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

    You need to stick with the facts as they are and desist in using assumptions to bolster your conformity with traditional views. Its a fact that the times that are given by witnesses do not accurately reconstruct the activities between 12:30 and 1am. Without you making a determination yourself who is off on their times and who is accurate you need to at the very least acknowledge that truth. You havent yet. You just dismiss what doesnt fit with your own perceptions. In the same way I suggest Israel is a complete red herring and Louis arrived around 20 minutes or so before he says he did, you suggest that the witnesses that gave stories independantly that have corroborative elements with other witnesses were all wrong....some by exactly the same increments,...and the witnesses that gave stories that no-one corroberates are based on actual events. Including one that isnt even fit to enter into evidence at the Inquest despite its inflammatory nature and probable use in the investigation overall. What would have been the most important statement is absent, in any form. You still support it, and accuse Fanny of simply missing 4 people when she may have been at her door. You suggest the young couple must have missed seeing anyone too, that 3 witnesses who gave the exact same time estimate for being by the body are all wrong..by 20 minutes or so...and the people no-one sees return are the ones we should be getting the facts from.

    You create the most self serving arguments its pointless to attempt and re-educate you to the realities here. Maybe the simplest way is to state this is you deciding on which witnesses are accurate or not and that has never been a choice you were given. You have evidence, you use that evidence to make a case for something, you dont cherry pick from the facts and suggest statements must have been incorrect. You have offered not one shred of proof of that, youve offered your opinion which by formation, is based on bias and preconceptions. You have your opinion, youre not looking for an answer, you think you already have it. You dont.
    Nothing that you say can be believed. You twist and manipulate everything to achieve your very obvious agenda. It’s you who has the ‘desire’ to prove that Stride’s killer wasn’t the ripper. Only you have that incentive and it’s very obvious one that persisted in clouding your judgment over the years. I on the other have no reason for bias as I accept both possibilities; that Stride’s killer might or might not have been the ripper. This is the only honest position to take and this in itself explains why you don’t take it.

    Any suggestion that Fanny Mortimer proves that Schwartz wasn’t there should disqualify anyone from giving an opinion on the subject.
    It’s just too tiring to keep discussing the case with a brick wall of hopeless bias, constant dishonesty, selective assessments and delusional conspiracy theorist hogwash.

    Your pointless criticism of me Michael needs to be weighed against one important point. And that’s the fact that after 20 years or so of hawking this fairy tale how many of those that have studied the case support you. Two. The Grassy Knoll Two continue to rage “It was a conspiracy!”

    Not the first conspiracy to blame the Jews either. We’re they human Jews or alien shapeshifting Jews?





    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



    “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

    “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

      So for all we know, the incident could have been closer to 1am than 12:45, and that would mean Schwartz ran away from a murder scene.

      Echo, Oct 1:

      A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

      In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the two latter running up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made about the difficulty there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be called from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally this fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.



      Who knew that Schwartz' tale was based on events that occurred immediately after the murder, or to borrow from the local lingo, after she'd been Lipski'd?
      The murder took place before 1.00. Diemschutz saw a clock and told the time. No further discussion is required. Listening to dishonesty is tiring.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



      “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

      “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        What is noticeable of course is that the other EN version is conveniently ignored. The one where it was said that Fanny went onto her doorstep for 10 minutes just after hearing a Constable pass. The Constable had to have been Smith of course who said that he passed around 12.30-12.35 which makes it entirely plausible that she was back inside when Schwartz passed. This is vastly more likely than Schwartz lying for absolutely no reason. For that one we need an ‘assumption of conspiracy’ which is what we regularly get.
        I'm not ignoring that report, as you constantly claim. It says...

        It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat.

        Fanny said she were at her doorstep for nearly all of 12:30 to 1am, so in this part of the report we clearly have Fanny returning to her doorstep at about 12:45. That seems reasonable enough to me, so I agree with this part, given the extent to which we can be sure about times.

