Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[JeffHamm]

And yet the translation of the "shout" by Bs Man passes unchecked.

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.

A translator who understood the meaning of a shout, but not a scream.

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.

We have both Bs Man and Stride making audible sounds that are translated as being; by definition; are of a level of volume louder than a typical sound.

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

If not, then why mention a shout and a scream (respectively) in the first place?

Because a word like "said" is probably inappropriate.

It seems Schwartz was saying that Stride screamed, but not very loudly (for a scream)
in other words, her scream was muted or suppressed in some way.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, of all the things this character might have said, he used a word Schwartz understood, as though the word choice was made with a language barrier in mind.

.

So now you are doubting the use of the word Lipski because you believe that it’s too ‘convenient,’ in that it’s one that a non-English speaking Jew would understand? If that isn’t a case of trying to create a mystery from nothing then I’ve never heard one.

You ask:

. For what purpose, though? Schwartz has crossed the street, away from the gateway. If the man intends to kill, it would be best to let him go. His motivation for calling at Schwartz makes little sense. Nor is there an apparent motive for killing the woman. Nor does Pipeman have a motive for running, in Schwartz's telling of the story.

Not knowing a motive isn’t an issue but we shouldn’t assume that BSMan was planning all along to kill Stride. Her death might have occurred due to something that she said or did after Schwartz and Pipeman had left the scene

. What we need for this case is a little less believing and a little more explanation

What we need is an acceptance that in the majority of cases witnesses tell the truth as they see it although they can be mistaken of course and that, in the cases where witnesses have lied there is usually a reason for it. We also need to accept that we should assume the sinister simply because of an absence of information/explanation or because there is a possible discrepancy.

[JeffHamm]

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?"

Does the police report make it clear that there were other witnesses to the throwing, or does it just indicate there were other witnesses who may have seen Stride with a man? I seem to think it's the latter, which is why I suggested that perhaps the "arrest from another source" might refer to sightings earlier in the evening and not necessarily Pipeman (it doesn't preclude Pipeman of course, just means the net is wider as to who this "other source" might be).

Anyway, I'm just interested in which bit of the police report in your opinion indicates there were other witnesses to this event? Because if the police do have other, independent witnesses (even if we don't know who they are) to the events Schwartz describes, then that sort of puts the whole "Schwartz made it up" idea to rest. Unfortunately, if it is, as things are so often, ambiguous, then we're left in the same quagmire.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, you felt a need to give an explanation as to why the screams went unheard, other than the "she screamed three times, but not loud enough for anyone nearby to hear", rationalization.

What I did was to suggest two perfectly reasonable explanations as to why no one saw or heard the incident. Both of these are possible and are far more likely than a pretend witness.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff, and Andrew,

On further investigation I have to stand corrected. The statements by Schwartz indicate that the incident that put Stride on the ground did occur before Schwartz crossed the road. There is a difference between the Swanson report and the Star report on whether she was being pulled from the yard or pushed into the yard, but I was mistaken in my belief that this occurred when Schwartz was about to cross Fairclough St.

However, this creates in my mind some further questions. What caused Schwartz to look around when he was about to cross Fairclough? If it was the cry of Lipski, wouldn't this have been directed at Pipeman? According to the Police report there were other witnesses to the throwing of Stride to the ground...Pipeman?

Review time, methinks.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

No shame in modifying your view after re-examining the source material. In fact, that is a good thing in my opinion, for what that's worth. Fortunately for me, and being selfish, I can retain my impressions on this point! Yay!

As for the bit about why Schwartz gets shouted at? Well, to me, it seems natural for someone who has just seen what he reports, and who is obviously a bit nervous about it, to cast a look back after he has passed by. So to me, it would be strange if he didn't look back, given what he saw and given he appears a bit afraid by it. Once afraid, always afraid after all.

- Jeff

[The Rookie Detective]

I agree. Translation is a very difficult thing to get right, as often languages have words that capture a concept in a way that another language doesn't really have a suitable word for. A good translator will find a suitable phrase to replace the word, while less skilled translators will tend to just substitute in the closest word available. The former translates the "meaning intended" while the latter is translating the "word". The former is very difficult to get right, and those who are good at it can make a very good living as a result. Given we're not dealing with a professional translator, it is very possible we're dealing with one of these situations where there's a word in Hungarian that doesn't have an exact match in English, and "scream" was the best he could come up with.

