Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[lynn cates]

dovetail

Hello MB.

"We can deliberate about the Pipe/knife language, conclusions and interpretations .. but we draw a line at the thought that muddled interpretations may also be responsible for a jacket/coat/overcoat confusion!"

I think many of us will do whatever it takes to get the Schwartz story to dovetail with the other witness accounts.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Black Knight

Hello John.

"John - Who Draws the Line for No Man!"

But do you move for no man? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hello Edward. Thanks.

"It's [not] necessary to deny the story altogether, but it is clearly not sensible to rely on it either."

Rely on it? For what? I already had doubts about Schwartz--as do many others.

What's the big difference between 'relying' on what the paper claimed, and using it to support your own doubts? If a second reporter read it wrongly as Schwartz's story that was not wholly accepted by the police, when it was in fact the account given by a potential suspect, you are left with the police having expressed no doubts about Schwartz, while on the contrary actively seeking the man he saw assaulting the victim. Some doubts!

Of course, it would explain why Swanson, in his report, talked about IF the story was correct, then paused to say he saw nothing in the report that cast doubt on it.

The police read the papers too, and Swanson can't be expected to have known who originated a claim that Schwartz's story was now doubted, if it was either one of his own men expressing a personal opinion or the reporter himself, clutching at the wrong straws.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There is some evidence supporting the position that police doubted a part of Schwartz's statement but believed the rest of it. Inspector Abberline's early report of his interview of Schwartz, stating that he couldn't get a straight answer from the witness concerning the "Lipski" quote, likely accounts for some doubt on the part of higher officials regarding that part of the statement, as reflected in inter-department memos.

Hi John,

I'm sure you didn't mean to slant this against Schwartz, but if he was genuinely not sure whether "Lipski" was directed at himself or Pipeman, that has a ring of truth about it because, let's face it, how could anyone in such circumstances have been sure? In which case, Abberline, an experienced interviewer despite the translation issues, could only accept his uncertainty, however unhelpful it was, and it would have been quite unfair to describe it as not getting 'a straight answer'. If Schwartz was making up this detail he didn't need to stick to his guns and risk pissing off Abberline. But if he was telling the truth, he didn't know because he couldn't know, so what else was he expected to say?

I'll further reiterate that any doubts police may have entertained about Schwartz's story, including those of Abberline, can be traced to confusion caused by translation difficulties, leading to doubts as to the accuracy of his statement, not the truth.

Now that I could buy.

Love,

Caz
X

[moonbegger]

Ohhh nooo! I don't think I'm ready for a coat debate!

John - Who Draws the Line for No Man!

Very well John

I'll further reiterate that any doubts police may have entertained about Schwartz's story, including those of Abberline, can be traced to confusion caused by translation difficulties, leading to doubts as to the accuracy of his statement, not the truth.

I didn't say a word

moonbegger

[caz]

I think many of us will do whatever it takes to get the Schwartz story to dovetail with the other witness accounts.

The trouble is, some people are still relying on the deadly accuracy of certain timings given (not necessarily you, Lynn, I hasten to add) and concluding that some witnesses must have been lying about the time (the irony escaping them that liars and deadly accurate timings don't mix but equally cannot be distinguished).

The worst 'whatever it takes' in my book is to put the Schwartz story down to invention (eg a club protecting ruse) on the pretext that it doesn't dovetail with other witness accounts.

I would say that it dovetails remarkably well, considering that Schwartz couldn't possibly have known about the nice little window of time available the length and breadth of Berner St, in which to set up his little scene, when he could safely claim that nobody else was around to witness the 'incident' he described. If it never happened, several people could already have reported being in a position to see and hear that nothing of the kind happened. After all, it was meant to be a busy location wasn't it?

Love,

Caz
X

[DRoy]

Hello Roy. Thanks.

I mean the assault Schwartz witnessed. Was it near the club gates?

Cheers.
LC

Lynn,

I would think it would have to be at least relatively close yes.

