If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

I’m avoiding nothing except pointless nitpicking.

>So 20 members minus 2 members = pointless nit-picking

Once again, you revert to a catch-all response<

The poll was about the suggestion that some evidence of interruption should have been visible after Stride’s murder. Not, might have been evident or could have been evident but should have been evident. Suggesting that it was unavoidable.

I said that this very obviously wouldn’t have been the case if the killer had been interrupted just as he’d cut her throat and before he’d proceeded to any other action.

I can’t for the life of me understand how any thinking person could disagree with this very simple and very obviously correct statement. I’m not claiming it as a clever deduction or anything like that. I’m saying that it’s like saying that giraffes are taller than cats. And yet 2 real people actually disagree and I can only conclude that they are the originator of this cover up theory and the conspiracy theorist that appears to support it.

Therefore people without a predisposition to seeing mysteries where none exist can answer this obvious question correctly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Diemschutz arrived at 1.00 As he said. We know that it was 1.00 because he saw a clock.

>That is not a logically sound statement - the conclusion does not follow from the premise<

True. It’s a statement loaded with frustration. Anything can be called a lie or incorrect and this is what you and Michael do without any evidence for it. There is zero evidence for doubting Diemschutz.

[Herlock Sholmes]

His wife confirmed this. As did Eagle. Everything confirms this because it’s what happened, without a shadow of doubt.

>His wife confirmed this? You're just about right ...<

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. Then suddenly I saw my husband enter, looking very scared and frightened.

>So not quite 1am when Louis came in. So I guess he saw the clock at about 12:56.

No……you keep doing this! She said ‘about.’ ‘About’ isn’t a time. About 1.00 could actually have been 12.55 or 12.58 or 1.02 or 1.05 or exactly 1.00.

Times taken without obvious access to a clock or a watch should automatically be given at least a + or - 5 minutes. In fact I’d even say + or - 10 minutes. I’m going to call this The Gestimate Factor and I’m going to quote this every time you attempt to tie down a guessed time to an exact one to make a point.

By the way, do you need that 4 minutes prior to 1am, to sneak the murderer in and out of the yard, unseen and unheard? Good luck with that.

As for Eagle, his story does not gel with Mrs D's account, as I'm sure you can see<

Eagle said that he first saw the body at around 1.00. So yes I does tie up. Spot on

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Reason tells us that it must have been moved, to make sense of the story - but have you got the right story?

Yes. Diemschutz returned on his horse a cart. The police might easily have checked where he’d been and the fact that he’d had his horse and cart with him. Mrs Mortimer hears the horse and cart pass her house at around the time Diemschutz said that he returned. His wife confirmed his return time and Eagle confirms what time he was first called to see the body. No issues at all. The horse and cart was there and then it wasn’t. So someone moved it further into the yard out of the way. No one bothers to mention who did this because it wasn’t relevant. There is no mystery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Your big problem, and I think this is very common one, is that you understand the events of that night (and the others), through the prism of a story. This happened, then this, then this, etc.
You don't like your stories being muddied or challenged, by hard to explain away evidence or difficult questions.
Whereas I see the challenge as one of sifting through a pile of evidence. If that leads me to same general place as most other students of the case, fine, if not, fine. What I do not do, is seek to create mystery - there is plenty of that as it is.

The Marriott Defence again.

No, what I and most others try to do is to apply caution. To not get carried away because we realise that errors and discrepancies very naturally occurred. We require evidence to even begin to consider that something new has been found. That’s not because we don’t want new things discovered it’s because we are in a world of barking mad conspiracists finding plots around everywhere. I’m not saying that you’re a ‘barking mad conspiracy theorist’ but you have a definite tendency to ‘want’ to see something that isn’t there. A scenario is nowhere near enough. A couple of timing errors isn’t enough. I’ll use the famous Carl Sagan quote “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” A couple of timing issues at a time when very few owned clocks or watches is nowhere near enough. I’m not even remotely intrigued by the possibility of a cover-up in Berner Street because there isn’t a scintilla of half-decent evidence for it. It’s a work of imaginative fiction. Nothing more.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The poll was about the suggestion that some evidence of interruption should have been visible after Stride’s murder. Not, might have been evident or could have been evident but should have been evident. Suggesting that it was unavoidable.

