Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • I don't see any real difference between "shortly before one o'clock" and "about one o'clock."

    c.d.

    Comment


    • You two should do a stage show. Twisting times and quotes to fit your ....arguments?.. Can you even call them that when you dont even follow the given times and instead suggest anyone who does match your opinion on it was wrong.

      I gave you the given times by the witnesses statements, and they dont match up with Louis arriving at, or even just after, 1. Did you address them using known evidence, or just your opinion on how all the other witness evidence is incorrect? You cite someone hearing something, without seeing,...and what she heard is evidence of what exactly? Did she see a "policeman" with his boots, did she see Louis, and cart and horse? No, of course not. But go ahead, use those as verified sightings anyway.

      Maybe you should read what Spooner said again...or for the first time.........."I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard." So instead of him being off by just a few minutes hes now off by 20? Wow. Seems like such a coincidence that all the witnesses that stated an earlier time by the body are all wrong.. not just by a few minutes.... but by 15 or 20 minutes. Amazing coincidence. And Louis is the only one who gets it right, now thats convenient for you I guess, huh?

      There is no need to assume Lamb was wrong, Fanny was wrong, Johnson was wrong, Blackwell was wrong, Spooner was wrong, Issac was wrong, Heschberg was wrong, because using a discovery time of 12:40-12:45, they all have the ability to meet the times they stated. Of course Lave doesnt see anyone at that time, nor Morris who is also there at that time, in fact they dont even see each other. Curious that. And Morris isnt sure whether Liz is already there when he arrives at 12:40, another curious thing. Louis states he arrives at 1, which has the search parties not even leaving until 1:05 ish, which has them just finding Lamb at 1:05-1:10, which is when Johnson is already getting ready to go to the site... by 1:10. Did Johnson have a premonition he would get the call?

      Having all the witness and timings go your way doesnt work out,... but the way it actually happened, did work.

      You even prefer to use the story of someone we cannot prove was even there to bolster your "theory". Nice work chaps, youve sure shown us how to answer direct questions truthfully.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
        You two should do a stage show. Twisting times and quotes to fit your ....arguments?.. Can you even call them that when you dont even follow the given times and instead suggest anyone who does match your opinion on it was wrong.

        I gave you the given times by the witnesses statements, and they dont match up with Louis arriving at, or even just after, 1. Did you address them using known evidence, or just your opinion on how all the other witness evidence is incorrect? You cite someone hearing something, without seeing,...and what she heard is evidence of what exactly? Did she see a "policeman" with his boots, did she see Louis, and cart and horse? No, of course not. But go ahead, use those as verified sightings anyway.

        Maybe you should read what Spooner said again...or for the first time.........."I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard." So instead of him being off by just a few minutes hes now off by 20? Wow. Seems like such a coincidence that all the witnesses that stated an earlier time by the body are all wrong.. not just by a few minutes.... but by 15 or 20 minutes. Amazing coincidence. And Louis is the only one who gets it right, now thats convenient for you I guess, huh?

        There is no need to assume Lamb was wrong, Fanny was wrong, Johnson was wrong, Blackwell was wrong, Spooner was wrong, Issac was wrong, Heschberg was wrong, because using a discovery time of 12:40-12:45, they all have the ability to meet the times they stated. Of course Lave doesnt see anyone at that time, nor Morris who is also there at that time, in fact they dont even see each other. Curious that. And Morris isnt sure whether Liz is already there when he arrives at 12:40, another curious thing. Louis states he arrives at 1, which has the search parties not even leaving until 1:05 ish, which has them just finding Lamb at 1:05-1:10, which is when Johnson is already getting ready to go to the site... by 1:10. Did Johnson have a premonition he would get the call?

        Having all the witness and timings go your way doesnt work out,... but the way it actually happened, did work.

