Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    The plebs need not concern themselves with this issue, because The Voice of Reason has spoken!
    More twisting.

    Check all over these forums. I’ve never, ever claimed to know more about this case than anyone. I’ve never claimed infallibility. I’ve made loads of mistakes but unlike some I acknowledge them when they’re pointed out to me and don’t just duck away and hope that everyone forgets about them.

    I don’t consider myself The Voice of Reason. What I do consider myself as is someone who tries to take a reasoned approach. I can see errors without assuming something sinister. I don’t go deliberately looking for mysteries and cover ups. I don’t have theories and then defend them at all costs. I’ve no agenda that I have to fit events into. I also don’t assume that the Victorian police were all morons or corrupt or both. I think that in general witnesses give honest (if possibly mistaken) opinions and I need solid evidence to believe that a witness lied (unlike Michael’s baseless assumption that Eagle lied because he needs him to have lied.)

    In short I’m just someone who tries not to get carried away. I’m not the one claiming a cabal of pointless plotters. It’s unbelievable that you say not a word against Michael and his fantasy yet you respond to me as if I’m the one coming up with the wacko suggestions. This really is a rabbit-hole we’re in.
    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

      In short I’m just someone who tries not to get carried away. I’m not the one claiming a cabal of pointless plotters. It’s unbelievable that you say not a word against Michael and his fantasy yet you respond to me as if I’m the one coming up with the wacko suggestions. This really is a rabbit-hole we’re in.
      The fact that I have stated more than once that I suppose Diemschitz arrived fairly close to one, and certainly not at around 12:40, means that I do not support Michael's theory by definition. Occasionally I do ask Michael questions about his theory (as do others), and I intend to continue doing so.

      The difference between you and I can be summed up pretty easily. I've got the quotes. You've got the smears.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        The fact that I have stated more than once that I suppose Diemschitz arrived fairly close to one, and certainly not at around 12:40, means that I do not support Michael's theory by definition. Occasionally I do ask Michael questions about his theory (as do others), and I intend to continue doing so.

        The difference between you and I can be summed up pretty easily. I've got the quotes. You've got the smears.
        I’m not going to get into this issue because it’s familiar territory. Other posters can make any kind of comments about me but when I respond it’s boo-hoo. Caz and others will confirm the ‘smearing’ and ‘insulting’ that’s gone on on these threads. But hey, I guess it’s ok for some.

        You have the quotes?

        Posting 100 newspaper excerpts and using the variations to try and show something sinister was going on is hardly good use of them.

        ​​​​​​……

        Its amazing that I can say something like “ you can’t show by evidence that Schwartz wasn’t there,” and you consider that some kind of disreputable statement.

        You can name any point reasonable and with your quotes and I’ll discuss them calmly. It gets frustrating though when assumptions are made and opinions are stated as facts.

        I’d say the difference between us is that I’m not looking for any opportunity of revealing some kind of cover-up/conspiracy.
        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

          You have the quotes?

          Posting 100 newspaper excerpts and using the variations to try and show something sinister was going on is hardly good use of them.
          In other words, you have a clear idea of what you want the truth to be, and not to be, before you listen to anyones arguments. A "good use of them" is not dependent on showing that something is good, bad, innocent or sinister. This is an amazing thing for someone to say, who claims to be "100% unbiased". Especially so, given that we are dealing with murders! How could "something sinister going on", be regarded a priori, as virtually impossible?

          Its amazing that I can say something like “ you can’t show by evidence that Schwartz wasn’t there,” and you consider that some kind of disreputable statement.
          Do you want back up that assertion?

          You can name any point reasonable and with your quotes and I’ll discuss them calmly.
          This encapsulates your 100% reactive style. How about you put something in front of me, make an original argument, and we'll go from there? Or is that not your style? As for calmly discussing my stuff, you've just finished telling me that anything being regarded sinister is not acceptable to you. That would explain why you're so often not calm when discussing things.

          It gets frustrating though when assumptions are made and opinions are stated as facts.
          Your constantly repeated claim, that there was no cover-up and/or fake witness, is indeed an opinion stated as fact.

