Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

    Yes the Star report was a statement by Schwartz and could be a basis for a decision.

    Schwartz not appearing is based on reasoning,you however has no reasoning and basis.You're reason simply is just because.We'll why don't you read the Coroners act, why dont you study the inquests and give me reasons why I am wrong, you have none. Just because is not enough.
    I see what's going on, if you read the Coroners Act you won't understand it. I see. Reply when you have read it, I don't want to spend time on "just because".
    Then perhaps you would be able to answer what did Halse,Collard,Alfred Long,Patrick mulshaw,Henry Tomkins, had to do with the when, how, who, where of the inquest.
    Ive read the Act but more importantly I’ve read David’s in depth and meticulous response to the points that you’ve made. I can’t think of a more detailed, accurate and fact-based rebuttal than the one provided. Your opinion has been categorically shredded and exposed as nonsense. What you should now be doing is admitting this. The question of why this or that witness was or wasn’t called is a pointless one. Nothing changes the actual and very specific aims of the Inquest. It was obviously the case that witnesses were often called to provide background info but there was no hard and fast rule about how these decisions were made. David has provided numerous examples of potential witnesses (like Schwartz) who weren’t called to Inquests (many of whom were later called to give evidence at Court proceedings! This alone proves that your point is fatuous. You really do need to try and understand and accept this. David also provides 8 other potential reasons why Schwartz wasn’t called. Unlike you though he doesn’t state an opinion or a suggestion as a fact. These 8 are possibilities and so, in the absence of any statements explaining Schwartz non-attendance, it’s difficult (no impossible) to see how you can claim to know.

    Varqm there is a difference between opinion and fact. David’s article is the result of proper research using proper examples. You’ve simply formed an opinion and are, like Michael with his theory, defending it at all costs and way, way past the point where you have been proven categorically wrong. I suggest that you yourself do a bit of reading and stop confusing your opinion with fact.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



    "The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.”

    ”The absence of doubt is not necessarily a sign of the presence of truth.”

    Comment


    • Just to add that by a simple Google search we can discover the specific aims of an Inquest so it’s impossible to see how you can dispute them. And so if Schwartz couldn’t materially help toward these aims then I fail to see why you can’t accept the fact that he wasn’t a vital witness?

      1. Who the deceased was - Schwartz didn’t know Elizabeth Stride and so he couldn’t say “the deceased was called Elizabeth Stride.” Saying that the woman that he’d seen in Berner Street and the one that he’d seen at the mortuary were one and the same is not what is required.

      So Schwartz could not contribute to point 1.

      2. When and where she died - Obviously Stride was still very much alive when he saw her.

      So Schwartz could not contribute to point 2

      3. The medical cause of death - Very obviously this was for a Doctor or Doctor’s to say.

      So Schwartz could not contribute to point 3.

      4. How they came by her death - Again, Stride was alive when he saw her and this point, again very obviously, was down to a Doctor or Doctors.

      So Schwartz couldn’t not contribute to point 4.

      ​​​​​​…….

      So what can we conclude from this? Could it be that Schwartz could not contribute to the specific aims of the Inquest and so was not a vital witness? Yes, we know that witnesses were called at various Inquests who gave only background, and often rather pointless, information, but that doesn’t not mean that the Coroner had to call every single person that had any information at all. Why wasn’t Fanny Mortimer called, why wasn’t Gilleman or Kozebrodski called? Why was Mary Malcom called when the Coroner obviously didn’t believe her? (This fact alone wipes out your alleged fact that Baxter didn’t call Schwartz because he didn’t believe him.)

      Schwartz very obviously was not a vital witness as per the very specific aims of the Inquest. So we can suggest DO’s 8 suggestions (backed by evidence) of why he might not have been called. We can possibly add a couple of others that have been suggested on the thread too.

      And yet, in the face of the black and white evidence above and the fact that we have alternative possible suggestions as to why he didn’t attend and the fact that there was no reason given at the time, you Varqm still say thay that a) Schwartz was a vital witness who should have been called, and b) that you know for a fact the reason that he wasn’t.

      I can’t think of anything more lacking in reason, evidence, fairness and sense to be honest.
      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-04-2021, 11:33 AM.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



      "The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.”

