Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[c.d.]

A Randi anecdote -- I saw him on a talk show where he was introduced by the host as a "professional debunker." He corrected her saying he did not like that description because it implied that he investigated a claim or a situation with his mind made up before he gathered facts.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Coincidentally I’ve been thinking of getting a book or two by Randi c.d.

edit - actually I just did. I got the Kindle versions of Flim-Flam and his biography of Uri Gellar. Only £7 for the two.

I love Randi and he is sorely missed. I have Flim-Flam on my list. Let me know what you think of it.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As the Amazing Randi used to say -- when you hear hoof beats think Horses before you think Zebras and think Zebras before you think Unicorns.

Hope I didn't screw that quote up but that was pretty much the gist of it. I think it really applies with respect to Schwartz.

c.d.

Coincidentally I’ve been thinking of getting a book or two by Randi c.d.

edit - actually I just did. I got the Kindle versions of Flim-Flam and his biography of Uri Gellar. Only £7 for the two.

[Lewis C]

I would argue Schwartz is probably at most a couple of minutes out- either side of 12:45am. I would maybe suggest the attack happened slightly later maybe 12:47am or so. But I don't see it as likely that he was well out with his time. The window is too narrow. Most witnesses were roughly in the ballpark of what they declared in my opinion.

I just meant that his time may have been off by several minutes, which is also the case for most if not all witnesses. I think that 10 minutes is in the ballpark of what a witness says. I'm generally willing to allow about 10 minutes either way, though in this case, with everything else that happened, he's probably within 7 minutes, if he really did walk down Berner Street, as I think he did.

[The Rookie Detective]

Or in the case of Mortimer...


"When you hear the distinct measured tramp of footsteps, think Policeman, not a killer sneaking away quietly from a crime scene."

[c.d.]

Yes, I think the "unicorns" bit has been added - the original was only "when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebra's".
It comes from the 1940's or thereabouts.
Speculations which lack detail should be limited, a good maxim for Casebook.

Added or not, I think the Unicorn reference makes sense. Even if you skip the obvious (horses) and think zebras you are still dealing with reasonable possibilities even if they are incorrect. The point I was trying to make is that (in my opinion) some posters disregard the obvious explanation (horses) and skip right over zebras to conclude it must be unicorns.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Yes, I think the "unicorns" bit has been added - the original was only "when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebra's".
It comes from the 1940's or thereabouts.
Speculations which lack detail should be limited, a good maxim for Casebook.

[c.d.]

As the Amazing Randi used to say -- when you hear hoof beats think Horses before you think Zebras and think Zebras before you think Unicorns.

Hope I didn't screw that quote up but that was pretty much the gist of it. I think it really applies with respect to Schwartz.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Schwartz was indeed lying and was using the ‘not very loudly’ as an excuse for why the ‘screams’ weren’t heard then I have to ask why he didn’t he simply not mention the ‘screams’ in the first place?

It was deliberate. Kind of like professional wrestling. Everything is scripted. All part of an intricate and diabolical plot by the fiendishly clever Schwartz. A man so evil and brilliant that he makes Superman's arch enemy Lex Luthor look like a grade school drop out.

c.d.

I suspected as much c.d.

[c.d.]

If Schwartz was indeed lying and was using the ‘not very loudly’ as an excuse for why the ‘screams’ weren’t heard then I have to ask why he didn’t he simply not mention the ‘screams’ in the first place?

It was deliberate. Kind of like professional wrestling. Everything is scripted. All part of an intricate and diabolical plot by the fiendishly clever Schwartz. A man so evil and brilliant that he makes Superman's arch enemy Lex Luthor look like a grade school drop out.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

From the A-Z:
Manchester Guardian of 2 Oct:
"During the day all sorts of stories were brought to the police. Another story was to the effect that a man of light complexion had been struggling with the woman Stride in Berner Street and that he threw her down, but it being thought that it was a man and wife quarrelling nobody interfered with them".

I seem to have overstated this alleged story to Police as a police report.

Moving back from this error to my original error, Schwartz being only a few yards from Stride when she made her "not very loud" protests makes it more plausible that Schwartz could have heard her low volume utterances. The question then arises, with Schwartz crossing the road and about twenty yards away walking away from the scene, why did BSman feel the need to shout at him. It is noteworthy that in Schwartz's story to The Star it was Pipeman that shouted a warning at/to BSman.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I'm not sure there is anything in the first paragraph that indicates that any of the "all sorts of stories" are about what Schwatz saw. In fact, given that bit is followed by "Another story ..." it implies the first stories and the one to follow are separate (and the one that follows is the Schwartz story). So to me, that looks like what we're struggling with, that Schwartz might be the sole witness to these events. Never ideal.

