Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[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

[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 ?

[FISHY1118]

Sorry that was meant for Wickerman.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Wick,

I’m sensing a scenario where you and I are discussing this point in 10 years time.

Your version is certainly valid and could be the case but so is the alternative imo. But.. I still don’t think that, should your version be the correct one, we can assume doubt on Swanson’s part; only caution. So in effect he could still have meant:

”As it stands we would have to say that Schwartz’s man and Smith’s man are two different men, with Schwartz’s man being the likelier killer. However this conclusion might change if new evidence appears.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

The main point being though is that the police had absolutely no reason to doubt Schwartz story.

a) if he’d placed himself at the scene of a murder with no one to exonerate him just to get a bit of fame then he’d have been crazy.
b) if he’d have been up to no good then he had no need to come forward.

How long do we have to go on with this? Unless someone can provide Schwartz with an alibi proving him elsewhere we should just let it go.

[Sunny Delight]

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.

It is abundantly clear that Swanson wrote and I rephrase:

"If we are to believe Schwartz(we being the senior officers) and the Police report I have received states they do not doubt him, then it follows that he and PC Smith are describing two different men".

"If we are to place our faith in Schwartz(we being the senior officers) and my subordinates who have interviewed him do not doubt him, then it follows that he and PC Smith are describing two different men".

Don't forget Swanson was writing this to the Home Office. He is summarising what is sent to him. What he writes is so clear that it dumbfounds me that anyone can read or interpret it any differently.