Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    So if Fanny were at her doorstep as of 12:34, and back inside before Schwartz arrives on the scene at 12:45, at what time do you suppose the Goldstein sighting occurred? About 12:40?

    If Stride is at the gateway by the time Schwartz enters Berner street at 12:45, at what time do you suppose she were first there? About 12:43? Perhaps even 12:42?

    So that would mean Fanny locking up no later than 12:42, for a total of about 8 minutes on her doorstep. So a quite a bit less than nearly all of the half hour before 1am.

    So in summary you have Smith passing at 12:33 with Stride and companion on the street, Fanny on doorstep at 12:34 with Stride and companion out of sight, Goldstein walking down Berner street at 12:40, Fanny locking up by 12:42, Stride at the gates by 12:43, and Schwartz and the BS man on Berner street at 12:45. Then Diemschitz arriving 15 minutes later.

    Okay, so what time do you suppose the murder occurred? Wess said Goldstein was passing at about the time of the murder, so I guess the murderer was BS man.

    So one more question; was BS man Jack the Ripper?
    We don’t know what time Goldstein passed because he didn’t give a time. Any attempt to recreate precisely what happened is futile. So eliminate conspiracy and we can say Schwartz passed at whatever time that he did and Fanny Mortimer must have been inside because she didn’t see him. And as Fanny had gone back inside by the time Schwartz passed Goldstein obviously passed before she went inside. If Stride and companion were in the street opposite the yard when Smith passed but gone when Fanny came out then either they both left the street with Stride returning alone when Fanny had gone back inside (just before Schwartz arrived) Fanny also must have come onto her doorstep after Eagle had returned to the club which he said was at 12.35 (so either Fanny was on her door for less time than she’d thought or perhaps Eagle returned a little earlier than he’d thought.

    Its never going to work exactly because naturally there were errors (as opposed to misdirection) The reason behind any plot makes no sense at all so can be dismissed without a second thought (especially when you consider what a useless, pointless plan it would have been) and so no one had any reason to lie. Once you clear away the conspiracy bilge we are left with what is left to us. Diemschutz discovered the body when he said that he did. There can be no doubt about that (no matter how much quibbling about the word ‘precisely’ is done) Eagle was called to the body by Gilleman at around 1.00. He probably returned with Lamb around 1.06ish, Spooner got there 5 minutes or so before (more likely less than 5) The Doctors arrived when they said that they did. Hoschberg and Kozebrodski were mistaken in their timing (as was Spooner when he guessed at 12.35)

    If BS Man was the killer then I’d probably veer toward him not being the ripper but only because I find it hard to imagine the ripper drawing to attention to himself like he did with Schwartz and then going on to kill on the same spot.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Again there’s just no mystery here. PC Smith:

    “I was last in Berner-street about half-past 12 or 12.35.”

    Fanny said 12.45.

    So if Smith was correct and, for example, passed at 12.33 we would have Fanny coming onto her doorstep at 12.34 where she remained for around 10 minutes then she would have been back inside before Schwartz passed at 12.45. Why is this very simple, very plausible explanation anathema to some? It’s a constant and wilful ignoring of anything that might be termed a prosaic explanation in favour of anything that might imply lies or conspiracies and I don’t get it. Why would you want to create a mystery when there’s mystery enough already in this case.
    So if Fanny were at her doorstep as of 12:34, and back inside before Schwartz arrives on the scene at 12:45, at what time do you suppose the Goldstein sighting occurred? About 12:40?

    If Stride is at the gateway by the time Schwartz enters Berner street at 12:45, at what time do you suppose she were first there? About 12:43? Perhaps even 12:42?

    So that would mean Fanny locking up no later than 12:42, for a total of about 8 minutes on her doorstep. So a quite a bit less than nearly all of the half hour before 1am.

    So in summary you have Smith passing at 12:33 with Stride and companion on the street, Fanny on doorstep at 12:34 with Stride and companion out of sight, Goldstein walking down Berner street at 12:40, Fanny locking up by 12:42, Stride at the gates by 12:43, and Schwartz and the BS man on Berner street at 12:45. Then Diemschitz arriving 15 minutes later.

    Okay, so what time do you suppose the murder occurred? Wess said Goldstein was passing at about the time of the murder, so I guess the murderer was BS man.

    So one more question; was BS man Jack the Ripper?

    Leave a comment:


  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    What are they teaching these kids in school today.....

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
    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.
    Last edited by caz; Today, 10:52 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FrankO View Post


    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X