Schwartz, a fraud?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dont we have a reference to "Gillen", which is the same man, that says 12:40. Yes, we do...as weve discussed for over a year.

At last!!! After weeks you’ve finally admitted that Gillen and Gilleman are the same person. That wasn’t hard was it? So why couldn’t you have said that ages ago instead of posting Gillen. Of course, you haven’t presented this mention of an earlier time by him but obviously you will take it as gospel whilst ignoring the fact that he called Eagle to the body at 1.00.

Spooner said about 25 to 1. You know we have Inquest transcripts, right? If so, why do I have to keep quoting them.

Because, for the 263rd time, you only quote part of it. I’ll repeat, you only quote part of it, and because it’s yet to sink in guess what, I’ll repeat it again.....YOU ONLY QUOTE A PART OF IT, and the part that you quote is the part where he’s estimating. He stands for 5 mins (or was it a bit longer?) he then walks, but for how long? So his arrival at the pub is another estimation. Then he talks to a woman for 25 minutes (did he have a stopwatch?) So....a bunch of estimations Michael which you claim as a fact. Which by the way, with a reasonable margin for error could easily have been 1.00.

But of course you avoid the important part. Just as much his own words as the 12.35 guess, HE ARRIVED AT THE YARD 5 MINUTES BEFORE LAMB! Do you remember this? He’s not estimating the lengths of conversations or the duration of strolls he’s actually using a fairly fixed point. Lamb. Who got to the yard after 1.00. We can’t say exactly what time but 5 minutes before he arrived gets us to....12.35?....nah, 1.00.

Every single time you post 12.35 ill post 5 minutes before Lamb. We wouldn’t want you misleading everyone would we Michael?

Fanny Mortimer, despite whatever convoluted interpretation you offer, said she was at her door "nearly the whole time" between 12:30 and 1. She also said that she went out to the door and stayed there from 12:50 ish until just after 1. So...in what universe does that empower Louis and his "precisely" at 1 comment? Hint...it doesnt.

You do like to latch on to convenient words and phrases don’t you Michael? It’s a common symptom of the conspiracy theorist. Fanny said that she went onto her doorstep after hearing Smith pass. Now in English the opposite of outside is inside and so before she went outside she must have been.....inside, which according to her was between 12.30 and 12.45. So that’s half of the 30 minutes spent inside for a start so she even refutes herself.

But....there’s always a but. Now of course you just accept 12.45 as you just accept Spooner saying 12.35. But like Spooner..there’s more. She said she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed but Smith said that he passed at 12.30-12.35. Inconvenient I realise Michael. And so if she went onto her doorstep between 12.30-12.35 then she’s inside when Schwartz passed. Now I know you don’t like the bigger picture approach, preferring to latch on to a version that you like, but there really is no excuse for simply turning a blind eye to this possibility. It’s not setting a good example to lesser students of the case is it?

I have no problem with you having no problem with statements that have zero corroboration, believe what you want. The problem here is you attempt to discredit the majority of the accounts on times because I suppose you prefer different answers.

And I have no problem with your position behind the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll.

I offered evidence that men were standing around while Liz was bleeding, but whens I suggest that Louis and Eagle were among them as per 4 witness accounts, you start making up excuses and dissing the majority accounts in favour of ones that have ZERO VALIDATION. Nonsense, but sadly now, predictable. Having an intelligent discussion seems with you seems so elusive, I can only conclude that its because you dont understand all the elements here, the times given by witnesses...you keep correcting witnesses own words for some bizarre reason, and incorrectly then summarizing events...which to you are , what was that word..."obvious". Yes, some things are obvious here but they are not flattering for you nor do they back up anything you conclude.

Ill simply ask again Michael, after peddling this theory for years and with researchers studying this case in minute detail all the time, why has no one come out and said “guess what? I think Michael was right all along and that there was a cover-up and Stride was discover half an hour earlier?

I suppose everyone else is blind and stupid and only you can see the light? Wake up Michael. If this theory had any traction it would have caught on at least to some extent by now. But it hasn’t. Because it doesn’t.

You dont care how or who you mislead, so we are done here. This isnt Herlocks Imaginary Stories...maybe you should start that somewhere where people arent interested in acute perceptions and astute observations.

