Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[lynn cates]

understanding

Hello MB. Thanks. No, not my intention.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

story

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

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

DRoy ..



Did he not live in Backchurch Lane ? And are there any other statements pertaining to how , and where , he was found ? If the star man was told to keep it under wraps , its no wonder his exact address and name was omitted .

Moon,

He apparently lived in at 22 Helen/Ellen Street just off Backchurch Lane. The reporter ran him down in Backchurch Lane. Why 'run him down' if they knew his address? If they didn't know his address then how'd they get such a great description of him to track him down?

I'd agree with you it appears the Police gave the info to the newspaper but I don't think they actually got a statement from Schwartz, I believe they took the info and made a story with it pretending to have met him.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

"The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted" to Schwartz account as opposed to the prisoner in question ? just a thought ..

Moon,

They are talking about Schwartz, not the prisoner.

Cheers
DRoy

[moonbegger]

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

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn , is that from Swanson or Aberline ?

[lynn cates]

neither

Hello MB. Thanks.

Neither, I presume. Certainly not Swanson. He seemed aware of the story but disagreed.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Interesting to note here that to my knowledge, to this post, no-one has been able to verify where Israel Schwartz lived Saturday morning. We know his wife moved them that Saturday,....but from where? Is it possible that he was heading to 40 Berner Street and the cottages that were on the property to check to see if his wife had moved their things to Backchurch?

That answer may relate to Israels perceived truthfulness.

Cheers

[moonbegger]

Moon,

He apparently lived in at 22 Helen/Ellen Street just off Backchurch Lane. The reporter ran him down in Backchurch Lane. Why 'run him down' if they knew his address? If they didn't know his address then how'd they get such a great description of him to track him down?

I'd agree with you it appears the Police gave the info to the newspaper but I don't think they actually got a statement from Schwartz, I believe they took the info and made a story with it pretending to have met him.

Cheers
DRoy

For my mind it comes across as the Star man being given the information but being told not to disclose the witnesses name & address .. and in all probability the story was the only part the star man was interested in anyway ! "The Run to ground" line could just simply be a line to take the heat off his police informant , and safeguard any future information ..

I don't think they actually got a statement from Schwartz, I believe they took the info and made a story with it pretending to have met him.

entirely plausible as well ..

moonbegger

[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

[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

[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

[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]

Hello Pat

That's certainly how I read it!

All the best

Dave

[GUT]

G'day Paddy

That's my take on it.

[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.