Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post



    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.

    There is nothing suspicious about the fact that no one else saw an incident which more than likely took 10 or 15 seconds whilst Schwartz was passing by. You appear to regard this minor incident as if it was a recreation of the Battle Of Bosworth. It’s not in the least surprising that no one else saw the event so why do you keep trying to suggest that it’s somehow deeply suspicious. The fact that Mortimer didn’t see it simply shows that she was indoors at the time. The young couple obviously got their time wrong and it’s also possible of course that Schwartz himself wasn’t exact in his own timing.

    The ‘chase’ is of course a huge red herring inflated by you. Why would anyone have thought it exceptional enough to notice if they had seen two men walking in the same direction especially at such a distance that they might only have seen one of them. This was approaching 1.00 am after all. Most people were in bed.



    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.

    This is a perfect example of your desperate attempts to create a mystery. Do you know the exact state of the ground in that passageway? Rain on any dirt would cause mud. The passage was muddy. To what extent we don’t know. Was it muddy all over or just in certain areas? We don’t know. Did the Police say “hold on chaps, there’s no mud here so how come the victim is covered in mud? No they didn’t. Because the passage was muddy. There is simply no mystery here. You are in danger of breaking through the bottom of that barrel in your attempt to manufacture a cover-up.

    So a report of a man being pursued as the murderer, could only be of interest to a conspiracy theorist. Okay.

    No, only when you try and create a mystery from it. Schwartz thought he might have been followed by Pipeman. Then we have Diemschutz. Kozebrodski and Eagle running along the streets looking for a Constable. It came from somewhere amongst those events. I wouldn’t say that it’s only of interest to a conspiracy theorist but I’d say that it would be considered manna from heaven. Ideal fodder for the manufacture of a non-existent cover-up.

    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.

    That’s rich. The problem is cherry-picking. 99% of the evidence points to what you call the orthodox version of events. What you prefer to focus on though is the 1% totally dismissing the suggestion that simple errors in timings, false rumours, transcription errors, Press exaggeration and various human errors come in to play.

    No deal. The Orthodoxy do not want this case to be solved, ever.

    I don’t care either way. You’re a Conspiracy Theorist pure and simple which means that you have no respect for reason, evidence, logic or common sense. You, like Michael, manipulate, cherry pick and exaggerate purely to try and distort simply to achieve an account that you like. You can keep saying that I don’t want the case solved which is childish. I want it solved. But I want the solution to be true…..not a fantasy.


    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.

    No it doesn’t. Schwartz saw an incident at around 12.45. The incident would have taken very few seconds. No one else saw it. So f*@^#ng what?! It’s really not important at 12.45 am.

    What you can recall is not a reliable source of information
    Just give it up. There was no cover-up. FACT. Take a step back, look at the evidence as a whole then say to yourself “I cannot in all conscience continue to manipulate, nitpick, exaggerate and invent things in a desperate attempt to manufacture a cover-up that the average toddler would see through.”

    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      There is nothing suspicious about the fact that no one else saw an incident which more than likely took 10 or 15 seconds whilst Schwartz was passing by.
      Schwartz claimed to stop at the gateway and watch the incident from close range. So you've already blown your 10 to 15 second budget, just on that. It's interesting how that budget keeps getting smaller, considering how outwardly confident you are in Schwartz' tale.

      You appear to regard this minor incident as if it was a recreation of the Battle Of Bosworth.
      Minor incident? Trying to play it down?

      It’s not in the least surprising that no one else saw the event so why do you keep trying to suggest that it’s somehow deeply suspicious.
      William Marshall spent a half hour on his doorstep, between 11:30 and 12:00. That's what people often did back then - they stood watching and listening their street, from their front doorways. Nearly the whole time between 12:30 and 1:00, means it would have been nearly impossible for Mrs Mortimer to miss Schwartz, in the visual sense. Even less so considering the audibility of the alleged incident.

      The fact that Mortimer didn’t see it simply shows that she was indoors at the time.
      It shows that the probability of the incident having occurred, is already low, having considered just a single resident of Berner street.

      The young couple obviously got their time wrong and it’s also possible of course that Schwartz himself wasn’t exact in his own timing.
      I'm not sure how universal the phrase is, but in Australia we call this 'having an each-way bet'. Presumably you don't mean the couple could have been at the corner for 25 minutes instead of 20, and Schwartz being on the street at 12:50 instead of 12:45. Yet misjudged times can be wrong in either direction, so once again you're rolling the loaded dice.

