Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Why do you think that there’s a ‘Ripperological Establishment’ when ripperologists spend so much time in debate and disagreement?
    As with almost any field, debate and disagreement can occur within a shared framework of beliefs.
    Those who most influence and prominently defend those shared beliefs, are reasonably referred to as the establishment.
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FrankO View Post

      Good point, Mike, but besides: why would Diemshutz want to lie about such a thing to begin with? Whatever purpose would it serve? That he hadn't, in fact, arrived in the yard on his pony cart? Or that he arrived x minutes earlier than he'd stated? That he had moved his pony & cart further down the yard earlier? That he hadn't, in fact, been the discoverer?...
      It is safer to have the body 'discovered' by someone arriving, if that arriving is associated with noise that could be supposed to have caused the murdered to flee.
      There are enough hints in Arbeter Fraint that it were Kozebrodski who discovered the body, but how would that be explained? He heard a noise, and then went out the side door and ... what? Started chasing the man? If not that then he would have to say that he heard the noise but saw no one running off, which might look a little suss.
      It's much safer for Diemschitz to say that he saw no one leave the yard, having just turned into Berner street.

      It is not necessary to suppose that anyone has done anything more wrong that tell a few harmless lies, unless further evidence points in that direction.
      Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 05-27-2021, 01:08 PM.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        As with almost any field, debate and disagreement can occur within a shared framework of beliefs.
        Those who most influence and prominently defend those shared beliefs, are reasonably referred to as the establishment.
        And as I certainly have no influence on ripperology I don’t see why I’m part of any establishment? Your implication is that I come to an opinion without consideration or assessment but purely because I’m desperate for one particular viewpoint to be upheld which simply isn’t true. I’ve even provided evidence for this; one of which is that I fully accept that Stride might not have been a ripper victim. So perhaps you could explain why after saying the above you accuse me of bending over backwards to prove that she was? Why would I go to any lengths to prove something that I’ve already said might not be the case?
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          It is safer to have the body 'discovered' by someone arriving, if that arriving is associated with noise that could be supposed to have caused the murdered to flee.
          There are enough hints in Arbeter Fraint that it were Kozebrodski who discovered the body, but how would that be explained? He heard a noise, and then went out the side door and ... what? Started chasing the man? If not that then he would have to say that he heard the noise but saw no one running off, which might look a little suss.

          It is not necessary to suppose that anyone has done anything more wrong that tell a few harmless lies, unless further evidence points in that direction.
          Assuming - for the sake or argument - that Kozebrodski was, in fact, Gilyarovski and that he did, in fact, discover the body but hadn't done anything criminal/to conceal, why not simply tell a straight story, i.e. the truth? Why go to the rather extreme lenghts you propose if there was "nothing to see". As long as he, or anyone else for that matter, didn't have any blood on his person and nobody would have seen any of them doing anything suspicious, there would be nothing to fear.

          That would, of course, all change if the police would have been able to catch anyone of them on a lie.

          It's much safer for Diemschitz to say that he saw no one leave the yard, having just turned into Berner street.
          If they would have had something to hide, then wouldn't it have been much better to have Diemshutz say that he did see someone leave the yard?
          "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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Why would anyone that values reason accept this? We have a gray area. Which is correct? We’re you there? Do you know?

            Perhaps you and Michael should re-read it?

            She said that just before 12.45 (bit vague?) she heard Smith - Smith however said that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35 - why do you dismiss a Constable on a regulated beat in favour of a woman with no reason to have logged the time?

            Also we have Michael stating as a fact that she was on her doorstep until 1.00 and yet we have her here saying that she was on her doorstep for 10 minutes from just before 12.45. So this gets her back indoors around 12.53/12.54ish. Or, if Smith was correct (and that had to be at the very least a possibility) we have her back indoors before 12.45.

            Therefore we can ask which is more likely, a) Schwartz invented his evidence as part of some ludicrous plot, or b) Fanny Mortimer was actually inside her house when Schwartz passed?

