Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    There is at least doubt so I don’t know how this fictional position, that there is a desperate effort to have a double event, can be maintained? It’s fiction.

    Well done on that point.

    Then of course we have the desperate ‘evidence of absence’ argument which, embarrassingly, Michael persists with. It’s truly baffling how an adult can use this point. Can we prove that Stride’s killer was interrupted? Of course we can’t and no one has suggested that this is a proven fact but equally we cannot disprove it. It remains (and will continue to remain to all but Michael) an entirely plausible possibility.

    What youve done there is propose that something which is not indicated within any evidence in this murder should still be considered, so, not so well done on that point.

    It cannot be dismissed.

    Not if you can offer some, any, evidence that warrants the supposition....which I guess in your case would be "she wasnt cut worse".

    If the killer was interrupted we could expect there to have been absolutely no evidence of this interruption.

    Absolute rubbish. There would be some physical evidence warranting that conclusion regardless of what you personally believe. You do understand the word, right? It implies something begun was unfinished as a result of interruption. Liz Stride, one cut, on her side, skirt to her boottops and untouched since she hit the ground. ALL other alledged Ripper victims on their backs with skirts up, legs splayed. Not only do we NOT have any indication of interruption, we also have evidence the killer did not seek to even move the victim.

    As to your post Jeff, people do indeed believe what they want, and when they presuppose a killer without having any evidence that leads to that conclusion, they then MUST challenge the evidence or the proponent of any realism for these arguments. People couldnt guess the time...people had no clocks or watches, people must just have missed seeing BSM and Pipeman and Liz, now back in view. She was only cut once because he was "spooked". The guy who killed an mutilated abdomens in openended streets? In backyards at dawn. Spooked? Really. Schwartz was not part of ANY Inquest...he must have been if believed and supported. So, conclusion? He wasnt believed. There is no evidence that Stride was touched by the killer when on the ground, so...conclusion? There was no interruption evident.

    Simple process if you havent already solved the Whodunnit and named Jack as her killer from the opening bell. No-one was seen by anyone in the street between 12:35 and 12:55....conclusion? No person coming off the street committed the crime. Conclusion? The killer came from a group of socialist anarchists at the club at that time.
    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 04-10-2021, 04:05 PM.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      I think Schwartz could have been represented by an officer who reads his statement aloud to the inquest. I can't see why the name of the witness would have to be divulged to the court so long as the statement was given by a trusted authority.
      A somewhat similar scenario played out in the Coles case, though in this case it was the accused, Sadler, who did not appear at the Coles inquest and his statement was read aloud by the Prosecutor.
      I know it's not exactly the same, but I think it shows there was a degree of flexibility in presenting a statement to the court.
      So I think if it was a case of 'incognito' they would have got around it.
      yessir.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post


        As to your post Jeff,

        Herlock, not Jeff.

        people do indeed believe what they want, and when they presuppose a killer without having any evidence that leads to that conclusion,

        It’s not a presupposition if you first look at the facts and then draw a conclusion from those facts. As opposed to having a theory and then attempting to manipulate the evidence to fit. Which is your method.

        they then MUST challenge the evidence or the proponent of any realism for these arguments. People couldnt guess the time...people had no clocks or watches,

        Invention. No one has said that no one had watches - Blackwell had one, or clocks - I’m prepared to believe that there might have been one in the club, there was one in the shop that Diemschutz saw. But if you’re in some way denying the poverty in the area then you really are on another planet. No one else has a problem with this so why do you Michael? I’ll tell you why, because it’s inconvenient. You want everyone to believe that witnesses couldn’t be mistaken as to times which is preposterous. Hoschberg for example uses “about” and “I should think.” These are his own words and they prove that he was estimating the time and estimations can be wrong. This is like teaching the alphabet. It’s impossible that you can’t comprehend this so the only explanation is that you are deliberately dismissing it purely in an attempt to manipulate.

        people must just have missed seeing BSM and Pipeman and Liz, now back in view.

        Do you really struggle with the idea that something that probably took all of 30 seconds might not have been witnessed? Are you so desperate?

        She was only cut once because he was "spooked". The guy who killed an mutilated abdomens in openended streets? In backyards at dawn. Spooked? Really.

