anything or in the case of Lave and Eagle, each other.

                  yeah..you have it all under control....
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment



                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                    1. Why didn’t they just move the body away from the yard?
                    Blood evidence. Couldnt be sure everyone would conceal where it actually was found.

                    Wrap the body in something. There would have been 1000’s of possible locations.


                    2. Why would they choose a witness that couldn’t speak English?
                    We read he couldnt, do we know that? We know Wess translated for Goldstein, did he also for Schwartz? Might help having a proclub man in the mix.

                    He couldn’t speak English despite your typical conspiracist attempt to add doubt.


                    3. Why didn’t Diemschutz just say that a man pushed past him and ran away before speaking with an Irish accent?
                    Dont know why people tell the tales they do, just that many do tell tales.

                    Simple opportunity which would have achieved the alleged aim.


                    4. Why didn’t Schwartz mention a non-Jewish connected accent as a very obvious way of pointing attention away from the club?
                    See 3.

                    Ditto


                    5. Why would the Police have blamed the club for a ripper murder occurring next to their premises?
                    Its on their property, not "next" to it, and the police already thought these men were lawless and anarchistic.

                    Jack the Ripper wasn’t connected to anarchism, socialism or any other ism. None of your points connect to the ripper murders so how did one murder at that location point to the club? It didn’t.


                    6. Why would the police have wanted to appear to have been victimising Jews at that time?
                    How is blaming Jews for woman murdered on their property when only jewish men were known to be there victimizing them?

                    By closing down their club for a pathetic, unjustifiable reason.


                    7. As Fiver pointed out, the body was still in the yard so what use was the plan?
                    There is no great plan like you people keep arguing with...it was what do we do, who goes where for help, lets get on board with each others stories. What anyone would do when finding someone dying on your property.

                    No, what anyone would do on finding a body on their property would be to go to the police. Which is what they did...unsurprisingly.


                    8. Would anyone really base an entire plan on one word, ‘Lipski?’
                    Lipski was added I believe to secure an idea that the broadshouldered man, most probable killer of Liz if the story is accurate, was antisemtitic. Like much of the East End and Government officials. They were using the predjudice to cast off suspicions.

                    So take away Lipski and there’s nothing left to achieve the aims of the plan....as I said.


                    9. Why didn’t Schwartz say that he saw Stride having an argument with two men and that it was obviously a ‘domestic.’

                    Why make this a domestic, they called out "another murder", so they were suggesting jack and also that he wasnt a jew.

                    Just an option to show that the argument was between three drunks who’d been passing the club.


                    10. Why would they bother/risk giving a later discovery time when there would have been huge risks of it being uncovered? For eg. Someone seeing Diemschutz return at 12.35?

                    If someone had seen Louis, or Eagle, arrive...it wouldnt have worked at all. No-one did.

                    Yes but they didn’t know that at the time. They had no way of knowing. Keep up Michael.


                    These are just 10 off the top of my head. A useless plan concocted to negate a non-existent outcome. And only one person believes that this plan happened.

                    Welcome to The Grassy Knoll of Ripperology.
                    Simple equation, simple answers and they all fit with the majority of, and only corroborated, witness statements.

                    Sorry though...you were suggesting a serial mutilaror without any evidence of interruption or mutilation...which of course is so much more sensible even without supporting evidence.

                    Please, please stop embarrassing yourself on this ‘evidence of absence’ point Michael. I cringe every time I see you use it. Grow up.

                    Im curious, is this man also the only gentile in the area? Because it seems that ONLY club attendees and cottage residents were there at the time and they were all Jewish. Or does he appear after BSMs assault, then slip out before Louis's 1:02-1:05 arrival? Fanny just happens to miss him while at her door? Like anything Israel said happened? Sorry...just hard to keep youre theory straight when there is no evidence at all framing it.

                    And You shake YOUR head?

                    Have it any you want, I really dont care. Your particular buyin is not required. It is what it is. 4 corroborated witnesses win over 3 witness who are biased, contradict the comparison validated accounts and do not have any corroboration for their stories themselves.

                    Your 4 witnesses aren’t corroborated Michael. You are making this up. It’s an ongoing con-job. You’re attempting to cover-up for the fact that you’ve been found out. And what makes it worse is that you’ve been found out over TEN YEARS.

