Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Please. Unfounded interruption theories, a non ripping Ripper, all the women were soliciting at the time...just of few of your nuggets
    The old ones are always classics. I love it when you crack the “evidence of absence” joke.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
      sigh.....
      Frankly your opinion, or Herlocks, of what makes sense to you is not at all relevant to me. When it directly contradicts known evidence, I dont have to bother proving you wrong...I can just re-post the actual evidence.

      You both cannot make sesne of this evidece, so you draw on your belief system for guidance...Jack killed her, he must have slipped in there somehow and some way, and Diemshitz arrival after 1 interrupts him. Just before Eagle and Lamb arrive I suppose.

      Its comical, and annoying as hell you keep repeating the same bs for arguments, and that I have to continually correct the way you present the "facts", which are really nothing more than guesses on your part.
      What is really comical, and not remotely annoying to me, is how you completely screw up what I have written, and turn it into stuff I haven't written. It's all there for anyone with a grasp of English to see for themselves, so it's all your problem, not mine.

      You posted the link to the Arbeter Fraint piece, which didn't claim the first awareness of the murder - you know, the actual discovery - was around 12.45. Read it again and weep, Michael.

      I have not claimed that Louis arrived after 1am. How many times do I have to repeat that he seems to have arrived very shortly before 1am?

      I have not insisted that the ripper killed Stride; only that nothing can rule it out - least of all your personal opinions of what happened.

      Just three examples of your inability to read my posts without distorting them, which really doesn't bode well for your ability to read the case evidence without distorting that too. Are you not embarrassed?
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        The old ones are always classics. I love it when you crack the “evidence of absence” joke.
        The funniest thing is, Herlock, that Michael can't even seem to distinguish between your posts and mine. It's like some kind of Janet & John complex.

        My position is that the killer - whether he was the ripper or not - would have been very ill advised to hang around a second after the murder, given the very real risk of being caught with the victim by the next person to enter or leave that yard.

        My question to Michael would be why he believes Stride would have been mutilated, no question, if only his suspect for Nichols and Chapman had been out and about with his knife that night and had seen Stride standing there. I realise his suspect was arguably not the sharpest tool in the box [and not free to kill a fly by the end of September], but would he really have set about mutilating Stride in that location if he had been free to do so, no matter what the risks? If the killer of Nichols had the sense to scarper without removing a body part, for fear of being interrupted if he stayed around to do so, then why could the same not have applied to Stride's killer? There was a very real risk of interruption in Dutfield's Yard, even if Michael has a severe allergic reaction to the mere idea of an actual interruption - which, by definition, would not show up in the evidence if only the killer was aware of it.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        Last edited by caz; 03-16-2021, 06:42 PM.
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
          Nonsense. You read into it whatever you like...but the majority of witnesses actually say the discovery was at around 12:40-12:45...including the Arbeter Fraint, how do you know a murder is committed unless you find a victim?
          According to the Arbeter Fraint, the murder was discovered "At about one o’clock". Caz read nothing into that, he read exactly what the Arbeiter Freint said. You don't like that, because it disagrees with your theory, but that is what Arbeter Fraint said. Here it is in more detail.

          "At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body. His horse became frightened as he drove into the gate and shied to the right, and this caused Dimshits to bend down to see the reason for this. He noticed a black object on the ground. He touched it with his whip and felt that it was a body. He immediately struck a match, but that was insufficient and he wasn’t able to get a [good] flame, he was nevertheless able by the light of the first match to see that the object was a woman. From excitement he jumped off the cart, ran through the back door into the club and raised an alarm. Immediately Comrade Gilyarovsky ran into the printing shop and editor’s office that are located in the same building as the club, but separated in the back by the yard."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post
            I have not insisted that the ripper killed Stride; only that nothing can rule it out - least of all your personal opinions of what happened.
            I don't think anyone here has insisted that Stride was killed by the Ripper. I even pointed out that Israel Schwartz' testimony, if true, increases the chance that Stride's killer was not the Ripper.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
              I told you...make a timeline chart, put all the witnesses times on it in the appropriate slots...which is the slot they create with their statements, not one you figure should be based on a police whistle. Ive challenged one of the best Ripperologists here to explain why these times dont work..and he is also puzzled by them. Of course he hasnt decided who killed her yet.....which it appears makes tossing evidence really easy.
              You seem to be repeatedly missing that Caz, Herlock, and myself have not decided who killed Liz Stride.

              As to a timeline, perhaps you should post yours along with links to sources.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                According to the Arbeter Fraint, the murder was discovered "At about one o’clock". Caz read nothing into that, he read exactly what the Arbeiter Freint said. You don't like that, because it disagrees with your theory, but that is what Arbeter Fraint said. Here it is in more detail.

