Thought experiment (with numbers!). Suggestions welcome.

[Kattrup]

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.

Hi Not

how about "The Star was a sensationalist paper frequently spicing up its stories and relatively unconcerned with details". Does that have a ring of plausibility?

Your posts give the impression that you are determined to set The Star's account on the same level of trustworthiness as police reports and summaries. It is not.

Schwartz gave a statement to the police. He was questioned closely and his account was regarded as true by Abberline and Swanson. Their summaries of his statement make it clear what Schwartz told them. You want to question the reliability of the interpreters, but the police knew they were interviewing Schwartz through an interpreter and would have been aware of the potential limitations.

The Star's account does not represent a "take 2". The context was completely different. Being interviewed later in the street by a newshound with an eye for drama is not equivalent to giving a statement to experienced police officers. We do not know if the interpreter was the same man. You think it was likely, I personally do not. Etc.

How did the Star find Schwartz? Well, why not read the paper where it explains how? They tracked him down - that's what journalists do. There's no need to create some crazy conspiracy that the Police gave the Star Schwartz' details in order to test his veracity, the paper itself explained what happened. I mean, do you see how it comes across as needlessly complicating things or conspiratorial? Inventing some scheme by the police - with zero empirical basis.

There are many aspects of the case where there is conflicting or unclear information about exact details. That is not necessarily indicative of some major misunderstanding that we need to untangle to get at the truth. It is common in large investigations and is simply a consequence of a long and complex proces involving many different people with differing goals and motivations.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Not

how about "The Star was a sensationalist paper frequently spicing up its stories and relatively unconcerned with details". Does that have a ring of plausibility?

Schwartz's police statement was already sensational. Are you claiming otherwise? Do you regard it as a fact that the Star deliberately modified what Schwartz had told them, to spice up the story? Do you not think the story was already spicy? The notion of the Star adding features to an already far-fetched story, is in itself far-fetched, all the more so when the Star's editorial of the same day, virtually called Schwartz a liar.

Your posts give the impression that you are determined to set The Star's account on the same level of trustworthiness as police reports and summaries. It is not.

The issue of the accuracy of the interpretations, cannot just be ignored or assumed to be a non-issue. The impression I get from your posts, is that you believe Schwartz at Leman street station, to have explained events in a clear and unambiguous manner, to have been perfectly understood by the interpreter, and for that perfect understanding to have been perfectly relayed to Abberline, who then wrote down exactly what Schwartz had said in another language.

Schwartz gave a statement to the police. He was questioned closely and his account was regarded as true by Abberline and Swanson. Their summaries of his statement make it clear what Schwartz told them. You want to question the reliability of the interpreters, but the police knew they were interviewing Schwartz through an interpreter and would have been aware of the potential limitations.

Would those limitations have anything to do with the interpreter being Schwartz's friend?

The Star's account does not represent a "take 2". The context was completely different. Being interviewed later in the street by a newshound with an eye for drama is not equivalent to giving a statement to experienced police officers. We do not know if the interpreter was the same man. You think it was likely, I personally do not. Etc.

Who moved the second man from the opposite side of the street, to the doorway of the pub on the corner? Was it Schwartz, or the Star man "with an eye for drama"? Or was it neither, but simply a matter of Schwartz and interpreter communicating better, for the press interview?

I have no strong opinion on the interpreter being the same man each time. However, Schwartz would no doubt have chatted to his friend after speaking to Abberline. Misunderstandings could have been realized and talked through. Apparently you suppose there was zero room for improvement.

How did the Star find Schwartz? Well, why not read the paper where it explains how? They tracked him down - that's what journalists do. There's no need to create some crazy conspiracy that the Police gave the Star Schwartz' details in order to test his veracity, the paper itself explained what happened. I mean, do you see how it comes across as needlessly complicating things or conspiratorial? Inventing some scheme by the police - with zero empirical basis.

