Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff. I would thoroughly disagree. To my mind it is absolutely clear that Swanson is stating that the Police report casts no doubt upon Schwartz statement. Being Irish and Swanson Scottish, we tend to still write in the same manner even now. It is recognisable to me what Swanson is conveying. If Schwartz is to be believed, and my subordinates don't doubt he is being truthful, is essentially what Swanson wrote. I can't interpret it any other way.

Hi Sunny,

As I say, I'm not suggesting that interpretation is doesn't fit the written statement. However, the written statement is constructed in a way that is also consistent with the desire to convey a "double conditional" (meaning, two if's, even though the 2nd one is assumed rather than presented).

Wickerman's ball game is a good example of a "double conditional with the 2nd if assumed". Another might be, "If it is a nice day tomorrow, and I have time, I will go for a walk." The meaning of that sentence is exactly the same as "If it is a nice day tomorrow, and if I have time, I will go for a walk." There's no change in the intended meaning by dropping the 2nd if as it becomes "assumed." The issue, though, is that it creates an ambiguity because one could interpret my first sentence as me already knowing I have the time, so my walk is only conditional on the weather. The "assumed if" creates potential ambiguity.

Now, with regards to my own reading, I tend to read things as you do, that the "no doubt" portion is being presented as an answer to the implied question as to whether or not Schwartz is to be believed. So he's clarifying his position on the first point. However, I do see Wickerman's suggestion that follows the "assumed if" reading of the statement as being a viable option.

Language is a remarkably crude and imprecise tool despite our tendency to view it as concise and effective. Years of reading student papers, and in having my own writing put to scrutiny and asked for clarifications on points I thought crystal clear, have made me question how any information gets conveyed at all sometimes!

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

You make fair points of course.

Mrs Artisan said she hadn’t long been inside when she heard the commotion and that she’d seen Goldstein: “…just before I turned in.”

So using approximations - commotion 1.02, say she’d gone inside 12.55, saw Goldstein approx 12.50.

Fanny said that she went outside after the commotion just after 1.00 and he’d seen Goldstein before that. So if he’d gone inside just before 1.00 he could only have seen Goldstein in the few minutes that he was on the doorstep.

It just seems strange to have Goldstein walking 2 ways at around the same time.

This is another one of those points that we just have no way of getting entirely to the bottom of. The frustrations of this case.

Hi Herlock,

"It just seems strange to have Goldstein walking 2 ways at around the same time".

This is also the problem that I see. Google maps shows the walking distance to the Spectacle Cafe as about 6 minutes. According to Mortimer, Goldstein was walking quickly, so perhaps a 9 minute round trip. To that has to be added time to establish his presence at the Cafe, so it begins to exceed the approximations that you have proposed.

The Leman St PS report contained a marginal note: "[ Who saw this man go down Berner St. or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions might be asked]". It seems that Goldstein caught the attention of the police so our most reasonable conclusion might need to be that they adequately explored all the possibilities.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

At the inquest:
Coroner: When you were in Berner-street the previous time did you see any one?
Smith: Yes, a man and a woman.
Coroner: Was the latter anything like the deceased?
Smith: Yes, I saw her face. I have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I feel certain it is the same person.
Coroner: Was she on the pavement?
Smith: Yes, a few yards up Berner-street on the opposite side to where she was found.

Is it possible the man seen the previous time by Smith was also the second man seen by Schwartz?

ChatGPT:
It is indeed possible that the man seen earlier in Berner Street by the witness at the inquest could have been the **second man** observed by Israel Schwartz. Several points support this hypothesis:

1. **Location and Timing**: The earlier sighting occurred on Berner Street, a few yards up from the crime scene, which could align with the general location of the **second man** standing on the opposite side of the street during Schwartz's later encounter.

2. **Behavior**: If the second man had no direct interaction with the first man or the woman in Schwartz's account but was simply present in the area, it suggests he could have been lingering in the vicinity for some time, potentially seen by multiple witnesses.

3. **Identification**: If the earlier witness identified the deceased as the same woman later seen in the gateway, it suggests continuity of events. If the man seen earlier was the second man, it would indicate he was nearby during both the initial and later interactions, possibly as an observer or someone loosely connected to the events.

However, without additional details directly linking the two observations, this remains speculative. The second man's role and connection to the events remain ambiguous.

