Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • .
    To deny his unimportance anyway..and espouse he was believed, is like the self serving "interruption although not indicated in any evidence" kind of argument
    Which is probably the most embarrassing, ill-founded piece of thinking in the history of Ripperology.
    Regards

    Herlock



    “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

    “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 with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

    ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

    Comment


    • . Thats a clear representation of what I mentioned earlier....mis-quoting or misreprenting
      And the post containing the above quote is a clear example if you trying to wriggle out of what you said. Just as you refuse to answer a straight question by changing the subject. Obvious to all of course.
      Regards

      Herlock



      “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

      “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 with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

      ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
        As for the actual time of awareness of the murder, at what time did the Arbeter Fraint, published later that month, state it occurred? The paper printed onsite, with pre release knowledge of content by Wess and Im sure Louis? The time the club states it happened. Not the steward, not the speaker, but the paper in the yard reporting on the event?

        That time was.....?
        That was already answered by Josh Rogan in post #104 - "At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body."

        So according to the Arbeter Fraint, the "actual time of awareness of the murder" was "At about one o’clock". The Arbeter Fraint is yet another account that does not fit your theory.
        Last edited by Fiver; 03-09-2021, 06:28 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          Repeating the same flawed arguments a thousand times won't remove the flaws.

          Stride didn't die from being shoved around by BS man, whether Schwartz invented the story or not. The cause of death was a single wound to the throat, inflicted while there was nobody but her killer to witness it.
          The fact she is being assaulted minutes before her actual throat cut almost ensures it was Willful Murder...which isnt established formally until the Inquest adjourns. Which is what I reminded Fiver about.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

            I quoted you exactly, so please to not accuse me of misquoting you. You said "The manner of death could be accidental, willfully committed, a result of suicide..there are variables." Your second sentence "The HOW is the only question here, and Israel would have impacted what they perceived." changes nothing about what I said.

            People do not cut a six inch long incision in their own neck by accident. Nothing that Israel Schwartz said could have impacted that self-evident fact.

            Suicides don't magically make the knife disappear afterwards. Nothing that Israel Schwartz said could have impacted that self-evident fact.

            Liz Stide was clearly murdered. Nothing that Israel Schwartz said could have impacted that self-evident fact.

            The HOW was never in question. What Israel Schwartz said supported that self-evident fact, but it was a self-evident fact even if Schwartz had never shared his account with anyone.

            The real unknown was WHO. The question is whether Liz Stride was killed by the Ripper, who was interrupted before he could mutilate and pose the body, or if she was killed by someone else. Schwartz' account does not prove or disprove either scenario. On the other hand, if Schwartz was lying, that also does not prove or disprove if if she was killed by the Ripper or by some other killer.
            Well, since youre the obvious expert...why have the Inquest at all then?
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

              That was already answered by Josh Rogan in post #104 - "At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body."

              So according to the Arbeter Fraint, the "actual time of awareness of the murder" was "At about one o’clock". The Arbeter Fraint is yet another account that does not fit your theory.
              In the Arbeter Fraint published after the murder it states...at about a quarter to 1 .

              "
              The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one." You published the damn link yourself...so Why do I have to keep correcting people?
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                And the post containing the above quote is a clear example if you trying to wriggle out of what you said. Just as you refuse to answer a straight question by changing the subject. Obvious to all of course.
                Again, because you folks cant seem to read posts, I referred to the Inquest mandate....you know, the Inquest that Fiver doesnt need because he can see obviously that she was killed intentionally. Like the facts you dont need because they dont fit with your discreditted witness and your not in evidence interruptus killerama.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                  In the Arbeter Fraint published after the murder it states...at about a quarter to 1 .

                  "
                  The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one." You published the damn link yourself...so Why do I have to keep correcting people?
                  In post #223, you asked "As for the actual time of awareness of the murder, at what time did the Arbeter Fraint, published later that month, state it occurred?"