Let me get this straight. You think the Star tracked Schwartz down, without knowing his name or address? How? Did they do their own door-to-door search, with a team of interpreters for various languages?

Who gave the Star the following details ...?

INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter.

There are many aspects of the case where there is conflicting or unclear information about exact details. That is not necessarily indicative of some major misunderstanding that we need to untangle to get at the truth. It is common in large investigations and is simply a consequence of a long and complex proces involving many different people with differing goals and motivations.

Especially so when different languages are involved.

RivkahChaya: ... one of the reasons for the vastly different accounts was that one was given in Yiddish, and one was given in Hungarian.

[FISHY1118]

Schwartz's police statement was already sensational. Are you claiming otherwise? Do you regard it as a fact that the Star deliberately modified what Schwartz had told them, to spice up the story? Do you not think the story was already spicy? The notion of the Star adding features to an already far-fetched story, is in itself far-fetched, all the more so when the Star's editorial of the same day, virtually called Schwartz a liar.



The issue of the accuracy of the interpretations, cannot just be ignored or assumed to be a non-issue. The impression I get from your posts, is that you believe Schwartz at Leman street station, to have explained events in a clear and unambiguous manner, to have been perfectly understood by the interpreter, and for that perfect understanding to have been perfectly relayed to Abberline, who then wrote down exactly what Schwartz had said in another language.



Would those limitations have anything to do with the interpreter being Schwartz's friend?



Who moved the second man from the opposite side of the street, to the doorway of the pub on the corner? Was it Schwartz, or the Star man "with an eye for drama"? Or was it neither, but simply a matter of Schwartz and interpreter communicating better, for the press interview?

I have no strong opinion on the interpreter being the same man each time. However, Schwartz would no doubt have chatted to his friend after speaking to Abberline. Misunderstandings could have been realized and talked through. Apparently you suppose there was zero room for improvement.



Let me get this straight. You think the Star tracked Schwartz down, without knowing his name or address? How? Did they do their own door-to-door search, with a team of interpreters for various languages?

Who gave the Star the following details ...?

INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter.



Especially so when different languages are involved.

RivkahChaya: ... one of the reasons for the vastly different accounts was that one was given in Yiddish, and one was given in Hungarian.

''Schwartz's police statement was already sensational''

It was just his statement ,nothing sensational about it, by you saying it was ''sensational'' your trying to cheapen its inportants in regards to strides murder
Straight from the book of ''How to discedit a witness so people dont take any notice of him 101 ''.



''Do you not think the story was already spicy? The notion of the Star adding features to an already far-fetched story''

Thats just pure Speculation on your behalf. You have no way of knowing what Schwartz saw was far fetched despite your failed use of other witnesses that claim something different .

[Kattrup]

Hi Not

I've no particular interest in continuing this discussion, which I think has gone on longer than necessary already. Looking at the issue of how Schwartz was interpreted is interesting, but unfortunately we do not have enough information to conclude anything. Therefore, it's useless to continue to speculate. One of the problems I believe one encounters on these forums is propensity to equate speculation with fact, or to assume that because something is not impossible, we can use a theoretical possibilty as a basis for further speculation.

Schwartz made two statements or interviews that we know of. One to the police and one to a reporter from The Star. At the police station, a friend of Schwartz interpreted. We do not know the language(s) involved. In the other interview, the Star reporter wrote that Schwartz spoke Hungarian, and was interpreted by someone "at hand".

We do not know anything more than that. Unless I've forgotten something?

So should we start speculating? is it possible that differences in translation caused the differences in the two accounts? Sure. is there anything to indicate that this is the case? No. But since it is possible, should we then consider one account better than the other? Well, how do you mean to determine which is the more accurate translation? Perhaps Schwartz's friend was a better interpreter so the police interview was the most linguistically accurate? After all, Schwartz brought the friend along precisely to translate.

