Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    ahem...If the police concluded based on the club members stories that the killer likely came from the club than the street...their reputation at that time would warrant cclosure of the club. The police called the members anarchists, the neighbours called them low men,...before Stride, so if police suspect a club person killed Stride, then not only might they be guilty of her murder but previous ones also. Because the police foolishly linked murders to an unknown man without any evidence... and physical evidence and circumstantial that belies that idea.

    Im not sure how people cant understand that a biker club would be concerned for their continuing operations if someone was found dead on their property. This is an equivalent.

    I could see confusion on this if you didnt know that the club was already a sore spot to local police, but if you didnt already know that, then maybe posting anything about it at this time would be premature. Get familiar with the police and anarchists. Remember...Anarchists are the equivalent of Terrorists in todays lingo.

    If a Terrorist club, or one suspected of being, reports finding a dead person on their property, who do you imagine the police would hold responsible? Thats also why Schwartz is used later.

    Who is to say some of those 'anarchists' at the club did not work for the Police. I am quite sure infiltration of these clubs would have been seen as the utmost of importance. I say this because as many know all too well in Ireland a body found near or on a terrorist club would not lead in anyway towards their closure. That would only lead to them either going underground or even worse shacking up elsewhere with other anarchists. No better to infiltate and have your informants report to you what is being said at these meetings. Names of those of interest, associates, home addresses etc.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
      Thats the kind of post I as referring to. The idea that people would make sure to protect their jobs is even simpler and more sensible than some posters here.

      Oh...and it uses known data, physical evidence and the majority of the witness accounts. But...of course....basic common sense around here can be fleeting...or absent.

      Its a mythical ghoul hunt after all.
      More nonsense of course. It’s laughable that a man who is actually defending a theory accuses others of an agenda. From my own point of view i have no vested interest in whether Stride was killed by the ripper or not. I’ve stated numerous times that the possibility exists that she wasn’t a ripper victim. Unlike you I have no suspect that I need to manipulate the evidence to support. Are you really so unaware that you don’t realise that absolutely everyone knows your tactic? All you are doing is that you’re using what I’m now calling The Marriott Defence. Every time that you’re disagreed with or someone attempts to show that you are wrong you come up with “your just defending the old established theories.” It’s the equivalent of every conspiracy theorists response of “well they would say that wouldn’t they.” It’s beyond weak.

      You are the one defending a theory at all costs Michael. You are the one that won’t accept disagreement because you have invested so much time and effort into it it’s become impossible for you to admit that you’re wrong. There is no ‘mythical ghoul’ her Michael. There was a man. A serial killer in modern terms. Everyone knows this to have been the case. It’s not that we want it to be the case it’s because the fact absolutely scream that this was the case. Of course there is doubt about Stride. But there can be almost no doubt that there was one man that killed at least 4 women. If you want to distort evidence to try and dispute that then there’s nothing that anyone can do but, at the very least, you shouldn’t try to paint everyone else as idiots because we haven’t fallen for 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

        ahem...If the police concluded based on the club members stories that the killer likely came from the club than the street...their reputation at that time would warrant cclosure of the club. The police called the members anarchists, the neighbours called them low men,...before Stride, so if police suspect a club person killed Stride, then not only might they be guilty of her murder but previous ones also. Because the police foolishly linked murders to an unknown man without any evidence... and physical evidence and circumstantial that belies that idea.

        Im not sure how people cant understand that a biker club would be concerned for their continuing operations if someone was found dead on their property. This is an equivalent.

        I could see confusion on this if you didnt know that the club was already a sore spot to local police, but if you didnt already know that, then maybe posting anything about it at this time would be premature. Get familiar with the police and anarchists. Remember...Anarchists are the equivalent of Terrorists in todays lingo.

        If a Terrorist club, or one suspected of being, reports finding a dead person on their property, who do you imagine the police would hold responsible? Thats also why Schwartz is used later.
        Warren had the grafitto washed away because he feared unrest involving the Jewish population. The Jews were being targeted and blamed. Could anyone possibly believe that the police would blame someone for a murder that was blatantly going to be attributed to the ripper. The idea beggars belief.It’s not even worth considering for a second. Wouldn’t happen; couldn’t happen; didn’t happen.

