Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Wickerman]

The phrase "If Schwartz is to be believed", means that whatever follows is conditional on something. If the police don't doubt Schwartz and that is all there is to it, the phrase would be redundant. So, your explanation does not explain why this phrase appears in the report.

The purpose of the second 'if' is to allow us to believe that any uncertainty does not pertain to the truth of Schwartz's account, but rather to the (supposedly) still incomplete police report. As a bonus, it also allows us to explain Schwartz's non-appearance at the inquest - the coroner was still waiting for this report on Oct 23, and thus felt compelled not to adjourn the inquest again, while waiting for an appropriate time to call Schwartz.

Either of these false interpretations allows us to ignore the doubts of the Leman St police, reported in the Star, Oct 2.

Yes Andrew, we are on the same page, thankyou.

[Wickerman]

It’s possible to begin a sentence with something like “if we take x as true..” it doesn’t mean that the speaker suspects x of being untrue. People say things like “are we correct on this? Of course we are.”

As Swanson says “If Schwartz is to be believed..” how can he be expressing doubt if the very next phrase is “..and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it.” It’s hardly a prevarication is it?. Wick’s suggestion requires the addition of a word (if) and I can’t help thinking that if I’d done that you’d have been accusing me of tampering with the evidence.

Let’s not forget that the second ‘if’ wasn’t present. It doesn’t exist. The statement makes perfect sense without it.

True, if you are having a casual conversation, maybe in a pub.
But, this was a report to his superiors, so not the place for casual remarks.

Swanson (in my view) is telling his superiors he does not believe Schwartz, but he is reserving official judgement until the report is complete.

I'm saying the second "if" is implied, it doesn't need to be present.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick,

Actual version:

“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.”

A suggested re-phrasing:

“If Schwartz is correct, and after three weeks of investigation we have found nothing to contradict him, then it follows that he and PC. Smith are describing two different men and that the man described by Schwartz is clearly the likelier of the two to have been the killer due to the fact that he was seen in an altercation with the victim just 15 minutes before her body was discovered and just feet from the actual spot.”


A question might be - when considering your suggestion (which I’m certainly not dismissing btw), what might the police have realistically expected to have surfaced, after three weeks of investigation, to tip them toward a suggestion that Schwartz’s man and Smith’s man were one and the same?

Mike, if I was going to rephrase Swanson's observation, I would change the beginning of your suggestion (in bold), to be something like:

"If we are to believe Schwartz, and providing the police report from the conclusion of our investigation confirms his story,...then it follows that he and PC. Smith are describing two different men and that the man described by Schwartz is clearly the likelier of the two to have been the killer due to the fact that he was seen in an altercation with the victim just 15 minutes before her body was discovered and just feet from the actual spot."

To answer the question in your final sentence...
The police have not been able to find another witness to the altercation, and they cannot find anyone who can plausibly be BS-man.

[Wickerman]

Exceptional post from beginning to end.

I agree completely with your views on this

Thankyou Chris, I don't know about 'exceptional', but I'm trying to make it as clear as I can.

[Sunny Delight]

Yes, of course it does, that's the whole point.

It is precisely because it does change the whole meaning that we can't say for sure which meaning was intended.
Because, Schwartz was not summonsed to the inquest, and we don't know why.

If you (in place of Swanson) have confirmation of his story, you don't begin your sentence by questioning the validity of that same story.
That, is what makes no sense at all.

You are saying Swanson has a document (the report) that confirms Schwartz's story, but he begins by saying, "If Schwartz is to be believed".
That logic is backwards, he already knows it is confirmed by the report.


What I am saying is, set aside that conventional interpretation for a moment, and look at it a different way.

Take the view for a moment that Swanson does not believe Schwartz story.
He raises the question - "if Schwartz is to be believed, and if the conclusion of our investigation, in a report confirms it.......etc"

It doesn't matter whether he uses two "ifs" or one "if", the meaning stays the same.

Swanson is withholding his belief until the investigation is concluded, and he has the report in his hand.

This would also be consistent with the press report suggesting "the Leman-street police have reason to doubt his story".

Sunny, all the pieces of evidence have to point in the same direction - you can't have Swanson accepting his story, while the Leman-street police doubt the story - that's conflict, and it tells you something is wrong.

(Leman-street was CID headquarters in H division)

Wickerman you are completely changing the context of what Swanson actually wrote. So we have a phantom man in the shadows that you suggest in Dutfields Yard, a phantom couple who were Eddowes and the Ripper unseen by anyone, Sarah Lewis witnessing Mary Kelly and AS man along with George Hutchinson and now another phantom 'if' added to completely change the context of a statement which makes perfect sense without it.

You are not following the evidence. You are leaping into fantasy land.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The phrase "If Schwartz is to be believed", means that whatever follows is conditional on something. If the police don't doubt Schwartz and that is all there is to it, the phrase would be redundant. So, your explanation does not explain why this phrase appears in the report.

