Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    As a pipe smoker myself and someone that enjoys the occasional malt I couldn’t agree more George. I need to keep up my spirits in preparation for the pounding that I’m expecting for England in the upcoming Ashes series

    Hi Herlock,

    I'd like to say that I look forward to commiserating with your pain during the ashes series, but I'm not so sure. Anderson and Broad are a fine opening combo, and the later seems to have the wood on Warner. It seems that you will have some new untried players, but remember that Labuschagne was an unknown before he stepped in when Smith was injured. I think that both teams are in a change-over period and that perhaps your mob is a little ahead of our mob. We shall see.

    Cheers, George
    Last edited by GBinOz; Today, 06:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    You're right on there Bro.

    It's like doing a jigsaw that has vital pieces missing, and no one has ever seen the finished puzzle. We can't know if witness interviews were conducted with the witness talking to a crowd of reporters or giving a series of interviews with individual reporters. Contradictions are due to reporters in the former case. In the later it could be witness inconsistency or reporter failure, or both. When it comes to inquests, all the reporters are hearing the same words! I try to adopt reports from different publications that contain some detail and agree with each other, and discard the ones where the details are different or lacking.

    But, hey, if it was easy we wouldn't still be arguing over the details 130 years after the event.
    It's not like we have anything better to do........no, wait......sitting on the back verandah with the wife watching the sun set on the mountain range, a glass of single malt and an English briar carefully packed with Sam Gawith's finest Pure Virginia Flake......talk to you later Bro.

    Cheers, George
    As a pipe smoker myself and someone that enjoys the occasional malt I couldn’t agree more George. I need to keep up my spirits in preparation for the pounding that I’m expecting for England in the upcoming Ashes series


    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Hi George,
    Therefore we can’t know what’s true or not or what’s accurate or inaccurate.
    You're right on there Bro.

    It's like doing a jigsaw that has vital pieces missing, and no one has ever seen the finished puzzle. We can't know if witness interviews were conducted with the witness talking to a crowd of reporters or giving a series of interviews with individual reporters. Contradictions are due to reporters in the former case. In the later it could be witness inconsistency or reporter failure, or both. When it comes to inquests, all the reporters are hearing the same words! I try to adopt reports from different publications that contain some detail and agree with each other, and discard the ones where the details are different or lacking.

    But, hey, if it was easy we wouldn't still be arguing over the details 130 years after the event.
    It's not like we have anything better to do........no, wait......sitting on the back verandah with the wife watching the sun set on the mountain range, a glass of single malt and an English briar carefully packed with Sam Gawith's finest Pure Virginia Flake......talk to you later Bro.

    Cheers, George
    Last edited by GBinOz; Yesterday, 12:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Hi Herlock,

    I agree that 4 minutes is odd but I think she was trying to fit in with Diemshitz's 1AM. I don't find Mortimer to be an unreliable witness. The conflicting reports may have been due to something as simple as an original report and an editorial. If FM's times are adjusted to Smith's time then she was too late to see Stride and too early to see Schwartz. I agree with Frank's assessment that Eagle and Lave were back in the yard before Smith arrived. You are firm in your adherance to Diemshitz's inquest testimony of seeing the tobacconist clock reading exactly 1AM. Why did he not once mention this in his interviews the day before when he talked about his usual time of 1 o'clock, and one interview were he said 12:45 because he left early due to the rain. But even if I accept you firm opinion of 1AM, the treatis by Chris McKay here: https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...ime#post120389
    makes it clear that police times were very accurate, and civilian times were plus or minus 10 minutes. (long time guesstimates - forget them - my comment) So the tobacconist clock may have differed from police time sufficiently to make Smith's, Lamb's, and Diemshitz's times all correct in their own time zones. While we can't be certain exactly what time Schwartz passed, it FM's estimate for Diemshitz passing 4-5 minutes after she went inside is accepted, and Schwartz passed after she went inside but before Diemshitz, then the time window is short indeed.

    So why isn't this all nitpicking I hear you ask? Because if we adopt FM's time of Diemshitz's passing her home 4-5 minutes after going inside, at about 12:50 police time, even if the tobacconist clock was reading 1am, then the gap between the Schwartz's event and the discovery of the body is only a matter of a few minutes rather than 15 minutes as is thought traditionally. This makes it even more unlikely that Stride's killer was anyone other than BS, Pipeman or Parcelman.