        If she was on her doorstep for most of the 30 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00 then the Conspiracy Corner Crowd have to explain why it’s so momentous that she missed a 30 second incident and yet it’s unimportant that she missed…Eagle returning to the club and Stride arriving at the gates (not to mention chief plotter Diemschutz arriving back at the yard well before 1.00.
        The report continues...

        Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so.

        I agree with this part too. She remained standing at he doorstep for 10 minutes. She did not constantly go in and out, nor did she break up this period by going for a pee or a crap.

        Just prior to this 10 minute period she heard PC Smith's passing footsteps, and we know he was observing Stride at this moment. Thus we can conclude with a fair degree of certainty, that there was no incident on Berner street involving the murder victim, between about 12:40 and 12:55.

        As for Diemschitz, I don't believe he arrived well before 1am. Perhaps 5 minutes or so, but no more that that.

        So essentially, I'm sticking with the times given in that report. Are you?

        As ever it’s the conspiracists who need to manipulate the evidence to ‘prove’ that a man falsely placed himself at the scene of a murder to facilitate the most ineffective plan ever with the least likely motive ever.
        Aren't these people just terrible? Of course Schwartz was at the murder scene!
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          I'm not ignoring that report, as you constantly claim. It says...

          It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat.

          Fanny said she were at her doorstep for nearly all of 12:30 to 1am, so in this part of the report we clearly have Fanny returning to her doorstep at about 12:45. That seems reasonable enough to me, so I agree with this part, given the extent to which we can be sure about times.



          The report continues...

          Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so.

          I agree with this part too. She remained standing at he doorstep for 10 minutes. She did not constantly go in and out, nor did she break up this period by going for a pee or a crap.

          Just prior to this 10 minute period she heard PC Smith's passing footsteps, and we know he was observing Stride at this moment. Thus we can conclude with a fair degree of certainty, that there was no incident on Berner street involving the murder victim, between about 12:40 and 12:55.

          As for Diemschitz, I don't believe he arrived well before 1am. Perhaps 5 minutes or so, but no more that that.

          So essentially, I'm sticking with the times given in that report. Are you?



          Aren't these people just terrible? Of course Schwartz was at the murder scene!
          You are ignoring it. You even ignore it in the above post.

          ”Shortly before 12.45….”

          Shortly isn’t quantifiable but it would include 10 minutes. 10 minutes is a short time in regard to these events.

          She said that she went onto her doorstep immediately after Smith passed. Immediately can’t be construed as “10 minutes later.”

          So what do we have when we compare my position to yours?

          You take ‘shortly before’ to mean something like a minute or so and you completely disregard the fact that she was going on Smith’s passing.

          All that I’m doing is saying is that if Smith was correct (and there had to at least being a chance of that) then Mortimer went onto her doorstep sometime between 12.30 and 12.35. And that 10 minutes after Smith passed is extremely unlikely.

          Why do you have an issue with this entirely reasonable position? And if we agree with George that police officers aren’t likely to have been miles out on their timing then Smith being out by 10 minutes plus has to be regarded as unlikely.

          So Fanny went onto her doorstep immediately after some point between 12.30 and 12.35. Approaching this honestly we can’t stretch it to 12.45. But Fanny didn’t say at exactly 12.45 did she? She said “ shortly before.”

          Any objection to this blatant piece of reason can only be because you desperately want/need her on her doorstep for 10 minutes.

          ….

          I’ll also add that if she did go onto her doorstep just after Smith then she won’t have been on her doorstep previous to this point (and after 12.30) So this means that she was very obviously indoors up until around 12.45. So her statement that she was on her doorstep nearly the whole time between 12.30 and 1.00 clearly can’t have been true.

          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes



          “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

          “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            I think that there are 4 categories of timings arranged in terms of their likelihood of being correct.

