Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • What youre missing Herlock on the Lamb issue is that among all the witnesses for the Berner Street murder ONLY the Police HAD TO KNOW approximately what time they were at certain points. How he obtained the time isnt really relevant when you consider he MUST have had references to use. Because he was a beat cop, and beat cops are like bus drivers, timing is everything.

    Ive pointed out numerous times that the overwhelming majority of witness accounts suggest a discovery time 15-20 minutes before Louis says he even arrived and that Louis, Morris, and Israel have no secondary source that could validate their claims. Whatever is posted that denies the legitimacy of those claims should have first been vetted. These truths are undeniable. Should anyone throw out any secondary source verification... in the form of matching details and times within their respective statements, they should understand that it will require some evidence or proof that it should be set aside.

    Back to If Schwartz lied....IF Schwartz lied then there is no one to contradict a final live sighting of Liz Stride at 12:35 by PC Smith...(Brown almost certainly saw the young couple that has been established was there at that time), Fanny need not have been assumed to have not been at her door at 12:45 in order to miss what Israel claimed, people who claimed to be in the passageway with Stride at 12:40-12:45 need not have missed seeing an altercation with Stride just outside on the street, Eagle, Lave Fanny and the young couple would have their descriptions of an empty street during that half hour re-enforced, and we would not have a primary suspect for her killer on the street. Meaning that the primary suspect would almost certainly have come from the group of people on that site at that time.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
      What youre missing Herlock on the Lamb issue is that among all the witnesses for the Berner Street murder ONLY the Police HAD TO KNOW approximately what time they were at certain points. How he obtained the time isnt really relevant when you consider he MUST have had references to use. Because he was a beat cop, and beat cops are like bus drivers, timing is everything.

      I missed nothing. Saying he ‘must’ have used something to estimate his time is what’ irrelevant when that could have been 15 or 20 minutes previous. He was estimating. That’s the end of the story. He was around 5 minutes out. To suggest that a Constable could always have stated the exact time is nonsense and you know it. With his own words he was stating that he couldn’t be held to an accurate time. This should be beyond dispute.

      Diemschutz saw a clock. Baseless accusations of lying don’t for nothing in the real world.


      Ive pointed out numerous times that the overwhelming majority of witness accounts suggest a discovery time 15-20 minutes before Louis says he even arrived and that Louis, Morris, and Israel have no secondary source that could validate their claims. Whatever is posted that denies the legitimacy of those claims should have first been vetted. These truths are undeniable. Should anyone throw out any secondary source verification... in the form of matching details and times within their respective statements, they should understand that it will require some evidence or proof that it should be set aside.

      And I’ve pointed out ‘numerous times’ that I dismiss your comments as untrue, biased manipulations from a man with an agenda.

      Back to If Schwartz lied....IF Schwartz lied then there is no one to contradict a final live sighting of Liz Stride at 12:35 by PC Smith...(Brown almost certainly saw the young couple that has been established was there at that time), Fanny need not have been assumed to have not been at her door at 12:45 in order to miss what Israel claimed, people who claimed to be in the passageway with Stride at 12:40-12:45 need not have missed seeing an altercation with Stride just outside on the street, Eagle, Lave Fanny and the young couple would have their descriptions of an empty street during that half hour re-enforced, and we would not have a primary suspect for her killer on the street. Meaning that the primary suspect would almost certainly have come from the group of people on that site at that time.

      Blah, blah. blah.
      An endless white noise of dishonest, self-serving manipulation. We’ve disproven your cover up theory. It’s dead. Even on the Letchford thread I’ve pointed out why even his testimony disproves you fantasy.

      AND STILL NO RESPONSE ON WHY THEY WOULD HAVE PROCEEDED WITH A PLAN LIKE THIS WHEN THEY KNEW THAT NOT EVERYONE WAS AWARE OF THE SCRIPT. THE COVER UP FALLS ON THIS POINT ALONE. KEEP AVOIDING IT IF YOU WANT BECAUSE ILL KEEP ON POSTING IT.

