The broken window

[curious4]

Might have cleaned his pipe out with a blade

Doubt P Man was involved.

Edit. Hey! You dropped something.

As I remember people used to use a penknife or something to scrape out the bowl of the pipe before filling it.

C4

[Wickerman]

Well, you could read it as that the man was in the doorway lighting his pipe and then rushed after Schwarz with a knife. He would have had time to stuff his pipe into a pocket and pull a knife. Provided the pipe wasn't properly alight, that is, but as I remember it took a little while to get a pipe lit (from observation, that is :-) ).

Best wishes
C4

Hi Gwyneth.

Well, you could read it that way so long as you are comfortable with Swanson deliberately omitting, or just forgetting to include, the 2nd man shouting at, and then chasing Schwartz with a knife, in a report to his superior.

Remembering to include an inconsequential pipe, but forgetting to include the incriminating knife?

[DJA]

It's also worth remembering that Mrs Phoenix [Felix] was not called to the Kelly inquest.

Bit OT,however Kelly's landlord and son attended Abberline's retirement at The Three Nuns.

Hop,skip and a jump from The Bull Inn.

[DJA]

Well, you could read it as that the man was in the doorway lighting his pipe and then rushed after Schwarz with a knife. :-) ).

Best wishes
C4

Might have cleaned his pipe out with a blade

Doubt P Man was involved.

Edit. Hey! You dropped something.

[Simon Wood]

Hi packers stem,

"2 people in the Stride case actually saw something. They were not called to inquest. Anyone who actually saw nothing at all was happily called."

Good point.

It's also worth remembering that Mrs Phoenix [Felix] was not called to the Kelly inquest.

Regards,

Simon

[packers stem]

Perhaps the 19th century version of, Undercover Boss.




Packers, I don't dismiss press stories because I choose to disagree with what they say, or because what they say conflicts with any theory.

As with our previous discussion (above), when we have information that contests one particular press story then we have good cause to question it.

That "boy" story was a good example, the Star were the only newspaper who attached the "boy" story to Barnett's statement - no-one else did that. Therefore we are justified in questioning it, and when we do we find all other press sources reported the "boy" story as coming from a separate source.

With Schwartz, assuming Swanson's summary had not survived, we would have no cause to question it.
The same with Matthew Packer, if Swanson's report referring to him as "an unreliable witness due to him changing his story", we would have no cause to dismiss him.

With all press stories I look for conflicting information, if I find none then I have no cause to question it - isn't that the reasonable approach?

We can probably count on one hand how many good examples exist where we have a press version, and the actual police report with which to compare.
Here is one concerning the Tabram murder

"At a parade of soldiers which took place at the Tower, Barrett identified the man whom he had accosted, but the soldier refused to give any account of himself."

The actual report by Insp. Reid still exists and it can be seen that both soldiers pointed out by Barrett gave a satisfactory account of themselves.
I detailed Reid's report here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=287865&postcount=29

If we did not have Reid's report we would have no cause to question what the press reported.
In this rare case we can alleviate potentially suspicious theories by showing what Reid wrote.
Did the press make it up, or were they just mistaken?

This is the crux of the problem Wickerman
Packer and Schwartz were both deemed important enough to be interviewed at a high level(i believe it was Moore in Packers case)
We don't know why he altered the time!!! He said he knew the time because of the pub closing times AND he positively identified Stride,when confronted by Eddowes body he confirmed it wasn't her
Did Moore facilitate the time change?
Remember Mrs.Darrell couldn't see any faces and didn't think she could recognise anyone but by the time she became Mrs.Long her memory returned.
2 people in the Stride case actually saw something.They were not called to inquest.Anyone who actually saw nothing at all was happily called.
Sorry but i take anything from top with a huge bucket of salt in the whole mystery.

[curious4]

Yes, that has been suggested by more than one person.
The problem though is, the context of both stories are entirely different.

In the police version we read:
"On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe."

Whereas, in the press version we read:
"A second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife.."

Either the man was standing lighting his pipe, or he came running and shouting at Schwartz, brandishing a knife.

It takes more than a simple miss-translation of one word to change the entire context of what happened.

Well, you could read it as that the man was in the doorway lighting his pipe and then rushed after Schwarz with a knife. He would have had time to stuff his pipe into a pocket and pull a knife. Provided the pipe wasn't properly alight, that is, but as I remember it took a little while to get a pipe lit (from observation, that is :-) ).

Best wishes
C4

[Wickerman]

Afternoon Wickerman
Sorry, forgot it was swanson.Stunning how often the top men got physically involved in washing walls,writing statements in their own hand etc after the double event.Just can't imagine that sort of thing happening today.

Perhaps the 19th century version of, Undercover Boss.

Nope,90% of posters would have said it's nonsense made up by the star (are you saying you wouldn't be in that 90%? And that you now value the writings of the star) because only the star carried it.
I think the star version is probably more likely than the official version. Notice how Packers statement also modified the time by an hour or so...a common occurance. I find I go with the press time and time again

Packers, I don't dismiss press stories because I choose to disagree with what they say, or because what they say conflicts with any theory.

As with our previous discussion (above), when we have information that contests one particular press story then we have good cause to question it.

That "boy" story was a good example, the Star were the only newspaper who attached the "boy" story to Barnett's statement - no-one else did that. Therefore we are justified in questioning it, and when we do we find all other press sources reported the "boy" story as coming from a separate source.

With Schwartz, assuming Swanson's summary had not survived, we would have no cause to question it.
The same with Matthew Packer, if Swanson's report referring to him as "an unreliable witness due to him changing his story", we would have no cause to dismiss him.

With all press stories I look for conflicting information, if I find none then I have no cause to question it - isn't that the reasonable approach?

