If Schwartz Lied ...

[FrankO]

These points become more and more bizarre Frank. Everything is ‘mysterious.’ It appears that simple explanations are just too boring to be true. When witnesses make statements they only mention things that are relevant to the situation and nothing is less relevant than the horse and cart. You’re explanation is almost certainly what happened. The fact that he doesn’t specifically mention moving the horse and cart on and that no one else mentions it is more furtive ground for the implanting of a mystery. No one mentions the horse and cart because very obviously it wasn’t left next to the body. It was irrelevant to the unfolding events. This is another non-mystery.

Exactly, Mike. And the point that I was making got snowed under by the distraction Andrew created. However, it still firmly stands: there's no reason to think that people coming out by the side door must have bumped into the pony & cart of must have squeezed in between cart & pony and the body.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How does 'just about' translate as 'not quite' in your world?

'Just about' is an approximation of the time and therefore an estimate, so if Mrs D was in the kitchen 'just about one o'clock', serving hot drinks, when she suddenly saw Mr D enter, then as far as she could tell he could have come in at any time between, say, 12.55 and 1.05 - and only then if she had some other way of knowing when she made the first cuppa.

I'm not trying to argue for a specific time here; I'm saying the opposite, that it is not possible, purely from Mrs D's words, to ascertain whether it was 'not quite 1am' or just gone 1am, when she first saw her husband standing there.

The word 'about' means approximately.
The man was about 30 years-old - means the man looked 30, give or take a couple of years.

The phrase 'just about' means nearly.
I'm just about ready to leave - means the person will be ready to leave in the very near future.

No witness supports Diemschitz' 'exactly one o'clock' claim - not even his wife.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Impressive, Andrew. I deliver the evidence that Diemshutz did, in fact, state that he passed the body with his cart & pony and you manage to make it into yet 'another mystery'.

I quoted Baxter and Diemschitz. I created no mystery. Any mystery is already there.

Of course, it's your prorogative not to believe a word of Diemshutz's statements, but I think you're a tad too difficult about it.

So you'll no doubt be pleased to hear that I also have doubts that Diemschitz participated in the search for police.

Until you come up with something (good &) better, I believe that Diemshutz entered the gateway on his pony cart, that his pony shied to the left, that Diemshutz proded the 'heap' with his whip to discover what it was but couldn't while his cart was in a position from where he was able to do that, ...

There was plenty of room. The cart was about 3' wide, and carriageway about 10', wall to wall. If the cart wheels ran in the wheel ruts, which seems a conservative assumption considering that the pony was supposedly pulling to the left, then he could have easily jumped down between cart and body, without any further movement of the pony & cart.
This is precisely what his inquest comments indicate.

... that he moved the cart another bit until it was past the 'heap', then jumped off and took a few steps to where he knew the 'heap' was, struck a match and could see that it was the figure of a woman before the wind blew out the flame.

I did not get off the barrow, but I tried with my whip handle to feel what it was. I tried to lift it up, but I could not. I jumped down at once and struck a match, and as it was rather windy I could not get sufficient light to see exactly what it was.

I jumped down at once - is absolutely clear in its meaning. There was no extra movement of the cart, before he jumped off.

I could see, however, that there was the figure of some person lying there. I could tell by the dress that it was a woman. I did not disturb it. I went into the club, and asked where my missus was. I saw her in the front room on the ground floor.

No subsequent movement either. The pony & cart remain in the original stopping position, and therefore must be an obstruction to proceedings. Yet they never were.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The word 'about' means approximately.
The man was about 30 years-old - means the man looked 30, give or take a couple of years.

The phrase 'just about' means nearly.
I'm just about ready to leave - means the person will be ready to leave in the very near future.

No witness supports Diemschitz' 'exactly one o'clock' claim - not even his wife.

This is a nonsense argument of course. You’re trying to sculpt the English language to suit your own ends. These are just 3 examples from an English language website showing that “just about” more often that not means the same as “about.”

“I am Scottish and we always use "just about" to mean "nearly, but not quite". E.g. "I just about passed my exam" means "I got close to the pass mark, but didn't quite make it.”

“…used in informal phrases to indicate understatement : I've had just about enough of your insults it's about time you stopped”

“For example, in the UK, The team just about won. means that the team won, but it was close (ie The team barely won.). However, in North America, it means that the team almost won.”

