Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    So you’re suggesting a question based on an assumption for which we have no evidence?
    Ignoring evidence is not the same as there being no evidence. That is a distinction many people here fail to recognize.

    The evidence includes the fact that the both the laneway and footway were stony hard ground. Neither were made of dirt, and therefore neither turned to mud when it rained. Stride was found to be very muddy down her left side. A statement was made to the police indicating that the murdered woman had been thrown to the ground. Putting two and two together, suggests that it was during this assault that Stride ended up muddy.
    The evidence from this statement also includes the witnesses response to the assault - it was thought to be a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it. No running away, or chasing away another man.
    This evidence alone, is enough to cast severe doubt on the statement given by Schwartz.

    So what difference does it make when we consider that you personally cannot think of a reason for Schwartz lying? Nothing. Or mentioning that Abberline was experienced? Nothing. The evidence remains the same.

    Now as to where and when the assault did happen, there is not much to go on. However, we know from the testimony of William Marshall that Stride and a male companion did walk into Ellen street at about midnight. Marshall gave a description of the man to the coroner. This description is fairly similar to the description Schwartz gave of his first man (build, cap, clothing). It is even closer when using the age given in the assault statement. Schwartz gave the address 22 Ellen street to Abberline - presumably his new address. When all this is considered together, I think it reasonable to suppose that the assault may have taken place in or close to Ellen street.

    The only reason that we have to place any doubt against Schwartz is a) The Star interview, where it’s hardly a stretch of the imagination to suggest that any small differences might have been down to errors of interpretation or Press exaggeration, and b) the fact that no one else appeared to have seen the incident. An incident that couldn’t have taken more than a very few seconds with Stride ‘screaming’ but not very loudly. It’s was hardly a full scale riot or a marching band.
    This ignores several things, including the unlikeliness of Schwartz' story, the instability of the story, the secretary of the club implicating Schwartz implicitly, and the prisoner situation at Leman street. All of these things have to be dealt with, and not swept under the carpet as is commonplace here.

    The 'over in a few seconds' claim is compete nonsense, and the actual timespan is in some ways irrelevant - how long does it take to hear someone shout 'Lipski'?

    By the way, screaming but not very loudly is an oxymoron. This was a blatant attempt by Schwartz to explain why no one heard the cries.

    Schwartz could have been mistaken in that the confrontation between BS Man and Stride might not have been as violent a confrontation as he first thought. His timid nature might have caused him to assume more aggression than was actually present.
    He was not bothered by the first man's aggression. He (supposedly) ran from a man smoking a pipe.

    Maybe it wasn’t Stride that he saw? But we have no reason to doubt that he was where he was, when he said that was (give or take a reasonable amount of time) and that he pretty much saw what he said that he did or that he reported what he thought that he saw. To dismiss him we need for, far more and we just don’t have it.
    We don't have it because we have our heads in the sand.

    DT: A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

    FM: A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

    This and other related evidence doesn't go away, because we refuse to look at it.
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

      Ignoring evidence is not the same as there being no evidence. That is a distinction many people here fail to recognize.

      The evidence includes the fact that the both the laneway and footway were stony hard ground. Neither were made of dirt, and therefore neither turned to mud when it rained. Stride was found to be very muddy down her left side. A statement was made to the police indicating that the murdered woman had been thrown to the ground. Putting two and two together, suggests that it was during this assault that Stride ended up muddy.

      Take an average Whitechapel street, add some rain, then lie down. I guarantee that you would end up dirty/muddy. I really can’t see the issue here.

      The evidence from this statement also includes the witnesses response to the assault - it was thought to be a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it. No running away, or chasing away another man.
      This evidence alone, is enough to cast severe doubt on the statement given by Schwartz.

      Not even close. Firstly, although we don’t know who these other witnesses that witnessed the quarrel were, why are ‘some’ still claiming that this incident never happened. The fact that it was thought to be a simple quarrel reinforces Schwartz statement that she screamed but not very loudly. Which makes it understandable how some might not have heard it (like Fanny Mortimer)

      If they didn’t see anything that might have been considered a chase then it was because it seemed like a simple quarrel and they didn’t bother watching the whole incident.


