Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whistling on Berner Street

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
    ... but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

    Aside from the audibility of the shouting, how do you suggest our non-English speaker understood who the shouting was intended for, and that it consisted of a warning? I don't recall ever coming across any discussion of this anomaly, and I cannot fathom why that would be.
    The fact is, Abberline shows us that Schwartz clearly didn't understand what was going on, and therefore could not have been expected to give a perfectly coherent account to whoever was tasked with interpreting and then translating it into English, before the journalist concerned got his eager paws and dramatic licence to work on it. Schwartz could hardly have known if what he thought he had seen and heard was faithfully reproduced in the Star, could he?

    Wess clearly implicated Schwartz in the Echo report, and Arbeter Fraint stuck to the quarter to one murder time, implicitly backing Wess. Had this rather obvious point ever been mentioned, before I mentioned it? I cannot fathom why it would not have been.
    If Schwartz could have witnessed the immediate prelude to murder at around 12.45, then a 12.45 murder time was a reasonable assumption to make. The Arbeter Fraint couldn't have known for sure as nobody saw the actual murder, but they accepted Louis D's discovery time of 1am. How many people are meant to have lied for Louis?
    Last edited by caz; 11-19-2021, 04:18 PM.
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      I’d say that it was just the absence of any mention of an interpreter. Schwartz couldn’t speak English, that’s why he had an interpreter. It’s not difficult stuff.
      Hi Herlock,

      I was once interviewed by a reporter for a local newspaper, regarding my thoughts on a local murder case, because my name must have come up as a recently published 'ripper author'.

      Now both of us had a good command of the English language, so there were no excuses for misunderstandings or misinterpretations, but the resulting article managed to misquote me and misrepresent what I'd said, to an extent where anyone taking it all literally, word for word, would have been misled. It just wasn't my voice. There was nothing bad enough to complain about, but it was a lesson everyone should learn and take on board when analysing newspaper reports, especially where the interviewee is not quoted directly and speaks little or no English.

      I do find it extraordinary - and sad - that anyone would be so naive as to think they could get Schwartz's own, untangled and unadulterated thoughts directly from an English newspaper story, and then seek to discredit him as a witness. It's a bad show.

      Love,

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


      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        It’s frustrating but there are just some things that we’ll never know.
        Such as why Lamb mentioned that he didn't have a watch. If he regularly checked the time by one or more of the local clocks, why not just say so, and give the exact time when he had last passed one and checked?

        Love,

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


        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by caz View Post

          Such as why Lamb mentioned that he didn't have a watch. If he regularly checked the time by one or more of the local clocks, why not just say so, and give the exact time when he had last passed one and checked?

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          This is an important point Caz. He was very clearly pre-warning that his estimate might not have been too accurate. As you said, if he’d checked a clock 5 minutes or so before why didn’t he say exactly that? Diemschutz wasn’t a Police Officer but he was clear in saying that he knew the time because he’d just seen a clock and it was therefore the job of investigators to do the very simple task of checking that clocks accuracy. Lamb’s estimate is clearly one that he himself exhibits very little confidence in. This is why I don’t have any issue with the time that Eagle met him being a little after 1.00.

          Although we have no written evidence for this isn’t it at leat possible that the police did check the clock and found it fairly accurate? As a general rule I have no problem agreeing that in general the police would have been more likely to have been aware of the time but this can’t be 100%. Louis saw a clock but Lamb makes no mention of it and is at pains to mention that he has no watch and so no way of being sure. I go for Diemschutz at 1.00 and Eagle/Lamb around 1.05. Approximates of course.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes



          “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

          “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by caz View Post

            Hi Herlock,

            I was once interviewed by a reporter for a local newspaper, regarding my thoughts on a local murder case, because my name must have come up as a recently published 'ripper author'.

            Now both of us had a good command of the English language, so there were no excuses for misunderstandings or misinterpretations, but the resulting article managed to misquote me and misrepresent what I'd said, to an extent where anyone taking it all literally, word for word, would have been misled. It just wasn't my voice. There was nothing bad enough to complain about, but it was a lesson everyone should learn and take on board when analysing newspaper reports, especially where the interviewee is not quoted directly and speaks little or no English.

            I do find it extraordinary - and sad - that anyone would be so naive as to think they could get Schwartz's own, untangled and unadulterated thoughts directly from an English newspaper story, and then seek to discredit him as a witness. It's a bad show.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            Exactly Caz. Another minor point is that when he went to the police an interpreter was taken and so time was probably taken to find someone with a good enough command of both languages. For The Star interview however he was taken by surprise by a reporter just turning up so they had to make do with the nearest person to hand. That person’s English or Hungarian might have been far less than perfect resulting in errors. And of course the Press would never ‘sex things up’ would they? Is that how a pipe became a knife? Or did Schwartz suddenly realise that he was about to be the subject of a newspaper story of a man leaving a defenceless woman to the mercy of the ripper so he decided to add the knife as justification for him doing his Usain Bolt impersonation?

