Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whistling on Berner Street

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

  • I am a little at a loss to see the problem here that requires interpretations of language or insistence on mistakes by journalists. Goldstein went to considerable lengths to establish that the was at the Spectacle Cafe. There appears to be no problem in accepting that he was seen returning home from that direction, but outrage at another report that he was seen headed in the direction of the Cafe. He had to get there some how, some time, so why not via the same route that he used to get home?

    Cheers, George
    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

    “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Maybe he did it twice Caz?
      Morning Herlock,

      There is a pattern here, of the knitting fog variety.

      Most people since 1888 have interpreted Mrs Funny Fanny's use of 'previously' to mean that when she was previously out on her doorstep, she saw 'a' man with a bag - Goldstein - just the once.

      Yet here we have George imagining that everyone used the English language correctly and we must stick rigidly to interpreting their words as if they have done so. At least one poster insists that Fanny's 'previously' can only be interpreted to mean two sightings of the same man. We have had other posters patiently explaining to George how one person can refer to passing 'up' the street, while another can refer to passing in the same direction 'down' that street. But George is having none of it. For him, everything is unambiguous and not open to different possible interpretations.

      We can forget Mitre Square. According to three of our regular commentators, Berner Street was awash with double events of its own, and I suspect they are suffering from double vision.

      Where any two versions of the same witness story are not word for word consistent, the males become liars and/or ripper suspects, while Fanny becomes two women, or sees the same man coming as well as going.

      The double trouble doesn't stop there. We also have the alarm being raised twice, by different combinations of men, some fifteen minutes apart, and two of the club members both answer to the name Isaacs.

      I'm only surprised someone hasn't suggested Pipeman had to be two men: the bystander lighting his pipe and the killer's accomplice, brandishing a knife.

      But Schwartz's story - so good it was told twice, to Abberline and then by the Star [George will note there is indeed a difference here between 'to' and 'by'] - should be the clue to what is wrong with all this double think. It takes no heed of the sound advice not to believe everything you read in the newspapers.

      In order to accuse a witness of inventing or changing their story, you must first establish that the story as reported in the newspaper was a faithful and accurate reproduction and interpretation of that person's own words by the journalist concerned. I've got news for George: not everyone is able or willing to use or interpret the English language correctly, and that applies with knobs on to those in the business of selling newspapers.

      The 'Hungarian' gave the police a hovercraft full of eels until, under Abberline's questioning, he admitted it may have been half empty.

      Given the Star treatment, the story was tarted up or got lost in translation and became a hovercraft with a bomb on board. With no English, Schwartz was entirely at the mercy of the skills and integrity of all those involved in interpreting and printing his account. He had no way of checking it for himself before the public devoured it and reached their own conclusions.

      Easy to see why the police may have doubted the truth of that story, while giving the benefit of the doubt to the version Schwartz gave directly to Abberline.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

        Herlock my friend, you are over looking the obvious. The reporter was told the nature of the woman's husband's profession.

        What can I say about the Ashes. At 0 for 68 I thought England was going to make a game of it. That collapse was as hard to watch as it must have been for the team to endure. Hopefully there will be a more competitive team in 2023 in England.

        Cheers, George
        An ‘Artisan’ isn’t a job though George. If you asked someone their job they wouldn’t say ‘Artisan’ as it just means ‘skilled worker.’ The Police were just commenting that the woman gave the appearance of being slightly better off.

        I wish that I could share your optimism about the future of English test cricket George. To be honest I’m gloomy about the future of test cricket as a whole as I think that these days players and administrators see it as an annoyance to be endured in the gaps between lucrative short format tournaments. First we had T20. Now we have the hundred ball competitions. I’m fully expecting someone to suggest 5 over matches next.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          Morning Herlock,

          There is a pattern here, of the knitting fog variety.

          Most people since 1888 have interpreted Mrs Funny Fanny's use of 'previously' to mean that when she was previously out on her doorstep, she saw 'a' man with a bag - Goldstein - just the once.

