Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

You seem to want to turn an assumption into a fact. It is hard to get to "suggests strongly" when the only fact is that we simply don't know why he did not appear or have his testimony entered into the record.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

As I mentioned earlier, Sadler also did not testify in person at the Coles inquest, yet his police statement was read out to the court by the Prosecutor Mr Mathews.

So not appearing in person may not be so unusual, but more to the point is why was the statement by Schwartz not entered into evidence by someone at the court?

Lawende was also introduced as a witness even though they admittedly suppressed some of his statement as it was still being investigated at that time. The fact that there is no record that the "evidence" given by Israel Schwartz on Sunday evening, October 30th, through an interpreter, to the Police, is entered as part of the Inquest documentation, mentioned or even foot-noted, referenced and/or compared with testimony provided in the cross examination of other witnesses...(as in the case of Caroline Maxwell for example), or cited as withheld due to "a protected investigative witness", suggests strongly that despite the mentions of support in some correspondence internally, Israels story did not constitute what they considered to be crucial evidence in the matter of Liz Strides death.

Since his story places a woman who had her throat cut likely between 12:46 and 12:56 in a struggle with someone at approximately 12:45...its unimaginable the the content of the story wasnt of great value...if they believed it to be true.

Cheers

[GUT]

G'day Jon

So long as his statement is read to the court by someone then he gave evidence, yes?

Almost the same, but no chance to question and no self-incrimination issues.

[Wickerman]

I'm fairly sure that in 1880-90 UK a person under arrest for a murder was not permitted to give evidence at the inquest into the victim's death.

So long as his statement is read to the court by someone then he gave evidence, yes?

His status is given as:
"James Thomas Sadler, a ship’s fireman, now stands remanded from the Thames Police-court, charged with causing the death of the deceased."

[GUT]

G'day Jon

I'm fairly sure that in 1880-90 UK a person under arrest for a murder was not permitted to give evidence at the inquest into the victim's death.

[Wickerman]

No Jonathan, Sadler was under arrest on the 24th Feb. when his statement was read aloud to the Inquest.
He was not present.

[Jonathan H]

Sadler? Who was arrested for Coles' murder and reportedly 'confronted' by what must be Joseph Lawende--who said no. it's not him.

Are you confusing Tom Sadler with Lawende?

[Wickerman]

As I mentioned earlier, Sadler also did not testify in person at the Coles inquest, yet his police statement was read out to the court by the Prosecutor Mr Mathews.

So not appearing in person may not be so unusual, but more to the point is why was the statement by Schwartz not entered into evidence by someone at the court?

[Dr. John Watson]

What seems to me far more important than any confusion over whether a man held a pipe or a knife in his hand, is the fact that Israel Schwartz was apparently never called to testify at Stride's inquest. Throughout the several days of testimony, and Mr. Baxter's lengthy detailed recitation of the facts of the case and his findings, there is not a single mention of, or reference to, Israel Schwartz or the man he witnessed attack Stride. Reporters, at least some of whom must surely have been aware of Schwartz, sat through the several days of testimony and heard or read the coroner's findings, yet nowhere in print can I find anyone inquiring why he did not testify - not even the Star reporter who interviewed him! As senior Ripper experts Begg, Fido and Skinner point out in "A-Z," it would have been a criminal offense for police to withhold Schwartz's information from Coroner Baxter, so we must assume that Baxter knew about him. It was suggested that Schwartz may have testified in camera (privately), but if he did, we have found no record of it - and Mr. Baxter made no reference to it in his findings. And if Schwartz did testify in secret, why was it deemed important that his testimony be kept from the public?

Puzzled John

[lynn cates]

Dravidian

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"And Hungarian is a very odd language, unique in the region. Hungarian words don't even remotely resemble Russian or German words. Or Polish words."

Indeed. That's because Hungarian (Magyar) is one of only three European languages that are Dravidian based (the other two are Basque and Finno-Ugric). ALL the rest are Indo-European.

That's why I am astonished that "The Star" man spoke ANY Hungarian.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Errata, Rivkah. Thanks.

Yes, Professor Turtletaub used to complain that the Yiddish in the Arbeter Fraint was HIGHLY Germanic and bloody difficult to translate.

