Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Could have been either.
    Could it now? So then we should step through the ramifications of each case, but firstly, we should consider why Swanson's report mentions 'about 1 a.m.' for Goldstein. As Goldstein made a statement as to his whereabouts, which Swanson's report draws on, the estimated time must have come from Goldstein. There seems to be two possibilities here. The most obvious being that Goldstein genuinely thought that was time he passed through Berner street. The other being that it was quite a bit earlier - early enough for the Schwartz stuff to have occurred afterward - but Goldstein wanted to stay as compatible with Mrs. Mortimer's quotes as possible, just to avoid the possibility of any problems arising from him contradicting Fanny. Yet how would he go about staying compatible with Fanny, from this ...?

    I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock this Sunday morning, and did not notice anything unusual.
    ...
    It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road.


    She doesn't narrow down black bag man's passing through, within that half hour period. We rely on the Evening News interview, for that. Yet that has Goldstein walking up Berner street, and seemingly from the club. So is this where Goldstein got his 'about 1 a.m.' estimate?

    So back to the sequence. Let's have Goldstein passing at the time given by Schwartz - 12:45 - and Schwartz coming along at a later point. Mortimer sees Goldstein "just before I turned in". How much later does Diemschitz arrive? Fanny said ...

    I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed when I heard a commotion outside and immediately ran out ...

    So subjectively, not long after seeing Goldstein, she hears the commotion which followed the arrival of Diemschitz. In between those events, the Schwartz incident must occur. This includes Stride standing in the gateway for some length of time, and whatever follows once Schwartz has run off. We would then need to push James Brown back to about 12:40. So who are the couple at the board school corner, at that time, and where is Fanny?

    Now to the alternate sequence - Schwartz then Goldstein. If Schwartz is supposed to have arrived on the scene at about 12:45, then once again, who are the board school couple seen by James Brown, and when did he see them in relation to Schwartz? Another critical issue is the time of Goldstein's passing. Let's assume that 'about 1 a.m.' was near enough to 12:55. Smith said he was last in Berner street between 12:30 and 12:35. Another report states that Mortimer went to her doorstep immediately after Smith's plod was heard passing by. Anyone who is fairly knowledgeable of Berner street, should be able to see the issue here. The period just after 12:35 to just after 12:55, is 20 minutes, not 10. So the report that seems to suggest that Mortimer was at he doorstep for a total of 10 minutes, would appear to be incorrect, if the Schwartz then Goldstein sequence is assumed to be the right one.

    So which way do you lean?
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FrankO View Post

      Maybe she did say something to Mr. Broad Shoulders. Maybe something like "Stop it", "I'm not your woman", "Leave me alone". Or maybe she did say something to Schwartz, maybe something like "What are you looking at?", Mind your own business", "Get out of here". Or "Help", "Go for the police" "Go now". For all we know, it might have been any one of these 3 possibilities.
      Hi Frank,

      Could have been any of the three possibilities. I would vote for the first. A remonstration for causing her to fall down.

      Your new avatar has a certain roguish look that makes one wonder what you might have done that you think you have gotten away with.

      Best regards, 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.”

      “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        For once, Abby, we agree about something!

        All those people singing inside the club would have drowned out all but the very loudest noises coming from the street. There are degrees of loudness where screams are concerned, or we wouldn't have common expressions such as: "She screamed at the top of her lungs/voice", or "she screamed blue murder", or "she let out a piercing scream".
        In other words, she did scream, but just not in the manner of those expressions. So three screams of about average intensity?

        Baxter: If there were singing and dancing going on would you have been likely to have heard the cry of a woman in great distress-a cry of murder, for instance-from the yard?
        Eagle: Oh, we should certainly have heard such a cry.

        Louis D's wife was in the kitchen doing the teas and coffees and only realised he was back when he suddenly appeared with news of his grim discovery. So she didn't hear his pony and cart entering the yard, or just didn't register the sound.
        Probably the later. Mrs D:

        Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs. Up till then I had not heard a sound-not even a whisper.
        ...
        I am positive I did not hear any screams or sound of any kind. Even the singing on the floor above would not have prevented me from hearing them, had there been any. In the yard itself all was as silent as the grave.


