Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    They saw nothing then - doesn't mean they couldn't find the Tim Tams in the kitchen. Of course it means they went outside.

    I wonder if Stride and companion went into the yard, the better to hear their singing?
    Again, the English language appears to mean nothing to you. ‘Downstairs’ means downstairs and not outside. There was a room downstairs and the kitchen. You are assuming dishonesty with no reason.
    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 NotBlamedForNothing View Post
      A friend and he went downstairs once arm-in-arm singing.
      Eagle and friend were singing in the yard?

      Eagle and Kozebrodsky raised the alarm with Lamb? Eagle yes, but I doubt Koz.
      I think Kozebrodsky wants us to believe that he went out searching, yet that is not the case. Diemschitz and Eagle both had the chance at the inquest to say that he went with them, but neither make this claim. This must be a clue to something happening while he stayed back.

      So Spooner meets Harris while hastening to Berner street, and Harris also managed to direct Collins to the yard, who was seen standing at the same intersection as Spooner had been? If Collins had heard the whistle, why was standing at the corner, and not moving in the direction of that whistle? More importantly, how did Collins not beat Lamb to the yard?
      Eagle and friend were singing downstairs in the club. There is no indication they went outside.

      Diemschitz and Eagle both had the chance at the inquest to name who was with them , but neither named anyone. The best they could manage was "we" or "all the men". What are you suggesting Koze could have done in front of all those witnesses, and why?

      Collins hears the shouts and whistle and moves towards the shouts. Arriving in Fairclough there is no one there. He is deciding which way to go and Harris re-appears and points him in the right direction. Seems straight forward to me.

      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

        I wonder if Stride and companion went into the yard, the better to hear their singing?
        I suspect that you were being sarcastic here, but that is not a bad idea. Packer said that the couple to whom he sold grapes went over opposite the yard (where Parcelman and Stride were standing) and stood listening to the singing. When Stride crossed to the yard after Smith passed it may have been with Parcelman to listen to the singing. Eagle was quoted as estimating that he arrived back variously at 12:35 and 12:40, so 12:30 wouldn't be a stretch. Ditto for Lave. No one knows what happened with Stride in the yard - here is a pure speculation. Stride and Parcelman stand near the side door listening to the singing. They decide to leave. Parcelman needs to use the toilet so Stride walks to the gateway to wait for him. BS sees her and the altercation begins. Stride gets up and walks away towards the side door, BS follows and kills her just as Parcelman returns. Parcelman chases BS out the gate and along Fairclough as per Wess. This is pure conjecture so please don't ask for details.

        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

          Eagle and friend were singing downstairs in the club. There is no indication they went outside.
          Interesting that Eagle does not name the friend, with who he sang in Russian. Just as he does not name his search companion. Kozebrodsky seems a little young. Joseph Lave, perhaps?

          Diemschitz and Eagle both had the chance at the inquest to name who was with them , but neither named anyone. The best they could manage was "we" or "all the men". What are you suggesting Koze could have done in front of all those witnesses, and why?
          Spilt the beans? I don't understand why Baxter wasn't interested in determining exactly who these search parties consisted of. He should be looking for a consistent story.

          Collins hears the shouts and whistle and moves towards the shouts. Arriving in Fairclough there is no one there. He is deciding which way to go and Harris re-appears and points him in the right direction. Seems straight forward to me.
          Seems a bit contrived to me.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Eagle didnt see Lave. Lave didnt see Eagle, Issac K didnt see either of them, neither did Heschberg. There was no-one seen on the street at around 12:40. When Spooner gets there a number of men are already gathered, and he gets there just before Lamb does...before 1am. Lamb is with men that went for help, including Eagle and Issac...before 1. Which means the discovery of the body was done by someone minutes earlier, and well before 1am.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

              I suspect that you were being sarcastic here, but that is not a bad idea.
              Not a bad idea ... is perhaps what the couple thought, when they were given it by one of the neighbors.

