Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    No need. Lynn posted the translation on this very site, which is where I copied it from;

    https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-fraint-s-take
    So here we go again:

    'The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one. That evening there was a discussion in the club: “Should a Jew be a Socialist?” The hall was packed and the discussion was very lively. The debate went on until approximately eleven o’clock. At about 12 o’clock all the non-members scattered, and about twenty of the members remained in the club. These same [members] created a choir and sang various songs, for the most part, Russian.
    [P. 3, col. 1 cont’d]
    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.'

    Regarding alcohol, I could swear I read somewhere that Louis D stopped off for a pint at the Grove Tavern on Lordship Lane, Dulwich, on his way back from the Westow Hill market.

    I can't imagine there would not have been beer available at the club, for those who didn't fancy the cuppa offered by Mrs D. Most people drank beer in those days, unless their religion strictly forbade it, as safe drinking water was not yet the norm. But the beer - including ginger beer, which was always alcoholic before the 20th century - could be relatively weak, with several pints being knocked back without getting totally legless. A saying at the time was "he's had one over the eight", implying that it could take nine pints before a man would be very obviously inebriated.

    Two halves of Young's Special are more than enough for me.

    Love,

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


    Comment


    • Good questions, although not really answerable.

      Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
      one: Why didn't LD & IK continue running up along Grove street, to Commercial Road? What was the point of doubling-back when they did?
      Who knows? My guess is that they wanted to return to the yard to see if a PC had arrived in the meantime or check if somebody had already gone north to Commercial Street. But that's just a guess.

      two: Why didn't Ayliffe hear the cries for police? These sounds should have travelled up Grove street, to his station.
      Perhaps Ayliffe was just around the corner from Grove Street, on Commercial Street. It seems a bit odd that neither Ayliffe nor Smith (seem to have) heard a thing, but maybe they were just out of earshot. It's also possible that Ayliffe did hear, but he just wasn't asked if he had or hadn't heard anything.

      So did Eagle at that point hang around, or take off immediately because he couldn't stand the sight of blood?
      It seems that he didn't hang around much, but that's all we can say, as far as I can see.

      "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 Michael W Richards View Post

        A story about a bunch of men singing and hanging around upstairs at 12:30am that wouldnt involve booze? Not likely. The men seen about that club late at night were described as "low" men by the neighbors, I think late nights, rowdiness and drink might be a reason for that kind of characterization.

        These "private" clubs offered drinks after the pubs had closed, part of their popularity Im sure.
        Hi Michael,

        I don't doubt there most likely was booze available, and have no problem with the above being presented as support for that. I was just wondering if it was stated specifically anywhere. Without a specific statement, it's always an inference, however well supported and pointed to. Locking it down with something concrete that states booze was available on the night, just makes things so much easier, otherwise one could always claim "but singing was common entertainment, and as such could very well occur even without any booze", etc. I was just wondering if we had anything specific, not really suggesting it was unlikely.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Perhaps a more relevant question than "did the club sell alcohol?", is "would it have been legal for the club to sell alcohol?"
          It's hard not to get the feeling that the search for police was deliberately padded out just a wee bit, to give other members time to hide certain items ...

          Arbeter Fraint: During the examination of the members of the club, the Police Sergeant wanted to show, through his coarse behavior, that he was also somebody, therefore one of the members took him over to Parsons’ picture, which was nailed to the wall and explained to him that this is was Parsons the anarchist, who had been murdered in Chicago and asked him if he wanted to see the others, [if so] he could go upstairs to see [them]. Everyone laughed, and the poor policeman bit his lips.
          The headman of this group also wanted to create difficulties for the club. Pretending that he was in a hurry, he asked if he could buy several cigars. Dimshits responded with a question: didn’t he know that the law, which he protects, forbids strangers from selling cigars in a club. If he wanted [however] they could give him two cigars. The police big shot did not refuse and asked to be given [the cigars].


          So where might they have hidden these items, that escaped police detection?

          Reid: The door of the loft was found locked on the inside, and it was forced. The loft was searched, but no trace of the murderer could be found.
          Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 05-19-2021, 12:29 AM.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Im not much on medical stuff but I’m pretty sure that this is possible? Someone might step in with info.
            When you ask a reasonable question about an important issue, and get zero responses, your reaction should be ...