Are you so unaware that you can’t see your own arrogance in these comments Michael. Your acute perceptions and acute observations have got you precisely nowhere. Arguing a fantasy that no one else believes.

You never addressed my hypothetical...because of cours ethe answer makes your arguments look foolish...but lets try again, more specific this time.

4 witnesses give statements to the police that they saw a dying woman lying in a specific location, surrounded by standing men, all stories with the same times and details. 1 witness says he was the first and only person by that dying woman, and as it turns out it was 20 minutes later than the 4 aforementioned witnesses. He says he alone first discovered the body. No-one saw what time her arrived there. Another man says that at the same time the 4 witnesses who all are corroborated by the others accounts were by the dying woman, he saw her alive, in another location, with 1 man assaulting her and 1 man watching. No other witness saw either the last witness, the woman alive after 12:35 on the street, nor the two unidentified men the last witness says were there also.

Its an irrelevant scenario because you’re distorting the facts as ever.

You choose the absolute weakest possible stories and then state its obvious that they were actually the correct ones and the men who ALL had stories that matched in times and events, were ALL wrong by 20 minutes.

And you favour guesswork and fantasy. I still think back with a smile at your ‘evidence of interruption’ joke. A classic Michael.

And you claim this is the responsible and sensible way to interpret the data...when in fact it is the polar opposite of that.

Your arguments are weak, your "facts" are incorrect and misleading, and you judge all the info by what you would like to find as an outcome. All that adds up to a sure book deal for you on this topic.

Im happy to end this Michael because it’s impossible to discuss the case sensibly with someone so utterly biased. You’ve deliberately sought a scenario to suit your idea about Issenschmidt which is the most honest approach. You’ve spent years on this non-existent cover-up which renders you impervious to reason so you resort to telling everyone how superior you are whilst spitting out insults (and your dummy out of the pram at the same time)

Theories either get traction or they don’t yours hasn't but your pride won’t let you back down so you plough on favouring guesswork and fixating on pathetic nonsense like the word ‘precisely.’ All textbook conspiracy theorist behaviour.

Look around you Michael. NO ONE ACCEPTS YOUR COVER UP THEORY. Is everyone wrong or might you be? Of course you’ll say it’s everyone else. The sad thing is Michael that you just sound like a defeated Bond villain. And you HAVE lost the argument by the way. Not because of anything I’ve said but because the evidence has always been against you. Its a lost cause....you really should give it up after all this time Michael. No ones listening.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. ..lets leave that up to the peanut gallery shall we

Nice one Michael. Instead of just personal insults to me you insult everyone on the thread.

[Michael W Richards]

then whose being the a**hole?

Hello Michael,

Is this just a rhetorical question or are you looking for an answer?

c.d.

Since your answering a remark not made to you....lets leave that up to the peanut gallery shall we? I know what I am...and its discontent with bs and opinions used to counter actual evidence...but thats not new to you either is it?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Herlock. I have been interested in the case for a few years. I am I suppose relatively young(36 to be exact) but my interest very much stems from my University studies where I researched British and Irish history(I am Irish). What fascinated me was Irish migrants and their living conditions and the communities that sprang forth. Also the Fenian bombing campign which I happened to stumble upon whilst researching the 1916 Easter rising.(the main signatory of the 1916 Proclaimation of independence had been arrested and jailed in England for over 15 years mostly in solitary confinement. He had been a Fenian bomber). And that led me to Mary Kelly and the conspiracy theories around her- total nonsense by the way also. I then started researching this case- I think the context of the time period is fascinating.

I began studying these cases in 1988, so youll understand the "new student" reference. Herlock gets offended for others now...

[Michael W Richards]

Where did Gilleman say 12.40? Eagle said that Gilleman told him about the body and he went to view it.....at 1.00.

Yes Kozebrodski said ‘about’ 12.40. The word ‘about’ means that he was estimating his time. He then went looking for a Constable with Diemschutz, heard by Brown, at just after 1.00.

And Spooner....well waddya know, yet again you completely disregard evidence and go for an estimation. I sense a pattern here. Remember? Harris...police whistle....and the 5 minutes before Lamb arrived. Proving that when he went to the yard it was after 1.00. But go ahead Michael ignore the evidence and stick to the convenient guesses.