[GBinOz]

I gave ChatGPT these reports, referring to them as Report A, B & C. I asked the question, is the same woman the subject of all 3 reports? Output:

No, the reports describe different women. Report A details a woman who lives near the club and hears the policeman passing. Report B mentions Mrs. Mortimer, who lives further away and discovers the body. Report C focuses on a neighbor, who first responds to the scene and provides more details about the murder. While there are overlapping details, they refer to different individuals.

Hi Andrew,

I came across your "A Closer Look AT Leon Goldstein" from April 2021, which was posted before I joined Casebook. I seem to recall later contributing some information on police whistles and their distribution.

I've only had a look at the first few pages but you seem to have received similar opposition to that which I have received when addressing the subject, but we do seem to have one of our rare moments of agreement.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why did the second man follow Schwartz?

ChatGPT:
The account does not provide a definitive explanation for why the second man followed Israel Schwartz. However, several interpretations could be considered based on the context:

1. **Suspicion or Curiosity**: The second man might have noticed Schwartz observing the scene or crossing the street and followed him out of suspicion or curiosity, possibly to determine whether Schwartz was going to report the incident.

2. **Complicity**: If the second man was somehow connected to the first man or the incident, he might have followed Schwartz to intimidate him or dissuade him from intervening or going to the authorities.

3. **Coincidence or Misinterpretation**: It is also possible that the second man's movements were coincidental and unrelated to Schwartz, but Schwartz interpreted them as a deliberate act of pursuit due to the unsettling nature of what he had just witnessed.

The account stops short of clarifying the second man's intentions, leaving his motives open to speculation.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far. [Here there is a marginal note. 'The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew'.] Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

Second man age 35 ht. 5 ft 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.

Where was the second man, in relation to the first man?

ChatGPT:
In the account given by Israel Schwartz, the second man was standing on the **opposite side of the street** from where the first man was interacting with the woman in the gateway. The second man was described as **lighting his pipe** when Schwartz noticed him. This suggests that the second man was positioned some distance away but within view of the incident.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Lewis C,

This is the account, which was one of three that appeared in the Evening News Oct 1:
. A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact.. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.


This is another account from the same newspaper on Oct 1:
Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy, says: I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gate with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went around the corner by the Board School. I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.


It can be noticed that 36 Berner St was 2 doors from the club, as stated in the first account, not 4 doors as in the second. The first account has a woman hearing footsteps from inside her home at about 12:45, going to the door as a response, and staying at the door for ten minutes. The second account has no mention of the footsteps that bought the woman to the door, but claims that she was at the door for 30 minutes from 12:30 to 1 o'clock.

The third account published in the Evening News Oct 1 was quite different to the above.
INTERVIEW WITH A NEIGHBOUR.
Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, and formed a strong contrast to many of those around her. I got into conversation with her and found that she was one of the first on the spot.
TEN INCHES OF COLD STEEL.
"I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife.
"Then I see a sight that turned me all sick and cold. There was the murdered woman a-lying on her side, with her throat cut across till her head seemed to be hanging by a bit of skin. Her legs was drawn up under her, and her head and the upper part of her body was soaked in blood. She was dressed in black as if she was in mourning for somebody.
MURDERED WITHIN SOUND OF MUSIC AND DANCING.
"Did you hear no sound of quarrelling, no cry for help?" I asked.
"Nothing of the sort, sir. I should think I must have heard it if the poor creature screamed at all, for I hadn't long come in from the door when I was roused, as I tell you, by that call for the police. But that was from the people as found the body. Mr. Lewis, who travels in cheap drapery things a bit now and again, had just drove into the yard when his horse shied at something that was lying in the corner. He thought 'twas a bundle of some kind till he got down from his cart and struck a light. Then he saw what it was and gave the alarm."
"Was the street quiet at the time?"
"Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club. There was music and dancing going on there at the very time that that poor creature was being murdered at their very door, as one may say."
A MAN WITH A BLACK BAG!
" I suppose you did not notice a man and woman pass down the street while you were at the door?"
"No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had. Particularly if they'd been strangers, at that time o' night. I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand."
"Did you observe him closely, or notice anything in his appearance?"
"No, I didn't pay particular attention to him. He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club., A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially."
That was all that my informant had to tell me. I wonder will the detectives think it worth while to satisfy themselves about that black bag?