The purpose of the second 'if' is to allow us to believe that any uncertainty does not pertain to the truth of Schwartz's account, but rather to the (supposedly) still incomplete police report. As a bonus, it also allows us to explain Schwartz's non-appearance at the inquest - the coroner was still waiting for this report on Oct 23, and thus felt compelled not to adjourn the inquest again, while waiting for an appropriate time to call Schwartz.

Either of these false interpretations allows us to ignore the doubts of the Leman St police, reported in the Star, Oct 2.

It’s possible to begin a sentence with something like “if we take x as true..” it doesn’t mean that the speaker suspects x of being untrue. People say things like “are we correct on this? Of course we are.”

As Swanson says “If Schwartz is to be believed..” how can he be expressing doubt if the very next phrase is “..and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it.” It’s hardly a prevarication is it?. Wick’s suggestion requires the addition of a word (if) and I can’t help thinking that if I’d done that you’d have been accusing me of tampering with the evidence.

Let’s not forget that the second ‘if’ wasn’t present. It doesn’t exist. The statement makes perfect sense without it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, of course it does, that's the whole point.

It is precisely because it does change the whole meaning that we can't say for sure which meaning was intended.
Because, Schwartz was not summonsed to the inquest, and we don't know why.

If you (in place of Swanson) have confirmation of his story, you don't begin your sentence by questioning the validity of that same story.
That, is what makes no sense at all.

You are saying Swanson has a document (the report) that confirms Schwartz's story, but he begins by saying, "If Schwartz is to be believed".
That logic is backwards, he already knows it is confirmed by the report.


What I am saying is, set aside that conventional interpretation for a moment, and look at it a different way.

Take the view for a moment that Swanson does not believe Schwartz story.
He raises the question - "if Schwartz is to be believed, and if the conclusion of our investigation, in a report confirms it.......etc"

It doesn't matter whether he uses two "ifs" or one "if", the meaning stays the same.

Swanson is withholding his belief until the investigation is concluded, and he has the report in his hand.

This would also be consistent with the press report suggesting "the Leman-street police have reason to doubt his story".

Sunny, all the pieces of evidence have to point in the same direction - you can't have Swanson accepting his story, while the Leman-street police doubt the story - that's conflict, and it tells you something is wrong.

(Leman-street was CID headquarters in H division)

Hi Wick,

Actual version:

“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.”

A suggested re-phrasing:

“If Schwartz is correct, and after three weeks of investigation we have found nothing to contradict him, then it follows that he and PC. Smith are describing two different men and that the man described by Schwartz is clearly the likelier of the two to have been the killer due to the fact that he was seen in an altercation with the victim just 15 minutes before her body was discovered and just feet from the actual spot.”


A question might be - when considering your suggestion (which I’m certainly not dismissing btw), what might the police have realistically expected to have surfaced, after three weeks of investigation, to tip them toward a suggestion that Schwartz’s man and Smith’s man were one and the same?

[FISHY1118]

Sorry that was meant for Wickerman.

[FISHY1118]

Exceptional post from beginning to end.

I agree completely with your views on this

Is there an official Lemans st police document that doubts Schwartz version of the Liz Stride attack?

What source are you comparing Swanson acceptance to ?

[The Rookie Detective]

Yes, of course it does, that's the whole point.

It is precisely because it does change the whole meaning that we can't say for sure which meaning was intended.
Because, Schwartz was not summonsed to the inquest, and we don't know why.

If you (in place of Swanson) have confirmation of his story, you don't begin your sentence by questioning the validity of that same story.
That, is what makes no sense at all.

You are saying Swanson has a document (the report) that confirms Schwartz's story, but he begins by saying, "If Schwartz is to be believed".
That logic is backwards, he already knows it is confirmed by the report.


What I am saying is, set aside that conventional interpretation for a moment, and look at it a different way.

Take the view for a moment that Swanson does not believe Schwartz story.
He raises the question - "if Schwartz is to be believed, and if the conclusion of our investigation, in a report confirms it.......etc"

It doesn't matter whether he uses two "ifs" or one "if", the meaning stays the same.

Swanson is withholding his belief until the investigation is concluded, and he has the report in his hand.

This would also be consistent with the press report suggesting "the Leman-street police have reason to doubt his story".

Sunny, all the pieces of evidence have to point in the same direction - you can't have Swanson accepting his story, while the Leman-street police doubt the story - that's conflict, and it tells you something is wrong.

(Leman-street was CID headquarters in H division)

Exceptional post from beginning to end.

I agree completely with your views on this

[Wickerman]

...

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the Police report of his statement casts no doubt about it".

That could not be any clearer. By inserting a second 'if' it changes the entire meaning.

....

Yes, of course it does, that's the whole point.

It is precisely because it does change the whole meaning that we can't say for sure which meaning was intended.
Because, Schwartz was not summonsed to the inquest, and we don't know why.

If you (in place of Swanson) have confirmation of his story, you don't begin your sentence by questioning the validity of that same story.
That, is what makes no sense at all.

You are saying Swanson has a document (the report) that confirms Schwartz's story, but he begins by saying, "If Schwartz is to be believed".
That logic is backwards, he already knows it is confirmed by the report.


