Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    On the couple George, I still can’t see how you’ve deduced that they couldn’t have been near the corner of Fairclough Street as all of the versions that I’ve seen recently (and I haven’t looked at every one) don’t specify. For eg.

    “Was she on the pavement? – Yes, a few yards up Berner-street on the opposite side to where she was found.”

    He’s not saying which direction. I might have overlooked something George but you’ll have to point it out.
    The answer to your question is contained in Smith's answer...

    She stood on the pavement, a few yards up Berner-street, on the opposite side to where she was found.

    Up = North
    Down = South

    The board school corner is to the south of where she was found.
    Smith and Mortimer both used 'up' to refer to the north.

    I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.

    Previously, he had walked down Berner street, and gone around the board school corner.
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • She saw Goldstein once.
      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


      • On the young couple…..

        So in the EN Mortimer says:

        “A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.”

        Im wondering if Fanny actually first saw them before 12.30 then she went back inside before coming out again after Smith passed? And so as it appears likely that she guessed 12.45 incorrectly this earlier time on her doorstep could be what led her to state that she was on her step nearly the whole time between 12.30 and 1.00. So in reality, if we take 12.45 as the time she went inside then it could be said that between 12.15 and 12.45 she spent ‘nearly the whole time’ on her doorstep.
        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

          The answer to your question is contained in Smith's answer...

          She stood on the pavement, a few yards up Berner-street, on the opposite side to where she was found.

          Up = North
          Down = South

          The board school corner is to the south of where she was found.
          Smith and Mortimer both used 'up' to refer to the north.

          I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.

          Previously, he had walked down Berner street, and gone around the board school corner.
          Doesn't it seem strange that Smith passed and saw one couple. Fanny went on her doorstep as soon as he passed and saw one couple. But they were a different couple?

          So Smith walks south on Berner Street and sees the couple (including Stride) opposite side to the club but no couple at the corner of the street. Fanny comes out seconds later and Stride and partner have gone, but they couldn’t have gone south because the couple (who have just appeared at the corner and Fanny has seen) would have seen them. So they must have gone north.

          Its noticeable that Fanny said that the couple were there “before and after the time the woman must have been murdered.”

          So as per post #2223 I’d suggest that Fanny first saw them before 12.30 on an earlier period on her doorstep. They then went off and returned when they heard about the murder.
          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 11-04-2021, 04:45 PM.
          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


          • Its really remarkable how peeople sift through the times and make their own decisions about which ones are likely correct. To answer a question or 2......I believe its a mistake to assume Issac[s] is anyone other than someone with the surname Issacs, Issac K states unequivocally about what time he saw Louis in the passageway and that he did not accompany anyone out for help. If anything, he was sent by Louis. The fact that Eagle meets him with Lamb, by himself, should help some see the obvious here. As for Eagles hedging his bet with "couldnt be sure", my feeling is well known....he knew well that there indeed was a body there at 12:40, and the witnesses who said they were there at that time establish that, but he also knew the story would be presented as a 1am discovery by Louis, so he said things in such a way that he had an out for either time if the real truth came out later. Lave is also in this group, his account has him by the gates looking into the street for the time of 12:30 until 12:45 yet he sees no-one and no body there. When multiple witness say there was a body there. In fact one witness has an altercation happen which would have been right in front of Lave on the street at 12:45...and he missed that? Can you miss what doesnt occur?

            Its quite easy to fit pieces together in a jigsaw if your prepared to cut certain shapes from the pieces that are not fitting, but you will then have pieces left over that dont fit. They dont go away, as Herlock would like to sweep facts he doesnt like away, they have to be accounted for. If I read "they were just wrong" again as if it were some kind of factual rebuttal instead of what it actually is...someones personal opinion....I will be on that again. Its very unethical and irresponsible running an investigation with a policy that allows you to dismiss any evidence without cause. If it doesnt fit, it means youre using the wrong pieces in the wrong combo, not that groups of people must just "have been wrong".
            Last edited by Michael W Richards; 11-04-2021, 05:02 PM.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
              Its really remarkable how peeople sift through the times and make their own decisions about which ones are likely correct.

              Time for another comic interlude I see.

              To answer a question or 2......I believe its a mistake to assume Issac[s] is anyone other than someone with the surname Issacs, Issac K states unequivocally about what time he saw Louis in the passageway and that he did not accompany anyone out for help. If anything, he was sent by Louis.