Therefore the nearly won.

So Mrs Diemschutz definitely does support her husband. As does Morris Eagle who said that he first saw the body around 1.00 so that’s 2. Then there was Gilleman who called him to see the body and would have been questioned by the police and so confirmed Eagle so that’s 3. Fanny Mortimer heard the horse and cart around 1.00 (that doesn’t confirm of course but it adds weight) And of course we know in the real world that Diemschutz had no reason to lie. And he didn’t. We having to keep dismissing a figment of someone’s imagination.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
So you'll no doubt be pleased to hear that I also have doubts that Diemschitz participated in the search for police.

Why am I not surprised. Is there any aspect of this case that you think is correct? Perhaps the murders really occurred in 1887? Perhaps Abberline never existed?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I jumped down at once - is absolutely clear in its meaning. There was no extra movement of the cart, before he jumped off.

Or perhaps he didn’t mention it? Or perhaps he moved it when he came back outside? Or perhaps someone moved it for him?

This is completely unimportant now and it was completely unimportant at the time. That was why Diemschutz didn’t go into any detail about it. If he did as Frank said then he was guilty of nothing more than getting off the cart a very few seconds later than he said that he had. Maybe he wanted to move his cart further into the yard because there was still merchandise on it and he didn’t want potentially light-fingered club members swarming around it and helping themselves and he didn’t want to mention doing this to the police because he didn’t want it thought that he’d put his financial interests before the well being of a woman lying on the ground?

A simple, plausible, non-sinister explanation…….you’ll hate it of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We also have to remember the huge risk that Diemschutz would have been taking by lying about what time he’d arrived at the club. The police questioned the locals and it would only have taken one person to have said that they were on their doorstep at 1.00 or looking out of their window and that they didn’t see him return an it would have been game over. The police could also have checked with the people that Diemschutz had previously been with to check what time he’d left for home.

[Michael W Richards]

Its so entertaining when people dismiss facts so that they can sleep easier with the decisions they've made.

Fact...no-one saw or heard Diemshitz arrive just before or just after 1am.
Fact...Fanny heard a cart and horse after she had gone to bed. She went in just after 1am. She did not see Louis, or hear Louis, she heard a cart and horse. Around 1:04-05.
Fact...Lamb was in the passageway after being found by Eagle who had sought help at approx 1:05am
Fact...Eagle could not have left after 1am, after Louis had supposedly just arrived at "precisely 1", and be back with Lamb at 1:05am.
Fact... Issac K did not leave with Louis after 1am, he left before 1, and at the request of Diemshitz or some other member. Obviously that indicates that a body was discovered and Louis was there at that time, well before 1am. Issac estimated the time he was made aware of the body at 12:40pm. He met Eagle on his return to the passageway with Lamb.
Fact.....2 other people onsite gave the same estimated murder awareness time, around 12:40. They also saw Louis there, with others.
Fact....no-one saw anyone on that street, near that club, from 12:35 until 12:55 when Goldstein walks past. ONLY the young couple seen by both Fanny and Brown were there. They didnt see anyone either during that time.
Fact....Eagle claimed to have arrived at the gates at 12:40, the exact same time Lave claimed he was standing there. Yet oddly neither saw the other.
Fact....a witness to the street claimed to have been able to see the street almost the whole time between 12:30 and just after 1am. She didnt see anyone but the young couple and Goldstein during that time.


Louis Diemshitz, Morris Eagle, Joseph Lave and Israel Schwartz were seen or heard by no-one at the time they said they were at the gates.
Fact....Louis is club steward, Eagle is the club speaker, Lave is a cottage resident and club photographer, and Schwartz can be established as being directly connected to that club in the years following this event. And not one of the 4 of them have ANY corroboration for anything they said happened.

Use the facts folks, and stop trying to blame a poor Ripper for non-ripped victims.

[caz]

Impressive, Andrew. I deliver the evidence that Diemshutz did, in fact, state that he passed the body with his cart & pony and you manage to make it into yet 'another mystery'.

Of course, it's your prorogative not to believe a word of Diemshutz's statements, but I think you're a tad too difficult about it.