            Category A - Those that owned a watch or specifically stated that they saw a clock immediately prior to the event in question. A caveat of course is the one that George has rightly mentioned in that clocks and watches aren’t always synchronised or correct. I think that it’s entirely fair to suggest though that Blackwell’s time is the one that we can take to the bank. It’s entirely reasonable to suggest that a man in his position would have needed an accurate time and so would have regularly have reset his watch. Yes, his 1.16 might actually have differed from the ‘actual’ time by a minute but we have to accept his time.

            Category B - Those that estimated times but we have no way of knowing exactly how they arrived at those estimations but they had reason to be at least reasonably accurate on times (allowing for a reasonable margin for error of course) This category is basically for Police Officers and medical men. We can’t say that they must have been spot on at all times but they certainly had more reason to be regularly aware of roughly what the time was than the average Berner Street area inhabitant.

            Category C - Those who estimated and we have no exact way of knowing how they came to their time.

            So….

            Category A - Blackwell, Diemschutz.

            Category B - Smith, Lamb, Johnston etc.

            Category C - Everyone else.

            Can those in Category C be subdivided further. I think so. By specifying those that state how they came by their time estimation.

            Eagle said that he returned at about 12.35. He doesn’t round this down or up. He’s quite specific even though it’s still an estimation so I think that it’s reasonable to suggest that he saw the club clock on his return. Or maybe he was given the time at his girlfriends house? Then it was around 20 minutes before Gilleman informed him that a body had been found. Again, this is an estimation of time. So we have to ask if he was likely to have mistaken 20 minutes for for 5 or 10 or is it more likely that it was indeed nearer to 20 minutes which would have taken him to around 12.55. So can we really be said to be stretching things to even suggest, for example, that he actually got back at 12.37 and then the time elapse was 23 instead of 20 minutes. Surely no one can reasonably object? Therefore Eagle strongly points to Stride’s body being discovered at 1.00.

            Fanny Mortimer mentions no clock so we cannot conveniently assume that she had one. She specifically states that she went onto her doorstep immediately after hearing a Constable pass and she herself estimated the time to have been around 12.45. But if we accept the premise of Category B then Smith’s estimate of 12.30-12.35 has to have been reasonably accurate. The fact itself that he gives a range is convincingly reasonable. So the only way that Fanny’s time can be tied down is in terms of PC Smith. Therefore I can’t see how anyone can object to it being said that it’s likely that she went onto her doorstep between (Approx) 12.31 and 12.36 for an estimated 10 minutes. Being fair we treat Mortimer to the same criteria as Eagle and so we can’t suggest that her 10 minute estimation was massively out but it’s entirely plausible that it might have been 7 or 8 minutes for example. So reason tells us that there’s nothing at all unlikely in stating that she could have been indoors when Schwartz passed.

            Likewise Spooner who’s time we can set by Lamb who, not owning a watch but still in Category B, only had to be out in his estimate of 5 minutes or so to have Spooner arriving at the yard shortly after 1.00.

            Brown is the same. He doesn’t mention a clock but he mentions action like going to a shop (which might have had a clock) or he might have gone for his supper at the same time every night. Or he may have become hungry and checked a clock or watch (if he’d owned one) to see if the shop would still be open. Then all that he had to do was assess the time that it took him to walk the few yards home and to have eaten his supper. Pretty reasonable timing gauges I’d say. So this takes his time of hearing the cries for a Constable to just the right time that Diemschutz and Kozebrodski passed.

            Finally we have Kozebrodski and Hoschberg. Both estimating and neither mentioning checking a clock. It’s worth noting that Hoschberg mentions hearing a policeman’s whistle before he went into the yard. We know that Lamb blew his whistle and we know that Lamb arrived after 1.00 so I think that we can say with confidence that the ‘mystery’ of Hoschberg’s timing is solved.

