Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Apologies the Edward Spooner quote did not paste:

    "On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public- house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Renascor View Post
      I'm new to the Casebook forum so please bear with me. I've recently read Tom Wescott's excellent Ripper Confidential book. It strikes me as strange that Israel Schwartz was absent from the area on September 29th while his wife spent the day moving from Berner Street to their new home in Ellen Street. I would have thought that moving house would be something a husband would be actively involved in. Unless, perhaps, he was at work. Any idea why he was not helping with the move?
      Welcome to Casebook Renascor,

      I don’t think that we know why he wasn’t helping with the move but I’m guessing that your suggestion is likely to be correct. Bosses weren’t so amenable in those days so perhaps he just wasn’t allowed time off.

      Regards

      Herlock



      Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

        Just a low tolerance for Rebuttal 101 and Reality avoidance.

        Lamb said he saw 2 men at 1:00 in the street...gee, didnt Louis say he arrived at 1am?....it was Eagle and Issac k he went into the yard with, Issac says he saw Eagle returning to the yard with a constable just after 1...gee, isnt it impossible for Eagle to be returning at 1:00 if Louis didnt discover the body until just after 1?....gee, doesnt Lamb say a few other people were gathered there just after 1am, so why did they gather before Louis arrived? So...Why did Eagle leave before 1am for help? Why did Issac K say he left alone to find help at 12:40 and saw Eagle on his return just after 1? How did Louis arrive at 1 when Fanny is at her door and for the five minutes leading up to 1 she sees only Goldstein pass at 12:55-56?

        Why do 4 friggin people state that they, along with others, were alerted to the dying woman from 12:35 to 12:45?

        You cited Lamb many times, yet its very, very clear that his story fits precisely with Issac K...who said he went for help around 12:40.

        The ridiculousness of you argument is concrete placed on the sea....it sinks without any effort.

        Louis is ON RECORD saying he arrived "precisely" at 1 because he checked the clock on his way in, yet many, many people say they knew of the body and saw Louis there well before 1am and Fanny saw no cart and horse arrive "precisely"at 1..she was standing right there.

        I cant argue the same idiocy over and over again, so just post your Rebuttal 101 amatuer spin on fact interpretation and lets just move on so it can be forgotten.
        More personal insults. What a surprise.

        WHY DO YOU IGNORE THE FACT THAT SPOONER SAID THAT HE ARRIVED AT THE YARD 5 MINUTES BEFORE LAMB?

        Regards

        Herlock



        Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by michael w richards View Post

          when you use the vast majority of witness timings and only witness accounts that are corroborative and without pre-"conspiring" to have them appear that way, ridiculous and unworkable actually become the contrasting ideas, not the mirrors reflection of a 12:40-12:45 ish discovery. So...actually the polar opposite of your disparaging remarks.

          When witnesses claim to hear something and see nothing is one thing, to then to state a "whistle" sound belonged to this policeman at this location is absurd. Someone heard a cart and horse, someone heard a whistle, and people like yourselve make that into specific people doing specific actions in specific directions. Which again, is ludicrous. Sounds are notoriously difficult to pinpoint an original source without visuals, but of course, you know that and just play this part to be insulting.

          Israel scwrzt did not haveanything to offer in the question of how liz stride dies by virtue of his absence in all forms at the inquest into that very question. His statements contents make his ommission unthinkable..unless of course it was also a lie or unprovable. Like louis arriving at "precisely" 1.

          Spooners description of whe he left the pub, how they walked to the beehive and how long he was there before he saw 2 jews...he never said he saw louis, or morris, he said 2 jews, and we know by virtue of issac ks remarksthat he also was out looking for a cop around 12;40-12-45...is perfectly compatible with his estimation he saw those men well before 1am.

          You and some others argue a baseball is square and suggest a football is actually round...you claim something that is easily proven incorrect. Your beliefs taint your own intellect i guess.

          Louis provably did not arrive "precisely" at 1am. Issac k did not accompany louis, despite all those who suggest issacs was actually issac k. Not one witness corroborates eagles return time, louis's return time, or israel schwartzs statement. Which since he is known to have been friends with wess, isnt complicated to understand. A dead woman suddenly is alive again outside the gates after the last time she is actually seen alive, and is attacked by an anti semite now no less....which is very fortunate for the club, because she is found dead on a property populated at that time by only jews. So only jews and on thier property...vs an antisemite, off the grounds. And you dont see how that is a relief to the club?

          The evidence as far as witnesses is concerned is overwhelmingly in favour of an arrival time of louis by, or before 12:45. No other stories have any kind of second party verification. None.

