Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Dear oh Dear Herlock,

    You are engaging in the exact cherry picking of accounts of which you accuse others of doing. You attribute to Lamb a statement of "about 1 o'clock". In an other account it was "shortly before 1 o'clock". But then you fudge it out to five past one. Pretty creative time keeping for one that allowed less than two minutes for discovery time to alarm time.

    Then you cherry pick "Edward Johnson was then called on. He said: “About five or ten minutes past 1 on Sunday morning, I received a call from constable 436 H.".
    Here is a different account:
    Mr. Edward Johnson: I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kaye and Blackwell. On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H. After informing Dr. Blackwell, who was in bed, of the case, I accompanied the officer to Berner-street, and in a courtyard adjoining No. 40 I was shown the figure of a woman lying on her left side.

    You then move on the enlist the testimony of Eagle, who scorned looking at a clock in favour of estimating time since he left his home, and in the next breath dismissing Hoschberg for doing exactly the same thing.

    Then, in a final attempt to dazzle us with footwork, you dismiss Fanny Mortimer in favour of Smith, whom you contend didn't have the wit to look at a clock on his way to a murder scene.
    FM and Smith are not mutually exclusive. If FM's clock was 10 minutes fast, which you have declred as a banner moment possibility, then FM and Smith's timing lock into place. You only have to look at Diemshitz's admission that he was running early on his usual arrival time of 1 o'clock and consider whether, after having told everyone that he arrived at 1 o'clock, he decided to add the clock reference to avoid looking foolish.

    Cheers, George
    Beware!!!

    Someone will throw a tanty and have the thread shut down.

    Lies will be told and accepted.

    People who throw up "alternate" facts will be derided and have conditions placed on further posts.

    Has happened a number of times.

    Ironically,most of this thread is a piss take by Andy
    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

    Comment


    • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
      >>To which servants are you referring?<<

      Milly Koravitz Servant 23 Kadish Poland. General Servant
      Where did you dig that up from?
      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

      Comment


      • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
        This is just as much a non-starter as it was when Michael Richards first thought of it.

        Speaking of Michael, it seems like he hasn't posted in some time which is quite unlike him. I wonder if he decided to go somewhere else? I hope he is okay.

        c.d.
        No doubt joined others who have tired of insults from a certain poster.
        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

          Don't forget these two (Daily News 2 Oct);

          "Mila, the servant at the club, strongly corroborates the statement made by her mistress, and is equally convinced there were no sounds coming from the yard between 20 minutes to one and one o'clock.

          Julius Minsky, a Police[sic] 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."

          So,there is a servant at the club and a Police Jew.

          You know better than that.
          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

          Comment


          • Some people can’t resist a dig. Perhaps the conspiracy theorists have a new fan. Some of us prefer reason to drivel.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

              Dear oh Dear Herlock,

              You are engaging in the exact cherry picking of accounts of which you accuse others of doing. You attribute to Lamb a statement of "about 1 o'clock". In an other account it was "shortly before 1 o'clock". But then you fudge it out to five past one. Pretty creative time keeping for one that allowed less than two minutes for discovery time to alarm time.

              There’s nothing creative about this George. We have no exact time to go on so we have to see which time fits best with what we know. We know for a fact that Blackwell arrived at the yard at 1.16. Lamb said that Blackwell arrived 10 minutes after him. Which when I went to school means that Lamb got to the yard at approximately 1.06. And why should we put weight in this? Because Diemschutz (who saw a clock!) and 4 other people confirm the time that he arrived at the yard (5 if you count Gilleman, and we should) This isn’t cherry-picking it’s tying Lamb’s timing in with a man with a watch (and a man who saw a clock.)

              Then you cherry pick "Edward Johnson was then called on. He said: “About five or ten minutes past 1 on Sunday morning, I received a call from constable 436 H.".
              Here is a different account:
              Mr. Edward Johnson: I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kaye and Blackwell. On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H. After informing Dr. Blackwell, who was in bed, of the case, I accompanied the officer to Berner-street, and in a courtyard adjoining No. 40 I was shown the figure of a woman lying on her left side.