        Regards

        Herlock



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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

          I don't get it? But the body was still found at the club? Why would the club be shut down? Even if at some point the police arrested someone who was a member of the club for the murder, would they then shut the club down? I would not imagine they would unless........ she was murdered 'as part of club business'? Killed at the behest of the club? What? It just does not make any sense at all I am afraid.
          Because there no sense in it Tristan. It’s a flight of fancy used as a tool to fabricate a scenario to shoehorn in a suspect.
          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
            Thats the kind of post I as referring to. The idea that people would make sure to protect their jobs is even simpler and more sensible than some posters here.

            Oh...and it uses known data, physical evidence and the majority of the witness accounts. But...of course....basic common sense around here can be fleeting...or absent.

            Its a mythical ghoul hunt after all.
            In the whole of Ripperology. Thousands of people with interests of varying degrees. 100’s of researchers and people reading, re-reading and analysing every aspect of this case. So many writers of books and articles and genuine experts.

            NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM BELIEVES YOUR THEORY TO BE CORRECT MICHAEL.

            Doesn't this tell you something?

            It really should do. I’m now fairly convinced that you’ve known for a while that this is a hopeless cause. You just can’t give it up though can you?
            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


              Who is to say some of those 'anarchists' at the club did not work for the Police. I am quite sure infiltration of these clubs would have been seen as the utmost of importance. I say this because as many know all too well in Ireland a body found near or on a terrorist club would not lead in anyway towards their closure. That would only lead to them either going underground or even worse shacking up elsewhere with other anarchists. No better to infiltate and have your informants report to you what is being said at these meetings. Names of those of interest, associates, home addresses etc.
              The Daily News 2 Oct kind of blew his cover ;-)

              "Julius Minsky, a Police Jew and a member of the club, states that at the time when the alarm was raised, just after one o'clock, there were some 20 or 30 members in the club room upstairs."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

                So why wasn't the club closed down then after the murder. Surely it would have been just the excuse the police were looking for?
                Not to mention when Diemschutz and Kozebrodsky were arrested a few months later for violently attacking the police. And yet the club stayed open for several more years.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                  Not to mention when Diemschutz and Kozebrodsky were arrested a few months later for violently attacking the police. And yet the club stayed open for several more years.
                  I’d forgotten about that. Good point Joshua.
                  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 always get a laugh when I post facts from someting and those who dont agree with them call me arrogant. Pot....calling kettle...
                    This was in relation to Spooner's testimony, which you use to support your conspiracy theory. So what 'facts' have you posted about this, and which bits of his account do you consider to be fact, and which bits fiction?

                    Pretty straight questions, I would have thought.
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post


                      Who is to say some of those 'anarchists' at the club did not work for the Police. I am quite sure infiltration of these clubs would have been seen as the utmost of importance. I say this because as many know all too well in Ireland a body found near or on a terrorist club would not lead in anyway towards their closure. That would only lead to them either going underground or even worse shacking up elsewhere with other anarchists. No better to infiltate and have your informants report to you what is being said at these meetings. Names of those of interest, associates, home addresses etc.
                      Not sure how many constables were avaialble to plant in groups or clubs Sunny, but I do know that women of the night were paid by the policeto act as Informants, or "noses" as they were called. Interesting in context with Kates injuries.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Warren had the grafitto washed away because he feared unrest involving the Jewish population. The Jews were being targeted and blamed. Could anyone possibly believe that the police would blame someone for a murder that was blatantly going to be attributed to the ripper. The idea beggars belief.It’s not even worth considering for a second. Wouldn’t happen; couldn’t happen; didn’t happen.
                        He feared violence upon innocent immigrant Jews, he thought it was threatening.... your not stating the facts accurately. your putting your own slant on it to upport what seemsto be some campaign to deingrate anyone who sees these matter differently than yourself.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                          He feared violence upon innocent immigrant Jews, he thought it was threatening.... your not stating the facts accurately. your putting your own slant on it to upport what seemsto be some campaign to deingrate anyone who sees these matter differently than yourself.
                          And you’re saying that without this cover-up the police would might closed down the club? So what might have happened if they had closed the club? A Jewish club where a ripper murder had taken place. Wouldn’t the public have been thinking “why have they closed that club unless it was connected to the ripper murder in some way?” How does preventing Jewish unrest include closing down a purely Jewish club on the flimsiest of pretences?