            Its very simple when you remove the conspiracy goggles.
            Herlock.....dear oh dear,

            Eagle said he returned at 12:35 - elsewhere he said 12:40. You think that it’s reasonable to suggest that he saw the club clock on his return - you know he said he didn't look at the clock in the club because Frank provided you with that reference earlier in this thread. Maybe he was given the time at his girlfriends house? - pure conjecture. How much could he have been out on his 20 minute estimate - irrelevant because he was adding to a time based on a series of estimates for which he didn't even have a firm starting point. Therefore Eagle strongly points to the fact that he didn't have a clue about times.

            Spooner? Let's do one of your picture the scenes:

            . Spooner said he arrived at the yard at 12:35
            . Nah, he was totally wrong - he also said he arrived 5 minutes before Lamb, so let's ignore Lamb's testimony and say that Lamb arrived at 1:05, subtract 5 minutes and hey presto, it's shortly after 1:00.
            . But Diemshitz said that he and Spooner arrived at the same time as Lamb.
            . Nah, What would Diemshitz know?
            . But Diemshitz said he saw the clock at 1:00
            . Will you please stop pointing out these discrepencies?

            Brown doesn’t mention a clock - yes he does, he said there was a clock in the chandler's shop but he didn't look at it. But he was a Dock labourer so he would have owned a clock or watch And a series of estimates from an unknown time that he arrived home...Pretty reasonable timing gauges I’d say (not). When did this person last actually see a clock???

            Finally we have Kozebrodski and Hoschberg. Both estimating and neither mentioning checking a clock. There was a clock in the club, but they wouldn't have looked at it. And, of course, they didn't possess the osmosis learning skills that were a feature of our golden witnesses and star estimators so we'll just discard them altogether, like Spooner's stated time.

            Can those in Category C be subdivided further. I think so. By specifying those that state that they came by their time estimation by adding a series of guesstimates based on guessed starting points should be ignored.

            Finally let's look at a Category A. Blackwell said his watch read 1:16 when he arrived. Johnson arrived 3-4 minutes before Blackwell, say 1:12. Lamb said he arrived 10-12 minutes before the first doctor - he mistook Johnson for Blackwell. 1:12 minus 12 minutes...well, what do you know about that!

            Cheers, George
            Last edited by GBinOz; 11-01-2021, 11:15 AM.
            “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.”

            Comment


            • Morning Advertiser 2 Oct, Eagle's testimony;

              "Can you fix the time the discovery was made?-About one o'clock was the time that I first saw the body. I did not notice the time, but I have calculated it from the time I left home to return to the club."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                Morning Advertiser 2 Oct, Eagle's testimony;

                "Can you fix the time the discovery was made?-About one o'clock was the time that I first saw the body. I did not notice the time, but I have calculated it from the time I left home to return to the club."
                Thank you Joshua. The ancient Greeks used to consult the Oracle at Delphi. Ripperologists consult you.

                Does he mean left his girlfriend's home, I wonder, or left his home before the meeting and lecture?

                Cheers, George
                Last edited by GBinOz; 11-01-2021, 11:46 AM.
                “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.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Brown doesn’t mention a clock - yes he does, he said there was a clock in the chandler's shop but he didn't look at it. But he was a Dock labourer so he would have owned a clock or watch And a series of estimates from an unknown time that he arrived home...Pretty reasonable timing gauges I’d say (not). When did this person last actually see a clock???
                  In the DT Oct 1, he says:

                  I arrived home first at ten minutes past twelve o'clock, and I believe it was not raining then.

                  That is specific enough to suggest he looked at a clock.

                  Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Does he mean left his girlfriend's home, I wonder, or left his home before the meeting and lecture?
                  He possibly said:

                  I did not notice the time, but I have calculated it from the time I left her home to return to the club.
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                    It’s worth noting that Hoschberg mentions hearing a policeman’s whistle before he went into the yard. We know that Lamb blew his whistle and we know that Lamb arrived after 1.00 so I think that we can say with confidence that the ‘mystery’ of Hoschberg’s timing is solved.
                    Not so fast my friend.

                    Spooner: I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner-street, except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay when he heard the policeman's whistle.

