Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    If the other pair had gone by 12.30 how did Smith see them between 12.30-12.35?
    Smith saw Stride and Parcelman. This was not a deserted street.

    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.
    They were at the corner/bisecting thoroughfare.

    All they would have missed was Schwartz walking into Fairclough Street in the dark.
    So they missed this...?

    ... but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

    As he stepped from the kerb, he would been a few yards from the couple.
    As he ran up Fairclough street being followed, he would be getting closer and closer to Spooner - who did not report seeing this.

    Schwartz said that Stride called out but not very loud.
    Of course he did.

    If they were talking or doing whatever how can you say for certain that they would have heard anything or noticed a background voice?
    The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski'...

    ... but not very loudly?
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

      Smith saw Stride and Parcelman. This was not a deserted street.


      But you said that they’d gone by 12.30.

      the pair that walked along Commercial Road and Berner street, that had gone by 12:30
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • 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.

        ​​​​​​……..

        Three questions:

        1) George, I can’t recall if this has been pointed out on a map (I assume so) but can you remind me where the clock was please? If I walked to where Berner Street went into Commercial was it to the left or right and near or far side of the road?

        2) How can we be certain that Diemschutz was crossing a road at the time that he saw the clock and that he didn’t see the clock before he crossed?

        3) Can we be certain that Lamb crossed on the same side as the clock?
        Hi Herlock,

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

        Berner St sloped gently down north to south from Commercial Road to Fairclough, so "up" denotes up the slope to the north towards Commercial Road. From memory I think FM said that the younge couple at the corner of Berner, in Fairclough, were about 20 yards from the murder site so Liz and Parcelman would have been a little further than that from Fairclough. I do not believe that Brown saw Stride and Parcelman. I think he saw FM's young couple. Brown didn't see a flower and his view was so poor that he couldn't distinguish a cap or hat.

        You might recall when I was discussing Smith's beat with Frank, and with reference to the Bromley map, it was determined that Smith's beat went down Berner St from Commercial Road, did a u-turn at Fairclough and continue back up Berner St. It was on the return trip up Berner St when Smith made his observations about Stride and Parcelman.

        If you walked up Berner St to Commercial Road the Harris Tobacco shop would be on your right, the eastern corner of that junction. Berner St does not continue on the northern side of Commercial Road. We can't know when Diemshitz looked at the clock, but if it was before he turned it would have been at a further distance and a more oblique angle. After his turn the clock, in the front window in Commercial Road, would have been obscured by the masonry NW corner of the building. The clock would have been a courtesy for the tobacconist's customers so it would likely have been the size of a mantle clock and lit only by the gas lamp in the street.

        From the Daily Telegraph account of the inquest, PC Lamb, 2 Oct 1888:-
        Detective-Inspector Reid: How long before had you passed this place? (place being the yard)
        Witness: I am not on the Berner-street beat, but I passed the end of the street in Commercial-road six or seven minutes before.
        [Coroner]
        When you were found what direction were you going in? - I was coming towards Berner-street. A constable named Smith was on the Berner-street beat. He did not accompany me, but the constable who was on fixed-point duty between Grove-street and Christian-street in Commercial-road. Constables at fixed-points leave duty at one in the morning. I believe that is the practice nearly all over London.

        Lamb's beat was along the south side of Commercial Road, so he answers Reid's question as to how long was it that he had previously passed before being alerted. Lamb clarifies that the yard was not on his beat but that he passed the intersection with Berner St (where the Harris clock is located) headed east towards the fixed point six or seven minutes before being alerted. The fact that he said "Constables at fixed-points leave duty at one in the morning" gives rise to the possibility that he was going to inform the fixed point Constable of the time. As he passed the Harris clock he had the opportunity to view it from right in front at a short distance. After being alerted by Eagle and Koze he ran past the clock again before turning into Berner St. It is only when actually looking at a clock can one state the time shown on that clock. Someone looking at the Harris clock at the same instant that someone else is looking at the Club clock may see a time that is 10 to 15 minutes different due to calibration, and they both may not reflect actual GMT. After one departs viewing the clock, all times after that are estimates, but it is reasonable to expect that short estimates would have only small errors and long estimates would be prone to larger errors.


        "I’m absolutely convinced that no cover up or conspiracy took place and I see no reason to suggest that anyone lied. I’m certain that Liz Stride was murdered though."

        I would like to see any conspiracy theories laid out in their entirety for peer review. On your final sentence, we are in absolute agreement.

        Cheers, George
        Last edited by GBinOz; 11-05-2021, 12:25 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.”

        “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          ... but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

          As he stepped from the kerb, he would been a few yards from the couple.
          As he ran up Fairclough street being followed, he would be getting closer and closer to Spooner - who did not report seeing this.
          Hi Andrew,

          Which kerb was he stepping from? He was on his way south in Berner to his new residence in Ellen St, so he was crossing Fairclough to continue down Berner. Why wouldn't he head there rather than to Goldstein's home, as you earlier suggested? Why would he run along Fairclough, then circle around to the Arches and to his new home?

