Schwartz, a fraud?

[Cogidubnus]

"Posting etiquette concerns us all equally Tom...or should do as it's small politenesses that lubricate the smooth workings of the world..."

Then why are you being such a prick?

QED...To any unbiased observer you've just said it all...nonetheless...

Simply because of such self-evident, offensive, bullying, and unnecessary outbursts as you habitually resort to when challenged on equal grounds...is that clear enough?

You accused me of hypocrisy. That's a cap that most certainly doesn't fit.

Tom, owing to my habit of looking at "new posts" I quite coincidentally came directly to this thread from another, in which it appeared to me you were accusing somebody undefined, of trolling "off-topic" with minimal grounds. (I had in fact looked back and genuinely couldn't see who you might be referring to, although to be fair, I suspected you might be holding some sort of grudge against Michael and it might just be him)...nonetheless....

On this thread (which I'd revived specifically to discuss Schwartz) you openly condoned a couple of posters who were far more definitely off-topic...discussing in fact a quite different murder...

If that isn't hypocrisy, then what is?

Nonetheless, in the interests of keeping things "low-profile", I kept my comments very moderate and did not explicitly name you...you've done that for yourself...

Your buddy, on the other hand, hijacked a brand new thread with his OWN off-topic rant.

I have no buddy...as stated before elsewhere, I haven't a clue who Michael is, have no idea what grudge you may or may not bear him, and have never even private-mailed him...in fact I did not even know for sure that you were referring to him.

Now, if you'd actually like to discuss the theories that I myself originated regarding Schwartz being a false witness put forth by the Berner Street club in which I believe he used to live in order to throw suspicion off the members, then by all means, let's discuss.

Having taken the trouble to back-read damn nearly every thread on the current boards, I'm well aware of the background to the doubts over Schwartz. I think you were quite right to raise them, and the lack of solid evidence is regrettable...Much in the club members testimony and police evidence is nonetheless suggestive is it not?

Nonetheless, returning to "nos moutons" I believe you were actively discussing Long, and as such, that input surely belongs on a different thread? No?

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Interesting...I'm not pursuing anyone, but I've just come directly from a thread on which a contravention of Rule 8 is being contended on, as far as I can see, the very slightest of grounds...

Whilst I'm not the originator of this particular thread, I revived it (post #244) specifically to discuss the Schwartz testimony...and I'm a little surprised to find the aforementioned claimant actively condoning the hijacking of this thread to discuss another case completely...

Dave

Thank you for maintaining equal ground Dave, but Ive posted an apology on the thread. No need to muck up another one.

I will add for the purpose of this thread though that Tom Wescott didnt invent Schwartz questions or possible solutions to the many issues regarding club statements on these or other boards, that can be checked easily if one wishes. Lets not put any grapestalks in dead hands here.

My best regards,

Mike R

[Tom_Wescott]

Posting etiquette concerns us all equally Tom...or should do as it's small politenesses that lubricate the smooth workings of the world...

Then why are you being such a prick?

Did I mention you by name Tom? No I didn't...None the less I appear to have drawn blood...So if the cap fits please feel free to wear it.

You accused me of hypocrisy. That's a cap that most certainly doesn't fit. I came onto this thread and commented perfectly on topic with what was being discussed. In fact, I made an observation in direct response to the topic of discussion. Your buddy, on the other hand, hijacked a brand new thread with his OWN off-topic rant. I said nothing. Another poster pointed out to him that he had been off-topic since his very first post. I said nothing. He acknowledges he's off-topic, and continues his rant. Then I said something. It's all right there. There's the natural evolution of discussion which occurs, causing threads to go off-topic, and then there's hijacking and trolling. Very different.

Now, if you'd actually like to discuss the theories that I myself originated regarding Schwartz being a false witness put forth by the Berner Street club in which I believe he used to live in order to throw suspicion off the members, then by all means, let's discuss.


Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Posting etiquette concerns us all equally Tom...or should do as it's small politenesses that lubricate the smooth workings of the world...

Did I express unduly strong or unfairly pointed views on posting etiquette? No, all things considered, I was very mild...

Did I mention you by name Tom? No I didn't...None the less I appear to have drawn blood...So if the cap fits please feel free to wear it.

Now, in accordance with Rule 8, can we please either get back to the subject of the thread, or drop it altogether?

Thanks

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Dave. Why does it matter to you? And why do you feel others would be interested in your opinion of my posting etiquette?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Hypocrisy

Interesting...I'm not pursuing anyone, but I've just come directly from a thread on which a contravention of Rule 8 is being contended on, as far as I can see, the very slightest of grounds...

Whilst I'm not the originator of this particular thread, I revived it (post #244) specifically to discuss the Schwartz testimony...and I'm a little surprised to find the aforementioned claimant actively condoning the hijacking of this thread to discuss another case completely...

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Interesting thread. I didn't realize so many people thought Mrs. Long was mistaken in her evidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rubyretro]

So what happened to the Hollywood'esq earsplitting scream...


Regards, Jon S.

Well, maybe that scenario would have been too Hollywood'esq and the woman just exclaimed 'No!' and didn't bother to scream..you know, a subliminal desire to stay discreet ?

[Wickerman]

I can also understand why stumbling (literally) on Annie's body might make
someone exclaim 'No!' and fall heavily against the fence.

So what happened to the Hollywood'esq earsplitting scream...


Regards, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

Hi MB,

Possibly so but, in that case, who or what did Cadosch hear fall against the fence*, and who removed him/her/it (& why?) between that time and the discovery of the body? If Cadosch was telling the truth someone was in that yard around 5.25am.

*Assuming that he heard anything at all of course!

Regards, Bridewell.

My personal speculation is that the yard was used by different prostitutes and their clients, the door being open..

(I don't see that Annie would have found her way into the yard by accident
-she knew it was open and quiet at that time. If she knew it, then it stands to reasons that others would).

I cannot see how it is possible that mrs Long could quickly pass a couple in Hanbury Street, that she didn't know, when she was concerned with getting to work, and then positively identify the woman as Annie....but I do buy that she might have 'got' that she was passing a woman prostituting herself with a client ( that famous body language again).

Therefore (and taking into account that I believe that Annie died earlier
than is assumed now -due to the Doctor's opinion, and the fact that Jack
usually struck under cover of darkness ), I think that a prostitute and her client went into the yard between the time that Annie was killed and her body being officially discovered.

I can quite understand why a prostitute would not come forward to the police, and her client even less so, and become embroiled in this case.

I can also understand why stumbling (literally) on Annie's body might make
someone exclaim 'No!' and fall heavily against the fence.

[Bridewell]

Long Dead

Evening All

Hate to jump into the goldfish bowl, but Annie WAS long dead by 5.30 am ..

cheers all

Moonbegger

Hi MB,

Possibly so but, in that case, who or what did Cadosch hear fall against the fence*, and who removed him/her/it (& why?) between that time and the discovery of the body? If Cadosch was telling the truth someone was in that yard around 5.25am.

*Assuming that he heard anything at all of course!

Regards, Bridewell.

[moonbegger]

Sorry, Mike. I thought you were arguing for an earlier time.

Regards, Bridewell.

Evening All

Hate to jump into the goldfish bowl, but Annie WAS long dead by 5.30 am ..

cheers all

Moonbegger

[Wickerman]

I don't need to "eenie-meanie" anything young fella, anymore than you need to teach "ma" how to suck eggs...

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick,

I would suggest that if two sources (in this case, DT and Times) don't agree, that before you 'eeny-meenie-minee-moe' it, you check other sources.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Indeed Mike, and if we do take that path we effectively destroy the accepted paradigm. Mrs Long arrives too late..

Regards, Jon S.

Thats my take on it anyway Jon.

Cheers and Best regards,
Mike R