            The blood evidence does not support the 1am interruption theory!
            Nor does it support a murder time of shortly after 12:45, unless Diemschitz arrival was several minutes before he claimed it was, and almost everyone else was getting to the yard at about the time they thought they did. Even then it is a stretch.

            Spooner (DN): On Sunday morning between 12.30 and 1 o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Tavern ... I had been standing there about five-and-twenty minutes when two Jews came running along hallooing out "Murder" and "Police."
            So that would be about 12:55.

            Eagle (IT): He returned at 25 minutes to 1, and finding the front door closed, entered by the back door. I went up stairs ,and in about twenty minutes a man named Giddleman came rushing in and said "there is a woman lying dead in the yard."
            So that would be about 12:55.

            Mortimer: It was soon after one o'clock when I went out ...
            Mortimer (EN): Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife.
            So Louis was back from Grove street, suggesting a discovery time a few minutes before 1am.

            Lamb (DT): A constable named Smith was on the Berner-street beat. He did not accompany me, but the constable who was on fixed-point duty between Grove-street and Christian-street in Commercial-road. Constables at fixed-points leave duty at one in the morning.
            So the fixed point constable was still at his stationed area, suggesting a time very close to 1am, and thus a discovery time some minutes earlier. This is supported by ...

            Smith (T): At 1 o'clock I went to Berner-street in my ordinary round. I saw a crowd of people outside the gates of No. 40. I did not hear any cries of "Police."

            The blood evidence suggests that the murder occurred at 12:45, only if Diemschitz arrived well before 1am. Otherwise it was later, but either way, it was also significantly before 1am.
            Yet this conclusion is not a happy one. A 12:45 murder time supports Schwartz, and effectively moves the murderer from club to street (good). A 1am murder supports the notion of an interrupted killer, and thus the concept of Jack the Ripper (good). Roughly in the middle of these times supports neither theory, and suggests that the murderer may well have come from the club, and that he may have been seen in the vicinity of Dutfield's Yard at the time (bad).

            It is no surprise to me, that you received no response to your request. There are too many people here that deal with uncomfortable evidence, by ignoring it.
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              .....
              Still flowing 15 minutes after she died?
              Ok, for what it's worth.
              Plain & simple, that line, as written, is not possible.

              Blood only flows if the heart is still pumping, so if the blood is flowing, the victim is not dead. Thats plain enough.
              The victim might be unconscious, but certainly not dead.
              So, how sure are we that the blood was actually flowing?

              Once the victim is dead, the only other force at work on the blood is gravity. Blood may run out of a wound for a short time until the blood in the circulatory system reaches a lower level close to the ground, or if the outside temperate cools the blood fast enough to inhibit the flow.
              Blood doesn't normally run from a tissue wound, only from arteries & veins.

              I heard a comment on a medical documentary just last week that may have an impact on questions like this.
              The doctor being interviewed suggested that even today with all our technology, we may not have truly identified the actual point of death.
              If this is so, how can we expect some 19th century doctor, never mind a layperson, to know for sure if the victim was actually dead?

              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                When you ask a reasonable question about an important issue, and get zero responses, your reaction should be ...

                I think that this is very relevant.

                https://www.orsam.co.uk/breakingpoint.htm

                The blood evidence does not support the 1am interruption theory!
                Nor does it support a murder time of shortly after 12:45, unless Diemschitz arrival was several minutes before he claimed it was, and almost everyone else was getting to the yard at about the time they thought they did. Even then it is a stretch.

                Spooner (DN): On Sunday morning between 12.30 and 1 o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Tavern ... I had been standing there about five-and-twenty minutes when two Jews came running along hallooing out "Murder" and "Police."
                So that would be about 12:55.

                He also said that he arrived around 5 minutes before Lamb got there which takes him past 1.00. Diemschutz and Kozebrodski were heard shouting for the police by Brown at around 1.00.

                Eagle (IT): He returned at 25 minutes to 1, and finding the front door closed, entered by the back door. I went up stairs ,and in about twenty minutes a man named Giddleman came rushing in and said "there is a woman lying dead in the yard."
                So that would be about 12:55.

                He also said that he first saw the body around 1.00.

