Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    With regard to Spooner's time estimates...
    ​​​​​​
    Rather than lies or cover-ups, isn't it likely that there was simply some confusion in the court as to what time the pubs closed, just as there had been at the earlier inquest of Nichols? Perhaps after Spooner gave his first time estimate based on a twelve-thirty closing time, there was a suggestion (which unfortunately for us went unrecorded in the press) that they actually closed at midnight rather than at half past, and his second arrival time estimate takes this into account.
    Perhaps we should just consider Spooner's second estimate, in relation to the question he is answering...?

    C: Could any one have left without your observing it?
    S: I cannot say, but I think there were too many people about. I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard.


    The 'cover-up' consists of Spooner trying too hard to appear vigilant. However, if Spooner had 'the man pursued' in mind when he said this, would that indicate a cover-up, or Spooner's knowledge of the Echo report?
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Surely this ‘chase’ was a case of after-the-event confusion? Between Schwartz leaving the scene an Brown hearing Diemschutz and Koz running along Fairclough Street in search of a Constable?
      It is only 'surely', if you suppose that Brown heard Schwartz being pursued at ~!2:45, did not mention it, and then heard the search for police around 15 minutes later, and supposed that the two men were pursuing Schwartz, did not mention that point either, and then went to the club later that morning, paid 5s to get in, and told Wess the name of the non-club member who did the 'chasing', and got it wrong!
      Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 11-16-2021, 09:07 PM.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Fantasy. Even considering clocks being out Spooner arrived at the very earliest 12.55. Hoschberg and Koz were wrong. I don’t care what anyone says on this. They were too far out in their estimates to be taken seriously. Diemschutz found the body at 1.00 (clock might have been slightly out) End of story.

        Time to stop assuming the majority of witnesses were lying to support two.
        Instead of being see no evil hear no evil speak no evil, read what was written. It makes perfect sense, matches witness accounts, and doesnt rely on opinion.

        You now say Louis may have been slightly "out"...did he indicate he was guessing at the Inquest? No, he didnt. He said PRECISELY 1am. Which is provably incorrect. I showed you how Spooner, Issac K and Heschbergs statements and rough times fit with Lambs and "you dont care what anyone says on this".

        Your a real piece of work...literally.
        Last edited by Michael W Richards; 11-16-2021, 09:32 PM.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          It is only 'surely', if you suppose that Brown heard Schwartz being pursued at ~!2:45, did not mention it, and then heard the search for police around 15 minutes later, and supposed that the two men were pursuing Schwartz, did not mention that point either, and then went to the club later that morning, paid 5s to get in, and told Wess the name of the non-club member who did the 'chasing', and got it wrong!

          Or…..Schwartz left Berner Street believing at first that he was being followed by the second man. When he turned into Fairclough Street Brown was in the shop getting his supper and so didn’t see him. Brown gets home eats his supper and then just after 1.00 hears Diemschutz and Koz running along calling for a Constable.

          Later the 2 stories get conflated. Schwartz at first believing he was being followed and then 2 men chasing along Fairclough 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


          • Not one of the club staff witnesses, the people who earned a living from the club, had ANY secondary validation for their times. Not Eagle, not Lave, not Louis...and although we cannot link Israel to a paid role there yet, he was Wess's friend. Hell, even William Morris cancelled his speaking engagement that night because he didnt want to associate his cause, Socialism, with the anarchist activities of the club. The same men that get arrested within 6 months for assaulting police with clubs on that same property. NONE of them have any secondary validation.

            I pointed out 2 witnesses that do have that, a third that agree with the times in principal, and a 4th..a policeman, who puts the issue of whether Louis arrived and discovered the body at "precisely 1" or later to rest. PERIOD. Lamb could not have been there before 1am with Eagle and Issac if Louis hasnt event arrived to discover the body yet. How is that possibly unclear to you? Its absolute proof your arguments cant hold water, yet you continue to argue and insult.