                "At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body. His horse became frightened as he drove into the gate and shied to the right, and this caused Dimshits to bend down to see the reason for this. He noticed a black object on the ground. He touched it with his whip and felt that it was a body. He immediately struck a match, but that was insufficient and he wasn’t able to get a [good] flame, he was nevertheless able by the light of the first match to see that the object was a woman. From excitement he jumped off the cart, ran through the back door into the club and raised an alarm. Immediately Comrade Gilyarovsky ran into the printing shop and editor’s office that are located in the same building as the club, but separated in the back by the yard."
                Caz read nothing into that, he read exactly what the Arbeiter Freint said
                Im guessing that’s a typo Fiver? Unless she’s been hiding something?
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



                  Im guessing that’s a typo Fiver? Unless she’s been hiding something?
                  Sorry, Caz.

                  Comment


                  • No probs, Fiver. I'll answer to 'he' or 'she' - or even 'it' or 'Meddlesome Ratbag' - when it's by someone who doesn't juggle with the Arbeter Fraint and drop a bollock.

                    I'm seriously wondering how anyone with even the most basic reading skills could argue that when the Arbeter Fraint wrote that Louis Dimshits was the first to notice the dead body at about one o'clock, this actually meant his discovery was made at about a quarter to one, 15 minutes earlier, in the presence of at least 4 infallible witnesses.

                    Is our Michael winding us all up, do you suppose? I can't readily think of another explanation, but it can only backfire, because we are getting more and more evidence that his conspiracy theory comes from a misreading of the case evidence.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X

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


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      No probs, Fiver. I'll answer to 'he' or 'she' - or even 'it' or 'Meddlesome Ratbag' - when it's by someone who doesn't juggle with the Arbeter Fraint and drop a bollock.

                      I'm seriously wondering how anyone with even the most basic reading skills could argue that when the Arbeter Fraint wrote that Louis Dimshits was the first to notice the dead body at about one o'clock, this actually meant his discovery was made at about a quarter to one, 15 minutes earlier, in the presence of at least 4 infallible witnesses.

                      Is our Michael winding us all up, do you suppose? I can't readily think of another explanation, but it can only backfire, because we are getting more and more evidence that his conspiracy theory comes from a misreading of the case evidence.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      I’d suggest a ‘highly selective’ misreading of the evidence Caz.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        I’d suggest a ‘highly selective’ misreading of the evidence Caz.
                        You mean accidentally on purpose, Herlock?

                        You may think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

                        But in this example, he is not merely picking and choosing from the evidence to give a desired result. He is claiming that the Arbeter Fraint article confirms his desired 12.45 discovery, when it does the opposite, by supporting Louis's 1am discovery.

                        I don't care if nobody notices when Michael repeatedly claims that my position is the complete opposite of what my posts clearly demonstrate. What floors me is that he thinks nobody will notice when he does the same with freely available sources like that Arbeter Fraint article. He's like a child with chocolate and crumbs all round his mouth, pointing at everyone else and accusing them of nicking all the chocolate digestives - and he's doing it in public.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Last edited by caz; 03-17-2021, 04:09 PM.
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post

                          You mean accidentally on purpose, Herlock?

                          You may think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

                          But in this example, he is not merely picking and choosing from the evidence to give a desired result. He is claiming that the Arbeter Fraint article confirms his desired 12.45 discovery, when it does the opposite, by supporting Louis's 1am discovery.

                          I don't care if nobody notices when Michael repeatedly claims that my position is the complete opposite of what my posts clearly demonstrate. What floors me is that he thinks nobody will notice when he does the same with freely available sources like that Arbeter Fraint article. He's like a child with chocolate and crumbs all round his mouth, pointing at everyone else and accusing them of nicking all the chocolate digestives - and he's doing it in public.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          “As guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.”

                          Like he completely ignores what Fanny Mortimer told the EN.
                          Like he completely ignores the time that Eagle said that he first saw the body.
                          Like he completely ignores that no one saw or heard Diemschutz return at 12.35

                          and of course

                          Like he completely and resolutely ignores the FACT that Spooner said that he’d been at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb arrived.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                          Comment


                          • The irony of Michael's theory is that if the body was discovered before 12.45, as he insists, that would put the murder and discovery so close together in time that the killer would almost certainly have been found with the body of his victim had he not left the scene promptly after cutting her throat. Assuming he didn't fancy being caught with knife in hand, he'd have had no choice but to make himself scarce when he heard the pony and cart's approach. So if his intention had been to mutilate [which I dispute more on the grounds of the risky location than that this could not possibly have been the ripper], this interruption by Michael's premature pony would have caused him to abandon his plans and - wait for it - there'd have been no evidence for it, because nobody ever saw the killer in the act of cutting a throat or escaping the scene.