              Sorry George but I don’t see how you can make this point seriously. “A few minutes past 1.00,” is just a less exact way of saying “About 5 or 10 minutes past.” You quote them as if they cancel each other out. They don’t.

              You then move on the enlist the testimony of Eagle, who scorned looking at a clock in favour of estimating time since he left his home, and in the next breath dismissing Hoschberg for doing exactly the same thing.

              Eagle might have checked a clock when he took his girlfriend home which gave him a rough idea of the time but he didn’t look at the clock when Gilleman called him to see the body. Why would he have?

              Then, in a final attempt to dazzle us with footwork, you dismiss Fanny Mortimer in favour of Smith, whom you contend didn't have the wit to look at a clock on his way to a murder scene.

              No. Smith didn’t state that he looked at Harris clock therefore we can’t assume either way. But it’s a possibility that he’d seen a clock earlier on his route and was making his time estimate by when he’d seen that clock. We don’t know. If you’re stressing that he must have looked at a clock then equally we’d have to say that he must have looked at a clock first time around therefore Fanny Mortimer must have been wrong about going onto her doorstep at 12.45.

              All that I’m suggesting is that in the normal run of events a Constable would be considered more reliable on timing than a woman lounging on her doorstep unless we knew for a fact that she used a clock. Which we don’t. The same Fanny Mortimer who gave materially different versions (not just minor nitpicking either) of what she did that night. So why is it strange that I and others suggest Smith as the more likely to have been reliable?


              FM and Smith are not mutually exclusive. If FM's clock was 10 minutes fast, which you have declred as a banner moment possibility, then FM and Smith's timing lock into place. You only have to look at Diemshitz's admission that he was running early on his usual arrival time of 1 o'clock and consider whether, after having told everyone that he arrived at 1 o'clock, he decided to add the clock reference to avoid looking foolish.

              Hold on there George. Diemschutz did not say that his usual arrival time was 1.00. He said ‘between 1.00 and 2.00.’ Which obviously means that he usually got back considerably after 1.00. But he was early. There’s nothing suspicious about this.

              Cheers, George
              Five people confirmed Diemschutz time of return but they don’t appear to count. Where does this end George? Did Johnston lie? Did Blackwell? Lamb, although we can’t give a pinpoint time, fits in to the timeline of being met by Eagle at around 1.05. It fits. We even have Brown hearing the cries of murder. Yes we can’t pin him to an exact time of course but it fits the time of Diemschutz running for help.

              All the Important aspects fit with no issue. There will always be discrepancies in a case like this especially with times. But none of them come close to being fatal. FM was hardly trustworthy with her different versions. Hoschberg’ s estimation is so way out as to be easily dismissible. He made a mistake. I don’t need to chery pick or manipulate as some do. All that’s needed is firstly, to remove the conspiracy goggles, secondly, to accept reasonable margin’s for error. This was the murder of a woman. How many times have we heard of something like this happening and in the space of a few minutes some weird plot is created involving a vague anti-Semitic insult? The worst plan ever. A plan that no one could fail to improve on even after 20 pints. It didn’t happen. Not a single, solitary chance in the world. It’s a non-starter. We know what happened, we just don’t know who killed her.


              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                Hi Jeff,

                Have another look in the link I posted. The fifth photo from the top is from the Commercial Rd Berner St intersection.

                Cheers, George
                Hi George,

                Ah, yes, but that one's from 1999 and I'm worried there may have been some changes during the interim, though of course, I could be accused of speculation on that point! ha ha

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • So perhaps that is what Liz and BS Man were arguing about? He was demanding she try Dr Tumblety's trick ointment, and she was insisting that nothing could be done about a hereditary condition. The argument escalated to the point that he threw her down on the footway, and shouted...

                  "Lips cream!"