      ”The absence of doubt is not necessarily a sign of the presence of truth.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Ive read the Act but more importantly I’ve read David’s in depth and meticulous response to the points that you’ve made. I can’t think of a more detailed, accurate and fact-based rebuttal than the one provided. Your opinion has been categorically shredded and exposed as nonsense. What you should now be doing is admitting this. The question of why this or that witness was or wasn’t called is a pointless one. Nothing changes the actual and very specific aims of the Inquest. It was obviously the case that witnesses were often called to provide background info but there was no hard and fast rule about how these decisions were made. David has provided numerous examples of potential witnesses (like Schwartz) who weren’t called to Inquests (many of whom were later called to give evidence at Court proceedings! This alone proves that your point is fatuous. You really do need to try and understand and accept this. David also provides 8 other potential reasons why Schwartz wasn’t called. Unlike you though he doesn’t state an opinion or a suggestion as a fact. These 8 are possibilities and so, in the absence of any statements explaining Schwartz non-attendance, it’s difficult (no impossible) to see how you can claim to know.

        Varqm there is a difference between opinion and fact. David’s article is the result of proper research using proper examples. You’ve simply formed an opinion and are, like Michael with his theory, defending it at all costs and way, way past the point where you have been proven categorically wrong. I suggest that you yourself do a bit of reading and stop confusing your opinion with fact.
        Its reasoning based on something not just because.
        Last edited by Varqm; 09-05-2021, 02:14 AM.
        Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
        M. Pacana

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          Just to add that by a simple Google search we can discover the specific aims of an Inquest so it’s impossible to see how you can dispute them. And so if Schwartz couldn’t materially help toward these aims then I fail to see why you can’t accept the fact that he wasn’t a vital witness?

          1. Who the deceased was - Schwartz didn’t know Elizabeth Stride and so he couldn’t say “the deceased was called Elizabeth Stride.” Saying that the woman that he’d seen in Berner Street and the one that he’d seen at the mortuary were one and the same is not what is required.

          So Schwartz could not contribute to point 1.

          2. When and where she died - Obviously Stride was still very much alive when he saw her.

          So Schwartz could not contribute to point 2

          3. The medical cause of death - Very obviously this was for a Doctor or Doctor’s to say.

          So Schwartz could not contribute to point 3.

          4. How they came by her death - Again, Stride was alive when he saw her and this point, again very obviously, was down to a Doctor or Doctors.

          So Schwartz couldn’t not contribute to point 4.

          ​​​​​​…….

          So what can we conclude from this? Could it be that Schwartz could not contribute to the specific aims of the Inquest and so was not a vital witness? Yes, we know that witnesses were called at various Inquests who gave only background, and often rather pointless, information, but that doesn’t not mean that the Coroner had to call every single person that had any information at all. Why wasn’t Fanny Mortimer called, why wasn’t Gilleman or Kozebrodski called? Why was Mary Malcom called when the Coroner obviously didn’t believe her? (This fact alone wipes out your alleged fact that Baxter didn’t call Schwartz because he didn’t believe him.)

          Schwartz very obviously was not a vital witness as per the very specific aims of the Inquest. So we can suggest DO’s 8 suggestions (backed by evidence) of why he might not have been called. We can possibly add a couple of others that have been suggested on the thread too.

          And yet, in the face of the black and white evidence above and the fact that we have alternative possible suggestions as to why he didn’t attend and the fact that there was no reason given at the time, you Varqm still say thay that a) Schwartz was a vital witness who should have been called, and b) that you know for a fact the reason that he wasn’t.

          I can’t think of anything more lacking in reason, evidence, fairness and sense to be honest.
          You did not read the Coroners act or if you did you did not understand it and see samples form the Baxter and Langham,actual coroners.I''ve responded to those suggestions above and told you you are clueless if you think Schwartz have to know all that. Countless witnesses, Lawende/co.L iz Long,Mary Ann Cox,,Halse,Collard,most of the policemen, who did not know all the 1,2,3,4 above but they were called to the inquests. How about Mulshaw.Pierce did they contribute to the 1,2,3,4 above. And Schwartz name was submitted to the Coroner for his decision to put him in.
          I'll just say that ,collectively, the "who,where when,how" - which was a must, the "and if he came by his death by murder
          or manslaughter,the persons,if any,whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter, or of
          being accessories before the fact to such murder" - if you could ,were subsets of the bigger picture the "facts and circumstances " about the case.
          I see this issue is beyond you're understanding.
          Last edited by Varqm; 09-05-2021, 03:00 AM.
          Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
          M. Pacana