              Fortunately for us someone at the sought to clear up the Kozebrodski/Isaacs issue:

              A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, and the former struck a match while the latter lifted the body up. It was at once apparent that the woman was dead. The body was still warm, and the clothes enveloping it were wet from the recent rain, but the heart had ceased to beat, and the stream of blood in the gutter terminating in a hideous pool near the club door showed but too plainly what had happened.

              The fact that Eagle meets him with Lamb, by himself, should help some see the obvious here.

              Already seen it thanks.

              As for Eagles hedging his bet with "couldnt be sure", my feeling is well known....

              Cetainly is

              he knew well that there indeed was a body there at 12:40,

              He was a part of the plot that they either forgot to tell Koz and Hoschberg weren’t told about or that they just were bothered about the ‘truth’ getting out. How can you believe this guff?

              and the witnesses who said they were there at that time establish that, but he also knew the story would be presented as a 1am discovery by Louis, so he said things in such a way that he had an out for either time if the real truth came out later. Lave is also in this group, his account has him by the gates looking into the street for the time of 12:30 until 12:45 yet he sees no-one and no body there.

              The fact that we have around 5 different versions of what Lave did doesn’t bother you then? Including being on a quiet Berner Street at 1.10.

              When multiple witness say there was a body there. In fact one witness has an altercation happen which would have been right in front of Lave on the street at 12:45...and he missed that? Can you miss what doesnt occur?

              2 witnesses. Not multiple. 2.

              Its quite easy to fit pieces together in a jigsaw if your prepared to cut certain shapes from the pieces that are not fitting, but you will then have pieces left over that dont fit. They dont go away, as Herlock would like to sweep facts he doesnt like away,

              As you sweep away Diemschutz, Eagle, Gilleman, Diemschutz wife, Lamb etc.

              they have to be accounted for. If I read "they were just wrong" again as if it were some kind of factual rebuttal instead of what it actually is...someones personal opinion....I will be on that again. Its very unethical and irresponsible running an investigation with a policy that allows you to dismiss any evidence without cause. If it doesnt fit, it means youre using the wrong pieces in the wrong combo, not that groups of people must just "have been wrong".
              I don’t know how you’ve got the nerve to make that last statement. You have the hide of a rhino (unfortunately you have the reason of one too) You dismiss witnesses and call them liars and suggest silly, unrealistic ploys then accuse others of not being reasonable. Look around you and count your supporters Michael.

              You’ve had your chance to show integrity but just can’t. You’re a lost cause.
              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

                Also from the Irish Times:

                "A member named Isaacs went down into the yard with me, and we struck a match. We saw blood right from the gate up the yard. Then we both went for the police, but unfortunately it was several minutes before we could find a constable. At last another member of the club named Eagle, who ran out after us and went in a different direction, found one in Commercial road."

                That sounds like Louis and Isaacs ran together.



                If Isaacs left separately to Louis, why would he go in the same direction that Louis and Jacobs had gone in? Seems redundant.



                If Eagle's match lighting is an independent event to Louis' view by candle, then your 'slightly behind' might amount to about 30 seconds. Could be more. So what did Spooner see...?

                We had been standing there about 25 minutes, I suppose, when two Jews came running along.

                Not three, apparently.



                Only by chance would they arrive at that point at the same time. Besides that does not fit well with Isaacs' quote...

                I went in the direction of Grove street, and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial road, and there along with Eagle I found two officers.

                Does 'afterwards' imply he took a detour off Louis's route, or does it sound more like he first returned to the yard?
                So what is Eagle up to while this is happening? Is is hanging around waiting for them...?

                I struck a light and saw her covered in blood. I could not look at her long, so I ran for the police.

                Nope. So who did Eagle leave with...?

                Another man went for them at the same time. We could not find one at first, but when we got to the corner of Grove-street, Commercial-road, I found two constables, and I told them there was a woman murdered in Berner-street.

                Let's hear his name!



                Diemschitz was probably wrong about Eagle and the PCs returning just as Spooner was observing the wound. Fanny said that 'Lewis' was in the yard when she entered it, so at that point the search is ongoing. Eagle, on the other hand, was probably right that Isaacs was with him when Eagle left, and that Diemschitz left with Jacobs, not Isaacs. Eagle must have witnessed these two leaving, suggesting that the searches were pretty much concurrent, as you would expect.