                    You embarrassingly adopt a tone which says “I can’t believe that you can’t see this” but the point is Michael THAT YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON THAT BELIEVES THIS NONSENSE. And so, following your thinking, every single Ripperologist on the planet is an idiot for not being able to see it. They can’t see it because the evidence trashes is conclusively. You rely on cherrypicking evidence. Which reminds me Michael......

                    WHY IS IT THAT WHEN FACED WITH A STATEMENT WHICH GIVES 2 TIMES YOU COMPLETELY IGNORE ONE IN FAVOUR OF ANOTHER? YOU DON’T EVEN CONSIDER IT. YOU DON’T ASSESS IT. YOU DON’T DISCUS IT. YOU CONSISTENTLY IGNORE ANY MENTION OF IT . YOU PRETEND THAT IT DOESN’T EXIST. THIS ISN'T AN HONEST APPROACH MICHAEL AND YOU PERSISTENT REFUSAL TO RESPOND IS ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT YOU EMPLOY THE CHERRYPICKING OF EVIDENCE IN AN ATTEMPT TO BOLSTER YOUR DISCREDITED THEORY.
                    Regards

                    Herlock



                    Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                      Actually Caz, if you 2 would get your heads out of the sand and review all the witness accounts, who corroborates who, who had bias, who had no secondary support at all, the physical evidence and the circumstantial evidence youll find that I, not you, am using that data. I use witnesses that have corroboration..you do not. I use data regarding her wounds to determine if a mutilator was there. You feel an interuption explains all that missing cutting away, though there is no interuption evidence at all. You claim this was done by Jack, though not one shred of evidence definatively links any single canonical kill with any other. You believe Israel, though its clear the men holding the Inquest didnt. You question Fanny, why, because you think she missed seeing things, while AT HER DOOR "NEARLY THE WHOLE tIME" that final half hour. You accept Louis arrived just after 1, though at least 4 people said he was already there 15-20 minutes earlier, and you are comfortable with Eagle and Lave returning to the club after seeking help, at around the same time Louis could have arrived "precisely at 1" but it was really after 1. Neither seeing anything or in the case of Lave and Eagle, each other.

                      yeah..you have it all under control....
                      5 minutes before Lamb
                      Regards

                      Herlock



                      Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        5 minutes before Lamb
                        Constable Henry Lamb, 252 H division, examined by the coroner, said: Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting. I went to meet them, and they called out, "Come on, there has been another murder."

                        Since Louis categorically did not arrive until after 1, and you like using Fanny's hearing the cart and horse as his arrival time...which was a few minutes after 1...how is it that Eagle is returning with Lamb, (see above before disputing fact), just after 1 as well? Hmm. Didnt Eagle only hear about this a few minutes after 1? So how did he get Lamb and return just after 1? Did Louis then leave, since he just arrived by you...after Eagle and Lamb were already there? hmm...Since Issac came back with Eagle and Lamb just after 1....what time must he have left by? oh yeah...you think Louis takes Issac K with him, even though he says Issac[s]...

                        I feel like Im debating this with Ripperfolk 101 types...I shouldnt have to remind anyone of the simple facts if they have been already debating points on these cases for some time. Doesnt casebook suggest gaining knowledge before posting anything?

                        Keep paddling away though, holes in your theories will eventuallly sink them, but no-one can take away your right to hold dear even that which can be so easily disproven.
                        Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-10-2021, 05:55 PM.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          1. Why didn’t they just move the body away from the yard?
                          Blood evidence. Couldnt be sure everyone would conceal where it actually was found.

                          Wrap the body in something. There would have been 1000’s of possible locations.


                          2. Why would they choose a witness that couldn’t speak English?
                          We read he couldnt, do we know that? We know Wess translated for Goldstein, did he also for Schwartz? Might help having a proclub man in the mix.

                          He couldn’t speak English despite your typical conspiracist attempt to add doubt.


                          3. Why didn’t Diemschutz just say that a man pushed past him and ran away before speaking with an Irish accent?
                          Dont know why people tell the tales they do, just that many do tell tales.

                          Simple opportunity which would have achieved the alleged aim.


                          4. Why didn’t Schwartz mention a non-Jewish connected accent as a very obvious way of pointing attention away from the club?
                          See 3.

                          Ditto


                          5. Why would the Police have blamed the club for a ripper murder occurring next to their premises?
                          Its on their property, not "next" to it, and the police already thought these men were lawless and anarchistic.