                          ......


                          Besides that you’re basically starting with a ‘motive’,then looking to fit the evidence around it.
                          Regards

                          Herlock



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

                          Comment


                          • Let’s recall your four star witnesses Michael - Eagle, Hoschberg, Spooner, Kozebrodski (I can never remember if Gilleman is included as you keep mentioning him - assuming Gillen is Gilleman of course.

                            ....

                            Forget the rest at the moment......why Morris Eagle? And please. I Gael, don’t just say that he must have lied. It’s a cop out of huge proportions.

                            Lets remind ourselves of what he said at the Inquest shall we? And of course, like reasonable people, we won’t quibble over 5 minutes or so here and there.

                            About a quarter to 12 he left the club for the purpose of taking his young lady home. They left by the front door. He returned to the club about 25 minutes to 1.

                            then

                            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 he arrived back at about 12.35.

                            The yard is empty.

                            About 20 minutes later Gilleman arrives upstairs.

                            So about 20 minutes onto about 12.35 makes about 12.55 (which is of course nowhere near 12.35 but very close a couple of minutes after 1.00.

                            Obviously the police didn’t interview every member of the club but they could have done if they’d wanted to. Any of whom could have confirmed Eagle’s story or to have contradicted him. So if the body had really been found at 12.35 had no one remembered to tell Eagle about this? He’d chaired the meeting and so we can assume that he was a respected member.

                            Morris Eagle alone kills the cover-up. Why is he even mentioned?
                            Regards

                            Herlock



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

                            Comment


                            • Oh and I almost forgot this question....as you’ve forgotten to answer it around 20 times!

                              WHY DO YOU ACCEPT AS A FACT SPOONER’S VAGUELY ESTIMATED 12.35 AND YET YOU COMPLETELY IGNORE HIS ‘5 MINUTES BEFORE LAMB ARRIVED’ AS WE KNOW THAT LAMB ARRIVED AFTER 1.00

                              Im not usually an optimist but, you never know, one day you just might explain the reason for this particular piece of cherry picking.
                              Regards

                              Herlock



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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                Well, not really. Schwartz's testimony could be viewed as very important with regards to narrowing down the time of her death. It also provides information about the events leading up to her death. Schwartz's testimony would be very important to the inquest. Given the police were still investigating leads that stem from his police statement, it's clear the police had not dismissed his input. Therefore, the most likely situation is that Schwartz's lack of appearance at the inquest has something to do with Schwartz (ie. a) he didn't get the summons b) he didn't understand the summons c) he ignored the summons for some reason (work, illness, fear, ... etc) d) he misunderstood the summons and got the time/place wrong - those are 4 broad ideas that I just came up with off the top of my head, I'm sure one could think of others). Obviously, because we don't know why Schwartz was not there all of those are just unproven hypotheses and I'm not saying any particular one should be favoured over another, or even that the true reason is included in that list. However, the police behaviour at the time, and bits within police messages to HO, etc, all indicate that Schwartz was considered a witness whose statement was worth pursuing.

                                - Jeff
                                Jeff, I think you're disputing things I didn't say. As I made clear in my original post his evidence would be of value at trial, so of course the police hadn't dismissed his input. Why would they? Can Schwartz say who has died? No. He doesn't know her. Can he say when she died? No. She was still alive when he left the scene. Can he say where she died? No - same reason. Can he say how she died? No - same reason. The answers to all four relevant questions are established by the testimony of other witnesses. His evidence adds nothing that would be of interest to the coroner. Also, it is the coroner, not the police, who decides which witnesses to call to an inquest. The police just gather the evidence. The most likely explanation for Schwartz not giving evidence at the inquest is that the coroner decided his evidence would add nothing relevant to an inquest that could not be covered by other witnesses. Yes, Schwartz was considered, by the police, to be a witness whose statement was worth pursuing (with a eye to a possible future trial) but I never said anything to the contrary.
                                "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

                                Working...
                                X