If Schwartz Lied ...

[caz]

No it doesnt caz. That cut could have been the result of many things that are not murder. Geeez...amatuers. This gets more asinine as it goes on..and .I cant help any of the immediate group with what is already there. You obviously do not, or choose not, to let what is be what is. So make it a fanciful fictional tale...whatever...just get out of my face and post s*** thats requiring corrections. Be accurate, then we can talk.

Yes it did. The nature of the throat cut gave the Inquest the cause of death and led to the conclusion of wilful murder. Schwartz wasn't there, but he only witnessed an assault anyway, which wasn't the cause of death.

What's not to understand?

[caz]

I never said that - perhaps you should read what I actually said. Considering your complete misunderstanding of what I actually said about the wound to Stride's neck and your apparent repeated failure to understand that the act of committing a murder and the act of discovering the victim's body are separate events, I am beginning to wonder whether or not English is your first language.

I've had cause to wonder the same thing lately, when I read Michael's posts.

[caz]

What's baffling to me is why he clings to elements of it. He appears to believe that Elizabeth Stride was not killed by the Ripper. That, on it's own, is not an unreasonable theory. But his whole Jewish socialist conspiracy does nothing to support the theory that Stride was not killed by the Ripper. It's worse with his view of Israel Schwartz' statement. If what Schwartz said was true, it makes it more likely that Stride was not killed by the Ripper. (Especially if, as I think you theorized, BS man said "Lizzie", not "Lipsky".) If Schwartz was lying, it does nothing to prove that Stride was not killed by the Ripper.

So why does he cling so strongly to subpoints that, at best, do nothing to support his main point?

Michael does seem to have a real downer on these Jews, doesn't he? Stride's killer is one of them, and when they are not fibbing socialist anarchists, conspiring to pervert the course of justice and protect the murderer in their midst, they are fibbing 'theatrical' types, hand picked for their acting skills.

The poor devils can't do right for doing wrong, and all because the butcher he has down for the murders of Nichols and Chapman, Jacob Isenschmid, was confined to an asylum.

What a way to rewrite history.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Only the group on this thread would use 2 different times and declare them both accurate.

And only you would see 2 different times quoted by the same witness in the same statement and treat one of them is if it never existed purely bolster a theory especially when we know that one of them carries more evidential weight.

And so if we assess the evidence without the distorting preconception that everyone was lying as part of a plot. And if we also assess any discrepancies fairly and in an unbiased manner to judge which carries more weight we can’t fail to arrive at the obvious in regard to the witnesses that have been used by you to shoehorn your theory. So....

Spooner arrived at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb and so sometime just after 1.00.
Eagle as he said, first saw the body after being told by Gilleman at 1.00
Gilleman informed members upstairs about the body (including Eagle) at 1.00.
Diemschutz found the body at 1.00
Kozebrodski went looking for a policeman with Diemschutz, they were heard by Brown just after 1.00
Hoschberg said he’d got to the yard at ‘about’ 12.45 ‘I should think.’ So he was very obviously estimating the time. But as he claimed to have heard a policeman’s whistle it was overwhelmingly likely to have been PC Lamb. So Hoschberg arrived just after 1.00.
Fanny Mortimer was alerted to a commotion at the yard just after hearing a horse and cart just after 1.00
Johnston was informed about the body at the yard by PC Lamb just after 1.00

Ok Detectives, stand by your beds.

Can anyone here detect a pattern? And what conclusions should we draw?

[caz]

There's only one defective detective around here, Herlock, and it's not you.

Do I win £5?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

There's only one defective detective around here, Herlock, and it's not you.

Do I win £5?

Love,

Caz
X

Make it £10

[Michael W Richards]

Yes it did. The nature of the throat cut gave the Inquest the cause of death and led to the conclusion of wilful murder. Schwartz wasn't there, but he only witnessed an assault anyway, which wasn't the cause of death.

What's not to understand?

The cut could have occurred in many ways, not all being intentional murder. So again, no. The fact that Schwartz said he saw the victim being assaulted just before that fatal cut is germane to the qustion posed by the Inquest. You and Herlock denying things and countering factual recitation with insults might be good entertainment for you, but it does nothing to futher the pursuit of the truth. Which I for one am interested in.

But I can see that denial is linked to a belief in a specific conclusion with you...like Jack the Ripper killed Stride, so no facts are relevant to you. Like no ripping and only club attendees anywhere near the murder site. Oh yeah, and the single cut. But none of that matters when the smoke and mirrors are applied huh?

[Michael W Richards]

Michael does seem to have a real downer on these Jews, doesn't he? Stride's killer is one of them, and when they are not fibbing socialist anarchists, conspiring to pervert the course of justice and protect the murderer in their midst, they are fibbing 'theatrical' types, hand picked for their acting skills.

