Thought experiment (with numbers!). Suggestions welcome.

[Kattrup]

According to Abberline, Schwartz had no English. Therefore, not once did Schwartz use the English word 'pipe'.

That is not what you asked. You asked: "did Schwartz ever make reference to a pipe?" to which the answer is: "Yes, he did"

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That is not what you asked. You asked: "did Schwartz ever make reference to a pipe?" to which the answer is: "Yes, he did"

What I asked was understood by any reasonable person, to mean; in his native or preferred or interpreter compatible language. In response, you just pointed to the output of the interpretation.

Clearly what my post is concerned with, is the general issue of interpretation and interpreters, and how these may have altered perceptions of who and what is now considered to be authentic. I welcome any thoughtful comments ...

[Kattrup]

What I asked was understood by any reasonable person, to mean; in his native or preferred or interpreter compatible language. In response, you just pointed to the output of the interpretation.

Clearly what my post is concerned with, is the general issue of interpretation and interpreters, and how these may have altered perceptions of who and what is now considered to be authentic. I welcome any thoughtful comments ...

Well, I am an reasonable person,so you're in safe hands. Did Schwartz make reference to a pipe in his native or preferred or interpreter compatible language? Yes he did.

You for some reason exclaimed that Schwartz did not use the english word "pipe", as if that matters, or as if it were a counterpoint to my answer - as I stated, you did not ask whether he used the English word "pipe", you asked whether he made reference to a pipe. And, again, the answer is: yes he did. He may not have used the english word "pipe", but nevertheless was able to communicate with others in a manner sufficiently advanced to convey various abstract concept as well as concrete items, such as a pipe.

[FISHY1118]

According to Abberline, Schwartz had no English. Therefore, not once did Schwartz use the English word 'pipe'.

How do you know Schwartz didnt pick up a pipe or point to a pipe that led Swanson to to acknowedge thats what he ment ? , ,the fact that swanson used that perticular word could have very well been in referance to what Schwartz told him.

So it changes nothing ,your nit picking for the sake of being technically correct without gaining any ground where Schwartzs is concerned .

[FISHY1118]

Well, I am an reasonable person,so you're in safe hands. Did Schwartz make reference to a pipe in his native or preferred or interpreter compatible language? Yes he did.

You for some reason exclaimed that Schwartz did not use the english word "pipe", as if that matters, or as if it were a counterpoint to my answer - as I stated, you did not ask whether he used the English word "pipe", you asked whether he made reference to a pipe. And, again, the answer is: yes he did. He may not have used the english word "pipe", but nevertheless was able to communicate with others in a manner sufficiently advanced to convey various abstract concept as well as concrete items, such as a pipe.

You beat me to it ,

[FISHY1118]

It is the differences that I'm discussing. As I said, for anyone who believes that BS man was the murderer, the report they should suppose is closer to the truth, is probably the one that has BS man relocating Stride, closer to the position in which she was found dead. That would be the Star account.



How do know either report, represents the 'real thing'?

Well thats up to you, you can use what ever newspaper report you like , i wasnt talking about BS man as the killer, my only concern is with the Schwartz statement


How do you know he wasnt ?


''For anyone who believes that BS man was the murderer, the report they should suppose is closer to the truth,''

What or whos ''truth '' ?????????

Not Trevors surely .

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Well, I am an reasonable person,so you're in safe hands. Did Schwartz make reference to a pipe in his native or preferred or interpreter compatible language? Yes he did.

You for some reason exclaimed that Schwartz did not use the english word "pipe", as if that matters, or as if it were a counterpoint to my answer - as I stated, you did not ask whether he used the English word "pipe", you asked whether he made reference to a pipe. And, again, the answer is: yes he did. He may not have used the english word "pipe", but nevertheless was able to communicate with others in a manner sufficiently advanced to convey various abstract concept as well as concrete items, such as a pipe.

And again, all you can do is point to is the result of the interpretation. The posts of RivkahChaya, that I quoted, suggest that the interpretation may well have been in error.

Swanson: On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

RivkahChaya: I asked a native Yiddish speaker about this, and literally saying "lighting a pipe" is just not something you would say in Yiddish, because the word for tobacco pipe implies something that is lit, so using the verb "light" with it would be redundant, sort of. Anyway, according to this person (bearing in mind this is someone who was born in the late 1930s, and has never lived in England), it's more likely that the interpreter made a mistake, than that the person had a pipe. Assuming that the original language was Yiddish.

Post link

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How do you know Schwartz didnt pick up a pipe or point to a pipe that led Swanson to to acknowedge thats what he ment ? , ,the fact that swanson used that perticular word could have very well been in referance to what Schwartz told him.