        You even prefer to use the story of someone we cannot prove was even there to bolster your "theory". Nice work chaps, youve sure shown us how to answer direct questions truthfully.
        Perhaps you can explain how you select which Fanny Mortimer version to use? One one hand she says that she was on her doorstep nearly the whole time between 12.30 and 1.00 (which doesn’t prove that she was on her doorstep at 1.00 btw) and then she also says that she went onto her doorstep just after a Constable passed (at 12.45 according to her) for 10 minutes which would have taken her up to going back inside at 12.55. So as we have absolutely no way of knowing exactly when Fanny was on her doorstep and when she wasn’t why do you use her as proof that Schwartz couldn’t have been there? You are trying to shape the various versions to suit your needs.

        She didn’t see Morris Eagle returning from taking his girlfriend home at around 12.35…..so was Eagle or Mortimer lying? You claim that Diemschitz arrived at the club earlier than one (estimated at around 12.45 or so) so how come she didn’t see him pass on his cart either? If she didn’t see Eagle or Diemschitz and you have no issue with that, why is it so amazing that she didn’t see Schwartz? The whole Schwartz incident would only have taken a matter of seconds and we know from Fanny that she went back indoors at some point during the 12.30-1.00 period. Then when we factor in that we have no way of confirming the accuracy of Schwartz time either we can see that it’s just impossible to tie these times down. Despite the manipulations.

        Comment


        • Also, Fanny supposedly had a sick husband and five children I believe. Easy to see how ducking inside for "a minute" might lead to a little more extended time inside.

          c.d.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
            I don't see any real difference between "shortly before one o'clock" and "about one o'clock."

            c.d.
            "shortly before" excludes any time after 1am. "about" does not.

            Like all the rest of the witnesses, PC Lamb's time is an estimation of unknown accuracy. Michael's theory is based on.

            * 4 out of 5 reporters reported PC Lamb's time estimation incorrectly.
            * Having assumed a contradiction between PC Lamb and Louis Diemschutz, Michael assumes that this proves Diemschutz was lying. The possibilities of either or both men being mistaken about the time are ignored, because they do not fit Michael's theory.
            * Having "proved" that Diemshutz was lying, Michael then assume that proves that everyone else who agreed with Deimschutz was deliberately lying to support his deliberate lie.

            Michael has yet to provide any credible motive for Diemshutz and the others to lie about the time, let alone risk arrest for perjury and obstruction of justice.

            There are witnesses who disagree with Diemshutz' time estimate. PC Lamb is not one of them unless you rank one reporter's account over the accounts of four other men. Mortimer's account supports Diemshutz. Gilleman is mentioned in other men's testimony, but his account is never given - he neither supports nor contradicts Diemshutz. Spooner gave contradictory testimony, saying "Between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse" and "I should say it was about 25 minutes to 1 when I first went to the yard." Michael picks the second, because it fits his theory.

            Two people contradict Diemschutz' time estimate of 1am - Kozebrodsky, and Heshberg. Kozebrodsky estimated 12;40am. Heshberg/Hoshberg/Hershberg estimated about 12:45am.

            That's not a lot to hang a theory on.
            "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

            "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

            Comment


            • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
              Also, Fanny supposedly had a sick husband and five children I believe. Easy to see how ducking inside for "a minute" might lead to a little more extended time inside.

              c.d.
              Good point.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                Maybe you should read what Spooner said again...or for the first time.........."I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard." So instead of him being off by just a few minutes hes now off by 20? Wow. Seems like such a coincidence that all the witnesses that stated an earlier time by the body are all wrong.. not just by a few minutes.... but by 15 or 20 minutes. Amazing coincidence. And Louis is the only one who gets it right, now thats convenient for you I guess, huh? .
                Spooner also said "Between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse". The part you quote contradicts Diemschutz. The part you ignore supports Diemshutz.

                Spooner's timing also doesn't mesh well with Kozebrodsky and Heshberg

                Kozebrodsky - About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard.​" - estimated time 12:40am

                Heshburg - "In the gateway two or three people had collected" - estimated time 12:45am

                Spooner - "At that time there were about 15 people in the yard, and they were all standing round the body." - estimated time 12:35am.