      GAME OVER.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        An endless white noise of dishonest, self-serving manipulation. We’ve disproven your cover up theory. It’s dead. Even on the Letchford thread I’ve pointed out why even his testimony disproves you fantasy.

        AND STILL NO RESPONSE ON WHY THEY WOULD HAVE PROCEEDED WITH A PLAN LIKE THIS WHEN THEY KNEW THAT NOT EVERYONE WAS AWARE OF THE SCRIPT. THE COVER UP FALLS ON THIS POINT ALONE. KEEP AVOIDING IT IF YOU WANT BECAUSE ILL KEEP ON POSTING IT.

        GAME OVER.
        Im asking seriously, are there any cognitive issues that prevent you from comprehending things? I post that Lamb MUST have had access to timepieces throughout the night because it was his job to be on time on his rounds, and you post.." He was around 5 minutes out." When I posted that we do not know that Louis referred to any clock because no-one saw him arrive despite a witness watching that same street at 1, you post'..."Diemschutz saw a clock." When I point out that the majority of times given by witnesses are for a discovery around 12:40-12-45 and to dismiss them you must proved contrary evidence, you post "And I’ve pointed out ‘numerous times’ that I dismiss your comments as untrue, biased manipulations from a man with an agenda."

        When you say youve asked repeatedly for an answer to why everyone wouldnt be aware of a conspiracy to modify certain elements of their story, you obviously have missed the many, many posts that show that only the men that recieved an income from the club seem to have zero support for anything they say, and that other members statements which are alike do not support these mens statements. The mere fact that the club was populated by immigrant jews and the ripper investigation, according to Anderson, had concluded at that point in time that the "Ripper" was an immigrant jew, should be enough,... but add to that loss of their income when the police would close the club if they suspected a member in attendance of the murder...a club they referred to as an anarchist club, a club with a yard that Louis attacked police with a club in a few months later, a club that neighbours thought held "low men".

        As I began, if you have a learning diability I will try and spell things out more fully for you, but if its just that you enjoy wasting my time and everyone elses being a bonehead, insulting rather than answering direct questions, then perhaps you might want to cut that **** out. I dont have the patience to contantly remind you how lying and misrepresenting affects opinions of you in general.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          Im asking seriously, are there any cognitive issues that prevent you from comprehending things? I post that Lamb MUST have had access to timepieces throughout the night because it was his job to be on time on his rounds, and you post.." He was around 5 minutes out."

          It’s nothing to do with understanding (says he explaining abc to someone that clearly can’t comprehend) it’s about facts. I don’t care what you say that Lamb ‘must’ have done because, as ever, you’re wrong. Hopelessly biased and wrong. Yes he would have checked a clock or clocks at some point but we cannot say how many clocks or what specific clock or clocks. You cannot say that he checked Harris’s clock because the fact that he was at pains to tell everyone that he was estimating points away from that.

          Please don’t assume that just because you post something that I’ll just accept it. That’s just never going to happen. I’ll first assume that you’re twisting it or deliberately misinterpreting to confirm to your to your agenda.


          When I posted that we do not know that Louis referred to any clock because no-one saw him arrive despite a witness watching that same street at 1, you post'..."Diemschutz saw a clock."

          I’ll repeat, just for fun, we know that Louis saw a clock because he said so.

          About there being a witness watching the street at 1.00. We’ll, surprise, surprise. That’s a lie. If you’re talking about your favourite go-to witness Fanny. She went onto her doorstep for 10 minutes just after Smith passed. She was back inside well before 1.00. Please stop posting childish silliness.


          When I point out that the majority of times given by witnesses are for a discovery around 12:40-12-45 and to dismiss them you must proved contrary evidence, you post "And I’ve pointed out ‘numerous times’ that I dismiss your comments as untrue, biased manipulations from a man with an agenda."

          Comments from you carry no weight. If 20 years of people telling you that your theory is a joke isn’t sinking in by now then you’re a lost cause. I ripperelogical laughing stock. Carry on.