          Yet here we have George imagining that everyone used the English language correctly and we must stick rigidly to interpreting their words as if they have done so. At least one poster insists that Fanny's 'previously' can only be interpreted to mean two sightings of the same man. We have had other posters patiently explaining to George how one person can refer to passing 'up' the street, while another can refer to passing in the same direction 'down' that street. But George is having none of it. For him, everything is unambiguous and not open to different possible interpretations.

          We can forget Mitre Square. According to three of our regular commentators, Berner Street was awash with double events of its own, and I suspect they are suffering from double vision.

          Where any two versions of the same witness story are not word for word consistent, the males become liars and/or ripper suspects, while Fanny becomes two women, or sees the same man coming as well as going.

          The double trouble doesn't stop there. We also have the alarm being raised twice, by different combinations of men, some fifteen minutes apart, and two of the club members both answer to the name Isaacs.

          I'm only surprised someone hasn't suggested Pipeman had to be two men: the bystander lighting his pipe and the killer's accomplice, brandishing a knife.

          But Schwartz's story - so good it was told twice, to Abberline and then by the Star [George will note there is indeed a difference here between 'to' and 'by'] - should be the clue to what is wrong with all this double think. It takes no heed of the sound advice not to believe everything you read in the newspapers.

          In order to accuse a witness of inventing or changing their story, you must first establish that the story as reported in the newspaper was a faithful and accurate reproduction and interpretation of that person's own words by the journalist concerned. I've got news for George: not everyone is able or willing to use or interpret the English language correctly, and that applies with knobs on to those in the business of selling newspapers.

          The 'Hungarian' gave the police a hovercraft full of eels until, under Abberline's questioning, he admitted it may have been half empty.

          Given the Star treatment, the story was tarted up or got lost in translation and became a hovercraft with a bomb on board. With no English, Schwartz was entirely at the mercy of the skills and integrity of all those involved in interpreting and printing his account. He had no way of checking it for himself before the public devoured it and reached their own conclusions.

          Easy to see why the police may have doubted the truth of that story, while giving the benefit of the doubt to the version Schwartz gave directly to Abberline.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          There’s always a temptation to ‘fill in the gaps’ Caz and there are so many gaps and unknowns. We have the Press to consider, we have to consider the poor levels of education (carelessness of speech), we have to consider that the Police would have heard a fuller, more detailed version of Fanny’s story and then looked into it. Even today we constantly hear people using the word ‘literally’ incorrectly. We just can’t make assumptions. On such an important issue can we really believe that Fanny neglected to inform the police that she’d seen the mystery man twice near the crime scene? It just doesn’t add up. The obvious and reasonable conclusion is that she saw him once. There’s a difference between exploring every avenue (which is right and proper) and constantly assuming the sinister. I’m not saying that George always assumes the sinister but it certainly occurs. Look at the Lechmere thread. The case against Lechmere is built on the assumption of a gap of time and ‘neglecting’ to mention that Lechmere said ‘about 3.30’ instead of ‘3.30’ helps the cause. We should remember the saying “never assume because it can make as ASS out of U and ME.”
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • Agreed, Herlock.

            Another bone of contention is the insistence in certain quarters that Louis D must have lied about when he found Stride dead.

            Because Louis said that the clock showed the time to be exactly 1am when he passed it, but gave an approximate time of around 1am for his arrival in the yard followed by the grim discovery, this is seen as evidence of dishonesty! If he couldn't physically have seen the clock in question, he couldn't have guessed what the time was as he passed it and when he actually found Stride, in order to push the discovery time forward by ten minutes. And the police would have had questions for him too if the clock was simply not visible to passing traffic.

            PC Lamb is also used to support this sheer nonsense, when there is no evidence that he estimated the time from having looked at the clock, and could just as easily have assumed it was just before the hour because the fixed point officer had not yet been relieved.

            We are constantly told that police times must take priority, which is ironic when we consider that the police themselves accepted Louis's discovery time, which was supported by Fanny Mortimer, who heard his pony and cart arriving shortly before she went back outside to witness the ensuing hue and cry.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post
              Agreed, Herlock.