      So what difference does it make when we consider that you personally cannot think of a reason for Schwartz lying? Nothing. Or mentioning that Abberline was experienced? Nothing. The evidence remains the same.

      Because I can’t think of a reason for lying is irrelevant of course. And you’re correct that the evidence remains the same - weak and imaginary.

      Now as to where and when the assault did happen, there is not much to go on.

      We know exactly. Schwartz told us. Mystery solved.

      However, we know from the testimony of William Marshall that Stride and a male companion did walk into Ellen street at about midnight. Marshall gave a description of the man to the coroner. This description is fairly similar to the description Schwartz gave of his first man (build, cap, clothing). It is even closer when using the age given in the assault statement. Schwartz gave the address 22 Ellen street to Abberline - presumably his new address. When all this is considered together, I think it reasonable to suppose that the assault may have taken place in or close to Ellen street.

      Complete and utter fantasy. Absolutely baseless. Why the hell would he change the location? Are there no lengths that you won’t go to to manufacture a mystery.

      This ignores several things, including the unlikeliness of Schwartz' story,

      It’s not remotely unlikely. A cover-up of club members - now that’s unlikely!

      the instability of the story,

      Slight variations in a newspaper article…..the very thought!

      the secretary of the club implicating Schwartz implicitly,

      Relating what he’d heard on the grapevine.

      and the prisoner situation at Leman street.

      What situation? Have I missed another thing that you’ve made up?

      All of these things have to be dealt with, and not swept under the carpet as is commonplace here.

      They’ve been dealt with but you keep following up with further waves of fantasy. You haven’t put the slightest dent in the version of events that we have.

      The 'over in a few seconds' claim is compete nonsense, and the actual timespan is in some ways irrelevant - how long does it take to hear someone shout 'Lipski'?

      It could have taken 15 seconds. Do you have a voice recording of the shout ‘Lipski?’ How loud was it? Are you still coming from the angle of ‘if one person hears something then everyone should have heard it.

      By the way, screaming but not very loudly is an oxymoron. This was a blatant attempt by Schwartz to explain why no one heard the cries.

      Or it was a foreigner speaking via an interpreter who was also a foreigner who just used the word ‘screamed’ where someone with a better command of the language might have used a more appropriate word. Are you really trying to suggest that he said ‘screamed’ and then immediately realising that he was jeopardising the plot added ‘not very loudly?’ How can you use the word ‘blatant, with honesty?

      He was not bothered by the first man's aggression. He (supposedly) ran from a man smoking a pipe.

      We don’t know what kind of person Schwartz was? He might have been the timid kind who just panicked when Pipeman walked in his direction immediately after the incident.

      We don't have it because we have our heads in the sand.

      I know where you have your head but I won’t say it on here. There’s no mystery. You are deliberately attempting to manufacture one for whatever personal motivations that you have. Pointless nitpicking. Conspiracist fantasy.

      DT: A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

      FM: A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

      This and other related evidence doesn't go away, because we refuse to look at it.

      Let me think…..errrr……mmmmm…..well………they got there time wrong.

      Schwartz saw an incident when he said that he did and where he said that he did. He may have mistaken the substance/intent of the incident. The police took him seriously as a witness. Louis Diemschutz discovered the body of Liz Stride in Dutfield’s Yard at 1.00 (although it might actually have been 1.01) He and others went looking for a Constable. Stride might or might not have been a ripper victim. BS man might or might not have been her killer. He could have been her killer but not the ripper. We have no way of knowing.

