Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[lynn cates]

telos

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 cates]

running

Hello Harry. If the story is true, BOTH could be running away from BS man.

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

I asked a native Yiddish speaker about this, and literally saying "lighting a pipe" is just not something you would say in Yiddish, because the word for tobacco pipe implies something that is lit, so using the verb "light" with it would be redundant, sort of. Anyway, according to this person (bearing in mind this is someone who was born in the late 1930s, and has never lived in England), it's more likely that the interpreter made a mistake, than that the person had a pipe. Assuming that the original language was Yiddish.

I suspect it probably was, though, and one of the reasons for the vastly different accounts was that one was given in Yiddish, and one was given in Hungarian. 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.

Also, if the police were somehow unable to sort out which language was the witness' most reliable, or else knew that Yiddish was better, but were afraid that prejudice against Jews might force the witness to testify in less accurate Hungarian (because it was a shaky language for him), this could be the reason he didn't testify.

[Dr. John Watson]

Schwartz follows BS along Berner street,on the same side of the street.Although it appears to Schwartz the man in front may have been under the influence of drink,Schwartz appears to have not considered him a threat.It is only when the altercation at the gate begins,that Schwartz crosses the road,and from then until pipeman appears,seconds only,Schwartz speaks of no perceived threat from BS.It is only on the appearance of Pipeman that Schwartz tells of running away.Why would he run away from a man lighting a pipe?

Good question!

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, it makes sense if the second man is the Ripper. And remember, Schwartz is quoted as saying the second man had a knife, not a pipe.

John

[Dr. John Watson]

I asked a native Yiddish speaker about this, and literally saying "lighting a pipe" is just not something you would say in Yiddish, because the word for tobacco pipe implies something that is lit, so using the verb "light" with it would be redundant, sort of. Anyway, according to this person (bearing in mind this is someone who was born in the late 1930s, and has never lived in England), it's more likely that the interpreter made a mistake, than that the person had a pipe. Assuming that the original language was Yiddish.

I suspect it probably was, though, and one of the reasons for the vastly different accounts was that one was given in Yiddish, and one was given in Hungarian. 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.

Also, if the police were somehow unable to sort out which language was the witness' most reliable, or else knew that Yiddish was better, but were afraid that prejudice against Jews might force the witness to testify in less accurate Hungarian (because it was a shaky language for him), this could be the reason he didn't testify.

Hi Rivkah! Can you give me some idea how much difference there is between Hungarian and Yiddish? The record indicates that when Schwartz went to the police station to tell what he saw, he brought an interpreter with him. It doesn't indicate whether the interpreter spoke Hungarian or Yiddish. At any rate, thanks for the info on "lighting a pipe." That strengthens the Press version where it quotes Schwartz as stating the second man had a knife.

John

[harry]

Was pipeman running away from BS,or running after Schwartz?.Schwartz says he (pipeman) only followed for a short distance,and does not state whether that was at a run or walk.

[lynn cates]

rhymes and reasons

Hello John. Thanks.

With due respect, that would make even LESS sense. That would seem to imply a "serial killer" who has killed two women, taken a three week hiatus, finds himself strolling in a different neighbourhood. He pulls a knife (since you prefer that version) on a man who is ill using a woman, sees an intruder (Schwartz), chases him, comes back, consoles Liz, kills her, is chased off only to arrive at Mitre sq (in the usual version of the tale) where he--after his "being clean" for three weeks--kills again.

No rhyme; no reason.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Run away!

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

Cheers.
LC

[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."

[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]

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."

[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]

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]

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