Until you come up with something (good &) better, I believe that Diemshutz entered the gateway on his pony cart, that his pony shied to the left, that Diemshutz proded the 'heap' with his whip to discover what it was but couldn't while his cart was in a position from where he was able to do that, that he moved the cart another bit until it was past the 'heap', then jumped off and took a few steps to where he knew the 'heap' was, struck a match and could see that it was the figure of a woman before the wind blew out the flame.

Far too simple, Frank.

Andrew doesn't recognise simple.

As for his 'prisoner' post, #927, I'll let someone else simplify things for him. I can no longer be arsed.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fiver]

Its so entertaining when people dismiss facts so that they can sleep easier with the decisions they've made.

Fact...no-one saw or heard Diemshitz arrive just before or just after 1am.
Fact...Fanny heard a cart and horse after she had gone to bed. She went in just after 1am. She did not see Louis, or hear Louis, she heard a cart and horse. Around 1:04-05.

Both of these "facts" are contradicted by Fanny Mortimer.

"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 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 Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its so entertaining when people dismiss facts so that they can sleep easier with the decisions they've made.

Fact...no-one saw or heard Diemshitz arrive just before or just after 1am.

Mrs Diemschutz:
“Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs. Up till then I had not heard a sound-not even a whisper. Then suddenly I saw my husband enter, looking very scared and frightened”

Of course your baseless conspiracy thinking will say “well she would say that wouldn’t she?” Or you might say “He might have been lurking in the yard since 12.35 before he went inside.” But we know that nonsense thinking.

Fact...Fanny heard a cart and horse after she had gone to bed. She went in just after 1am. She did not see Louis, or hear Louis, she heard a cart and horse. Around 1:04-05.

It’s interesting how you manage to be so conveniently specific when faced with the differing versions of what supposedly happened regarding Fanny. As she’d said that she went onto her doorstep for 10 minutes after Smith passed that would give her a time of going back indoors anytime between around 12.45 and 12.55 which would easily accommodate hearing Diemschutz cart when she said that she’d heard it. So your fact isn’t a fact. It’s a biased interpretation but we’re used to that.

Fact...Lamb was in the passageway after being found by Eagle who had sought help at approx 1:05am

I don’t know what this is in response to but if you’re suggesting that Eagle went for help at 1.05 then that’s wrong of course.

Fact...Eagle could not have left after 1am, after Louis had supposedly just arrived at "precisely 1", and be back with Lamb at 1:05am.

You’re doing what conspiracy theorists do of course….making things up. You keep obsessing over the word ‘precisely’ even though it’s been explained to you numerous times. Shall I try again? D sees clock at 1.00. From clock to yard is less than a minute. D then assumes that it’s still 1.00 when he arrived (which it might well have been, or the clock might have clicked over to 1.01.)

Why do you assume that Lamb arrived at the yard at exactly 1.05? Another invented ‘fact.’ Eagle vey obviously could and did leave after 1.00 and bought Lamb back to the yard ‘around’ but not necessarily exactly 1.05. No issue there.

Fact... Issac K did not leave with Louis after 1am, he left before 1, and at the request of Diemshitz or some other member. Obviously that indicates that a body was discovered and Louis was there at that time, well before 1am. Issac estimated the time he was made aware of the body at 12:40pm. He met Eagle on his return to the passageway with Lamb.

I’ve missed your comedy injections. You haven’t a smidgeon of evidence that Isaac left before 1.00. Again you’re simply making things up. He went for a PC just after 1.00 with Louis.

Fact.....2 other people onsite gave the same estimated murder awareness time, around 12:40. They also saw Louis there, with others.

Here we go again. WILL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SPOONER SAID THAT HE’D BEEN AT THE YARD FOR 5 MINUTES BEFORE LAMB ARRIVED? Or will you dishonestly continue to ignore it. I’ll bet on the latter.

Fact....no-one saw anyone on that street, near that club, from 12:35 until 12:55 when Goldstein walks past. ONLY the young couple seen by both Fanny and Brown were there. They didnt see anyone either during that time.

Firstly, if we take a non-biased, non-selective view of Fanny’s evidence (which I know goes against the grain with you) then we have her back inside when Schwartz passed.

It’s also very noticeable that you have no issue with no one seeing Diemschutz arrive back earlier either. But then again that would require fairness.

Fact....Eagle claimed to have arrived at the gates at 12:40, the exact same time Lave claimed he was standing there. Yet oddly neither saw the other.