                Mortimer: It was soon after one o'clock when I went out ...
                Mortimer (EN): Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife.
                So Louis was back from Grove street, suggesting a discovery time a few minutes before 1am.

                No it doesn’t by any stretch. If Louis got back at around 1.03 and Mortimer went out just after where is the issue? “Soon after 1.00…” isn’t an exact time.

                Lamb (DT): A constable named Smith was on the Berner-street beat. He did not accompany me, but the constable who was on fixed-point duty between Grove-street and Christian-street in Commercial-road. Constables at fixed-points leave duty at one in the morning.
                So the fixed point constable was still at his stationed area, suggesting a time very close to 1am, and thus a discovery time some minutes earlier. This is supported by ...

                Again, “very close to 1 am,” also supports 1.03, 1.04, 1.05, 1.06…..

                Smith (T): At 1 o'clock I went to Berner-street in my ordinary round. I saw a crowd of people outside the gates of No. 40. I did not hear any cries of "Police."

                Lamb was already there when Smith arrived so we know that Smith arrived after 1.00. We can’t know exactly how long after of course.

                The blood evidence suggests that the murder occurred at 12:45, only if Diemschitz arrived well before 1am. Otherwise it was later, but either way, it was also significantly before 1am.

                It doesn’t.

                Yet this conclusion is not a happy one. A 12:45 murder time supports Schwartz, and effectively moves the murderer from club to street (good). A 1am murder supports the notion of an interrupted killer, and thus the concept of Jack the Ripper (good). Roughly in the middle of these times supports neither theory, and suggests that the murderer may well have come from the club, and that he may have been seen in the vicinity of Dutfield's Yard at the time (bad).

                Your back with The Marriott Defence I see. Why do I need to support Schwartz or the concept of Jack the Ripper and the suggestion of interruption when I’ve stated, more times than I care to keep repeating, that Stride might not have been a ripper victim. We might ask why no one at the time doubted the TOD as being between 12.45 and 1.00.

                It is no surprise to me, that you received no response to your request. There are too many people here that deal with uncomfortable evidence, by ignoring it.

                And I think that there’s far too much nitpicking and manipulating going on. We need to stop holding witnesses to exact times simply to conjure up a moment.
                The attempt to shoehorn in a blatantly non-existent cover-up into place goes on. The evidence against it is absolutely overwhelming. Overwhelming to a level that a cover up is not even worth considering for any length of time. Louis Diemschutz discovered the body of Liz Stride at 1.00. Of this there can be no doubt at all. A cover-up requires the manipulation of evidence. It requires the removal of the word ‘about’ when it comes to times quoted. It requires a deliberate desire to find a conspiracy. Something that we definitely see far too much of around here.

                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 Wickerman View Post

                  Ok, for what it's worth.
                  Plain & simple, that line, as written, is not possible.

                  Blood only flows if the heart is still pumping, so if the blood is flowing, the victim is not dead. Thats plain enough.
                  The victim might be unconscious, but certainly not dead.
                  So, how sure are we that the blood was actually flowing?
                  Coroner: He [Diemschitz] did not inspect the body himself with any care, but blood was flowing from the throat, even when Spooner reached the spot some few minutes afterwards, and although the bleeding had stopped when Dr. Blackwell's assistant arrived, the whole of her body and the limbs, except her hands, were warm, and even at 16 minutes past 1 a.m.

                  That seems clear enough.

                  Once the victim is dead, the only other force at work on the blood is gravity. Blood may run out of a wound for a short time until the blood in the circulatory system reaches a lower level close to the ground, or if the outside temperate cools the blood fast enough to inhibit the flow.
                  Blood doesn't normally run from a tissue wound, only from arteries & veins.
                  Does the observance of blood flowing due to gravity alone, make the situation more or less mysterious?
                  Well it would seem to be more so, if the murder had occurred at 12:45.
                  Consider the 10 minutes on doorstep, 'important statement' report that people love to use to make out that Fanny Mortimer "contradicted herself".
                  So - outside at 12:45, inside at 12:55. Sees nothing unusual. Yet that would seemingly require one of two things to be true:

                  one: murderer vanished by 12:45, and victim dead

                  two: murderer and victim enter yard significantly after 12:55, and murderer leaves significantly before 1am (unless he hides in "the shadows").

