Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by caz View Post

    If you were a good observer of human nature, Observer, you would have noticed that Iconoclast had a healthy sense of humour and was frequently self-deprecating when posting elsewhere.

    NotBlamedForNothing's posts are, by contrast, as po-faced and patronising as they come.

    I'm not sure what the point of your comparison was, as it adds nothing to this topic.
    Whatever. My sense of human nature informs me I couldn't care a fig what you think

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
      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.
      How does 'just about' translate as 'not quite' in your world?

      'Just about' is an approximation of the time and therefore an estimate, so if Mrs D was in the kitchen 'just about one o'clock', serving hot drinks, when she suddenly saw Mr D enter, then as far as she could tell he could have come in at any time between, say, 12.55 and 1.05 - and only then if she had some other way of knowing when she made the first cuppa.

      I'm not trying to argue for a specific time here; I'm saying the opposite, that it is not possible, purely from Mrs D's words, to ascertain whether it was 'not quite 1am' or just gone 1am, when she first saw her husband standing there.
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
        Caroline, that should be Orsam with a capital O.


        As orsam is stuck in his dungeon, telling lies about me, I think I could probably get away with calling him whatever I like, with a small or large initial.

        But I'm too much of a lady to do so, so orsam will do for now.

        I did like his Inquest article though. Nice to see him using his time productively for a change.

        Love,

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


        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          How does 'just about' translate as 'not quite' in your world?

          'Just about' is an approximation of the time and therefore an estimate, so if Mrs D was in the kitchen 'just about one o'clock', serving hot drinks, when she suddenly saw Mr D enter, then as far as she could tell he could have come in at any time between, say, 12.55 and 1.05 - and only then if she had some other way of knowing when she made the first cuppa.

          I'm not trying to argue for a specific time here; I'm saying the opposite, that it is not possible, purely from Mrs D's words, to ascertain whether it was 'not quite 1am' or just gone 1am, when she first saw her husband standing there.
          Hi Caz,

          This is a point that I keep making but it’s difficult to understand why any of us need to keep making it. I’ve been calling it The Gestimate Factor which is simply an allowance that has to be made when people are estimating times (especially at a time when most didn’t own watches or clocks) I’d say that it should be at least + or - 5 minutes but it could easily be slightly more. I don’t see why there’s such a resistance to this from people who are seeking to see a lie beneath every apparent discrepancy…….well, yes I do

          If 2 people said that they were at a spot at ‘about’ 1.00 and they were there for about minute but they didn’t see each other we can’t assume that one or both of them were lying. In fact we should assume error unless we have real evidence of lying.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            Would Schwartz have been tested in some manner, when shown the body?
            For example, by firstly being asked for a description. If he mentioned a flower on the breast, he would seem to be kosher.
            So then we get this …

            The Star, Oct 1: The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

            Which makes sense, if the prisoner told the partly conflicting story he seems to have.
            Yet then we get the mystery …

            The Star, Oct 2: In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

            Seems like the prisoner is a prisoner no more. What could have happened to turn the tables so quickly?
            Yet if the tables were indeed turned, would it not be Schwartz who becomes a prisoner?
            Is that why he wasn't at the inquest?
            Why would Schwartz have become the prisoner? Abberline believed he was honestly confused about who was being addressed as Lipski, which had led to the fear he was being chased by an accomplice of BS Man. If Pipeman had come forward to clear himself, he could have confirmed Abberline's understanding, that he was merely following Schwartz's example and leaving the scene of the confrontation, and had assumed BS Man had hurled the insult at Schwartz due to his strong Jewish appearance.

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


            Comment


            • Originally posted by Observer View Post

              Whatever. My sense of human nature informs me I couldn't care a fig what you think
              I wasn't just posting for your benefit, but whatever your ego wants to believe is fine by me.

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


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Hi Caz,

                This is a point that I keep making but it’s difficult to understand why any of us need to keep making it. I’ve been calling it The Gestimate Factor which is simply an allowance that has to be made when people are estimating times (especially at a time when most didn’t own watches or clocks) I’d say that it should be at least + or - 5 minutes but it could easily be slightly more. I don’t see why there’s such a resistance to this from people who are seeking to see a lie beneath every apparent discrepancy…….well, yes I do

                If 2 people said that they were at a spot at ‘about’ 1.00 and they were there for about minute but they didn’t see each other we can’t assume that one or both of them were lying. In fact we should assume error unless we have real evidence of lying.
                It's worse than that in the example I responded to, Herlock, because NBFN was trying to argue that 'just about one o'clock' can only mean 'not quite one o'clock' - as in 'before one o'clock', and that's simply wrong.

                I have no idea why anyone would want to play games like this, but it's just like Michael Richards's repeated efforts to make the Arbeter Fraint say something it didn't about when the body was discovered.