- Jeff

And yet the translation of the "shout" by Bs Man passes unchecked.

A translator who understood the meaning of a shout, but not a scream.

We have both Bs Man and Stride making audible sounds that are translated as being; by definition; are of a level of volume louder than a typical sound.

If not, then why mention a shout and a scream (respectively) in the first place?

It seems Schwartz was saying that Stride screamed, but not very loudly (for a scream)
in other words, her scream was muted or suppressed in some way.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

To be clear, as I'm just off to my weekly quiz, I've not had a chance to re-read the reports, so what I've described is just what always has been my impression. However, it may be that upon a careful reading, that your interpretation is indeed valid as well. That wouldn't surprise me, as much of the information we have is ambiguous but upon first blush appears specific - but that's just us filling in the blanks. Most debates centre around those blanks, with everyone convinced they've filled them in correctly.

As I'm off now, I shall await to see what you find. At least if you're mistaken that means I have one less alternative to mull over and so may be able to be a bit less wishywashy. That would be nice.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff, and Andrew,

On further investigation I have to stand corrected. The statements by Schwartz indicate that the incident that put Stride on the ground did occur before Schwartz crossed the road. There is a difference between the Swanson report and the Star report on whether she was being pulled from the yard or pushed into the yard, but I was mistaken in my belief that this occurred when Schwartz was about to cross Fairclough St.

However, this creates in my mind some further questions. What caused Schwartz to look around when he was about to cross Fairclough? If it was the cry of Lipski, wouldn't this have been directed at Pipeman? According to the Police report there were other witnesses to the throwing of Stride to the ground...Pipeman?

Review time, methinks.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

When both you and Andrew indicate that you believe that Stride was on the ground before Schwartz crossed the road, I find myself suffering a questioning of confidence in my opinions. My reading is that Schwartz crossed the road to avoid the perceived domestic and that the protestations of Stride from her position on the ground occurred as Schwartz was stepping off the kerb in Fairclough. If I am mistaken in this opinion then I shall proffer my sincere apologies.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

To be clear, as I'm just off to my weekly quiz, I've not had a chance to re-read the reports, so what I've described is just what always has been my impression. However, it may be that upon a careful reading, that your interpretation is indeed valid as well. That wouldn't surprise me, as much of the information we have is ambiguous but upon first blush appears specific - but that's just us filling in the blanks. Most debates centre around those blanks, with everyone convinced they've filled them in correctly.

As I'm off now, I shall await to see what you find. At least if you're mistaken that means I have one less alternative to mull over and so may be able to be a bit less wishywashy. That would be nice.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

The press reports are inconsistent, but given Schwartz's lack of English and the tendency of the press to "improve" the stories, it's hard to know what to make of that other than we have to be careful. Obviously, I can't say your wrong, and what you suggest isn't unreasonable so certainly worth considering. My impressions from the news stories is that the going to ground occurs just before Schwartz crosses the street, and is what prompts him to do so. He may then have looked back at some point, which prompts the "Lipski" as a sort of "What you looking at?" type of threat. But that's just speculation as well, so probably neither of us has it right.

With regards to the arrests. I do wish we had more details on those. Again, it might be that the police located Pipeman, and were able to clear him, but it also may be they arrested someone who matched the description of either B.S. or Pipeman (whom, for reasons unknown to us, they thought could be who Schwartz was describing). That person was then released when it transpired they were not one of the people Schwartz saw. The 2nd arrest, based upon another source, doesn't sound like that source was the person arrested to me, so probably one of the other witnesses who saw Stride that night (perhaps someone thought to be the man seen kissing Stride at the pub?). Again, it doesn't say if the person arrested was in fact the person seen, or just someone the police thought might be them. It's all too minimal in my view to really know what is being described in this report, but there is something interesting behind it all. Just not sure what that something is. Sigh. I'm being wishywashy again.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

When both you and Andrew indicate that you believe that Stride was on the ground before Schwartz crossed the road, I find myself suffering a questioning of confidence in my opinions. My reading is that Schwartz crossed the road to avoid the perceived domestic and that the protestations of Stride from her position on the ground occurred as Schwartz was stepping off the kerb in Fairclough. If I am mistaken in this opinion then I shall proffer my sincere apologies.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

In other words, you suppose the order of events is not what we see in Swanson's report, in which Schwartz crosses after the woman is thrown down. You suppose he crossed before Stride ends up on the ground, and Schwartz 'filled in the blank'. Have I got that right? If so, who is responsible for the errors?

