Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by caz View Post

    Er, that's precisely why I asked what you were taking as gospel from Spooner's testimony, to support your Early Learning theory.

    If thats the case then ask me rather than just associating me with a quote or position I never made or ever espoused.

    You should know, Michael. You're the only one in step.

    Not looking to be the only one here that can read and interpret, nor am I. Just better than some....
    I always get a laugh when I post facts from someting and those who dont agree with them call me arrogant. Pot....calling kettle...

    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • So I think the vast majority accept Schwartz was truthful with what he saw. That being the case what are the chances that the man he saw assaulting Stride was:

      1) Her killer.
      2) The Whitechapel Murderer.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post
        So I think the vast majority accept Schwartz was truthful with what he saw. That being the case what are the chances that the man he saw assaulting Stride was:

        1) Her killer.
        2) The Whitechapel Murderer.
        Youre correct on that assumption Sunny, that doesnt make anyone right though. If Schwartz actually did see what he says, then he saw her killer, not a serial mutilator...based on the physical evidence alone. If the police believed he did, we could read his statement details in the Inquest transcripts. See any problem with that second point?
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          Youre correct on that assumption Sunny, that doesnt make anyone right though. If Schwartz actually did see what he says, then he saw her killer, not a serial mutilator...based on the physical evidence alone. If the police believed he did, we could read his statement details in the Inquest transcripts. See any problem with that second point?
          Yeah I wondered why he didn't appear at the inquest but as Jeff pointed out to me there were some witnesses who testified at the various inquests who were clearly mistaken. So it doesn't neccessarily fit that he didn't appear because he was deemed unreliable. To be honest the reason why he didn't appear was probably something rather dull and boring- as is often the case. In the end though we may never truly know why he didn't give evidence and so it will remain a point of contention. I do agree that there is the possibility at least that the man Schwartz saw assaulting Stride was just a random attacker not related to the other cases. Personally I think it was the Ripper but again we will never know. I do think it interesting though that Schwartz man does bare a canny resemblence to the man Lawende described. Same height roughly, hair color, peaked cap, same age. Similar clotihing. Build was different but not radically.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

            I always get a laugh when I post facts from someting and those who dont agree with them call me arrogant. Pot....calling kettle...
            If we take the time to scan back Michael we will have no trouble showing that it was you who belittled everyone that disagreed with you.
            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

              You "accept" your unsubstantiated witness accounts and toss the accounts from witnesses who all agree with each otehrs times and are 20 minutes earlier than Louis stated arrival time....thats the crux here? Its ok to accept your non validated witness times are incorrect by some few minutes, but you cannot accept the vast majority, and only, substantiated times?

              Ive heard the opera you folks suggest like the above, and the used timings are all wrong.

              Enough though. Ive pointed out you are backing the club employees times that have no second hand verification whatsoever in favour of the majority of non affiliated witness acounts that give times of 12:35-12:45, Ive pointed out so many times it hurts that Israel not being at the Inquest means he wasnt supported or believed by the police or the people organizing the Inquest, and ive pointed out that the club was perceievd as an anarchists club, which would lead one to believe a murder on their property would be very interesting to law enforcement and likey a catalyst for closure...and you sing the same old songs using the least credible accounts..and without any substantiation.

              Logic it seems is not enough, nor is reason, it seems when you buy the ghoul premise you have to throw out good, keep the bad, and hope like hell someone can prove an interruption took place.

              Good luck on that.
              We don’t need luck Michael but the debate is won. No one believes your biased version of events. And over such a length of time and with so many people looking into those events it’s about as conclusive as it gets. After 10 years or so of hundreds of people looking into those events not one single person supports your theory.

              ....

              , Ive pointed out so many times it hurts that Israel not being at the Inquest means he wasnt supported or believed by the police
              Yes, you’ve graciously pointed this out but what your ego won’t let you accepts is AGAIN the majority of posters go with the evidence and so don’t believe you. The idea that the police didn’t trust Schwartz is not even worth discussing. It’s a non-starter. The facts refute it utterly. You’ve had it explained to you often enough by different posters but you choose not to accept because you are biased and you need it to prop up your theory.

              and ive pointed out that the club was perceievd as an anarchists club, which would lead one to believe a murder on their property would be very interesting to law enforcement and likey a catalyst for closure
              And we all appreciate you injecting a bit of comedy into the debate to lighten the mood. The fact is that a scenario doesn't equate to a solution of course but obviously you won’t let that bother you. It’s a case of “I’ve thought of a scenario therefore it must be true.”

              Right at the heart of the Ripper scare even the meanest intelligences would have assumed that Stride was a ripper murder (whether she was or not) And so you are asking everyone to believe that, on the shock and horror of finding a ripper victim, Diemschutz and co’s first thoughts would have been “I bet those coppers will blame us for having a ripper murder in our yard and they’ll probably close us down!” Of course the police would unjustly close down a Jewish club for hosting a ripper murder at a time when many suspected that the killer was a foreigner and a Jew. A time when even a poorly spelt, partially hidden grafitto had been erased on Warren’s orders for fear of civic unrest involving the Jewish population.

              And on the spur of the moment they come up with a plan but they don’t bother telling all the members of course. Why would the police not believe them if some told different versions?

              Then they find the ideal false witness....a man that can’t speak English! Great choice.

              Get real Michael. Your conspiracy is like a paper bag.....it just doesn’t hold water.

