Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • . Godot? Why on earth would she be meeting someone at the entrance to Dutfield's Yard, at 12:45?
    I’m not claiming this as a fact but a possibility. She was found inside the yard so she was there for some reason. We can only speculate what that reason might have been.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

    Comment


    • .
      So at least as early as 12:35, Stride had been standing around the corner on Fairclough street, and then stands for a minute or two at the gates. In that 10 to 15 minute period, she is not observed by even one person. Okay
      I really don’t know why you struggle with this concept unless you are suggesting that there was never a period when any given street was deserted. No one saw the ripper in Bucks Row. Or Lechmere and Paul. Are we saying that it’s unlikely that they were there?
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

      Comment



      • The incident takes a few seconds. Mortimer was inside as were her neighbours and so no one sees anything. This is at 12.45 am after all and it’s Berner Street and not The Strand. No one hears anything because Stride ‘screams’ not very loudly.
        Oxymoron

        This was a phrase given via an interpreter whose first language almost certainly wasn’t English either. The important part being “..not very loudly,” of course.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment



        • ‘Lipski’ is one word and easily missable and as we have no sound recording we have no way of knowing how loud it was shouted
          .Let me guess - not very loud?

          We have no way of knowing how loud it was but we know that Schwartz wasn’t standing far away. It’s was also only one word. Why do treat this incident as if it was a Motörhead soundcheck. It’s a massive exaggeration. The fact that no one else heard Lipski is not in the least suspicious unless of course you are constantly thinking in terms of conspiracy.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

          Comment


          • Schwartz was only standing feet away after all.
            Then how could he not know who it was directed at?

            Because BS Man was arguing with Stride. Maybe he wasn’t sure if the shout was directed at her? After all this happened over a short space of time and Schwartz was walking at the time. Very easy to be uncertain. I’d say that it’s a massive pointer to him telling the truth.

            If Schwartz was a false witness doing the work of the club plotters and with a tame interpreter how could they have failed to get across the simple message that BS Man shouted ‘Lipski’ at him? It was the whole point of the ‘plan’ after all. This was impossible to **** up and yet Schwartz and the interpreter manage it. Proof that there was no club-based plot.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

            Comment


            • . This is what Anti-Conspiracism is all about - making up any garbage and then stating that if it cannot be proved to be false, it is justified on the grounds that it contradicts some strawman conspiracy theory. Anti-Conspiracism is an excuse for lowering intellectual standards, while pretending to do the opposite

              Oh the irony of it.

              Conspiracism is the refusal to acknowledge the possibility of a reasonable, plausible alternative explanation. It’s fundamentally dishonest because it usually sets out with an agenda. “There must be a conspiracy in here somewhere?” The leaps of faith required to maintain them cause people to do things like refuse to allow a very reasonable margin for error on timings just so they can point out something sinister. Non-conspiracists follow the evidence, remain calm in the face of discrepancy and don’t see the sinister around every corner. Non-conspiracists follow and interpret the evidence. Conspiracists manipulate the evidence to suit an ‘idea’ that they’ve had and are desperate to promote. And conspiracist are rarely able to admit that they are wrong.
              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

                Someone did mention it - The Actor Formerly Known as Israel Schwartz. TAFKaIS told Abberline he ran to one of the railway arches. It is not an irrelevant error, and your attempt to suggest otherwise amounts to a blatant attempt to alter witness evidence.
                Via an interpreter.

                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                Comment


                • . Swanson summarized the event. Stopping at the gates is inferred
                  So you ignore what he told Abberline and The Star and suggest some inference of Swanson’s?

                  Please
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                  ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                  Comment


                  • .
                    He scarpered from a man lighting a pipe, not the man he supposedly watched assault Stride, at close range. Yes, it is a bullshit story.
                    And you know that because?

                    Because you have the conspiracy goggles on of course.
                    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

                      Yesterday it was 1:05. I've got you jumping around again.