          I’d say the difference between us is that I’m not looking for any opportunity of revealing some kind of cover-up/conspiracy.
          That is another smear. To know that that was true, you would have to know not only my initial thoughts or first impressions on each murder, but also my intentions. That is not possible, so what is your motivation in implying that I'm constantly searching for conspiracies?
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            In other words, you have a clear idea of what you want the truth to be, and not to be, before you listen to anyones arguments. A "good use of them" is not dependent on showing that something is good, bad, innocent or sinister. This is an amazing thing for someone to say, who claims to be "100% unbiased". Especially so, given that we are dealing with murders! How could "something sinister going on", be regarded a priori, as virtually impossible?

            More old ground. What I’m saying is that in a case like this discrepancies and errors are inevitable. My position has always been an acceptance of this. We should require more than something that might have had an innocent explanation. I’m saying that we shouldn’t get carried away. Why do you object to this outlook?

            Do you want back up that assertion?

            Yes. When I state that, due to the fact that witnesses were largely estimating times, there’s no point in quibbling over narrow time frames. As long as we can get a positive answer to the question: is it possible that the Schwartz incident could have occurred unseen by anyone but Schwartz (or Pipeman)….then there are no issues. If you, or anyone else, can state something incontrovertible that might prove the opposite then fine. But no one has done so yet.

            This encapsulates your 100% reactive style. How about you put something in front of me, make an original argument, and we'll go from there? Or is that not your style? As for calmly discussing my stuff, you've just finished telling me that anything being regarded sinister is not acceptable to you. That would explain why you're so often not calm when discussing things.

            I’m perfectly calm. My frustration comes to the surface because of what I’ve experienced in these threads. Your post is a perfect example of what I mean. It’s as if you think that we’re not doing our jobs if we don’t keep coming up with something ‘new’ every ten minutes. This obsession can (and does) lead to things being ‘seen’ that aren’t there simply so that the poster can claim something original. This case has been pored over by researchers for years. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t point out things that might not have been raised before but it can lead to the issue that I mentioned. So I won’t post an ‘original’ argument because I don’t see any. They’ve mostly been covered before. The events in Berner Street have been covered extensively and the consensus appears to be that there was no kind of cover-up. I agree with this.

            Your constantly repeated claim, that there was no cover-up and/or fake witness, is indeed an opinion stated as fact.

            Ok. For the sake of being accurate and I’ll accept that. What I should have said was: there is no creditable evidence for a cover up therefore I’m as confident that it’s possible for me to be that there wasn’t one.

            That is another smear. To know that that was true, you would have to know not only my initial thoughts or first impressions on each murder, but also my intentions. That is not possible, so what is your motivation in implying that I'm constantly searching for conspiracies?

            If you’re asking me to trawl through endless threads to point out the times that you’ve stated or implied that lies were told and that people connected to the case were hiding something or were up to something then I’m just not prepared to waste time doing that. Your suggestion that Mrs Richardson was running a brothel from the cellar is one very obvious one though. And I certainly could be mistaken but didn’t you imply or suggest that Eddowes might have been killed elsewhere?
            As I’ve said numerous times my ‘issue’ is one of interpretation but I’ll ask this - I’ve said what I believe happened in Berner Street but you just keep dropping vague hints. Do you think that Schwartz wasn’t there or doing you think it possible that he might just have witnessed a less serious event than an attack that led to murder? You’ve hinted at suspicions against Schwartz and Goldstein? Do you think that one of them was the murderer or was involved in any way? Why don’t you forget the hints and tell us what you think happened?

            I don’t know where we go from here if anywhere. We’ve been going around in circles for ages. I know what I believe happened that night but I think that it’s a fruitless exercise to try and put ‘exact’ times to events. I only did so in my timeline as an example of what the times might have been.
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 11-11-2021, 11:20 AM.
            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

              Those mentions are obviously errors in reference, they should be commenting about his statement in the Stride case. Unless there are some hidden or destroyed documents that recorded an "in camera" or some kind of submission in absentia as part of the Inquest documentation, there is no record known anywhere that indicates Israel Schwartz story was submitted in any fashion, let alone that he gave his statement during the Inquest.