                            Conversely, if Stride was last seen alive at or shortly before 12.45, and Louis gave a false time of discovery of 1am, as Michael insists, this would effectively have offered a massive 15 minute window in which the killer could have ripped to his heart's content - but didn't.

                            As Fiver observed, when Schwartz's account was thrown into the mix, it made it less likely that he had seen the abdominal mutilator gearing up for "another" murder. Isn't that why Swanson [I think?] allowed for the possibility that the killer arrived on the scene after BS man left, but was unable to mutilate Stride because of Louis's arrival at about 1am?

                            The more I look below the surface of Michael's supposed conspiracy, the less credible it becomes, because it almost seems designed to produce the opposite of the desired effect. Schwartz was meant to have put a Gentile ripper outside the club, roughing up a woman as a prelude to her imminent murder and evisceration, but the story, as he told it, and the time he gave of 12.45, when coupled with a 1am discovery of an unmutilated body, did anything but.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            Last edited by caz; 03-18-2021, 12:29 PM.
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                              Do the math for god sakes, please. If Louis arrived after 1, how did Eagle, Issac and K arrive with Lamb at that same time? Just after 1. How does Louis discover a body after 1 and have the men sent for help arrive back at that same time?
                              Here's the math. Blackwell deposed that he consulted his watch on arriving in the yard and it indicated 1:16. Lamb deposed that Blackwell arrived 10 or 12 minutes after him, which would make his earliest time of arrival 1:04 am. Diemshutz deposed that he saw a clock indicating one o’clock at the corner of Commercial Road and Berner Street, which is about 115 m or 125 yards from Dutfield’s Yard. If, for instance, he drove his cart at a speed of 14.4 or 8.9 miles/hr, he would turn into the yard close to 1:00:30. Then let’s say he went for help 1 minute later. At that point there would be 2.5 minutes for him to have covered less than 300 meters/330 yards, which is the distance from Dutfield’s Yard to Grove Street & back. If he would have moved at an average speed of 7.2 km or 4.5 miles/hr, which would have been a very quick walking or very slow running pace, he would have arrived back to the yard the very same moment that Lamb & Co did. Perfectly doable, nothing outlandish. And if, for instance, he ran at an average speed of 14.4 km or 8.9 miles/hr, which is about the speed of a slowish bicycle, he would have returned back in the yard in 1 minute and 15 seconds. No stretch there either, perfectly & well within the limits of possibility. No 'magic bullet'.

                              ... the police were brought there just after 1 by Eagle with Issac joing them on the way back.

                              ...

                              I wont reply to more bs, if you can counter just 1 fact..we can discuss this further,...
                              Kozebrodski stated that he "afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers"; Lamb deposed that "two men came running towards me".

                              "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 FrankO View Post
                                Here's the math. Blackwell deposed that he consulted his watch on arriving in the yard and it indicated 1:16. Lamb deposed that Blackwell arrived 10 or 12 minutes after him, which would make his earliest time of arrival 1:04 am. Diemshutz deposed that he saw a clock indicating one o’clock at the corner of Commercial Road and Berner Street, which is about 115 m or 125 yards from Dutfield’s Yard. If, for instance, he drove his cart at a speed of 14.4 or 8.9 miles/hr, he would turn into the yard close to 1:00:30. Then let’s say he went for help 1 minute later. At that point there would be 2.5 minutes for him to have covered less than 300 meters/330 yards, which is the distance from Dutfield’s Yard to Grove Street & back. If he would have moved at an average speed of 7.2 km or 4.5 miles/hr, which would have been a very quick walking or very slow running pace, he would have arrived back to the yard the very same moment that Lamb & Co did. Perfectly doable, nothing outlandish. And if, for instance, he ran at an average speed of 14.4 km or 8.9 miles/hr, which is about the speed of a slowish bicycle, he would have returned back in the yard in 1 minute and 15 seconds. No stretch there either, perfectly & well within the limits of possibility. No 'magic bullet'.


                                Kozebrodski stated that he "afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers"; Lamb deposed that "two men came running towards me".
                                Impossible to argue against Frank Blackwell of course is the only person that we can rely for an accurate time so we’re on solid ground when we work back from him to gauge timings. Everyone but one on here accepts that we have to allow an element of reasonable leeway for those who were estimating from other sources. You’re explanation of Diemschutz (again) should eliminate any further mention of the word ‘precisely’ but, as we both know, it won’t.

                                Frank it would be good if you posted your timeline on here.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X