          When you say youve asked repeatedly for an answer to why everyone wouldnt be aware of a conspiracy to modify certain elements of their story, you obviously have missed the many, many posts that show that only the men that recieved an income from the club seem to have zero support for anything they say, and that other members statements which are alike do not support these mens statements. The mere fact that the club was populated by immigrant jews and the ripper investigation, according to Anderson, had concluded at that point in time that the "Ripper" was an immigrant jew, should be enough,... but add to that loss of their income when the police would close the club if they suspected a member in attendance of the murder...a club they referred to as an anarchist club, a club with a yard that Louis attacked police with a club in a few months later, a club that neighbours thought held "low men".

          Are you serious? You call that fudging piece of twaddle an answer. Plumbing the depths as ever.

          YOU'RE CLAIMING A COVER UP. WHY WOULD DIEMSCHUTZ AND HIS CO-PLOTTERS BE SUCH UNMITIGATED HALFWITS AS TO LIE TO THE POLICE ABOUT THE DISCOVERY TIME KNOWING FULL WELL THAT OTHERS WEREN’T AWARE OF THIS PLAN AND SO WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY GIVE THE POLICE THE ‘REAL’ EARLIER DISCOVERY TIME THUS SCUPPERING THE WHOLE ENTERPRISE?

          OF COURSE THEY WOULDN’T. CATEGORICALLY GAME OVER. COVER UP IS DEAD AND BURIED.


          As I began, if you have a learning diability I will try and spell things out more fully for you, but if its just that you enjoy wasting my time and everyone elses being a bonehead, insulting rather than answering direct questions, then perhaps you might want to cut that **** out. I dont have the patience to contantly remind you how lying and misrepresenting affects opinions of you in general.
          Are you really so lacking in self awareness. You use the word insulting when talking about me and yet you’ve- Called me Handicapped, twice (real good taste Michael) - you’ve said that I have a Learning Disability (classy) - now I’m a Bonehead - you’ve accused me of having a Concrete Filled Skull - you’ve accused me of having Dyslexia - and you’ve called me a Jerk .

          Ive used no such ‘personal’ insults as far as I’m aware.

          And those are just from one week on one thread. I’m quite prepared to look back further and on other threads. So you might want to check the dictionary and see what HYPOCRITE means. I also recall, and Caz will back me up on this, when you said that everyone who disagreed with you are idiots. You even gave an apology of sorts then you were soon back at it.



          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            So we have to assume that the shopkeeper allowed his clock to be out by 20 minutes just to keep this plot in place? Come on George.
            What plot? I was responding to your proposal that the Harris clock may not have been used because it was unreliable. Ten minutes out would have been considered normal in the day. Twenty minutes out would be unreliable, as you suggested.

            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.”
            If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
            Everybody lies - Greg House MD

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              This is the kind of thing that I meant by my ‘Michael’ comment. I wouldn’t previously have expected you to have made such a point. You cannot dismiss what Schwartz said on this point. Wasn’t Koz involved in some kind of issue?
              Herlock,
              Calm yourself down. You must know by now that I don't dismiss Schwartz. Where did you get that idea. Did you look at my timeline? Schwartz is right there.

              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.”
              If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
              Everybody lies - Greg House MD

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Why the implication? The Press report of the Inquest wasn’t a verbatim transcript. Maybe it wasn’t until the Inquest that someone said “how can you be sure?” Maybe he just felt that at an Inquest he needed a fuller account?
                Hi Herlock,

                Remember you "Lamb rule". If it wasn't specifically stated, it didn't happen. First sign of a dodgy witness is changing their story. But maybe someone did put in his mind that he may be asked if he was sure of a vague statement - as you point out, "about" means an estimate. Haha, thinks he...I'll show I'm sure by saying I saw a clock.

                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.”
                If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
                Everybody lies - Greg House MD

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  Again, I'll suggest the Letchford thread. His evidence points to a time certainly after 12.50 and almost certainly nearer 1.00.
                  By which clock, and how long since he viewed it. More guesstimating?
                  “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.”
                  If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
                  Everybody lies - Greg House MD

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                    Hi Herlock,

                    Remember you "Lamb rule". If it wasn't specifically stated, it didn't happen. First sign of a dodgy witness is changing their story. But maybe someone did put in his mind that he may be asked if he was sure of a vague statement - as you point out, "about" means an estimate. Haha, thinks he...I'll show I'm sure by saying I saw a clock.

