Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[moonbegger]

Greetings all ..

Of the two statements Schwartz made , (1) To the police , with his friend acting as interpreter , and (2) , to the press who also had an Interpreter on hand . Which one comes across as more coherent and plausible ?
The Police ...

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner Street from Commercial Street and having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not loudly. 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 oppos- ite side of the road, 'Lipski', and then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran so far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far.

The Press ...

As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, 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. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings. He described

for my mind the Press interview seems a lot more detailed and coherent , suggesting a better quality of interpreter .. For one , The Police

called out, apparently to the man on the oppos- ite side of the road,

as opposed to the Press

a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off,

The Police interpretation is obviously wrong on this point .. also

screamed three times, but not loudly.

as opposed to

he heard the sound of a quarrel,

And finally

The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway

as opposed to

The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage,

Also the press interpretation puts Liz exactly where she was found ..

Does anyone have any thoughts either way ?

Cheers ,

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

If you consider the little word "but" in the last comparison, Moon, you will find that it says that BS man TRIED to pull the woman into the street, BUT (indicating a failure in this respect) turned her round (arguably saying that she now faced the opposite direction, that is to say she was facing the yard) and threw her down on the footway.

This can all be read as if BS man put his hand on Strides shoulder and pushed her back into the passage after having failed to drag her into the street., if I am not mistaken. Same, same, but different, sort of.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Yes , I agree totally agree Fish ..

[DRoy]

Moonbegger,

The police statement is actually Swanson's report. Is this version a summary and trimmed down version? Did he change words in to his own? Did he leave small details out? The report is written to the point, not written by someone trying to sell newspapers.

When reading the newspaper version, I believe it is quite clear the reporter changed words. You can't honestly believe that Schwartz or his interpreter said things like "The half-tipsy man halted...", or "sound of a quarrel", or "He fled incontinently". This was obvious embellishment by the reporter or at least his word choices that make it more colorful.

So yes, to answer your question, the newspaper one sounds quite a bit more interesting than the police statement but in no way means it is more the truth. Should be noted that neither report is quoted. You've said the police got things wrong, I'm really at a loss to why you'd believe the newspaper report over that of the police version.

For the record, I think things were lost in translation, or in the alternative Schwartz lied. I don't believe either version is correct.

(I hope Cris doesn't read this post as his article on Schwartz was awesome, I'm just not convinced at this point.)

Cheers
DRoy

[Scott Nelson]

You can't honestly believe that Schwartz or his interpreter said things like "The half-tipsy man halted...", or "sound of a quarrel", or "He fled incontinently".

Are you kidding? Do you know how many expressions there are for these things in Hungarian?

[Jonathan H]

To Moonbegger

I agree.

Consider also that Schwartz could be very uncomfortbale talking to the constabulary. Very uncomfortable as to what he did and did not do that night.

The police version is very self-serving for the witness; in effect he becomes the second victim of a near sectarian assault that night, pursuied by a strange man with a pipe. He saw no weapon that eventually caused the death of the presumed harlot.

Hey, he barely got away himself. In other word, I'm not a coward, and I'm not responsible for getting her killed.

Whereas the second, newspaper version is arguably more honest and reliabl as the same witness comes across as more candid about not staying to help a Gentile woman, albeit a harlot, in distress--eg. he saw a Gentile man with a knife and he fled rather than be attacked, or how about he fled rather than stop him attaching the other man and this makes him seem a coward.

It perhaps came as a shock later that rather than there being a knife-fight between two men, it was the woman who ended up with her throat cut.

Maybe due to the language barrier, Schwartz did not testify at the inquest which further lessens the importance and value of his testimony, regarding either version.

Plus except perhaps for 'Knifeman' he did not describe a figure who resembles the suspect described at the other murder scene that night, the young sailor, and who became the paramount police witness because of the timing, and because he was allegedly used on two occasions to confront sailor suspects (Sadler 1891, Grant 1895). So far as we know the police never used any witness except Joseph Lawende in such a capacity.

[DRoy]

Consider also that Schwartz could be very uncomfortbale talking to the constabulary. Very uncomfortable as to what he did and did not do that night.

Jonathan H,

He went to the police on his own free will to tell his story but he's going to lie? Good one.

Cheers
DRoy

[Jonathan H]

You are very sure of yourself, aren't you, very sure about people and events of which we have very little.

Very proprietorial about this this matter.

You actually think a single, ambiguous element of the tale explains the entire thing.

Do you really think that people have not turned up at a police station with very mixed feelings and motives, eg. because they fear being dobbed in if they do not for example. That they are trying to control the situation.

