Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    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?
    I must have missed the Jewish Blanket Theory Al. Spill the beans old chap.
    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
      Yes. Including the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest, there were three versions.
      Schwartz never gave evidence at an Inquest.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
        Because there is no instability. However there is plenty of incompetence displayed in their interpretation.
        We have multiple accounts by Schwartz. These accounts differ significantly from each other.

        We have multiple accounts by Mortimer. These accounts differ significantly from each other.

        Mortimer spoke English - there was no language barrier.

        Schwartz spoke no English. He spoke through an interpreter each time. We do not know if he had a different interpreter each time. We have no idea how skilled his interpreter (or interpreters) were in Hungarian or in English.

        Yet you dismiss Schawrtz' accounts as "unstable" while dismissing the inconsistencies in Mortimer's accounts as "incompetent interpretation".

        This says a lot more about you than about Israel Schwartz.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
          His informer implicated the man pursued. Who was the man pursued?
          According to the October 1 , 1888 Echo, someone told the club secretary that a man thought to be Jack the Ripper had been pursued. The club secretary did not assume that was correct - he said the man pursued was "a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer". The club secretary did not know the name of the man who was pursued. At the time the club secretary was interviewed, he did not know about Star account of the Hungarian. The Star account did not name the Hungarian.

          The club secretary did not implicate Schwartz.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
            Tell me about Pipeman not being on the apprehensions sought list, of the Police Gazette, Oct 19...
            We were talking about the prisoner situation at Leman street, not the suspect descriptions in the October 19 Police Gazette.

            You've still 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.

            And the Police Gazette does not describe Pipeman.

            "At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street - A MAN, age about 30, height 5 ft. 5 in., complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak." - October 19, 1888 Police Gazette

            "
            Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus described the first man who threw the woman down: age about 30, 5ft 5in, complexion fair, dark hair, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket, trousers black, cap with a peak, nothing in his hand." 19 October report by Chief Inspector Donald Swanson



            Comment


            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
              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.
              Congratulations on refuting a position that no one in this thread has ever held.

              Streets get dirty. Dirt turns to mud when it gets wet. Even today, with more frequent and through road cleaning, your clothes will get dirty if you fall on wet pavement. Dutfield's Yard was not a road, let alone a main road, and it was in one of the poorer sections of London, so it was not a priority area for street cleaning. Based on the blood evidence, Stride was killed where she was found. The body was not moved.


              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                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.
                This is speculation on your part. If Elizabeth Stride was assaulted in or close to Ellen street at 11:45, why did she do nothing to clean herself of mud before she got to Dutfield's Yard at 12:45. And why did no one who saw Stride during this time notice any mud on her?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                  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?
                  Click image for larger version

Name:	Panto Horse.jpg
Views:	80
Size:	167.0 KB
ID:	760607
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	Panto Horse.jpg
Views:	80
Size:	167.0 KB
ID:	760607
                    The ongoing adventures of Diemschitz's Donkey...
                    Thems the Vagaries.....

                    Comment


                    • Jewish blanket theory.

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	sheet.jpg
Views:	81
Size:	110.0 KB
ID:	760611
                      dustymiller
                      aka drstrange

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


                        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.
                        I don't understand the logic of NBFN's argument. The street must have been deserted and unobserved at around 12.45, in order for Schwartz to have made up the assault at that time and not been contradicted by any witnesses. So it stands to reason that the assault could therefore have taken place exactly as described, with only Schwartz and Pipeman around to witness it.

                        Love,

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


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post

                          I don't understand the logic of NBFN's argument. The street must have been deserted and unobserved at around 12.45, in order for Schwartz to have made up the assault at that time and not been contradicted by any witnesses. So it stands to reason that the assault could therefore have taken place exactly as described, with only Schwartz and Pipeman around to witness it.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          You’re falling into the same trap as me Caz by trying to apply logic, reason and common sense to the ridiculous suggestion. What kind of idiot (or group of idiots if we include our band of anarchist conspirators) would lie about seeing this incident without realising the enormous risk of someone coming forward to say something like “I was looking out of my window from around 12.40 and 12.50. I could see the entrance of the yard and I didn’t see a single person pass by.” Or more than one person coming forward. We might even add (and we definitely should add) why, if Diemschutz returned earlier, wasn’t he bothered about the very real possibility of “ I looked out of my window just after 12.30 and I saw that bloke from the club drive his pony and trap into the yard.”

                          Reason tells us that all talk of a plot surrounding Schwartz should be abandoned. It’s very simple.
                          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 Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                            The ongoing adventures of Diemschitz's Donkey...
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	1500.jpg
Views:	56
Size:	144.2 KB
ID:	760630
                            My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                              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.
                              There are multiple versions of Fanny Mortimer's story. 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. The biggest time contradiction is between two different accounts in the same issue of the same newspaper.

                              "... 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." - 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." - 1 October 1888 Daily News

                              If the first account is what Fanny Mortimer actually said, both she and Israel Schwartz could be telling the truth. Or one of them could be lying. Or they both could be lying,

                              If the second account is what Fanny Mortimer actually said, then either she or Israel Schwartz was lying. Or they both could be lying. Or Mortimer did see Schwartz, Stride, BS Man, and Pipeman; but did not consider their actions unusual.

                              If Fanny Mortimer is correctly quoted in both accounts, then she was lying in at least one of them. Of course, even if she was lying, that does not prove that Schwartz was telling the truth.


                              Comment


                              • Well summed up Fiver

                                What we can say for certain though is that Mortimer cannot be used as proof that the Schwartz incident didn’t take place and yet we repeatedly hear her used for precisely that reason. Of course we have to point out that PC Smith disagrees with Fanny on the time that he passed along Berner Street. He said between 12.30 and 12.35 whilst she had it 12.45. So which one was correct?

                                We have no way of knowing for certain but we can say that Smith would have been the likelier to have been correct. He was on a regulated beat. He’d probably very recently passed a clock and, as a Police Officer who would have been expected to report incidents noting the time that they’d occurred he’d have had more reason to have been aware of time. Fanny on the other hand had no reason to log the time as it was just another normal night for her. And so, if Smith was right, then she’d have been back inside by the time Schwartz appeared.

                                The use of Mortimer is desperate stuff but we’re used to desperate stuff here on Conspiracy Corner. It’s way past time the conspiracists gave up their attempts to fabricate a cover-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

                                Working...
                                X