              And if he was believed, they would have had to include it....its the most relevant of any statement if real.
              Hi Michael,

              Your line of reasoning is sound except that there is no documentation of the Inquest testimony either. Most official records are lost or destroyed to the point where we are reduced to arguing about the various disagreeing reports by journalists listening to the same words at the inquest.

              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 JeffHamm View Post

                Hi George

                But I agree, the suggestion is a tantalizing one. It also demonstrates that at the time the opinion of Schwartz's testimony was that the factual events were true, but Schwartz's interpretation of the events was suspect (i.e. pipeman was not named Lipski, and was probably not B.S. accomplice, but the events themselves they saw no reason to dismiss as unreliable).

                Anyway, those are just my opinion and some of the things that occur to me on that, some, none, or all of which you are free to agree or disagree with.

                - Jeff
                Hi Jeff,

                I think you draw a valid conclusion. Schwartz was not even sure how far Pipeman followed him, or whether he was following him or just leaving the scene of the confrontation.

                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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  As I’ve said numerous times my ‘issue’ is one of interpretation but I’ll ask this - I’ve said what I believe happened in Berner Street but you just keep dropping vague hints.
                  Andrew, as you know I agree with Herlock on this point. You've played a role of Sniper for too long. Time to state your theories and prepare to establish a defensive perimeter.

                  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

                    Hi Michael,

                    Your line of reasoning is sound except that there is no documentation of the Inquest testimony either. Most official records are lost or destroyed to the point where we are reduced to arguing about the various disagreeing reports by journalists listening to the same words at the inquest.

                    Cheers, George
                    Have you read David Orsam’s article on the subject of the Inquest? Schwartz was not a vital witness and the Coroner wasn’t compelled to have called him. His absence is unexplained but David gives, I believe, 8 possible reasons for his absence and shows conclusively that he wouldn’t have been omitted because the Coroner disbelieved him.
                    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

                      Have you read David Orsam’s article on the subject of the Inquest? Schwartz was not a vital witness and the Coroner wasn’t compelled to have called him. His absence is unexplained but David gives, I believe, 8 possible reasons for his absence and shows conclusively that he wouldn’t have been omitted because the Coroner disbelieved him.
                      Israel Schwartz claimed to see a soon to be victim of murder struggling with someone minutes before she is cut fatally, and just feet from the location it happens at. If believed, there is absolutely no sound argument for exclusion of this statement from the Inquest proceedings. It would be THE most germane witness account. As mentioned, we do not have the Inquest files as it were, but we have the transcripts...and not one mention of Israel or his story in any of them.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Yet again you fly in the face of facts. You really should read David Orsam’s article on this. It’s stone dead. I don’t know how many times this has to be repeated but on these threads it doesn’t matter because facts get brushed under the carpet or ignored when they’re inconvenient.

                        We know for a fact….not opinion but fact…..the criteria of an Inquest. Schwartz couldn’t contribute to any of those points (not a single one) so he was not a witness that had to have been called. Yes we know that often witnesses were called who simply gave background info and that some witnesses appeared who were of no importance at all. This just shows that these were often down to the whim of the Coroner. So we simply cannot say that Schwartz must have been called and that he wasn’t called because he wasn’t believed. David also proposed something like 8 possible/plausible explanations for Schwartz non-appearance.

                        We don’t know why Schwartz didn’t attend. We cannot know it because it’s not written or stated anywhere. It’s an unknown. Of course you claim to know the unknown because it suits your agenda. I’m quoting facts, you’re reciting a script.
                        So, What do you think the objective of the Inquests were? I can say that when assessing how someone died, Wilful Murder being among the myriad of possibilities, an assault on the soon to be victim would be critical information for making such a determination.

                        All we know is Stride is cut with a knife, we dont have the knife, its different than the 'Ripper" knives used prior to this murder, and she is only cut once and then left untouched on the ground. Thats the physical data. To determine how this happened, accidentally or intentionally for example, would require data like Israel offers.

                        If people really believe that the story we are given would be without meaning to the Inquest objectives, they are uniformed about those objectives or they are unable to understand the relevance of his story.

                        Comment


                        • Because people tend to stop reading when a point is made they disagree with...Ill repeat this premise, which Ive done a few times.