                  Before I go on, I think it's about time a few more people got serious about which of these two scenarios they believe to be true.

                  Now considering the first, if we assume a ToD right on 12:45, and a murder 2 minutes prior, if Spooner is entering the yard just after 1:00, and witnesses blood flow from the wound, then apparently the supporters of this scenario suppose she has been leaking blood for at least 16 minutes after death, due to blood loss!

                  The second scenario runs into the issue of the huge amount of blood in the gutter, witnessed by Mr D, Mrs D, Koz, etc, right after the discovery.
                  So how do people who support the interruption theory explain this? Have they got a clue, or are they happy without one?

                  I heard a comment on a medical documentary just last week that may have an impact on questions like this.
                  The doctor being interviewed suggested that even today with all our technology, we may not have truly identified the actual point of death.
                  If this is so, how can we expect some 19th century doctor, never mind a layperson, to know for sure if the victim was actually dead?
                  Knowing if someone is dead and identifying the time of death, are two different things.
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    Coroner: He [Diemschitz] did not inspect the body himself with any care, but blood was flowing from the throat, even when Spooner reached the spot some few minutes afterwards, and although the bleeding had stopped when Dr. Blackwell's assistant arrived, the whole of her body and the limbs, except her hands, were warm, and even at 16 minutes past 1 a.m.

                    That seems clear enough.
                    Right, though no-one mentioned whether they thought she was dead. The statements as given would suggest she died between Spooner's arrival & Johnson's (Blackwell's assistant).


                    Does the observance of blood flowing due to gravity alone, make the situation more or less mysterious?
                    Well it would seem to be more so, if the murder had occurred at 12:45.
                    On what grounds?
                    Why speculate the murder 'could have' occurred at 12:45, if blood was still flowing by the time Spooner arrived?


                    two: murderer and victim enter yard significantly after 12:55, and murderer leaves significantly before 1am (unless he hides in "the shadows").
                    'Murder' is too vague if you are looking for a specific time of death.
                    The murder begins with an assault, if choking was part of the assault this could have taken 1-3 minutes until Stride collapses unconscious, but not dead. Then the knife is drawn across the throat, and she is left prostrate on the ground.
                    We could be talking about 3 to 5 minutes in total, but as the killer walks away she is still not dead.

                    I'm only making suggestions here, we can't possibly know for sure.

                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • He also said that he arrived around 5 minutes before Lamb got there which takes him past 1.00.
                      By about 1 minute. That was after meeting LD & IK on the corner of Fairclough & Christian street. So Spooner was off in his timing by just 5 minutes.

                      Diemschutz and Kozebrodski were heard shouting for the police by Brown at around 1.00.
                      So the discovery time was before 1am, and the sighting of the clock was before that.

                      Brown: When I heard the screams I opened the window, but the persons calling out had gone past, and I could see nothing. Shortly afterwards, I saw a policeman standing at the corner of Christian street. I heard a man opposite call out to him that he was wanted, and he ran along to Berner street.

                      That's odd. Wasn't Spooner standing at the same intersection, at the same time?

                      He also said that he first saw the body around 1.00.
                      So the discovery time was before 1am, and the sighting of the clock was before that.

                      By the way, does it bother you that not a single witness claims to have heard the commotion, at a time later than that which is compatible with Diemschitz seeing the clock at 1am? Every witness account gives a time that is either just compatible with Diemschitz, or a bit earlier, or much earlier. Not a single witness guesses 1:10, or even 1:05. Yet if the time lapse after the supposed sighting of the clock at 1am, and the start of the search is considered, we should be getting a spread of times around a few minutes after one, but that is not the case.

                      No it doesn’t by any stretch. If Louis got back at around 1.03 and Mortimer went out just after where is the issue? “Soon after 1.00…” isn’t an exact time.
                      Again, “very close to 1 am,” also supports 1.03, 1.04, 1.05, 1.06…..
                      Lamb was already there when Smith arrived so we know that Smith arrived after 1.00. We can’t know exactly how long after of course.
                      All of this Old Theory nonsense can be dispensed with quite easily.
                      When Smith left to obtain an ambulance, he saw Johnston arriving. This was at about 1:12.
                      Prior to that Smith had been writing in his notebook ...