I have previously proposed that these interviews were with different women, a proposition which was vigorously opposed. Can Fanny have made three such differing statements on the same day to between one and three reporters?

Cheers, George

I gave ChatGPT these reports, referring to them as Report A, B & C. I asked the question, is the same woman the subject of all 3 reports? Output:

No, the reports describe different women. Report A details a woman who lives near the club and hears the policeman passing. Report B mentions Mrs. Mortimer, who lives further away and discovers the body. Report C focuses on a neighbor, who first responds to the scene and provides more details about the murder. While there are overlapping details, they refer to different individuals.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I fed ChatGPT the relevant section of Swanson's report, and asked about the phrasing under discussion. Output:

The phrase **"If Schwartz is to be believed..."** is a key point in the author's analysis, suggesting a level of **uncertainty or conditionality** about the accuracy of Schwartz's testimony. Essentially, the author is acknowledging that there are **differences in witness statements**, but they are working under the assumption that Schwartz’s version is **more likely to be true**, unless proven otherwise. Here's a breakdown of the meaning:

### 1. **Acknowledging Uncertainty**
The phrase introduces a **conditional assumption**. The author is saying, "If Schwartz’s testimony is accurate and truthful..." but not asserting this as an absolute fact. This indicates some level of **skepticism or the possibility of error**, even though Schwartz’s account is given weight by the police and the details he provided seem to align with other aspects of the crime scene.

### 2. **Conditional Analysis**
The author then continues by pointing out that if Schwartz is correct, **the man Schwartz saw is more likely to be the murderer**. This conclusion is built on the premise that Schwartz’s version of events (the description of the man with the woman, and the shouting of "Lipski") is reliable and accurate.

In contrast, there’s a mention of a **difference in descriptions** between Schwartz and PC Smith (another witness), particularly regarding the appearance and clothing of the man. If these two descriptions are of different people, the author argues that Schwartz's description may be **the more plausible one**, leading to the possibility that **the man Schwartz saw is the actual killer**.

### 3. **Implication of Trust in Schwartz’s Account**
The phrase "If Schwartz is to be believed" suggests that the author sees **Schwartz’s testimony as credible**, or at least **potentially more credible** than the conflicting account provided by PC Smith. However, the use of the conditional phrasing also means that the author is not asserting Schwartz’s account as unquestionably true, and is leaving room for the possibility that other interpretations or evidence could arise.

### 4. **Rationale for Doubt in the Other Witness (PC Smith)**
By drawing attention to the **serious differences** in the descriptions given by Schwartz and PC Smith, the author implies that **if they are describing different men**, Schwartz's account seems **more likely** to be the one that aligns with the murder scene and its details.

This conclusion also raises the idea that **the man Schwartz saw might be the murderer**, particularly if there’s doubt about the reliability of PC Smith’s version.

### In Summary:
The phrase **"If Schwartz is to be believed..."** expresses a **hypothetical stance** based on the assumption that Schwartz’s testimony is accurate. It sets the stage for the author to argue that if Schwartz’s description is correct, then the man he saw is more likely to be the murderer, as opposed to the man described by PC Smith. It acknowledges the possibility of error or alternative explanations, but ultimately treats Schwartz’s account as the more probable one for explaining the crime.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi Sunny,

I think what Wickerman is pointing out is the the 2nd if is not necessary to convey the same meaning as a sentence that contains it. In other words, he's saying adding the 2nd if does not necessarily change the intended meaning. I use necessarily there because, of course, the interpretation that he's pointing out the report already does not cast doubt is also viable. So the statement, as written, is ambiguous as to which of those interpretations he was trying to convey. He can't mean both, but he could have meant either. And for us, being unable to ask him for clarification, we need to consider both possibilities as his intended meaning even though at the same time we know only one of them is the right one - we just can't say for sure which it is. Remember, no matter how much one of those meanings "feels" right to us, the fact remains that the way in which it is phrased is ambiguous. And as in his ball game example, the alternative Wickerman is suggesting (dropping the 2nd if) is a common language structure, so it's not like one alternative requires arguing for a very unusual sentence structure that can be made to be ambiguous, but rather, it's a common way to say what Wickerman suggests but it is also a common way to point out "it depends upon Schwartz's reliability" and then to immediately set aside any of those doubts. So both interpretations are based upon normal language use, which is why we can't be confident we know which the two alternative intentions was, well, intended.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff. I would thoroughly disagree. To my mind it is absolutely clear that Swanson is stating that the Police report casts no doubt upon Schwartz statement. Being Irish and Swanson Scottish, we tend to still write in the same manner even now. It is recognisable to me what Swanson is conveying. If Schwartz is to be believed, and my subordinates don't doubt he is being truthful, is essentially what Swanson wrote. I can't interpret it any other way.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Sunny,