                    If Lamb arrived at the yard 5 minutes after Spooner, who blew the whistle before Spooner reached the yard? This corroborates Hoschberg's story. Who was the Phantom Whistler of Berner Street?

                    Oh yea, and we don't know Lamb arrived after one either!

                    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.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Herlock.....dear oh dear,

                      Eagle said he returned at 12:35 - elsewhere he said 12:40. You think that it’s reasonable to suggest that he saw the club clock on his return - you know he said he didn't look at the clock in the club because Frank provided you with that reference earlier in this thread. Maybe he was given the time at his girlfriends house? - pure conjecture. How much could he have been out on his 20 minute estimate - irrelevant because he was adding to a time based on a series of estimates for which he didn't even have a firm starting point. Therefore Eagle strongly points to the fact that he didn't have a clue about times.

                      Isn't this a bit of a nitpick again George? I accept the point about the club clock of course. Much of this case is conjecture so I can’t see why it’s problem conjecture that that he might have learned the time at his girlfriends house or that he saw a clock somewhere along his route. Apparently the police saw no issue with the time that he estimated.

                      Spooner? Let's do one of your picture the scenes:

                      . Spooner said he arrived at the yard at 12:35
                      . Nah, he was totally wrong - he also said he arrived 5 minutes before Lamb, so let's ignore Lamb's testimony and say that Lamb arrived at 1:05, subtract 5 minutes and hey presto, it's shortly after 1:00.
                      . But Diemshitz said that he and Spooner arrived at the same time as Lamb.
                      . Nah, What would Diemshitz know?
                      . But Diemshitz said he saw the clock at 1:00
                      . Will you please stop pointing out these discrepencies?

                      George, you’re beginning to sound like Michael and NBFN by implying that I have some vested interest in manipulated evidence. The bullet-pointed paragraph above is an example. Diemschutz did say that he saw the clock at 1.00. This is beyond dispute. Was the clock fast or slow or correct? We can’t know. We only know that Diemschutz had no reason to lie. I’d ask what would he have been more or less likely to have gotten wrong during such a stressful period? A) To see a clock and mis-re it, or B) to say that he arrived back at the same time as Lamb when he actually got back a bit before? Again I’ll say, this man had no reason to lie. The series of events are obvious, the exact times aren’t.

                      Brown doesn’t mention a clock - yes he does, he said there was a clock in the chandler's shop but he didn't look at it. But he was a Dock labourer so he would have owned a clock or watch And a series of estimates from an unknown time that he arrived home...Pretty reasonable timing gauges I’d say (not). When did this person last actually see a clock???

                      Again, we can’t know how he based his timings but…walking a distance that he’d done numerous times, buying some food, returning the exact same distance then eating a meal is a pretty reasonable way of gauging an approximate period. You may want to make this 12.50 and that’s up to you George. If conspiracy-enabling is your aim fair enough.

                      Finally we have Kozebrodski and Hoschberg. Both estimating and neither mentioning checking a clock. There was a clock in the club, but they wouldn't have looked at it. And, of course, they didn't possess the osmosis learning skills that were a feature of our golden witnesses and star estimators so we'll just discard them altogether, like Spooner's stated time.

                      Maybe I need to change it to The Grassy Knoll Three now?

                      Can those in Category C be subdivided further. I think so. By specifying those that state that they came by their time estimation by adding a series of guesstimates based on guessed starting points should be ignored.

                      Anything that points to lying or a cover up should be ignored. Stupidity should be ignored. We know what happened that night. We just can’t put exact times on events. So in all honesty there’s no need for discussion because it changes nothing. The only debate is cover up or no cover up and that’s just black and white. No cover up. Game absolutely over on that score.

                      Finally let's look at a Category A. Blackwell said his watch read 1:16 when he arrived. Johnson arrived 3-4 minutes before Blackwell, say 1:12. Lamb said he arrived 10-12 minutes before the first doctor - he mistook Johnson for Blackwell. 1:12 minus 12 minutes...well, what do you know about that!

