If Schwartz Lied ...

[Fiver]

See...this again. Your statement above is patently false, he did not arrive when he said he did because someone facing that street was at their door at the time when he says he arrived and they didnt see or hear anyone. And multiple witnesses said they saw him by the body between 12:40-and 12:45. Dear god, are you that far divorced from the facts here that you dont even know that?

Fanny Mortimer, by your own estimation, was observing Berner Street between 12:35 and 12:55. She also mentions hearing a cart and pony a few minutes after shutting her front door and that her husband also heard them.

That leaves two possibilities
1) Fanny Mortimer (and her husband) confirm Diemschutz' arrival time of 1am.
2) Fanny Mortimer missed seeing and hearing Diemschutz, with cart and pony, arriving at 12:45. Any witness that unobservant would have missed anything smaller and quieter than a marching band, including Schwartz and the cast of characters he claims he saw in Berner Street. It also means Fanny Mortimer and her husband imaging a cart arriving at just the time Diemschutz claimed he arrived.

Now what does Mr. Occam have to say about these two possibilities?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Policeman's whistle's. The word "whistle's" clearly refers to the sound, the PC likely blows more than once, so in reporting the noise it means (to me) 'the whistle sounds belonging to a policeman'. It's not a plural on policeman, it's possessive, indicating the whistling came from a PC. A bit like a bosun's pipes.

I agree that that is a valid interpretation - one policeman whistling multiple times, rather than multiple policemen whistling once or more - because it's 'policeman's', not 'policemen's'.
Yet that rather relies on the reporter getting it right, and knowing what Letchworth was trying to convey.
Instead of making any assumptions about what was heard, or how what was heard was conveyed and interpreted, we can just look at the evidence ...

Edward Spooner arrived on the scene a few minutes prior to Lamb and Ayliffe, and like Herschburg, he witnessed details that could only have been seen from very close range.

Baxter: Was any blood coming from the throat?
Spooner: Yes; it was still flowing. I noticed that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand, and some red and white flowers pinned on her breast.

These details would not be apparent to someone standing a yard or more behind the body, because of the orientation of the body, and the almost total darkness.
This strongly suggests that both Herschburg and Spooner, arrived minutes before any constable.

Herschburg: ... I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway.

Who blew the whistle?

Spooner: I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner-street, except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay when he heard the policeman's whistle. He came running after me.

Who blew the whistle?

Perhaps a clue is that in both instances, it's 'policeman's whistle', not 'policeman's whistles'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can't help feeling that people view events like Berner St. as a slow-moving play, where actors enter from one side of the stage, do their bits and exit, before being replaced with a new scene and players in one continuous production where everybody involved is aware of each scene. In actuality, events probably moved very quickly, with one person or persons passing through, a few seconds later there's another person or persons, where neither group may have seen or heard the other.

Exactly Scott How long would the Schwartz incident have taken from beginning to end? Possibly 10 or 15 seconds? Why is it so surprising then that at 12.45 in an otherwise quiet backstreet that no one saw it? I don’t think it’s in the least surprising.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Edward Spooner arrived on the scene a few minutes prior to Lamb and Ayliffe, and like Herschburg, he witnessed details that could only have been seen from very close range

Glad to see that you accept that Spooner got there as he himself said, 5 minutes before Lamb. Michael is completely blind when it comes to this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree that that is a valid interpretation - one policeman whistling multiple times, rather than multiple policemen whistling once or more - because it's 'policeman's', not 'policemen's'.
Yet that rather relies on the reporter getting it right, and knowing what Letchworth was trying to convey.
Instead of making any assumptions about what was heard, or how what was heard was conveyed and interpreted, we can just look at the evidence ...

Edward Spooner arrived on the scene a few minutes prior to Lamb and Ayliffe, and like Herschburg, he witnessed details that could only have been seen from very close range.

Baxter: Was any blood coming from the throat?
Spooner: Yes; it was still flowing. I noticed that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand, and some red and white flowers pinned on her breast.

These details would not be apparent to someone standing a yard or more behind the body, because of the orientation of the body, and the almost total darkness.
This strongly suggests that both Herschburg and Spooner, arrived minutes before any constable.