            I think that we all know the answer to that one.
            If Fanny had been on her doorstep staring at nothing and nobody, all the time BS Man was meant to be assaulting Stride in plain sight, in the presence of two male witnesses, it would have been insane for anyone to have invented the incident and the players involved, knowing that at least one real live witness was in an ideal position to say that nothing of the kind had happened.

            It stands to reason that if you are going to make up such a kerfuffle from whole cloth, you have to make it happen at a time when you know there was nobody on their doorstep watching a totally empty street for the duration.

            If you need Fanny there on her doorstep at 12.45, to take Schwartz and co out of the equation, you can't shove her back inside to miss an early arrival by Louis and his pony and cart at around the same time. She's not a figure in a weather house who emerges or goes back in at a theorist's whim.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            Last edited by caz; 05-27-2021, 03:39 PM.
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              As with almost any field, debate and disagreement can occur within a shared framework of beliefs.
              Those who most influence and prominently defend those shared beliefs, are reasonably referred to as the establishment.
              Ah, diddums, are you feeling left out?

              Ever wondered why?
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                There are many hints that Diemschitz did not go anywhere, and others did the searching.
                If that is true, what else did Diemschitz say that was false?
                That the bracelets he was knocking out that day at Westow Hill Market, were 18 carat gold?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  That report - original source unknown - when taken at face value, precludes the possibility of the Schwartz incident having occurred anywhere near 12:45. Presumably you've already accepted that?
                  That report neither proves nor disproves anything about Israel Schwartz' account. Schwartz' statement of 12:45 was an estimate. Mortimer's statement of "shortly before a quarter to one o'clock" was also an estimate. It is quite possible that Schwartz' incident occurred at 12:42 and Mortimer came to her doorway at 12:44 after Schwartz and the other people he claims to have seen had moved down the street or ducked into Dutfield's Yard.

                  The problem is people want to treat the case as a whodunnit. In a whodunnit, times are precise and correct, unless someone is engaging in deliberate deception. In real life, times are usually estimates and sometimes very poor estimates.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    It is safer to have the body 'discovered' by someone arriving, if that arriving is associated with noise that could be supposed to have caused the murdered to flee.
                    There are enough hints in Arbeter Fraint that it were Kozebrodski who discovered the body, but how would that be explained? He heard a noise, and then went out the side door and ... what? Started chasing the man? If not that then he would have to say that he heard the noise but saw no one running off, which might look a little suss.
                    It's much safer for Diemschitz to say that he saw no one leave the yard, having just turned into Berner street.

                    It is not necessary to suppose that anyone has done anything more wrong that tell a few harmless lies, unless further evidence points in that direction.
                    Arbeter Fraint said "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." There isn't the slightest hint in AF that Kozebrodski discovered the body.

                    The rest of the your post makes no sense. Kozebrodski hearing a noise in Dutfileld's Yard, discovering the body, but seeing no one running away would be perfect for the club - it points to an outsider coming into the Yard, being interrupted, then fleeing back into Berner Street. Kozebrodski and the other club members also had no way of knowing Diemschutz would be the next person to enter Dutfield's Yard, nor would they know what time Diemschutz would arrive.

                    And if Diemschutz was going to lie, then saying he saw no one is not "safer". If he was going to lie, a fictional non-clubmember exiting the Yard just as Diemschutz turned into Berner Street is a lot more useful for pointing away from the club than saying he saw no one.




                    Comment


                    • >>You mean the wife of the man I suggest lied about some details was made safe by virtue of his wifes statement? <<

                      His wife, Mila the kitchen maid, the men (plural) Diemshitz asked where his wife was when he ran inside, the people she was sitting with when he found her, Gildeman, Mortimer, Letchford's sister, the couple, you say, Mortimer saw standing on the corner, Brown and an unspecified number of Berner Street residents who may have told the police they heard or saw Diemshitz arrive, that were not reported in the newspapers.

                      And, possibly, Schwartz.


                      >> ... we already have proof lied about details that night and attacked policemen within 6 months at that very location. <<

                      Proof?

                      I'd like to see that.
                      dustymiller
                      aka drstrange

                      Comment


                      • >>There are enough hints in Arbeter Fraint that it were Kozebrodski who discovered the body ...<<<


                        "... Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body."

