Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    It seems we have a misunderstanding. You seem to be suggesting that he found the body when the horse shied. I was marking the event of finding the body as when it was determined that Stride was dead. Up until then Diemshitz was saying that he wasn't sure that she wasn't just drunk. So you're not suggesting that to drive down Berner St, turn into the yard, prod about with his whip, alight from the cart and light a match, shift the pony up near the door, run inside searching for his wife, alert club members on both floors, return with Kozebrodski, light another match and lift up the body took less than a minute?

    That was my previous question.

    Cheers, George
    No George. I’m saying that from the clock to the yard and the first sighting of the body was less than a minute.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

    Comment


    • .
      On the other hand, Spooner was alerted to the search for police at around 12:55, placing Diemschitz' arrival a few minutes prior. Herschburg was alerted to the incident at about 12:45. Both men either heard or new someone who had heard a whistle, so apparently Whistleman knew of the incident well before 1am
      More blatant manipulation of the facts.

      Spooner was alerted to the search for the police after 1.00 because 1.00 was the time that Diemschutz found the body. After seeing a clock….remember?

      Then Brown confirms the time of the search for the police. Just after 1.00. This couldn’t be clearer.

      Spooner got there just before Lamb who get there around 1.05ish.

      Lamb blew his whistle in the yard after 1.00. Herschberg said “around 12.45 I should think.” So very obviously a guess but you favour that over a man that actually saw a clock. Nice reasoning.

      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • .
        That's about 1.00 in the bank, but probably more like 12:55, given a "very reasonable" margin of error. That is for Diemschitz' arrival, yet the body was probably discovered before then. There is evidence the body was shifted - presumably to make way for the cart, which was never in the way - and there are clues in Arbeter Fraint that it were actually Kozebrodski who was the discoverer. Or maybe it was Krantz...
        No there isn’t. The body was discovered at 1.00. By Diemschutz. All else is crap. Conspiracist fantasy.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • . Yours is more or less the accepted story.
          Because it’s not a created fantasy.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
            Much has been made of Diemshitz being the only one to have stated he saw a clock (not initially, but afterwards at the inquest), apart from Blackwell who said he looked at his pocketwatch - and Brown who said he didn't look at the chandler's clock. The proposition is that therefore, Diemshitz is right, as are all those who support him. Of course those whose testimony don't support him must be discarded as guesswork......seriously?

            Can anyone point to a statement by any of the other witnesses that refers to a clock?

            What is it when one holds up as true non clocked based testimony that suits their argument and dismisses out of hand non clocked based testimony that contradicts their argument?......Oh yeah....cognitive bias.

            Cheers, George
            Diemschutz saw a clock and Blackwell owned a watch. So 1.00 and 1.16 are times that we should be confident about and timelines should be built around these.

            But for some strange reason George it doesn’t appear to work like that. So we have to ask if it’s likely that he was mistaken or lying. I see no reason for him to have lied and those that do enter into conspiracist madness which I’m not even prepared give a seconds credence to. So could he have been mistaken? Well if the possibility existed, for example if he was a distance away, then he had no reason not to admit this. 1.00 or 1.01 or 1.02 would have made no difference to his statement. But he speaks with 100% confidence so there’s zero reason to doubt that he had a clear view of the clock. We know of no sight problems or that he had any problems reading the time. So the evidence is against him making an error. So viewing what he said there isn’t a smidgeon of evidence to suggest that he didn’t see that clock exactly when he said that he did. There just isn’t.

            So what’s left for some (I’m not including you in this) is to say “ well I have another story and I need Diemschutz to have lied..”

            His wife backed up his time.
            Eagle said that he first sa the body around 1.00 (including Gilleman too)
            Brown heard Diemschutz shouting for the police just after 1.00.
            Even FM heard a cart at around 1.00.

            If it quacks like a duck and we dismiss a ludicrous non-existent cover-up……
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
              Spot on!

              A while back one poster investigated public clocks from the era and found that a 15 minute variance was not unusual. People just can't seem to grasp the notion, sadly.

              I wish that we could have this post as a banner headline.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                Can anyone point to a statement by any of the other witnesses that refers to a clock?
                The closest I can find is William Marshall, in the Times:

                I went in about 12 o'clock and heard nothing more until I heard "Murder" being called in the street. It had then just gone 1 o'clock.

                This is compatible with Diemschitz turning into Berner street at about 12:55.

                What is it when one holds up as true non clocked based testimony that suits their argument and dismisses out of hand non clocked based testimony that contradicts their argument?......Oh yeah....cognitive bias.
                Some people are very clear on what they want the truth to be.
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • >>I went in about 12 o'clock and heard nothing more until I heard "Murder" being called in the street. It had then just gone 1 o'clock.<<

                  Damn! I'd forgotten all about Marshall's comment. Yet another link in the chain, but hey, why go with the evidence, when imagination is so much better?
                  dustymiller
                  aka drstrange

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                    Even if he did what does it prove other than he felt the need to give a specific time in the context of the inquest?
                    We need to know why he felt that need. My theory is that he were trying to create the perception of a very definite and specific gap between Fanny Mortimer's locking up of her front door, and his arrival. It is no coincidence that Diemschitz was the original Interruptionist.