Then old Mrs M..... no she didn’t see Schwartz but.... she went onto her doorstep for 10 minutes after hearing PC Smith pass. Smith said that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35 so let’s split the difference and say 12.33. Plus 10 minutes on her doorstep which takes us to....12.43 and she goes back inside until she heard the commotion at the club (and Diemschutz horse and cart btw arriving at 1.00 and not at 12.35 when she was on her doorstep) Schwartz passes at 12.45 whilst she’s indoors.

It’s very interesting Michael that you ask “why didn’t she see Schwartz at 12.45?” Even though she was inside. And yet you don’t ask why she and Smith didn’t see him returning at 12.35. Smith also walked past the yard but didn’t mention seeing a horse and cart. Strange that

Forget the convenient guessing mistakes and regard the inconvenient corroborating evidence.

Again remember the example I gave, Mr X said that he did Y at 2.30 just after the postman came. The postman however said that he came at 3.00 and as he was just entering the gate Mrs B passed and asked him the time and he said 3.00.

Conclusion? You of course go for 2.30 whilst most people look at the corroborating evidence and say 2.30. It’s exactly the same with events in Berner Street. If you see a guess that helps your theory you embrace it wholeheartedly and turn a blind eye to the inconvenient facts.

Dont we have a reference to "Gillen", which is the same man, that says 12:40. Yes, we do...as weve discussed for over a year. Spooner said about 25 to 1. You know we have Inquest transcripts, right? If so, why do I have to keep quoting them. Fanny Mortimer, despite whatever convoluted interpretation you offer, said she was at her door "nearly the whole time" between 12:30 and 1. She also said that she went out to the door and stayed there from 12:50 ish until just after 1. So...in what universe does that empower Louis and his "precisely" at 1 comment? Hint...it doesnt.

I have no problem with you having no problem with statements that have zero corroboration, believe what you want. The problem here is you attempt to discredit the majority of the accounts on times because I suppose you prefer different answers.

I offered evidence that men were standing around while Liz was bleeding, but whens I suggest that Louis and Eagle were among them as per 4 witness accounts, you start making up excuses and dissing the majority accounts in favour of ones that have ZERO VALIDATION. Nonsense, but sadly now, predictable. Having an intelligent discussion seems with you seems so elusive, I can only conclude that its because you dont understand all the elements here, the times given by witnesses...you keep correcting witnesses own words for some bizarre reason, and incorrectly then summarizing events...which to you are , what was that word..."obvious". Yes, some things are obvious here but they are not flattering for you nor do they back up anything you conclude.

You dont care how or who you mislead, so we are done here. This isnt Herlocks Imaginary Stories...maybe you should start that somewhere where people arent interested in acute perceptions and astute observations.

You never addressed my hypothetical...because of cours ethe answer makes your arguments look foolish...but lets try again, more specific this time.

4 witnesses give statements to the police that they saw a dying woman lying in a specific location, surrounded by standing men, all stories with the same times and details. 1 witness says he was the first and only person by that dying woman, and as it turns out it was 20 minutes later than the 4 aforementioned witnesses. He says he alone first discovered the body. No-one saw what time her arrived there. Another man says that at the same time the 4 witnesses who all are corroborated by the others accounts were by the dying woman, he saw her alive, in another location, with 1 man assaulting her and 1 man watching. No other witness saw either the last witness, the woman alive after 12:35 on the street, nor the two unidentified men the last witness says were there also.

You choose the absolute weakest possible stories and then state its obvious that they were actually the correct ones and the men who ALL had stories that matched in times and events, were ALL wrong by 20 minutes.

And you claim this is the responsible and sensible way to interpret the data...when in fact it is the polar opposite of that.

Your arguments are weak, your "facts" are incorrect and misleading, and you judge all the info by what you would like to find as an outcome. All that adds up to a sure book deal for you on this topic.

[Sunny Delight]

With the Fenian connection you’ve probably looked into the Tumblety connection? I don’t think that he was the Ripper but he certainly had an eventful life.

Ive recently watched a superb documentary on the Easter Rising narrated by Liam Neeson which you’ve probably seen. It was great to see black and white interviews with some of those that were involved plus wives etc.

