Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[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 .

[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]

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]

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

[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]

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]

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

[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

[DRoy]

Rivkah,

No, I'm saying the statement was fed to the news reporter from the police.

I considered it coming from the interpreter rather than Schwartz himself as well however it doesn't make sense. I don't see the interpreter exaggerating nor do I see the reporter exaggerating to such a degree. It makes sense though if it was passed down the police line and that is where the 'exaggerated' story comes from. The story then becomes even more colorful after the newspaper writer gets a hold of it.

Cheers
DRoy

[RivkahChaya]

Are you saying that the police took down a statement phonetically, and two different people, one working for the police, and one working for the paper, translated it, and then the paper took further liberties with it?

[DRoy]

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...

Although it appears Lynn doesn't like my theory about Swanson's report, anyone else want to comment on that? I'd definitely love to hear from Cris and Tom who know better than I do...

Cheers
DRoy

[RivkahChaya]

I'm afraid you have that a little confused:

" The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police."

I don't think that's what I read, but nonetheless, I may still have gotten it wrong.

It would be quite remarkable if Schwartz was an East European Jew who did not speak Yiddish. The few assimilated, non-religious Jews, on the other hand, who did exist, were usually well-placed in society, and unlikely to immigrate to England.

Clearly, he did not retell the story just as he had retold it to the police-- we have evidence of that before us.

I do, however, stick by my surmise that he said something along the lines of the knife being shiny, or even "catching the light," and that is how a knife became a pipe.

There is also a word in Yiddish, אָנצינדן (antzindn), which can mean to make a spark as if to light something, but can also mean to be very excited. So it's possible he said the man was very excited, and it got translated "was lighting a pipe."

[Hunter]

The police seem to have had plenty of Yiddish interpreters at their disposal, and the paper did note that the witness' Hungarian wasn't great, so it probably wasn't his first language.

I'm afraid you have that a little confused:

" The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police."

[RivkahChaya]

Hi Rivkah! Can you give me some idea how much difference there is between Hungarian and Yiddish?

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."

[lynn cates]

Run away!

Hello Harry. Would there be any good reason for PM to run from Schwartz?

Cheers.
LC