        Had there been any?

        I imagine Schwartz might have gone straight for a policeman if Stride had been screaming for all she was worth.
        So what prompted Schwartz to go to the police at all? He must have done so when he found out about the murder. So then why was Wess knowledgeable of the Schwartz incident, seemingly before Schwartz had gone to Leman street? Had Schwartz been telling people about an incident that he "took no notice of", only to find out late in the afternoon that a woman had been murdered on Berner street, prompting his visit to the station? Unlikely - he surely knew much earlier, so why the delay in coming forward?
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          So which way do you lean?
          Hi Andrew,

          I would lean away from comparing Goldstein time, Police (Smith) time and Mortimer time as the sync corrections are unknown.

          Did I miss your promised posting of your theories, hopefully in a sequence without times?

          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.”

          “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post

            So you admit there is no surviving evidence that Mortimer did see Goldstein twice, or ever suggested it?
            I was referring to mentions by the police, not Mortimer herself. So no, I don't admit that.

            I don't know why you continue to misinterpret the meaning of 'previously', despite several English speaking posters pointing this out to you. But it does you no favours. It's primary level comprehension when you put it in context, that this doesn't refer to seeing Goldstein on two occasions, but to when Mortimer herself was 'previously' on her doorstep, before emerging again when the alarm was raised.
            If Mortimer had said ...

            It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

            ... you and the other English speaking posters would have a point. But she didn't say that. Alternatively, if Mortimer had said ...

            It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

            ... you and the other English speaking posters would have half a point. But she didn't say that either. What she did say, was ...

            It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

            Which means something different again, and so you and the other English speaking posters do not have a point. If Mortimer had only seen one man the whole time she was at the door, she would have said so, and not bothered placing black bag man into a special category.

            In short, she saw Goldstein on the previous occasion she was in a position to see anything or anyone.
            This implicitly assumes that Mortimer was only at her doorstep on one occasion, leading up to the murder. This assumption is not justified. Mortimer's own words combined with other evidence suggests that she was first outside not long after 12:30, and that she remained there nearly the whole time, before seeing Goldstein at close to 1am. This suggests she were at the door in an on-off-on manner. Consequently, we cannot say what period 'previously' refers to. So if she had indeed been in a position to see anything more than once, the question then becomes; previous to what? At this point, the meaning of 'previously' is uncertain, but the breakdown above should at least suggest that she did not use the word 'previously' in a redundant manner. The only way we could resolve this ambiguity, is by turning to other evidence. Here is that evidence ...

            I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.
            ...
            He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post

              In other words, the only man Mortimer saw when she was previously on her doorstep - i.e. before the murder was discovered - was a young man with a bag.

              She even helps you to understand this was just the one sighting of him, by describing what he was doing on that one occasion.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              Let's consider what an heroic assumption this is - that Mortimer only saw one man, the entire time she were at her doorstep.

              When Smith passed through Berner street, did he see anyone?

              When Eagle returned to the club, did he suppose he saw anyone?

              When Brown cut across Berner street, did he see anyone?

              When Schwartz was supposedly walking along Berner street, did he see anyone?

              So from 12:30 to 1am, how many men did Fanny Mortimer see? She even said:

              ... there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club.

              So the choices would seem to be; cling tenaciously to the notion that Mortimer only saw one man when at her doorstep, or, reinterpret Mortimer's words, while keeping in mind all the relevant evidence.
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FrankO View Post

                As we have nothing to stand on, evidencewise, we might concoct away. Without getting anywhere, mind you.
                People are speculating on all sorts of things on this forum, all the time. It's only when the speculation gets into uncomfortable territory, that this sort of comment is made. Yet regardless of the discomfort, we should be willing to explain how on earth we could go from ...

                As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.

                and ...