We can probably count on one hand how many good examples exist where we have a press version, and the actual police report with which to compare.
Here is one concerning the Tabram murder

"At a parade of soldiers which took place at the Tower, Barrett identified the man whom he had accosted, but the soldier refused to give any account of himself."

The actual report by Insp. Reid still exists and it can be seen that both soldiers pointed out by Barrett gave a satisfactory account of themselves.
I detailed Reid's report here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=287865&postcount=29

If we did not have Reid's report we would have no cause to question what the press reported.
In this rare case we can alleviate potentially suspicious theories by showing what Reid wrote.
Did the press make it up, or were they just mistaken?

[packers stem]

Hi Packers.

I wouldn't agree, actually.
(It was Swanson who wrote the summary by the way).

So on the contrary I suspect, if it were not for Swanson's summary, we would accept the Star version without question.

Afternoon Wickerman
Sorry, forgot it was swanson.Stunning how often the top men got physically involved in washing walls,writing statements in their own hand etc after the double event.Just can't imagine that sort of thing happening today.
Nope,90% of posters would have said it's nonsense made up by the star (are you saying you wouldn't be in that 90%? And that you now value the writings of the star) because only the star carried it.
I think the star version is probably more likely than the official version. Notice how Packers statement also modified the time by an hour or so...a common occurance. I find I go with the press time and time again

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman
My point is
You would nearly all throw out the schwartz statement if it weren't for Abberline's report...almost certainly....
Did they spice it up?? Or did Abberline calm it down?
Shame we've got no other press reports to go with... Odd isn't it.Almost in 'packer odd' territory

Hi Packers.

I wouldn't agree, actually.
(It was Swanson who wrote the summary by the way).

So on the contrary I suspect, if it were not for Swanson's summary, we would accept the Star version without question.

[packers stem]

Hi Packers.

I don't know if you are aware that the Star was almost sued for libel by Pizer because of their unfounded accusations that he was Leather Apron. Press contemporaries of the Star were all aware it was a low-brow, low-cost, low-ethics, publication. Much like the tabloids of today with their alien autopsy's and "Elvis is still alive", etc.

Any credit towards the Star is limited to their on-the-street reporting of contemporary scenes, which can be highly informative.
Reporting inquest testimonies is a wash across the board for all press sources, they only report what they hear - you can't go far wrong there.

Where we have to apply a high degree of caution is when the Star provide unsourced stories, which in some cases, purport to suggest they have inside knowledge of police investigations.

I don't think anyone would throw out the press account attributed to Schwartz, it is the inclusion of a knife as opposed to a pipe that causes some doubt in the story, but not the whole story itself.
They may have spiced it up by changing that detail, but that does not mean the whole account is fake.

Hi Wickerman
My point is
You would nearly all throw out the schwartz statement if it weren't for Abberline's report...almost certainly....
Did they spice it up?? Or did Abberline calm it down?
Shame we've got no other press reports to go with... Odd isn't it.Almost in 'packer odd' territory

[Wickerman]

Hello Wickerman

Wasn't there something about the words for pipe and knife being similar in Hungarian? Can't say myself, Hungarian not being one of my languages.

Best wishes
C4

Yes, that has been suggested by more than one person.
The problem though is, the context of both stories are entirely different.

In the police version we read:
"On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe."

Whereas, in the press version we read:
"A second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife.."

Either the man was standing lighting his pipe, or he came running and shouting at Schwartz, brandishing a knife.

It takes more than a simple miss-translation of one word to change the entire context of what happened.

[curious4]

Hi Packers.

I don't know if you are aware that the Star was almost sued for libel by Pizer because of their unfounded accusations that he was Leather Apron. Press contemporaries of the Star were all aware it was a low-brow, low-cost, low-ethics, publication. Much like the tabloids of today with their alien autopsy's and "Elvis is still alive", etc.

Any credit towards the Star is limited to their on-the-street reporting of contemporary scenes, which can be highly informative.
Reporting inquest testimonies is a wash across the board for all press sources, they only report what they hear - you can't go far wrong there.

Where we have to apply a high degree of caution is when the Star provide unsourced stories, which in some cases, purport to suggest they have inside knowledge of police investigations.

I don't think anyone would throw out the press account attributed to Schwartz, it is the inclusion of a knife as opposed to a pipe that causes some doubt in the story, but not the whole story itself.
They may have spiced it up by changing that detail, but that does not mean the whole account is fake.

Hello Wickerman

Wasn't there something about the words for pipe and knife being similar in Hungarian? Can't say myself, Hungarian not being one of my languages.

Best wishes
C4

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

The obvious answer is that you're floundering.

The two stories were from the same 9th November news agency interview, yet here you are trying to advance some cockamamie theory that the Star stole parts of it from The Times.

Hi Simon,

I'm not floundering at all. You are confused.

If you read my previous post carefully you will see that I'm not advancing a theory that the Star necessarily stole anything from the Times. The point is that the words "Kelly had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her", which you misleadingly posted earlier in this thread under the heading "JOE BARNETT'S STATEMENT", as if they had been extracted from a statement by Joe Barnett, were almost certainly never spoken by Joe Barnett either in that form or any similar form.

As the Times made perfectly clear in its 10 November edition, the information that Kelly had a little boy living with her came from a source other than Barnett.

That is the key point and you are the only one floundering in this thread.

[Wickerman]

There are 3 stand out stories given to us by the star that seem to have been kept quiet in most quarters
This is one,the others are Mrs Kennedy who they say was interviewed by Abberline ...

Just a small note, about 11 or 12 newspapers carried the Kennedy story, and it was the Times who informs us that she was interviewed by Abberline.
In this case the Star called the "Wednesday" escapade "worthless", but not her account of what she saw Friday morning.
The Star actually believed Kennedy was the origin of both those stories, they did not know about Sarah Lewis and her account.