              Another bone of contention is the insistence in certain quarters that Louis D must have lied about when he found Stride dead.

              Because Louis said that the clock showed the time to be exactly 1am when he passed it, but gave an approximate time of around 1am for his arrival in the yard followed by the grim discovery, this is seen as evidence of dishonesty! If he couldn't physically have seen the clock in question, he couldn't have guessed what the time was as he passed it and when he actually found Stride, in order to push the discovery time forward by ten minutes. And the police would have had questions for him too if the clock was simply not visible to passing traffic.

              PC Lamb is also used to support this sheer nonsense, when there is no evidence that he estimated the time from having looked at the clock, and could just as easily have assumed it was just before the hour because the fixed point officer had not yet been relieved.

              We are constantly told that police times must take priority, which is ironic when we consider that the police themselves accepted Louis's discovery time, which was supported by Fanny Mortimer, who heard his pony and cart arriving shortly before she went back outside to witness the ensuing hue and cry.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              Jeff showed us a timeline using reasonable margins for error and there are no issues. It’s the way we look at things in my opinion Caz. I think that we should look with caution others prefer to specifically look for a questionable word here and there or a different way of interpreting a sentence. Reading between the lines whilst ignoring the actual lines. And I think that this is the root of the issues on these threads with some posters. They actively want to find a cover up or just something ‘new’ whether it’s true or reasonable. At the end of the day we know roughly what occurred in Berner Street. There’s nothing more to learn accept increasingly more far-fetched theories. We just don’t know who killed Liz. But there’s no reliable evidence to dislodge the story that we’re all aware of.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                Morning Herlock,

                There is a pattern here, of the knitting fog variety.

                Most people since 1888 have interpreted Mrs Funny Fanny's use of 'previously' to mean that when she was previously out on her doorstep, she saw 'a' man with a bag - Goldstein - just the once.
                I agree.

                Yet here we have George imagining that everyone used the English language correctly and we must stick rigidly to interpreting their words as if they have done so. At least one poster insists that Fanny's 'previously' can only be interpreted to mean two sightings of the same man. We have had other posters patiently explaining to George how one person can refer to passing 'up' the street, while another can refer to passing in the same direction 'down' that street. But George is having none of it. For him, everything is unambiguous and not open to different possible interpretations.
                The meaning of the words "up" and "down" are at the most basic level of language, particularly when their meaning is qualified by additional narrative. This is a basic principle that needs to be grasped before attempting to move on to more "nuanced" language.

                We can forget Mitre Square. According to three of our regular commentators, Berner Street was awash with double events of its own, and I suspect they are suffering from double vision.
                Don't know what you are talking about, do you? Please elaborate on the deluge of Berner St "double events" - or was that more creative "interpretation"?

                Where any two versions of the same witness story are not word for word consistent, the males become liars and/or ripper suspects, while Fanny becomes two women, or sees the same man coming as well as going.
                Is this a cryptic interpretation? When the interviews from two women are similar, but not the same, word meanings must be massaged and additional comments dismissed to make them the same source.

                The double trouble doesn't stop there. We also have the alarm being raised twice, by different combinations of men, some fifteen minutes apart, and two of the club members both answer to the name Isaacs.
                Ahh, traditional ignoring of evidence in order to cling to rusted on beliefs. Two witnesses said they heard a police whistle before the police were located. What is your explanation?

                I'm only surprised someone hasn't suggested Pipeman had to be two men: the bystander lighting his pipe and the killer's accomplice, brandishing a knife.
                Ahh, sarcasm...nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

                But Schwartz's story - so good it was told twice, to Abberline and then by the Star [George will note there is indeed a difference here between 'to' and 'by'] - should be the clue to what is wrong with all this double think. It takes no heed of the sound advice not to believe everything you read in the newspapers.
                If you had read what George actually said, it was that he took the police story over the Star account except only for the clue as to where Schwartz was when Pipeman made a move towards him.