                The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway ...

                to this ...

                Lamb: I scarcely could see her boots. She looked as if she had been laid quietly down. Her clothes were not in the least rumpled.

                and ...

                Blackwell: The left hand was lying on the ground and was partially closed, and contained a small packet of cachous wrapped in tissue paper.

                The evidence of Schwartz is incompatible with the evidence of Lamb and Blackwell.

                Maybe she did say something to Mr. Broad Shoulders. Maybe something like "Stop it", "I'm not your woman", "Leave me alone". Or maybe she did say something to Schwartz, maybe something like "What are you looking at?", Mind your own business", "Get out of here". Or "Help", "Go for the police" "Go now". For all we know, it might have been any one of these 3 possibilities.
                And having said any of those things, how did she end up where she did, in the state she was found in, including her apparently expertly cut throat, without anyone hearing a thing, by an apparently half-drunk man who a few seconds before had supposedly yelled a racial epithet to some random across the street?
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Your not thinking ‘sinister’ enough Caz.
                  Or indeed at all, if her recent posts on this thread are anything to go by
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    Could it now? So then we should step through the ramifications of each case, but firstly, we should consider why Swanson's report mentions 'about 1 a.m.' for Goldstein. As Goldstein made a statement as to his whereabouts, which Swanson's report draws on, the estimated time must have come from Goldstein. There seems to be two possibilities here. The most obvious being that Goldstein genuinely thought that was time he passed through Berner street. The other being that it was quite a bit earlier - early enough for the Schwartz stuff to have occurred afterward - but Goldstein wanted to stay as compatible with Mrs. Mortimer's quotes as possible, just to avoid the possibility of any problems arising from him contradicting Fanny. Yet how would he go about staying compatible with Fanny, from this ...?

                    I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock this Sunday morning, and did not notice anything unusual.
                    ...
                    It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road.


                    She doesn't narrow down black bag man's passing through, within that half hour period. We rely on the Evening News interview, for that. Yet that has Goldstein walking up Berner street, and seemingly from the club. So is this where Goldstein got his 'about 1 a.m.' estimate?

                    Or…..Goldstein gave an approximate time as he was unsure - Mortimer felt that she’d gone onto her doorstep around 12.45 - Diemschitz said that he discovered the body at 1.00 (so the ‘disturbance/noise would have occurred as people gathered in the yard followed by a search for a Constable - so just after 1.00) - Goldstein passed between Fanny going onto her doorstep (12.45) and the disturbance (just after 1.00) - therefore an estimate of 1.00 in Swanson’s report.

                    So back to the sequence. Let's have Goldstein passing at the time given by Schwartz - 12:45 - and Schwartz coming along at a later point. Mortimer sees Goldstein "just before I turned in". How much later does Diemschitz arrive? Fanny said ...

                    I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed when I heard a commotion outside and immediately ran out ...

                    So subjectively, not long after seeing Goldstein, she hears the commotion which followed the arrival of Diemschitz. In between those events, the Schwartz incident must occur. This includes Stride standing in the gateway for some length of time, and whatever follows once Schwartz has run off. We would then need to push James Brown back to about 12:40. So who are the couple at the board school corner, at that time, and where is Fanny?

                    But again we have an estimation - she’d just gone indoors (so she hadn’t been inside long, but how long is long. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 minutes? Who knows? - then she was ‘preparing for bed (does that mean that she was getting undressed and was partially undressed and had to redress? What did ‘preparing’ for bed entail? People today might do various things like check the windows and doors are shut, switch the heating off, making a sandwich for her husband to take to work, I’m not suggesting that Fanny did any of these things but how can we know how long ‘preparing’,for bed might have taken. We don’t know.

                    Why do we need to move Brown especially when we can’t put exact times to any of the witnesses?


