Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    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.
    I know the publishing sequence, and I know the quotes. Thanks anyway.
    If 'the man pursued' is not a reference to Schwartz, then what is it a reference to?
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

      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?
      Where do you get this 11:45 from? I've already said (more than once) that this was the time she were first seen by Marshall.
      What exactly could she have done, to clean herself up?

      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?
      It was dark, she had dark hair, and she wore dark clothes. Other than that, who would have noticed, who also became a statement giving witness?

      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?
      Phillips: On Oct. 1, at three p.m., at St. George's Mortuary, present Dr. Blackwell and for part of the time Dr. Reigate and Dr. Blackwell's assistant; temperature being about 55 degrees, Dr. Blackwell and I made a post-mortem examination, Dr. Blackwell kindly consenting to make the dissection, and I took the following note: "Rigor mortis still firmly marked. Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side. We removed the clothes. We found the body fairly nourished. Over both shoulders, especially the right, from the front aspect under colar bones and in front of chest there is a bluish discolouration which I have watched and seen on two occasions since. On neck, from left to right, there is a clean cut incision six inches in length; incision commencing two and a half inches in a straight line below the angle of the jaw. Three-quarters of an inch over undivided muscle, then becoming deeper, about an inch dividing sheath and the vessels, ascending a little, and then grazing the muscle outside the cartilages on the left side of the neck. The carotid artery on the left side and the other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through, save the posterior portion of the carotid, to a line about 1-12th of an inch in extent, which prevented the separation of the upper and lower portion of the artery. The cut through the tissues on the right side of the cartilages is more superficial, and tails off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw. It is evident that the haemorrhage which produced death was caused through the partial severance of the left carotid artery. There is a deformity in the lower fifth of the bones of the right leg, which are not straight, but bow forward; there is a thickening above the left ankle. The bones are here straighter. No recent external injury save to neck. The lower lobe of the ear was torn, as if by the forcible removing or wearing through of an earring, but it was thoroughly healed. The right ear was pierced for an earring, but had not been so injured, and the earring was wanting. On removing the scalp there was no sign of bruising or extravasation of blood between it and the skull-cap. The skull was about one-sixth of an inch in thickness, and dense in texture. The brain was fairly normal. Both lungs were unusually pale. The heart was small; left ventricle firmly contracted, right less so. Right ventricle full of dark clot; left absolutely empty. Partly digested food, apparently consisting of cheese, potato, and farinaceous edibles. Teeth on left lower jaw absent." On Tuesday, at the mortuary, I found the total circumference of the neck 12 inches. I found in the pocket of the underskirt of the deceased a key, as of a padlock, a small piece of lead pencil, a comb, a broken piece of comb, a metal spoon, half a dozen large and one small button, a hook, as if off a dress, a piece of muslin, and one or two small pieces of paper. 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.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

        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.
        The ten minutes is the last 10 minutes of the 30 minutes in the other account. No contradiction.

        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.
        LOL
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Another example of the way that you try and manipulate evidence to suit. Just because she went to the door with intention of bolting it for the night we cannot assume that it was open. Unlocked, yes, but open, no. Common sense also tells us that this was completely unlikely.
          She was at her door nearly the whole time between 12:30 and 1:00. Why would she keep opening and closing the door?
          On the hand, if she had repeatedly open and closed the door, then when she heard the 'measured, heavy tramp', the door was closed. So even with the door closed, she could clearly hear noises from the street. Guess what she didn't hear?
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

            Do you have the slightest idea what "approximately" means? Saying approximately 1:05 and saying approximately 1:07 is not jumping around, it is being approximate.
            So saying 1:03 is also approximate, and more to the point, just as valid.
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

              There is an invented chunk of Ripperology related to Diemschutz, but the invention is by people who assume Diemschutz was lying about when he found the body. There is no evidence that Diemschutz lied and so far no one has provided a credible reason that Diemschutz would lie.
              Fiver thinks Diemschitz didn't lie. London Evening News, Oct 1:

              Her hands were tightly clenched, and when they were opened by the doctor I saw immediately that one had been holding sweetmeats and the other grapes.
              ...
              When I first of all came across the woman, she was lying on her left side, her left hand was on the ground, while the right was lying across her breast.


              Inquest:

              I cannot say how much of the body was sideways. I did not notice what position her hands were in, but when the police came I observed that her bodice was unbuttoned near the neck.

              Fiver is obviously wrong, but Fiver thinks there is no credible reason for Diemschitz to have lied, and therefore he didn't.
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                "Just gone indoors" means a very brief to brief period. Maybe a minute, or maybe a few minutes. Not 20 or more.
                If you were not motivated to find a timeslot for Israel Schwartz and his fantasy micro-play, you would not be engaged in this sort manipulation.
                I agree that “just gone indoors” would usually indicate a shorter period but as we’ve shown that she was wrong about the time that Smith passed we have to take that into consideration.

                ”Fantasy micro-play?” By simply considering the odds how likely is it that every aspect of this case involves a cover-up? If you could disassociate yourself from this childish thinking then you might see a little clearer.


                Schwartz lies to place himself at the scene of a murder. (Knowing that, if they were so inclined, the police could check where he was before the event, whether he had a legitimate reason to be there and what time he returned)

                He ignores the possibility of inconvenient witnesses popping up all along Berner Street. Or even another witness putting Stride in the company of a tall, thin Scotsman at 12.45.

