Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[DJA]

[JeffHamm]

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.

Hi Sunny,

As I say, I read it as you do, but that's not the point really. I agree, that the reading we both come to has a different meaning than the reading when the 2nd "if" is inserted. By inserting the 2nd "if" the sentence becomes unambiguous and now only points to a meaning different from the one we have.

However, what Wickerman is pointing out is that the construction of the sentence, as written, is ambiguous and it can be read two ways, one of which is how we read it. The other, however, means exactly the same thing as the unambiguous version with the two "ifs". That's the problem with ambiguous sentences, the same words can mean two different concepts.

We are left with trying to determine which of those two ambiguous concepts Swanson actually intended. It doesn't matter how we read it, because we didn't write it. What matters is what Swanson himself was trying to convey, and the sentence can be interpreted two ways. Both Wickerman's ball game example and my going for a walk example are demonstrations how how that sentence construction can easily mean a "double if, with the 2nd assumed", so it's not a stretch and it is used.

So yes, inserting the 2nd if does rule out one of the possible interpretations, because including it removes the ambiguity. But the point is that inserting the 2nd if does not change the other possible interpretation (because the other possible interpretation assumes the 2nd if in the first place). If you and I have read it in a way that Swanson did not intend, then no matter how strongly we feel that is what it means, we're wrong because we're reading it not as Swanson intended.

The issue is how likely is Swanson to use the "assumed if" version in this situation? Not whether inserting the 2nd if changes the meaning from the interpretation that doesn't include an assumed if, because of course it does, and that's why it's an important point.

I've been thinking on this because these sorts of problems are one's I find very interesting because of how they challenge my own beliefs.

There's something different about Swanson's use and the examples given to illustrate sentences where the 2nd if is assumed (the ball game and going for a walk examples). And I think what is different is that, in the examples used, the two bits of information (fine weather and having time) are two unrelated concepts, while in Swanson's statement, both "bits" are interwoven with the idea of "belief in Schwartz".

An assumed if is used when the two "bits" are independent, but in Swanson's case, the "If Schwartz is to be believed" is entirely dependent upon the second bit, which is the police report about Schwartz. They are not independent conditionals rather the answer to first bit comes from the second bit, and in such a case it is very unusual for an assumed if to be intended. It would be like my walk example being "If the weather is fine, and the forecast says it will be, then I will go for a walk". It would be very odd now for me to mean "If the weather is fine, and if the forecast says it will be, then I will go for a walk" even though that's a similar structure in many ways to "If the weather is fine, and I have the time, then I will go for a walk", where the 2nd if is intended but not stated. Rather, when the "two bits" are so directly related, the 2nd bit tends to indicate to the other person "which side of the first If should be favoured".

I know this may seem a bit pedantic, but I've been trying to figure out why I still read Swanson's statement as confirming trust in Schwartz despite Wickerman's example and the one I presented, both of which suggest that might not be wrong. Either my reading is biasing me, which is possible, or there was something else. And having considered the examples and Swanson's use, it was the above differences that struck me.

So, in the end I agree with you on what Swanson was trying to convey. I think Swanson's statement is of the sort where an "assumed if" version would not be intended because it doesn't fit the situation that allows for an "assumed if". And it's not because the general structure of his statement doesn't conform to the "assumed if structure", but because the "two bits" of information are not independent requirements, but rather the 2nd bit acts as a sort of "answer" to the first if, which makes them a "question-answer" construction, and that is not a case that allows for a 2nd if to be assumed.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

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

My take is that Swanson is implying that the police were initially skeptical of his account because he arrived after the event began to take place, he only was on the scene a short while and he didn't understand what was being said between the man and the woman. Swanson then seems to imply but after taking all those factors into account and getting further details the police eventually believed his story.

c.d.

[Sunny Delight]

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

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Is it possible that "the doorway a few doors off" is a mistranslation of the entrance/exit to Hampshire Court?

ChatGPT:
Yes, it is possible that the phrase "the doorway a few doors off" in the Star newspaper account could be a mistranslation or misinterpretation referring to the entrance/exit to Hampshire Court rather than the Nelson Tavern. Here's how this might make sense:

### 1. Proximity to the Scene:
- Hampshire Court was very close to Berner Street, and it would make sense for someone to be standing near or coming out of its entrance, as it was a known location near the crime scene. The phrasing of "a few doors off" could simply be an imprecise way of referring to a nearby landmark or access point.

### 2. Ambiguity in the Language:
- The use of the phrase "a few doors off" is somewhat vague. In the context of 19th-century journalism, it might have been a loose expression intended to convey proximity without specifying the exact location. It could have been interpreted as referring to Hampshire Court, which was close but not immediately at the crime scene.