                      Where did he mistake Johnston for Blackwell?

                      Christ George, are you really now disputing times based on Blackwell.

                      Johnston said that the Constable arrived at his door:

                      “About five or ten minutes past 1 on Sunday morning,”

                      I think that Frank said that it was a minute from Dutfield’s Yard to the Doctors? So if Lamb arrived at the yard at 1.00 why did it take the Constable 5 or 10 minutes to get the Doctors? Why loiter at the yard before going for a Doctor? Isn’t it more likely that the Constable would have been sent almost immediately? Well, well, what did Lamb say?

                      “I at once sent the other constable for the nearest doctor,”

                      Even now I’m not saying that this evidence is perfect but if they’d arrived at the yard at 1.00 then we would expect to have seen the Constable arrive at 1.01 ish.


                      Cheers, George
                      I don’t really understand where you’re coming from at the moment George. You say that you’re not proposing a cover-up but you’re giving the impression of someone really keen to ‘prove’ that there was one. Is this the case now? We know what happened George. We know. We just can’t put exact times to every single event but there isn’t a single thing that categorically shows anything to dispute this version of events. I really don’t see why this incessant and pointless nitpicking is going on. It baffles me to be honest.

                      Can anyone point out absolutely anything here that disproves the so-called official version of events. And I do mean categorically. I mean something that cannot in any way be explained (and not by treating quoted times as gospel)

                      I haven’t heard 1 so far. The burden of proof is on those proposing cover ups, lies and conspiracies and they have nothing.



                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                      “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                        Not so fast my friend.

                        Spooner: I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner-street, except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay when he heard the policeman's whistle.

                        If Lamb arrived at the yard 5 minutes after Spooner, who blew the whistle before Spooner reached the yard? This corroborates Hoschberg's story. Who was the Phantom Whistler of Berner Street?

                        Oh yea, and we don't know Lamb arrived after one either!

                        Cheers, George
                        Ok…..

                        If Diemschutz and Koz went for Constable at roughly the same time that Eagle went for a Constable then can we possibly explain the 2 whistles?

                        Eagle meets Lamb at x he blows his whistle to get the attention of 426H.

                        At the same time Diemschutz and Koz get to Grove Street then turn back.

                        Diemschutz stops at the corner of Christian Street and talks to Spooner. Kozebrodski continues on toward Commercial Street.

                        As Spooner and Diemschutz head back to Berner Street they meet Harris coming from Brunswick Street who tells them that he heard the whistle. Lamb’s whistle from Commercial Road.

                        Is it likely that Hoschberg heard a whistle from inside the club? Would he have really known nothing about the murder until he heard that whistle? Or is it more likely that he went down into the yard and then heard Lamb’s whistle from the Commercial Road?


                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



                        “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                        “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          I don’t really understand where you’re coming from at the moment George. You say that you’re not proposing a cover-up but you’re giving the impression of someone really keen to ‘prove’ that there was one. Is this the case now? We know what happened George. We know. We just can’t put exact times to every single event but there isn’t a single thing that categorically shows anything to dispute this version of events. I really don’t see why this incessant and pointless nitpicking is going on. It baffles me to be honest.

                          Can anyone point out absolutely anything here that disproves the so-called official version of events. And I do mean categorically. I mean something that cannot in any way be explained (and not by treating quoted times as gospel)

                          I haven’t heard 1 so far. The burden of proof is on those proposing cover ups, lies and conspiracies and they have nothing.


                          Hi Herlock,

                          I am not promoting a conspiracy theory. I keep pointing out that you select witnesses that formulate times based on a series of guesstimates and adding them to unknown starting times and presenting them as accurate to within a few minutes. You then dismiss the testimony of others on the basis of speculation as to whether they saw clocks or that their estimates must be wrong. It is not consistant to dismiss Spooner's 12:35 time and then to use his arriving 5 minutes before Lamb time to overule Diemshitz saying that he arrived at the same time as Lamb. What reason did Diemshitz have for lying? The problem with conjecture about seeing clocks arises when it is applied positively to favoured witnesses and negatively to witnesses whose testimony doesn't suit. Why speculate that Eagle may have seen a clock in the club when you are well aware that he said he didn't? I'm not about conspiracy, I'm talking about consistancy and not trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear when talking about dodgy time guesstimates.