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

            You did not read the Coroners act or if you did you did not understand it and see samples form the Baxter and Langham,actual coroners.I''ve responded to those suggestions above and told you you are clueless if you think Schwartz have to know all that. Countless witnesses, Lawende/co.L iz Long,Mary Ann Cox,,Halse,Collard,most of the policemen, who did not know all the 1,2,3,4 above but they were called to the inquests. How about Mulshaw.Pierce did they contribute to the 1,2,3,4 above. And Schwartz name was submitted to the Coroner for his decision to put him in.
            I'll just say that ,collectively, the "who,where when,how" - which was a must, the "and if he came by his death by murder
            or manslaughter,the persons,if any,whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter, or of
            being accessories before the fact to such murder" - if you could ,were subsets of the bigger picture the "facts and circumstances " about the case.
            I see this issue is beyond you're understanding.
            For Christ’s sake Varqm, try reading!

            Ive already mentioned the pointlessness of playing the ‘ well how come so and so was or wasn’t called to an Inquest’ game but you see keep blathering on about it it. I’ll try again but I’m wasting my time with you. A hypothetical situation……

            You are in Victorian London, an Inquest into a murder has been announced for two days time. Would you have been able to have predicted exactly all of the witnesses that the Coroner would be calling?

            No, you wouldn’t have been able to.

            You must think that could though because you appear to think that you know exactly what an individual Coroner thought. Despite the fact that we have pointless witnesses called to Inquests and yet witnesses that appear valid to us not being called.

            So taking this FACT into consideration and the FACT that we know that Schwartz could add nothing to the 4 specific criteria how the hell can you say that you KNOW that he MUST have been called and that you KNOW why he wasn’t called?

            Disconnect the ego for a second and try admitting like the rest of us that we simply do not and cannot know why Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            "The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.”

            ”The absence of doubt is not necessarily a sign of the presence of truth.”

            Comment


            • Brought over from the thread asking who Anderson's witness was...

              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
              Just to add....this is one of the flaws with Ripperology, people spend oodles of time and effort trying to construct theories using illogical material for the baseline. Anyone who uses Schwartz's story in any way to try and solve this murder will fail.
              Isn't this exactly what Michael has been doing for years, without getting anywhere?

              He has used Schwartz's story - not as the witness or his interpreter actually told it, but as Abberline understood the incident described - to construct entirely illogical and baseless scenarios, such as the following imaginative example:

              Having said that I will say this....IF Schwartz's story contains some actual facts then it might be that they tossed his story because he fabricated part of it.

              Example.....Israel Schwartz attended the meeting or arrived at the club after it, he went to leave after the front door was locked and while leaving through the side door he sees a man accosting a woman inside the gates. He slips by them and dashes to his new home. Its a reasonable idea...because he is an immigrant Jew outside and immigrant jew club after an Immigrant jew meeting, he was more likely to have been there for that reason than to check to see if his wife finished moving what was probably a few suitcases 12 hours earlier....(he perhaps lived in one of those cottages until the move that morning...we dont know where he moved from for sure)...we can connect Schwartz and Wess as friends down the road a few years and its suggested they knew each other prior to that night. When the staff learn he was there and saw the tussle when he left, Wess goes to him to suggest that he go to the police and that he say that he was on the street when he saw Liz assaulted by someone who then yells an anti-Semitic remark at him. Why? Because the truth...that he saw Liz assaulted by someone who based on the other statements made, must have come from the people in attendance at the club and on the property. He provides a viable suspect who isnt from the property and hates jews.

              Now, why would anarchist Jews be afraid of being accused of this murder? Well, lets just say as per Anderson that by Oct1st it was apparently presumed by law enforcement that the killer at large was an immigrant jew, which might lead to them being suspected for all the unsolved murders to date. The club would close. Maybe all the socialist clubs in the city. Diemshutz would lose his job, so would Eagle as occasional speaker, so would Mrs D, and Lave might lose his cottage in the passageway. Wess would perhaps be harrassed because of the "radical" nature of The Arbeter Fraint. Immigrant Jews would be in danger on the streets.
              The fatal flaw with this revision, which has been pointed out to Michael every time he has posted along similar lines, is that Schwartz himself admitted to Abberline that he didn't know if "Lipsky" had been aimed at himself, as an anti-Semitic insult, as he initially assumed it was being addressed to an accomplice of the man assaulting Stride directly outside the club. It therefore makes zero sense that Wess or anyone else would have advised him to locate the assault away from the club's premises and to describe the assailant as a Jew-hating Gentile!