                      Coroner: The constable feels certain that the woman he observed was the deceased, and when he afterwards was called to the scene of the crime he at once recognized her and made a statement;

                      This easily puts Smith on site for 5 minutes, taking his arrival back to about 1:07.
                      This would place Smith at the top of Berner street at about 1:05, when Lamb and Ayliffe are already at the yard.
                      Yet Smith hears no whistles or cries for police, placing him out of hearing range of Lamb's whistle.
                      This means Lamb and Ayliffe must arrived quite soon after 1am.
                      When Fanny goes to the yard, there are no police, but Spooner is there by the body.
                      So now we are getting very close to 1am. How close can be gauged by this statement, Times, Oct 6:

                      Marshall: I went in about 12 o'clock and heard nothing more until I heard "Murder" being called in the street. It had then just gone 1 o'clock.

                      That almost certainly means Marshall noted the time in reference to a clock, which pushes Diemschitz actual sighting of the bakers clock to a few minutes or more, before 1am.

                      By the way, I notice you made no specific reference to Smith's timings. Why was that?
                      Was it because Smith, like Mortimer, is a big problem for those who wish to perpetuate The Old Theories?

                      Your back with The Marriott Defence I see. Why do I need to support Schwartz or the concept of Jack the Ripper and the suggestion of interruption when I’ve stated, more times than I care to keep repeating, that Stride might not have been a ripper victim.
                      Your recent survey demonstrated that the ridiculous Interruptionist School is still thriving. Your disappoint at not maintaining a to nil score, suggests that no matter what you claim otherwise, you are very likely a member of that school.

                      We might ask why no one at the time doubted the TOD as being between 12.45 and 1.00.
                      Just as we might answer that it was probably because the ToD was estimated to have been at roughly the midpoint of those times.

                      And I think that there’s far too much nitpicking and manipulating going on. We need to stop holding witnesses to exact times simply to conjure up a moment.
                      This is your usual Strawman argument. It is you who is insisting that the claimed exactly 1am sighting of the bakers clock, was correct (and no, I'm not talking about the position of the seconds hand). It is you, who are judging other witness accounts based on that claim. It is you, who is pretending that this is a 'nit-picking' issue. Yet if that is all this boils down to, then what explains your tireless and unwavering devotion to Diemschitz claim? Clearly you believe there is much more riding on the issue - otherwise why bother?

                      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      The attempt to shoehorn in a blatantly non-existent cover-up into place goes on. The evidence against it is absolutely overwhelming. Overwhelming to a level that a cover up is not even worth considering for any length of time. Louis Diemschutz discovered the body of Liz Stride at 1.00. Of this there can be no doubt at all. A cover-up requires the manipulation of evidence. It requires the removal of the word ‘about’ when it comes to times quoted. It requires a deliberate desire to find a conspiracy. Something that we definitely see far too much of around here.
                      You're jumping around again. First it was an accusation of conspiracy theory - that very convenient fall-back, when all else fails - then it was not even a lie. Now we're suddenly back to a cover-up, or is it conspiracy? Who knows or cares, as long as some of the mud sticks.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment




                      • He also said that he arrived around 5 minutes before Lamb got there which takes him past 1.00.

                        >By about 1 minute. That was after meeting LD & IK on the corner of Fairclough & Christian street. So Spooner was off in his timing by just 5 minutes.<

                        But in the same statement he said that he’d arrived at the yard around 12.35 which is obviously wrong.

                        Diemschutz and Kozebrodski were heard shouting for the police by Brown at around 1.00.

                        >So the discovery time was before 1am, and the sighting of the clock was before that.<

                        No. Again you are either ignoring the word ‘around’ or you’re trying to tie it down to something more specific to achieve a goal. Around 1.00 could have been 1.02 or 1.03. This is a non-issue.

                        Brown: When I heard the screams I opened the window, but the persons calling out had gone past, and I could see nothing. Shortly afterwards, I saw a policeman standing at the corner of Christian street. I heard a man opposite call out to him that he was wanted, and he ran along to Berner street.