                  I replied by noting that according to the Arbeter Fraint, the "actual time of awareness of the murder" was "At about one o’clock". The Arbeter Fraint does say "The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one", but that does not contradict me in any way. The "actual time of awareness of the murder" is a different event than the commission of the murder. According to the the Arbeter Fraint, the murder was committed "about a quarter to one" and the murder was discovered "At about one o’clock". The Arbeter Fraint is yet another account that does not fit your theory.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    Again, because you folks cant seem to read posts, I referred to the Inquest mandate....you know, the Inquest that Fiver doesnt need because he can see obviously that she was killed intentionally.
                    I can tell that Liz Stride was killed intentionally because I read the Inquest.

                    Comment


                    • Look at Mathew Packer as an example for Schwartz,both had two conflicting statements.At first he saw a couple,no one,then changed his mind days later,that he saw Stride, then re-interviewed by police,believed by the police and the press all through October,but by November officially discarded.The police could not make up their mind.
                      Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                      M. Pacana

                      Comment


                      • I hate it when people state opinions as facts. It’s one of my pet hates so I’m very cautious about stating something as a fact.

                        Israel Schwartz was not excluded from the Inquest because the police didn’t believe him. This is an evidence-based fact. His non-appearance was due to another (unknown) reason. The Star statement is utterly irrelevant. If that caused the Police to dismiss him they wouldn’t have gone on to search for Lipski or to take a man in for questioning or to continue to speak of Schwartz as a witness a month and more after the article. How much clearer can it be?
                        Regards

                        Herlock



                        “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

                        “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 with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

                        ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                          The fact she is being assaulted minutes before her actual throat cut almost ensures it was Willful Murder...which isnt established formally until the Inquest adjourns. Which is what I reminded Fiver about.
                          Absolute rubbish.

                          The throat cut alone points to wilful murder - by person or persons unknown. Schwartz could not have helped to 'establish' anything of the kind from what he claimed to witness at 12.45. They may as well have asked the cat.

                          I'm surprised you call it a 'fact' that Stride was assaulted in the same half hour that some unknown person wilfully murdered her. I thought your opinion was that nothing of the kind happened and Schwartz invented it. Either way he couldn't have established WHO died, HOW that person died or WHEN - or even WHERE, for that matter.

                          If Schwartz couldn't even be sure what he had seen or heard, we really are in chocolate teapot territory.

                          If you need his absence to mean that his account was not considered credible, as opposed to being considered irrelevant or even misleading, then you need to explain WHY his account would not have been considered credible. WHAT would have indicated that the incident he witnessed could not have happened? The authorities accepted that the murder was discovered at 1am, so why would they conclude that Stride could NOT have been seen assaulted at 12.45, just as Schwartz claimed?

                          I think you'd better think it out again.

                          Or is that too Jewish for you?




                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            In the Arbeter Fraint published after the murder it states...at about a quarter to 1 .

                            "
                            The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one." You published the damn link yourself...so Why do I have to keep correcting people?
                            I think you just shot yourself in the foot there. This simply means the first murder was presumed to have occurred at 'about' a quarter to one, taking into account the assault witnessed by Schwartz at that time, when he left the woman alive. The murder wasn't discovered until Louis D returned to the yard at about one.

                            You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the words 'occurred' and 'discovered'.
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                              In post #223, you asked "As for the actual time of awareness of the murder, at what time did the Arbeter Fraint, published later that month, state it occurred?"

                              I replied by noting that according to the Arbeter Fraint, the "actual time of awareness of the murder" was "At about one o’clock". The Arbeter Fraint does say "The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one", but that does not contradict me in any way. The "actual time of awareness of the murder" is a different event than the commission of the murder. According to the the Arbeter Fraint, the murder was committed "about a quarter to one" and the murder was discovered "At about one o’clock". The Arbeter Fraint is yet another account that does not fit your theory.
                              Sorry, Fiver, I posted before reading your post. Great minds eh?
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                                In the Arbeter Fraint published after the murder it states...at about a quarter to 1 .

                                "
                                The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one." You published the damn link yourself...so Why do I have to keep correcting people?
                                This is actually quite funny, because you seem to think that the good people at the Arbeter Fraint were admitting to inside knowledge of when the murder was actually committed - 'about a quarter to one' - which would have implied that Louis D and others had fannied about until one o'clock to raise the alarm.


                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X