### 3. Hampshire Court’s Connection:
- Hampshire Court was a small, somewhat secluded area that could have served as an entrance or exit used by those walking between Berner Street and other nearby streets. The entrance/exit to Hampshire Court could be what the Star reporter intended to describe, as it would have been a reasonable location for someone to be lingering, watching the scene, or even meeting with the woman (later recognized as the deceased).

### 4. Possible Mistranslation of Location:
- If the Star reporter misunderstood or miscommunicated the exact location where the man was seen, they might have mistaken Hampshire Court’s entrance for something more familiar, like the Nelson Tavern. Given that Hampshire Court was a minor access point and not a prominent landmark like the tavern, the reporter could have assumed the reference to be more public or notable, leading to the misstatement.

### 5. Why Hampshire Court?:
- If the second man was near Hampshire Court, it would also explain his possible proximity to the crime scene without complicating the location too much. The confusion may have arisen from the specific nature of Hampshire Court, which was a small entryway and might not have been as easily identifiable as the tavern.

---

### Conclusion:
Given the proximity of Hampshire Court to Berner Street, and the vague phrasing of "a few doors off," it is plausible that the Star account might have intended to describe the entrance to Hampshire Court but did so in a way that was less precise or misinterpreted as the Nelson Tavern. The location could easily be confused due to the close proximity of both sites and the ambiguous language used in the report.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Is the second man being near the Nelson Tavern, compatible with him being on the opposite side of the street, as in the police account?

ChatGPT:
No, the second man being near the Nelson Tavern is not fully compatible with him being described as standing on the opposite side of the street in the police account.

### The Issue:
In the police account, Israel Schwartz describes the second man as standing across the street from the first man and the woman when the initial confrontation took place. This would imply that the second man was on the opposite side of Berner Street from where the woman was, near the gateway where the assault happened.

On the other hand, in the Star newspaper account, the second man is described as being near the Nelson Tavern. The tavern was located on the same side of the street as the gateway where the assault took place.

### The Incompatibility:
- Opposite Side of the Street: The police account makes it clear that Schwartz saw the second man across the street from the first man, which suggests the second man was positioned on the north side of Berner Street.
- Near the Nelson Tavern: If the second man were near the Nelson Tavern, that would place him on the same side of the street as the gateway (i.e., the south side of Berner Street).

These two descriptions don’t line up. Either:
- The Star newspaper account could be incorrectly attributing the second man to the Nelson Tavern, or
- The police account could have been mistaken in placing the second man across the street from the scene of the incident, and he might have actually been near the tavern.

### Possible Explanations for the Discrepancy:
1. Different Interpretations or Details: The police account was focused on a precise, factual description of the man's position relative to the gateway, while the Star account was more dramatic and vague, possibly blending details to create a more compelling narrative.

2. Position Relative to the Tavern: It's possible the second man was near the tavern but not directly in front of it. The phrase "a few doors off" could indicate that he was not immediately in front of the tavern but rather in its vicinity, perhaps still across the street from where Schwartz saw the first man and woman.

3. Sensationalism in Reporting: The Star might have exaggerated the scene to make it more engaging for readers, placing the second man near a familiar landmark (the tavern) for dramatic effect, even if that detail wasn't entirely accurate.

### Conclusion:
The second man's position, as described in both accounts, presents a contradiction in terms of location—either in the police account, where he is described as across the street, or in the Star account, where he is positioned near the Nelson Tavern. This discrepancy may be due to interpretational differences, errors in reporting, or embellishments in the sensational press coverage.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There was a newspaper article that said Goldstein lived in one of the houses in Duffield's yard.


Ultimately, if Goldstein did indeed live in the yard...then why did he walk past his own house and around the corner into Faircloth Street?

Are you thinking of Joseph Lave: I am a Russian, and have recently arrived from the United States. I am residing temporarily at the club.

Swanson's report states:
About 1 a.m. 30th. Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street, Commercial Road, called at Leman Street and stated that he was the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour, that the bag contained empty cigarette boxes and that he had left a coffee house in Spectacle Alley a short time before.

[Jon Guy]

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.

Thanks for this. I concur with the summary.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi George,

Just quoting and discussing evidence can be enough to get you in trouble around here.

I'm wondering about your idea of Goldstein walking up Berner St and going to the cafe, before heading back down the street and being seen a second time, by another woman. I'm stuck at this point...

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.

My problem is that this doesn't sound like the 15 to 20 minutes necessary. More like 3 or 4.

There was a newspaper article that said Goldstein lived in one of the houses in Duffield's yard.

If that's the case, then why did he walk hurriedly past the yard and walk around the corner?

If he had just come from the coffee house in spectacle alley, then why didn't he just go home by walking into the yard?

When Mortimer observed him looking up at the club; she may have misinterpreted his line of sight and he may instead have looked directly at the killer standing over Stride.

