Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    I see HS chimed in to sling some arrows,.....as Ive pointed out rather politely...you should consider that on occassion,....it seems Israel Schwartz was not considered useful. Why, as I said could be many reasons, but clearly..the most obvious are the 2 I mentioned. Lack of belief or inability to verify.

    .
    You’ve pointed out 2 ‘reasons’ both of which have been proven to be incorrect. So the silly suggestion that Schwartz wasn’t believed by the Coroner can be dismissed as the joke that it very obviously is. It’s the one potential reason that we can safely dismiss. Read Orsam and please stop talking about this subject. It’s gone way past embarrassing.

    BIAS - pure and simple.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
      Now that we have at least established he wasnt there...(you both have hung onto that point for way too long, nice to have some progress)

      Uh...no, not me. I have never stated or implied that he was at the inquest.

      c.d.
      As I’ve said in post # 2414 c.d. he’s just making stuff up. Neither of us have said he might have been at the Inquest. He wasn’t. But definitely not because the Coroner didn’t believe him.

      Comment


      • But definitely not because the Coroner didn’t believe him.

        Sorry, but that is where we part ways, Herlock. That could be the reason. If you say definitely then you are as bad as Michael saying that you know. You don't. I don't. Michael doesn't. Nobody KNOWS. Don't fall into that trap. Speculating is NOT the same as actually knowing.

        c.d.
        Last edited by c.d.; 11-20-2021, 06:37 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
          But definitely not because the Coroner didn’t believe him.

          Sorry, but that is where we part ways, Herlock. That could be the reason. If you say definitely then you are as bad as Michael saying that you know. You don't. I don't. Michael doesn't. Nobody KNOWS. Don't fall into that trap. Speculating is NOT the same as actually knowing.

          c.d.
          But it’s not speculation c.d. although I have no problem amending that to 99.9% certain. The facts and the evidence point to this. As DO points out, Baxter clearly mistrusted Maxwell (she even said that she’d doubted herself) and yet there she was at The Inquest. We also know that neither Swanson and Abberline had any doubts about Schwartz and as DO says: “It’s not creditable to think that the coroner could have formed an adverse decision on his own….” He also provides examples of witnesses appearing in front of Baxter who Baxter openly disbelieved and said so there and then. Why didn’t he refuse to call them if he disbelieved them? So is it at all plausible that Baxter, in opposition to those actually investigating the case and who had actually spoken to Schwartz face to face, somehow deduces off his own bat that Schwartz isn’t believable and doesn’t call him on that basis? I’d say that the evidence tells us …. no chance.





          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            You’ve pointed out 2 ‘reasons’ both of which have been proven to be incorrect. So the silly suggestion that Schwartz wasn’t believed by the Coroner can be dismissed as the joke that it very obviously is. It’s the one potential reason that we can safely dismiss. Read Orsam and please stop talking about this subject. It’s gone way past embarrassing.

            BIAS - pure and simple.
            Please stop being such a jerk. If you do I will. There is NO evidence that discounts what I suggested are the 2 most obvious reasons for not including Israel at the Inquest. Even cd, who disagrees with everything I post, agrees with that point. After youve revealed a source of yours I can now understand why some of your posts defy logic.

            And I see youve posted the same nonsense again.

            EVIDENCE boyo. When you have some, come back to the table. Otherwise discontinue the personal insults or Ill play the card with the Mgmt like youre so fond of doing.

            Im not going to continue to remind you of what is evidence and what is your opinion, since you dont seem to be able to separate the 2. Schwartz WAS NOT part of the Inquest yet his story woul;d have been extremely germane to its purpose, soi fabricate away, believe what you believe, the evidence is all thats needed to sink you anyway. Ill find someone else who can follow the argument and who actually is interested in what IS, not what they believe is.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              But it’s not speculation c.d. although I have no problem amending that to 99.9% certain. The facts and the evidence point to this. As DO points out, Baxter clearly mistrusted Maxwell (she even said that she’d doubted herself) and yet there she was at The Inquest. We also know that neither Swanson and Abberline had any doubts about Schwartz and as DO says: “It’s not creditable to think that the coroner could have formed an adverse decision on his own….” He also provides examples of witnesses appearing in front of Baxter who Baxter openly disbelieved and said so there and then. Why didn’t he refuse to call them if he disbelieved them? So is it at all plausible that Baxter, in opposition to those actually investigating the case and who had actually spoken to Schwartz face to face, somehow deduces off his own bat that Schwartz isn’t believable and doesn’t call him on that basis? I’d say that the evidence tells us …. no chance.