                      If Lamb arrived only one minute prior to Smith, he would have passed Smith when he ran down Berner street! This is complete nonsense!
                      Im not jumping around I’m saying that we cannot pin these times down exactly. It’s impossible. No CCTV, no mobile phone signals…why is this such an issue for you?

                      ……

                      Ok, let’s put Fanny Mortimer timing to bed once and for all.

                      Smith stated that he’d passed at approximately 12.30-12.35. If we take his round as 30 minutes then that gets him back to Berner Street at approximately 1.05.

                      but…..

                      If we take Fanny Mortimer time of 12.45 to have been correct then his 30 minute round would have him returning to Berner Street at approximately 1.15. Close to the time of Dr Blackwell’s arrival.

                      So I’ll ask everyone….which is the closest to what we know? Smith arriving at approximately 1.05 or Smith arriving at approximately 1.15?

                      We know that he didn’t arrive anywhere close to 1.15 and so, if Fanny was correct with her 12.45 time then Smith completed his round in approximately 20 minutes.

                      I call on all reasonable posters to suggest which is likeliest to have been correct?

                      Ill state my opinion with confidence. Fanny Mortimer was mistaken. Smith passed when he said that he did.

                      Therefore Fanny, after spending approximately 10 minutes or so on her doorstep was back inside when Israel Schwartz passed.

                      We can very safely dismiss FM’s time of 12.45.


                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                      Comment


                      • .
                        Lunacy! I'm accepting what Anderson wrote, at face value. How does that amount to conspiracy thinking? This is desperate stuff.
                        Anderson made a mistake. You are trying to interpret a simple error with the goggles on.
                        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
                          Yet Wess appeared to know details of the event. Tell me why...
                          You have provided no evidence that Wess knew anything about Schwartz' account. 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.

                          Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                          It was a statement aimed at no one in particular. You're being a bit over-sensitive.
                          Why would you think I was uspet? You're the one who embarrassed yourself and wasted your own time trying to rebut something I never said.

                          And you've made a lot of statements that seem aimed at no one in particular, because nobody in the thread said them. Doing that make it look like you are unobservant and unable to rebut the points other posters are actually saying.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                            Never mind - I have given up on expecting a serious discussion of the prisoner situation, and related maters such as the apprehensions sought list.
                            Nice attempt at dodging the question.

                            If you want to have serious discussion I recommend you stop dodging questions, stop mistaking your speculations for proof, stop attacking positions nobody held, and stop accusing people of dodging questions when they have already answered them.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                              You are changing Dr Phillips' words, to something that suit you better. The word was not 'dirty'. The words were 'matted' and 'plastered'. Very different. There was also said to be a slight amount of mud on the right side. How did that get there? Did it splash up when she was "gently laid down"
                              Again you falsely represent my position.

                              I never said that Dr Phillips used the word 'dirty". 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."

                              Dr Phillips said "Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side." and "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."

                              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?

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

                              If Elizabeth Stride was assaulted in or close to Ellen street at 11:45, why had none of that mud dried to dirt by the time that George Baxter Philips examined the body nearly two hours later?

                              If you want anyone to accept your speculation that Elizabeth Stride was assaulted in or close to Ellen street at 11:45, you will need to answer all three of these questions. So far, you haven't even tried.





                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                                If Fanny had said she were knitting, prior to hearing the policeman's footsteps, then the two accounts would contradict each other. Yet all we know from the 'important statement' report is that Fanny went to the door with the intention of shooting the bolts - so the door wasn't locked and quite possibly open. Tell me what Fanny was doing, prior to hearing the footsteps. If you can't, there is no contradiction - one report simply begins at a later time.
                                The accounts very clearly contradict each other. Your repeated refusal to accept this is baffling.

                                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.

                                If Fanny had said she were knitting, prior to hearing the policeman's footsteps, then the two accounts would not contradict each other, because the other account did not say what she was doing prior to hearing the policeman's footsteps.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X