If anything, considering the weird story the winess told, that backs my argument and not yours.

Plus he did not testify in an official forum and the police did not reagrd him as improant as the other witness that night.

[Michael W Richards]

This question popped up recently in another thread, and for me, the man trying to pull Liz Stride away from where she was standing sounds the most plausible, since if the story is true, she had been around the entrance to the passageway soon after PC Smith left. If he pulled her by the hand or the cuff of her jacket, her resisting and pulling back might be enough to cause her to lose her balance and fall....away from the person pulling her.

There was a translator supplied for the interview with the police, there is no evidence that a formal translator spoke for him to the press. The translator may well have been Wess, it seems he translated for Leon Goldstein Tuesday night.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Jonathan H,

He went to the police on his own free will to tell his story but he's going to lie? Good one.

Cheers
DRoy

Perhaps, like perhaps Packer...or Hutchinson, or pearly Poll.... perhaps. No-one can be so naive to imagine that all statements need to be considered as empirical evidence, some are better than others... particularly when corroborated by another witness.

Worth noting on this point that Fanny Mortimer, a witness with nothing to gain or lose by providing an authentic story to the Police...didnt see Israel, Bsm or Pipeman,...she didnt hear anything of the alledged scuffle and "Lipski" taunt, and she didnt see or hear Louis arriving promptly at 1am as he claimed....even though she was standing at her door in the street from 12:50 until 1:00am continuously.

For those who claim she may have missed all that while popping in and out to view the street sporadically, she heard bootsteps and a cart while inside, the cart she heard just after 1am...so how did she miss "Lipski" being shouted?

Cheers

[moonbegger]

There was a translator supplied for the interview with the police, there is no evidence that a formal translator spoke for him to the press.

Hello Michael , I agree with the last part , but there is a suggestion of who acted as interpreter for the Police interview .

He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter.

DRoy ,

The police statement is actually Swanson's report. Is this version a summary and trimmed down version? Did he change words in to his own? Did he leave small details out?

Schwartz's statement was taken on September 30th, the day of the murder, by Chief Inspector Donald Swanson .. with Schwartz friend who acted as interpreter .. Swanson conducted the interview No ?

moonbegger

[Hunter]

Schwartz's statement was taken at Leman St. Station, probably first by a duty inspector and then by Inspector Abberline once the importance of what this man had to relay was realized.

Swanson made a brief summary to the Home office on Oct. 19 based on reports filed by the CID investigation. The key word is summary.

Schwartz's statement would have been transcribed word for word plus added notes by Abberline regarding his interrogation of the witness. He would have be savvy enough to ask the same question more than once to make sure the question was understood and the interpretation was clear. He was used to this. Unfortunately, Schwartz's statement and Abberline's interrogation report are no longer available.

[Dr. John Watson]

Considering the two statements, I've always believed the Press statement was the more accurate, certainly the most detailed, and I base that on the contents of the statements, not on any theories concerning the interpreter or who edited what. The Press account starts with Schwartz's first view of the suspect, notes that he appeared intoxicated, mentions crossing to the other side of the street, describes an argument of some kind, tells of a man holding a knife (certainly more logical than a "pipe") and so on. Whether the reporter used a Jewish volunteer as interpreter, or may have brought someone who could speak the language, or may have been a Jew himself, unimportant. Whether the original police statement was more detailed, theory. What counts is that the Press version is the most complete and believable of the two statements we have, and the most logical in my opinion.

Dr. John

[Errata]

Typically I have found that with certain languages (Hungarian being one of them) that the more broken sounding the translation, the more accurate it is. Idiomatic expressions never translate directly, and even complex directionals almost never translate accurately. For example "up the street" and "down the street" in English is based on which way the speaker is facing. But in some languages "down the street" is towards downtown, and up is away, usually reflecting the numbers on the addresses. So an insertion of a complementary English phrase is not translation. It's interpretation. Lots of languages have gender, English doesn't. Lots of languages work off a different syntax than English. Any accurate translation should reflect that. And while it's fine to clean up the language and syntax for easier consumption, the original translation should look pretty broken.

My neighbor used to say things like "My car, she is no go." We think of it as broken English, but in reality its a literal translation of her Belgian thought. Which is preferable to me than someone translating her as saying that her car is broken. Which it may be, but it could not be going for a variety of reasons, and assuming "broken" instead of not going can cause some problems.

[GUT]

G'day Errata

Lots of languages have gender, English doesn't. Lots of languages work off a different syntax than English. Any accurate translation should reflect that. And while it's fine to clean up the language and syntax for easier consumption, the original translation should look pretty broken.

having read 100's of translated documents I totally agree.