          But claim you know the real story...go ahead. Its your thang.
          why do you keep ignoring the fact that spooner said ghat he arrived at the yard 5 minutes before lamb?
          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 03-03-2021, 11:07 PM.
          Regards

          Herlock



          Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by michael w richards View Post

            its not rocket science....when you have 4 people that give independant accounts of one thing and all agree on virtually all pertinent details....and you then are asked to compare them with individual accounts that are all without any second hand verification or corroboration to see whom to believe, the balance of belief should be the opposite to what people like herlock and caz claim.
            why do you keep ignoring the fact that spooner said that he arrived at the yard 5 minutes before lamb?

            Regards

            Herlock



            Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

            Comment


            • We can all plainly see that Michael will not answer this very simple question and every single poster here knows why. It’s because it’s at the heart of Michael’s methodology which is biased and selective. Rather than consider the part that can be measured against something else he prefers to believe that a man is more likely to mistake 5 minutes for 25 than it is for him to have made an error of estimation on multiple varied events. You couldn’t make it up. Well, obviously Michael does make things up. He’s based a theory it. One entirely based on his point blank refusal to accept that witnesses without watches can make timing errors. Evidence should be assessed. Micheal just looks at evidence and selects the parts that he likes. Mortimer is a case in point. Michael refuses point blank to consider that Smith might have been correct about the time he passed. Why? Because it doesn’t fit the script.

              How many times do we have to hear this obsessive quoting of the word ‘precisely’ from Diemschutz? FrankO applied reason to this ages ago. Diemschutz saw the clock at 1.00. He knew that his journey from the clock to the yard took less than a minute. Ergo he got to the yard at 1.00. So what if it might actually have been 1.01? It’s completely irrelevant. It’s conspiracy thinking gone mad. Even a toddler could grasp this point. Michael can too of course but he deliberately ignores this entirely logical explanation because in his world it means that Diemschutz lied and so if he lied....blah blah.

              Diemschutz said 1.00. Eagle first saw the body at 1.00. Gilleman informed him of it at 1.00. Lamb confirms this time. Hoschberg, one of Michael’s Berner Street Four gang said that he got the yard at 12.45. Obviously Michael totally ignores the fact that he said ‘about’ and ‘I should think’ which mean that he was estimating. He wasn’t going by a clock. It was a guess and guess what Michael guesses can be wrong. Oh and he heard a policeman’s whistle. Did a policeman blow his whistle? Yes he did. It was Lamb and it was after 1.00 and Hoschberg got there when there was already a crowd in the yard. Obvious deduction...he was mistaken. Simple as that.

              After 10 years or so of this dishonest theory the fact that no one agrees with it doesn’t deter Michael. He’s right and everyone else is wrong. I’m not talking about myself but all of those researchers and writers who have looked into the case. Scrutinising every theory. They’ve looked at Michael’s theory and said ‘no.’ Why, because it’s utter nonsense from start to finish and everyone but Michael can see it. Theories are fine. Opinions are fine. But they shouldn’t be stated as facts. In some hands theories are dangerous because they become obsessional. They protect them at all costs. They cherrypick evidence and shoehorn theories into place then batter them like a square peg into a round hole. It does the subject no credit and it’s tiresome. Its like discussing evolution with a Young Earth Creationist. You could take them back in a time machine and show them the dinosaurs but they’d still refuse to believe you. This is Michael I’m afraid. A Ripperological Flat Earther.
              Regards

              Herlock



              Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

              Comment


              • Let’s look at Spooner’s statement and weigh up what’s likeliest to have been correct.

                Between half-past 12 and 1 o’clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman.
                Well this is pretty vague for a start for a man who estimated a time of 12.35 for the time that he’d arrived at the yard. Why didn’t he just say ‘at around 12.30 I was standing....etc?’ Why does he give himself the half an hours leeway? This points to a real uncertainty about the time.

                I had previously been in another beershop at the top of the street, and afterwards walked down.
                This doesn’t tell us much of course. He doesn’t say that he left the pub at closing time which he might have mentioned as he mentions closing times later on. We also don’t know if that woman was with him at the time.

                After talking for about 25 minutes I saw two Jews come running along and shouting out “Murder” and “Police.”
                So he was talking for 25 minutes but we don’t know when this 25 began. We also know for a fact the Spooner didn’t have a watch so this 25 minutes was another estimate.

                I stood at the top of the street for about five minutes, and then 25 minutes outside the publichouse.
                So an estimated 5 minutes then an estimated 25 minutes chatting to a girl. Has anyone ever lost track of time when talking to someone?