            I think you need to stick with literature more to your abilities...maybe go argue with people about how Rapunzel COULD spontaneously grow her hair to be used as a rope, or how Hogwarts is a real place, or who really faked the moon landing.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              Instead of being see no evil hear no evil speak no evil, read what was written. It makes perfect sense, matches witness accounts, and doesnt rely on opinion.

              You now say Louis may have been slightly "out"...did he indicate he was guessing at the Inquest? No, he didnt. He said PRECISELY 1am. Which is provably incorrect. I showed you how Spooner, Issac K and Heschbergs statements and rough times fit with Lambs and "you dont care what anyone says on this".

              Your a real piece of work...literally.
              By the way, I don’t accept that Diemschutz could have been slightly ‘out’ in his time but I accept the possibility that the clock might have been wrong.

              I keep having to explain to you the obvious which you simply ignore because it doesn’t suit you.

              “Precisely 1.00,” is not provably incorrect. Neither you or anyone else can prove this to be incorrect. Frank explained this to you months ago using inarguable facts but still you stick your fingers in your ears. Do you think the shop with the clock was miles away? Do you think that Diemschutz forgot to turn into Berner Street and had to double back and turn around? Can’t you suss the childishly obvious. Diemschutz on his cart would have gotten from the clock at 1.00 to the yard in under a minute. And so, as far as he was concerned, it would still have been 1.00 when he arrived. If you wish to take nitpicking to Olympic sport level then yes, if he wanted to be more precise in his use of language then he should have said “the clock said 1.00 when I passed it and I arrived at the yard some 45 seconds later.” But this was Louis Diemschutz and not Stephen Fry!

              Yes I read your manipulations concerning Hoschberg and Koz but give them no weight because I’m not trying to shoehorn the worlds least plausible cover up into place am I.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Or…..Schwartz left Berner Street believing at first that he was being followed by the second man. When he turned into Fairclough Street Brown was in the shop getting his supper and so didn’t see him. Brown gets home eats his supper and then just after 1.00 hears Diemschutz and Koz running along calling for a Constable.
                So if it were not Brown who heard Schwartz running by, was it Schwartz himself who paid the 5s to get into the club and tell Wess when he was chased, and the false name of the man who did the chasing?

                Later the 2 stories get conflated.
                How did Wess manage to conflate the Schwartz story, with the knowledge of men he knows well, running off for police significantly later? You make Wess sound like a dumb arse.

                Schwartz at first believing he was being followed and then 2 men chasing along Fairclough Street.
                Apparently Schwartz made it quite clear that the other man was running.

                Abberline: Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.

                Having watched the assault himself, what could possibly have caused Pipeman to run away in fear?
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                  Not one of the club staff witnesses, the people who earned a living from the club, had ANY secondary validation for their times. Not Eagle, not Lave, not Louis...and although we cannot link Israel to a paid role there yet, he was Wess's friend. Hell, even William Morris cancelled his speaking engagement that night because he didnt want to associate his cause, Socialism, with the anarchist activities of the club. The same men that get arrested within 6 months for assaulting police with clubs on that same property. NONE of them have any secondary validation.

                  I pointed out 2 witnesses that do have that, a third that agree with the times in principal, and a 4th..a policeman, who puts the issue of whether Louis arrived and discovered the body at "precisely 1" or later to rest. PERIOD. Lamb could not have been there before 1am with Eagle and Issac if Louis hasnt event arrived to discover the body yet. How is that possibly unclear to you? Its absolute proof your arguments cant hold water, yet you continue to argue and insult.