      Everything factual points to the above. All else is a deliberate invention by conspiracists obsessed with creating mystery where none exist.
      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 NotBlamedForNothing View Post
        We don't have it because we have our heads in the sand.
        Well, at least our heads aren't buried in the mud. Or, maybe mine is.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
          This ignores several things, including the unlikeliness of Schwartz' story, the instability of the story, the secretary of the club implicating Schwartz implicitly, and the prisoner situation at Leman street. All of these things have to be dealt with, and not swept under the carpet as is commonplace here.
          There are multiple versions of what Schwartz said - is that what you mean by the "instability of the story"?

          There are multiple version of Fanny Mortimer's story as well.

          "A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard the pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband." - 1 October 1888 Daily News

          "Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy, says: I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the clubhouse, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gates with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe anyone enter the gates. It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School. I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound." - 1 October 1888 Daily News

          ""I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife.

          "Then I see a sight that turned me all sick and cold. There was the murdered woman a-lying on her side, with her throat cut across till her head seemed to be hanging by a bit of skin. Her legs was drawn up under her, and her head and the upper part of her body was soaked in blood. She was dressed in black as if she was in mourning for somebody.

          "Did you hear no sound of quarrelling, no cry for help?" I asked.

          "Nothing of the sort, sir. I should think I must have heard it if the poor creature screamed at all, for I hadn't long come in from the door when I was roused, as I tell you, by that call for the police. But that was from the people as found the body. Mr. Lewis, who travels in cheap drapery things a bit now and again, had just drove into the yard when his horse shied at something that was lying in the corner. He thought 'twas a bundle of some kind till he got down from his cart and struck a light. Then he saw what it was and gave the alarm."

          "Was the street quiet at the time?"

          "Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club. There was music and dancing going on there at the very time that that poor creature was being murdered at their very door, as one may say."

          " I suppose you did not notice a man and woman pass down the street while you were at the door?"

          "No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had. Particularly if they'd been strangers, at that time o' night. 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."

          "Did you observe him closely, or notice anything in his appearance?"

          "No, I didn't pay particular attention to him. He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club., A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially.
          "" - 1 October 1888 Evening News

          These accounts contradict each other on several points - when she went to her door, how long she was at her door, whether she saw anyone leave Dutfield's Yard, what direction the man with the black bag was going. And Fanny Mortimer was speaking to the press without a language barrier or an interpreter. Yet you don't claim Fanny Mortimer's story had "instability.

          The club secretary did not implicate Schwartz.

          And you've shown no indication that prisoner situation at Leman street has anything to do with the credibility of Schwartz' statements or his likelihood as a suspect.


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            Take an average Whitechapel street, add some rain, then lie down. I guarantee that you would end up dirty/muddy. I really can’t see the issue here.
            Michael can guarantee it. Relief for Schwartz supporters.

            Not even close. Firstly, although we don’t know who these other witnesses that witnessed the quarrel were, why are ‘some’ still claiming that this incident never happened. The fact that it was thought to be a simple quarrel reinforces Schwartz statement that she screamed but not very loudly. Which makes it understandable how some might not have heard it (like Fanny Mortimer)
            Why didn't Reid's men locate these witnesses? Conspiracy of silence?
            Throwing a woman onto hard ground, amounts to more than a quarrel. There is no reason to suppose Stride kept her voice down when this occurred.

            If they didn’t see anything that might have been considered a chase then it was because it seemed like a simple quarrel and they didn’t bother watching the whole incident.
            Or run away frightened. Schwartz lied.

            Complete and utter fantasy. Absolutely baseless. Why the hell would he change the location? Are there no lengths that you won’t go to to manufacture a mystery.
            Schwartz changing the location is the other side of the coin to Wess stating that the man pursued was regarded as the murderer.
            If the chase and witnesses to it were both real, how do you know they were incorrect? It's multiple witnesses versus one man with a very questionable and changing story. Common sense says we should go with the multiple witnesses.

            We don’t know what kind of person Schwartz was? He might have been the timid kind who just panicked when Pipeman walked in his direction immediately after the incident.
            Schwartz was a good, honest, hard working family man. Civic-minded. Kind to children and animals. Handsome too!