                  ...just as a timid Jewish man was walking by.
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Five people confirmed Diemschutz time of return but they don’t appear to count. Where does this end George? Did Johnston lie? Did Blackwell?
                    Where do your arbitrary insinuations end?

                    Lamb, although we can’t give a pinpoint time, fits in to the timeline of being met by Eagle at around 1.05. It fits.
                    If we can't pinpoint his time, then he fits into an infinite number of other timelines. You may not like someone suggesting one of those timelines, but that's your problem.

                    We even have Brown hearing the cries of murder. Yes we can’t pin him to an exact time of course but it fits the time of Diemschutz running for help.
                    Brown's evidence also fits with Spooner being some sort of policeman. It fits.

                    All the Important aspects fit with no issue. There will always be discrepancies in a case like this especially with times. But none of them come close to being fatal.
                    Fatal to what? The Old Theories?

                    FM was hardly trustworthy with her different versions.
                    Direct quotes carry far more weight than second or third hand descriptions of what a witness had said. Especially when a report cannot even name the witness. This should go without saying, yet it does not. What is the justification?

                    Hoschberg’ s estimation is so way out as to be easily dismissible. He made a mistake.
                    He did. However, it was not as big a mistake as some suppose.

                    I don’t need to chery pick or manipulate as some do.
                    Yes you do. For example...

                    FM: I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by.

                    ...you manipulate "just gone indoors" to mean about 20 minutes.

                    All that’s needed is firstly, to remove the conspiracy goggles, secondly, to accept reasonable margin’s for error.
                    What you don't seem capable of understanding, is that given "reasonable margin of error", some people are going to come to different conclusions to yourself. To then turn around and call these people conspiracy theorists, means that you are pushing a double standard.

                    This was the murder of a woman. How many times have we heard of something like this happening and in the space of a few minutes some weird plot is created involving a vague anti-Semitic insult? The worst plan ever. A plan that no one could fail to improve on even after 20 pints. It didn’t happen. Not a single, solitary chance in the world. It’s a non-starter.
                    Who are you suggesting is arguing for this plot? Either name names, or be accused of deliberate strawmanning.

                    We know what happened, we just don’t know who killed her.
                    The soft-headed approach that assumes no one lied about anything, will not help in determining that.
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • >>If thou are at the clock thou shall announce the time: Smith: I was at the corner at 1 o'clock.<<

                      “About one o’clock I saw a large crowd of people outside the gate of No. 40”
                      Morning Advertiser

                      “I … got back there about one o’clock.”
                      Daily News

                      “About one o’clock..”
                      Reynolds Newspaper

                      “…about one o’clock”
                      Morning Post

                      “…about one o’clock..”
                      Weekly Dispatch

                      “…about one o’clock..”
                      The People

                      “… about 1 o’clock”
                      Evening News

                      I'll keep repeating it.
                      When most newspapers disagree with your choice of wording, why keep ignoring them?

                      Which paper was right? Evidence, evidence, evidence is the answer.

                      We know fixed point policemen cannot leave their post before 1:00 a.m.
                      The fixed point policeman was there before Smith. Ergo, Smith cannot have been at the corner at 1:00 a.m.
                      Mortimer said the alarm was raised after 1: a.m.
                      Goldstien confirms Mortimer was at her door just before 1:00 a.m.
                      Florence Letchford was at her door.
                      Brown heard the alarm after 1:00 a.m.
                      Marshall heard alarm around 1:00 a.m.
                      Diemshitz saw the clock at 1:00 a.m. and swore to it under oath.
                      After hearing Smith's actual testimony, not a reporter's and/or sub editors version of it, Baxter sided chose Deimshitz's version as the accurate one.
                      Having full access to Smith's written report/notes, not a reporter's and/or sub editors version of it, Scotland Yard chose Diemshitz's version as the accurate one.