Herschburg: ... I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway.

Who blew the whistle?

Spooner: I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner-street, except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay when he heard the policeman's whistle. He came running after me.

Who blew the whistle?

Perhaps a clue is that in both instances, it's 'policeman's whistle', not 'policeman's whistles'.

Perhaps Lamb blew his whistle when Eagle found him in Commercial Road. Then again when he got to the yard. The first was the one Harris heard, the second was the one Hoschberg heard?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Every person who disagrees with your Jewish Conspiracy has said that Stride might not be a Ripper victim. Every single one. You are arguing against a position that nobody on this thread has taken. Nobody is assuming that Stride was a Ripper victim.

Your supposed conspiracy is based on the club altering the time of death, but that would do nothing to make the club less suspicious. It could even be worse than useless if they are caught lying. Your conspiracy also requires them picking a man who did not speak English and who made a statement that pointed towards Jews, not away from them.

You also ignore that if Schwartz' statement is true, it would be one of the strongest pieces of evidence that Stride's killer was not the Ripper. But you're too wedding to your Jewish Conspiracy to see that,

As to your claim that "There is not one shred of physical evidence, or even any viable circumstantial evidence, that matches anything learned from prior victims attributed to this Jack fellow" the Coroner at the Stride Inquest strongly disagreed with you, noting several similarities.

* "the age and class of woman selected as victim"
* "the place and time of the crime"
* "the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped"
* "the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator"
* "the same daring defiance of immediate detection"

Michael no longer responds to critical posts Fiver because he has no answers. Just the same old stuff about 4 witnesses.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Fanny Mortimer, by your own estimation, was observing Berner Street between 12:35 and 12:55. She also mentions hearing a cart and pony a few minutes after shutting her front door and that her husband also heard them.

That leaves two possibilities
1) Fanny Mortimer (and her husband) confirm Diemschutz' arrival time of 1am.
2) Fanny Mortimer missed seeing and hearing Diemschutz, with cart and pony, arriving at 12:45. Any witness that unobservant would have missed anything smaller and quieter than a marching band, including Schwartz and the cast of characters he claims he saw in Berner Street. It also means Fanny Mortimer and her husband imaging a cart arriving at just the time Diemschutz claimed he arrived.

Now what does Mr. Occam have to say about these two possibilities?

Mr. Occam: There was no incident at the gates, or on the street, at any time between 12:35 and 12:55

[FrankO]

Frankly I dont know how to respond to the above, you seem to misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent any comments you reply to. Im not even sure what your point is here...I didnt say or suggest anything you are trying to mock.

Your words: "I believe that Mr Theatrical was a good choice because he spoke no English. Unless you have 2 people within earshot who both understand his native language, then the translator has leeway to present any story he likes really."

So, according to you, Mr. Translator could have told any story that would have deflected suspicion away from the club. Like, say, that someone known to the club saw an obvious Gentile manhandling Stride at the entrance to the yard.

Now, does Mr. Translator do that? Nope. He can’t help but invent a needless Mr. Pipeman. And, in the end, he has Schwartz doubting about who the “Lipski” was shouted at, him or Mr. Pipeman. If Mr. Translator could have told any story he liked really, just as you suggest, then he did a terrible job.

Odd that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your words: "I believe that Mr Theatrical was a good choice because he spoke no English. Unless you have 2 people within earshot who both understand his native language, then the translator has leeway to present any story he likes really."

So, according to you, Mr. Translator could have told any story that would have deflected suspicion away from the club. Like, say, that someone known to the club saw an obvious Gentile manhandling Stride at the entrance to the yard.

Now, does Mr. Translator do that? Nope. He can’t help but invent a needless Mr. Pipeman. And, in the end, he has Schwartz doubting about who the “Lipski” was shouted at, him or Mr. Pipeman. If Mr. Translator could have told any story he liked really, just as you suggest, then he did a terrible job.

Odd that.

It’s not much of a plan is it Frank?