                So both Louis and Isaacs are suggesting that Isaacs went down to/towards Grove street, but it's quite possible he did not. Nor did Isaacs leave with Eagle. Isaacs stayed at the yard, and while he was there, there was an incident at the gates. We call it the Schwartz incident.
                Andrew,

                We know you have a theory, but you keeping it in your backpack while sniping at others with cryptic remarks and leading questions. Would it not be more productive to lay out you theory in full for peer review?

                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 Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  On the young couple…..

                  So in the EN Mortimer says:

                  “A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.”

                  Im wondering if Fanny actually first saw them before 12.30 then she went back inside before coming out again after Smith passed? And so as it appears likely that she guessed 12.45 incorrectly this earlier time on her doorstep could be what led her to state that she was on her step nearly the whole time between 12.30 and 1.00. So in reality, if we take 12.45 as the time she went inside then it could be said that between 12.15 and 12.45 she spent ‘nearly the whole time’ on her doorstep.
                  If Fanny saw them before 12:30, then how long had they been there before the murder? The report says:

                  A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

                  So either they heard nothing unusual for well over half an hour, or it was for the about 20 minutes mentioned. Now if you want to have Fanny inside by 12:45, you have to explain away two things:

                  * Why does Fanny say she went out to the yard at just after 1am, and not just after 10 minutes past one?

                  * Why does Swanston refer to Goldstein passing through the street at 'about 1am', and not something compatible with Fanny locking up by 12:45, such as 'about 20 minutes to one'?

                  Yet if you want to stick to the notion that Fanny locked by 12:45, then that means nothing is observed on the street by her prior to that time, and the young couple observe nothing unusual from about 12:40 onwards. So by moving Fanny's doorstop vigil back in time, you have inadvertently made the Schwartz incident even less likely to have gone unnoticed, than in the scenario where Fanny is not back at her door until about 12:45. Nice work!
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    If Fanny saw them before 12:30, then how long had they been there before the murder? The report says:

                    A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

                    So either they heard nothing unusual for well over half an hour, or it was for the about 20 minutes mentioned. Now if you want to have Fanny inside by 12:45, you have to explain away two things:

                    * Why does Fanny say she went out to the yard at just after 1am, and not just after 10 minutes past one?

                    * Why does Swanston refer to Goldstein passing through the street at 'about 1am', and not something compatible with Fanny locking up by 12:45, such as 'about 20 minutes to one'?

                    Yet if you want to stick to the notion that Fanny locked by 12:45, then that means nothing is observed on the street by her prior to that time, and the young couple observe nothing unusual from about 12:40 onwards. So by moving Fanny's doorstop vigil back in time, you have inadvertently made the Schwartz incident even less likely to have gone unnoticed, than in the scenario where Fanny is not back at her door until about 12:45. Nice work!
                    The problems arise when the member you are addressing formulates his timings based on what he expects to see, not what is on the statements themselves. He expects Louis didnt fudge on times, that its perfectly normal for Lave and Eagle to be feet from each other and not even see each other, and that a policeman was off by 10 minutes on his own estimates, and that 4 independent people who all agreed with each others stories are all wrong by exactly the same amount...over 20 minutes! The police we have already established kept the most rigorous times, they had to.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      I don’t know how you’ve got the nerve to make that last statement. You have the hide of a rhino (unfortunately you have the reason of one too) You dismiss witnesses and call them liars and suggest silly, unrealistic ploys then accuse others of not being reasonable. Look around you and count your supporters Michael.

                      You’ve had your chance to show integrity but just can’t. You’re a lost cause.
                      If you spent less time on formulating how to phrase your victory speeches and instead provide actual evidence for everyone to follow your lead and dismiss as many accounts as you casually do, youll have some credibility. As it is now, your just a whiner without facts to use in rebuttal. Just your gut feeling Louis is not lying. So you accuse multiple corroborative accounts of being wrong. Thats not rebuttal, as I said, its a cornered animal lashing out to save himself. Youve got a belief...great...but you have provided ZERO evidence that all Ive suggested is not 100% possible and probable. So keep the cork in please, its kinda pathetic how often you erroneously claim victories over arguments you never won.

                      Claiming that witnesses were wrong because you say so and thinking that everyone will go...oh, ok...isnt realistic. Maybe try and convince people with evidence and facts instead of your hunches. Ive quoted statements which you say are wrong because you think so. Can you not see how bizarre that is?