Cheers.
LC

Yes, but it's more complicated than that. The most common version now is mostly Polish, but the most common version in the time and place of Jack the Ripper was mostly Slavic. Polish Jews generally could speak either dialect, Hungarian Jews spoke Polyish, but Russian and Ukrainian Jews spoke Litvish. German is the ancient base because of where the language originated, but any addition to the language after say, 1500, depends on the dialect. Polyish or Litvish. And Hungarian is a very odd language, unique in the region. Hungarian words don't even remotely resemble Russian or German words. Or Polish words. Most of the Jewish immigrants were Russian and Polish. There were Hungarians, Lithuanians, and even Germans. But Litvish would have been the most popular dialect.

At least spoken. Ukranian Yiddish was used for Yiddish Theater, while Litvish was the literary standard of Yiddish. And the differences are pretty profound. Different accents make different vowel sounds. And the different types of Yiddish do that. But they also change which syllable is accented, or which vowels are accented. Which changes the sound of the language entirely. It is a highly Germanic language in any dialect, but about a third of the vocabulary was coming from other languages. The word for anything invented or conceived after 1500 was going to be in a different language entirely from another dialect (since it wouldn't appear in Hebrew either)... It's why the Jewish community didn't blend. Communication was hard.

[RivkahChaya]

Is it possible he spoke Hungarian to the Star, and Yiddish to the police? If his Hungarian was imperfect, than it probably wasn't his first language, so he likely spoke something else as well, and Yiddish seems most plausible.

I still don't know how you get "pipe" from "knife," except to suggest that he used a regionalism I don't know (there are plenty of Yiddish words I don't know), that sounded like pipe, or else said that it "caught the light," (that is, glinted) and the translator misunderstood.

[Dr. John Watson]

The problem John is that we are dealing with a source (The Star), who had a reputation for inexactitudes.
Certainly the press in general published errors in detail on a wide range of issues concerning the Whitechapel murders but the Star even published details contrary to their contempories, and in one well known instance were almost sued for defamation for publishing speculation as fact.

You have to choose between two baskets of eggs, but one basket has holes in it.
Take your pick...

Hello Wickerman! Your point is a valid one, but in this particular instance, I think the wording suggests quite strongly that the reporter made some effort to pin Schwartz down on exactly what the second man was holding, as evidenced by emphasizing that Schwartz "states positively" he saw a knife.

John

[lynn cates]

difficult Yiddish

Hello Errata, Rivkah. Thanks.

Yes, Professor Turtletaub used to complain that the Yiddish in the Arbeter Fraint was HIGHLY Germanic and bloody difficult to translate.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Schwartz's statement appears in the October 1, 1888, issue of The Star and although his name is not mentioned in the article, it is abundantly clear Schwartz is the witness interviewed. The story reports that important information concerning Stride's murder had been presented to police at the Leman Street station by "a well-dressed Hungarian . . . who could not speak a word of English but came to the station accompanied by a friend who acted as interpreter." Police would not divulge the witness' name or address, but the reporter "ran him to earth in Backchurch Lane." The writer notes that "his 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 police."

In the Star's version of Schwartz's account, after describing the attack on Stride, Schwartz tells of a second man who exited a public house, shouted out "some kind of warning" to the man attacking Stride and then "rushed forward as if to attack the intruder (witness)." Note what follows next: "The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in the second man's hand, but he waited to see no more." The writer's use of the word "positively" is significant, I think. It suggests that the reporter, recognizing the implications of a man with a knife near the scene of Stride's murder, questioned Schwartz closely about what the second man was holding in his hand, to insure that he understood exactly what the witness/interpreter was saying.

This doesn't necessarily end the pipe vs. knife debate. First, it is apparent that neither police or press made use of a professional interpreter, instead relying on whoever was at hand. Second, since we have only a summary of Schwartz's statement to police, we can't tell how closely he was questioned concerning the object the second man was holding. Using subjective analysis, however, it becomes apparent is that Schwartz thought it important enough to mention in both statements. For police, holding a pipe in his hand might be of value in locating the second man ("look for a pipe smoker"), but would Schwartz have recognized the importance of that? On the other hand, facing a man with a knife in his hand would certainly register fairly high on the scale of importance, I would think. To put it another way, would Schwartz have been as frightened of a man chasing him with a freshly-lit pipe in his hand, or a knife? Logic dictates the answer.

Logical John.

The problem John is that we are dealing with a source (The Star), who had a reputation for inexactitudes.
Certainly the press in general published errors in detail on a wide range of issues concerning the Whitechapel murders but the Star even published details contrary to their contempories, and in one well known instance were almost sued for defamation for publishing speculation as fact.

You have to choose between two baskets of eggs, but one basket has holes in it.
Take your pick...