Or - “He returned to the club about 25 minutes to 1. As he found the front door closed he went through the gateway leading into the yard, and through the back door leading into the club.”


Fact....a witness to the street claimed to have been able to see the street almost the whole time between 12:30 and just after 1am. She didnt see anyone but the young couple and Goldstein during that time.

The same woman that told the EN that she came onto her doorstep just after Smith passed (which Smith said was 12.30-12.35 but she said was 12.45) She stayed on her doorstep for 10 minutes. Which, if she was correct takes her back inside at 12.55, but if Smith was correct (a policeman on a regulated beat) then she’s back inside before Schwartz passed.

She’s hardly the most reliable source of info is she? But I understand you like the version that you do but I’ll ask again…..why didn’t she see Louis get back early?

Louis Diemshitz, Morris Eagle, Joseph Lave and Israel Schwartz were seen or heard by no-one at the time they said they were at the gates.

So? Lots of things go unseen if no one’s there to look.

Fact....Louis is club steward, Eagle is the club speaker, Lave is a cottage resident and club photographer, and Schwartz can be established as being directly connected to that club in the years following this event. And not one of the 4 of them have ANY corroboration for anything they said happened.

They we’re all connected to the club (but not Freemason’s though?)

If by corroboration you mean that there was no cctv footage or people watching as Diemschutz returned then no. His wife corroborated his return time. Eagle confirms when he first saw the body.

Use the facts folks, and stop trying to blame a poor Ripper for non-ripped victims.

While you go on dragging poor old Louis D into your fantasy.

By the way…..are you ready to admit that you made up that stuff about Gilleman?

Im just making a general point here and it’s not aimed at anyone specific but if anyone believes that there should have been evidence for the killer being interrupted then they are humongous idiotic as it’s the most black and white of issues. Interruption is a possibility. 100%. It shouldn’t even be a subject for discussion. Anyone of the opposite view should be embarrassed to make it public. Just thought I’d make my opinion on that subject clear.

[caz]

The word 'about' means approximately.
The man was about 30 years-old - means the man looked 30, give or take a couple of years.

The phrase 'just about' means nearly.
I'm just about ready to leave - means the person will be ready to leave in the very near future.

No witness supports Diemschitz' 'exactly one o'clock' claim - not even his wife.

'Just about 1am' can also be expressed as 'just on 1am'. And while 'just about' can mean 'nearly', it can also mean 'almost exactly' or - wait for it - 'more or less'.

You'll have to stretch the point to make it no later than 12.55 when Louis came in. How would you have made a mystery of this if his wife had said "more or less one o'clock"?

But here again is what she actually said:

"Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs. Up till then I had not heard a sound-not even a whisper. Then suddenly I saw my husband enter, looking very scared and frightened."

So she was saying where she was and what she was doing at close on the hour - just about 1am, just on 1am, almost exactly at 1am, or more or less one o'clock - while the members were upstairs singing. Before the singing she had heard nothing and then suddenly she saw hubby enter. So even if she meant she was in the kitchen serving the drinks shortly before 1am, she was already there and doing it when Louis arrived back. She didn't say they entered the kitchen together.

Of course, this just means that if you can't tear the arse out of your 'just about' any more, you can always play the loyal wifey card, and have her lying for Louis.

[caz]

We also have to remember the huge risk that Diemschutz would have been taking by lying about what time he’d arrived at the club. The police questioned the locals and it would only have taken one person to have said that they were on their doorstep at 1.00 or looking out of their window and that they didn’t see him return an it would have been game over. The police could also have checked with the people that Diemschutz had previously been with to check what time he’d left for home.

Or worse, if several neighbours reported seeing him arrive before 12.45.

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why am I not surprised. Is there any aspect of this case that you think is correct?

Correct according to who? The Ripperological Establishment?

Perhaps the murders really occurred in 1887? Perhaps Abberline never existed?

Abberline existed, as did The Actor Formerly Known as Israel Schwartz

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Or perhaps he didn’t mention it? Or perhaps he moved it when he came back outside? Or perhaps someone moved it for him?

Keep guessing

A simple, plausible, non-sinister explanation…….you’ll hate it of course.

Because its only purpose is to dig a witness out of a very deep hole