                In order to accuse a witness of inventing or changing their story, you must first establish that the story as reported in the newspaper was a faithful and accurate reproduction and interpretation of that person's own words by the journalist concerned. I've got news for George: not everyone is able or willing to use or interpret the English language correctly, and that applies with knobs on to those in the business of selling newspapers.
                And how, pray tell, does one achieve said establishment after all this time? I've got news for Caz: most official records have been lost and much of what we have to discuss comes from contradictory press reports. We don't need fanciful word interpretations to add to the confusion.

                The 'Hungarian' gave the police a hovercraft full of eels until, under Abberline's questioning, he admitted it may have been half empty.

                Given the Star treatment, the story was tarted up or got lost in translation and became a hovercraft with a bomb on board. With no English, Schwartz was entirely at the mercy of the skills and integrity of all those involved in interpreting and printing his account. He had no way of checking it for himself before the public devoured it and reached their own conclusions.
                I agree.

                Easy to see why the police may have doubted the truth of that story, while giving the benefit of the doubt to the version Schwartz gave directly to Abberline.
                I don't doubt that the truth is contained entirely in the Aberline version.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                Hi Caz,

                Why is it so important to you that Mortimer was the only door stoop snoop that night...apart from Letchford's sister and Marshall. Why do you feel threatened by the possibility that a reporter may have interviewed a second woman. Do you have any evidence to show that Goldstein used another route to the Spectacle Cafe that contradicts the sighting in Berner Street? You are free to disagree with speculations that are predicated on the second sighting, but that does not entitle you to distort the meaning of language to discredit, without evidence, a journalist's report for no apparent reason other than that is does not support your bias.

                Cheers, George
                “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  I’m not saying that George always assumes the sinister but it certainly occurs. Look at the Lechmere thread. The case against Lechmere is built on the assumption of a gap of time and ‘neglecting’ to mention that Lechmere said ‘about 3.30’ instead of ‘3.30’ helps the cause.
                  Hi Herlock,

                  I don't subscribe to that notion. As we have seen in Berner street, much can be explained by clock differences.

                  "I wish that I could share your optimism about the future of English test cricket George."

                  What? BLASPHEMY!! As with most things, the pendulum will eventually swing in the other direction. Home turf and a big spoonful of confidence could make a difference.

                  Cheers, George
                  “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                  “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Jeff showed us a timeline using reasonable margins for error and there are no issues. It’s the way we look at things in my opinion Caz. I think that we should look with caution others prefer to specifically look for a questionable word here and there or a different way of interpreting a sentence. Reading between the lines whilst ignoring the actual lines. And I think that this is the root of the issues on these threads with some posters. They actively want to find a cover up or just something ‘new’ whether it’s true or reasonable. At the end of the day we know roughly what occurred in Berner Street. There’s nothing more to learn accept increasingly more far-fetched theories. We just don’t know who killed Liz. But there’s no reliable evidence to dislodge the story that we’re all aware of.
                    Hi Herlock,

                    As Jeff said, his timeline and mine were substantially the same once clock corrections were applied.

                    I think that the bold text above could be applied to this situation. Interpretations being used, not to promote a cover up or something new, but to massage basic language in an interview because it doesn't conform to traditional thinking. If Goldstein was observed walking up Berner St, so what?
                    Does this make him a suspect? Since we don't know who killed Stride and he was known to be in the area we should examine the possibility. There are many Ripper suspects that can't be placed in the area of a murder but are staunchly promoted by their adherents. I agree that some use fanciful interpretations of words to create unfounded sinister alternatives, but, from my perspective, those tactics are being used here to deny the content of a basically harmless interview on the basis that it could be used for a theory of which they do not approve. Was Goldstein the murderer? Maybe, but I don't think so. Neither do I think it was Eagle or Diemshitz or Lave or Spooner or even Schwartz all of whom have been cast in the role by various investigators. Kosminski for this murder only - possibly.
                    What little evidence we have consists of contradictory press reports. Then we have Trevor contending that we can't trust police testimony (and Greg House's theory - Everybody lies). If we then resort to taking liberties with the English language on the basis of crystal-balling that what said wasn't really what was meant, then all we will end up with is gobbledegook.