                    Now to the alternate sequence - Schwartz then Goldstein. If Schwartz is supposed to have arrived on the scene at about 12:45, then once again, who are the board school couple seen by James Brown, and when did he see them in relation to Schwartz? Another critical issue is the time of Goldstein's passing. Let's assume that 'about 1 a.m.' was near enough to 12:55. Smith said he was last in Berner street between 12:30 and 12:35. Another report states that Mortimer went to her doorstep immediately after Smith's plod was heard passing by. Anyone who is fairly knowledgeable of Berner street, should be able to see the issue here. The period just after 12:35 to just after 12:55, is 20 minutes, not 10. So the report that seems to suggest that Mortimer was at he doorstep for a total of 10 minutes, would appear to be incorrect, if the Schwartz then Goldstein sequence is assumed to be the right one.

                    So which way do you lean?
                    Smith passes 12.30-12.35 and sees the couple - the couple immediately move and stand talking just around the corner in Fairclough Street (out of sight to anyone in Berner Street) - Fanny comes onto her doorstep around 12.35 and sees Goldstein pass - 12.40-12.45 Brown goes to the shop and sees the couple as he passes - Mortimer goes back indoors 12.45 or maybe just before- the man leaves and Stride moves to the gateway at 12.45 or just after - Schwartz passes at 12.45 or just after.


                    Smith passes 12.30-12.35 and sees the couple - the couple immediately move and stand talking just around the corner in Fairclough Street (out of sight to anyone in Berner Street) - 12.40-1245 Brown goes to the shop and sees the couple as he passes - the man leaves and Stride moves to the gateway just before 12.45 - Schwartz passes at just after 12.45 - Fanny comes onto her doorstep at around 12.45 and sees Goldstein pass - Fanny goes back inside around 12.55.




                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      So my thinking is … which is the more likely?

                      a) an incident occurred of a duration of a few seconds where no great noise was made but there was no one else in the street at that precise time so no one saw it or heard it from within the houses.

                      or,

                      b) Israel Schwartz lied about being in Berner Street at that time and when he tells this lie he has absolutely no way of knowing if anyone, in the street or from within one of the houses, could have proven him a liar. And in doing so he places himself at the scene of a brutal murder with no one to say “yes, I was there too and Mr Schwartz simply walked past a wasn’t involved.”

                      Again, which of those 2 is the likeliest? It’s a) by an absolute country mile. It’s not even remotely close. So the overwhelming ‘probability’ is that the Schwartz incident occurred.
                      Apart from the "few seconds" nonsense, this argument fails the moment it is recognized that people were indeed on the street, who could have proven him a liar then, as they do now ...

                      DN: A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

                      FM: A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street about 20 yards away before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

                      If it’s a report only mentioned in one paper I’d say it’s probably a mistake if no one else mentioned anyone else seeing the incident.
                      It is also mentioned in The Echo and The People (quoted recently). The report differs from Schwartz in two important respects. The estimated age of the man is different, and in contrast to the report, Schwartz very definitely "took notice of it". This suggests that the statement the report refers to, came from someone other than Schwartz. Either that or Schwartz gave not two but three versions of his story.

                      As is the case with the man pursued report in the Echo, why is that the moment the Schwartzian world threatens to come into contact with the real world, the Schwartzists want nothing to do with it?

                      It wasn’t loud enough for anyone in the houses to hear. Simple. That’s all that we need to know. When Schwartz (at whatever time it was) passed Fanny Mortimer was indoors. How do we know that she was indoors? Because she didn’t see the Schwartz incident and she very obviously would have done had she been on her doorstep.
                      No one heard it, because it never happened. Simpler.

                      Again, we know what happened in Berner Street. No one lied, or covered anything up. There were no fiendish plots or blokes walking around with false beards on looking out through newspapers with two holes cut out. A woman got murdered by an unknown man who got away with it.
                      So part of the definition of knowing what happened on Berner street, includes not knowing who the murderer was! Here am I thinking that the identity of the murderer is the most important bit. Apparently not.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                        Hi Andrew,

                        I would lean away from comparing Goldstein time, Police (Smith) time and Mortimer time as the sync corrections are unknown.
                        George,
                        in #2821 I discussed two scenarios. One based roughly on Goldstein time (12:55), and the other with Goldstein replacing Schwartz at ~12:45, which is obviously not Goldstein time, or Schwartz time, or Mortimer time. It's just a scenario that attempts to make sense of the evidence. I did use police time, true, but on the other hand, Mortimer time was only mentioned to suggest that her timing fits the first scenario. So what unjustified syncing of times am I guilty of?