                          What if Israel Schwartz was there at that time, but what he reported seeing on the street actually took place inside the passageway, as he made his way out via the kitchen door...which was ajar. I think IF he was there at all, he was a meeting attendee or met with some members after the meeting broke up. To believe he just happened to be there checking to see if his wife had completed moving what would be a suitcase or 2 of possessions in the 12 hours he said he was gone for isnt reasonable or rational. We also dont know where he lived that morning do we? Might it have been in that passageway, in one of the cottages? We know later that it is confirmed he and Wess know each other and later in the LVP Israel is directly connected with that club.

                          If he saw what he saw in the alleyway, then his placing the event on the street instead is surely revealing of an attempt to bias perceptions of where the killer likely came from.

                          Comment


                          • Michael, can we put this to bed once and for all? Do you know for a fact why Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest or are you simply speculating? If you know, please share that with the rest of Ripperology.

                            c.d.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              So, What do you think the objective of the Inquests were? I can say that when assessing how someone died, Wilful Murder being among the myriad of possibilities, an assault on the soon to be victim would be critical information for making such a determination.

                              All we know is Stride is cut with a knife, we dont have the knife, its different than the 'Ripper" knives used prior to this murder, and she is only cut once and then left untouched on the ground. Thats the physical data. To determine how this happened, accidentally or intentionally for example, would require data like Israel offers.

                              If people really believe that the story we are given would be without meaning to the Inquest objectives, they are uniformed about those objectives or they are unable to understand the relevance of his story.
                              Its not a case of what I think that the aims an the Inquest was. It’s a case of stating what we know (from written evidence) what the actual aims were. They were…..

                              1. The identity of the deceased. (And that didn’t mean someone say “yes I recognise that woman” it meant being able to say “I know that the victim was called Elizabeth Stride)

                              So Schwartz couldn’t contribute to that.

                              2. When and where she died.

                              Schwartz obviously couldn’t say that because she was still alive when he saw her.

                              3. The medical cause of death.

                              Again, Schwartz very obviously couldn’t add anything to that point.

                              4. How she came by her death.

                              Stride was still alive when he saw her so he couldn’t contribute to that.


                              So obviously Schwartz wasn’t a vital,witness in regard to the narrow aims of an Inquest. Of course the Coroner might still have called him but we have no criteria for this. He might or might not.

                              So we cannot say that Schwartz should have been called and it certainly doesn’t show that the Coroner didn’t believe him.


                              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
                                Because people tend to stop reading when a point is made they disagree with...Ill repeat this premise, which Ive done a few times.

                                What if Israel Schwartz was there at that time, but what he reported seeing on the street actually took place inside the passageway, as he made his way out via the kitchen door...which was ajar. I think IF he was there at all, he was a meeting attendee or met with some members after the meeting broke up. To believe he just happened to be there checking to see if his wife had completed moving what would be a suitcase or 2 of possessions in the 12 hours he said he was gone for isnt reasonable or rational. We also dont know where he lived that morning do we? Might it have been in that passageway, in one of the cottages? We know later that it is confirmed he and Wess know each other and later in the LVP Israel is directly connected with that club.

                                If he saw what he saw in the alleyway, then his placing the event on the street instead is surely revealing of an attempt to bias perceptions of where the killer likely came from.
                                The only reason that it might disregarded is when it’s pure speculation and flies in the face of the facts. If you accept the possibility that he might have been there then you also know that he said that he walked along Berner Street behind BS Man and that Stride was standing at the gateway. So we would have to assume that he was there but lied about what he saw for no apparent reason. How can anyone be expected to support this?

                                What do mean by “just happened to be there?” To quote Spike Milligan as Eccles in The Goon Show “everybody’s got to be somewhere.” Do we believe that Spooner just happened to be standing on a street corner? Do we believe that Brown was just going for his supper? We don’t know about Schwartz domestic situation or what he’d been doing that day. We have no reason to doubt him. Would the modern day police treat witnesses that way? A man sees a crime but the police say ‘we don’t believe him because what are the chances of him being there at that time?”

                                Your point makes no sense. But you wonder why I say that you try to shoehorn every events to suit your theory.

                                ​​​​​​……

                                Can you remind me how we know that Wess knew Schwartz please. Call me cynical but I sense a bit of NBFN type reading between the lines approaching.
                                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