                The only means I had of fixing the time was by the closing of the publichouses.
                Firstly we have to notice that the sentence is not a positive one (like ‘I could fix the time by the closing of the pubs) He’s saying it to show that this was the only method that he had for estimating the time and that he couldn’t be answerable to his accuracy. We also notice here that he doesn’t say ‘the pub closing time..’ He’s not specifically talking about the pub that he’d been in he’s talking about pub closing times in general so it’s very possible that he was talking about the Beehive. Was he paying attention to the pub whilst talking to the woman? Why would he? He wasn’t inside The Beehive so how does he get to his estimate? Maybe he saw the lights go off? How then could he have been sure that after the customers had left the staff hadn’t spent 20 minutes cleaning up before lights out? Might he not have seen some people leaving the pub and assumed that it was chucking out time?

                Then after he’d arrived at the yard.....

                . No one touched the body. One of them struck a match, and I lifted up the chin of the deceased with my hand. The
                Seen by Mrs Mortimer after 1.00?

                I stood there about five minutes before a constable came. It was the last witness who first arrived.
                The previous witness was PC Lamb of course and it was him that Spooner saw arrive. Lamb said that he’d been alerted to the crime “At about 1.00 as near as I can tell.” So obviously a very few minutes later is no issue but he also said:

                . Dr. Blackwell, about ten minutes after I got there, was the first doctor to arrive.
                So by using Blackwell, who did have a watch, we can be certain that Lamb got to the yard sometime very close to 1.05. And...5 minutes before 1.05 is.....12.35, only joking.....it’s 1.00.

                ......

                And so which is the most likely to have been correct? An estimate based on the vagaries of pub closing times, guesses on standing times, walking times and talking times.

                or

                An estimate based on the arrival of a police officer (who are generally pretty aware of the time due to their beats) which is confirmed by a Doctor with a watch. It’s also confirmed by Diemschutz and pal running past shouting (heard and confirmed by James Brown) and Mrs Mortimer (after 1.00)

                ....

                Can anyone doubt which one was overwhelmingly likely to have been correct? Correct beyond reasonable doubt?

                12.35 or 1.00?

                I’d say that it’s obvious.









                Regards

                Herlock



                Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  How many times do we have to hear this obsessive quoting of the word ‘precisely’ from Diemschutz? FrankO applied reason to this ages ago. Diemschutz saw the clock at 1.00. He knew that his journey from the clock to the yard took less than a minute. Ergo he got to the yard at 1.00. So what if it might actually have been 1.01? It’s completely irrelevant. T
                  " I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street"

                  I refer to that because it what he said Herlock, no matter how you or Franko choose to accept or interpret it. Its no assembly required...its a verbatim quoute from the direct source. And it is a provably incorrect arrival time.

                  So, you can estimate this and that all you like to see if you personally can believe him, but what he said is provably incorrect. Which lead to one of 2 answers, he "estimated" incorrectly accidentally, or not.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    " I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street"

                    I refer to that because it what he said Herlock, no matter how you or Franko choose to accept or interpret it. Its no assembly required...its a verbatim quoute from the direct source. And it is a provably incorrect arrival time.

                    So, you can estimate this and that all you like to see if you personally can believe him, but what he said is provably incorrect. Which lead to one of 2 answers, he "estimated" incorrectly accidentally, or not.
                    But it’s not provably incorrect. Why can’t you understand this? His thinking is obvious. He sees that the time was 1.00 by the clock. He would have driven his cart down that street countless times so he’d know within seconds how long it took. And so if he knew that it took him under a minute then he gets to the yard when it’s still 1.00. What’s wrong with this? Absolutely nothing unless you are assuming that when someone says “I arrived at 1.00,” then they mean that they arrived at the exact second that the hand clicked onto the 1.

                    Your interpretation of this doesn’t make a shred of sense. You must be the only person in the world that would believe this Michael. It displays a desperation to manufacture evidence of deception. There’s not a single thing wrong with what Diemschutz said about his arrival time.

                    We might even say this about that particular quote from Diemschutz...

                    . and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning
                    Note that he just says....returned. Which we can take to mean ‘returned to his destination - the yard.’ So, as per this particular quote, he might have seen the clock at 12.59 and judged that it would have been 1.00 by the time that he’d arrived at the yard.

                    Either way, there’s just no issue with anything Diemschutz said.
                    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 03-04-2021, 01:28 PM.
                    Regards

                    Herlock



                    Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                      " I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street"

                      I refer to that because it what he said Herlock, no matter how you or Franko choose to accept or interpret it. Its no assembly required...its a verbatim quoute from the direct source. And it is a provably incorrect arrival time.

                      So, you can estimate this and that all you like to see if you personally can believe him, but what he said is provably incorrect. Which lead to one of 2 answers, he "estimated" incorrectly accidentally, or not.
                      Michael what exactly is your theory? Am I right in thinking it is a cover up at the club? Insofar as a member committed the crime(not the Ripper) and Diemschitz and others covered it up? They found the body at 12:45am and came up with a story to divert attention. Schwartz was key to this.