              Logic it seems is not enough, nor is reason, it seems when you buy the ghoul premise you have to throw out good, keep the bad, and hope like hell someone can prove an interruption took place
              So you’re still pushing the ‘evidence of absence’ nonsense. It’s a joke.

              Regards

              Herlock



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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post

                Yeah I wondered why he didn't appear at the inquest but as Jeff pointed out to me there were some witnesses who testified at the various inquests who were clearly mistaken. So it doesn't neccessarily fit that he didn't appear because he was deemed unreliable. To be honest the reason why he didn't appear was probably something rather dull and boring- as is often the case. In the end though we may never truly know why he didn't give evidence and so it will remain a point of contention. I do agree that there is the possibility at least that the man Schwartz saw assaulting Stride was just a random attacker not related to the other cases. Personally I think it was the Ripper but again we will never know. I do think it interesting though that Schwartz man does bare a canny resemblence to the man Lawende described. Same height roughly, hair color, peaked cap, same age. Similar clotihing. Build was different but not radically.
                I highlighted that above because youre right....but I left the rest of that thought not so. Why? Because youre right to asume unrelability wouldnt neccesarily exclude him. They could prove he saw anyone or anything like he said. That is the only thoughtful answer. And people still today use his staement to try and create a timeline. I have no idea why, but as you can tell I dont accept the lack of logic gracefully. We should be better than following obvious false leads. I believe serious students should be held to higher standards.
                Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-04-2021, 08:01 PM.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
                  I think what Schwartz saw was a bit of street hassle that could have been pretty common at the time. Basically prostitute accosting guy in the street, guy in the street takes offence and pushes said prostitute (who may be a little worse for wear because of drink) to the ground. Schwartz witnesses this and is basically told to mind his own business. As he was new to the area, he may have interpreted what he saw as more that it was. This is why I believe the police interviewed him, realised that what he saw had nothing to do with the actual murder and then dismissed him from appearing at the inquest. This could also explain why the police published a description of BS at a latter date, rather than identifying him as a possible suspect, they wanted to speak to him as one of the last people to have interacted with the victim.
                  Even if the incident witnessed by Schwartz was the onset of the fatal assault his evidence won't be relevant to an inquest hearing. The issues germane to an inquest:

                  Who has died? When did she die? Where did she die? How did she die?

                  His evidence would be of value to one side or the other if there was a trial but has no value to the purpose of an inquest as he can't answer any of those questions.
                  "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    If we take the time to scan back Michael we will have no trouble showing that it was you who belittled everyone that disagreed with you.
                    Historically you will find that I respond, not incite. But I do respond with venom...guilty.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post

                      Even if the incident witnessed by Schwartz was the onset of the fatal assault his evidence won't be relevant to an inquest hearing. The issues germane to an inquest:

                      Who has died? When did she die? Where did she die? How did she die?

                      His evidence would be of value to one side or the other if there was a trial but has no value to the purpose of an inquest as he can't answer any of those questions.
                      Key question. And an asault on the victim minutes before she is killed would go a long way to a Willful Murder finding.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        If we take the time to scan back Michael we will have no trouble showing that it was you who belittled everyone that disagreed with you.
                        Typo...everyone that trashed talked me. I dont disagree with facts, just supposition and disparaging comments.

                        Enough though Herlock, Ive cited facts and times and youve disputed those in favour of unsubstantiated minority statements. We get it. You believe what you believe. So does the ex-US president, and at some point you have to say...ok, sure its voter fraud. Why not.
                        Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-04-2021, 08:25 PM.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                          Historically you will find that I respond, not incite. But I do respond with venom...guilty.
                          No. That’s untrue. You began insulting everyone. Caz commented on it at the time.
                          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

                            Typo...everyone that trashed talked me. I dont disagree with facts, just supposition and disparaging comments.

                            Enough though Herlock, Ive cited facts and times and youve disputed those in favour of unsubstantiated minority statements. We get it. You believe what you believe. So does the ex-US president, and at some point you have to say...ok, sure its voter fraud. Why not.
                            False as everyone knows. If I have time tomorrow I’ll find that first post. You even apologised at the time. And a few post later you were back at 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

                              I highlighted that above because youre right....but I left the rest of that thought not so. Why? Because youre right to asume unrelability wouldnt neccesarily exclude him. They could prove he saw anyone or anything like he said. That is the only thoughtful answer. And people still today use his staement to try and create a timeline. I have no idea why, but as you can tell I dont accept the lack of logic gracefully. We should be better than following obvious false leads. I believe serious students should be held to higher standards.
                              Except for you of course.
                              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
                                .. ive pointed out that the club was perceievd as an anarchists club, which would lead one to believe a murder on their property would be very interesting to law enforcement and likey a catalyst for closure...and you sing the same old songs using the least credible accounts..and without any substantiation.
                                If club members were worried that a murder on their property would give the authorities a reason to close their club, then the problem is where the murder occurred, not when it occurred. Lying about when the body was found does nothing to solve that problem. None of the club members had any reason to lie about when the body was found.

                                The problem is where the body was found. If the club members wanted to hide that, they would have pitched the body in the back of the cart, covered it so it wouldn't be seen, and moved it to somewhere that wasn't on the property of the club. Meanwhile, everyone aggrees they saw nothing, none of them raises an alarm, and none of them would run for the police. But the club members did nothing to hide where the body was found.

                                Last edited by Fiver; 03-04-2021, 09:53 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X