Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[Dr. John Watson]

Hello John.

"The "second man," for instance, might have returned ostensibly to comfort Stride after her attacker left, only to lure the unfortunate woman into Dutfield's Yard and then slit her throat."

But does such a sequence make sense? Lighting a pipe, fleeing from BS man, coming back to the scene and then killing a woman? To what purpose?

Cheers.
LC

Lynn, we're obviously dealing with a remarkably daring and successful serial killer, slicing up his victims in public places where the risk of getting caught in the act is high. Time and again Jack showed his ability to blend in with others, and his track record for escaping uncaught is thus far perfect. So your scenario is entirely reasonable, and what drove him could have been the audacious challenge of successfully killing a woman under the very noses of a large group of people and escaping undetected.

John

[Dr. John Watson]

Hungarian and Yiddish are not even in the same family class. The only words they might share would be modern loan words, like "telephone." They are as different as modern Finnish and the English of Chaucer.

I'm thinking of Magyar, the most common language of modern Hungary, and what is generally what people mean when they say "Hungarian."

Thank you Rivkah, that's exactly what I wanted to know. That lends credence to my suspicion that differences between the two statements can be attributed, not to changes in Schwartz's story, but to misunderstandings on the part of the various interpreters.

John

[DRoy]

That lends credence to my suspicion that differences between the two statements can be attributed, not to changes in Schwartz's story, but to misunderstandings on the part of the various interpreters.

DJW,

How do you know there were various interpreters? At most it would be two and we don't even know if it was/wasn't the same interpreter. To go even further, if my theory is correct there wasn't even an interview with a reporter.

Cheers
DRoy

[Dr. John Watson]

DJW,

How do you know there were various interpreters? At most it would be two and we don't even know if it was/wasn't the same interpreter. To go even further, if my theory is correct there wasn't even an interview with a reporter.

Cheers
DRoy

Hi DRoy: Ok, let's say there were only two interpreters - the one Schwartz brought with him when he gave his statement to police, and the one the Star reporter found for his interview with Schwartz. That's enough for any number of mistranslations, misinterpretations and misunderstandings. And to me, your theory of the police passing off a second statement to the Press doesn't hold water. Agreed, police have been known to feed information to the press to suit their own purposes, but there's absolutely no evidence that was done in this case.

John

[DRoy]

Ok, let's say there were only two interpreters - the one Schwartz brought with him when he gave his statement to police, and the one the Star reporter found for his interview with Schwartz. That's enough for any number of mistranslations, misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

Agreed. Later on you ask for evidence from me for my theory, do you have absolutely any evidence to back yours up? Didn't think so.

And to me, your theory of the police passing off a second statement to the Press doesn't hold water. Agreed, police have been known to feed information to the press to suit their own purposes, but there's absolutely no evidence that was done in this case.

I didn't say the police created a second statement, nor do I think they fed purposely wrong information, nor do I assume the police fed the newspaper on purpose because that wouldn't happen. I'm suggesting a random policeman shared the version of statement he/she chose to tell or had heard through the grape vine.

You're right, I don't have evidence this happened but it makes more sense to me based on the reasons I noted previously. Anyone that heard the story could have sold it to The Star. Whether the embellishment came from the one sharing the story or from the newspaper would be anyone's guess.

Cheers
DRoy

[moonbegger]

Hello all,

Does anyone have anything to say about my theory the newspaper version actually came from a police source and not from Schwartz directly? Not one comment yet...

Hello DRoy , I have been mulling your theory over , and for me there are points for , and points against . Firstly the points for , " He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them ". How would Schwartz or his friend ( interpreter ) be aware of this fact , also if the press men had him why would they need to seek his name and address from the police ? and in light of the recent Police/Press wars , would they have not printed it anyway ?

Also an overlooked passage in the Star on the same day as his press appearance .. the key words to look for are "said to have seen"

and the story of a man who is said to have seen the Berner-street tragedy, and declares that one man butchered and another man watched, is, we think, a priori incredible.

Along with how the report was worded .. "The Hungarian saw him" (ect, ect ) as opposed to "I saw him". Although I have to slip in my own particular theory here .. The Star man caught Schwartz on the fly ( out and about ) and not at his desk .. " A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane." So using some kind of short hand , the press man may have taken his statement [in the first person]
( much as Abberline may have ) but once he is back at his desk , he writes it as a second person account , just as Swanson did . And who knows how much is lost from, First person, to Interpreter, to shorthand , to Press . Chinese whispers spring to mind

cheers , moonbegger .

[DRoy]

Moonbegger,

Your theory makes sense for sure. I however would disagree with it.

