Suspect Witnesses?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And I mean why would they, or even Abberline and Swanson, not have some doubt when Schwartz did not understand English and couldn't have understood what he saw in the brief time he was there. Doubt in this case would seem normal. But it seems they got past any doubt they might have had initially.

c.d.

I can only guess but my guess would be because Schwartz never said he saw Stride being murdered and so the police could not be certain that he simply might have witnessed a little street hassle and therefore B.S. man was not her killer.

c.d.

I'm a little confused - did Schwartz not understand what he saw, because interpreting what he saw required a good command of English, or did he just witness "a little street hassle", that could be understood by any witness of any background?

Did the witness(es) to the following report understand what they seeing?

The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Could it be that those who saw it thought it was a man and wife quarrelling, because it was a husband and wife quarrelling? If yes, who was the man, and who was the wife?

[c.d.]

I'm a little confused - did Schwartz not understand what he saw, because interpreting what he saw required a good command of English, or did he just witness "a little street hassle", that could be understood by any witness of any background?

Schwartz might have been able to interpret what he thought he was seeing but it would have been very difficult to be certain. He would have no way of knowing what or who instigated the altercation or what it was all about. Nor could he ascertain the B.S. man's intention.

Take a look at the A Modern Day BS Man/Liz encounter thread I started. Had I not understood English my interpretation of what I thought I was seeing would have been completely wrong.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

. . . The police seemingly had reason for giving the Star man the relevant tip. They possibly even supplied the interpreter who was conveniently at hand. Evidently, they wanted to see if Schwartz would tell the same story twice and possibly provide any extra important detail.

For what its worth, I doubt the police gave the name of the witness away, but the journalist may have asked for the name of the interpreter. Which they would naturally track down, thereby getting the name of the witness.