                        >That's odd. Wasn't Spooner standing at the same intersection, at the same time?<

                        This time it’s the word ‘shortly.’ How long is shortly? Another non-issue.

                        He also said that he first saw the body around 1.00.

                        So the discovery time was before 1am, and the sighting of the clock was before that.

                        NO…. He said ‘around.’ You keep doing this. It’s typical conspiracist fodder. Another non-issue.

                        By the way, does it bother you that not a single witness claims to have heard the commotion, at a time later than that which is compatible with Diemschitz seeing the clock at 1am? Every witness account gives a time that is either just compatible with Diemschitz, or a bit earlier, or much earlier. Not a single witness guesses 1:10, or even 1:05. Yet if the time lapse after the supposed sighting of the clock at 1am, and the start of the search is considered, we should be getting a spread of times around a few minutes after one, but that is not the case.

                        It doesn’t bother me in the slightest and it shouldn’t bother anyone.

                        No it doesn’t by any stretch. If Louis got back at around 1.03 and Mortimer went out just after where is the issue? “Soon after 1.00…” isn’t an exact time.
                        Again, “very close to 1 am,” also supports 1.03, 1.04, 1.05, 1.06…..
                        Lamb was already there when Smith arrived so we know that Smith arrived after 1.00. We can’t know exactly how long after of course.

                        >All of this Old Theory nonsense can be dispensed with quite easily.
                        When Smith left to obtain an ambulance, he saw Johnston arriving. This was at about 1:12.

                        Blackwell….”I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was just 1.10.”

                        When you have an estimated time you try and make it exact and when you have an exact time you try and make it an estimation.


                        Prior to that Smith had been writing in his notebook ...

                        Coroner: The constable feels certain that the woman he observed was the deceased, and when he afterwards was called to the scene of the crime he at once recognized her and made a statement;

                        This easily puts Smith on site for 5 minutes, taking his arrival back to about 1:07.

                        You can’t say 5 minutes as if it’s a fact. It isn’t.

                        This would place Smith at the top of Berner street at about 1:05, when Lamb and Ayliffe are already at the yard.

                        Yet Smith hears no whistles or cries for police, placing him out of hearing range of Lamb's whistle.
                        This means Lamb and Ayliffe must arrived quite soon after 1am.
                        When Fanny goes to the yard, there are no police, but Spooner is there by the body.
                        So now we are getting very close to 1am. How close can be gauged by this statement, Times, Oct 6:

                        Marshall: I went in about 12 o'clock and heard nothing more until I heard "Murder" being called in the street. It had then just gone 1 o'clock.

                        That almost certainly means Marshall noted the time in reference to a clock, which pushes Diemschitz actual sighting of the bakers clock to a few minutes or more, before 1am.

                        By the way, I notice you made no specific reference to Smith's timings. Why was that?
                        Was it because Smith, like Mortimer, is a big problem for those who wish to perpetuate The Old Theories?

                        None of these are issues. Not a single one of them. All they are are a collection of deliberately misleading interpretation in order to manufacture a childish mystery where none exists. It’s becoming an embarrassment to the subject.

                        Your back with The Marriott Defence I see. Why do I need to support Schwartz or the concept of Jack the Ripper and the suggestion of interruption when I’ve stated, more times than I care to keep repeating, that Stride might not have been a ripper victim.

                        Your recent survey demonstrated that the ridiculous Interruptionist School is still thriving. Your disappoint at not maintaining a to nil score, suggests that no matter what you claim otherwise, you are very likely a member of that school.

                        Any person that backs the evidence of interruption point is nothing short of contemptible. It’s a black and white non-issue. We could not have expected to have seen evidence of interruption. And the poll shows that only conspiracy fantasists disagree.

                        We might ask why no one at the time doubted the TOD as being between 12.45 and 1.00.

                        <Just as we might answer that it was probably because the ToD was estimated to have been at roughly the midpoint of those times.<

                        No it wasn’t.

                        And I think that there’s far too much nitpicking and manipulating going on. We need to stop holding witnesses to exact times simply to conjure up a moment.

                        This is your usual Strawman argument.

                        No it’s not. It’s my reaction to ludicrous and dishonest conspiracy thinking. Desperate crap.