            The fact of these differences in various Press reports should leave us prepared with plenty of salt to take pinches from methinks.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by caz View Post

              If the general suspicion had been that Schwartz invented the incident, what would have been the point of putting any interpretation on what he described?

              So Schwartz witnessed nothing, but the opinion arrived at based on his 'evidence' is that the name "Lipski" was addressed to him, and not to any supposed accomplice. That makes sense - not. Surely the opinion arrived at would have been that Schwartz was an attention-seeking fantasist.
              I think the general opinion was the opinion of Swanson - that Schwartz is to be believed. General, but not universal. ​​​Anderson's words hint at skepticism of Schwartz, but the skepticism is his.

              Isn't this a simple case of a general acceptance that Schwartz did indeed witness an assault on the deceased, but that he most likely misunderstood why the assailant called out "Lipski", and he misinterpreted the role of Pipeman - who, in case anyone needs reminding, may have come forward to give his own account of the same incident?
              Indeed it is plausible that 'Lipski' was called out to Schwartz, and not the man Schwartz first stated it was aimed at - obviously because Schwartz was the man of Jewish appearance. But plausibility can be a trap, and I think it's a trap that Abberline fell into. Don't you think it would have occurred to Schwartz; "Hey, I'm the Jewish guy, and 'Lipski' is a epithet directed at Jews, so the man that said that word must have been saying it to me". I think Schwartz knew exactly what he intended to convey.
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by caz View Post

                Hi Herlock,

                We can't even be sure that no one did see Schwartz. If Pipeman did, he may have confirmed it, in order to clear himself of any suspicion.

                But to extend this further, no one saw anyone engaging with Stride in the yard either, but there she was with her throat cut, so the killer was definitely there all by himself when it was done - unless it was the boot scraper wot dunnit.

                So the idea that nothing can be believed if there was only one witness to it is patently absurd. Maybe this is why so many victims of abuse choose to suffer in silence, because there will always be a Doubting Thomas ready to put the boot in.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                This is a strawman argument. Who is claiming that no one else witnesses anything related? Is that the impression you get of me, after reading this post?

                Too often members forget (or perhaps, 'forget') what other members have said on topics, from one day to the next. The gaps are then filled in in a way to make out that someone is a half-wit.
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Hi Caz,

                  No arguments from me on that point. We’re regularly asked why Mortimer didn’t see the Schwartz incident and this, to some, points to him not being there, but we know for an absolute certainty that Stride arrived at the gates as did her killer and yet Mortimer didn’t see them. Yet still it’s Schwartz the liar vs Fanny the reliable.
                  By 'Fanny the reliable', in which sense are you (sarcastically) using the word reliable...?

                  * she can be relied on to have been in a position to witness Schwartz & co.

                  * she can be relied on to tell the truth

                  If the former, why are you so keen to squeeze Fanny in before 12:45? Her own words and Goldstein's timing, do not support this interpretation. If the later, then it would be ironic of you to suggest otherwise, because you love saying things like "Diemschitz had no reason to lie". So tell us how you know that doesn't apply to Fanny...
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by caz View Post

                    The fact is, Abberline shows us that Schwartz clearly didn't understand what was going on, and therefore could not have been expected to give a perfectly coherent account to whoever was tasked with interpreting and then translating it into English, before the journalist concerned got his eager paws and dramatic licence to work on it. Schwartz could hardly have known if what he thought he had seen and heard was faithfully reproduced in the Star, could he?
                    What Abberline shows us is that his style was too intrusive. He should have just let the witness speak for himself, rather than leading him in a certain direction - a direction that made sense to Abberline, but which contradicted the impressions of Schwartz.

                    Schwartz could hardly have known that people would be silly enough to suppose that the man with a knife, who speaks differently, acts differently, is positioned differently, and holds a different object, was the same man as the man lighting a pipe.

                    If Schwartz could have witnessed the immediate prelude to murder at around 12.45, then a 12.45 murder time was a reasonable assumption to make. The Arbeter Fraint couldn't have known for sure as nobody saw the actual murder, but they accepted Louis D's discovery time of 1am.
                    If Schwartz had witnessed the immediate aftermath of the murder, then it is reasonable to assume that 'Lipski!' meant something entirely different to what is almost always supposed, and that Schwartz' initial impression of who it is was directed at, was correct.