                    I’m not being drawn into the whistle debate. My issue ultimately is corroboration. We should always give more weight the things that can be corroborated by another and less weight to those things that cannot.
                    The early whistle is corroborated. Someone with a whistle knew what had occurred, prior to the arrival of police. Who was that person, why did they blow a whistle, and how long before the official discovery time did this occur?
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post

                      >>I went in about 12 o'clock and heard nothing more until I heard "Murder" being called in the street. It had then just gone 1 o'clock.<<

                      Damn! I'd forgotten all about Marshall's comment. Yet another link in the chain, but hey, why go with the evidence, when imagination is so much better?
                      Is it better that this...?

                      I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.
                      He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club., A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • .
                        The closest I can find is William Marshall, in the Times:

                        I went in about 12 o'clock and heard nothing more until I heard "Murder" being called in the street. It had then just gone 1 o'clock.

                        This is compatible with Diemschitz turning into Berner street at about 12:55
                        Is the English language an issue?

                        He heard ‘murder being called when the clock had already struck 1.00. This ties in with Diemschutz finding the body at 1.00 and running for the police 2 minutes later.

                        Then again, everything points to a 1.00 discovery time because we have no reason, and certainly no evidence, to doubt it.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                          >>I’m losing interest in this case again. It’s like being down a rabbit-hole.<<

                          Yes, some people are so worried that the Harris clock showed 1:00 a.m. that they need to come up with ever increasingly complicated scenarios, rather than understanding time was fluid in the Victorian East End. There was no such thing as synchronised time. One only need do a cursory search into timekeeping in the 1880's to understand this, but sadly it seems some have no will to research beyond this site. They can only see through the lens of 21 Century's time obsession.

                          It's the same old story with quotes, the Rubenhold effect, newspaper articles can't be trusted, until they say something they like, then they are to be taken as word for word literal.

                          There's no new insights, nothing we haven't read people propose a thousand times before. Just argument for arguments sake.
                          Exactly Dusty. It’s completely pointless to try and derail a cogent series of events just because 2 people, who were very obviously estimating their times, disagree. The calm approach says “well this discrepancy isn’t outside the bounds of plausibility considering the accuracy of estimations and unsynchronised clocks and watches.” The alternative is to jump up and down shouting “he lied!” or “evidence of a cover-up!” Most prefer the former.

                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            Is it better that this...?

                            I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.
                            He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club., A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially.
                            And what does that quote prove?

                            Why don’t you just pick one newspaper and take everything they published as gospel? Or do you prefer to jump from newspaper to newspaper selecting individual quotes that you like as gospel?
                            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-05-2021, 01:55 PM.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                              Packer's description looks fairly similar to Prophecy Man. Morning Advertiser, Oct 2:

                              On Saturday night last, about half-past ten o'clock, a man entered the bar of the "Red Lion" public-house, in Batty-street, Commercial-road, and calling for half a pint of beer, plunged at once into a conversation with the landlord and the customers present about the murders in Hanbury-street and Buck's-row. He declared that he knew the man who committed them very well, that more would take place yet, and there would be another before the morning. The landlord observed that he thought he was talking very foolishly, and that as he seemed to know so much about the man who did them, perhaps he was the man himself. The man, who had indulged in a good deal more talk of a suspicious nature, upon this hastily put down a penny for his beer and decamped without another word. Information was given to the police of the above facts after the murders of Sunday morning, and they are now anxiously looking for the man, who is thus described:-Height about 5ft. 8in., dark hair, dark moustache of stubbly growth, dark complexion, smoothly shaven chin and cheeks, and dark blue eyes. The man wore a dark single-breasted coat and waistcoat, black corduroy trousers the worse for wear, a felt hat with a narrow brim, and had a comforter round his neck. He had no jewellery, and looked like a common man cleaned up for the evening. The landlord took particular notice of him, and would know him again among a thousand. Mrs. Warwick, of 19, Batty-street, who was also in the house at the time getting her supper beer, says she could also identify him, and so could, it is said, others who were present in the bar at the time. Batty-street is the next street eastward to Berner-street, and is the street in which Lipski's crime was committed.

                              The Red Lion was next door to Mrs Kuer's lodging house, on Batty street.

                              Comparing this description with Packer's description in the Evening News, Oct 4, we get:

                              Prophecy Man: Height about 5ft. 8in., dark hair, dark moustache of stubbly growth, dark complexion, smoothly shaven chin and cheeks, and dark blue eyes. The man wore a dark single-breasted coat and waistcoat, black corduroy trousers the worse for wear, a felt hat with a narrow brim, and had a comforter round his neck. He had no jewellery, and looked like a common man cleaned up for the evening.

                              Packer's Customer: The man was about thirty to thirty five years of age, medium height, and with rather a dark complexion. He wore a black coat and a black, soft felt hat. He looked to me like a clerk or something of that sort.

                              The main difference is the comforter. Would the fruit stained handkerchief, found on Liz, have been too small to be worn around a man's neck?
                              Hi NBFN,

                              That description matches Frederick Deeming almost perfectly.

                              Cheers, George
                              “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                              “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                So what to make of the Echo report...?

                                The steward of the International and Educational Club reached the gate just as the clock struck one.
                                It's figurative. In Victorian times it was a common enough expression to mean 'on the hour', or 'just on 1 o'clock'.

                                Nowadays we would rarely use a striking clock to fix the time, so we no longer think in those terms and the language has evolved to reflect modern methods.

                                But back then, the very reason for having clocks that chimed was so the time could be judged without needing to see an actual clock or watch face - or sun dial, or smart phone - up close.

                                Louis D reached the scene around the same time the clock showed the time as 1am. It's irrelevant whether it chimed on the hour or not.



                                Last edited by caz; 07-05-2021, 02:09 PM.
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X