            Let me think…..errrr……mmmmm…..well………they got there time wrong.
            Let me think = let me explain this away
            If they got the time wrong, who did James Brown see at the board school corner, at 12:45?

            Everything factual points to the above. All else is a deliberate invention by conspiracists obsessed with creating mystery where none exist.
            No one appreciates the permanent mystery, like a Jack the Ripper enthusiast.
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

              There are multiple versions of what Schwartz said - is that what you mean by the "instability of the story"?
              Yes. Including the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest, there were three versions.

              These accounts contradict each other on several points - when she went to her door, how long she was at her door, whether she saw anyone leave Dutfield's Yard, what direction the man with the black bag was going. And Fanny Mortimer was speaking to the press without a language barrier or an interpreter. Yet you don't claim Fanny Mortimer's story had "instability.
              Because there is no instability. However there is plenty of incompetence displayed in their interpretation.

              The club secretary did not implicate Schwartz.
              His informer implicated the man pursued. Who was the man pursued?

              And you've shown no indication that prisoner situation at Leman street has anything to do with the credibility of Schwartz' statements or his likelihood as a suspect.
              Tell me about Pipeman not being on the apprehensions sought list, of the Police Gazette, Oct 19...
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • .
                Why didn't Reid's men locate these witnesses? Conspiracy of silence?
                Throwing a woman onto hard ground, amounts to more than a quarrel. There is no reason to suppose Stride kept her voice down when this occurred
                Isn’t it possible that he did find them but record of what was actually said hasn’t survived?

                Someone can end up on the floor as a result of horseplay. It’s far from impossible that BS Man was simply a drunk (and Schwartz did say that he appeared to have been under the influence) Perhaps he tried to get he to go with him by pulling her but she resisted and fell over? The ‘screaming but not very loudly’ might have been little more than Liz saying ‘now look what you’ve done.’ The fact that she didn’t scream loudly at least points to the possibility that she felt under no threat. They man called ‘Lipski’ might simply have been saying ‘get lost you nosey ……’ If Schwartz was the timid type he might have misinterpreted the incident as a more serious one than it actually was. I’m not staring this as a fact but I think that it’s certainly a possibility.

                But any interpretation is more likely than ‘Schwartz just made the whole thing up.’
                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


                • . Or run away frightened. Schwartz lied.
                  Yet again you’re allowing your conspiracist imagination gallup on ahead of you by stating your opinion as a fact. Not for the first time either.
                  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


                  • . Schwartz changing the location is the other side of the coin to Wess stating that the man pursued was regarded as the murderer.
                    If the chase and witnesses to it were both real, how do you know they were incorrect? It's multiple witnesses versus one man with a very questionable and changing story. Common sense says we should go with the multiple witnesses
                    Not even close. Schwartz had no reason to change the location and would have been a moron if he’d done so. Wess was simply relating what he’d heard. Why do you have such a problem with that? It’s a complete non-issue.

                    Im afraid that common sense rarely rests its head in your thinking Andrew. It’s ‘I need a conspiracy…..now where can I find one?’

                    The answer is…..not in Berner Street.
                    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


                    • .
                      Schwartz was a good, honest, hard working family man. Civic-minded. Kind to children and animals. Handsome too!
                      For all that we know he might have been a wife beater. Most witnesses give their evidence honestly though and yes they can be mistaken. There’s nothing to suggest that he lied though.
                      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


                      • . Let me think = let me explain this away
                        If they got the time wrong, who did James Brown see at the board school corner, at 12:45?
                        Its not a case of ‘explains away’ it’s a case of coming up with plausible, possible explanations. Schwartz being a part of a plot or pointlessly lying about what he saw and where he saw it isn’t plausible. It’s implausible and there isn’t a smidgeon of reasonable evidence to point us in that direction. Unless you have pre-determined that the answer lies in that direction of course.
                        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


                        • . No one appreciates the permanent mystery, like a Jack the Ripper enthusiast.
                          Are you accusing me of being a ‘fan’ of Jack The Ripper? I’m simply someone interested in the case do yo not consider yourself the same?