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                Brought over from the thread asking who Anderson's witness was...



                Isn't this exactly what Michael has been doing for years, without getting anywhere?

                He has used Schwartz's story - not as the witness or his interpreter actually told it, but as Abberline understood the incident described - to construct entirely illogical and baseless scenarios, such as the following imaginative example:



                The fatal flaw with this revision, which has been pointed out to Michael every time he has posted along similar lines, is that Schwartz himself admitted to Abberline that he didn't know if "Lipsky" had been aimed at himself, as an anti-Semitic insult, as he initially assumed it was being addressed to an accomplice of the man assaulting Stride directly outside the club. It therefore makes zero sense that Wess or anyone else would have advised him to locate the assault away from the club's premises and to describe the assailant as a Jew-hating Gentile!

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                Hi Caz,

                According to the ‘plan’ Schwartz only had 2 things to do. To say he saw a man attacking Stride at the gates of the club and to show that the attacker was anti-Semitic and therefore not and Jew and a club member. How can he possibly **** this up? Yet he manages to do just that as you’ve said. He pointlessly introduces the distraction of Pipeman then he can’t be sure that Lipski was aimed at him. For all that anyone knew Pipeman might have been called Lipski.

                Its also worth pointing out that to accept this ‘plan’ we would have to accept that Diemschutz and his cohorts thought this up on the spur of the moment because simply lying about the time of the discovery wasn’t enough. So on discovering the body earlier than 1.00

                Diemschutz and co’s first thoughts are that the police will close down the club because the ripper has killed a victim inside their gates. Really?

                Then they decide to lie about the discovery time and get someone to come along and say that they saw an anti-Semitic attacker.

                Best choice for this job…..a man who can’t speak English of course. I mean, why wouldn’t it be?

                Of course they wouldn’t have done something childishly obvious would they, like Diemschutz telling the police “just as I approached the gates a man, who I’d never seen before, ran past me with a knife saying ‘get out of the way you Jewish **** in a strong Irish accent.”

                Its amazing that anyone could believe this…..then again Caz……no one does

                Silly motive, pointless plan, poorly executed and with the worst witness they could have found.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                "The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.”

                ”The absence of doubt is not necessarily a sign of the presence of truth.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  For Christ’s sake Varqm, try reading!

                  Ive already mentioned the pointlessness of playing the ‘ well how come so and so was or wasn’t called to an Inquest’ game but you see keep blathering on about it it. I’ll try again but I’m wasting my time with you. A hypothetical situation……

                  You are in Victorian London, an Inquest into a murder has been announced for two days time. Would you have been able to have predicted exactly all of the witnesses that the Coroner would be calling?

                  No, you wouldn’t have been able to.

                  You must think that could though because you appear to think that you know exactly what an individual Coroner thought. Despite the fact that we have pointless witnesses called to Inquests and yet witnesses that appear valid to us not being called.

                  So taking this FACT into consideration and the FACT that we know that Schwartz could add nothing to the 4 specific criteria how the hell can you say that you KNOW that he MUST have been called and that you KNOW why he wasn’t called?

                  Disconnect the ego for a second and try admitting like the rest of us that we simply do not and cannot know why Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest.
                  You talk about an inquest but do not know what it is and it's aims. Yeah sure the police has to know who Stride was and therefore is not needed in the inquest.
                  You have no idea what you are talking about so you can not argue the issue.
                  Last edited by Varqm; 09-07-2021, 09:11 AM.
                  Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                  M. Pacana

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                    You talk about an inquest but do not know what it is and it's aims. Yeah sure the police has to know who Stride was and therefore is not needed in the inquest.
                    You have no idea what you are talking about so you can not argue the issue.
                    It’s very obvious that you realise that you are hopelessly wrong and so you repeated spout the same old drivel rather than responding properly. Ive told you numerous times what the aims of an Inquest are. How many times do I have to keep repeating this until you stop posting the same old untruths.