Yes I have looked into Tumblety and his connections. It appears to me anyways that he was nothing more than a sympathiser who may have known some 'players' through establishments etc but was someone not particularly useful as he rather brought far too much attention upon himself. I know he frequented hotels owned by Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa who was exiled from Ireland for extremist activities(he and four others were known as the 'Cuba five'). O'Donovan Rossa had actually been elected to Westminster in 1869 whilst in prison for 'treason felony'. I would find it rather odd if Rossa, a wily and cunning operative had given Tumblety much encouragement. Rossa's establishments were places Fenian sympathisers hung out so to speak. One of the reasons I don't give any credence to Tumblety as the Whitechapel murderer is that he was far too eccentric and self promoting to in any way commit the crimes. To my mind and as I say I am quite new to the case the Ripper was a local man, probably the man Scwartz and Lawende both saw and someone who had a job. That is about all we can infer really I think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Schwartz was straightforward they would have.He was too important, perhaps the key.

Of course we would have expected Schwartz to have appeared but I can’t see how he was ‘key’ Varqm? The Inquests aim was to decide how and when she died of course and so as far as the ‘how’ was concerned Schwartz was entirely surplus to requirements. As to the ‘when,’ yes he could have narrowed the window of time down by less than 10 minutes (only by saying that Stride was still alive at 12.45) but it’s hardly massive is it? And of course this wouldn’t have affected the police investigation one iota because they had Schwartz statement anyway.

The most important point as far as discussion on here goes is that we can’t simply state that he didn’t appear at the Inquest because the police put no faith in his story unless we can prove this and we can’t. We know that the Inquest began directly after the murder; we know that the police interviewed a potential BS man; we know that the description was being used into late October and we have senior police officers talking about Schwartz (none of whom said that he wasn’t believed) so how could all this have happened if Schwartz had been disregarded in 24 hours? It’s ludicrous. As long as there are possible alternative explanations then we shouldn’t be making categorical statements. Is it possible that Schwartz simply went into hiding to avoid giving evidence at the Inquest? I’d say that this has to be at least a possibility. Whether individuals suspect that this is or isn’t true is largely irrelevant unless someone can prove it either way.

[Herlock Sholmes]

An open question on the police whistle.

1. We have the only police whistle blown by PC Lamb some time after 1.00.

2. Hoschberg said that he heard the police whistle and headed to the yard at about 12.45.

3. Spooner runs into Mr Harris, according to Spooner, at 12.35 and Harris had already heard the whistle.

So what do we think is the correct deduction?

1. Harris and Hoschberg both heard the whistle 10 minutes apart and 20-30 minutes before Lamb actually blew it.

Or
2. They both heard Lamb blow his whistle just after 1.00 but we're genuinely mistaken in their estimation of the time?

Question avoided like the plague i see.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock. I have been interested in the case for a few years. I am I suppose relatively young(36 to be exact) but my interest very much stems from my University studies where I researched British and Irish history(I am Irish). What fascinated me was Irish migrants and their living conditions and the communities that sprang forth. Also the Fenian bombing campign which I happened to stumble upon whilst researching the 1916 Easter rising.(the main signatory of the 1916 Proclaimation of independence had been arrested and jailed in England for over 15 years mostly in solitary confinement. He had been a Fenian bomber). And that led me to Mary Kelly and the conspiracy theories around her- total nonsense by the way also. I then started researching this case- I think the context of the time period is fascinating.

With the Fenian connection you’ve probably looked into the Tumblety connection? I don’t think that he was the Ripper but he certainly had an eventful life.

Ive recently watched a superb documentary on the Easter Rising narrated by Liam Neeson which you’ve probably seen. It was great to see black and white interviews with some of those that were involved plus wives etc.

[FrankO]

Ahhhhh the cool, invigorating fresh air of unbiased reason.

Welcome back to The Grassy Knoll Frank

Cheers, Michael!

[FrankO]

Then there are James Brown and William Marshall, who both heard the shouting of “Murder” just after/around one o’clock. Both of them, however, didn’t hear the shouting of the couple of Jews who, according to you, ran along Fairclough Street some 20 minutes earlier. Which is very odd, to say the least.

What I forgot tot add is that if we stick to Brown's statement, then Brown was either on his way to or at the chandler's shop at the intersection of Berner & Fairclough Streets when the 2 unknown Jews passed running & shouting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Both Diemshutz & Eagle are corroborated as to their timings by Mrs. Diemshutz, her servant Mila and Julius Minsky.