    Cheers, George
    Hi George,

    From my own point of view the main area of disagreement on these threads has been over the suggestion that Schwartz lied and wasn’t actually there and that Mortimer proves this (of course, that’s Michael’s point and not yours) So for me whatever the possibilities of discrepancies on times, which I’ve always accepted, then Mortimer proves nothing. You don’t find her unreliable. Ok, so I’ll rephrase what I said. 2 different scenarios for what she did that night exist. Granted that this may have been an error of reporting (as you’ve said) but we have no way of knowing if this was the case or whether she did indeed give 2 versions. Therefore it’s impossible to use Fanny to prove or disprove. Which makes her unreliable (or more accurately, the information that we have that’s been attributed to her is contradictory and therefore unreliable)

    Therefore we can’t know what’s true or not or what’s accurate or inaccurate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Hi Herlock,

    I hate to say but you are showing bias here. All the witnesses you favour "said" while the ones you don't favoue "guessed".

    Cheers, George
    I’m not biased at all George. It was simply a figure of speech.

    Eagle said that he first saw the body around 1.00.

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    I see no reason to doubt Schwartz apart from the obvious point that we can’t be certain of an exact time that he passed. So I regard Fanny Mortimer as an untrustworthy witness. I think that she was mistaken and let’s face it George, who estimates 4 minutes (wouldn’t most just say 5?) I think that this time was ‘calculated’ by the Press. In one version she said that she went onto her doorstep at 12.45 for 10 minutes. So that’s 12.55. If the Press considered the she first heard Diemschutz coming down the street then 12.59 (4 minutes) would have been the time that she heard him just before he found the body at ‘precisely’ 1.00 (to use his own word.)
    Hi Herlock,

    I agree that 4 minutes is odd but I think she was trying to fit in with Diemshitz's 1AM. I don't find Mortimer to be an unreliable witness. The conflicting reports may have been due to something as simple as an original report and an editorial. If FM's times are adjusted to Smith's time then she was too late to see Stride and too early to see Schwartz. I agree with Frank's assessment that Eagle and Lave were back in the yard before Smith arrived. You are firm in your adherance to Diemshitz's inquest testimony of seeing the tobacconist clock reading exactly 1AM. Why did he not once mention this in his interviews the day before when he talked about his usual time of 1 o'clock, and one interview were he said 12:45 because he left early due to the rain. But even if I accept you firm opinion of 1AM, the treatis by Chris McKay here: https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...ime#post120389
    makes it clear that police times were very accurate, and civilian times were plus or minus 10 minutes. (long time guesstimates - forget them - my comment) So the tobacconist clock may have differed from police time sufficiently to make Smith's, Lamb's, and Diemshitz's times all correct in their own time zones. While we can't be certain exactly what time Schwartz passed, it FM's estimate for Diemshitz passing 4-5 minutes after she went inside is accepted, and Schwartz passed after she went inside but before Diemshitz, then the time window is short indeed.

    So why isn't this all nitpicking I hear you ask? Because if we adopt FM's time of Diemshitz's passing her home 4-5 minutes after going inside, at about 12:50 police time, even if the tobacconist clock was reading 1am, then the gap between the Schwartz's event and the discovery of the body is only a matter of a few minutes rather than 15 minutes as is thought traditionally. This makes it even more unlikely that Stride's killer was anyone other than BS, Pipeman or Parcelman.

    Cheers, George
    Last edited by GBinOz; 10-23-2021, 12:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Eagle……..who said 1.00
    In another thread you proposed that it would be entirely possible that Kozebrodski may have been 20 minutes out in an estimate of ten minutes. Here you claim that Eagle's estimate of over an hour with a 15 minute starting point was accurate.

    Gilleman…..who said 1.00
    No he didn't. There is nowhere, that I have found, that Gilleman says anything about times.

    Spooner…….who said 5 minutes before Lamb.
    Here is another estimate of over half and hour with an indeterminate starting time. Besides, Diemshitz said at the same time as Lamb and Spooner said 12:35.