                    Cheers, George
                    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                    “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Why the quiz?

                      From Fanny’s front door Commercial Road was to the left running across the end of Berner Street. The board school was across the road and to the right at the corner of Fairclough and the IWMEC was, I think, a couple of doors to the right.
                      Excellent work, and you didn't even need to PM a friend for help!

                      As you can no doubt see, the two descriptions of black bag man's witnessing were very different, and cannot be explained away as a mere slip of the tongue or pen. So did Fanny see Goldstein twice, or were there two 'Fanny's', or were there two men, each with a black bag?

                      I can’t claim to know for certain what we don’t have evidence for but we have no record anywhere of her seeing Goldstein twice. So all that you have is 2 different words used in the Press. Now in your world that might be sufficient to hang a theory on but it’s not in mine.
                      He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

                      Why is that these one word has wreaked so much havoc?
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post

                        Abberline determined from Schwartz that he didn't know what was going on! Schwartz admitted under close questioning that he couldn't say who had been addressed as Lipski.
                        So what you mean by "he didn't know what was going on!", is simply that Schwartz admitted "under close questioning", that he couldn't be 100% sure on one point - who 'Lipski' was directed at.

                        Why did Abberline feel Schwartz required close questioning on that point? Did he mean by that that he simply asked for confirmation once or twice, similar to what the Star man appears to have done ...?

                        The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand ...

                        Or was it more like a nudge in a certain direction? Whatever the case, it seems incongruous that Schwartz would come away from the interview feeling even more confused and in the dark as to what he had seen and heard, but then happily retell his story to the press. Why do suppose this supposedly frightened yet civic-minded man, stood and gawked at the incident at the gates, did f***-all about it, then waited until the evening to go to the police about it, and then speak to the Star?

                        It's somewhat similar Leon Goldstein, who had to be 'persuaded' to go to the police, and yet no sooner had he grudgingly done so, he and Wess (or was it just Wess?), were straight off the press. What's going on there?

                        That's all you need to know.
                        These aren't the droids you're looking for.

                        If Schwartz was lying through his teeth about any part of this incident, he would have had every reason to work out what he was going to say and then stick to it.
                        This is a line you seem to have pushed for several years - if Schwartz had not been telling the truth, he wouldn't have given an inch. He did give an inch, and therefore he must have been telling the truth. Not necessarily. There are a number of plausible scenarios in which Schwartz concedes or 'gives in' to Abberline's close questioning, while privately maintaining his initial position.

                        * He may have felt under pressure or somewhat intimidated by the situation, and wanted it over and done with. So he decides to agree with Abberline.

                        * He may have felt this was the weak spot in his story, and didn't want to dwell on it. So he admits to some doubt, for tactical reasons. In other words, he takes the path of least resistance.

                        * He may have supposed that Abberline was becoming suspicious that 'Lipski' was supposedly aimed at the second man - who is never described or referred to as a Jew - when it might seem more logical that Schwartz was the intended recipient.

                        * Schwartz grasped that his story would appear more realistic if he 'admitted' to having certain doubts. In other words, if doubts make it so 'obvious' he was telling the truth, a smart but dishonest Schwartz has an obvious tactic at his disposal.

                        I'll admit there is some overlap in these points, but the point is there are plausible scenarios in which Schwartz does admit to being less that 100% certain on all points, and is also being less than 100% honest, in general.

                        And what he said initially had the effect of putting two Jewish men close to the murder scene, and involved in an assault on the murdered woman. Abberline doubted this interpretation, so it's possible that Schwartz never meant to give that impression and regretted doing so.
                        I thought it had the effect of putting a Mr. Lipski had been at the scene.
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                          Excellent work, and you didn't even need to PM a friend for help!

                          As you can no doubt see, the two descriptions of black bag man's witnessing were very different, and cannot be explained away as a mere slip of the tongue or pen. So did Fanny see Goldstein twice, or were there two 'Fanny's', or were there two men, each with a black bag?