                    Hero go, I’ll post them again…..

                    1. Who the deceased was - Schwartz didn’t know Elizabeth Stride and so he couldn’t say “the deceased was called Elizabeth Stride.” Saying that the woman that he’d seen in Berner Street and the one that he’d seen at the mortuary were one and the same is not what is required.

                    So Schwartz could not contribute to point 1.

                    2. When and where she died - Obviously Stride was still very much alive when he saw her.

                    So Schwartz could not contribute to point 2

                    3. The medical cause of death - Very obviously this was for a Doctor or Doctor’s to say.

                    So Schwartz could not contribute to point 3.

                    4. How they came by her death - Again, Stride was alive when he saw her and this point, again very obviously, was down to a Doctor or Doctors.

                    So Schwartz couldn’t not contribute to point 4.


                    Those are the aims of the Inquest.

                    The aims of the Inquest have been posted above.

                    See above for the aims of the Inquest.

                    Look up….what do you see….oh yes, the aims of the Inquest.

                    ​​​​​​…….

                    So those are the specific aims of the Inquest (posted above - just in case you forgot again)

                    What could Schwartz contribute to those 4 aims?

                    Answer - nothing

                    But wait….

                    Yes we know that Coroners tended to hear testimony from a wide variety of witnesses. We can ask why some appeared and we can ask why some didn’t appear. Therefore….

                    We cannot know for certain what witnesses any individual Coroner might have called or might not have called. This is a FACT.

                    Have you understood so far Varqm?

                    So we could never predict which witnesses would have been called - for example…wouldn’t you have expected Fanny Mortimer to have been called?

                    Now can you point to anywhere in the records where it tells us why Schwartz didn’t attend?

                    No you can’t.

                    Therefore anyone who says that they know why Schwartz wasn’t called is either completely misinformed or a liar. Which one are you?
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    "The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.”

                    ”The absence of doubt is not necessarily a sign of the presence of truth.”

                    Comment


                    • Hi Herlock,

                      It's like Groundhog Day here, isn't it?

                      Schwartz could only have described the man he saw assaulting the woman he later saw in the mortuary.

                      He could not have identified the man or the woman by name, and in any case he had no idea if the same man went on to cut the woman's throat. The body was not discovered until 1am, so there was the potential for the man to leave, and for someone else to do the deed completely unseen and unheard. Either way, the murder itself was not witnessed - or at least Schwartz could not have testified that Stride's life was in imminent danger.

                      I wonder if Schwartz's evidence at that time might have hindered, rather than helped the inquest to ascertain what led to the woman's death and who might have been responsible. The inquest could not have established if the assailant was also the murderer, so it was probably not the place to try. That was for the police to investigate, if and when they found the man Schwartz described and could question him. It's possible they considered it expedient to give the assailant - and possible killer - a false sense of security by not having Schwartz appear at the inquest, but by keeping him on ice for any future identification or trial.

                      This was different from Lawende and co later the same night, because nobody saw the victim being manhandled in that case. If it was indeed the killer they saw, getting friendly with Eddowes, he went ahead and murdered her, not bothered that three witnesses had seen them together. They hadn't witnessed an assault.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      Last edited by caz; 09-08-2021, 01:10 PM.
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        Yes, I checked in the Police Code. Mon-Fri they closed at 12:30 am. Sat close at 12:00 midnight, on Sunday at 10:30 pm.

                        If Pipeman/Knifeman was an employee, why rush out and chase a perfect stranger down the street?
                        Bad day?
                        It's not like Schwartz was trying to get a drink after hours...

                        Perhaps he didn't see the assault, and interpreted BS's shout as indicating that Schwartz was the downed Stride's assailant?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post



                          Isn't this exactly what Michael has been doing for years, without getting anywhere?

                          He has used Schwartz's story - not as the witness or his interpreter actually told it, but as Abberline understood the incident described - to construct entirely illogical and baseless scenarios, such as the following imaginative example:



                          The fatal flaw with this revision, which has been pointed out to Michael every time he has posted along similar lines, is that Schwartz himself admitted to Abberline that he didn't know if "Lipsky" had been aimed at himself, as an anti-Semitic insult, as he initially assumed it was being addressed to an accomplice of the man assaulting Stride directly outside the club. It therefore makes zero sense that Wess or anyone else would have advised him to locate the assault away from the club's premises and to describe the assailant as a Jew-hating Gentile!