                Shifting 'just about one o'clock' backwards or forwards to suit a pet theory is not going to earn the shifter any brownie points.

                Love,

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


                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post

                  I wasn't just posting for your benefit, but whatever your ego wants to believe is fine by me.
                  Priceless haha. Ok, soldier on oh Casebook Guru.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                    He could have parked it - there or anywhere else - but he didn't. There was no separate parking action.
                    Indeed, no seperate parking action mentioned, but there is this, from the coroner himself in closing up:
                    "He was in a two-wheeled barrow drawn by a pony, and as he entered the gateway his pony shied at some object on his right. There was no lamp in the yard, and having just come out of the street it was too dark to see what the object was and he passed on further down the yard."

                    And this, from Diemshutz himself:
                    "A Juror: Could you in going up the yard have passed the body without touching it? - Oh, yes.
                    Any person going up the centre of the yard might have passed without noticing it? - I, perhaps, should not have noticed it if my pony had not shied. I had passed it when I got down from my barrow."


                    This fits quite nicely with Diemshutz's remark that he "left the pony in the yard by itself just outside the club door" (whether one wants to call it "left" or "parked" for lack of a better word), still leaving enough room for people to run out into the yard by the side door, not having to bump into the pony & cart or to squeeze between victim and cart.

                    By the way, according to Smith, her boots tucked just behind the swing of the gate.
                    You're mistaken Smith for Lamb. It was Lamb who said her feet extended just to the swing of the gate, while Morris Eagle stated they were about 6 or 7 feet from the gate. But I'll go with Lamb.

                    "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
                      Indeed, no seperate parking action mentioned, but there is this, from the coroner himself in closing up:
                      "He was in a two-wheeled barrow drawn by a pony, and as he entered the gateway his pony shied at some object on his right. There was no lamp in the yard, and having just come out of the street it was too dark to see what the object was and he passed on further down the yard."
                      So how did the coroner continue ...

                      There was no lamp in the yard, and having just come out of the street it was too dark to see what the object was and he passed on further down the yard. He returned on foot, and on searching found the body of deceased with her throat cut.

                      So the body was only located after Diemschitz returned on foot! There is not even a hint in the coroners remarks that Diemschitz first stopped by the body, and proceeded to prod it or even lift it with his whip handle.
                      Baxter could obviously see that this bit of the story was nonsense, but for some reason chose to ignore it.

                      And this, from Diemshutz himself:
                      "A Juror: Could you in going up the yard have passed the body without touching it? - Oh, yes.
                      Any person going up the centre of the yard might have passed without noticing it? - I, perhaps, should not have noticed it if my pony had not shied. I had passed it when I got down from my barrow."
                      So we could interpret this as meaning one of two things.

                      one: when Louis prodded with his whip, the pony and cart was stationary, and he was:
                      • above the body
                      • offset horizontally from the body
                      • past the body
                      Yet he somehow he manages to reach far enough that he could attempt to lift the object with the handle of his whip, and according to AF, he could tell that the object was a human!

                      two: that all this probing was occurring, in almost total darkness, while pony & cart were still moving forward!

                      Either way, I don't believe a word of it.

                      This fits quite nicely with Diemshutz's remark that he "left the pony in the yard by itself just outside the club door" (whether one wants to call it "left" or "parked" for lack of a better word), still leaving enough room for people to run out into the yard by the side door, not having to bump into the pony & cart or to squeeze between victim and cart.
                      LD: I drove into the yard. Both gates were open-wide open. It was rather dark there. I drove in as usual, but as I came into the gate my pony shied to the left, and that made me look at the ground to see what the cause of it was. I could see that there was something unusual on the pavement, but I could not see what it was. It was a dark object. I tried to feel it with the handle of my whip to discover what it was. I tried to lift it up with it. As I could not I jumped down at once and struck a match. It was rather windy, and I could only get a light sufficient to show that it was the figure of some person, whom by the dress I knew to be a woman. I took no further notice of it, but went into the club and asked where my missus was.

                      So according to this, the cart should still be right next to the body, just inside the gates.
                      Therefore the pony is only vaguely outside the club door. So now there is an obvious problem with people crowding into the yard and around the body. Diemschitz could see this, and so decided on having an each-way bet ...

                      I had passed it when I got down from my barrow.

                      He wasn't going to fool Baxter, though.

                      You're mistaken Smith for Lamb. It was Lamb who said her feet extended just to the swing of the gate, while Morris Eagle stated they were about 6 or 7 feet from the gate. But I'll go with Lamb.
                      Oops! Yes I meant Lamb.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Yet he somehow he manages to reach far enough that he could attempt to lift the object with the handle of his whip, and according to AF, he could tell that the object was a human!

                        But didn't he make this statement after he had determined that he had come across the body of a murdered woman?