                      10,000 plus posts and youve learned nothing because you think you know everything already. Jeez.
                      Last edited by Michael W Richards; 11-04-2021, 09:25 PM.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                        If Fanny saw them before 12:30, then how long had they been there before the murder? The report says:

                        A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

                        So either they heard nothing unusual for well over half an hour, or it was for the about 20 minutes mentioned. Now if you want to have Fanny inside by 12:45, you have to explain away two things:

                        * Why does Fanny say she went out to the yard at just after 1am, and not just after 10 minutes past one?

                        * Why does Swanston refer to Goldstein passing through the street at 'about 1am', and not something compatible with Fanny locking up by 12:45, such as 'about 20 minutes to one'?

                        Yet if you want to stick to the notion that Fanny locked by 12:45, then that means nothing is observed on the street by her prior to that time, and the young couple observe nothing unusual from about 12:40 onwards. So by moving Fanny's doorstop vigil back in time, you have inadvertently made the Schwartz incident even less likely to have gone unnoticed, than in the scenario where Fanny is not back at her door until about 12:45. Nice work!
                        ???

                        My suggestion was that Fanny first saw the couple before 12.30. So, if it’s correct that they’d stood there for twenty minutes let’s say…

                        Approx 12.00-12.20 the couple chat on the corner.

                        Approx 12.10 goes onto her doorstep and sees them.

                        Approx 12.20 Fanny goes indoors.

                        Sometime between 12.21-12.30 the couple move on.

                        Between 12.30-12.35 Smith passes and only sees Stride and Parcelman.

                        As he passes them they move on.

                        Approx 12.36 Fanny comes to her doorstep

                        Approx 12.45 Fanny goes back indoors.

                        Approx 12.46 Schwartz incident.

                        ​​​​​​……

                        So in the 30 minutes from 12.10 to 12.45 Fanny would have been on her door around 20 minutes which might have seemed to her to have been most of half an hour.

                        How has this affected the fact that Fanny missed Schwartz? I’ll be interested to hear this.

                        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

                          Andrew,

                          We know you have a theory, but you keeping it in your backpack while sniping at others with cryptic remarks and leading questions. Would it not be more productive to lay out you theory in full for peer review?

                          Cheers, George
                          George,
                          look at like this. In my WoBS post, I suggested that what the WVC 'detectives' claimed was true, essentially was...

                          What they go to establish is that the perpetrator of the Berner street crime was seen and spoken to whilst in the company of his victim, within forty minutes of the commission of the crime and only passed from the sight of a witness TEN MINUTES BEFORE THE MURDER and within ten yards of the scene of the awful deed.

                          There were patrolmen on the streets. Things and events were observed. The implications are very significant, yet how much discussion did this generate? Zero. If people aren't interested in how the hell it was known that the murderer was witnessed 10 minutes before the murder, and right near the murder spot, then why would they be interested in Andrew's Grand Theory of JtR (if indeed there is one)? Of course, the claims in that quote could be fake, but then who blew the whistle so soon after the discovery? No discussion of that either!
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            How has this affected the fact that Fanny missed Schwartz? I’ll be interested to hear this.
                            All you are doing is moving things around, until you arrive at a pre-determined outcome. The best example of which is this...

                            Sometime between 12.21-12.30 the couple move on.
                            They did not move on!

                            FM: A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street about 20 yards away before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

                            They spoke to Fanny after she went to the yard, after 1am. The 20 minutes referred to are those leading up to the murder alert. It was the other couple - the pair that walked along Commercial Road and Berner street, that had gone by 12:30.
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              If you spent less time on formulating how to phrase your victory speeches and instead proviode actual evidence for everyone to dismiss as many accounts as you casually do youll have some credibility. As its is now, your just a whiner without facts to use in rebuttal. Just your gut feeling Louis is not lying. So you accuse multiple corroborative accounts of being wrong. Thats not rebuttal, as I said, its a cornered animal lashing out to save himself. Youve got a belief...great...but you have provided ZERO evidence that all Ive suggested is not 100% possible and probable. So keep the cork in please, its kinda pathetic how often you erroneously claim victories over arguments you never won.
                              Have you ever seen The Holy Grail Michael? The Monty Python movie. Remember The Black Knight on the forest floor with no arms or legs shouting “come back and fight!”

                              Thats you.