And perhaps he only began walking hurriedly AFTER he looked up to the club?

If Mortimer heard Goldstein pass her door with measured footsteps and then immediately went to her door, she may have observed him just at the moment he looked up at the club and thus she perceived he was walking hurriedly.

IF it was Goldstein that Mortimer heard walking oast her door, then there's evidence of a change of pace from Goldstein.

But if that's the case, then why the change of pace?

Ultimately, if Goldstein did indeed live in the yard...then why did he walk past his own house and around the corner into Faircloth Street?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

Hi George,

Just quoting and discussing evidence can be enough to get you in trouble around here.

I'm wondering about your idea of Goldstein walking up Berner St and going to the cafe, before heading back down the street and being seen a second time, by another woman. I'm stuck at this point...

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.

My problem is that this doesn't sound like the 15 to 20 minutes necessary. More like 3 or 4.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Hi George,

I’d say that your last line sums it up best. The police would have looked into Goldstein fully. Then again…if Mr Artisan’s story (whoever she was) only appeared in one paper should we assume that the police saw it? Or perhaps some read it and didn’t notice the up/down issue? Another one for the ‘we’ll almost certainly never get to the bottom of it pile,” George. It’s a big pile.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, while I read Swanson's report as indicating a "single unknown", I do see how Wickerman's alternative is a viable, and not implausible, interpretation. And since I can't ask Swanson what he actually meant, who am I to be so sure I've got it right?

- Jeff

That sums it up perfectly I’d say Jeff. Wick’s suggestion is a good one and he might easily be right although I still favour the original meaning. But, as you say, we are never going to get a conclusive answer.

[JeffHamm]

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.

Hi Herlock,

Just to be clear, I tend to read it as you do. However, I think Wickerman's alternative reading is viable. I'll re-use the example I replied to Sunny with "If the weather is fine, and I have the time, I'll go for a walk tomorrow." What we have are two conditions that have to be met with regards to my walk - fine weather and time available.

Now, it is common for people to state such things as I have above, a single if on the first conditional and no stated "if" on the second, even if they are unsure of both (i.e. I don't know what tomorrow's weather is going to be, and I don't know if I will have the time". In other words, I could have said the following with no change in the meaning "If the weather is fine, and if I have the time, I'll go for a walk tomorrow." This version is completely unambiguous, of course, but it is a common way to phrase that "double if" meaning.

The problem is, the "assumed if" version is ambiguous, and someone can interpret it as if I already know I will have the time and so my walk is only conditional upon the weather, which is the one thing I don't know. Not only could they interpret it that way, that could also be the case.

So, while I read Swanson's report as indicating a "single unknown", I do see how Wickerman's alternative is a viable, and not implausible, interpretation. And since I can't ask Swanson what he actually meant, who am I to be so sure I've got it right?

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Coroner: Did you see the man who was talking to her?
Smith: I noticed he had a newspaper parcel in his hand. It was about 18in. in length and 6in. or 8in. in width.

What might have been the purpose and contents of the parcel?

ChatGPT:
The purpose and contents of the newspaper parcel mentioned at the inquest are unknown, but several plausible explanations can be considered based on the context and the broader circumstances of the case:

### 1. **Carrying a Weapon or Instrument**
- **Murder Weapon**: The dimensions of the parcel (approximately 18 inches long and 6-8 inches wide) could suggest that it contained a knife or other weapon, especially given its potential connection to the crime.
- **Other Tools**: It might have held tools that could be used for some other purpose, possibly linked to the individual's profession or a pretense for being in the area.

### 2. **A Disguise or Decoy**
- **To Avoid Suspicion**: Carrying a parcel could serve as a deliberate tactic to appear ordinary and non-threatening, deflecting attention while the person loitered or interacted with the victim.

### 3. **Practical Items**
- **Clothing or Personal Items**: The parcel could have contained clothing or everyday personal items, such as a coat, gloves, or other necessities.
- **Food or Goods**: It might have been a package of groceries, provisions, or something mundane, unrelated to the crime.

### 4. **Commercial or Work-Related Materials**
- The man may have been a tradesman or laborer carrying tools, merchandise, or materials for a legitimate purpose, and his interaction with the woman may have been coincidental.

### 5. **Evidence of Pretext or Deception**
- **Offering to the Victim**: The parcel could have been used as a ruse, such as a gift or an object offered to entice the victim into closer interaction.
- **Hiding Something Illegal**: If the parcel contained something illicit (e.g., stolen goods or contraband), it could explain why the man was reluctant to draw attention to himself.

### Likely Interpretation in Context
Given the violent nature of the case and the ongoing investigation, the parcel is often speculated to have contained a weapon, especially since the description fits an item that could easily conceal a long blade. However, the true purpose and contents remain speculative due to the lack of direct evidence linking the parcel to the crime.