      The ‘chase’ is of course a huge red herring inflated by you. Why would anyone have thought it exceptional enough to notice if they had seen two men walking in the same direction especially at such a distance that they might only have seen one of them. This was approaching 1.00 am after all. Most people were in bed.
      Walking in the same direction? Only seen one of them? Can you hear me clapping ... with one hand?

      This is a perfect example of your desperate attempts to create a mystery. Do you know the exact state of the ground in that passageway? Rain on any dirt would cause mud. The passage was muddy. To what extent we don’t know. Was it muddy all over or just in certain areas? We don’t know. Did the Police say “hold on chaps, there’s no mud here so how come the victim is covered in mud? No they didn’t. Because the passage was muddy. There is simply no mystery here. You are in danger of breaking through the bottom of that barrel in your attempt to manufacture a cover-up.
      Do you remember this...?

      In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

      The blood flowed along the gutter for several feet. No mud in gutter. You are in danger of getting a reputation for being anti-evidence.

      No, only when you try and create a mystery from it. Schwartz thought he might have been followed by Pipeman. Then we have Diemschutz. Kozebrodski and Eagle running along the streets looking for a Constable. It came from somewhere amongst those events. I wouldn’t say that it’s only of interest to a conspiracy theorist but I’d say that it would be considered manna from heaven. Ideal fodder for the manufacture of a non-existent cover-up.
      You are trying to create a chase from two men running together to find police, then doubling back and pausing to speak to another (Spooner), before continuing on to where they'd come from. To suggest that not accepting that bit of creationism amounts to 'creating a mystery where none exists', is utterly lame.

      Tell me why the 'other chase' was seen by no one, or if it was, why it was not mentioned to the police...

      That’s rich. The problem is cherry-picking. 99% of the evidence points to what you call the orthodox version of events. What you prefer to focus on though is the 1% totally dismissing the suggestion that simple errors in timings, false rumours, transcription errors, Press exaggeration and various human errors come in to play.
      Oh is that all it is? Then you should be able to answer all my questions. If you can't, guess where Israel Schwartz might be heading...



      No it doesn’t. Schwartz saw an incident at around 12.45. The incident would have taken very few seconds. No one else saw it. So f*@^#ng what?! It’s really not important at 12.45 am.
      Very few seconds now? It's a like watching an auction in reverse.

      Just give it up. There was no cover-up. FACT. Take a step back, look at the evidence as a whole then say to yourself “I cannot in all conscience continue to manipulate, nitpick, exaggerate and invent things in a desperate attempt to manufacture a cover-up that the average toddler would see through.”
      Note to self: I cannot in all conscience continue to torment, tease, mock and cause offense to The Orthodoxy.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Note to self: I cannot in all conscience continue to torment, tease, mock and cause offense to The Orthodoxy.

        What is this nonsense about Orthodoxy? Do you really think that those of us who hold "traditional" views (whatever that means) exchange Christmas cards or that our views entitle us to discounts at grocery stores and movie theaters? C'mon. My views are based on evaluating the evidence and drawing conclusions. I don't give a rat's behind if they are considered traditional or if they are considered outside the box. They are simply my views.

        c.d.


        Comment


        • . Schwartz claimed to stop at the gateway and watch the incident from close range. So you've already blown your 10 to 15 second budget, just on that. It's interesting how that budget keeps getting smaller, considering how outwardly confident you are in Schwartz' tale
          You make my work much easier by these kind of examples of blatantly manipulating evidence to suit your own argument.

          Schwartz did not claim to stop.

          “….he saw a man stop & speak to a woman…”

          And in The Star.

          ”He walked on behind him……The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her.”

          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
            Note to self: I cannot in all conscience continue to torment, tease, mock and cause offense to The Orthodoxy.

            What is this nonsense about Orthodoxy? Do you really think that those of us who hold "traditional" views (whatever that means) exchange Christmas cards or that our views entitle us to discounts at grocery stores and movie theaters? C'mon. My views are based on evaluating the evidence and drawing conclusions. I don't give a rat's behind if they are considered traditional or if they are considered outside the box. They are simply my views.

            c.d.

            It’s what you get if you don’t agree to these ravings c.d. Baseless, manipulated, conspiracist drivel. An embarrassment to the subject.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

            Comment


            • You appear to regard this minor incident as if it was a recreation of the Battle Of Bosworth.

              Minor incident? Trying to play it down?