        You might have noticed Michael that the killer was never caught so we might assume that he didn’t want to be caught. Spooked is your choice of word and you’ve employed it for manipulative reasons of course but even the most brazen of killers isn’t going to continue what he’s doing with a horse and cart pulling alongside him. I can’t believe that I’m having to explain this.

        Schwartz was not part of ANY Inquest...he must have been if believed and supported. So, conclusion? He wasnt believed.

        We don’t know why he wasn’t at the inquest. Obviously you have mediumistic powers that everyone else on here lacks.

        There is no evidence that Stride was touched by the killer when on the ground, so...conclusion? There was no interruption evident.

        For the 100th time, please tell us what evidence we would expect to have been there. Not what might have been there but what unavoidably must have been there. I guarantee that you can’t. We can put up with most of your nonsense Michael but please ditch this point and stop embarrassing yourself.

        Simple process if you havent already solved the Whodunnit and named Jack as her killer from the opening bell.

        No one has claimed to have solved anything except you. Do you actually know what you’ve typed Michael?

        No-one was seen by anyone in the street between 12:35 and 12:55....conclusion?

        No one was looking.

        No person coming off the street committed the crime.

        No. That’s your biased interpretation.

        Conclusion? The killer came from a group of socialist anarchists at the club at that time.

        And can you name the group of people that agree with you? Or the one? No?

        Ok.

        By the way, did you find that mythical testimony where Gilleman (not Gillen) backs up your earlier discovery time fantasy? I’m guessing not.

        So do you have the integrity to finally dismiss Gilleman from your list?

        I doubt it very much
        .

        Regards

        Herlock



        “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

        “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

        ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
          Hi rj,

          There are loads of people who dont see a "ripping" where there is none in evidence, nor a double murder by ripper who doesnt rip sometimes. Funny how we (they) are the subject of such admonishment when the evidence itself actually supports that position, not the one people want to believe despite that fact.

          People want a Double Event, they want to explain differences using presumptions, and above all they cannot fathom 2 men or more killing street women in LVP London. Like there was any shortage of thugs in the East End at that very time.
          This is a gross misrepresentation of the people who don't buy into your Jewish anarchist conspiracy theory. Every person who doesn't agree with your conspiracy theory at least considers the possibility that Stride was not killed by the Ripper. Many favor the idea of a non-Ripper killer. And as has been repeatedly noted, f Schwartz' testimony is false, it does nothing to protect the Jewish anarchists, while if Schwartz' testimony is true, it means Stride probably was not killed by the Rippet.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
            ...but we also have the matter of a few witnesses.. who stated (...) that they were gathered...with others,...inside the passageway around the dying woman.
            Great cover-up/damage control.

            "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 Wickerman View Post
              And, the missing flower?
              Brown missed it?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                A somewhat similar scenario played out in the Coles case, though in this case it was the accused, Sadler, who did not appear at the Coles inquest and his statement was read aloud by the Prosecutor.
                I know it's not exactly the same, but I think it shows there was a degree of flexibility in presenting a statement to the court.
                But of course Sadler couldn't give evidence if he wanted to, because a suspect is not allowed to defend himself at an inquest. Sadler had been charged.

                I've pondered whether this could be relevant in the non-appearance of Schwartz. No doubt others will, as is often the case, quickly pooh-pooh an idea that is not their own, but to me it seems highly probable that Schwartz was, in the beginning, a suspect in the Stride murder, though he was never charged; eventually the suspicions dissipated, and he assumed the role of a witness.

                There is some indication of this in the Echo's article.

                A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.


                "In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however...."


                We know from Swanson's report that this "pursued man" was Israel Schwartz. Since the police presumably didn't know him from Adam, they would have initially held a certain amount of suspicion against him. Could Schwartz have been the murderer fleeing the scene? It was an entirely reasonable thing to wonder.

                So the question I pose to you Wick, is this. Could the initial non-appearance of Schwartz, in the first 2 or 3 sessions of the inquest, be down to the fact that, in the early days, the police believed there was a real prospect of charging him, and thus they did not want to give him the opportunity to defend himself at the inquest? Or is this too far-fetched for you?

                It may sound conspiratorial, but do you think it is plausible? Then, as the police investigations continued, they eventually concluded that Schwartz was telling the truth, but by that time the moment had passed and he never did appear. It's really just another variation of what you've already concluded. The police were not initially sure what to make of Schwartz, and didn't want him to present him to the coroner until they sorted it.