Again, I think B.S. probably shouted "Lipski" at Schwartz because at some point after having crossed the street Schwartz looked back at them and he noticed. His (B.S.) reaction was just because he's angry and noticed Schwartz looking his way.

As for the differences between the Star the police report, well, that's news isn't it? I would tend to put more faith in the police report, and where they conflict I generally presume it is the news that has it wrong.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Sorry, I overlooked a point you made, this one "According to the Police report there were other witnesses to the throwing of Stride to the ground...Pipeman?"

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

From the A-Z:
Manchester Guardian of 2 Oct:
"During the day all sorts of stories were brought to the police. Another story was to the effect that a man of light complexion had been struggling with the woman Stride in Berner Street and that he threw her down, but it being thought that it was a man and wife quarrelling nobody interfered with them".

I seem to have overstated this alleged story to Police as a police report.

Moving back from this error to my original error, Schwartz being only a few yards from Stride when she made her "not very loud" protests makes it more plausible that Schwartz could have heard her low volume utterances. The question then arises, with Schwartz crossing the road and about twenty yards away walking away from the scene, why did BSman feel the need to shout at him. It is noteworthy that in Schwartz's story to The Star it was Pipeman that shouted a warning at/to BSman.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Is it stated anywhere in the police and/or press reports who the translator for Schwartz was?

(I ask that part inquisitively and part rhetorically)

Not that I'm aware, but I believe "Wes" is usually suggested as the person who translated for him, at least in the News interviews. Regardless, even if the police had a translator, given the time period the issues with translation being discussed would apply as it is relatively recently that these issues have become "aware". What I mean is, in 1888, a "good" translator would be "word for word" type, which we now know is actually not a good way to translate.

Others might be able to provide information about who translated, and when, but it also may be that we just don't know the answer to that with regards to the police interview.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Which is likelier…

That the sounds that Stride made were ‘not very loud’ as the witness very specifically stated and so weren’t heard or noticed by those in the vicinity,

or…

It was all a huge charade.

If Schwartz was indeed lying and was using the ‘not very loudly’ as an excuse for why the ‘screams’ weren’t heard then I have to ask why he didn’t he simply not mention the ‘screams’ in the first place?

When the word ‘screamed’ was used, either directly by Schwartz or by an interpreter in error, I’d suggest that volume wouldn’t have appeared relevant or significant to Schwartz. Then, when the police said something like “so these were loud screams.” Schwartz said “no, they weren’t very loud.”

If the Police doubted every event that went unseen or unheard in a populated area they would spend most of their time at the station playing cards with nothing to do. And yet here we are with something so prosaic being turned into a mystery. For a start people were doing other things; they weren’t on guard for unusual sounds. They were distracted. And of course…the screams weren’t very loud.

[The Rookie Detective]

Well, the points made around "screamed" would apply to the entire translation. So the fact that "shout" hasn't been specifically addressed is just because nobody has picked that particular word until now. But ... see above.

Upon what basis have you concluded the translator knows the meaning of shout but doesn't know the meaning of scream? To clarify, how do you know what the translator does or does not know? Be careful here, because the arguments about "scream" are based on noting that the translator is not a professional, and as we know that means their translation might introduce some "error" in terms of what the speaker actually meant. Nobody is claiming to know what the translator actually "knows", or even if an "error" has occurred, only that we ourselves have no idea whether or not "screamed" is what Schwartz actually meant.

But you need to justify your claim that somehow you know for sure that the translator understood one word but no the other.

But a "shout" doesn't have to be a "bellow". If someone is not next to you, and you say something to them, you don't "say it", you "shout it". but that doesn't mean extremely loud, only just loud enough to cover the distance. And Schwartz isn't miles away, so the "shout" doesn't have to be so loud that it would be heard by people inside buildings. It might have been heard by Pipeman, and may explain his sudden appearance. But there's nothing in the word "shout" that creates any sort of conflict with other information that we have.

And nothing that indicates they were of such a volume that people inside must have heard them.

Because a word like "said" is probably inappropriate.

Now you're getting it. It wasn't very loud.

To be honest, I was hoping nobody would go the route of "not very loudly (for a scream)", as a way of re-introducing the idea that it was still "loud". But the phrase "not very loudly" is a phrase that means, not loud. Language is not just a string of dictionary definitions, and spoken language cannot be dissected like a philosophical work where each and every word and phrase needs to be constructed to avoid any ambiguity. With speech, the first impression is the right impression. Over thinking what someone has said generally leads you down the wrong path.

- Jeff

Is it stated anywhere in the police and/or press reports who the translator for Schwartz was?

(I ask that part inquisitively and part rhetorically)