              Your argument is that people who you think were disbelieved still got time on the stand at Inquests? Thats your evidence? sigh....
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                Please stop being such a jerk. If you do I will. There is NO evidence that discounts what I suggested are the 2 most obvious reasons for not including Israel at the Inquest. Even cd, who disagrees with everything I post, agrees with that point. After youve revealed a source of yours I can now understand why some of your posts defy logic.

                A choice between your bias and David Orsam's proper research……let me think…….

                And I see youve posted the same nonsense again.

                EVIDENCE boyo. When you have some, come back to the table. Otherwise discontinue the personal insults or Ill play the card with the Mgmt like youre so fond of doing.

                If that’s what I think it means then it’s yet another lie.

                Im not going to continue to remind you of what is evidence and what is your opinion, since you dont seem to be able to separate the 2. Schwartz WAS NOT part of the Inquest yet his story woul;d have been extremely germane to its purpose,

                But not important to the very specific aims of an Inquest. You do realise that an I quest wasn’t just an excuse for an informal chat about the case don't you? Or do you? I wonder after seeing that you continue to dispute facts.

                soi fabricate away,

                Your speciality. You’ve been doing it for 20 years.

                believe what you believe, the evidence is all thats needed to sink you anyway. Ill find someone else who can follow the argument and who actually is interested in what IS, not what they believe is.


                Follow the argument - that’s rich coming from a man who thought that I believed that Schwartz was actually at the Inquest.
                It’s pointless discussing the case with someone as prone to utter cluelessness as yourself. You are so addled with bias that you are impervious to reality in defence of your ludicrous theory.

                Your 2 points can safely be dismissed as can most things that you post.

                I’ll go with Orsam’s research. Proper, fact based, detailed research. Not your embarrassingly desperate clinging to a theory that was discredited 20 years ago.

                Im bored with reading your manipulative, self-serving nonsense.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  We know Abberline was a well respected police officer and that he was tasked to find the ripper. We know that he, like the rest of the police, were under immense pressure from above and below. We also know that he believed that Israel Schwartz told the truth. So would he have been so blasť about the risk of following a duff lead without doing the bare minimum of checking? Should we assume that he simply ignored testimony from a woman that contradicted Schwartz or would he have checked?

                  We are left with fragments of statements received via the Press which is ripe ground for filling on the gaps (whether accurately or inaccurately) for reading between lines. Abberline on the other hand heard the lot. Often face to face with the witnesses. So is it impossible or unlikely that he checked out Mortimer before realising that her statement didn’t discount Schwartz. Would he have continued with Schwartz otherwise?

                  Abberline knew the full story. He knew that Mortimer’s evidence didn’t disprove Schwartz.

                  Why do we presume to know more than him?
                  Because he interviewed Schwartz late on Sunday afternoon, after a busy night and day. Had he read all the relevant statements by that time, and discussed the matter with all the police on the scene? Perhaps, perhaps not. However, it was considerate of Schwartz to wait that long to give Fred a chance to do so.

                  In contrast to FGA, we have the benefit of inquest and other newspaper reports, that we can read and discuss at our leisure. We know people who were on Berner and nearby streets at the time, and that likely includes a number of WVC patrolmen. Schwartz in effect wants to say; Can I replace all these people with myself and three others, have them interacting and making noise in a manner which would normally attract attention, and yet go completely unnoticed? The answer to that is an emphatic; No!
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    Your argument is that people who you think were disbelieved still got time on the stand at Inquests? Thats your evidence? sigh....
                    Your point (if we can call it one) is that Baxter didn’t believe Schwartz and so didn’t call him to give evidence at the Inquest.

                    So why do you dismiss it (apart from the fact of its inconvenience) when examples are provided (not opinions or speculations but actual examples) where Baxter took evidence from witnesses that he didn’t believe. Why would he not call Schwartz because he didn’t believe him and yet he called others that he didn’t believe? Did he have some burning dislike of him? Or does this show that he didn’t exclude witnesses on that basis.

                    It wasn’t Baxter’s job to interview and assess witnesses except at the Inquest. The investigation and assessment of witnesses was done by the Police. And did the police believe Schwartz? Yes they did. Is that my opinion? Is that speculation? No, it’s a well documented fact.

                    So to sum up. We have documented evidence that Schwartz was believed and considered a valid witness as far as the Poluce investigation went up until the end of October and into November. We also have documented evidence that Baxter called witnesses to his Inquests that he didn’t particularly believe.

                    So from those documented facts please explain how you come to the conclusion that Baxter didn’t call Schwartz because he didn’t believe him? How does that conclusion square with what we know as documented facts and certainly not opinions or speculations.