Cheers
DRoy

[Dr. John Watson]

Hi John,

I'm sure you didn't mean to slant this against Schwartz, but if he was genuinely not sure whether "Lipski" was directed at himself or Pipeman, that has a ring of truth about it because, let's face it, how could anyone in such circumstances have been sure? In which case, Abberline, an experienced interviewer despite the translation issues, could only accept his uncertainty, however unhelpful it was, and it would have been quite unfair to describe it as not getting 'a straight answer'. If Schwartz was making up this detail he didn't need to stick to his guns and risk pissing off Abberline. But if he was telling the truth, he didn't know because he couldn't know, so what else was he expected to say?

Caz: You are quite correct in your assessment. In going over Abberline's report and Swanson's summary, it's clear I read a little more into his report on Schwartz than was actually there. My intent was to suggest that Abberline's comments may have been responsible for casting doubt on Schwartz's story in the minds of police higher-ups. I used "a straight answer" because that was the inference I had when I first read Abberline's report, but in truth I find that Abberline was quite fair, stating simply that Schwartz was "unable to say" to whom the remark "Lipski" was made. (You'd think after 70+ years a guy would learn not to rely on memory alone, no matter how well he thinks he knows a subject!) Thanks, Caz, for straightening that out.

The Star quotes Schwartz as stating it was the second man who shouted a warning ("Lipski") to the man assaulting Stride, and I still believe that's exactly what he told police. Faulty translation of his words caused confusion on this point, leading Abberline to think it was Stride's assailant who shouted the name "Lipski" at someone, either the second man (with a pipe) or Schwartz. To me, shouting "Lipski" at some guy you see roughing up a woman makes more sense than the assailant interrupting his attack to hurl a racial insult at a nosy passerby. Abberline's close questioning as to who the assailant was shouting at could have confused Schwartz to the point where he simply could not answer.

Your impression as to what occurred during questioning, while differing slightly from mine, makes very good sense, especially the point about Schwartz's inability to answer being good evidence that he's telling the truth - a valid point whether there was faulty translation or not. Your version also absolves Abberline of misunderstanding Schwartz about the "Lipski" quote, a valid conclusion if your understanding is correct. Of course, that still doesn't explain how he came up with "pipe" instead of "knife" - but that's another story!

John

[lynn cates]

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

So, at least we agree that Swanson was aware of that story?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

explanation

Hello Caroline. Thanks. And thanks for excepting me.

Busy street? Berner? Maybe not. Well, not if the testimony given by club members is accurate.

Would Schwartz have worried about time conflicts and sightings? Well, no conflict was noted between Schwartz and Brown. The explanations given on this thread may be spot on, nevertheless, they are explanations. Yet it seems not to cast any doubt on Brown. Maybe Schwartz as well--but he didn't make it round to inquest.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

avoidance

Hello Roy. Thanks. I presume both assaults were able to avoid Wess, Eygle, and Lave?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

clarification

Hello John. To be clear, you believe:

1. Pipe man called out, "Lipski."

2. It was because he was indignant with BSM for attacking Liz?

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Hello Roy. Thanks. I presume both assaults were able to avoid Wess, Eygle, and Lave?

Lynn,

Does the attack on the 'woman' that Schwartz witnesses (assuming he really did which goes against my arguments for years!) have to have anything to do with The Club or Stride? I don't see why it does.

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

Yard

Hello Roy. Thanks.

"Does the attack on the 'woman' that Schwartz witnesses (assuming he really did which goes against my arguments for years!) have to have anything to do with The Club or Stride?"

Well, the point is that IF they spoke truly, then they should have been in the yard only a few feet from where Liz died and only a few minutes before.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Caz

The trouble is, some people are still relying on the deadly accuracy of certain timings given (not necessarily you, Lynn, I hasten to add) and concluding that some witnesses must have been lying about the time (the irony escaping them that liars and deadly accurate timings don't mix but equally cannot be distinguished).

The worst 'whatever it takes' in my book is to put the Schwartz story down to invention (eg a club protecting ruse) on the pretext that it doesn't dovetail with other witness accounts.

I would say that it dovetails remarkably well, considering that Schwartz couldn't possibly have known about the nice little window of time available the length and breadth of Berner St, in which to set up his little scene, when he could safely claim that nobody else was around to witness the 'incident' he described. If it never happened, several people could already have reported being in a position to see and hear that nothing of the kind happened. After all, it was meant to be a busy location wasn't it?

Thanks for the crystal clear goblet of sanity in an oft arid desert

All the best

Dave