I'm not talking about your silly poll. I'm talking about the situation in the yard. You know, that evidence stuff, not some bunch of opinions.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Times taken without obvious access to a clock or a watch should automatically be given at least a + or - 5 minutes. In fact I’d even say + or - 10 minutes. I’m going to call this The Gestimate Factor and I’m going to quote this every time you attempt to tie down a guessed time to an exact one to make a point.

Eagle said that he first saw the body at around 1.00. So yes I does tie up. Spot on

Is that spot on spot on, or ...?

Times taken without obvious access to a clock or a watch should automatically be given at least a + or - 5 minutes. In fact I’d even say + or - 10 minutes. I’m going to call this The Gestimate Factor and I’m going to quote this every time you attempt to tie down a guessed time to an exact one to make a point.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes. Diemschutz returned on his horse a cart. The police might easily have checked where he’d been and the fact that he’d had his horse and cart with him. Mrs Mortimer hears the horse and cart pass her house at around the time Diemschutz said that he returned. His wife confirmed his return time and Eagle confirms what time he was first called to see the body. No issues at all. The horse and cart was there and then it wasn’t. So someone moved it further into the yard out of the way. No one bothers to mention who did this because it wasn’t relevant. There is no mystery.

You really are a True Believer

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is that spot on spot on, or ...?

Times taken without obvious access to a clock or a watch should automatically be given at least a + or - 5 minutes. In fact I’d even say + or - 10 minutes. I’m going to call this The Gestimate Factor and I’m going to quote this every time you attempt to tie down a guessed time to an exact one to make a point.

It means that when we allow for The Gestimate Factor and apply some reasonable and very understandable leeway there is no issue.

Surely you can see that we have to make an allowance for people who are estimating times? To persist in holding these people to exact times simply to highlight a minor discrepancy serves no purpose except to manufacture an issue.

Why can’t you accept this very obvious point?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why can’t you accept this very obvious point?

That's what Fanny Mortimer said

[Herlock Sholmes]

You really are a True Believer

I believe in taking an honest approach without deliberately setting out to create a mystery. It’s a matter of approach and it’s very simple.

Mr X says that he passed the corner of Berner and Fairclough at about 12 pm. Mr Y said that at about 12 pm he stood at the corner of Berner and Fairclough for a minute. Neither own a watch or saw a clock recently. Both judged the time because they saw a clock an hour or so ago. Neither were connected to any significant events and so had no known reason for lying.

My thinking would be that this is no mystery. Mr Y could have stood there at 11.58 until 11.59 while Mr X passed at 1.03. No issue.

Your way of thinking appears to be “well they both couldn’t have been there at 1.00 so one of them must have lied.

…….

You keep accusing me of being a true believer (The Marriott Defence) despite the fact that I’ve said that Stride might not have been a victim of the ripper. It’s an empty accusation as anyone can see. What would you call someone that will not accept the known fact that very few would have owned watches and clocks? What would you call someone that won’t allow a reasonable margin for error?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What would you call someone that won’t allow a reasonable margin for error?

Tell me what a reasonable margin of error is in this case ...

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 was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

How many degrees of error are we dealing with here? 180? 90? 45?

If Leon Goldstein - member of the club - wasn't coming from the club, then where TF was he coming from?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Tell me what a reasonable margin of error is in this case ...

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 was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

How many degrees of error are we dealing with here? 180? 90? 45?

If Leon Goldstein - member of the club - wasn't coming from the club, then where TF was he coming from?

Didn't Goldstein mention where he was coming from? I’m pretty sure that he did mention it somewhere. Wasn’t it a cafe?

[Herlock Sholmes]

He’d been in a coffee shop in Spectacle Alley.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

... and the caravan rolled on