Hi Andrew,

Might I beg your indulgence to provide the details of Swanson's report showing that Schwartz crosses after the woman is thrown down please?

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

While Schwartz states that he saw Stride on the ground, he gives two contradictory versions of how she found herself in that position. I am of the opinion that Schwartz did not trun to look back until he heard Stride's protestations, by which time she was already on the ground. The alternative is that he was walking and watching the whole time (around ten seconds).

The police statement was that one on the men arrested was on the basis of Schwartz's description, so either BSman or Pipeman. The second man arrested was as a result of another witness. Could this other witness be someone identified by the man initially arrested? It appears to me that the evidence obtained from these witnesses did not indicate that anything sinister took place, and thus the investigation in this direction was suspended pending any further evidence.

Speculation Alert, Commence:

Pipeman, arrested and interrogated:

I was lighting my pipe in the doorway of The Nelson when I heard the sound of a woman protesting. I emerged to see a man standing over a woman and shouting at another man who was on the opposite side of the road to myself. I think the man shouted "Lipski". The man across the road ran away and I followed him briefly before returning to the yard. The woman was on her feet by then an explained that she had been engaged in a dispute with the man in the yard but all was well now. The man agreed and left the scene.

Speculation Alert, Concluded.

For the police to have suspended the investigation awaiting further evidence, the second witness must not have contradicted the statement of the first witness.

My current thinking is that statements obtained by police indicate that Stride was still alive after the incident witnessed by Schwartz. However, even if this were the case, there are still a cast of characters in play. Pipeman after BSman departed, Parcelman lurking in the shadows, Eagle, returning from taking his girlfriend home, to an assignation with Stride, or Goldstein emerging from the club.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

The press reports are inconsistent, but given Schwartz's lack of English and the tendency of the press to "improve" the stories, it's hard to know what to make of that other than we have to be careful. Obviously, I can't say your wrong, and what you suggest isn't unreasonable so certainly worth considering. My impressions from the news stories is that the going to ground occurs just before Schwartz crosses the street, and is what prompts him to do so. He may then have looked back at some point, which prompts the "Lipski" as a sort of "What you looking at?" type of threat. But that's just speculation as well, so probably neither of us has it right.

With regards to the arrests. I do wish we had more details on those. Again, it might be that the police located Pipeman, and were able to clear him, but it also may be they arrested someone who matched the description of either B.S. or Pipeman (whom, for reasons unknown to us, they thought could be who Schwartz was describing). That person was then released when it transpired they were not one of the people Schwartz saw. The 2nd arrest, based upon another source, doesn't sound like that source was the person arrested to me, so probably one of the other witnesses who saw Stride that night (perhaps someone thought to be the man seen kissing Stride at the pub?). Again, it doesn't say if the person arrested was in fact the person seen, or just someone the police thought might be them. It's all too minimal in my view to really know what is being described in this report, but there is something interesting behind it all. Just not sure what that something is. Sigh. I'm being wishywashy again.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

I am not persuaded that she was thrown to the ground. I am of the opinion that Schwartz turned to see her on the ground and formulated two theories on how that happened. The first that she was being pulled from the yard, was turned and thrown to the ground. The second that she was being pushed into the yard and then to the ground. In either case I believe her protestations would have been at an appropriate volume for those circumstances.

Hi George!

In other words, you suppose the order of events is not what we see in Swanson's report, in which Schwartz crosses after the woman is thrown down. You suppose he crossed before Stride ends up on the ground, and Schwartz 'filled in the blank'. Have I got that right? If so, who is responsible for the errors?

Regarding Schwartz's location at the start of the incident, do you agree with the report...

...on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway...

...that Schwartz was at the gateway, when he sees the man stop and speak to the woman?

