Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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.”

    Poor comprehension.

    ... 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 ...

    Schwartz got as far as the gateway, then watched the assault at close range, then crossed to the opposite side of the street. That is the story he gave Abberline.

    When Schwartz got to the gateway, a woman was standing there. How long had she been standing there? As Stride had been seen by PC Smith several minutes before 12:45, a few yards up the street and on the opposite side, then why not suppose that she had been at or in the vicinity of the gates, throughout that period? That would be 5 minutes or more by my estimate, and 10 or more by yours. Was Stride witnessed in the general area of the gates in this 5-10 minute period? No - she must have left the scene (possibly with parcel man), or gone into the yard. If she left the scene, there is no reason to suppose she would come back a few minutes later and stand in the gateway for no apparent reason. If she went into the yard no later than 12:40, why wasn't she noticed?
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      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.
      Smith's earlier time was an estimate...

      I was last in Berner-street about half-past 12 or 12:35.

      If he had really last been in Berner street in that timeframe, he would have returned by 1am. This has been pointed out to you before.

      I see you're still persisting with the idea that FM was back inside by 12:45. Funny, but let's step through it...

      At what time did Fanny lock up?
      How long had Stride been standing at the gateway when Schwartz entered Berner street?
      When did the incident occur?
      At what time did the young couple reach the board school corner?
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        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.”

        Actually, someone did look out their window...

        James Brown: When I heard screams I opened my window, but could not see anybody. The cries were of moving people going in the direction of Grove-street. Shortly afterwards I saw a policeman standing at the corner of Christian- street, and a man called him to Berner-street.

        Brown witnessed a man call Edward Spooner to Berner street. Spooner had been to a fancy dress party. He went as a policeman.

        So the search for police was witnessed. On the other hand, did anyone witness 'the chase'? We have no credible witness account to this ... because it never happened.
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

          Schwartz never gave evidence at an Inquest.
          That's right. Schwartz never attended the inquest. Anderson was very careful with his wording.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

            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.
            You avoided answering the question. Who was the man pursued?
            There are dozens of suspects in this case, and yet, a man pursued and regarded by multiple people as being the murderer, is not one of them! LOL
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

              We were talking about the prisoner situation at Leman street, not the suspect descriptions in the October 19 Police Gazette.
              The two appear to be linked, and again, you manage to avoid the question.

              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.
              I don't need to 'show an indication' - the Star did that for me.

              And the Police Gazette does not describe Pipeman.
              As I said. Now go ahead and give men your best shot as to why the supposed accomplice was not on the apprehension sought list...
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                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.
                The mud evidence is a devastating blow to orthodox opinion
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  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.
                  You're right - why didn't she duck into the Mortimer residence, and take a shower?

                  And why did no one who saw Stride during this time notice any mud on her?
                  11:45 was when Stride and a male companion were first noticed by William Marshall. That was in Berner street.
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  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
                    What you don't understand is why Schwartz took the risk that he would be contradicted by witnesses.
                    Fanny made it clear that the street was not deserted...

                    Evening News: Was the street quiet at the time?

                    FM: Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club.

                    So there was movement at the club, which Fanny was aware of from her doorstep. Other than that, there was hardly anyone moving about, except...

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

                    They had been there for about 20 minutes. There was no assault on Berner street, at the time and place claimed by Israel Schwartz.
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      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.”
                      Perhaps it was the kind of idiot who applied the following logic, reason and common sense...

                      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Silly nitpicking. It’s very obvious that the event took a matter of seconds. The time it took Schwartz to walk a few yards.
                      LOL
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                        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
                        One account begins at shortly before a quarter to one, the other at 12:30. There is no contradiction.
                        Also, "the intention of shooting the bolts" is a pretty big clue as to what Fanny had been doing prior to hearing Smith's footsteps.

                        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 Mortimer went to her door immediately on hearing Smith go by, then Schwartz was almost definitely lying. To be fair, we do not know the source of this statement, and therefore it should be treated with great caution.

                        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.
                        Tell me why Mortimer might have lied...