A non-English speaking false witness creates an imaginary Pipeman to add to his scenario so that when the Police can’t locate him (because he doesn’t exist) they have less faith in the validity of his story. This probably makes sense on another planet but it certainly doesn’t on earth.

[caz]

Perhaps you could explain the following...? Evening News, Oct 1:

Charles Letchford, living at 30, Berner-street, says: I passed through the street at half-past 12 and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual, and my sister was standing at the door at ten minutes to one, but did not see any one pass by. I heard the commotion when the body was found, and heard the policeman's whistles, but did not take any notice of the matter, as disturbances are very frequent at the club, and I thought it was only another row.

So that's policeman's (plural), and whistles (plural).

So if Lamb blew his whistle, who blew the other(s)?

I can explain this, because it's in plain English.

He heard one policeman, blowing his whistle more than once.

The policeman's [singular - the plural would have been policemen's] whistles [one physical whistle, being blown at least twice].

You're welcome.

[Wickerman]

What are they teaching these kids in school today.....

[caz]

So now it was the translator who could have put two Jews in the frame by mistake, when the brief was to have one Gentile ripper outside the club, roughing up Stride before committing 'another' murder?



Frankly I dont know how to respond to the above, you seem to misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent any comments you reply to. Im not even sure what your point is here...I didnt say or suggest anything you are trying to mock.

This is really very simple, and if you can't remember what you posted or why, maybe that explains your confusion.

You suggested that the fact that Schwartz didn't understand or speak any English was actually a bonus for your conspirators, because the interpreter could make sure his statement was translated into English in accordance with the desired 'script', using creative licence where necessary, and nobody would be any the wiser. Your script - in case you had forgotten - was supposed to put a Gentile thug in the street, assaulting Stride and yelling an insult at Schwartz.

But we know how Schwartz's interpreter translated his statement, and it did no such thing. It had Schwartz seeing two men, one called Lipski, who appeared to be acting together.

[caz]

I believe that Mr Theatrical was a good choice because he spoke no English. Unless you have 2 people within earshot who both understand his native language, then the translator has leeway to present any story he likes really. Or format the testimony in his own manner, not necessarily as delivered.

I interpreted this to mean that Schwartz's translator would have had leeway to present any story he liked really, or format the testimony in his own manner, not necessarily as Schwartz himself had given it.

Any story he liked.

So did that story deflect suspicion from the club or its members, or do pretty much the opposite?

Here it is again: Two Jews, one apparently called Lipski, working together to assault the woman who would be found murdered on the club's premises.

Is your hovercraft full of eels yet?

[caz]

I agree that that is a valid interpretation - one policeman whistling multiple times, rather than multiple policemen whistling once or more - because it's 'policeman's', not 'policemen's'.
Yet that rather relies on the reporter getting it right, and knowing what Letchworth was trying to convey.
Instead of making any assumptions about what was heard, or how what was heard was conveyed and interpreted, we can just look at the evidence ...

Edward Spooner arrived on the scene a few minutes prior to Lamb and Ayliffe, and like Herschburg, he witnessed details that could only have been seen from very close range.

Baxter: Was any blood coming from the throat?
Spooner: Yes; it was still flowing. I noticed that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand, and some red and white flowers pinned on her breast.

These details would not be apparent to someone standing a yard or more behind the body, because of the orientation of the body, and the almost total darkness.
This strongly suggests that both Herschburg and Spooner, arrived minutes before any constable.

Herschburg: ... I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway.

Who blew the whistle?

Spooner: I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner-street, except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay when he heard the policeman's whistle. He came running after me.

Who blew the whistle?

Perhaps a clue is that in both instances, it's 'policeman's whistle', not 'policeman's whistles'.

Anyone losing the will to live yet?

[FrankO]

It’s not much of a plan is it Frank?

If it is a plan, it's a card house plan, Mike. From whatever angle you look at it.

A non-English speaking false witness creates an imaginary Pipeman to add to his scenario so that when the Police can’t locate him (because he doesn’t exist) they have less faith in the validity of his story. This probably makes sense on another planet but it certainly doesn’t on earth.

Indeed, you don't even need to blow.