Alternatively, the progression could have been:
"come with me away from this place (while holding her arm and pulling her from the yard).
Response: "No", with an arm jerk that release her from his grasp and resulted in her falling to the ground. What response could be expected from Stride under such circumstances? A "scream" of fear after having been assaulted? Or perhaps some remonstrations to the person trying to remove her from her situation?

All speculation based on perceived evidence and logic, but speculation non the less. JMO.

Cheers, George

If he pulled her away from the yard and she ends up on the ground, she is hardly going to accept going into the yard with same person. She would have to be dragged, noisily, to her final destination. Even had she not made noticeable noises, how would you explain a man wanting to pull her from the yard, and then deciding that he wanted to take her in the exact opposite direction?

A point to ponder would be what would have happened if Stride had agreed to go with the man? Would he have MJK'd her, at some place nearby?

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Could be, although I think Schwartz describes seeing Stride ending up on the ground.

While the two men arrested might have included either or both of Pipeman and Broad Shoulders, it could also be that they were just arrested as "possible Pipeman and/or B.S." and were released when they could prove they were not. I wish we had more about those arrests, but unfortunately and like so many things, we have cryptic teases and snippets.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

While Schwartz states that he saw Stride on the ground, he gives two contradictory versions of how she found herself in that position. I am of the opinion that Schwartz did not trun to look back until he heard Stride's protestations, by which time she was already on the ground. The alternative is that he was walking and watching the whole time (around ten seconds).

The police statement was that one on the men arrested was on the basis of Schwartz's description, so either BSman or Pipeman. The second man arrested was as a result of another witness. Could this other witness be someone identified by the man initially arrested? It appears to me that the evidence obtained from these witnesses did not indicate that anything sinister took place, and thus the investigation in this direction was suspended pending any further evidence.

Speculation Alert, Commence:

Pipeman, arrested and interrogated:

I was lighting my pipe in the doorway of The Nelson when I heard the sound of a woman protesting. I emerged to see a man standing over a woman and shouting at another man who was on the opposite side of the road to myself. I think the man shouted "Lipski". The man across the road ran away and I followed him briefly before returning to the yard. The woman was on her feet by then an explained that she had been engaged in a dispute with the man in the yard but all was well now. The man agreed and left the scene.

Speculation Alert, Concluded.

For the police to have suspended the investigation awaiting further evidence, the second witness must not have contradicted the statement of the first witness.

My current thinking is that statements obtained by police indicate that Stride was still alive after the incident witnessed by Schwartz. However, even if this were the case, there are still a cast of characters in play. Pipeman after BSman departed, Parcelman lurking in the shadows, Eagle, returning from taking his girlfriend home, to an assignation with Stride, or Goldstein emerging from the club.

Best regards, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

He heard a word that he recognised. Lipski was a well known name within the Jewish Community.

So, of all the things this character might have said, he used a word Schwartz understood, as though the word choice was made with a language barrier in mind. For what purpose, though? Schwartz has crossed the street, away from the gateway. If the man intends to kill, it would be best to let him go. His motivation for calling at Schwartz makes little sense. Nor is there an apparent motive for killing the woman. Nor does Pipeman have a motive for running, in Schwartz's telling of the story.

What we need for this case is a little less believing and a little more explanation.

[GBinOz]

Having just been thrown on the footway, an obvious explanation for the screams, is pain.

The problem is that we don't see any corresponding injuries or damage to clothing. Nothing about the state of the victim suggests a BS Man like character, which is a good reason to question his existence.

Hi Andrew,

I am not persuaded that she was thrown to the ground. I am of the opinion that Schwartz turned to see her on the ground and formulated two theories on how that happened. The first that she was being pulled from the yard, was turned and thrown to the ground. The second that she was being pushed into the yard and then to the ground. In either case I believe her protestations would have been at an appropriate volume for those circumstances.

Alternatively, the progression could have been:
"come with me away from this place (while holding her arm and pulling her from the yard).
Response: "No", with an arm jerk that release her from his grasp and resulted in her falling to the ground. What response could be expected from Stride under such circumstances? A "scream" of fear after having been assaulted? Or perhaps some remonstrations to the person trying to remove her from her situation?

All speculation based on perceived evidence and logic, but speculation non the less. JMO.

Cheers, George