                      For your version to be right, everybody who was actually there or had access to the full evidence, that we don't have access to, had to be wrong. What are the chances of that?
                      Last edited by drstrange169; 07-08-2021, 01:08 AM.
                      dustymiller
                      aka drstrange

                      Comment


                      • >>Where did you dig that up from?<<

                        Census records for Berner St and as Joshua pointed out newspaper reports.
                        dustymiller
                        aka drstrange

                        Comment


                        • >>So,there is a servant at the club and a Police Jew.<<

                          That, of course, was a misprint for Polish Jew.
                          dustymiller
                          aka drstrange

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Five people confirmed Diemschutz time of return but they don’t appear to count. Where does this end George? Did Johnston lie? Did Blackwell? Lamb, although we can’t give a pinpoint time, fits in to the timeline of being met by Eagle at around 1.05. It fits. We even have Brown hearing the cries of murder. Yes we can’t pin him to an exact time of course but it fits the time of Diemschutz running for help.

                            All the Important aspects fit with no issue. There will always be discrepancies in a case like this especially with times. But none of them come close to being fatal. FM was hardly trustworthy with her different versions. Hoschberg’ s estimation is so way out as to be easily dismissible. He made a mistake. I don’t need to chery pick or manipulate as some do. All that’s needed is firstly, to remove the conspiracy goggles, secondly, to accept reasonable margin’s for error. This was the murder of a woman. How many times have we heard of something like this happening and in the space of a few minutes some weird plot is created involving a vague anti-Semitic insult? The worst plan ever. A plan that no one could fail to improve on even after 20 pints. It didn’t happen. Not a single, solitary chance in the world. It’s a non-starter. We know what happened, we just don’t know who killed her.
                            I want to comment on your comments to my post but that was not tranferred here. But first I'd like to say that I am not wearing any conspiracy goggles to take off, so I guess I must be one of the contemptibles.

                            You quote Lamb as saying Blackwell arrived 10 minutes after him. He actually said 10-12 minutes and you omitted the 12 because it lessened your case.

                            You say with reference to Johnson "“A few minutes past 1.00,” is just a less exact way of saying “About 5 or 10 minutes past.” "When I went to school" a couple meant two and a few meant three - not five or ten.

                            You ask why Eagle would have looked at the clock - an estimate created by adding perceived time intervals gives a better result?

                            You are suggesting that Smith may have been estimating time from a clock he'd seen earlier and thought that he didn't want to mess up his estimate additions by looking at a real clock? Or are you suggesting Smith didn't know the Harris clock was there and available for viewing? What reason are you proposing for his ignoring the Harris clock?

                            Then you say "All that I’m suggesting is that in the normal run of events a Constable would be considered more reliable on timing than a woman lounging on her doorstep unless we knew for a fact that she used a clock. Which we don’t. .. So why is it strange that I and others suggest Smith as the more likely to have been reliable?" Have I not made it clear that I am the flagship, the vanguard for the opinion that Smith is the one who is reliable. Even if Fanny had a clock it was not necessarily in sync with the Harris clock, and Fanny didn't see who was in the boots producing the heavy footstep sound. It may have been Smith at 12:30 HCT (Harris clock time) or it may have been BSM at 12:45 Fanny Mortimer time. I think the former FWIW.

                            Can you please give me the link to where Diemschutz did not say that his usual arrival time was 1.00. He said ‘between 1.00 and 2.00.? In the accounts in the Times, The Daily News and the Daily Telegraph they refer to him saying a "usual" time of 1:00, the Star also refers to a "usual" time of 1:00, but records Diemshitz as saying he was running early. I haven't seen a reference to "between one and two".

                            My summary is: Diemshitz says he was at the Harris clock corner at 1 o'clock. Smith says he was at the Harris clock at 1 o'clock. They can't both be right. I choose Smith as the more reliable. If that gains me admission to the old contemptibles club, so be it.