                          Read the reports on the inquest. Lamb said he arrived 10-12 minutes before the first doctor. He said he closed the gates while the doctor was examining the body. Johnson said Lamb closed the gates while was examining the body. Blackwell said the gates were closed when he arrived. When he was recalled he actually mentioned this mistake.

                          You keep using "the Grassy Knoll" as a form of disparagement of people's opinions. Were you alive when Kennedy was assassinated. I was, and was glued to the coverage as it happened, have studied it ever since, and I daresay that I know more about it than those who use the term as a pejorative.

                          Cheers, George
                          Last edited by GBinOz; 11-01-2021, 10:21 PM.
                          “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.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                            Hi Herlock,

                            I am not promoting a conspiracy theory. I keep pointing out that you select witnesses that formulate times based on a series of guesstimates and adding them to unknown starting times and presenting them as accurate to within a few minutes.

                            No I don’t. I’m the one that keeps banging on about times having to be allowed a reasonable margin for error and I’ve been doing so for months. Way past the point that I’m tired of repeating it. It’s been other posters who repeatedly say things like “well if this happened at x time and this also happened at x time why didn’t they see each other.” I can’t see how many more times I have to say it George. No times that have been presented, assessed and interpreted require any leaps of faith or any manipulating of discrepancies.

                            You then dismiss the testimony of others on the basis of speculation as to whether they saw clocks or that their estimates must be wrong.

                            Again, simply not true. The testimony I ‘dismiss’ or ‘sideline’ or whatever term you want to use are the ones that are considerably out.

                            It is not consistant to dismiss Spooner's 12:35 time and then to use his arriving 5 minutes before Lamb time to overule Diemshitz saying that he arrived at the same time as Lamb.

                            How can anyone, no matter who, look at the events in Berner Street dis-action at Ely and consider, even for a millisecond, that Spooner might have returned to Dutfield’s Yard with Diemschutz at 12.35!? It’s simply wrong George. It didn’t happen. And yet, in the very same statement he says 5 minutes before Lamb. Now whether Lamb arrived at 1.05ish or nearer to 1.00 as you suggest, how can it not be too much of a stretch to say that Spooner was wrong by 25 minutes?! Come on George. Spooner was wrong about 12.35. Without a doubt.

                            What reason did Diemshitz have for lying? The problem with conjecture about seeing clocks arises when it is applied positively to favoured witnesses and negatively to witnesses whose testimony doesn't suit.

                            Diemschutz had no reason to lie. Diemschutz seeing a clock isn’t a conjecture George. It’s a fact (unless you think he lied.)

                            Why speculate that Eagle may have seen a clock in the club when you are well aware that he said he didn't?

                            That was an error that I admitted and accepted (unlike some on here who just go quiet when they’re shown to have been wrong)

                            I'm not about conspiracy, I'm talking about consistancy and not trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear when talking about dodgy time guesstimates.

                            Thats a false accusation. I have not done that. Ever.

                            Read the reports on the inquest. Lamb said he arrived 10-12 minutes before the first doctor. He said he closed the gates while the doctor was examining the body. Johnson said Lamb closed the gates while was examining the body. Blackwell said the gates were closed when he arrived. When he was recalled he actually mentioned this mistake.

                            Unimportant.

                            You keep using "the Grassy Knoll" as a form of disparagement of people's opinions. Were you alive when Kennedy was assassinated. I was, and was glued to the coverage as it happened, have studied it ever since, and I daresay that I know more about it than those who use the term as a pejorative.