                          Jack the Ripper wasn’t connected to anarchism, socialism or any other ism. None of your points connect to the ripper murders so how did one murder at that location point to the club? It didn’t.


                          6. Why would the police have wanted to appear to have been victimising Jews at that time?
                          How is blaming Jews for woman murdered on their property when only jewish men were known to be there victimizing them?

                          By closing down their club for a pathetic, unjustifiable reason.


                          7. As Fiver pointed out, the body was still in the yard so what use was the plan?
                          There is no great plan like you people keep arguing with...it was what do we do, who goes where for help, lets get on board with each others stories. What anyone would do when finding someone dying on your property.

                          No, what anyone would do on finding a body on their property would be to go to the police. Which is what they did...unsurprisingly.


                          8. Would anyone really base an entire plan on one word, ‘Lipski?’
                          Lipski was added I believe to secure an idea that the broadshouldered man, most probable killer of Liz if the story is accurate, was antisemtitic. Like much of the East End and Government officials. They were using the predjudice to cast off suspicions.

                          So take away Lipski and there’s nothing left to achieve the aims of the plan....as I said.


                          9. Why didn’t Schwartz say that he saw Stride having an argument with two men and that it was obviously a ‘domestic.’

                          Why make this a domestic, they called out "another murder", so they were suggesting jack and also that he wasnt a jew.

                          Just an option to show that the argument was between three drunks who’d been passing the club.


                          10. Why would they bother/risk giving a later discovery time when there would have been huge risks of it being uncovered? For eg. Someone seeing Diemschutz return at 12.35?

                          If someone had seen Louis, or Eagle, arrive...it wouldnt have worked at all. No-one did.

                          Yes but they didn’t know that at the time. They had no way of knowing. Keep up Michael.


                          These are just 10 off the top of my head. A useless plan concocted to negate a non-existent outcome. And only one person believes that this plan happened.

                          Welcome to The Grassy Knoll of Ripperology.
                          Simple equation, simple answers and they all fit with the majority of, and only corroborated, witness statements.

                          Sorry though...you were suggesting a serial mutilaror without any evidence of interruption or mutilation...which of course is so much more sensible even without supporting evidence.

                          Please, please stop embarrassing yourself on this ‘evidence of absence’ point Michael. I cringe every time I see you use it. Grow up.

                          Im curious, is this man also the only gentile in the area? Because it seems that ONLY club attendees and cottage residents were there at the time and they were all Jewish. Or does he appear after BSMs assault, then slip out before Louis's 1:02-1:05 arrival? Fanny just happens to miss him while at her door? Like anything Israel said happened? Sorry...just hard to keep youre theory straight when there is no evidence at all framing it.

                          And You shake YOUR head?

                          Have it any you want, I really dont care. Your particular buyin is not required. It is what it is. 4 corroborated witnesses win over 3 witness who are biased, contradict the comparison validated accounts and do not have any corroboration for their stories themselves.

                          Your 4 witnesses aren’t corroborated Michael. You are making this up. It’s an ongoing con-job. You’re attempting to cover-up for the fact that you’ve been found out. And what makes it worse is that you’ve been found out over TEN YEARS.

                          You embarrassingly adopt a tone which says “I can’t believe that you can’t see this” but the point is Michael THAT YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON THAT BELIEVES THIS NONSENSE. And so, following your thinking, every single Ripperologist on the planet is an idiot for not being able to see it. They can’t see it because the evidence trashes is conclusively. You rely on cherrypicking evidence. Which reminds me Michael......

                          WHY IS IT THAT WHEN FACED WITH A STATEMENT WHICH GIVES 2 TIMES YOU COMPLETELY IGNORE ONE IN FAVOUR OF ANOTHER? YOU DON’T EVEN CONSIDER IT. YOU DON’T ASSESS IT. YOU DON’T DISCUS IT. YOU CONSISTENTLY IGNORE ANY MENTION OF IT . YOU PRETEND THAT IT DOESN’T EXIST. THIS ISN'T AN HONEST APPROACH MICHAEL AND YOU PERSISTENT REFUSAL TO RESPOND IS ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT YOU EMPLOY THE CHERRYPICKING OF EVIDENCE IN AN ATTEMPT TO BOLSTER YOUR DISCREDITED THEORY.
                          99 % of the above nonsense aside...a couple of questions. Do you not believe that the discovery of a woman with a cut throat on their private property would warrant police scrutiny and when discovering that there seems to have been only socialist anarchist jews on that property at that time, that the evidence would then suggest a jewish killer? After all, they are the only people there at that time. Do you not feel that 4 people giving the same rough times and details is corroboration? Have you read the dictionary definition of that word? Are you aware that solitary unsupported and non validated witness accounts would never supersede corroborated ones in court? Do you not feel that the lack of mutilation on Stride is a strong indicator her killer didnt kill her so he could do that? Is that the same as in Annies case?

