If Schwartz Lied ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

#927 provides a better explanation for Schwartz' non inquest appearance, than any of the lame excuses offered by the orsam one

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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."

That report - original source unknown - when taken at face value, precludes the possibility of the Schwartz incident having occurred anywhere near 12:45. Presumably you've already accepted that?

[drstrange169]

"Fact ... a thing that is known to be true, especially when it can be proved."
Oxford English Dictionary.

Fact: There wasn't a system of synchronised time between the witnesses involved in Berner Street, therefore nothing Micheal wrote is a provable, ergo, nothing Micheal wrote is a fact.

And there's the rub.

Time to move on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Keep guessing



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

The only ‘deep hole’ is one of your own creation. One of the suggestions that have been made was the truth. He arrived back on a horse and cart. No one was obstructed by a horse and cart when they saw the body. Therefore the horse had been moved. We know it, the police knew it at the time.

[FrankO]

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

I should have written ‘distraction’, because that’s what you did. Distract from the fact that there is evidence that puts the cart & pony further down the yard. Even though Baxter is exaggerating, the gist is there: Diemshutz drove on past the body, left the pony & cart there and went to the body. Just as Diemshutz himself stated. Regardless of whether you choose to believe it or not.

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

I really don’t have any feelings about this, positive or negative. It’s no surprise, but there you go.

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.

Whether they indicate that or not is irrelevant. The relevant bit is that Diemshutz stated that when he got off his cart, it was past the body, which fits with his remark that he left the pony just outside the side door.

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 left it in the yard by itself, just outside the club door”
“The barrow was past the body when I got down to see what it was.”
These are equally clear in their meaning.

Besides, if it’s all clear that something isn’t right with Diemshutz’s story regarding his whole journey from the gates to where he left the pony, then wouldn’t it have been clear to Baxter as well and wouldn’t he have asked some questions to clear things up?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

>Correct according to who? The Ripperological Establishment?<

Why do you think that there’s a ‘Ripperological Establishment’ when ripperologists spend so much time in debate and disagreement?

[FrankO]

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

Seeing that Diemshutz also didn't say that he halted his pony at any point during his whole journey from the gates to where he left it, it may also very well be that the pony kept moving forward after having shied, although perhaps at a somewhat slower pace and he only halted it after the cart had completely passed the body. Who knows?

[Herlock Sholmes]

#927 provides a better explanation for Schwartz' non inquest appearance, than any of the lame excuses offered by the orsam one

Lame excuses?

Someone does some proper, in depth research, providing actual, real examples of the various points and then evaluates the known evidence and expresses it in a reasoned, logical way before making an informed speculation as to potential reasons (based on evidence) and you mock and dismiss in favour of your own hopelessly biased wish-theory. It’s hard to credit the depths that conspiracist will stoop to to shoehorn their joke fantasies into place.

[FrankO]

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.

Good point, Mike, but besides: why would Diemshutz want to lie about such a thing to begin with? Whatever purpose would it serve? That he hadn't, in fact, arrived in the yard on his pony cart? Or that he arrived x minutes earlier than he'd stated? That he had moved his pony & cart further down the yard earlier? That he hadn't, in fact, been the discoverer?...

[FrankO]

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

I hadn't even read it, Caroline, but I'll pass on it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That report - original source unknown - when taken at face value, precludes the possibility of the Schwartz incident having occurred anywhere near 12:45. Presumably you've already accepted that?

Why would anyone that values reason accept this? We have a gray area. Which is correct? We’re you there? Do you know?

Perhaps you and Michael should re-read it?

She said that just before 12.45 (bit vague?) she heard Smith - Smith however said that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35 - why do you dismiss a Constable on a regulated beat in favour of a woman with no reason to have logged the time?

Also we have Michael stating as a fact that she was on her doorstep until 1.00 and yet we have her here saying that she was on her doorstep for 10 minutes from just before 12.45. So this gets her back indoors around 12.53/12.54ish. Or, if Smith was correct (and that had to be at the very least a possibility) we have her back indoors before 12.45.

Therefore we can ask which is more likely, a) Schwartz invented his evidence as part of some ludicrous plot, or b) Fanny Mortimer was actually inside her house when Schwartz passed?

I think that we all know the answer to that one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Fact ... a thing that is known to be true, especially when it can be proved."
Oxford English Dictionary.

Fact: There wasn't a system of synchronised time between the witnesses involved in Berner Street, therefore nothing Micheal wrote is a provable, ergo, nothing Micheal wrote is a fact.

And there's the rub.

Time to move on.

Exactly Dusty

[Michael W Richards]

'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.

You mean the wife of the man I suggest lied about some details was made safe by virtue of his wifes statement? Thats got to authenticate him. Wifey card indeed....one would have be fresh off the turnip truck to use a wife to validate a man we already have proof lied about details that night and attacked policemen within 6 months at that very location. But Sister Diemshitz rescues his rep does she? If you had an independent source you might have something, but of course the independent sources like attendees without any benefit gained by the club other than a place to hang around say they were by the body 20 minutes before Louis says he arrived.

[Michael W Richards]

That people are discussing the whereabouts of the cart and horse, and at what time it might have passed by Fannys door, is encouraging. Of course she heard the cart and horse, she didnt see who was driving.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I should have written ‘distraction’, because that’s what you did. Distract from the fact that there is evidence that puts the cart & pony further down the yard. Even though Baxter is exaggerating, the gist is there: Diemshutz drove on past the body, left the pony & cart there and went to the body. Just as Diemshutz himself stated. Regardless of whether you choose to believe it or not.

Baxter's apparent exaggeration is a clear sign that he cannot quite make sense of what Diemschitz had claimed.

I really don’t have any feelings about this, positive or negative. It’s no surprise, but there you go.

There are many hints that Diemschitz did not go anywhere, and others did the searching.
If that is true, what else did Diemschitz say that was false?

Whether they indicate that or not is irrelevant. The relevant bit is that Diemshutz stated that when he got off his cart, it was past the body, which fits with his remark that he left the pony just outside the side door.

Yet it says nothing about him moving the cart after having stopped by the body and supposedly attempted to lift it with his whip handle.
By including the coroners question, we get the context of Diemschitz' claim to have jumped off the cart when it were past the body.

Baxter: Any person going up the centre of the yard might have passed without noticing it?
Diemschitz: I, perhaps, should not have noticed it if my pony had not shied. I had passed it when I got down from my barrow.

So without the shying of the pony, he probably would have gone straight past, oblivious to the object on the ground.
As it was, he only noticed in time such that when the he came to a halt and started prodding around, he was a little past the body, as opposed to perfectly level.
He halted and then prodded, from a position past the body ...

I put my whip handle to it, and tried to lift it up, ...

Then he jumped down ...

but as I did not succeed I jumped down from my barrow and struck a match.

... immediately.

Now some approximate laneway maths.

gateway to door: 18'
width of single gate: 4½'
gate to body: 0'
length of body: 4½'
body to driver: 2'
length of cart: 7½'
pony & cart gap: 1'
length of pony: 5½'

If the driver sits 3' from the front of the cart, then the front of cart is 4½' + 4½' + 2' + 3' = 14' from the entrance.
The pony and gap between cart make up another 6½', for a total of 20½' from the entrance.
The door is 18' from the entrance.
So where is the pony at this point?

... in the yard by itself, just outside the club door.

No extra movement of the cart necessary, to make sense of this claim.
The problems is that the pony and cart are now in the way, yet we never hear about then again. Something is missing from this story.