                          He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

                          Why is that these one word has wreaked so much havoc?
                          Although I’m certainly no stranger to a bit of sarcasm I can’t really see the point of this one? I don’t consider myself an expert on this case but i’ve been interested in it for around 35 years so I don’t see an issue with that I know and what I don’t know? I’ve admitted numerous times that in this case (an in life in general) I’m not great with geography and directions so if someone says “north of x” then I find that I have to check a map. And yes I don’t spend untold time trawling the various newspaper articles looking for grammatical anomalies or minor time difference to weave various plots around.

                          No Fanny didn’t see Goldstein twice. This can be dismissed without wasting a second of time on it. Likewise Mrs Artisan (or to use her correct name, Fanny Mortimer)

                          The words have caused no ‘havoc’ because 2 or 3 people in the whole subject giving them a second thought doesn’t exactly constitute a tremor in The Force does it?

                          He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club
                          Ive suggested 2 explanations for this:

                          1) Obviously those words were written by a Reporter. Fanny could have said something meaning that Goldstein (no doubt a Jewish and possibly a Jewish-looking man) might have been a Club member. Or more likely imo

                          2) When Fanny went onto her doorstep Goldstein had already passed her door and when she looked to her right she saw him either adjacent to the Club walking toward Fairclough Street or he’d just passed the Club. So she sees a Jewish looking man passing a Jewish Club. It’s not really a stretch of anyone’s over-active imagination to suggest that he ‘might’ have just left the Club. As Goldstein apparently looked toward the Club then obviously it’s likelier that he was adjacent to the building when Fanny first saw him. We would also have to ask ourselves why would he look up at a Club that he’d just stepped out of.

                          No havoc. No plot. No mystery.

                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                          Comment


                          • . Or was it more like a nudge in a certain direction? Whatever the case, it seems incongruous that Schwartz would come away from the interview feeling even more confused and in the dark as to what he had seen and heard, but then happily retell his story to the press. Why do suppose this supposedly frightened yet civic-minded man, stood and gawked at the incident at the gates, did f***-all about it, then waited until the evening to go to the police about it, and then speak to the Star?
                            Yes, Abberline might of course have given Schwartz a nudge in one direction because that’s just what Fred needed at that time. A false lead. Good idea.

                            ”Stood and gawked….” More imagination triumphing over facts. Schwartz never claimed to have stopped. He viewed the entire incident on the move.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • .
                              It's somewhat similar Leon Goldstein, who had to be 'persuaded' to go to the police, and yet no sooner had he grudgingly done so, he and Wess (or was it just Wess?), were straight off the press. What's going on there?
                              Who knows but I’m sure you’ll manage to weave something around it.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                              Comment


                              • . This is a line you seem to have pushed for several years - if Schwartz had not been telling the truth, he wouldn't have given an inch. He did give an inch, and therefore he must have been telling the truth. Not necessarily. There are a number of plausible scenarios in which Schwartz concedes or 'gives in' to Abberline's close questioning, while privately maintaining his initial position.

                                * He may have felt under pressure or somewhat intimidated by the situation, and wanted it over and done with. So he decides to agree with Abberline.

                                * He may have felt this was the weak spot in his story, and didn't want to dwell on it. So he admits to some doubt, for tactical reasons. In other words, he takes the path of least resistance.

                                * He may have supposed that Abberline was becoming suspicious that 'Lipski' was supposedly aimed at the second man - who is never described or referred to as a Jew - when it might seem more logical that Schwartz was the intended recipient.

                                * Schwartz grasped that his story would appear more realistic if he 'admitted' to having certain doubts. In other words, if doubts make it so 'obvious' he was telling the truth, a smart but dishonest Schwartz has an obvious tactic at his disposal.

                                I'll admit there is some overlap in these points, but the point is there are plausible scenarios in which Schwartz does admit to being less that 100% certain on all points, and is also being less than 100% honest, in general
                                So why do you think that Schwartz lied? And by that I mean what motive did he have for lying? Obviously he wasn’t part of a plot because that idea has been shown to have been nonsense so what’s left?
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X