                          The problem is that 140 years later there are questions that will never be answered definitively which you take as your cue to start making things up to fill the gaps. To you, a nonsense answer appears to be better than no answer at all. Like Michael you appear to place yourself above other posters and again this isn’t unfamiliar. It’s the old Marriott Defence again. “I’m the original, unbiased thinker whilst others are just determined to defend the ‘old established theories’ at all cost.” Over and over again we keep hearing this.
                          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

                            Isn’t it possible that he did find them but record of what was actually said hasn’t survived?
                            Reid's neighbourhood search came up with Marshall, Spooner, and Brown, who were then called to the inquest.
                            No witness was called who had seen a chase along Fairclough or any other street. A rather odd omission if there had been one.
                            If there was no chase and/or running away, but Wess has been informed of this 'event' nonetheless, the situation is very serious.

                            Someone can end up on the floor as a result of horseplay. It’s far from impossible that BS Man was simply a drunk (and Schwartz did say that he appeared to have been under the influence) Perhaps he tried to get he to go with him by pulling her but she resisted and fell over? The ‘screaming but not very loudly’ might have been little more than Liz saying ‘now look what you’ve done.’ The fact that she didn’t scream loudly at least points to the possibility that she felt under no threat. They man called ‘Lipski’ might simply have been saying ‘get lost you nosey ……’ If Schwartz was the timid type he might have misinterpreted the incident as a more serious one than it actually was. I’m not staring this as a fact but I think that it’s certainly a possibility.

                            But any interpretation is more likely than ‘Schwartz just made the whole thing up.’
                            So any garbage made up by anyone, is more likely than Schwartz having lied, as long as that garbage is compatible with Schwartz' story. Okay.

                            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Yet again you’re allowing your conspiracist imagination gallup on ahead of you by stating your opinion as a fact. Not for the first time either.
                            Actually, it is you who are imagining things. If the person who witnessed the quarrel/assault "took no notice of it", then it is a fact that they did not run from the scene in fear. To do so yet to state that no notice was taken of the incident, would be a contradiction.

                            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Not even close. Schwartz had no reason to change the location and would have been a moron if he’d done so. Wess was simply relating what he’d heard. Why do you have such a problem with that? It’s a complete non-issue.
                            How do you know Schwartz wasn't a moron? Whatever the case, you are again falling into the trap of supposing that Schwartz had no reason to change the location of the incident, because you can't think of one. If you cannot think of a reason for someone lying in a murder case, especially someone who places themselves at the murder scene at close to the murder time, then you are not up to scratch. Either that, or don't want to think of a reason.
                            By the way, the Dutfield's Yard passageway was still made of stones, not dirt.

                            This line you like to use - "Wess was simply relating what he’d heard" - is a blatant attempt to gloss over the details.
                            What Wess had supposedly heard was that the man pursued was regarded as being the murderer. To me, that sounds fairly significant in the context of a 133 year-old serial murder mystery. He was also told the name of the pursuer, so there is a bit more to this story than just the hearing of vague rumours.

                            Im afraid that common sense rarely rests its head in your thinking Andrew. It’s ‘I need a conspiracy…..now where can I find one?’

                            The answer is…..not in Berner Street.
                            You constantly use the 'conspiracy theory' ruse to distract from problematic evidence for which you have no good answers.

                            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Its not a case of ‘explains away’ it’s a case of coming up with plausible, possible explanations. Schwartz being a part of a plot or pointlessly lying about what he saw and where he saw it isn’t plausible. It’s implausible and there isn’t a smidgeon of reasonable evidence to point us in that direction. Unless you have pre-determined that the answer lies in that direction of course.
                            The young woman said she and her man had been standing on the corner for about 20 minutes...

                            She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

                            A plausible, possible explanation for this is that she and her man had been standing on the corner for about 20 minutes, but neither heard any unusual noises.