    Kozebrodski…….who said guessed that he went for a Constable around 12.45 yet his and Diemschutz voices somehow aren’t heard until 1.00.
    By whom? Brown and his estimate of over half an hour from an indeterminate start?

    Hands up…..has anyone ever heard of such feeble witnesses to base a theory on? Most people would be embarrassed to even suggest it.
    Hi Herlock,

    I hate to say but you are showing bias here. All the witnesses you favour "said" while the ones you don't favoue "guessed".

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    No it isn't. We know that there were two reports of what Fanny allegedly said and they were somewhat contradictory.

    Cheers, George
    Ok George, I won’t argue with that. We can’t say that she didn’t say it though and it’s far more believable that she was inside when Schwartz passed than it is that Schwartz lied about being there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Hi Herlock,

    I agree with this analysis, but you then reject her further statement that Diemshitz passed 4 minutes after she went in side as a mistake. That's cherry picking or "selective analysis".

    Cheers, George
    I see no reason to doubt Schwartz apart from the obvious point that we can’t be certain of an exact time that he passed. So I regard Fanny Mortimer as an untrustworthy witness. I think that she was mistaken and let’s face it George, who estimates 4 minutes (wouldn’t most just say 5?) I think that this time was ‘calculated’ by the Press. In one version she said that she went onto her doorstep at 12.45 for 10 minutes. So that’s 12.55. If the Press considered the she first heard Diemschutz coming down the street then 12.59 (4 minutes) would have been the time that she heard him just before he found the body at ‘precisely’ 1.00 (to use his own word.)

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    I think Spooner sees a search party sent out immediately, but its not Issac K, because he went another route alone around that same time.
    It was Jacobs:
    Eagle from the Times Inquest 2 Oct 1888: "I could not say. When I got outside I saw Jacobs and another going for the police in the direction of Fairclough-street, and I then went to the Commercial-road"

    So if Fanny does go inside at around 12:36 and stays in there until shortly after 12:40-45, then she would miss all this happening...including Louis arriving. But the fact that the young couple was on the street all throughout that half hour and saw no-one
    The young couple said they were there for 20 minutes, mostly around the corner in Fairclough where Brown saw them.
    Cheers, George
    Last edited by GBinOz; 10-23-2021, 11:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    To sum up on this point….
    We know that Fanny gave 2 versions of what she did that night. This is a fact.
    No it isn't. We know that there were two reports of what Fanny allegedly said and they were somewhat contradictory.

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    1. If Fanny went onto the doorstep just after Smith passed as she herself said, and if a policeman is more likely to be time-aware than your average citizen (as you yourself agreed to on the other thread) then she probably went onto her doorstep sometime approaching 12.35. And so if she was on the doorstep for around 10 minutes as she herself said then it’s probable that she’d gone back inside by the time that Schwartz passed.
    A clearer example of your highly selective analysis of witnesses I couldn’t hope to find.
    Hi Herlock,

    I agree with this analysis, but you then reject her further statement that Diemshitz passed 4 minutes after she went in side as a mistake. That's cherry picking or "selective analysis".

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    I find it interesting that after I mention that not only Fanny didnt see or hear Israels event but neither did the young couple who did not go indoors from time to time that half hour....people stopped posting.
    Hi Michael,

    "people stopped posting"....Nah, that's just normal paranoia. No one posted for two days either after my last post.

    Chers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    Goldstein was briskly by and looked into the gates, if the other multiple witnesses were accurate then people would be there. The fact he keeps on going could mean he was thrown by the men there.

    If youd spend time actually absorbing what is written rather than first deciding youre right about everything anyway, you might have seen that Reason and Logic I mentioned. My scenario fits and only requires that the people who would suffer the greatest if the club was suspected modified their stories to protect themselves. Hardly a revolutionary concept, though one wonders at the inability to conceive of it.
    The 'club' would not have been 'suspected', Michael. The man with the sharp knife who had already committed up to three outdoor murders of unaccompanied females would have been.

    The club would only have been suspected if they had tried to do what you argue they did, to put the discovery forward to 1am!

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    I stopped posting, Michael, because I couldn't reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into.

    I can't speak for anyone else.


    Exactly Caz

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X