Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[lynn cates]

forensic discrepancies

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Very well, modification time. The first reporter got it right, the second was confused and misunderstood the situation. Moreover, it was the truth of the arrested man's story that was doubted. Wonder what story that was, precisely? Oh, no matter.

Yes, my conditional contained the subjunctive word, "if." Any contrary to fact situation counts as a subjunctive. It is usually introduced by, "if," "until," "unless," "though," "although" and such--unless I have forgotten my Latin.

"That's quite funny, coming from an old chap who is clearly able to perform the mental gymnastics required to believe Schwartz may have been persuaded to tell the police a wholly invented story."

Mental gymnastics? No, no. Just an eye for forensic discrepancies.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

You are suggesting that "The Star" got the story right only to bungle it the next day?

Hi Lynn,

I am suggesting that if the stories were written by different reporters, it's entirely likely that the ambiguity in the former led to the confirmation you thought you saw clearly in the latter, without a jot of new information from a police source between the two. In fact, the first reporter need only have learned that the police were holding this second chap in connection with the witnessed assault on Stride, to work out that they must not have wholly accepted his account of his movements. Then the second reporter misinterprets this to mean the police doubted Schwartz's story (easily done, as this thread ably demonstrates) and hey presto - you get what you see as confirmation that this was indeed the case. 'Send reinforcements, we're going to advance' becomes 'send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance'.

But IF the story is accurate (notice the subjunctive), then there were doubts at Leman st.

Do you mean the conditional? I thought the subjunctive would be: 'But if the story be accurate...'

Either way it's a step in the right direction from:

But CLEARLY, some at the station doubted the story.

To my mind, the doubts need only refer back to the chap who had been held pending further inquiries. Presumably they let him go because those inquiries cleared him or led nowhere.

On the other hand, to deny the story altogether is to ask one to adopt mental gymnastics which we old chaps find ourselves unable to perform.

That's quite funny, coming from an old chap who is clearly able to perform the mental gymnastics required to believe Schwartz may have been persuaded to tell the police a wholly invented story.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

Be not faithless but believing.

Hello Edward. Thanks.

Completely agree that one cannot extrapolate from one bloke's opinion (some = df. "at least one"), and refer to the "police opinion."

On the other hand, to deny the story altogether is to ask one to adopt mental gymnastics which we old chaps find ourselves unable to perform.

Why not just say, "Yes, no doubt some disbelieved the story; but, so much the worse for them"?

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

The press were trying to make sense of snippets of information and off the record briefings from unnamed policemen. These policemen may not have been at the centre of the investigation but would have wanted the press to think that they were (as they were undoubtedly paid for information). Making categorical deductions from these stories, particularly from the Star which sometimes strayed in their enthusiasm to get an exclusive, over what the police thought is unrealistic.

[lynn cates]

dubito

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

You are suggesting that "The Star" got the story right only to bungle it the next day? Entirely possible. It might be made up (although I don't think ANY newspaper story was like that), misunderstood, or any of a thousand different factors may weigh here.

But IF the story is accurate (notice the subjunctive), then there were doubts at Leman st.

Similarly, IF Schwartz told the truth (again, subjunctive), he may have witnessed a fracas that resulted in Liz's death. Most of my posts allow for that assumption, even though, at the personal level, I doubt his story.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Chinese whispers continued...

Hi Lynn,

Isn't it possible that whoever wrote this piece misinterpreted the previous one, just like many are doing right here, and assumed it was the truth of Schwartz's statement that was not wholly accepted by the police, rather than the man who had been held for further inquiries?

Frustrated at the lack of further information, the phrasing of 'not likely' to act further without additional facts tells the reader nothing he could not have worked out for himself, and does not come across as something the police would have stated officially. Indeed, the police may well have been working quietly on unearthing additional facts, and the last thing they wanted was the press, the public and the killer to get wind of it. Let them all carry on thinking it was Schwartz they doubted, so they could get on with the job of establishing what exactly he may have witnessed.

Makes sense to me.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

I 'ave me doubts.

Hello MB. Thanks.

Here is a quote from "The Star" 2 October.

"In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts."

Here, there is NO ambiguity. Schwartz's story is the one not being believed.

Now, permit me to anticipate your next remark. No, given that some at the station disbelieved does not entail the falsity of the story. But CLEARLY, some at the station doubted the story.

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

G'day Hunter

But Schwartz never claimed that anyone watched a killing, as far as I am aware.

Nor am I aware of anyone else making such a clam.

So I have no trouble finding the clam in the article unreliable.

[Hunter]

Yes, that would explain why he was being held for inquiries. they're not talking about the witness.

However, there is a statement made in the Oct. 1st edition before they got to the gist of the story about the Hungarian:

...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.

[GUT]

G'day Paddy

That's my take on it.

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Pat

That's certainly how I read it!

All the best

Dave

[Paddy]

The man arrested

The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

All the three sentences above are about the man arrested.

We have a man answering Mr Schwartz description /
We are holding him but have not charged him / We dont trust his statement.

Thats how I see it?

Pat..............................................

[Cogidubnus]

Hi DRoy

They are talking about Schwartz, not the prisoner.

I'm afraid my reading of it has always been the opposite...It always seemed to me that it was the arrestee who was being doubted not Schwartz...but I agree it can certainly be read two ways.

All the best

Dave

[Dr. John Watson]

As for reports that police questioned Schwartz's statement or doubted its truthfulness, if you substitute the word "accuracy" I think you'd be closer to the truth. There is absolutely no reason for Schwartz to lie about what he saw, and clearly police did believe him. There is, however, reason for possible confusion over what he said, considering the need to rely on interpreters to translate both his words and what the interviewers said. It's the accuracy of the translation that's in question, I believe, not the truthfulness of his statements.

The suggestion that the Star never interviewed Schwartz and based its version of Schwartz's statement entirely on information supplied by police is absurd, and encouraging further discussion on this particular claim is not likely to produce anything worthwhile.

John

[moonbegger]

Hello (again) MB. There is a better account than that. The Lehman lads wanted further evidence before proceeding further.

Cheers.
LC

They are talking about Schwartz, not the prisoner.

Hello Lynn & DRoy ..

The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

This is all we have .. I don't read how " The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted" can be attributed to Schwartz ? The "Truth" line is quite obviously pertaining to the prisoner who is being held because the police don't quite accept his statement .. Am I missing something here ?
Is there a report from Aberline or his contemporaries casting doubt over Schwartz ? If this one sentence is the entire doubt cast upon Schwartz , then I suggest we look at again in context with the subject matter .

cheers , moonbegger