          The young couple would have departed when this occurred. Work on sequences rather than accurate to the minute clock times. I feel like Captain Hook being haunted by the crocodile that swallowed the clock. Tick Tock.

          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.”

          “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            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!
            Hi Andrew,

            My suggestion is, lay out your theories in simple sequence format with few references or quotes. Wait for the deluge of criticism to descend upon you, and then respond with your justifications. I don't know that cryptic remarks and leading questions are getting you anywhere.

            "who blew the whistle so soon after the discovery? No discussion of that either!"

            I guess everyone just accepted my brilliant solution without feeling the need for further debate.

            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.”

            “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

              Which kerb was he stepping from?
              Neither. There was no pursuit.

              The young couple would have departed when this occurred. Work on sequences rather than accurate to the minute clock times.
              Do you mean the young couple who spoke to the press and told Fanny they had been at the corner before and after the murder?
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                Hi Andrew,

                My suggestion is, lay out your theories in simple sequence format with few references or quotes. Wait for the deluge of criticism to descend upon you, and then respond with your justifications. I don't know that cryptic remarks and leading questions are getting you anywhere.
                Not sure why you're so interested, George. We don't agree on a huge amount.

                "who blew the whistle so soon after the discovery? No discussion of that either!"

                I guess everyone just accepted my brilliant solution without feeling the need for further debate.

                Cheers, George
                Perhaps it's just something people would rather not talk about. Rather like Fanny Mortimer's comments regarding Leon Goldstein, which haven't generated much discussion this side of WW2.
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  Smith saw Stride and Parcelman. This was not a deserted street.



                  They were at the corner/bisecting thoroughfare.



                  So they missed this...?

                  ... but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

                  As he stepped from the kerb, he would been a few yards from the couple.
                  As he ran up Fairclough street being followed, he would be getting closer and closer to Spooner - who did not report seeing this.



                  Of course he did.



                  The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski'...

                  ... but not very loudly?
                  Apparently they did miss this. You might add a tone of but I’d apply it to them far less than Schwartz. We have only their word on timings. To me this could still be read that they were there ‘before’ and ‘after’ with a period of absence in between. Schwartz would have been taking a huge risk of being exposed as a liar if he hadn’t been there. Why would he have risked being exposed in a lie at the scene of an horrific murder? Anyone would have been aware of the position that that might have put him in. So for me the couple weren’t there at the exact time of the Schwartz incident,

                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Apparently they did miss this. You might add a tone of but I’d apply it to them far less than Schwartz. We have only their word on timings. To me this could still be read that they were there ‘before’ and ‘after’ with a period of absence in between.
                    What is the period in between the before and after the murder?

                    Schwartz would have been taking a huge risk of being exposed as a liar if he hadn’t been there. Why would he have risked being exposed in a lie at the scene of an horrific murder? Anyone would have been aware of the position that that might have put him in.
                    I think he was there. However, the details of his account are mostly either false, or a distortion of reality.

                    So for me the couple weren’t there at the exact time of the Schwartz incident,
                    To say that persons X & Y cannot have been where they said they were, because that would imply person Z lied - and you oppose that notion - must be some sort of logical fallacy.

                    I notice you didn't mention Spooner. Was he also not where he said he was?
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      Not sure why you're so interested, George. We don't agree on a huge amount.
                      Hi Andrew,

                      I find my self at a loss as to why you consider my agreement, or that of anyone else, an impediment to your publishing your theory. If your theory cannot withstand peer scrutiny then it is not worthy of being called a legitimate theory. Please do not read into this comment any hostility to your opinions. Present your case and defend your logic.

                      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.”

                      “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                      Comment


                      • Herlock,

                        If youd been paying closer attention my issues with you are not that you dont want to accept the possibilities and the evidence Im using to support them, its that you make empirical statements about them without having one piece of contradictory, deflating data to counter the ideas. Whether you personally accept, like, understand, agree with or disagree with a questioning of these events based on a perspective change while using existing supporting evidence, the possibilty of the idea being correct is not impeded. Its your take. So be it. Until you can be proven right others are not wrong.

                        I think the only thing far fetched being written here is that the paid staff of the club would be unconcerned about a woman found murdered on their property while a murder spree was happening, and that they wouldnt discuss how to have this represented to the authorities. Its why these particular staffer statements do not have a single validation for their remarks in any other witness account, not even each others.

                        Comment


                        • If what Israel Schwartz claims he saw actually happened, my money is on that it happened in the passageway, as he left the club after the meeting, via the kitchen door. He saw Liz being manhandled by someone just inside the gates at 12:45 and slipped past them heading home. It would be a satisfying answer as to why not one other person saw that action on the street. They might have missed him, but not him and BSM and Pipeman and Stride and a scream.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            What is the period in between the before and after the murder?