                    And furthermore, as you like using the word evidence but appear to be averse to providing any perhaps you can provide some evidence of Baxter or any coroner refusing to call a supposedly otherwise vital witness because he himself didn’t believe him. I await your ‘evidence.’ I’ve provided it, or at least I’ve pointed out that David Orsam has provided it, now you provide yours.

                    Comment


                    • And while you’re at it you might like to explain why it’s ok for you to whinge about insults but it’s apparently fine for you to do it constantly. I even recall Caz pulling you up on it when you accused everyone of being idiots for disagreeing with you. Pot - kettle - black.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                        Because he interviewed Schwartz late on Sunday afternoon, after a busy night and day. Had he read all the relevant statements by that time, and discussed the matter with all the police on the scene? Perhaps, perhaps not. However, it was considerate of Schwartz to wait that long to give Fred a chance to do so.

                        In contrast to FGA, we have the benefit of inquest and other newspaper reports, that we can read and discuss at our leisure. We know people who were on Berner and nearby streets at the time, and that likely includes a number of WVC patrolmen. Schwartz in effect wants to say; Can I replace all these people with myself and three others, have them interacting and making noise in a manner which would normally attract attention, and yet go completely unnoticed? The answer to that is an emphatic; No!
                        And no one questioned this. All up until November when Schwartz was still being treated as a valid witness. Not one person noticed these discrepancies. Yeah right.

                        or did they notice them, check them out and come to the conclusion that absolutely nothing precluded Schwartz or the incident. Nothing.

                        Comment


                        • All we get are points that start from…….well we know that there was some kind of cover up so how can we explain….

                          We don’t have a full picture as far as evidence and testimony is concerned. We can’t tie witnesses down to exact times. So we can’t show that Schwartz couldn’t have been there.

                          Its not reasonable to suggest a cover up. We should remain in the real world. Or at least try to.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            And no one questioned this. All up until November when Schwartz was still being treated as a valid witness. Not one person noticed these discrepancies. Yeah right.

                            or did they notice them, check them out and come to the conclusion that absolutely nothing precluded Schwartz or the incident. Nothing.
                            November, or the day after the murder...?

                            In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

                            How many police actually laid eyes on Schwartz, after Sep 30? Zero? It seems that after the Star interview, 'Israel Schwartz' ceased to exist.
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                              November, or the day after the murder...?

                              In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

                              How many police actually laid eyes on Schwartz, after Sep 30? Zero? It seems that after the Star interview, 'Israel Schwartz' ceased to exist.
                              He probably peeled off his skin to reveal his true reptilian form and left for Venus on the mothership.

                              Schwartz was believed by Abberline. Just accept it. It’s a fact. Move on. Newspaper rumours don’t cut it. You love them though. Grist to the mill.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Hi George,

                                All I can say is that the aims of the Inquest as stated previously are a fact. David Orsam made 8 suggestions as possible reasons why Schwartz might not have attended the Inquest. I think it was Wickerman who showed that ‘in camera’ testimony would still have been mentioned and so wouldn’t have gone unnoticed for 130 years (other than that I can’t comment on ‘in camera’ testimony.)

                                I made two suggestions of my own for what they’re worth. Maybe Schwartz genuinely believed that his life was in danger from the ripper, who had shouted threateningly at him, and so either, a) he went into hiding - possibly staying with a friend somewhere until the Inquest was over, or b) he expressed this fear to the Police and asked to be ‘excused’ from the Inquest. And as he wasn’t vital to those 4 aims the Coroner either assented or the Police didn’t give the Coroner his name.

                                One thought about ‘in camera’ testimony George. Wouldn’t the Press have gotten wind of it in some way? At least to the point of being able to mention the fact that a witness gave his testimony in secret?
                                Hi Herlock,

                                I might be a little dim today, but I'm still struggling with your logic. You have repeated said that the Coroner must have been working within the parameters of the 4 point plan, but it is obvious that he wasn't observing those points in the case of Wess, Eagle, Spooner, Marshall and Brown. Even Smith wouldn't have qualified. I am at a loss to accept how Schwartz can deem to have been excluded based on a set of theoretical criteria that weren't being observed by the Coroner.

                                I think that you made a very sensible suggestion that maybe Schwartz genuinely believed that his life was in danger from the ripper. I would suggest that in lieu of being excused from appearing at the inquest due to his fear, he was offered total secrecy in a tighly closed session on Thursday which included the exclusion of the press. I think Schwartz was genuine in his statements (with translation limits) and was important to the evidence regardless of criteria that were obviously not implemented by Baxter.

                                Cheers, George
                                Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X