                        It is you who is insisting that the claimed exactly 1am sighting of the bakers clock, was correct (and no, I'm not talking about the position of the seconds hand).

                        A man sees a clock and reads the time. End of story.

                        It is you, who are judging other witness accounts based on that claim. It is you, who is pretending that this is a 'nit-picking' issue. Yet if that is all this boils down to, then what explains your tireless and unwavering devotion to Diemschitz claim? Clearly you believe there is much more riding on the issue - otherwise why bother?

                        Because it is a nitpicking estimate and an entirely dishonest one.

                        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        The attempt to shoehorn in a blatantly non-existent cover-up into place goes on. The evidence against it is absolutely overwhelming. Overwhelming to a level that a cover up is not even worth considering for any length of time. Louis Diemschutz discovered the body of Liz Stride at 1.00. Of this there can be no doubt at all. A cover-up requires the manipulation of evidence. It requires the removal of the word ‘about’ when it comes to times quoted. It requires a deliberate desire to find a conspiracy. Something that we definitely see far too much of around here.

                        You're jumping around again. First it was an accusation of conspiracy theory - that very convenient fall-back, when all else fails - then it was not even a lie. Now we're suddenly back to a cover-up, or is it conspiracy? Who knows or cares, as long as some of the mud sticks

                        The mud should stick…..permanently. We are being weighed down and infected by this constant deluge of drivel. A four year old could see that there was no cover-up. So we’ve had Mrs Richardson’s secret brothel in the basement of number 29. Now you’ve attached yourself to Michael’s dead-as-a-doornail fantasy, what’s next? There’s an ‘it wasn’t really Mary Kelly’ waiting for you. Or maybe Polly Nichols was a suicide? I’m waiting for The Reemasons or The Illuminati to make an appearance.

                        …….


                        On and on it goes in ever more desperate attempts to manufacture a cover-up from thin air. It’s like groundhog day in Conley Hatch.
                        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
                          A man sees a clock and reads the time. End of story.
                          Bingo, Herlock.

                          The clock Louis D saw may or may not have been showing precisely the right time, but that's as close as it gets - unless someone is fanatically determined to accuse this witness of lying about the time he found Stride's body in the yard, for no good reason.

                          Love,

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


                          Comment


                          • It's either bingo or dogma

                            Arbeter Fraint: At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market.

                            Probably the later
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                              By the way, does it bother you that not a single witness claims to have heard the commotion, at a time later than that which is compatible with Diemschitz seeing the clock at 1am?
                              William Marshall in the Daily News of 6 October: "I heard nothing more till the cry of "Murder" was raised in the street, which occurred just after one o'clock."
                              Marshall in the Morning Advertiser of same date: "I did not hear anything till I heard murder being called in the street just after one o’clock on the Sunday morning."
                              In the People of 7 October: "The witness went indoors about twelve o'clock, and heard nothing more until the cry of "Murder" was raised, just after one a.m."
                              The Times of 6 October: "I went in about 12 o'clock and heard nothing more until I heard "Murder" being called in the street. It had then just gone 1 o'clock."

                              Marshall, unlike possibly Mortimer, is an independent witness who claimed he heard the cries for "Murder" "just after one o'clock". If Diemshutz ran out of the yard in search of a PC at, say, 1:02 - which is perfectly possible - then Marshall's testimony is perfectly compatible with Diemshutz seeing a clock indicating one o'clock. Clear & simple.

                              It is you, who is pretending that this is a 'nit-picking' issue.
                              It really can't be anything other than a non-issue, because, as it stands, whose or which clock/time-piece are you even going by? The clock Diemshutz stated he saw? Blackwell's watch? William Marshall's time-piece? The Club clock, if it had one? Mortimer, if she had one? The Leman Street police station's? The Commercial Street police station's? Ayliffe's, if he had one? Eagle's home clock? William Wess's? Or Greenwich Mean Time perhaps?



                              "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
                                It's either bingo or dogma

                                Arbeter Fraint: At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market.

                                Probably the later
                                1.00 is about 1.00. The person that wrote that got his info second hand. Diemschutz actually saw a clock. If you can PROVE that he didn’t (and you can’t) or you can PROVE that the clock was wrong (and you can’t) then you have no point to make.
                                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-21-2021, 05:36 PM.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X