                    How many people are meant to have lied for Louis?
                    I said nothing about Louis. It is Goldstein and Schwartz who I regard as suspicious.
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post

                      I do find it extraordinary - and sad - that anyone would be so naive as to think they could get Schwartz's own, untangled and unadulterated thoughts directly from an English newspaper story, and then seek to discredit him as a witness. It's a bad show.
                      Possible errors of interpretation were anticipated by the reporter, who seems to have taken some care in getting things right...

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

                      It is just too convenient to write-off the differences in the accounts, as poor interpretation or dramatic license. Besides, which account is the most dramatic, the one that includes the use of the word 'Lipski', the throwing down on the footway, and the apparent pursuit and running as far as the railway arch, or the one that doesn't?
                      Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 11-19-2021, 11:45 PM.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        I go for Diemschutz at 1.00 and Eagle/Lamb around 1.05. Approximates of course.
                        That would mean Smith at 1:08, and therefore last on Berner street at around 12:40. Approximates of course.
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Exactly Caz. Another minor point is that when he went to the police an interpreter was taken and so time was probably taken to find someone with a good enough command of both languages. For The Star interview however he was taken by surprise by a reporter just turning up so they had to make do with the nearest person to hand. That person’s English or Hungarian might have been far less than perfect resulting in errors.
                          Ironic that you take that part of the report literally. If the police had not released Schwartz' name and address, then clearly something has been arranged, or leaked. So the Star man had every opportunity to come prepared.

                          And of course the Press would never ‘sex things up’ would they? Is that how a pipe became a knife?
                          Or perhaps Schwartz realized it was not a pipe that the man had in his mouth, and decided to sex things up himself.

                          Or did Schwartz suddenly realise that he was about to be the subject of a newspaper story of a man leaving a defenceless woman to the mercy of the ripper so he decided to add the knife as justification for him doing his Usain Bolt impersonation?
                          In other words, running from a man smoking a pipe, was not going to sound realistic, so the pipe had to morph into a knife, and now it does sound realistic?

                          The other problem with that argument is that Schwartz' name does not appear in the report, so how would anyone be able to point the finger at him? At least those falsely accused of being Leather Apron, were supposedly in the habit of wearing a leather apron. How would it work in the case of Schwartz?

                          "Look at that man who appears to be in the theatrical line! He was the one who left a defenseless woman at the mercy of Jack the Ripper!"
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            By 'Fanny the reliable', in which sense are you (sarcastically) using the word reliable...?

                            * she can be relied on to have been in a position to witness Schwartz & co.

                            * she can be relied on to tell the truth

                            If the former, why are you so keen to squeeze Fanny in before 12:45? Her own words and Goldstein's timing, do not support this interpretation. If the later, then it would be ironic of you to suggest otherwise, because you love saying things like "Diemschitz had no reason to lie". So tell us how you know that doesn't apply to Fanny...
                            You know what I mean about Fanny.

                            She supposedly went onto her doorstep at 12.45.

                            But she said just after Smith passed.

                            Smith said that he passed at 12.30-12.35.

                            Can we say that Smith was definitely accurate on time….no.

                            Can we say that Fanny was definitely accurate on time…..no.

                            Can we say that Schwartz was definitely accurate on time….no.


                            And so I’ll say for the 1000th time, Fanny Mortimer cannot be used to prove that Schwartz wasn’t there. And that’s a fact.



                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                              That would mean Smith at 1:08, and therefore last on Berner street at around 12:40. Approximates of course.
                              A complete invention on your part. Why the 3 minute gap? Why not a 30 second gap or a 4t second gap or a minute gap or a minute 15 seconds gap. Etc….?

                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                              “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                Ironic that you take that part of the report literally. If the police had not released Schwartz' name and address, then clearly something has been arranged, or leaked. So the Star man had every opportunity to come prepared.



                                Or perhaps Schwartz realized it was not a pipe that the man had in his mouth, and decided to sex things up himself.



                                In other words, running from a man smoking a pipe, was not going to sound realistic, so the pipe had to morph into a knife, and now it does sound realistic?

                                The other problem with that argument is that Schwartz' name does not appear in the report, so how would anyone be able to point the finger at him? At least those falsely accused of being Leather Apron, were supposedly in the habit of wearing a leather apron. How would it work in the case of Schwartz?

                                "Look at that man who appears to be in the theatrical line! He was the one who left a defenseless woman at the mercy of Jack the Ripper!"
                                Did Schwartz know that they weren’t going to print his name? Did he know that they hadn’t already gotten it from the police?

                                Simple explanations over any that hint at cover up or conspiracy because none took place. This was a simple murder. By an unknown person.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                                “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X