Also Mortimer corroborates Diemshutz & Spooner as to the latter touching Stride’s face, which was just after one o’clock. Of course, only Spooner stated to have touched the face before the police took control of the scene.

Then there are James Brown and William Marshall, who both heard the shouting of “Murder” just after/around one o’clock. Both of them, however, didn’t hear the shouting of the couple of Jews who, according to you, ran along Fairclough Street some 20 minutes earlier. Which is very odd, to say the least.

Just as it’s very odd, to say the least, that Spooner didn’t mention Diemshutz & Isaacs and, a little later, Eagle, going for a policeman when he had already been in the yard for some 20 minutes without anybody doing a thing. The 2 going in search of a policeman after a period of some 20 minutes of doing nothing would, given the situation, have been quite noteworthy, but, nothing of this from Spooner.

And, of course, what’s also very striking is that Diemshutz told a copy of what Spooner told about the running & shouting of 2 men in search of a policeman, not finding one but instead bringing a man back to the yard, who then lifted the head of the woman, when all of this already supposed to have happened some 20 minutes earlier.

Ahhhhh the cool, invigorating fresh air of unbiased reason.

Welcome back to The Grassy Knoll Frank

[Sunny Delight]

Rather patronising don’t you think? Just because Sunny Delight has only made relatively few posts it doesn’t mean that he hasn’t been looking at the case for years. And you don’t need to have years of experience to understand the difference between an estimation and a timing with corroboration.

Your witnesses have been refuted by corroborating evidence. Stick to your convenient estimations and guesses Michael.

I wonder why no one else takes your theory seriously Michael? You’d think that after all these years you would attract at least a few supporters. Even sympathy votes. But no here you are clinging to the sinking life raft shouting “conspiracy!”

Its way past time to give it up.

Hi Herlock. I have been interested in the case for a few years. I am I suppose relatively young(36 to be exact) but my interest very much stems from my University studies where I researched British and Irish history(I am Irish). What fascinated me was Irish migrants and their living conditions and the communities that sprang forth. Also the Fenian bombing campign which I happened to stumble upon whilst researching the 1916 Easter rising.(the main signatory of the 1916 Proclaimation of independence had been arrested and jailed in England for over 15 years mostly in solitary confinement. He had been a Fenian bomber). And that led me to Mary Kelly and the conspiracy theories around her- total nonsense by the way also. I then started researching this case- I think the context of the time period is fascinating.

[FrankO]

None of the witnesses who said the discover was after 1 have any corroboration at all, all of the witnesses who said 12:40-12:45 are corroborated by multiple witness accounts.

Both Diemshutz & Eagle are corroborated as to their timings by Mrs. Diemshutz, her servant Mila and Julius Minsky.

Also Mortimer corroborates Diemshutz & Spooner as to the latter touching Stride’s face, which was just after one o’clock. Of course, only Spooner stated to have touched the face before the police took control of the scene.

Then there are James Brown and William Marshall, who both heard the shouting of “Murder” just after/around one o’clock. Both of them, however, didn’t hear the shouting of the couple of Jews who, according to you, ran along Fairclough Street some 20 minutes earlier. Which is very odd, to say the least.

Just as it’s very odd, to say the least, that Spooner didn’t mention Diemshutz & Isaacs and, a little later, Eagle, going for a policeman when he had already been in the yard for some 20 minutes without anybody doing a thing. The 2 going in search of a policeman after a period of some 20 minutes of doing nothing would, given the situation, have been quite noteworthy, but, nothing of this from Spooner.

And, of course, what’s also very striking is that Diemshutz told a copy of what Spooner told about the running & shouting of 2 men in search of a policeman, not finding one but instead bringing a man back to the yard, who then lifted the head of the woman, when all of this already supposed to have happened some 20 minutes earlier.

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Icha
Did Schwartz mention a peaked cap? I don't recall that he did unless I am mistaken. Very true though on the lack of information. From the info we do have though the descriptions are very similar. Now if one or the other had described a 5ft 11 man with dark complexion, thin build, aged about 40 and clean shaven then there would have been a big problem!!

Hi Sunny

yes, NotForNothing made a comprehensive comparison analysis of the two men:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/general-suspect-discussion/743972-stride-a-victim?p=744500#post744500

Peaked cap is definitely in the picture here
But what is the Hungarian word for peaked cap? i forgot....

Cheers
IchabodCrane