The broken window

[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?

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[curious4]

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?

Hello Jon

Aha! I get your point!

Best wishes
Gwyneth

[Wickerman]

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!!!

Agreed, we don't.
But the initial times Packer gave for the couple being opposite Dutfields Yard at 12:30 were corroborated by PC Smith, even to the detail of carrying a package of some description.

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.

Why blame the police for a decision made by the Coroner?
The police didn't choose who appeared at the inquest, they had no control over that.

[packers stem]

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?

Swanson:Are you sure it was a knife?
Hungarian interpreter: Yes,he said a knife.
Swanson:But by saying that ,you're saying there's two men?
Hungarian:Yes,2 men .One chased him with the knife
Swanson:Could it not be something that looks like a knife? A pipe perhaps?
Yes ,i think it may be a pipe
Hungarian:Well....a metal pipe?
Swanson:I said pipe didn't I ?
Swanson:Who chases someone with a pipe? Not much point in you attending the inquest then....we move on


Sounds likely to me

[packers stem]

Agreed, we don't.
But the initial times Packer gave for the couple being opposite Dutfields Yard at 12:30 were corroborated by PC Smith, even to the detail of carrying a package of some description.

Thus proving the 11.30 time to be taken by Moore to be unreliable
1-0 to the press

Why blame the police for a decision made by the Coroner?
The police didn't choose who appeared at the inquest, they had no control over that.

What!! The coroner doesn't interview people house to house.The details of witnesses have to come to the coroner from somewhere

[GUT]

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

C4

Many old pipe smokers still do.

[curious4]

Many old pipe smokers still do.

Hello GUT

Yes, then there was a lot of puffing and blowing and pushing the tobacco down with the thumb and getting it to draw properly. I remember it well :-D! Actually quite liked the smell of a pipe.


C4

[Wickerman]

Thus proving the 11.30 time to be taken by Moore to be unreliable
1-0 to the press

How so?
The two earliest reports tend to agree. If you read the Evening News of 4th Oct. and then Serg. White's police report of the same date, they do not contradict each other.
Yes, the 11:30 time is a problem, but both earlier reports indicate 12:30, or close to.

It is the changes to the police report that cause all the problems.

What!! The coroner doesn't interview people house to house.The details of witnesses have to come to the coroner from somewhere

The police are not in control of which statements the coroner chooses.