                He’s ‘selected’ to do a simple job - to tell the police that the killer shouted Lipski at him and so was anti-Semitic - and even with a tame interpreter he messes up this simple task.


                How can anyone believe that this was a part of some fantasy cover-up just because of the evidence of a woman who very obviously got her time wrong by around 10 minutes. That’s it. That’s all it takes to set a conspiracy theorist of ‘on the hunt.’

                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

                  So why did he do it?
                  Diemschutz didn’t ‘sharpen up’ his timing. He gave his time and never changed it. We have a witness who gives a time. Fortunately he tells us how he came up with that time unlike other witnesses who were simply estimating. Diemschutz passed a clock. We know that this clock existed.

                  So even when we have this the conspiracist still thinks that he was wrong or lying. On what evidence?


                  Why is it that in conspiracy world you and Michael prefer to suggest that people estimating timings were pinpoint accurate and yet someone that actually saw a clock was wrong? Was Blackwell making his time up too?

                  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

                    I have no idea why a man carrying a half yard wide parcel wrapped in newspaper would have stood out.
                    And of course you’re not trying to make it sound unmissable are you? He was carrying a parcel. People carry things like parcels, packages and bags. He wasn’t carrying a penguin.

                    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

                      There is no obvious reason for her to have stood in that gateway. On the other hand, just behind the line of the gates would have been a great spot for an ambushing murderer to have waited.
                      I honestly believe that you’re getting worse.

                      Why does anyone stand in a gateway? If you saw someone standing in a gateway would you say “well he can’t really be standing there because why would he want to stand in a gateway?”

                      Please stop this nonsense. She might have arranged to meet someone is a possibility. After a miserable night she might have decided to earn some cash is another.

                      You have no evidence for an ambushing murderer. Or an escaped Baboon or an insane, Transvestite Yak Farmer from Stepney.

                      Try and control this lunacy.

                      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

                        It is unlikely she were hanging around the vicinity of the murder location - alone or with someone - for anything more than seconds at a time. Five and ten minutes periods would not have gone unnoticed. For example, when Wess went home he saw people in Fairclough street, and Eagle probably saw people in Berner street, when he returned to the club. The unnoticed waiting in the gateway is just another reason to doubt Schwartz' story.
                        You don’t know how many were in the streets at any given time so your initial statement is without value. Your just making things up to bolster your fantasy.
                        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

                          The Star: ...but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

                          The evidence is against you.
                          Different wording from different sources cherrypicked to suit. ‘Shouted’ doesn’t indicate an exact volume. Even if it was pretty loud it was only one word which could easily have gone unnoticed.

                          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

                            I agree that “just gone indoors” would usually indicate a shorter period but as we’ve shown that she was wrong about the time that Smith passed we have to take that into consideration.

                            ”Fantasy micro-play?” By simply considering the odds how likely is it that every aspect of this case involves a cover-up? If you could disassociate yourself from this childish thinking then you might see a little clearer.


                            Schwartz lies to place himself at the scene of a murder. (Knowing that, if they were so inclined, the police could check where he was before the event, whether he had a legitimate reason to be there and what time he returned)

                            He ignores the possibility of inconvenient witnesses popping up all along Berner Street. Or even another witness putting Stride in the company of a tall, thin Scotsman at 12.45.

                            He’s ‘selected’ to do a simple job - to tell the police that the killer shouted Lipski at him and so was anti-Semitic - and even with a tame interpreter he messes up this simple task.


                            How can anyone believe that this was a part of some fantasy cover-up just because of the evidence of a woman who very obviously got her time wrong by around 10 minutes. That’s it. That’s all it takes to set a conspiracy theorist of ‘on the hunt.’
                            Ill add….

                            Why did he bother to introduce the totally unnecessary Pipeman to confuse matters?

                            Why didn’t he take the very simple step of saying that he’d seen a knife in BS Man’s hand?

                            ….

                            The suggestion that Schwartz lied to deflect attention from the club or for any other reasons carries no weight at all. As anyone can see.

                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                            Comment


                            • .
                              This is not how the story goes. Schwartz got as far as the gateway, which is where he observes the assault from...

                              ...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.

                              So Schwartz apparently stood watching the quarrel and assault like some sort of voyeur. He then crosses the street
                              No. No. No.

                              Please stop with this blatant dishonesty.

                              I call on any poster on here to look at that short statement. He saw “a man stop,& speak….” At no point does he say or even imply that he himself stopped. In no version, whatever newspaper you look at, does he mention that he stopped. He did not stop…..he observed events as he was walking past.

                              You really are embarrassing yourself with these blatant manipulations. It just proves that you have absolutely no case so you have to stoop to inventing things.
                              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

                                Looks like 'the interpreter excuse' is the new get out of jail free card.
                                Are you suggesting Schwartz (via interpreter) never told Abberline he had run as far the railway arch, and that this was just a mistake of interpretation? Are you doing this because there were no witnesses to the chase and Schwartz' story needs to be rescued?
                                No, I’m simply pointing out a fact that you try to brush under the carpet because it’s inconvenient. At the very least we have to accept the possibilities of errors of interpretation and Press error or exaggeration. Only a died-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist wouldn’t acknowledge these very obvious possibilities.

                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X