So it changes nothing ,your nit picking for the sake of being technically correct without gaining any ground where Schwartzs is concerned .

How do you know that the police didn't give the Star, Schwartz's contact details, so that they could go and interview him, and as a consequence determine if he was capable of telling the same story twice?

How do you suppose the Star managed to run Schwartz to earth?

[Kattrup]

And again, all you can do is point to is the result of the interpretation. The posts of RivkahChaya, that I quoted, suggest that the interpretation may well have been in error.

Swanson: On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

RivkahChaya: I asked a native Yiddish speaker about this, and literally saying "lighting a pipe" is just not something you would say in Yiddish, because the word for tobacco pipe implies something that is lit, so using the verb "light" with it would be redundant, sort of. Anyway, according to this person (bearing in mind this is someone who was born in the late 1930s, and has never lived in England), it's more likely that the interpreter made a mistake, than that the person had a pipe. Assuming that the original language was Yiddish.

Post link

No disrespect to RivkahChaya, but the suggestion is completely irrelevant. We do not even know if Schwartz spoke Yiddish with the police. He could have spoken another language, Hungarian, German or French being the most likely. Even if he did speak yiddish, what Rivkah suggests is that Schwartz would not - based on a present-day speaker of Yiddish and not a linguistic analysis of late 19th century Yiddish - literally say "lighting his pipe". However, Yiddish being, as other european languages, eminently flexible, there could other ways of expressing the same meaning.

To cut to the chase, the idea that The Star's wording of "knife" should somehow be considered more correct than the police understanding of "pipe" is incorrect. Schwartz spoke to Abberline, who questioned him closely and reported that the man seen by Schwartz had a pipe, not a knife.

[FISHY1118]

How do you know that the police didn't give the Star, Schwartz's contact details, so that they could go and interview him, and as a consequence determine if he was capable of telling the same story twice?

How do you suppose the Star managed to run Schwartz to earth?

Ike was right in some aspects, theses boards are being polluted with nonsense .

Casebook might as well just delete all the offcial inquest statements, police statements, any offcial documents. They dont mean a thing when some people just refuse to acknowledge them, or that by somehow believing in another source, I.E a Newspaper Report that somehow that report make the official one wrong!!!! .

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No disrespect to RivkahChaya, but the suggestion is completely irrelevant. We do not even know if Schwartz spoke Yiddish with the police. He could have spoken another language, Hungarian, German or French being the most likely. Even if he did speak yiddish, what Rivkah suggests is that Schwartz would not - based on a present-day speaker of Yiddish and not a linguistic analysis of late 19th century Yiddish - literally say "lighting his pipe". However, Yiddish being, as other european languages, eminently flexible, there could other ways of expressing the same meaning.

To cut to the chase, the idea that The Star's wording of "knife" should somehow be considered more correct than the police understanding of "pipe" is incorrect. Schwartz spoke to Abberline, who questioned him closely and reported that the man seen by Schwartz had a pipe, not a knife.

If "lighting a pipe" was not, at the time, a 'natural' thing to say in Yiddish, then there is plenty of scope for interpreter error, especially if the interpreting friend was interpreting in their non-preferred language. Abberline can claim to have to questioned Schwartz closely, but it was the interpreter he listened to, for answers. Strictly speaking, it was the recipient of 'Lipksi' that Schwartz was closely questioned regarding. How exactly Abberline supposed that Schwartz could tell for sure, who the man who said this was looking at, on that dark street, I have no idea. But that is going off on an tangent, so back to the language issue ...

RC: It would be quite remarkable if Schwartz was an East European Jew who did not speak Yiddish. The few assimilated, non-religious Jews, on the other hand, who did exist, were usually well-placed in society, and unlikely to immigrate to England.

If however, Schwartz spoke Hungarian, and the interpreter did too, then the chances are it was the same interpreter for both interviews. In that case the Star report represents 'take 2'.

take 1: On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' ...

take 2: ... but just as he stepped from the kerb 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.

Did 'the Hungarian' and the interpreter, get it right the second time? Where was the second man, in reality? Unlike the change from a pipe to a knife, and the popular trope; "The Star made that up to sell more papers", which at least sounds plausible, the equivalent; "The Star moved the man from across the street, to the doorway of the Nelson, so that they could sell more papers", just doesn't have the same ring of plausibility about it.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Ike was right in some aspects, theses boards are being polluted with nonsense .