                        It reminds me of the ghost shows you see on T.V. They play a voice recording which is basically incoherent. They then say doesn't this sound like blah blah blah. When they play it back you say hey it does sound like blah blah blah because you have been conditioned to think so. I think this is what is going on with Schwartz. Ultimately he knew it was a body and that influenced his retelling of his initial reaction.

                        c.d

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post

                          Why would Schwartz have become the prisoner? Abberline believed he was honestly confused about who was being addressed as Lipski, which had led to the fear he was being chased by an accomplice of BS Man. If Pipeman had come forward to clear himself, he could have confirmed Abberline's understanding, that he was merely following Schwartz's example and leaving the scene of the confrontation, and had assumed BS Man had hurled the insult at Schwartz due to his strong Jewish appearance.
                          That question comes after considering; why was the prisoner released?

                          If the prisoner's story was not wholly believed, he may well have placed himself at the scene.
                          Yet if this was Pipeman, and a fundamental element of his story differed from a fundamental element of Schwartz' story, then he is going to come under great suspicion, if Schwartz was initially completely believed.
                          So what is the first piece of evidence for the prisoner being Pipeman? As I've pointed to a few times already, it is the absence of Pipeman's description from the Police Gazette October 19. Pipeman was only a wanted man for a very short period.
                          Schwartz made it clear enough to Abberline that BS & Pm were communicating in regard to Schwartz being on the scene, notwithstanding any attempt by Abberline to steer Schwartz in another direction.
                          To make this collusion between BS & Pm absolutely clear, Schwartz made three changes to the story, when talking to the Star:
                          • the clay pipe becomes a knife
                          • Knifeman approaches 'the intruder' much more aggressively
                          • Knifeman yells a warning to BS Man, rather than the other way around (which implies Schwartz had at least some grasp of English)
                          Actually four changes, if we include the changed initial position of the second man - moved from across the road from the yard, to the Nelson beerhouse corner. This change, not coincidently, makes the story more compatible with the story told by Wess to the Echo reporter, about a witnessed chase down Fairclough street, for which we have zero other reports. On the contrary, Edward Spooner undermined the chase story, when asked by a jury member if he had come across any other men between his position on Fairclough street, and Berner street …

                          I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner-street, except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay when he heard the policeman's whistle. He came running after me.

                          There was no chase, and soon enough Leman street recognized that was the case, and that the prisoner had a cast iron alibi.
                          Consequently, "the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story".
                          Yet it cannot possibly be that "they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts". Someone is telling the truth, and someone is lying. The prisoner has been freed, so that leaves Schwartz the new prisoner, who "has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted."
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Yet he somehow he manages to reach far enough that he could attempt to lift the object with the handle of his whip, and according to AF, he could tell that the object was a human!

                            Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                            But didn't he make this statement after he had determined that he had come across the body of a murdered woman?
                            AF: He noticed a black object on the ground. He touched it with his whip and felt that it was a body.
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                              Either way, I don't believe a word of it.
                              Impressive, Andrew. I deliver the evidence that Diemshutz did, in fact, state that he passed the body with his cart & pony and you manage to make it into yet 'another mystery'.

                              Of course, it's your prorogative not to believe a word of Diemshutz's statements, but I think you're a tad too difficult about it.

                              Until you come up with something (good &) better, I believe that Diemshutz entered the gateway on his pony cart, that his pony shied to the left, that Diemshutz proded the 'heap' with his whip to discover what it was but couldn't while his cart was in a position from where he was able to do that, that he moved the cart another bit until it was past the 'heap', then jumped off and took a few steps to where he knew the 'heap' was, struck a match and could see that it was the figure of a woman before the wind blew out the flame.
                              "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
                                Impressive, Andrew. I deliver the evidence that Diemshutz did, in fact, state that he passed the body with his cart & pony and you manage to make it into yet 'another mystery'.

                                Of course, it's your prorogative not to believe a word of Diemshutz's statements, but I think you're a tad too difficult about it.

                                Until you come up with something (good &) better, I believe that Diemshutz entered the gateway on his pony cart, that his pony shied to the left, that Diemshutz proded the 'heap' with his whip to discover what it was but couldn't while his cart was in a position from where he was able to do that, that he moved the cart another bit until it was past the 'heap', then jumped off and took a few steps to where he knew the 'heap' was, struck a match and could see that it was the figure of a woman before the wind blew out the flame.
                                These points become more and more bizarre Frank. Everything is ‘mysterious.’ It appears that simple explanations are just too boring to be true. When witnesses make statements they only mention things that are relevant to the situation and nothing is less relevant than the horse and cart. You’re explanation is almost certainly what happened. The fact that he doesn’t specifically mention moving the horse and cart on and that no one else mentions it is more furtive ground for the implanting of a mystery. No one mentions the horse and cart because very obviously it wasn’t left next to the body. It was irrelevant to the unfolding events. This is another non-mystery.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X