Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    The mud evidence is a devastating blow to orthodox opinion
    Embarrassingly, laughable nonsense. You continue to turn the subject into a conspiracist joke. Please stop.

    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


    • . Tell me why Mortimer might have lied..
      When you tell us why Schwartz lied? And why everyone at the club allegedly lied. And why Smith lied about what time he passed. And why Spooner lied about what time he got to the yard?

      Lots of ‘dishonesty’ around. Oh of course, it’s a conspiracy.

      Like the poster who said that Israel Schwartz had said that he’d ‘stopped’ just to make a redundant point.
      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


      • Obviously, Fanny wasn't hanging about on her doorstep after midnight just to lock up, she was touting for business. But, seeing a strange woman apparently doing the same on her patch, she fetched her largest kitchen knife, stormed over to the gateway and made sure she wouldn't be stealing any more customers. Obviously.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
          Obviously, Fanny wasn't hanging about on her doorstep after midnight just to lock up, she was touting for business. But, seeing a strange woman apparently doing the same on her patch, she fetched her largest kitchen knife, stormed over to the gateway and made sure she wouldn't be stealing any more customers. Obviously.
          Nooooooooooooooo.
          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 Joshua Rogan View Post
            Obviously, Fanny wasn't hanging about on her doorstep after midnight just to lock up, she was touting for business. But, seeing a strange woman apparently doing the same on her patch, she fetched her largest kitchen knife, stormed over to the gateway and made sure she wouldn't be stealing any more customers. Obviously.
            And then she obviously dropped her "ten inches of cold steel" as she went back inside, and this was found and removed by a club member, who suspected a fellow club member of murdering Stride, and wanted to protect the evil bar steward from the hangman and the club from closure. Obviously.

            Goldstein was obviously Fanny's pimp, passing on his way back from Specsavers Alley, to take a cut of her immoral earnings.

            Oh and Schwartz and Louis D both told outrageous and pointless lies about what happened where and when, much to Fanny's obvious relief and delight.

            Have we left anyone out of the fishy behaviour pool?

            Love,

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


            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post

              And then she obviously dropped her "ten inches of cold steel" as she went back inside, and this was found and removed by a club member, who suspected a fellow club member of murdering Stride, and wanted to protect the evil bar steward from the hangman and the club from closure. Obviously.

              Goldstein was obviously Fanny's pimp, passing on his way back from Specsavers Alley, to take a cut of her immoral earnings.

              Oh and Schwartz and Louis D both told outrageous and pointless lies about what happened where and when, much to Fanny's obvious relief and delight.

              Have we left anyone out of the fishy behaviour pool?

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              What about the guy with the ‘horse and cart’ ringtone who fooled FM into thinking that Louis returned at 1.00.
              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
                That's right. Schwartz never attended the inquest. Anderson was very careful with his wording.
                In Post #1296, you claimed that Schwartz gave evidence at the Inquest.

                Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                Yes. Including the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest, there were three versions.
                It's good to see you now admitting you were in error in Post #1296, though.

                Comment


                • .
                  Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  That's right. Schwartz never attended the inquest. Anderson was very careful with his wording
                  I might be mistaken but this seems like another moment? Was Anderson a part of some plot too?
                  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
                    You avoided answering the question. Who was the man pursued?
                    You are falsely representing my position. In Post #1296, you said "His informer implicated the man pursued. Who was the man pursued?" I clearly answered "Who was the man pursued" in Post #1324.

                    According to the October 1, 1888 Echo, the man pursued was "man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer"

                    According to the October 1, 1888 Echo, the man pursued was a Hungarian who was not the killer.

                    My point is that the club secretary did not implicate Schwartz. At the time the club secretary gave his interview to the Echo, Schwartz' account had not been been published in the Star. The Star account also did not name the Hungarian. You can't deliberately implicate someone when you don't know who they are, let alone that after you give your interview Schwartz would give an account of being pursued.

                    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                    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
                    Congratulations on attacking something I never said.

                    You've been doing that a lot.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                      The two appear to be linked, and again, you manage to avoid the question.
                      Again you falsely represent my position.

                      Your opinion is not proof. 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.

                      Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                      I don't need to 'show an indication' - the Star did that for me.
                      Your opinion is not proof. The Star account does not support your opinion that the 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 NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                        The mud evidence is a devastating blow to orthodox opinion
                        Your opinion is not a fact. You have yet to show that the mud evidence is a devastating blow to orthodox opinion. And you certainly haven't refuted what I said.

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

                          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?

                          At a minimum, I'd have expected her to use the corner of a skirt to wipe the mud off of her face.

                          Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                          11:45 was when Stride and a male companion were first noticed by William Marshall. That was in Berner street.
                          Nice attempt at dodging the question.

                          If Elizabeth Stride was assaulted in or close to Ellen street at 11:45, why did no one who saw Stride after 11:45 notice any mud on her?

                          And why would it all still be mud instead of dirt at the time that George Baxter Philips examined the body nearly two hours later?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                            One account begins at shortly before a quarter to one, the other at 12:30. There is no contradiction.
                            The accounts very clearly contradict each other.

                            In one account, Mortimer went to her doorstep around 12:45 and stayed there "for ten minutes". In the other account, Mortimer "was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock"

                            That's a 15 minute difference in when Mortimer supposedly started observing the street and a 15 to 20 minute difference in how long Mortimer observed the street.

                            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.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                              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.
                              The source of the statement about "hearing Smith go by" is Fanny Mortimer as recorded by a reporter. It should be treated with caution, but not with more caution than the other statements by Fanny Mortimer.

                              "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

                              Mortimer claims to have gone to her door around 12:45am, stayed there till about 12:55am, and heard Diemshutz' pony cart around 12:59am.

                              PC Smith claims to have passed by at 12:35.

                              That leads to several possibilities, not just the single possibility you are considering. Some of those possibilities are:
                              * PC Smith was wrong about the time - he was late and passed by at 12:45am. This possibility does nothing to prove or disprove Schwartz' account.
                              * Mortimer was wrong about the time - she went to her door at 12:35am. This would also mean she was wrong about how long she stayed in her door, mistaking 20 minutes for a mere 10 minutes. That makes it less likely for Schwartz' account to be true, but does not guarantee it was false.
                              * Mortimer and Smith were both wrong in their estimates. He passed by at around 12:40am. This possibility does nothing to prove or disprove Schwartz' account.
                              * Smith was right that he passed at 12:35am. Mortimer is right that she went to her door at 12:45am, but wrong about hearing PC Smith - she heard someone else passing at that time. This possibility does nothing to prove or disprove Schwartz' account.
                              * Mortimer lied about going to her door, possibly for the attention. She does seem to have gotten three newspaper interviews out of it. This possibility does nothing to prove or disprove Schwartz' account.
                              * Mortimer lied about seeing nothing. This doesn't make much sense, but it makes more sense than any version of the club conspiracy. This possibility does nothing to prove or disprove Schwartz' account.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                                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.
                                If Fanny Mortimer is correctly quoted in both accounts, then she was lying in at least one of them. There are clear contradictions between the two accounts - they give different times that she went to her door and different lengths of times that she stayed at her door.

                                "... 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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X