Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Abby Normal]

Whereas I think you're ignoring evidence to protect the reputation of Israel Schwartz, and thus your peaked cap man theory.

no im ignoring made up evidence lol

[NotBlamedForNothing]

...on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

I've always found the bold bit interesting and note that believers in Schwartz generally ignore it or reject it. Not only do only these words suggest that Schwartz claimed to have watched the abuse of the woman from very close range, but it also becomes significant when we read that Schwartz subsequently crossed the road. That is because almost all if not all of the residences on Berner St, south of the gateway, were on the west side, that is, club side. So, why cross if he has already reached the gateway? Wasn't Schwartz walking down Berner St to see if his wife had completed the expected move of address while he had been out all day and half the night?

I wonder if it were actually the second man (Pipeman) who did the crossing of the road toward the gateway, where Schwartz still stood, having been signalled by the first man (BS). That would be closer to what we see in the Star account, where the two men are communicating, and the second man comes at Schwartz in a menacing manner. Had Schwartz been the one to cross the road and begin to walk away, he is no threat, and it would be best to let him go. Yet, that does not seem to be the case. Either he was pursued, or we have to imagine that our casual pipe smoker got so scared at the first man calling him a name, that he ran off. The problem with that scenario, aside from its believability, is that to flee in Schwartz's direction implies that he starts from a position north of Schwartz (closer to Commercial Rd) and thus moves closer to the man he is supposedly fleeing. The flight or fight response should have him fleeing to the north.

I don't think we can rely on Schwartz for the complete story. Swanson's "If Schwartz is to be believed", reflects a caution in relying on an uncorroborated witness.

[Lewis C]

My read is that the phrase "If Schwartz is to be believed" expresses some doubt on Swanson's part, but the rest of the passage indicates that he doesn't have very much doubt. So he's allowing for the possibility that Schwartz isn't to be believed, but he thinks it's far more likely that Schwartz is to be believed. As Jeff mentioned, the rest of his statement isn't what I'd expect him to have said if he thought Schwartz wasn't to be believed. I don't think there's an implied second "if". To say that "the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it" is not to say that the police report makes Schwartz' account a certainty.