                Last edited by rjpalmer; 04-10-2021, 06:57 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  This is a gross misrepresentation of the people who don't buy into your Jewish anarchist conspiracy theory. Every person who doesn't agree with your conspiracy theory at least considers the possibility that Stride was not killed by the Ripper. Many favor the idea of a non-Ripper killer. And as has been repeatedly noted, f Schwartz' testimony is false, it does nothing to protect the Jewish anarchists, while if Schwartz' testimony is true, it means Stride probably was not killed by the Rippet.
                  Buying into anything isnt the point Fiver, finding just one person who is seen outside the gates or on the street by a validated witness between 12:35 and 12:55 is. Youve said "your theory", thats not correct, the evidence itself suggests that the killer didnt come from off the property. Ive just supported that evidence.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                    Great cover-up/damage control.
                    Given time, like say more than 12 hours to concoct a story that has a anti-semitic gentile from off the property assaulting the victim off property, the story can be more polished for your consideration. Louis didnt have that though. He had minutes, and no time to gather evryone around to say "this is what to say". He obviously didnt conspire with "the group" gathered around the woman, clearly. They disagreed with his time of just after 1 for the initial discovery, by 15 or 20 minutes no less. But he could have spoken to Eagle and Lave. Both whom said they were there, and saw no-one and an empty street, at 12:40. The result of a little chat with Louis? Perhaps.

                    The fact that Lave sees nothing at 12:40-12:45 at the gates, Eagle couldnt be sure whether a body was there at 12:40..but also doesnt see Lave standing there at that time, and Louis claiming he arrived at "precisely 1" which can be instantly disporven by Fannys statement, all indicates that they had the same general storyline. Issac K, Spooner, Gillen, Heschberg and likely some others gathered around the woman around 12:40-12:45 cannot be disproven by Fanny, or the young couple. Because it tok place out of her sight line. Both who only saw an empty street until Goldstein at 12:55.

                    Its not "my theory" for the last time its just the evidence without predjudice...like the kind applied by pro-Ripper-interruptus folk. Liz Strides potential killer was not visible on the street at anytime between 12:35 and 12:55, because....yeah, thats it. He was attending the club, and inside the passageway. With Liz.

                    Let me put it this way....if Louis and other members had attacked the police with clubs 6 months before this murder happened, would they then be more suspect for you?
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                      Given time, like say more than 12 hours to concoct a story that has a anti-semitic gentile from off the property assaulting the victim off property, the story can be more polished for your consideration. Louis didnt have that though. He had minutes, and no time to gather evryone around to say "this is what to say". He obviously didnt conspire with "the group" gathered around the woman, clearly. They disagreed with his time of just after 1 for the initial discovery, by 15 or 20 minutes no less. But he could have spoken to Eagle and Lave. Both whom said they were there, and saw no-one and an empty street, at 12:40. The result of a little chat with Louis? Perhaps.

                      The fact that Lave sees nothing at 12:40-12:45 at the gates, Eagle couldnt be sure whether a body was there at 12:40..but also doesnt see Lave standing there at that time, and Louis claiming he arrived at "precisely 1" which can be instantly disporven by Fannys statement, all indicates that they had the same general storyline. Issac K, Spooner, Gillen, Heschberg and likely some others gathered around the woman around 12:40-12:45 cannot be disproven by Fanny, or the young couple. Because it tok place out of her sight line. Both who only saw an empty street until Goldstein at 12:55.

                      Its not "my theory" for the last time its just the evidence without predjudice...like the kind applied by pro-Ripper-interruptus folk. Liz Strides potential killer was not visible on the street at anytime between 12:35 and 12:55, because....yeah, thats it. He was attending the club, and inside the passageway. With Liz.

                      Let me put it this way....if Louis and other members had attacked the police with clubs 6 months before this murder happened, would they then be more suspect for you?
                      It would have been a better story had they implicated a gentile, however, as we know, Schwartz told the police that BS shouted Lipski at pipeman, and that Schwartz took that to mean Pipeman's name (and we know, as a result, the police were searching the area for Lipski families based upon Schwartz's statement).

                      So the story the club came up with after 12 hours, in order to deflect attention away from its Jewish members was to implicate a Jewish offender.

                      It refutes itself right there.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                        But of course Sadler couldn't give evidence if he wanted to, because a suspect is not allowed to defend himself at an inquest. Sadler had been charged.