You have to assume he could have got at least one quote out of Schwartz. He didn't get his name nor quote him. How did he know what direction to go to track him down? How did he know what Schwartz looked like? Wouldn't Abberline have told him not to say a word to the press?

If the reporter did actually talk to Schwartz, he still would have had to get info on Schwartz from them so I don't see it any more far fetched the reporter got the entire story from them.

Cheers
DRoy

[moonbegger]

Moonbegger,

You have to assume he could have got at least one quote out of Schwartz. He didn't get his name nor quote him. How did he know what direction to go to track him down? How did he know what Schwartz looked like? Wouldn't Abberline have told him not to say a word to the press?

If the reporter did actually talk to Schwartz, he still would have had to get info on Schwartz from them so I don't see it any more far fetched the reporter got the entire story from them.

Cheers
DRoy

Yes , I do think you are right DRoy in so much as the Police may have directed the press towards Schwartz , Maybe even so much as "Don't throw me under the bus by revealing his name" sort of thing , But the two statements have many different nuances that for my mind suggest two very different interpretations , apart from the obvious , there are Subtle things like , "on turning into Berner Street from "Commercial Street" and "As he turned the corner from Commercial-road"

I think there is a strong possibility that the reporter took down what Schwartz via interpreter had to say in Backchurch lane in short hand, then re wrote the story for the Star at his desk ..

You have to assume he could have got at least one quote out of Schwartz.

Yes , and as I mentioned earlier DRoy this is one of the "for's" as opposed to the "against's" in your theory .. but I think it is also explainable when we factor in the interpreter and the possibility that it may have been written out again at his desk in the form of a report , just as Swanson did . And you'll note that Swanson didn't include any quotes when he did the same thing .

cheers , moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

On reflection , This could roll either way

"on turning into Berner Street from "Commercial Street" and "As he turned the corner from Commercial-road"

If it was taken down at the station as Commercial street , then was relayed as Commercial road to a third party, it would make sense because the person who relayed the information would have been fully aware that it was in fact Road and not street . A very subtle difference to a stranger , but a huge difference to someone who knows the area .

[DRoy]

Moonbegger,

And you'll note that Swanson didn't include any quotes when he did the same thing .

Swanson is supposed to do a summary, not write a story for the public.

You didn't explain how your version would answer any of the questions I asked. If you can answer those questions just as easily as I have (the interview didn't happen) in your version then I'd be happy to reconsider my opinion.

Cheers
DRoy

[moonbegger]

Droy ..

You have to assume he could have got at least one quote out of Schwartz. He didn't get his name nor quote him. How did he know what direction to go to track him down? How did he know what Schwartz looked like? Wouldn't Abberline have told him not to say a word to the press?

If the reporter did actually talk to Schwartz, he still would have had to get info on Schwartz from them so I don't see it any more far fetched the reporter got the entire story from them.

Are these your questions ??? I have addressed everything

Sounds like you are in the ring , with your gloves on , but no one to fight !

If anything DRoy, I have given you a lot more help to support your theory .

moonbegger .

[Cogidubnus]

The commercial establishment on the opposite corner was indeed the Nelson pub

Hi MB

Yes that was always my understanding too, and the map in CSI does show it there...but when you look at the famous Berner Street photo, the establishment actually looks more like a shop...and after all, the witness James Brown was going to get his supper from a chandlers store on the corner of Berners with Fairclough, so I wonder which corner, each establishment occupied.

The North east corner was a school I believe...the rest I wonder...

Cheers

Dave

[lynn cates]

If you believe that, . . .

Hello John. Thanks.

Well, not obvious to ME. In my book, there was no serial killer nor did Schwartz tell the truth. I am merely showing the consequences of taking both nonsensical stories in conjunction.

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Droy ..


Are these your questions ??? I have addressed everything

Sounds like you are in the ring , with your gloves on , but no one to fight !

If anything DRoy, I have given you a lot more help to support your theory .

moonbegger .

Moon,

So your answer is they got the info from the police? You're telling me the police gave a description of Schwartz, not his name of course, and roughly were to find him (not at his home) and the reporter managed to find him? Even though he would have been told to not talk to the press the first thing he does is talk to the press?

No need to answer Moon. You've convinced me.

Cheers
DRoy

[Cogidubnus]

Swanson is supposed to do a summary, not write a story for the public.

Hi DRoy

Yes you're quite correct in this at least...this comes from Swanson's precis of the case so far dated 19th October 1888, almost three weeks after the murder...it is, therefore, something upon the lines of a progress report...or a defence regarding a lack of progress if you like...hence the subsequent statement that there were so far "994 dockets besides police reports".

All the best

Dave