                            Cheers, George
                            Last edited by GBinOz; 07-08-2021, 01:59 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                              >>If thou are at the clock thou shall announce the time: Smith: I was at the corner at 1 o'clock.<<

                              “About one o’clock I saw a large crowd of people outside the gate of No. 40”
                              Morning Advertiser

                              “I … got back there about one o’clock.”
                              Daily News

                              “About one o’clock..”
                              Reynolds Newspaper

                              “…about one o’clock”
                              Morning Post

                              “…about one o’clock..”
                              Weekly Dispatch

                              “…about one o’clock..”
                              The People

                              “… about 1 o’clock”
                              Evening News

                              I'll keep repeating it.
                              When most newspapers disagree with your choice of wording, why keep ignoring them?

                              Which paper was right? Evidence, evidence, evidence is the answer.

                              We know fixed point policemen cannot leave their post before 1:00 a.m.
                              The fixed point policeman was there before Smith. Ergo, Smith cannot have been at the corner at 1:00 a.m.
                              Mortimer said the alarm was raised after 1: a.m.
                              Goldstien confirms Mortimer was at her door just before 1:00 a.m.
                              Florence Letchford was at her door.
                              Brown heard the alarm after 1:00 a.m.
                              Marshall heard alarm around 1:00 a.m.
                              Diemshitz saw the clock at 1:00 a.m. and swore to it under oath.
                              After hearing Smith's actual testimony, not a reporter's and/or sub editors version of it, Baxter sided chose Deimshitz's version as the accurate one.
                              Having full access to Smith's written report/notes, not a reporter's and/or sub editors version of it, Scotland Yard chose Diemshitz's version as the accurate one.

                              For your version to be right, everybody who was actually there or had access to the full evidence, that we don't have access to, had to be wrong. What are the chances of that?
                              Did any of those 7 newspaper editions refer to Diemshitz saying he saw the Harris clock, or did they quote him as saying his usual time about 1 o'clock?

                              Hypothetically, and just for the sake of discussion, without taking this as any sort of conspiracy theory, if Diemshitz had lied in his statement would it still be evidence, evidence, evidence?

                              https://www.casebook.org/official_do...l?printer=true
                              William Smith, 452 H Division: On Saturday last I went on duty at ten p.m. My beat was past Berner- street, and would take me twenty-five minutes or half an hour to go round. I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock.

                              According to Reid fixed-point Constables were established so that the public would not have to go all the way to Leman St. What would be the point of assigning an officer to a fixed point so the public knew they were there if they couldn't leave to respond to a crime? Let us set your scene at a Fixed-point at 5 minutes to one:
                              Frantic Man: Help, come quickly, there's a woman being murdered.
                              PC: Thanks for letting me know. I am not allowed to leave my point to assist you. So b%#ger off to Leman St and tell them your story.

                              Cheers, George
                              Last edited by GBinOz; 07-08-2021, 02:54 AM.

                              Comment


                              • >>Frantic Man: Help, come quickly, there's a woman being murdered.
                                PC: Thanks for letting me know. I am not allowed to leave my point to assist you. So b%#ger off to Leman St and tell them your story.<<


                                Exactly!

                                "I went to find a policeman at the Spitalfields Market. I found one there, and he told me he could not come, but that I would find one outside. ...
                                A Juror - Did the policeman in Spitalfields market say why he could not come with you?
                                Witness - I told him it was a similar case to what had happened a week previous (
                                Buck's Row). The policeman said he could not come, but that I would find another policeman outside the market. I could not see him.
                                Was the policeman engaged on any duty? - He was standing in the market. No one was speaking to him. I made a complaint in the afternoon to Commercial street police station about this affair, and they took all the evidence I could give.
                                The Coroner - There was a statement made by the Inspector that there are certain places
                                (fixed point) where policemen are under orders not to leave their posts on any account."

                                Henry John Holland's testimony at the Mrs Chapman inquest.
                                Last edited by drstrange169; 07-08-2021, 04:27 AM.
                                dustymiller
                                aka drstrange

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X