                            I think he was there. However, the details of his account are mostly either false, or a distortion of reality.



                            To say that persons X & Y cannot have been where they said they were, because that would imply person Z lied - and you oppose that notion - must be some sort of logical fallacy.

                            I notice you didn't mention Spooner. Was he also not where he said he was?
                            If you think that Schwartz was probably there why are you opposed to the suggestion that the couple couldn’t have been there at the same time? But as to your point about his details being false are you implying that this was deliberate? I’ve mentioned elsewhere that Schwartz might have witnessed an incident that was far less serious than he stated. After all, he couldn’t speak English. The fact that she didn’t shout loudly seems to indicate that she wasn’t in fear of her life.

                            I can’t see why Spooner is relevant?

                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                              Herlock,

                              If youd been paying closer attention my issues with you are not that you dont want to accept the possibilities and the evidence Im using to support them, its that you make empirical statements about them without having one piece of contradictory, deflating data to counter the ideas. Whether you personally accept, like, understand, agree with or disagree with a questioning of these events based on a perspective change while using existing supporting evidence, the possibilty of the idea being correct is not impeded. Its your take. So be it. Until you can be proven right others are not wrong.

                              I think the only thing far fetched being written here is that the paid staff of the club would be unconcerned about a woman found murdered on their property while a murder spree was happening, and that they wouldnt discuss how to have this represented to the authorities. Its why these particular staffer statements do not have a single validation for their remarks in any other witness account, not even each others.
                              It’s difficult to understand your logic in the second paragraph. You’re suggesting that it would have been entirely natural for club members to have been concerned that the Police might have blamed them for the fact that Jack the Ripper murdered someone next to their club. And that they would have punished them for it. I genuinely don’t understand how you can even propose this. How can you expect anyone to consider this plausible? There’s just no way that they’d have thought this even after giving it plenty of thought never mind on the spot.

                              ​​​​​​….

                              On the first paragraph, every single point that you’ve raised has been countered reasonably and fairly and numerous times by myself and others. Everyone accepts the fact than when dealing with people estimating times we have to accept a reasonable margin for error and yet you continue to react as if times were set in stone because it suits your case. Just as I can’t prove exact times then neither can you. So it can’t be proven that Schwartz wasn’t where he said that he was. So at best all that you’re suggesting is what ‘might’ have happened in your opinion. A perfect example is your assessment of Fanny Mortimer. She estimated that she went onto her doorstep around 12.45. At this you say “ Schwartz said 12.45 too so he must have been lying.” You don’t consider that Fanny also said that she’d gone onto her doorstep just after Smith passed and so if Smith’s time was correct she could have been back inside by the time Schwartz passed. But you’re adamantly against this. You also ignore the suggestion that Schwartz time of 12.45 might not have been exact. So there are many ways that she could have missed Schwartz. So Fanny is no proof of a Schwartz lie. I haven’t manufactured or manipulated any of the above. I’ve just related what’s been passed down to us. And you ignore it as inconvenient.

                              I haven’t ignored or avoided any of your points but I recall numerous times when you’ve refused to answer points. I’ll end this point with one of those questions:

                              Why do you persist in mentioning Gilleman as proof of an earlier discovery time when the only mention of him in the case is when he’s mentioned as calling Eagle to the body at around 1.00?


                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                If you think that Schwartz was probably there why are you opposed to the suggestion that the couple couldn’t have been there at the same time?
                                The couple spoke to the press and to Mortimer. Their timing and location seems solid. Even more so if it is considered that Brown saw them too. In contrast, we have no definite witnesses to any element of Schwartz' account. No one sees a woman in the gateway, no sees an altercation at the gates, no one sees a man smoking a pipe, and no one sees or hears a chase along Fairclough street, or a man running all the way to one of the railway arches. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of the couple, and against Schwartz.

                                But as to your point about his details being false are you implying that this was deliberate? I’ve mentioned elsewhere that Schwartz might have witnessed an incident that was far less serious than he stated. After all, he couldn’t speak English. The fact that she didn’t shout loudly seems to indicate that she wasn’t in fear of her life.

                                I can’t see why Spooner is relevant?
                                Spooner was on the corner of Fairclough & Christian streets. He said:

                                "After talking for about 25 minutes I saw two Jews come running along and shouting out "Murder" and "Police." They then ran as far as Grove-street and turned back. I stopped them and asked what was the matter."

                                Clearly the two men were seen running together. No one is misconstruing this as one man chasing another. Yet that is exactly what Wess would like us to believe - that one man was being chased by the other, and the man being chased was the murderer, or perceived to be so. For Schwartz, the situation is almost the reverse. The two men he sees are possibly there together or known to each other, and he is chased by one of them. So now the man doing the chasing is quite possibly the bad guy. So there is a clear friction between the two accounts. Wess's account would ideally add support to Schwartz' account. Instead it just raises more questions.
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X