                        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.
                        You are reading the first account as though Fanny had said to someone that she was only on her doorstep for about 10 minutes in total, and this was at a single stretch. Yet the word 'only' does not appear in the first account you quoted. However, it does seem to be firmly planted in your imagination.
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                          What you don't understand is why Schwartz took the risk that he would be contradicted by witnesses.
                          Fanny made it clear that the street was not deserted...

                          Evening News: Was the street quiet at the time?

                          FM: Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club.

                          So there was movement at the club, which Fanny was aware of from her doorstep. Other than that, there was hardly anyone moving about, except...

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

                          They had been there for about 20 minutes. There was no assault on Berner street, at the time and place claimed by Israel Schwartz.
                          Here we go again.

                          As Fiver pointed out are you absolutely determined to quote Mortimer selectively to make your point. A point which is redundant.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            Perhaps it was the kind of idiot who applied the following logic, reason and common sense...



                            LOL
                            Why do you have an issue with this? How long do you think that the Schwartz incident took?

                            Schwartz walked behind BS Man along Berner Street. We don’t know how far behind because he didn’t specify but surely we can agree that it was likely a matter of a few yards.

                            BS Man stops to talk to Stride - start the clock.

                            Schwartz hasn’t stopped walking all of this time remember.

                            And argument commences and Stride ends up on the floor.

                            Schwartz crosses over the road and walks on (Pipeman isn’t relevant to how long hhis took.)

                            We can’t be certain but I’m estimating that from the time that BS Man met Stride to the time Schwartz reaches the crossroads to have been around 20 seconds.

                            So roughly 20 seconds I’m estimating. Maybe a bit less, maybe a little more. I can’t see why you object to this apart from you trying to make out that Schwartz said that he’d stopped when he did no such thing (but I’m used to that kind of tactic by now)

                            How long did Stride calling out take? We can’t know but what 2 seconds in total. 1 second for the call of Lipski.

                            So we have 20 seconds of visuals and a couple of seconds of sound (most of it not very loud) and you try and claim that this MUST have been seen by others had it occurred.

                            You need to visit Planet Earth and leave the manipulations at home.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                              Poor comprehension.

                              ... 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 ...

                              Schwartz got as far as the gateway, then watched the assault at close range, then crossed to the opposite side of the street. That is the story he gave Abberline.

                              When Schwartz got to the gateway, a woman was standing there. How long had she been standing there? As Stride had been seen by PC Smith several minutes before 12:45, a few yards up the street and on the opposite side, then why not suppose that she had been at or in the vicinity of the gates, throughout that period? That would be 5 minutes or more by my estimate, and 10 or more by yours. Was Stride witnessed in the general area of the gates in this 5-10 minute period? No - she must have left the scene (possibly with parcel man), or gone into the yard. If she left the scene, there is no reason to suppose she would come back a few minutes later and stand in the gateway for no apparent reason. If she went into the yard no later than 12:40, why wasn't she noticed?
                              More blatant dishonesty.

                              Your providing an answer to a question which wasn’t the one in discussion.

                              My response was to your statement that Schwartz said that he’d stooped.

                              He did not. You made that up.

                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                Smith's earlier time was an estimate...

                                I was last in Berner-street about half-past 12 or 12:35.

                                If he had really last been in Berner street in that timeframe, he would have returned by 1am. This has been pointed out to you before.

                                I see you're still persisting with the idea that FM was back inside by 12:45. Funny, but let's step through it...

                                At what time did Fanny lock up? Don’t know - wasn’t there.
                                How long had Stride been standing at the gateway when Schwartz entered Berner street? Don’t know - wasn’t there.
                                When did the incident occur? Don’t know - wasn’t there.
                                At what time did the young couple reach the board school corner? Don’t know - wasn’t there.
                                Mmm let’s think children. A 30 minute round. 12.35 on his first round. 12.35 + 30 I think you’ll find is 1.05.

                                And for the 1000th time we can’t hold these timings to the minute. Allow for margin of error. If you won’t do that everything you say is pointless.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X