The poor devils can't do right for doing wrong, and all because the butcher he has down for the murders of Nichols and Chapman, Jacob Isenschmid, was confined to an asylum.

What a way to rewrite history.

Just quoting the opinions of the neighbours and the authorities about their perceptions of the men from that club...prior to the murder....and using it to show they had reasons to manage the impressions left on those people. To suggest Im an antisemite, aside from being patently incorrect, is very low. It seems that insults are the way to counter facts are they? New one for me.

[caz]

The cut could have occurred in many ways, not all being intentional murder. So again, no.

Yes, but the Inquest concluded that it was murder. Are you suggesting this was wrong, or even in dispute?

By the way, murder, by definition, is 'intentional'.

[Michael W Richards]

Youre really out there pal...

Spooner arrived at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb and so sometime just after 1.00.

In no quote does Spooner say that. He does say 12:35 and 12:45 though.

Eagle as he said, first saw the body after being told by Gilleman at 1.00

Im suggesting Eagle and Louis lied, so I dont care what his statement says. Not one person valiadtes his remarks.

Gilleman informed members upstairs about the body (including Eagle) at 1.00.

Again with the person I suggest was lying,...I suppose its like using a discreditted witness, huh?

Diemschutz found the body at 1.00

Yeah, he says that. No-one saw or heard that though, and 4 witnesses say they saw him at around 12:45 over the dying woman.

Kozebrodski went looking for a policeman with Diemschutz, they were heard by Brown just after 1.00

Issac K says he was sent out by himself around 12:45, by Louis or some other member. Short memory have you?

Hoschberg said he’d got to the yard at ‘about’ 12.45 ‘I should think.’ So he was very obviously estimating the time. But as he claimed to have heard a policeman’s whistle it was overwhelmingly likely to have been PC Lamb. So Hoschberg arrived just after 1.00.
Fanny Mortimer was alerted to a commotion at the yard just after hearing a horse and cart just after 1.00
Johnston was informed about the body at the yard by PC Lamb just after 1.00

Ok Detectives, stand by your beds.

Can anyone here detect a pattern? And what conclusions should we draw?

Im tiring of correcting you line by line anymore, so Ill just add the rest is bull and you obviously have no grasp on what can be considered as fact. You misquote, mislead, and make mistakes.

[caz]

Just quoting the opinions of the neighbours and the authorities about their perceptions of the men from that club...prior to the murder....and using it to show they had reasons to manage the impressions left on those people. To suggest Im an antisemite, aside from being patently incorrect, is very low. It seems that insults are the way to counter facts are they? New one for me.

I said you seemed to have a downer on these Jews - not all Jews. And I don't think I'm far off the mark there.

Your theory is that they tried to cover up for the murderer they thought was in their midst, which is bad enough when you blatantly ignore all the evidence that refutes it. You also need your conspirators to have been tuppence short of a shilling to go about it in the ways you insist they did.

I don't know what you'd have done about Stride if she had died, inconveniently for your theory, in a church yard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Spooner arrived at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb and so sometime just after 1.00.

In no quote does Spooner say that. He does say 12:35 and 12:45 though

What???????

Inquest:

“I noticed that blood was running down the gutter. I stood there about five minutes before a constable came. It was the last witness who first arrived”

The last witness was Lamb of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im suggesting Eagle and Louis lied, so I dont care what his statement says. Not one person valiadtes his remarks.

Gilleman informed members upstairs about the body (including Eagle) at 1.00.

Again with the person I suggest was lying,...I suppose its like using a discreditted witness, huh

.........


Proof isn’t just Michael Richards saying “I think he lied.” You can ‘think’ what you want. It doesn’t change the FACT that Eagle was notified by Gilleman around 1.00. Its pathetic if you have to stoop to just saying “they must have been lying.”

You just can’t be serious with this

[Herlock Sholmes]

Diemschutz found the body at 1.00

Yeah, he says that. No-one saw or heard that though, and 4 witnesses say they saw him at around 12:45 over the dying woman

.....

And of course it doesn’t bother you that no one saw him arrive at 12.35

[Herlock Sholmes]

Youre really out there pal...

Im tiring of correcting you line by line anymore, so Ill just add the rest is bull and you obviously have no grasp on what can be considered as fact. You misquote, mislead, and make mistakes.

Some people think that the earth is 6000 years old - they're wrong.

Some think the death is flat - they're wrong.

Some think the Queen is a shape shifting alien - they're wrong.

There are loads of them. A couple of witnesses incorrectly guessing a time are NOT proof of a conspiracy. Even by CT thinking this is weak beyond belief.