                        Did I miss your promised posting of your theories, hopefully in a sequence without times?

                        Cheers, George
                        I recently theorized that Fanny may well have seen the assault described by Schwartz. This resulted in zero discussion. As anticipated. The same was true when I suggested that WVC patrolman may have been on Berner street in the lead-up to the murder, and may have included men whose names we know of, and/or the men described by Schwartz. This resulted in a long and interesting discussion. Not. As anticipated. The demand for any theories that step outside of "we know what happened on Berner street", is zero. Yourself being the exception. So perhaps just ask me some questions?
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          Or…..Goldstein gave an approximate time as he was unsure - Mortimer felt that she’d gone onto her doorstep around 12.45 - Diemschitz said that he discovered the body at 1.00 (so the ‘disturbance/noise would have occurred as people gathered in the yard followed by a search for a Constable - so just after 1.00) - Goldstein passed between Fanny going onto her doorstep (12.45) and the disturbance (just after 1.00) - therefore an estimate of 1.00 in Swanson’s report.
                          I'm not sure if the police would blend witness times like that, just as they do not blend witness descriptions (in case it wasn't the same bloke). Whatever the case, the timeline you describe here has Mortimer at her doorstep by 12:45, and midway between then and 1am, she sees Goldstein. That was just before she turned in. Sounds about right to me. See how easy it is when the actor is excluded?

                          But again we have an estimation - she’d just gone indoors (so she hadn’t been inside long, but how long is long. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 minutes? Who knows? - then she was ‘preparing for bed (does that mean that she was getting undressed and was partially undressed and had to redress? What did ‘preparing’ for bed entail? People today might do various things like check the windows and doors are shut, switch the heating off, making a sandwich for her husband to take to work, I’m not suggesting that Fanny did any of these things but how can we know how long ‘preparing’,for bed might have taken. We don’t know.
                          All we know is she said she'd just gone indoors. So let's just call it 'no more than 5 minutes', and accept that she was therefore at her open door until that amount of time before the arrival of Diemschitz.

                          Why do we need to move Brown especially when we can’t put exact times to any of the witnesses?
                          Because in the scenario that Goldstein passes at 12:45, the pony and cart cannot come along more a few minutes later. It is not realistic to have Schwartz and Brown in the intervening timespan.

                          Smith passes 12.30-12.35 and sees the couple - the couple immediately move and stand talking just around the corner in Fairclough Street (out of sight to anyone in Berner Street) - Fanny comes onto her doorstep around 12.35 and sees Goldstein pass - 12.40-12.45 Brown goes to the shop and sees the couple as he passes - Mortimer goes back indoors 12.45 or maybe just before- the man leaves and Stride moves to the gateway at 12.45 or just after - Schwartz passes at 12.45 or just after.
                          A careful reading of Brown suggests that he did not see the couple until returning home. This suggests that the couple he saw had arrived at the spot while he was in the chandlers shop. That was at about 12:45. What did the young woman say ...?

                          She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

                          It fits like a hand in a glove, when allowing for a very reasonable change of size.

                          Smith passes 12.30-12.35 and sees the couple - the couple immediately move and stand talking just around the corner in Fairclough Street (out of sight to anyone in Berner Street) - 12.40-1245 Brown goes to the shop and sees the couple as he passes - the man leaves and Stride moves to the gateway just before 12.45 - Schwartz passes at just after 12.45 - Fanny comes onto her doorstep at around 12.45 and sees Goldstein pass - Fanny goes back inside around 12.55.
                          It's always necessary to keep in mind that Spooner stated that the victim appeared to be bleeding, when he was examining. There was also huge blood loss by that time. Was she murdered at 12:45, or more like midway between 12:45 and 1am?
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                            Could have been any of the three possibilities. I would vote for the first. A remonstration for causing her to fall down.
                            Hi George,

                            I tend to agree, mainly because she was engaged in a squabble of sorts with Mr. Broad Shoulders whilst Schwartz was just a passer-by.