                Based on the number of people seen, Spooner observed the scene after the other two men, yet he puts events 5 to 10 minutes earlier than they do. There's also the problem that Fanny Mortimer didn't observe Spooner and 15 other people arriving at 12:35am.

                So Spooner either doesn't agree with anyone, or he agrees with Diemschutz. Mortimer supports Diemschutz, as do others who testified at the inquest.
                "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                  You even prefer to use the story of someone we cannot prove was even there to bolster your "theory". Nice work chaps, youve sure shown us how to answer direct questions truthfully.
                  You need to work on your reading comprehension. Israel Schwartz' statement may or may not be true. The police thought it was true. Like everyone else, his time is an estimate of unknown accuracy.

                  We cannot prove or disprove Schwartz' account. However, there are newspaper accounts of one man pursing another in the area at 12:45am, the time that Schwartz claimed to have been pursued by Pipeman.

                  Fanny Mortimer's account is confirmed by Leon Goldstein coming forward to say he was the man with the black bag. Mortimer also supports Diemschutz' account, saying she heard his cart arrive a few minutes after she closed her from door. which should put paid to any theories that the Club members lied about when Stride's body was found.





                  "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                  "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                  Comment


                  • Any chance this current discussion can be moved to an appropriate " Liz Stride" thread?

                    Just so those who wish still to discuss John Richardson can stay on topic and references previous written post a little more easily. Thanks.
                    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                      Any chance this current discussion can be moved to an appropriate " Liz Stride" thread?

                      Just so those who wish still to discuss John Richardson can stay on topic and references previous written post a little more easily. Thanks.
                      I agree Fishy. I feel like I'm reading an instant replay of the same opinions from the myriad of Stride threads.
                      They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                      Out of a misty dream
                      Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                      Within a dream.
                      Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

                      ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                      Comment


                      • Fair point. I did mention in post #3941 that this was a John Richardson thread. I’ll move my last full post to a Schwartz thread.

                        Comment


                        • I know Richardson said he did not go into the yard, but I think there is an argument to be made that he was generalising. Bearing in mind he is a "tall, stout" man, I would be surprised if he didn't end up in the position of picture B before sitting down. I think he came to the top step, looked to his right to check the cellar, and then he sat down to mess with his boot. It would be highly unnatural to squat down on the top step and then slither yourself into the position of picture C, so I submit that he walked into a position where his feet were on the flagstones, and then sat back on the second step. Try it yourself. Walk down your stairs with the intention of sitting on step two from the bottom. I found myself walking to the floor, and then lowering myself back into the sitting position. If you are not tall and stout, find someone who is to try it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post
                            I know Richardson said he did not go into the yard, but I think there is an argument to be made that he was generalising. Bearing in mind he is a "tall, stout" man, I would be surprised if he didn't end up in the position of picture B before sitting down. I think he came to the top step, looked to his right to check the cellar, and then he sat down to mess with his boot. It would be highly unnatural to squat down on the top step and then slither yourself into the position of picture C, so I submit that he walked into a position where his feet were on the flagstones, and then sat back on the second step. Try it yourself. Walk down your stairs with the intention of sitting on step two from the bottom. I found myself walking to the floor, and then lowering myself back into the sitting position. If you are not tall and stout, find someone who is to try it.
                            Interesting points you make Hair Bear , although some have suggested, myself included that Richardson could also have just stood on the back door step and looked to his right then turned inward and went back inside . There is evidence that has been shown over this thread that this could have to be the case , and thus should be considered a possibility .
                            Last edited by FISHY1118; 09-01-2023, 09:14 AM.
                            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                            Comment


                            • May I ask, do we have a contextual map of Hanbury Street at the time that we can observe for quick reference that includes the house numbers, location of the club, coffee house etc...?


                              RD

                              "Great minds, don't think alike"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
                                May I ask, do we have a contextual map of Hanbury Street at the time that we can observe for quick reference that includes the house numbers, location of the club, coffee house etc...?


                                RD
                                Is this map okay or were you after something else?

                                Attached Files

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X