                              You constantly post as if I’m some voice howling in the wilderness against an obvious plot. Forget me for a second …. Don Rumbelow, Stewart Evans, Paul Begg, Phillip Sugden, Jeff Hamm, Wickerman, David Orsam, Joshua Rogan, FrankO, Caz, Roger Palmer, Christer Holmgren, George, Tom Wescott and about a 1000 others. All of them have been researching the case for God knows how many years and not one of them, as far as I’m aware, believe that a cover up took place in Berner Street. Obviously according to you they are all either stupid, blind or hopelessly biased. But they’ve all seen the same evidence that you and I have seen. They’ve all assessed the same witnesses and timings that you and I have done. I have the above mentioned (and those not mentioned) agreeing with my position. At best you have 1 person agreeing to some extent with you.

                              Now you can disagree all that you like but you simply make yourself look foolish by adopting a ‘high ground’ tone that your theory doesn’t approach meriting. On this aspect of the case you are a fringe conspiracy theorist (and no, that doesn’t mean that I’m trying to belittle your knowledge of the case. You obviously know the case)

                              Id just like to address motive (again) You tend to accuse me of bias (I’m not whining btw, before you say anything, because I’ve accused you of it too) But which of us has a motive for bias here?

                              You have a theory to defend - I have no theory to defend.

                              You require Stride not to have been a victim of the ripper - I’ve always accepted that she might not have been a victim.

                              So I have no need to manipulate events in Berner Street into some kind of acceptable script.

                              …….

                              Im not lashing out Michael (anymore than you are) I’m simply agreeing with 99.9% of Ripperologists. Every single point you’ve made has been rebutted numerous times and certainly not just by me but your like Teflon. Reason just bounces off you. You either completely ignore the inconvenient or you do inexplicable things like repeatedly trying to use to witnesses who back up the 1.00 discovery time as if they said the opposite (Eagle and Gilleman) and all that you say is something like ‘Eagle must have lied.’ And then Goldstein. As far as I’m aware you had never previously suspected him of dishonesty then when I asked why, when he looked toward the club, he didn’t see the plotters around the body, you suddenly suspect him of dishonesty too. The goalposts move all the time. You keep quoting 4 witnesses when there are only 2 ( I’ll stand correcting but I believe that even NBFN doesn’t accept Spooners 12.35 estimate but favours the obvious more correct ‘5 minutes before Lamb - which you once denied that he’d said btw)

                              So all that you have, the only props for your cover up are Kozebrodski, Hoschberg and Fanny. That’s it.

                              Of the 3 Fanny is very obviously the easiest to explain. Even you can’t deny that she said that she went onto her doorstep immediately after Smith passed. She estimated that it was 12.45, Smith said 12.30-12.35. Can I prove that Smith was correct - no. Can you prove that Fanny was correct - no. Therefore all that we can say is that it’s possible and plausible that she was back indoors when Schwartz passed. Whatever our opinions I fail to see how you can’t accept that without stating an opinion as a fact.

                              Then you have to men estimating a time. You think that it’s just utterly beyond belief that 2 men could be wrong when they quote the same time. No one else does.

                              You have no evidence of a motive either. You’ve just created a piece of fiction that doesn’t hold water.

                              You honestly can believe what you want Michael. I get the impression that you wouldn’t believe cctv footage. But you shouldn’t adopt the attitude that you are so obviously correct and that the whole of ripperology is wrong. You should consider at least that it might be the other way around. There’s very little in this subject that I’d say that I’m 99% certain of (if anything) except that there was no cover up in Berner Street.
                              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

                                All you are doing is moving things around, until you arrive at a pre-determined outcome. The best example of which is this...



                                They did not move on!

                                FM: A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street about 20 yards away before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

                                They spoke to Fanny after she went to the yard, after 1am. The 20 minutes referred to are those leading up to the murder alert. It was the other couple - the pair that walked along Commercial Road and Berner street, that had gone by 12:30.
                                If the other pair had gone by 12.30 how did Smith see them between 12.30-12.35?

                                If the pair in question had been there for 20 minutes covering the period when Stride must have been murdered then they must have been the pair that Brown saw. If that’s the case then they were around the corner in Fairclough Street at the time of the incident and would have seen nothing of it. All they would have missed was Schwartz walking into Fairclough Street in the dark. Schwartz said that Stride called out but not very loud. If they were talking or doing whatever how can you say for certain that they would have heard anything or noticed a background voice?

                                They couldn’t have been in Berner Street near to the club at around 12.45 or they’d have seen Schwartz.

                                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

                                Working...
                                X