I think what Wickerman is pointing out is the the 2nd if is not necessary to convey the same meaning as a sentence that contains it. In other words, he's saying adding the 2nd if does not necessarily change the intended meaning. I use necessarily there because, of course, the interpretation that he's pointing out the report already does not cast doubt is also viable. So the statement, as written, is ambiguous as to which of those interpretations he was trying to convey. He can't mean both, but he could have meant either. And for us, being unable to ask him for clarification, we need to consider both possibilities as his intended meaning even though at the same time we know only one of them is the right one - we just can't say for sure which it is. Remember, no matter how much one of those meanings "feels" right to us, the fact remains that the way in which it is phrased is ambiguous. And as in his ball game example, the alternative Wickerman is suggesting (dropping the 2nd if) is a common language structure, so it's not like one alternative requires arguing for a very unusual sentence structure that can be made to be ambiguous, but rather, it's a common way to say what Wickerman suggests but it is also a common way to point out "it depends upon Schwartz's reliability" and then to immediately set aside any of those doubts. So both interpretations are based upon normal language use, which is why we can't be confident we know which the two alternative intentions was, well, intended.

- Jeff

Hello Jeff,

Swanson is talking about which is the likelier killer, the man seen by PC Smith or the man seen by Schwartz as long as the evidence shows that these weren’t one and the same.

Actual text:

“If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered.”

Wick’s suggestion:

“If Schwartz is to be believed, and if the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered.”

It’s not often that I disagree with Wick (or yourself) but this ‘might’ be one of those rare occasions, although I’m quite prepared to change my mind. (As you know Jeff I have been wrong once before, on June 3rd 1986)

Wouldn't it be the case though that if Wick was right, and there was still uncertainty due to the ongoing investigation, shouldn’t we have expected to have seen:

“If Schwartz is to be believed, and if the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it would follow if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered.”

Swanson is in effect saying - if Schwartz is right, and the police report casts no doubt about it, then we can be sure that Schwartz and Smith saw two different men and Schwartz man has to be the likelier killer.

As clear as mud.

[JeffHamm]

That is not what Swanson wrote and adding an 'if' actually gives it a completely different narrative. Swanson is merely saying that his subordinates place no doubt upon Schwartz story but Swanson himself hasn't interviewed him face to face. He can only go on the report sent to him.

Hi Sunny,

I think what Wickerman is pointing out is the the 2nd if is not necessary to convey the same meaning as a sentence that contains it. In other words, he's saying adding the 2nd if does not necessarily change the intended meaning. I use necessarily there because, of course, the interpretation that he's pointing out the report already does not cast doubt is also viable. So the statement, as written, is ambiguous as to which of those interpretations he was trying to convey. He can't mean both, but he could have meant either. And for us, being unable to ask him for clarification, we need to consider both possibilities as his intended meaning even though at the same time we know only one of them is the right one - we just can't say for sure which it is. Remember, no matter how much one of those meanings "feels" right to us, the fact remains that the way in which it is phrased is ambiguous. And as in his ball game example, the alternative Wickerman is suggesting (dropping the 2nd if) is a common language structure, so it's not like one alternative requires arguing for a very unusual sentence structure that can be made to be ambiguous, but rather, it's a common way to say what Wickerman suggests but it is also a common way to point out "it depends upon Schwartz's reliability" and then to immediately set aside any of those doubts. So both interpretations are based upon normal language use, which is why we can't be confident we know which the two alternative intentions was, well, intended.

- Jeff

[Sunny Delight]

Jon, the second half of the sentence conveys the same sentiment, in my view. Swanson just omitted the second "if", which we all do from time to time.
Swanson is saying the police report has not been completed, but when it is, and if it casts no doubt on Schwartz's story.....etc.