                            I use the term to describe people who see conspiracies everywhere. Who actively look for them because they like to be able to say “I know a secret that you don’t know.” People that go to embarrassing lengths to promote a conspiracy at all costs.

                            You appear to be on a high horse George as you’re doing a fair bit of ‘disparaging yourself at the moment.


                            Cheers, George
                            I’m quite happy with the way I look at things. I’m not saying that I can’t be wrong on any particular issue but I’ll admit it when it’s pointed out. If you want to ‘enable’ barking mad theories then that’s up to you George. I’m not going to keep saying that allowances need to made only for you to say that I’m not making allowances or that I’m being biased.

                            Give or take a very few minutes here and there we know what happened in Berner Street yet nitpicking still goes on. I’ll respect anyone’s opinions within reason. Anyone who says that there was a conspiracy/cover up in Berner Street…..no.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Ok…..

                              If Diemschutz and Koz went for Constable at roughly the same time that Eagle went for a Constable then can we possibly explain the 2 whistles?

                              Eagle meets Lamb at x he blows his whistle to get the attention of 426H.

                              At the same time Diemschutz and Koz get to Grove Street then turn back.

                              Diemschutz stops at the corner of Christian Street and talks to Spooner. Kozebrodski continues on toward Commercial Street.

                              As Spooner and Diemschutz head back to Berner Street they meet Harris coming from Brunswick Street who tells them that he heard the whistle. Lamb’s whistle from Commercial Road.

                              Is it likely that Hoschberg heard a whistle from inside the club? Would he have really known nothing about the murder until he heard that whistle? Or is it more likely that he went down into the yard and then heard Lamb’s whistle from the Commercial Road?

                              Hi Herlock,

                              "At the same time Diemschutz and Koz get to Grove Street then turn back."

                              Kozebrodski had turned off towards Commercial Road on the way to Grove St. It was Jacobs that was with Diemshitz. Koz was with Eagle when they encountered Lamb. Do you have a reference for it being stated anywhere that Lamb blew his whistle when in Commercial Road, or is that more conjecture? You insist that we can't say that Lamb looked at the tobacconist clock because he didn't state that he did, even though it would be a logical imperitive. Wouldn't the same apply to the whistle? Lamb stated at the inquest that he blew his whistle while Johnson was examining the body.

                              "Is it likely that Hoschberg heard a whistle from inside the club?".
                              That's what he said. Why would he lie? Why is it that what Diemshitz says is beyond doubt but statements by witnesses that are not favoured can be dismissed without evidence that Lamb even blew his whistle while in Commercial Road? If you are going to question the validity of statements by witnesses, start with Diemshitz. Lamb said he was summoned before 1:00, Smith and Diemshitz both said they were at the corner at 1:00. Who was mistaken, or lying? Not conspiracy. CONSISTENCY.

                              Hoschberg said that "In the gateway two or three people had collected". That would have been just after Diemshitz and Kozebrodski came out with the candle and saw the blood running into the drain, so who blew the whistle?

                              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.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                                "Is it likely that Hoschberg heard a whistle from inside the club?".
                                That's what he said. Why would he lie? Why is it that what Diemshitz says is beyond doubt but statements by witnesses that are not favoured can be dismissed without evidence that Lamb even blew his whistle while in Commercial Road? If you are going to question the validity of statements by witnesses, start with Diemshitz. Lamb said he was summoned before 1:00, Smith and Diemshitz both said they were at the corner at 1:00. Who was mistaken, or lying? Not conspiracy. CONSISTENCY.
                                Well said, George.

                                Hoschberg said that "In the gateway two or three people had collected". That would have been just after Diemshitz and Kozebrodski came out with the candle and saw the blood running into the drain, so who blew the whistle?
                                Easy-peasy, George. The answer is right there in the Times report...

                                ... according to one account a lad first made the discovery and gave information to a man named Costa, who proceeded to the spot, where almost immediately afterwards a constable arrived.

                                It was the constable referred to.
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X