                      Comment


                      • IF there was some kind of club conspiracy (and there wasnt) but if there was, their first inclination would be to get rid of the body(they even had a cart!) and keep their mouths shut and play dumb. not leave the body there and come up with some convoluted plan which they would all have to remember and talk to police about! lol

                        the club conspiracy idea is nonsense on the face of it.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                          Louis provably did not arrive "precisely" at 1am. Issac K did not accompany Louis, despite all those who suggest Issacs was actually Issac K. Not one witness corroborates Eagles return time, Louis's return time, or Israel Schwartzs statement. Which since he is known to have been friends with Wess, isnt complicated to understand. A dead woman suddenly is alive again outside the gates after the last time she is actually seen alive, and is attacked by an anti semite now no less....which is very fortunate for the club, because she is found dead on a property populated at that time by ONLY Jews. So Only Jews and on thier property...vs An antisemite, off the grounds. And you dont see how that is a relief to the Club?
                          Remind me where Schwartz himself claimed that Stride was 'attacked by an anti semite'.

                          I do hope you are not making this up, Michael, after Jeff Hamm among others took great pains over a year ago, to explain that this was just the interpretation put on his words by others, while his own account claimed the exact opposite, and involved two Jews, BS and Pipeman, appearing to be in cahoots.

                          I've rarely seen such a stubborn and public state of denial, as I see in your posts on this subject. Quite incredible.
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            In case its still not clear....it appears that Louis arrived before 12:45, summoned people to the body and sent some for help, he then stood around with the other people gathered until just after 1, when he and Eagle finally go for help in different directions.
                            It may 'appear' like that to you, Michael, as white appears black. But in light of other observations you have made to support your funny little Jewish conspiracy theory, that doesn't fill me with any confidence.
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              But it’s not provably incorrect. Why can’t you understand this? His thinking is obvious. He sees that the time was 1.00 by the clock. He would have driven his cart down that street countless times so he’d know within seconds how long it took. And so if he knew that it took him under a minute then he gets to the yard when it’s still 1.00. What’s wrong with this? Absolutely nothing unless you are assuming that when someone says “I arrived at 1.00,” then they mean that they arrived at the exact second that the hand clicked onto the 1.

                              Your interpretation of this doesn’t make a shred of sense. You must be the only person in the world that would believe this Michael. It displays a desperation to manufacture evidence of deception. There’s not a single thing wrong with what Diemschutz said about his arrival time.

                              We might even say this about that particular quote from Diemschutz...



                              Note that he just says....returned. Which we can take to mean ‘returned to his destination - the yard.’ So, as per this particular quote, he might have seen the clock at 12.59 and judged that it would have been 1.00 by the time that he’d arrived at the yard.

                              Either way, there’s just no issue with anything Diemschutz said.
                              Your problem is that you evidently believe that a cart and horse and driver coming up cobblestoned streets would not be recognizable or heard by a woman standing at her door to that street. She didnt go back in until just after 1. So if he arrives without being seen by Fanny, then its 1:03-1:05, after she is inside. How does that work with Lamb being notified by Eagle and still being in the yard just after 1? Why do all these other witnesses then believe they were notified 20 minutes before that time?

                              You and others argue that a minute or two is acceptable with the witnesses you choose to believe, all of who have zero corroberation for the key points within their statements..Louis, Morris, Israel.... but errors of 20 minutes cannot be aceptable by witnesses you dont like even if 4 individual witnesses gave the same times and events?

                              the fgact you dont see how nonsensical your position is quite frankly disturbs me. Anyone should be able to do math, and estimate how much time is required to accpomplish tasks.

                              For example, if Louis didnt arrive until 1:03 or :04, the Lamb is made incorrect, all those 4 witnesses are incorrect, and Louis would not have been leaving for help until 1:05-1:10. When Johnson arrives. And after Eagle says he returned.

                              Your times quite simply dont work. And you dont see that huh? Hmm.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                                Remind me where Schwartz himself claimed that Stride was 'attacked by an anti semite'.

                                I do hope you are not making this up, Michael, after Jeff Hamm among others took great pains over a year ago, to explain that this was just the interpretation put on his words by others, while his own account claimed the exact opposite, and involved two Jews, BS and Pipeman, appearing to be in cahoots.

                                I've rarely seen such a stubborn and public state of denial, as I see in your posts on this subject. Quite incredible.
                                Lipski. Known to be a slur towards Jews ever since the name got infamous. Since your not a child and know this yourself, I wonder why you would then pretend not to?
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X