As an example, if I say:

"If I go to the ball game tomorrow, and if Toronto wins, I'll be partying all night."

or I could say:

"if I go to the ball game tomorrow, and Toronto wins, I'll be partying all night."

I omitted the second "if", but the meaning does not change.

So what Swanson meant was:
"If Schwartz is to be believed, and (if) the police report of his statement casts no doubt about it...."
Swanson just omitted the second "if".

Indicating the police are still investigating Schwartz's story, they will see if the conclusion of the police report confirms his story, which is made after the investigation is complete.
The reason Schwartz was not called to the inquest, i my view, because the police were still investigating his story.

That is not what Swanson wrote and adding an 'if' actually gives it a completely different narrative. Swanson is merely saying that his subordinates place no doubt upon Schwartz story but Swanson himself hasn't interviewed him face to face. He can only go on the report sent to him.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

How do you interpret the draft letter from Anderson to the Home Office dated 5/11/88 referring to " the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case", and Warren's report to the Home office dated 7 Nov 1888 with the same reference ?

Cheers, George

Hi George.

I think it speaks for itself, it just goes to show even officials made mistakes.
The interesting thing here is, if we didn't have press coverage of the Stride inquest, we would automatically take those two examples as fact.
This is one of those rare situations where modern theorists are quite prepared to accept press accounts, showing the absence of Schwartz, over official memo's that suggest he was present.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

As I recall, in the previous discussions the slant was entirely in the direction of your opinion, and away from my solid minority opinion of one. Your argument seems to be that the differences can be explained by misquotations and interpretations in the interviews, and that may be, as such differences should, as you state, have been sorted out by police when they interviewed everyone in the street.

With regard to the mention of the "10 inches of cold steel", the shout was on the night, minutes after the murder. The Coram knife was found a day afterwards and had a 10" blade. Coincidence?

Without discounting your conclusion, shall we look at the statements strictly as written.

Mrs Mortimer:
"the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went around the corner by the Board School".

This is very specific and doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

Mrs Artisan:
I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand."
"Did you observe him closely, or notice anything in his appearance?"
"No, I didn't pay particular attention to him. He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club., A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially.

Since Berner St slopes down from Commercial to Fairclough, it does appear than the man was headed north. The suggestion that he might have been coming from the Socialist Club means that, whether or not he looked jewish, he was coming from the direction of the club. So if it is to be suggested the "up" and "down" the street descriptions are interchangeable, then for Mrs Artisan to be seeing the man headed south she must have been living at 42, 44 (Packer) or 46 (The Nelson). I have difficulty accepting that this is the case. The other thing to be noticed is that the interviewer asked Mrs Artisan if she had seen a couple walking down the street, and she replied No, but that she did see a man walking up the street.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

You make fair points of course.

Mrs Artisan said she hadn’t long been inside when she heard the commotion and that she’d seen Goldstein: “…just before I turned in.”

So using approximations - commotion 1.02, say she’d gone inside 12.55, saw Goldstein approx 12.50.

Fanny said that she went outside after the commotion just after 1.00 and he’d seen Goldstein before that. So if he’d gone inside just before 1.00 he could only have seen Goldstein in the few minutes that he was on the doorstep.

It just seems strange to have Goldstein walking 2 ways at around the same time.

This is another one of those points that we just have no way of getting entirely to the bottom of. The frustrations of this case.

[Jon Guy]

Jon,
I think it might be yourself who is missing something. If the police report of his statement was all there was to indicate his reliability as a witness, there would be no need for the disclaimer. What Swanson is saying is that there may be opinions that differ on the matter, including his own, but the police report (which I take to mean Abberline's report of his interviewing of Schwartz), does not indicate doubts.

Swanson's report was intended to place the investigation in the best possible light. Even considering that, Swanson was kind enough to leave history an important clue. We do not see a similar disclaimer for any other witness. That is surely significant.

Andrew, very possibly, but "if Schwartz is to be believed .." is not a disclaimer, it follows a couple of pages of details surrounding PC Smith`s man and Schwartz`s man.

Wasn`t Swanson`s report for Charles Warren, not history? I don`t think Chief Inspectors left "clues" in their reports.

But, I ask you, what clue do you refer to ?