                            12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

                            A plausible, possible explanation for this is that Schwartz lied.

                            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Are you accusing me of being a ‘fan’ of Jack The Ripper? I’m simply someone interested in the case do yo not consider yourself the same?
                            A Jack The Ripper Enthusiast appreciates the eternal mystery of the Whitechapel Murderer's identity. I'm not a JtRE, and therefore I can smell Schwartz' bullshit.

                            The problem is that 140 years later there are questions that will never be answered definitively which you take as your cue to start making things up to fill the gaps. To you, a nonsense answer appears to be better than no answer at all. Like Michael you appear to place yourself above other posters and again this isn’t unfamiliar. It’s the old Marriott Defence again. “I’m the original, unbiased thinker whilst others are just determined to defend the ‘old established theories’ at all cost.” Over and over again we keep hearing this.
                            So you should - it's true.
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                              Reid's neighbourhood search came up with Marshall, Spooner, and Brown, who were then called to the inquest.
                              No witness was called who had seen a chase along Fairclough or any other street. A rather odd omission if there had been one.
                              If there was no chase and/or running away, but Wess has been informed of this 'event' nonetheless, the situation is very serious.

                              None of this means that anything was amiss just that we don’t have the correct answer.

                              So any garbage made up by anyone, is more likely than Schwartz having lied, as long as that garbage is compatible with Schwartz' story. Okay.



                              Actually, it is you who are imagining things. If the person who witnessed the quarrel/assault "took no notice of it", then it is a fact that they did not run from the scene in fear. To do so yet to state that no notice was taken of the incident, would be a contradiction.

                              I thought that you were talking about someone other than Schwartz seeing the event.

                              How do you know Schwartz wasn't a moron? Whatever the case, you are again falling into the trap of supposing that Schwartz had no reason to change the location of the incident, because you can't think of one. If you cannot think of a reason for someone lying in a murder case, especially someone who places themselves at the murder scene at close to the murder time, then you are not up to scratch. Either that, or don't want to think of a reason.

                              What? The suggestion that Schwartz saw an incident elsewhere but deliberately placed it at Dutfield’s Yard is contemptible.

                              By the way, the Dutfield's Yard passageway was still made of stones, not dirt.

                              Pleeeeeeeese, stop trying to manufacture a conspiracy ffs! If the floor was dirty (and Council street cleaners were in short supply in 19th century Whitechapel) and it had rained then you would get muddy if you lay down in it.

                              This line you like to use - "Wess was simply relating what he’d heard" - is a blatant attempt to gloss over the details.
                              What Wess had supposedly heard was that the man pursued was regarded as being the murderer. To me, that sounds fairly significant in the context of a 133 year-old serial murder mystery. He was also told the name of the pursuer, so there is a bit more to this story than just the hearing of vague rumours.

                              Of course you find it significant. You’re a Conspiracy Theorist.

                              You constantly use the 'conspiracy theory' ruse to distract from problematic evidence for which you have no good answers.

                              I’ll stop using the conspiracy theory ruse when you stop using the Marriott Defence.

                              The young woman said she and her man had been standing on the corner for about 20 minutes...

                              She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

                              A plausible, possible explanation for this is that she and her man had been standing on the corner for about 20 minutes, but neither heard any unusual noises.

                              12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

                              A plausible, possible explanation for this is that Schwartz lied.

                              Or….the young woman was incorrect on her timing. If she’d forgotten her mobile then she might have mistaken the time of course. And, as she had no particular reason to pay attention to how long she’s been standing there, this adds to the chances of her being wrong. Also of course we can’t be certain of Schwartz time as we don’t know if he owned a watch or had any means of giving an accurate time. So the Schwartz incident could, for example, have occurred at 12.43 and was over at 12.44. Young woman and friend arrive at 12.45ish and stand talking until 12.59 when they leave. They don’t see the Schwartz incident or Diemschutz arrive and they stood there for 14 minutes rather than 20. Unless they were Freemasons on lookout duty of course.