                        Der Arbeter Fraint" October 5, 1888.

                        Gosh, that's one hell of a subtle hint!

                        Why would a publication, specifically set up for the purpose of propaganda for the club, drop "hints" that they murdered a woman?
                        My question is retorical.
                        dustymiller
                        aka drstrange

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FrankO View Post

                          Assuming - for the sake or argument - that Kozebrodski was, in fact, Gilyarovski and that he did, in fact, discover the body but hadn't done anything criminal/to conceal, why not simply tell a straight story, i.e. the truth? Why go to the rather extreme lenghts you propose if there was "nothing to see". As long as he, or anyone else for that matter, didn't have any blood on his person and nobody would have seen any of them doing anything suspicious, there would be nothing to fear.

                          That would, of course, all change if the police would have been able to catch anyone of them on a lie.
                          What extreme lengths? The steward, pony & cart arrived very shortly after the discovery.
                          I do not suppose that he arrived at 12:40 or something radical like that. That would be confusing me with Michael Richards.
                          Do you realize how offensive doing that could be … to Michael?

                          If they would have had something to hide, then wouldn't it have been much better to have Diemshutz say that he did see someone leave the yard?
                          Not if there had been a woman standing at her doorstep at #36.
                          Inadvertently, you just made an excellent argument for supposing that Fanny's lockup and Louis' arrival, were pretty much simultaneous.
                          It should now be obvious why Diemschitz was so adamant about his exact arrival time - he needs to create a gap between the lockup and discovery.
                          This reasoning would only make more sense if the woman at #36 had seen a man leaving the yard shortly before she turned in, or nearly so.
                          Did she?
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post

                            If Fanny had been on her doorstep staring at nothing and nobody, …
                            Is this phrase 'staring at nothing and nobody', designed to create doubts about Fanny's doorstep vigils?
                            Is Fanny Mortimer a threat to established beliefs?

                            … all the time BS Man was meant to be assaulting Stride in plain sight, in the presence of two male witnesses, it would have been insane for anyone to have invented the incident and the players involved, …
                            You know the drill, Caz. The Schwartz incident "might have been over in a few seconds".

                            … knowing that at least one real live witness was in an ideal position to say that nothing of the kind had happened.
                            Knowing? How?

                            It stands to reason that if you are going to make up such a kerfuffle from whole cloth, you have to make it happen at a time when you know there was nobody on their doorstep watching a totally empty street for the duration.
                            The Star, Oct 1: The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

                            The Echo, Oct 1: 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 …

                            The so-called Schwartz incident cannot just be accepted at face value
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post

                              Ah, diddums, are you feeling left out?

                              Ever wondered why?
                              I really envy you Ripposauruses
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                                That report neither proves nor disproves anything about Israel Schwartz' account.
                                So I take it you don't take that report at face value. Congratulations.

                                Schwartz' statement of 12:45 was an estimate. Mortimer's statement of "shortly before a quarter to one o'clock" was also an estimate. It is quite possible that Schwartz' incident occurred at 12:42 and Mortimer came to her doorway at 12:44 after Schwartz and the other people he claims to have seen had moved down the street or ducked into Dutfield's Yard.
                                Have you thought through the implications of this? 12:42 would almost certainly make parcel man the murderer, or at least an accomplice to the murder.
                                So how does this man get out of the yard, unseen by Fanny? Does he leave before 12:44? Did he kill her? Does Liz then lie there leaking blood for 20 minutes, unnoticed by anyone? Does no one use the lavs in that period, or go outside for fresh air, or leave to go home?

                                On the other hand, if Schwartz' time was an estimate, then you must accept that 12:48 is just as likely as 12:42. Happy with that possibility?

                                The problem is people want to treat the case as a whodunnit. In a whodunnit, times are precise and correct, unless someone is engaging in deliberate deception. In real life, times are usually estimates and sometimes very poor estimates.
                                Move the times around all you like. 12:40 = Smith or Eagle or Lave. 12:50 = Mortimer. You can run, but you can't hide.
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X