                            Your new avatar has a certain roguish look that makes one wonder what you might have done that you think you have gotten away with.
                            Thanks George. You may well be right about that, although I have no recollection of that photo being taken - and that will be because I was only about 2 years old.

                            Cheers,
                            Frank
                            "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                            Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                              People are speculating on all sorts of things on this forum, all the time. It's only when the speculation gets into uncomfortable territory, that this sort of comment is made.
                              I don't see why speculation would get uncomfortable, Andrew. I cerainly don't feel it like that. Again, I feel that speculation when there's nothing to go on is rather useless as we will never know which speculative direction is the correct or false one. It's like walking blind-folded in a place you don't know.

                              Yet regardless of the discomfort, we should be willing to explain how on earth we could go from ...

                              As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.

                              and ...

                              The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway ...

                              to this ...

                              Lamb: I scarcely could see her boots. She looked as if she had been laid quietly down. Her clothes were not in the least rumpled.

                              and ...

                              Blackwell: The left hand was lying on the ground and was partially closed, and contained a small packet of cachous wrapped in tissue paper.

                              The evidence of Schwartz is incompatible with the evidence of Lamb and Blackwell.
                              There are 2 types of speculative scenarios: one in which Mr. Broad Shoulders is also Stride's killer and one in which he's not. There's no way for us to determine which is the correct one, however incompatible Schwartz's evidence might be with that of Lamb and Blackwell.

                              And having said any of those things, how did she end up where she did, in the state she was found in, including her apparently expertly cut throat, without anyone hearing a thing, by an apparently half-drunk man who a few seconds before had supposedly yelled a racial epithet to some random across the street?
                              However strongly we might believe that Schwartz's account was fabricated, we can't with any kind of certainty say it was and there's, in fact, no reason why it couldn't have happened in reality.
                              "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                              Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post



                                Apart from the "few seconds" nonsense, this argument fails the moment it is recognized that people were indeed on the street, who could have proven him a liar then, as they do now ...

                                DN: A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

                                FM: A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street about 20 yards away before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.



                                It is also mentioned in The Echo and The People (quoted recently). The report differs from Schwartz in two important respects. The estimated age of the man is different, and in contrast to the report, Schwartz very definitely "took notice of it". This suggests that the statement the report refers to, came from someone other than Schwartz. Either that or Schwartz gave not two but three versions of his story.

                                As is the case with the man pursued report in the Echo, why is that the moment the Schwartzian world threatens to come into contact with the real world, the Schwartzists want nothing to do with it?



                                No one heard it, because it never happened. Simpler.



                                So part of the definition of knowing what happened on Berner street, includes not knowing who the murderer was! Here am I thinking that the identity of the murderer is the most important bit. Apparently not.
                                I know that you object to the ‘few seconds’ but of course that’s only because you’ve sought to portray it as if Schwartz pulled up a chair to watch a dress rehearsal for Twelfth Night. Schwartz walked behind BS man along Berner Street. He saw him stop and talk to Stride. It’s impossible that it took more than a few seconds. Why argue against the obvious?

                                ’Schwartzists and Schwartzians.’ Id say that it’s better than being a ‘bollocksian?’

                                No one heard a short, not very loud incident because there was no one in the street at the time. Reality is such a scary concept for the conspiracy theorist. Schwartz was there. The incident clearly occurred. You can look at 5000 different newspaper reports, differently worded and create all kinds of scenarios about the absence of a piece of punctuation if that’s what you enjoy but most of us find it tedious, pointless and embarrassing.





                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X