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          I think if you wanted to accurately represent what Ive said about Schwartz a hundred times or more here, you should mention that I said allways that I dont believe his story in the form it was given represents any "truth" and that his absence from the Inquest into How Liz Stride dies is real proof of his true real meaning to this investigation. As a footnote..not as a legitimate witness to anything.

                          Ive said that his story is meant to place the likely assailant off premises and his "Lipski" remark is to create the impression that the assailant was a gentile. 2 birds with one stone as I see it......off premises assailant so not one of the 30 or so men there at that time, ( who were almost certainly all Jews) and a antisemtite remark which could be seen as the persecution of local immigrant Jews all throughout September. Their houses were searched. The man in chharge of these crimes returns after this murder and proclaims that their efforts have led to the conclusion that a local immigrant Jew was likely responsible for all the Ripper killings to date.

                          I know logic isnt really relevant to you when you formulate your rebuttals, but Jews trying to deflect suspicions from themselves for a murder at such a heated moment in their history locally....(see erased evidence later).....should have been logical even to you. This business of Israel stating he thought the Lipski remark was directed at Pipeman is a bit of a stretch, when he couldnt say ever that he thought they were acting together.

                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • . Ive said that his story is meant to place the likely assailant off premises
                            But it doesn’t do that because the body was found in the yard next to the premises. The Police knew that she wasn’t killed in the street. The ‘plan’ achieved nothing and was never remotely likely to achieve anything.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            "The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.”

                            ”The absence of doubt is not necessarily a sign of the presence of truth.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              But it doesn’t do that because the body was found in the yard next to the premises. The Police knew that she wasn’t killed in the street. The ‘plan’ achieved nothing and was never remotely likely to achieve anything.
                              I guess you misread my quote there....off premises assailant, I didnt say it was intended to suggest the murder was off premises as it clearly wasnt. Shall we just boil this down a bit? Liz was killed between 12:35 and 1. At that time approx 30 jewish immigrants were known to be in the club, and a young couple was seen on the street. At least 2 of those immigrant jewish men claim to be in the passageway during that time. There is not one single corroberation for any part of Israel Schwartz story about what happened on the street. Not one other person sees a BSM, or a pipeman, nor Liz alive after 12:35.

                              So, where is the killer almost certainly from? .....obviously from the pool of jewish immigrant men onsite.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                                I guess you misread my quote there....off premises assailant, I didnt say it was intended to suggest the murder was off premises as it clearly wasnt. Shall we just boil this down a bit? Liz was killed between 12:35 and 1. At that time approx 30 jewish immigrants were known to be in the club, and a young couple was seen on the street. At least 2 of those immigrant jewish men claim to be in the passageway during that time. There is not one single corroberation for any part of Israel Schwartz story about what happened on the street. Not one other person sees a BSM, or a pipeman, nor Liz alive after 12:35.

                                So, where is the killer almost certainly from? .....obviously from the pool of jewish immigrant men onsite.
                                But as I said, why do you consider it significant that no one saw the Schwartz incident and yet you believe that Diemschutz returned earlier and yet you see no issue with the fact that no one saw this either?

                                The people inside the club are totally irrelevant when it comes to seeing the Schwartz incident, for very obvious reasons. So this leaves Mortimer and the couple. We can’t say that the couple were still in the street at 12.45 so they are irrelevant too. So this leaves Mortimer.

                                And we know that she gave differing versions of what she did that night so how do we select which version to believe? One version easily allows for her having gone back inside when the Schwartz incident occurred (we also have to bear in mind that when Schwartz said 12.45 we can’t know how accurate that was) It’s also noticeable that she didn’t see Stride arrive at the gates of the yard. You might doubt Schwartz but there’s no doubt that she was there. Why didn’t Fanny see her? U less she was inside of course.

                                Therefore it’s not surprising or far fetched in the slightest that no one saw this incident. This is life. Things sometimes happen and no one witnesses them. And we also have to remember that the incident would have only lasted for a matter of seconds. There’s just nothing surprising about this. There’s nothing mysterious about any of this if we except that people make errors in timing. Especially at that time and in that area.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                "The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.”

                                ”The absence of doubt is not necessarily a sign of the presence of truth.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X