                          I know youll deny all these issues with one...its YOU MIchael, youre the devil...instead of apologizing for your errors and misrepresentations, youll claim people without substantiation are the de facto accounts in criminal investigations and that the lack of evidence of something like an interruption is just fine..it could have happened anyway. I guess using that argument so could an unseen and unheard parade...although I doubt that premise equally.

                          I should call you Peter.
                          Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-10-2021, 06:10 PM.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            Constable Henry Lamb, 252 H division, examined by the coroner, said: Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting. I went to meet them, and they called out, "Come on, there has been another murder."

                            Since Louis categorically did not arrive until after 1, and you like using Fanny's hearing the cart and horse as his arrival time...which was a few minutes after 1...how is it that Eagle is returning with Lamb, (see above before disputing fact), just after 1 as well? Hmm. Didnt Eagle only hear about this a few minutes after 1? So how did he get Lamb and return just after 1? Did Louis then leave, since he just arrived by you...after Eagle and Lamb were already there? hmm...Since Issac came back with Eagle and Lamb just after 1....what time must he have left by? oh yeah...you think Louis takes Issac K with him, even though he says Issac[s]...

                            I feel like Im debating this with Ripperfolk 101 types...I shouldnt have to remind anyone of the simple facts if they have been already debating points on these cases for some time. Doesnt casebook suggest gaining knowledge before posting anything?

                            Keep paddling away though, holes in your theories will eventuallly sink them, but no-one can take away your right to hold dear even that which can be so easily disproven.
                            “Police-constable Henry Lamb, 252H, deposed as follows:- About 1 o’clock, as near as I can tell, on Sunday morning I was in the Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street.”

                            Lamb admitted that he didn’t have a watch and so he was estimating. I know that you’re allergic to that concept Michael but the fact remains.

                            Since Louis categorically did not arrive until after 1,
                            Are you so utterly desperate to bolster your theory that you will stoop so low as to nitpick over a matter of seconds? For Christ’s sake grow up Michael. If we’re going to discuss the case like adults resorting to babyish nonsense will achieve nothing.

                            Even Doctor's with watches can misremember times.

                            Blackwell said....

                            “I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was just 1.10.”

                            Johnston however said.......

                            “As soon as Dr. Blackwell came he looked at his watch. It was then 1.16. I was there three or four minutes before Dr. Blackwell.”

                            So Blackwell arrived at either 1.10 or 1.16. Which of the two was correct? We can’t say for certain but Johnston’s 1.16 is very specific.... no one would estimate 1.16. It’s too exact. He also spoke of being woken by a Constable....

                            “About five or ten minutes past 1 on Sunday morning, I received a call from constable 436”

                            Then, from Lamb....

                            “Dr. Blackwell, about ten minutes after I got there, was the first doctor to arrive.”

                            .......

                            So we have to assess.

                            We cannot be exact to the minute of course but it’s reasonable to suggest

                            Johnston is called sometime between 1.05 and 1.10

                            He gets to the yard around 1.10/1.12

                            Blackwell got there at 1.16

                            Lamb got there around 10 minutes earlier.

                            So around 1.06.

                            ........

                            . Hmm. Didnt Eagle only hear about this a few minutes after 1?
                            You know very well that he didn’t.

                            “He returned to the club about 25 minutes to 1.”

                            “Afterwards I joined my friend, and we sang together. I had been there about 20 minutes, when a member named Gilleman came upstairs and said, “There is a dead woman lying in the yard.”


                            So again, accepting very natural and very minimal leeway this has Mortis Eagle seeing the body for the first time at around 1.00. Certainly nowhere near 12.35 or 12.45.

                            .....

                            Look in the mirror Michael, you keep on telling me and Caz and Frank every poster on here that we’re all idiots or biased but you can’t consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Of course you can’t.

                            As Caz said, you’ve been pushing this bilge for 10 years or more and still, STILL Michael everyone rejects it.