              Walter Dew: After the main meeting at the clubhouse had broken up some thirty or forty members who formed the choir, remained behind to sing. Mrs. Mortimer, as she had done on many previous occasions, came out to her gate the better to hear them.

              Packer said that the couple to whom he sold grapes went over opposite the yard (where Parcelman and Stride were standing) and stood listening to the singing. When Stride crossed to the yard after Smith passed it may have been with Parcelman to listen to the singing. Eagle was quoted as estimating that he arrived back variously at 12:35 and 12:40, so 12:30 wouldn't be a stretch. Ditto for Lave. No one knows what happened with Stride in the yard - here is a pure speculation. Stride and Parcelman stand near the side door listening to the singing. They decide to leave. Parcelman needs to use the toilet so Stride walks to the gateway to wait for him. BS sees her and the altercation begins. Stride gets up and walks away towards the side door, BS follows and kills her just as Parcelman returns. Parcelman chases BS out the gate and along Fairclough as per Wess. This is pure conjecture so please don't ask for details.
              Okay, but consider the effects of changing this;

              Stride and Parcelman stand near the side door listening to the singing.

              To;

              Stride and Parcelman sat near the side door listening to the singing, while eating grapes and cachous.

              I'm not convinced Stride fell or was pulled to the ground, by her murderer.
              Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 11-08-2021, 12:34 PM.
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                Eagle didnt see Lave. Lave didnt see Eagle, Issac K didnt see either of them, neither did Heschberg. There was no-one seen on the street at around 12:40. When Spooner gets there a number of men are already gathered, and he gets there just before Lamb does...before 1am. Lamb is with men that went for help, including Eagle and Issac...before 1. Which means the discovery of the body was done by someone minutes earlier, and well before 1am.
                Nice reasoning. Totally unbiased of course.
                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

                  Nice reasoning. Totally unbiased of course.
                  Its not reasoning, its a reconstruction of what the statements are in real time. So bias isnt there, its just what they said and who validates it. You seem to place no value on secondary validations, when its those statements that are actually the ones worth trusting. You choose what the club steward, the club speaker, the wife of the steward and the resident on the property say, without 1 single secondary account which matches what they said. You ignore the multiple sources that have secondary validation because they conflict directly with the non validated ones. You presume when Fanny Mortimer had a view of the street without evidence, you ignore that a young couple was around all that time and they dont validate any of your chosen sources either, and you ignore the fact that the only timings that were given independently and without any visible bias are for being by the body at between 12:40 and 12:45, and those are the ONLY accounts with secondary source validation.

                  Does that seem to you to be a reasonable way to approach witness statements, in any criminal investigation, let alone these ones.
                  Last edited by Michael W Richards; 11-09-2021, 04:48 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    Its not reasoning, its a reconstruction of what the statements are in real time. So bias isnt there, its just what they said and who validates it. You seem to place no value on secondary validations, when its those statements that are actually the ones worth trusting. You choose what the club steward, the club speaker, the wife of the steward and the resident on the property say, without 1 single secondary account which matches what they said. You ignore the multiple sources that have secondary validation because they conflict directly with the non validated ones. You presume when Fanny Mortimer had a view of the street without evidence, you ignore that a young couple was around all that time and they dont validate any of your chosen sources either, and you ignore the fact that the only timings that were given independently and without any visible bias are for being by the body at between 12:40 and 12:45, and those are the ONLY accounts with secondary source validation.

                    Does that seem to you to be a reasonable way to approach witness statements, in any criminal investigation, let alone these ones.
                    I think that my approach is entirely reasonable and I know that it’s 100% unbiased. Just because 2 witnesses give the same incorrect time that’s not ‘impressive’ in any way. They are in a major monitory and so likely to have been wrong. And why is it that you continually make a point about certain witnesses not seeing Schwartz and yet you brush under the carpet other things that they didn’t see.