              …….

              No I’m not. You are trying to inflate an incident of a very few seconds into a huge May Day parade that the locals couldn’t possibly have missed. An event that would have had them pouring out of their houses like bees from a hive just to see what was going on. Your approach is fundamentally and provably dishonest. It was an incident of very short duration which took place in the very early hours of the morning and hardly on a busy Main Street where the woman apparently made little noise. That is simply stating the facts. I know that you have a fact-allergy but I’m afraid that it can’t be helped.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

              Comment


              • . William Marshall spent a half hour on his doorstep, between 11:30 and 12:00. That's what people often did back then - they stood watching and listening their street, from their front doorways. Nearly the whole time between 12:30 and 1:00, means it would have been nearly impossible for Mrs Mortimer to miss Schwartz, in the visual sense. Even less so considering the audibility of the alleged incident
                Again you persist in your deliberately selective interpretation of where Fanny Mortimer was or wasn’t. It’s as simple as this. If you admit that’s it’s entirely possible that PC Smith was more accurate about the time that he passed than Fanny then she could have been inside at the time that Schwartz passed. As you cannot prove that Smith was wrong all debate on this particular section should end here. You can’t simply keep saying “well if Mortimer was on her doorstep then she’d have seen Schwartz had he been there,” because as a statement it carries no value because there’s, at the very least, a very good chance that she wasn’t at the door at that time.

                Constantly pursuing this line is dishonest.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                Comment


                • The fact that Mortimer didn’t see it simply shows that she was indoors at the time.
                  It shows that the probability of the incident having occurred, is already low, having considered just a single resident of Berner street.

                  ​​​​​​……

                  More nonsense. It was down to how many people were up and out and about at 12.45.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                  ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                  Comment


                  • . Walking in the same direction? Only seen one of them? Can you hear me clapping ... with one hand?
                    Do you have an issue with understanding the real world? Are you sitting comfortably? Ok….I’ll begin.

                    Example: someone hears someone run past. They look out of their window but the first person has already passed and they only see the second.

                    It’s at this point you puff on your point and say:

                    ”I say, that’s amazing Sholmes.”

                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                    Comment


                    • .
                      The blood flowed along the gutter for several feet. No mud in gutter. You are in danger of getting a reputation for being anti-evidence.
                      Im no Chemist but does mud repel blood?

                      Maybe on your planet.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                      Comment


                      • .
                        Oh is that all it is? Then you should be able to answer all my questions. If you can't, guess where Israel Schwartz might be heading..
                        Ah, so Schwartz is the ripper now? Did he ever work in Mrs Richardson’s Pink Pussycat Bordello in her Hanbury Street basement? Next door to the Whitechapel Very Short Whip Company where Diemschutz bought his 6” horse whip.

                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                        Comment


                        • . Very few seconds now? It's a like watching an auction in reverse.
                          Silly nitpicking. It’s very obvious that the event took a matter of seconds. The time it took Schwartz to walk a few yards. I can’t put a precise time on it (and I know how you conspiracy theorists love exact times so that you can manufacture discrepancies) but it was a few seconds or a very few seconds or a handful of seconds or a matter of seconds. Either way, it was a thousand miles from the huge lengthy riot that you are trying to make it out to have been so that you can continue to fabricate a cover up.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                          Comment


                          • . Note to self: I cannot in all conscience continue to torment, tease, mock and cause offense to The Orthodoxy
                            Im not offended. I’m just saddened that you continue to drag the subject through the mud with your manipulations and fabrications and flights of ego-driven fantasy purely so that you can yell “I’ve uncovered a cover up.”

                            There was no cover up. Show a bit of integrity and give it up.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Ah, so Schwartz is the ripper now? Did he ever work in Mrs Richardson’s Pink Pussycat Bordello in her Hanbury Street basement? Next door to the Whitechapel Very Short Whip Company where Diemschutz bought his 6” horse whip.
                              lol. now thats funny
                              "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 Abby Normal View Post

                                lol. now thats funny
                                Indeed it is. This is the same guy who promoted his Jewish blanket theory, while denigrating anyone who disapproved, but later accepted he was not that knowledgeable at the time, as if that should be obvious. Who later espoused the Richardson brothel theory, but seems to have abandoned that too, despite denigrating those who disagreed with it. Who now insists on a Schwartz theory, and denigrates anyone who disagrees with it. Seeing a pattern here?
                                Thems the Vagaries.....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X