As for the rest of your questions, well, they tend to go over the same ground again and some border on the ridiculous. Schwartz' statement was not farfetched at all, or particularly sensational. The Star's editorial that day did not disawow Schwartz. How did the Star find Schwartz? Well, they certainly weren't informed by the police of his name and address in order for the police to test his truthfulness, which is what you've suggested or stated happened.

"A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane." It's perfectly straightforward and easy to understand: the journalists did what journalists do, they looked for their source using whatever information and informants they had, perhaps a constable at the station or someone loitering about Leman Street, or perhaps they spoke to contacts at the Hungarian Home Away From Home Club or at the IWMES who pointed them in the right direction. We don't know but seeing as finding and interviewing people is part of a journalists metier, there is no reason to object to what is an entirely reasonable and simple explanation: The Star found Schwartz because that is what journalists do, not because of some overly speculative police scheme with zero credibility.

[FISHY1118]

Interpreting 'Lipski'
Robert J. McLaughlin



2 Star, 1 October 1888, interview with Schwartz showing some differences between the two interviews. In the Star, the first man was described as intoxicated, and was trying to push Stride into Dutfield's Yard rather than pull the woman into the street. The second man yelled a 'warning' at Schwartz, not the first, and his pipe had been replaced by a knife. The physical descriptions of both men were given a little differently in the paper. Also, the Star reported that 'the truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.' The official files refute this, showing that his statement was taken quite seriously. Schwartz did not speak English, so the Star may have experienced a translation problem or embellished the story


''Schwartz's police statement was already sensational''

Hmmm i wonder who might be embellishing the police or the star ?

The notion of the Star adding features to an already far-fetched story''

And we have it again.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It was just his statement ,nothing sensational about it, by you saying it was ''sensational'' your trying to cheapen its inportants in regards to strides murder
Straight from the book of ''How to discedit a witness so people dont take any notice of him 101 ''.

In the Star account, there is no throwing down of the victim, no call of Lipski, and no apparent chase. If the Star account is sensational, then so is the police account.

Thats just pure Speculation on your behalf.

The Star editorial referred to the story as "a priori incredible". Not exactly a ringing endorsement. To suppose that they would say this, and manipulate the retelling of the story to make it more sellable, is ludicrous.

You have no way of knowing what Schwartz saw was far fetched despite your failed use of other witnesses that claim something different .

Eagle arrived at the gateway at about 12:40. He saw no woman there. Lave was out on the street at that time, and he saw nothing wrong. James Brown saw nothing of note, other than a man and woman talking by the board school. Edward Spooner witnessed no chase along Fairclough street. Three of those men answered the coroners questions, at the inquest. All that compares rather well, compared to He Who Must Not Be Questioned.

[FISHY1118]

In the Star account, there is no throwing down of the victim, no call of Lipski, and no apparent chase. If the Star account is sensational, then so is the police account.



The Star editorial referred to the story as "a priori incredible". Not exactly a ringing endorsement. To suppose that they would say this, and manipulate the retelling of the story to make it more sellable, is ludicrous.



Eagle arrived at the gateway at about 12:40. He saw no woman there. Lave was out on the street at that time, and he saw nothing wrong. James Brown saw nothing of note, other than a man and woman talking by the board school. Edward Spooner witnessed no chase along Fairclough street. Three of those men answered the coroners questions, at the inquest. All that compares rather well, compared to He Who Must Not Be Questioned.

Yer but weve been through this havent we ? so lets not do it again shall we . We know the time 12.45am Schwartz saw the incident , and what that incident was that he claimed he saw . Thats essentially all there is .Simple


Heres the best bit tho

Also, the Star reported that 'the truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.' ''The official files refute this'', showing that his statement was taken ''quite seriously''. Schwartz did not speak English, so the Star may have experienced a translation problem or embellished the story.
Schwartz

I think we can dispense ridiculous comments about Schwartz statements being sensational , far fetched and spicy .