What I am saying is, set aside that conventional interpretation for a moment, and look at it a different way.

Take the view for a moment that Swanson does not believe Schwartz story.
He raises the question - "if Schwartz is to be believed, and if the conclusion of our investigation, in a report confirms it.......etc"

It doesn't matter whether he uses two "ifs" or one "if", the meaning stays the same.

Swanson is withholding his belief until the investigation is concluded, and he has the report in his hand.

This would also be consistent with the press report suggesting "the Leman-street police have reason to doubt his story".

Sunny, all the pieces of evidence have to point in the same direction - you can't have Swanson accepting his story, while the Leman-street police doubt the story - that's conflict, and it tells you something is wrong.

(Leman-street was CID headquarters in H division)

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Does the Echo report suggest that the second man was known to one or more members of the working men's club on Berner St?

ChatGPT:
Yes, the Echo report suggests that the second man may have been known to members of the working men's club on Berner Street. In this report, it is mentioned that a man was seen in the vicinity of the crime scene, and it’s implied that some members of the local community, including those from the working men's club, were familiar with him.

Here’s why this suggests the second man might have been known to them:

### 1. The Second Man’s Behavior and Familiarity:
- The Echo report indicates that the second man was near the area of Berner Street around the time of the incident. This places him within the local community, which is relevant because the working men's club was a social hub for people living in or around the area.
- The working men’s club was a prominent establishment where local residents would often gather, and it is possible that regular patrons of the club would recognize people who frequented the area, including the second man.

### 2. The Second Man’s Interaction with the Area:
- The second man was described as being on the opposite side of the street from the woman and the first man. He was lighting a pipe at the time Schwartz witnessed the incident. This suggests he was not an unfamiliar figure, but rather someone who was likely integrated into the local community, given his casual behavior and apparent lack of concern about being seen.
- If he were a stranger, his actions might have drawn more attention, especially in a tight-knit community like Berner Street.

### 3. Possibility of Local Knowledge:
- The Echo report suggests that some people in the area (such as those in the working men's club) may have had some knowledge of the second man, which could indicate that he was a regular in the neighborhood. This local recognition could explain why some individuals might have spoken of him or been aware of his presence near the scene of the crime.

### 4. Context of the Crime Scene:
- Berner Street was a busy area, and if the second man had been known in the vicinity, this would make sense in the context of his apparent familiarity with the area. It suggests that the second man was not an outsider but someone who may have had connections or a presence in the neighborhood, which would be typical of someone who frequented local places like the working men's club.

### Conclusion:
The Echo report seems to hint at the idea that the second man may have been known to members of the working men's club on Berner Street, suggesting that he was a familiar figure in the local area. This could imply that the second man was a regular or resident of the area, which aligns with the idea that he and the first man were not just random individuals but likely had some degree of familiarity with the neighborhood and its residents.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

If ChatGPT interprets one of these reports as saying that Fanny discovered the body, that alone says to me that it's of little value. It's also unable to account for the article specifically mentioning Fanny giving the wrong location for her, while the article that gives the correct location for where Fanny lived doesn't mention her name.

These points can be clarified or corrected, by asking follow-up questions.

For example, it told me about Leon Goldstein's movements on Berner St, in an acceptable manner except for claiming that Goldstein had seen a couple. When I asked for clarification, it retracted that claim. Interestingly, it is quite possible that Goldstein did see the couple by the board school, so perhaps ChatGPT was right the first time.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Again Jeff I must disagree. By inserting a second 'if' into the text it changes the whole meaning. Not to mention it doesn't make any sense since Swanson had read the Police report on the matter.

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the Police report of his statement casts no doubt about it".

That could not be any clearer. By inserting a second 'if' it changes the entire meaning.

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and if the Police report of his statement casts no doubt about it".

That is fundamentally different phrasing now. What Swanson was saying is that the Police don't doubt Schwartz statement, but with the insertion of a second 'if', it now makes it sound like the Police haven't come to a conclusion or even worse that Swanson hasn't read the report.

Honestly I don't know how anyone can read it any other way. The Police don't doubt Schwartz statement.

The phrase "If Schwartz is to be believed", means that whatever follows is conditional on something. If the police don't doubt Schwartz and that is all there is to it, the phrase would be redundant. So, your explanation does not explain why this phrase appears in the report.

The purpose of the second 'if' is to allow us to believe that any uncertainty does not pertain to the truth of Schwartz's account, but rather to the (supposedly) still incomplete police report. As a bonus, it also allows us to explain Schwartz's non-appearance at the inquest - the coroner was still waiting for this report on Oct 23, and thus felt compelled not to adjourn the inquest again, while waiting for an appropriate time to call Schwartz.

Either of these false interpretations allows us to ignore the doubts of the Leman St police, reported in the Star, Oct 2.

[Lewis C]

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,

If ChatGPT interprets one of these reports as saying that Fanny discovered the body, that alone says to me that it's of little value. It's also unable to account for the article specifically mentioning Fanny giving the wrong location for her, while the article that gives the correct location for where Fanny lived doesn't mention her name.