                    Cheers, George
                    There’s no Lamb rule George. It’s just so clear.

                    He’s at pains to point out that he has no watch plus his wording. “Around 1.00” or “just before 1.00.” What could be clearer?

                    He was estimating and not from a clock that he’d just walked past and he was letting people know that they shouldn’t take his estimate as spot on.

                    If he himself very obviously accepted that his time might have been a bit off why do we have an issue with this to the extent that we question a man who simply saw a clock?
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      By which clock, and how long since he viewed it. More guesstimating?
                      He said that his sister was on her doorstep at 12.50. He doesn’t use any words to indicate an estimation like “around” or “about” and 12.50 is rather a specific time. People tend to put random guesses on the 15 minute marks. I’m not suggesting 100% certainty but it’s possible that they had a clock in the house.

                      If she was correct and on her doorstep at 12.50 then nothing had happened by then according to her. No cries from the yard. No Eagle running past and certainly no Eagle an Lamb returning.

                      Importantly though Letchford doesn’t use this 12.50 to set a time for the disturbance. He just said “I heard the commotion when the body was found.’ This implies a definite gap of time (we can’t know how long) between 12.50 and the commotion.

                      This at the very least points to the body being found nearer to 1.00 and certainly not 12.45 or even 12,50.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        An endless white noise of dishonest, self-serving manipulation. We’ve disproven your cover up theory. It’s dead. Even on the Letchford thread I’ve pointed out why even his testimony disproves you fantasy.

                        AND STILL NO RESPONSE ON WHY THEY WOULD HAVE PROCEEDED WITH A PLAN LIKE THIS WHEN THEY KNEW THAT NOT EVERYONE WAS AWARE OF THE SCRIPT. THE COVER UP FALLS ON THIS POINT ALONE. KEEP AVOIDING IT IF YOU WANT BECAUSE ILL KEEP ON POSTING IT.

                        GAME OVER.
                        Accepting MWR's theory for the sake of argument, I would have to ask; why does everyone need to be 'on script' for the 'plot' to work? You keep on telling us that the police believed Diemschitz. That means they believed him, regardless of contradictory evidence from people like Spooner, Koz, and Herschburg. Does that also mean there could well have been a 'plot' that involved time-shifting, but that not everyone was made aware of, or in some cases did not remember to follow the 'script'?

                        Why does the 'plot' require total consistency to work, if that is not the case for the non-plot scenario? Seems like you are implicitly holding MWRs theory to a higher standard, than the standard you suppose the police actually did hold.

                        Game on?
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                          Back to If Schwartz lied....IF Schwartz lied then there is no one to contradict a final live sighting of Liz Stride at 12:35 by PC Smith...(Brown almost certainly saw the young couple that has been established was there at that time), Fanny need not have been assumed to have not been at her door at 12:45 in order to miss what Israel claimed, people who claimed to be in the passageway with Stride at 12:40-12:45 need not have missed seeing an altercation with Stride just outside on the street, Eagle, Lave Fanny and the young couple would have their descriptions of an empty street during that half hour re-enforced, and we would not have a primary suspect for her killer on the street. Meaning that the primary suspect would almost certainly have come from the group of people on that site at that time.
                          Hi Michael,

                          IF Schwartz lied, not just on some detail but in not being there at all, then I would agree with your assessment excepting that I could not entirely preclude a killer from the street. At this stage I am not of the opinion that Schwartz lied to this extent, but that is only my opinion, and I do remember being wrong once before. IF Schwartz lied, the prime suspects would then appear to be Parcelman or someone from the club (or lurking in the club - jump in here anytime Dave). Do you have anyone in mind?

                          Can I ask for your opinion on the part played by clock synchronisations in your deliberations? Chris McKay states that a clock error of ten minutes would be considered entirely normal for that time. One clock ten minutes fast compared to another clock ten minutes slow give a considerable error of 20 minutes. Could you entertain the possibility that the difference between your times and the traditional times espoused by others could be reconciled by this factor?