                              A Jack The Ripper Enthusiast appreciates the eternal mystery of the Whitechapel Murderer's identity. I'm not a JtRE, and therefore I can smell Schwartz' bullshit.

                              And I can smell conspiracist bullshit. A wholly deliberate attempt to manufacture a mystery where none exists. From the man who brought us Mrs Richardson’s Basement Bordello in Hanbury Street.

                              So you should - it's true.
                              There was no cover-up here. It’s tiresome that almost every thread descends into conspiracy theory. I can’t recall a thread that you’ve posted on where you haven’t suggested one. Strange that.
                              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
                                None of this means that anything was amiss just that we don’t have the correct answer.
                                Reid's extensive questioning of the neighbourhood, apparently found no one who had witnessed the alleged chase. On that basis I would suggest that we do indeed have the correct answer. The problem for The Orthodoxy is that the correct answer is also the wrong answer.

                                I thought that you were talking about someone other than Schwartz seeing the event.
                                I was. What don't you understand?

                                What? The suggestion that Schwartz saw an incident elsewhere but deliberately placed it at Dutfield’s Yard is contemptible.


                                Pleeeeeeeese, stop trying to manufacture a conspiracy ffs! If the floor was dirty (and Council street cleaners were in short supply in 19th century Whitechapel) and it had rained then you would get muddy if you lay down in it.
                                The rain had stopped well before 1am, and whatever rain there had been earlier would cleaned the stones to some extent. Yet somehow you suppose there was enough residual dirt that Phillips found this...

                                Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side.
                                Examining her jacket I found that although there was a slight amount of mud on the right side, the left was well plastered with mud.


                                Hair matted and left side plastered with mud, from lying on damp stony ground?
                                Tell me about the blood flowing several feet along a supposedly muddy gutter.
                                Also tell me about Mrs D being quoted as saying the victim was lying on her back, when she first saw her.

                                Of course you find it significant. You’re a Conspiracy Theorist.
                                So a report of a man being pursued as the murderer, could only be of interest to a conspiracy theorist. Okay.
                                I think the Echo report is much like the press quotes of Fanny Mortimer, in that The Orthodoxy would much prefer if none of these existed. The general reason for this being that The Orthodoxy is to some extent, anti-evidence.

                                I’ll stop using the conspiracy theory ruse when you stop using the Marriott Defence.
                                No deal. The Orthodoxy do not want this case to be solved, ever.

                                Or….the young woman was incorrect on her timing. If she’d forgotten her mobile then she might have mistaken the time of course. And, as she had no particular reason to pay attention to how long she’s been standing there, this adds to the chances of her being wrong. Also of course we can’t be certain of Schwartz time as we don’t know if he owned a watch or had any means of giving an accurate time. So the Schwartz incident could, for example, have occurred at 12.43 and was over at 12.44. Young woman and friend arrive at 12.45ish and stand talking until 12.59 when they leave. They don’t see the Schwartz incident or Diemschutz arrive and they stood there for 14 minutes rather than 20. Unless they were Freemasons on lookout duty of course.
                                Or....you should stop manipulating evidence to suit a predetermined outcome.

                                The alleged Schwartz incident could have been at 12:43, rather than 12:45, or it could have been at 12:47. The couple could might have been at the corner for 22 minutes, or 18 minutes, or they could have arrived at the corner at 12:48, and missed seeing or hearing The Chase by a few seconds. Fanny Mortimer might have been at or near her open door between 12:43 and 12:47, or she might have been at the other end of the house and heard nothing.

                                Belief in Schwartz' story requires rolling the dice over and over, and always getting the preferred result. The dice must be loaded.

                                There was no cover-up here. It’s tiresome that almost every thread descends into conspiracy theory. I can’t recall a thread that you’ve posted on where you haven’t suggested one. Strange that.
                                What you can recall is not a reliable source of information
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X