                        I've pondered whether this could be relevant in the non-appearance of Schwartz. No doubt others will, as is often the case, quickly pooh-pooh an idea that is not their own, but to me it seems highly probable that Schwartz was, in the beginning, a suspect in the Stride murder, though he was never charged; eventually the suspicions dissipated, and he assumed the role of a witness.

                        There is some indication of this in the Echo's article.

                        A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.


                        "In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however...."


                        We know from Swanson's report that this "pursued man" was Israel Schwartz. Since the police presumably didn't know him from Adam, they would have initially held a certain amount of suspicion against him. Could Schwartz have been the murderer fleeing the scene? It was an entirely reasonable thing to wonder.

                        So the question I pose to you Wick, is this. Could the initial non-appearance of Schwartz, in the first 2 or 3 sessions of the inquest, be down to the fact that, in the early days, the police believed there was a real prospect of charging him, and thus they did not want to give him the opportunity to defend himself at the inquest? Or is this too far-fetched for you?

                        It may sound conspiratorial, but do you think it is plausible? Then, as the police investigations continued, they eventually concluded that Schwartz was telling the truth, but by that time the moment had passed and he never did appear. It's really just another variation of what you've already concluded. The police were not initially sure what to make of Schwartz, and didn't want him to present him to the coroner until they sorted it.
                        Hi rj,

                        I know you were asking this of Wickerman, but the "man pursued" story sounds a lot like Diemshutz & Kozebrodski when they went looking for the police after finding Stride. They went as far as Grove (as per the story), and then returned, picking up Spooner along the way back.

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • .
                          The fact that Lave sees nothing at 12:40-12:45 at the gates, Eagle couldnt be sure whether a body was there at 12:40..but also doesnt see Lave standing there at that time
                          Lave said that he was there from 12.40 for 30 minutes. Which is impossible. Also Eagle didn’t see him.

                          So Lave cannot be trusted.
                          Regards

                          Herlock



                          “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

                          “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

                          ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

                          Comment


                          • . and Louis claiming he arrived at "precisely 1" which can be instantly disporven by Fannys statement
                            No it can’t.
                            Regards

                            Herlock



                            “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

                            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

                            ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              Given time, like say more than 12 hours to concoct a story that has a anti-semitic gentile from off the property assaulting the victim off property, the story can be more polished for your consideration. Louis didnt have that though. He had minutes, and no time to gather evryone around to say "this is what to say". He obviously didnt conspire with "the group" gathered around the woman, clearly. They disagreed with his time of just after 1 for the initial discovery, by 15 or 20 minutes no less. But he could have spoken to Eagle and Lave. Both whom said they were there, and saw no-one and an empty street, at 12:40. The result of a little chat with Louis? Perhaps.

                              The fact that Lave sees nothing at 12:40-12:45 at the gates, Eagle couldnt be sure whether a body was there at 12:40..but also doesnt see Lave standing there at that time, and Louis claiming he arrived at "precisely 1" which can be instantly disporven by Fannys statement, all indicates that they had the same general storyline. Issac K, Spooner, Gillen, Heschberg and likely some others gathered around the woman around 12:40-12:45 cannot be disproven by Fanny, or the young couple. Because it tok place out of her sight line. Both who only saw an empty street until Goldstein at 12:55.

                              Its not "my theory" for the last time its just the evidence without predjudice...like the kind applied by pro-Ripper-interruptus folk. Liz Strides potential killer was not visible on the street at anytime between 12:35 and 12:55, because....yeah, thats it. He was attending the club, and inside the passageway. With Liz.

                              Let me put it this way....if Louis and other members had attacked the police with clubs 6 months before this murder happened, would they then be more suspect for you?
                              Are you going to admit that Gilleman can be struck of your ‘list’ now?

                              We’ve already struck off Spooner and Eagle. Though God knows why you mentioned Eagle in the first place.

                              That leaves you with Abraham “about” “I should think” Hoschberg. And Kozebrodski.

                              A cast iron case.
                              Regards

                              Herlock



                              “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

                              “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

                              ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Lave said that he was there from 12.40 for 30 minutes. Which is impossible. Also Eagle didn’t see him.

                                So Lave cannot be trusted.
                                So would you say his testimony is "unsafe" to rely on?

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X