                          I am not fully conversant with the "plot theory" attributed to you by others, and I don't wish to be in noman's land of the artillery battle being fought between you and they. However, IMHO the members of the club had every right to be worried about repercussions that may have been visited upon them by the public as a result of another perceived Ripper murder. They had the example of the attacks and property damage perpetrated on jewish businesses after the previous Ripper murders, and that opinion was shared by Warren to the extent that he apparently destroyed evidence because of it. I would be reluctant to go further than that to proposals of tampering with times, other than Louis's sudden last minute recollection of a clock sighting.

                          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.”
                          If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
                          Everybody lies - Greg House MD

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            He said that his sister was on her doorstep at 12.50. He doesn’t use any words to indicate an estimation like “around” or “about” and 12.50 is rather a specific time. People tend to put random guesses on the 15 minute marks. I’m not suggesting 100% certainty but it’s possible that they had a clock in the house.

                            If she was correct and on her doorstep at 12.50 then nothing had happened by then according to her. No cries from the yard. No Eagle running past and certainly no Eagle an Lamb returning.

                            Importantly though Letchford doesn’t use this 12.50 to set a time for the disturbance. He just said “I heard the commotion when the body was found.’ This implies a definite gap of time (we can’t know how long) between 12.50 and the commotion.

                            This at the very least points to the body being found nearer to 1.00 and certainly not 12.45 or even 12,50.
                            Hi Herlock,

                            I don't agree that because someone was assertive in their statement of a time that they were not estimating. I phrased my question "which clock" badly. I was actually meaning to which time zone was the clock set. There are too many clocks possibly set to too many time zones to make any sense of comparative times.

                            BTW, just a friendly comment - stamping the feet and shouting (bold and capitals) normally doesn't acheive any advancement of the validity of an argument.

                            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.”
                            If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
                            Everybody lies - Greg House MD

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              So we have to assume that the shopkeeper allowed his clock to be out by 20 minutes just to keep this plot in place? Come on George.
                              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              This is the kind of thing that I meant by my ‘Michael’ comment. I wouldn’t previously have expected you to have made such a point. You cannot dismiss what Schwartz said on this point. Wasn’t Koz involved in some kind of issue?
                              More evidence that some members cannot recall what others have said on particular issues, from one day to the next, and that members are often perceived as belonging to an homogenous lump, whose characteristics are chosen to make the lump appear as far from mainstream thought, as possible.

                              Some members need to start keeping notes, to help prevent the misrepresentation of other peoples views. I suggested this to Caz a while back, and she seemed to be very receptive to the idea.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                There’s no Lamb rule George. It’s just so clear.

                                He’s at pains to point out that he has no watch plus his wording. “Around 1.00” or “just before 1.00.” What could be clearer?

                                He was estimating and not from a clock that he’d just walked past and he was letting people know that they shouldn’t take his estimate as spot on.

                                If he himself very obviously accepted that his time might have been a bit off why do we have an issue with this to the extent that we question a man who simply saw a clock?
                                Hi Herlock,

                                We don't know the wording of Lamb's testimony. We only have conflicting reports by journalists. How much easier would it be if we had the actual transcript. But we don't. The use of the words "about", "around" "shortly before" etc are necessary when one has moved away from a clock, but that is not always adhered to by civilians.

                                I am not argueing that he was not estimating. I am proposing that for his time estimate (not time interval estimate) he had to have seen a clock at sometime. You proposed that it may not have been the Harris clock because it may not have been reliable. You expressed astonishment when I suggested that maybe the Harris clock was 20 minutes out due to the unreliability you suggested. Well, what if the Harris clock and the Club clock were each ten minutes out, which is considered by Chris McKay to be entirely normal, but one is fast and the other slow. Couldn't that account for the difference between your traditional times and Michael's times?

                                I'll accept that you think Diemshitz looked at the clock if you'll accept that I think he didn't.

                                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.”
                                If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
                                Everybody lies - Greg House MD

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X