                            You list this debate years ago. You’re losing it all over again. And you’ll keep in losing it.

                            Regards

                            Herlock



                            Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              99 % of the above nonsense aside...a couple of questions. Do you not believe that the discovery of a woman with a cut throat on their private property would warrant police scrutiny and when discovering that there seems to have been only socialist anarchist jews on that property at that time, that the evidence would then suggest a jewish killer? After all, they are the only people there at that time. Do you not feel that 4 people giving the same rough times and details is corroboration? Have you read the dictionary definition of that word? Are you aware that solitary unsupported and non validated witness accounts would never supersede corroborated ones in court? Do you not feel that the lack of mutilation on Stride is a strong indicator her killer didnt kill her so he could do that? Is that the same as in Annies case?

                              I know youll deny all these issues with one...its YOU MIchael, youre the devil...instead of apologizing for your errors and misrepresentations, youll claim people without substantiation are the de facto accounts in criminal investigations and that the lack of evidence of something like an interruption is just fine..it could have happened anyway. I guess using that argument so could an unseen and unheard parade...although I doubt that premise equally.

                              I should call you Peter.

                              More delusional stuff I’m afraid. If your theory had any basis in fact don’t you think, AFTER 10 YEARS, that someone would have said “hey, do you know what, I think Michael’s on to something?” But they haven’t. And you’re completely impervious to the fact.

                              You’re wrong and you know it.
                              Regards

                              Herlock



                              Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                                Actually Caz, if you 2 would get your heads out of the sand and review all the witness accounts, who corroborates who, who had bias, who had no secondary support at all, the physical evidence and the circumstantial evidence youll find that I, not you, am using that data. I use witnesses that have corroboration..you do not. I use data regarding her wounds to determine if a mutilator was there. You feel an interuption explains all that missing cutting away, though there is no interuption evidence at all. You claim this was done by Jack, though not one shred of evidence definatively links any single canonical kill with any other. You believe Israel, though its clear the men holding the Inquest didnt. You question Fanny, why, because you think she missed seeing things, while AT HER DOOR "NEARLY THE WHOLE tIME" that final half hour. You accept Louis arrived just after 1, though at least 4 people said he was already there 15-20 minutes earlier, and you are comfortable with Eagle and Lave returning to the club after seeking help, at around the same time Louis could have arrived "precisely at 1" but it was really after 1. Neither seeing anything or in the case of Lave and Eagle, each other.

                                yeah..you have it all under control....
                                At least I haven't got my head up my arse.

                                There is some evidence that Pipeman was found - or came forward - and furnished his own description of BS man.

                                I have not argued that the killer would have mutilated Stride in that location if only he hadn't been interrupted. My argument has been that whoever killed her - ripper or not - lost his temper with her and struck swiftly and efficiently with a single cut to the throat, and left the scene before Louis discovered the dying woman and raised the alarm. The location was clearly never going to suit a knife happy murderer with mutilation in mind, but that's where Stride chose to be, so IF IF IF he was indeed the ripper, that would not have improved his mood.

                                It is very far from clear that the men holding the Inquest didn't believe Schwartz, and you have yet to explain why on earth they wouldn't have done. The very fact that he didn't recognise "Lipski" as a slur aimed at himself, but took it to be the name of BS man's accomplice, has more of a natural ring of truth about it than the black-and-white lie you wish he had told. The authorities would have recognised this, even if you don't. That's why they tried to decipher what he had really seen and heard, from what he supposed he had.

                                I don't question Fanny! She didn't hear any pony and cart, or see or hear anything out of the ordinary, until Louis said he arrived, which - when combined with other evidence, including that police whistle - was most probably a minute or two before 1am. The clock Louis saw could have been slightly fast. At least 4 people could not reliably have put Louis there 15-20 minutes earlier. Try none. Fanny was locking up as she saw Goldstein pass by, around 12.55, and she heard Louis arriving around 3 or 4 minutes after she'd gone indoors for the night. All the commotion happened immediately after that.

                                You are only seeing the things you want to see, by picking bits and pieces from the entire body of evidence, and twisting them to fit your twisted view of the Jews on Berner Street, and it's not a pretty sight.

                                Which bits of Spooner's account to do accept, and which bits do you reject? He is one of your 4, isn't he?
                                Last edited by caz; 03-11-2021, 10:06 AM.
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X