                    There isn’t a scrap of reliable evidence that Schwartz wasn’t there. Not a single one.
                    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

                      There isn’t a scrap of reliable evidence that Schwartz wasn’t there. Not a single one.
                      Nor is there one single shred of evidence that he was where he said he was, at the time he says he was there, and that he actually saw what he says he saw. Add to that his story is completely absent from all Inquest transcripts, and if his story was believed, it would have been the single most relevant witness statement. Last person to be seen with victim, close to the time she is cut...a few feet from that location.

                      Then add the fact that he claims he is one of 4 people on that street at that time, the same street that has been described by Lave, and Eagle, and Fanny, and Wess, and Brown as deserted whenever they saw it that last half hour.

                      Suddenly they all appear, and just as suddenly they disappear. So, how do we know they were there at all? No trace, no witnesses who did have access to see the street in front of the gates.

                      Its really pointless to counter with they lied and he told the truth rebuttal, without any evidence to counter anything with...so maybe give it a rest. When you finally acknowledge that you have no evidence other than statements which are easily dismissed by multiple accounts, we might make progress.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                        Nor is there one single shred of evidence that he was where he said he was, at the time he says he was there, and that he actually saw what he says he saw. Add to that his story is completely absent from all Inquest transcripts, and if his story was believed, it would have been the single most relevant witness statement. Last person to be seen with victim, close to the time she is cut...a few feet from that location.

                        Then add the fact that he claims he is one of 4 people on that street at that time, the same street that has been described by Lave, and Eagle, and Fanny, and Wess, and Brown as deserted whenever they saw it that last half hour.

                        Suddenly they all appear, and just as suddenly they disappear. So, how do we know they were there at all? No trace, no witnesses who did have access to see the street in front of the gates.

                        Its really pointless to counter with they lied and he told the truth rebuttal, without any evidence to counter anything with...so maybe give it a rest. When you finally acknowledge that you have no evidence other than statements which are easily dismissed by multiple accounts, we might make progress.
                        I certainly wish that you’d give it a rest. I’m going to try and remove myself from this debacle.


                        The whole of ripperology disagrees with you.

                        Let that thank sink in.

                        Try being honest for once.

                        There’s a first time for everything.
                        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

                          I think that my approach is entirely reasonable and I know that it’s 100% unbiased.
                          A very revealing statement. Michael thinks he is The Voice of Reason.
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            A very revealing statement. Michael thinks he is The Voice of Reason.
                            I’d say that I certainly try to be. I can say with 100% honesty that I have no agenda. I just don’t think that all errors and discrepancies mean that something sinister occurred.
                            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

                              I’d say that I certainly try to be. I can say with 100% honesty that I have no agenda.
                              Anyone who suggests that they are 100% unbiased, knows very little of human nature.

                              I just don’t think that all errors and discrepancies mean that something sinister occurred.
                              Nor does anyone else.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                Anyone who suggests that they are 100% unbiased, knows very little of human nature.

                                Of course we all have biases but on the subject of Jack the Ripper i try not to have any. I have no suspect who I say ‘this was the ripper.’ I have no theories that I propose. I don’t say the Stride must have been a ripper victim. And this subject isn’t my main interest in life so it’s not so important that I’d be heartbroken if the case was solved.

                                Nor does anyone else.

                                I disagree.

                                .
                                I can’t see how anything that I’ve said on this subject could be considered controversial or in any way a leap of faith or provably wrong. The suggestion is that Schwartz lied….it’s the subject of the thread.

                                My point is that this can’t be proved. It can’t even approach being proved and there’s no positive evidence for it. We keep throwing times back and forward but, at the end of the day’ most of us accept that these times cannot be taken literally. I accept that you accept that too. So if we look at the Mortimer/Schwartz/Smith timeline we can put forward about a dozen or more variations. Smith could have been out in his times. Mortimer could have been out. Schwartz could have been out. The clock that Diemschutz saw could have been wrong. So basically we can’t show a positive (that Schwartz lied or wasn’t there) from such a pile of unknowns.

                                Whats wrong with that assessment.?
                                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 11-09-2021, 11:46 PM.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X