                  I think you need to stick with literature more to your abilities...maybe go argue with people about how Rapunzel COULD spontaneously grow her hair to be used as a rope, or how Hogwarts is a real place, or who really faked the moon landing.
                  To be insulted by the David Icke of Ripperology is water off a duck’s back on here. If you’d climb down for a minute from your pantomime high horse then you might take time to look around you. It really doesnt matter what you think of my opinions but you should consider the whole of ripperology. I wonder if you ever think to yourself “I wonder why the whole of ripperology rejects my theory?” Are they all stupid? Are they all biased? Are you the only unbiased, clear thinking student of the subject over the last 20 years or more? So you can say whatever you like about me and I’ll just keep reminding you that your theory has been rejected time and time again over the last 20 years and yet you won’t let it go. How the hell can you compare me with some fruitcake that believes that the moon landings were faked when it’s you that has the theory that no one believes. You’re the one with the barking mad theory.

                  If you only answer one question then let it be this one. Why does the whole world dismiss your theory?

                  Wake up, switch off the ego and save yourself more embarrassment.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    So if it were not Brown who heard Schwartz running by, was it Schwartz himself who paid the 5s to get into the club and tell Wess when he was chased, and the false name of the man who did the chasing?

                    No one heard Schwartz.

                    Where does it say that Schwartz paid 5s to get in?

                    Just because we don’t have an explanation for the name thing doesn’t mean that an explanation didn’t exist. Mix up, rumours, Chinese whispers, poor transcription by reporters. It’s unimportant.


                    How did Wess manage to conflate the Schwartz story, with the knowledge of men he knows well, running off for police significantly later? You make Wess sound like a dumb arse.

                    He wasn’t there. He heard stuff second and third hand. So what?

                    Apparently Schwartz made it quite clear that the other man was running.

                    Abberline: Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.

                    Having watched the assault himself, what could possibly have caused Pipeman to run away in fear?

                    Don’t know, don’t care.
                    You’re simply trying to create a mystery. Carry on. I’m sure you’ll come up with another couple of theories before midnight.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      You’re simply trying to create a mystery. Carry on. I’m sure you’ll come up with another couple of theories before midnight.
                      Evidently your make it up as you go responses, suggest that I'm not merely trying to create a mystery, but actually succeeding.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                        Evidently your make it up as you go responses, suggest that I'm not merely trying to create a mystery, but actually succeeding.
                        I just can’t be bothered to keep winding and twisting along the alleyways and down the rabbit holes. Anything can mean anything if we question every single sentence or scratch our chins every single time a different word is used. I can’t stop you doing it and wouldn’t try; you can write what you want and adopt any approach that you want to. I remain convinced that there is no mystery in events in Berner Street. Unanswered questions obviously but that doesn’t encourage me into knitting them into a cover up because there was none.

                        A woman was murder, a bloke found her, they went for the police, police came then the doctors. We don’t know who killed her. He might have been Jack the Ripper but he might not have been. No one lied or plotted. Simples.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          A woman was murder, a bloke found her, they went for the police, police came then the doctors. We don’t know who killed her. He might have been Jack the Ripper but he might not have been. No one lied or plotted. Simples.
                          Hi Herlock,

                          At last. Apart from a minor exception regarding Diemshitz and "exact", something on which we can agree. Coming back to the title of this thread:

                          IF SCHWARTZ LIED

                          If he lied, who do we have as suspects?
                          Parcelman, Schwartz, a Club Member or a person unknown?

                          If he didn't lie, who do we have as suspects?
                          Parcelman, BSman, Pipeman, a Club Member or a person unknown?

                          After 159 pages of circular arguments on times let's say enough on time and come up with some ideas on who may have killed Stride under each circumstance of the thread topic.

                          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


                          • The problem is that you have posters convinced of cover ups. I don’t accept that for a second. I’d say that, although we can’t be certain, BS Man has to be considered favourite. Although if he was the killer then I’d think him less likely of being the ripper.
                            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


                            • . Not one of the club staff witnesses, the people who earned a living from the club, had ANY secondary validation for their times. Not Eagle, not Lave, not Louis
                              Strange then that you rely on Fanny Mortimer.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Strange then that you rely on Fanny Mortimer.
                                Who did not appear at the inquest either.

                                c.d.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X