Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[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

[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

[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,

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

[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.

[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

[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 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, 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]

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

[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)

[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.

[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

[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]

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