Casebook might as well just delete all the offcial inquest statements, police statements, any offcial documents. They dont mean a thing when some people just refuse to acknowledge them, or that by somehow believing in another source, I.E a Newspaper Report that somehow that report make the official one wrong!!!! .

If you're so confident about Schwartz and the accuracy of the police account versus the press account, then why can't you at least have a stab at answering my questions? I guess it's not like the man pursued report that can be explained away using the "Wess or someone got confused" trope, or like the pipe versus knife thing, that can be explained away using the "The Star was up to no good" trope. Explaining how it was that the police did not release Schwartz's name or address - any yet the Star was still able to locate him - without coming to the rather obvious conclusion that the police wanted to test Schwartz's consistency, requires actual thinking. By 'thinking', I mean 'mental gymnastics'. So let's see you do some ...

[FISHY1118]

If you're so confident about Schwartz and the accuracy of the police account versus the press account, then why can't you at least have a stab at answering my questions? I guess it's not like the man pursued report that can be explained away using the "Wess or someone got confused" trope, or like the pipe versus knife thing, that can be explained away using the "The Star was up to no good" trope. Explaining how it was that the police did not release Schwartz's name or address - any yet the Star was still able to locate him - without coming to the rather obvious conclusion that the police wanted to test Schwartz's consistency, requires actual thinking. By 'thinking', I mean 'mental gymnastics'. So let's see you do some ...

The only 2 questions one should be asking is, ''can it be proven that the statement Schwartz gave was wrong?, and did anyone actually see what he saw at the same time 12.45am that came forward to say that didnt happen. ? the answer is a simple NO .

As i recall i asked the 2nd question as to where the other witnesses were standing at that precise moment ,but i didnt get a reply .

The only way that Schwartz is to be disbelieved is if someone saw what he saw and claimed it didnt happed the way he said it did , thats it, period .

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The only 2 questions one should be asking is, ''can it be proven that the statement Schwartz gave was wrong?, and did anyone actually see what he saw at the same time 12.45am that came forward to say that didnt happen. ? the answer is a simple NO .

Your answer to my question is: Pass

To be fair to you, Fishy, you're in good company.

As i recall i asked the 2nd question as to where the other witnesses were standing at that precise moment ,but i didnt get a reply .

Surely by this stage you're aware of both the testimony of James Brown, and the debates over who the couple was, that he saw?

The simplest explanation for why Schwartz was not at the inquest, is that Coroner Baxter read the police statements for Brown and Schwartz, and came to the conclusion that Brown's statement was authentic, and Schwartz's statement was bollocks.

The only way that Schwartz is to be disbelieved is if someone saw what he saw and claimed it didnt happed the way he said it did , thats it, period .

That's rubbish. Witnesses answer questions as to what they saw, not what they didn't see. How do you suppose the various witnesses who spoke to the press and/or at the inquest, would have been aware of Schwartz's story? Wouldn't they need to hear the story, before they can refute it?

[FISHY1118]

Your answer to my question is: Pass

To be fair to you, Fishy, you're in good company.



Surely by this stage you're aware of both the testimony of James Brown, and the debates over who the couple was, that he saw?

The simplest explanation for why Schwartz was not at the inquest, is that Coroner Baxter read the police statements for Brown and Schwartz, and came to the conclusion that Brown's statement was authentic, and Schwartz's statement was bollocks.



That's rubbish. Witnesses answer questions as to what they saw, not what they didn't see. How do you suppose the various witnesses who spoke to the press and/or at the inquest, would have been aware of Schwartz's story? Wouldn't they need to hear the story, before they can refute it?

Rubbish back , they would need to see it befor they can refute it . which they didnt , and which there is not one witness that contradicts ''the exact same event'' Schwartz witnessed. Again there is not one good reason Schwartz is not to be belived based on that fact .











Were not talking about James Brown and the couple he saw tho are we? ,yes he saw a couple but tell me where does he say he saw that couple do what Schwartz claimed ? . You know, the bit where the killer ''tried to drag Stride into the street then turned her round and threw her on the footway'' hmmm Nowhere !!!!!










How do you know Coroner Baxter read Browns statement befor he questioned him at the Official Inquest ? Show me where this exit ?

or is that another.... Nowhere ?





As far as Browns Inquest testimony goes Baxter doesnt even question Brown about the incident that Schwartz saw, and Brown doesnt mention it either. So how could Baxter come to the conclusion that Schwartz statement was bullocks ?????


People desperately need Schwartz to be wrong so it fits in with their theory, but time and time again many have tried and failed. Removing Schwartzs from the events of the Stride murder is ludicrous. But then ive heard worse .