Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[GUT]

G'day Hunter

But Schwartz never claimed that anyone watched a killing, as far as I am aware.

Nor am I aware of anyone else making such a clam.

So I have no trouble finding the clam in the article unreliable.

[lynn cates]

I 'ave me doubts.

Hello MB. Thanks.

Here is a quote from "The Star" 2 October.

"In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts."

Here, there is NO ambiguity. Schwartz's story is the one not being believed.

Now, permit me to anticipate your next remark. No, given that some at the station disbelieved does not entail the falsity of the story. But CLEARLY, some at the station doubted the story.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Chinese whispers continued...

Hi Lynn,

Isn't it possible that whoever wrote this piece misinterpreted the previous one, just like many are doing right here, and assumed it was the truth of Schwartz's statement that was not wholly accepted by the police, rather than the man who had been held for further inquiries?

Frustrated at the lack of further information, the phrasing of 'not likely' to act further without additional facts tells the reader nothing he could not have worked out for himself, and does not come across as something the police would have stated officially. Indeed, the police may well have been working quietly on unearthing additional facts, and the last thing they wanted was the press, the public and the killer to get wind of it. Let them all carry on thinking it was Schwartz they doubted, so they could get on with the job of establishing what exactly he may have witnessed.

Makes sense to me.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

dubito

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

You are suggesting that "The Star" got the story right only to bungle it the next day? Entirely possible. It might be made up (although I don't think ANY newspaper story was like that), misunderstood, or any of a thousand different factors may weigh here.

But IF the story is accurate (notice the subjunctive), then there were doubts at Leman st.

Similarly, IF Schwartz told the truth (again, subjunctive), he may have witnessed a fracas that resulted in Liz's death. Most of my posts allow for that assumption, even though, at the personal level, I doubt his story.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

The press were trying to make sense of snippets of information and off the record briefings from unnamed policemen. These policemen may not have been at the centre of the investigation but would have wanted the press to think that they were (as they were undoubtedly paid for information). Making categorical deductions from these stories, particularly from the Star which sometimes strayed in their enthusiasm to get an exclusive, over what the police thought is unrealistic.

[lynn cates]

Be not faithless but believing.

Hello Edward. Thanks.

Completely agree that one cannot extrapolate from one bloke's opinion (some = df. "at least one"), and refer to the "police opinion."

On the other hand, to deny the story altogether is to ask one to adopt mental gymnastics which we old chaps find ourselves unable to perform.

Why not just say, "Yes, no doubt some disbelieved the story; but, so much the worse for them"?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

You are suggesting that "The Star" got the story right only to bungle it the next day?

Hi Lynn,

I am suggesting that if the stories were written by different reporters, it's entirely likely that the ambiguity in the former led to the confirmation you thought you saw clearly in the latter, without a jot of new information from a police source between the two. In fact, the first reporter need only have learned that the police were holding this second chap in connection with the witnessed assault on Stride, to work out that they must not have wholly accepted his account of his movements. Then the second reporter misinterprets this to mean the police doubted Schwartz's story (easily done, as this thread ably demonstrates) and hey presto - you get what you see as confirmation that this was indeed the case. 'Send reinforcements, we're going to advance' becomes 'send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance'.

But IF the story is accurate (notice the subjunctive), then there were doubts at Leman st.

Do you mean the conditional? I thought the subjunctive would be: 'But if the story be accurate...'

Either way it's a step in the right direction from:

But CLEARLY, some at the station doubted the story.

To my mind, the doubts need only refer back to the chap who had been held pending further inquiries. Presumably they let him go because those inquiries cleared him or led nowhere.

On the other hand, to deny the story altogether is to ask one to adopt mental gymnastics which we old chaps find ourselves unable to perform.

That's quite funny, coming from an old chap who is clearly able to perform the mental gymnastics required to believe Schwartz may have been persuaded to tell the police a wholly invented story.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

forensic discrepancies

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Very well, modification time. The first reporter got it right, the second was confused and misunderstood the situation. Moreover, it was the truth of the arrested man's story that was doubted. Wonder what story that was, precisely? Oh, no matter.

Yes, my conditional contained the subjunctive word, "if." Any contrary to fact situation counts as a subjunctive. It is usually introduced by, "if," "until," "unless," "though," "although" and such--unless I have forgotten my Latin.

"That's quite funny, coming from an old chap who is clearly able to perform the mental gymnastics required to believe Schwartz may have been persuaded to tell the police a wholly invented story."

Mental gymnastics? No, no. Just an eye for forensic discrepancies.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Lynn
It s necessary to deny the story altogether but it is clearly not sensible to rely on it either.
Sometimes the Star found untapped witnesses that provide extra detail. But when they quote police sources it is best to be sceptical unless the story is widely repeated as most newspapers would not reprint stray speculation.

I'm not sure what you mean by this:

Why not just say, "Yes, no doubt some disbelieved the story; but, so much the worse for them"?

Who should just say that?
Who are the 'some'?
Who are the 'them' that it's worse for?

[lynn cates]

The sum regarding "some."

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.

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.

"Why not just say, "Yes, no doubt some disbelieved the story; but, so much the worse for them"?"

"Who should just say that?"

Those who believe Schwartz.

"Who are the 'some'?"

Don't know, but whomever "The Star" reporter referred to--unless, of course, he bungled the story after a colleague had previously gotten it right.

"Who are the 'them' that it's worse for?"

See reply above (the "some" who were purported NOT to believe it).

Cheers.
LC

[Dr. John Watson]

This little side debate seems to boil down to which of the following propositions is most likely: Some of the police believed Schwartz's whole story, some of the police believed part of the story but not the whole story, and some police believed none of the story. Official records don't really resolve that issue, but perhaps we can infer enough from the following to tip the scales one way or the other.

The only tangible evidence suggesting that Schwartz's entire story was seriously doubted at higher levels is the failure of Coroner Wynne Baxter to take his testimony at Stride's inquest. Problem is, the reason for this apparent failure remains shrouded in mystery. Some suggest Baxter heard Schwartz's testimony privately, at the request of police who wished to protect the identity of a star witness; others that police deliberately withheld Schwartz's statement from Baxter, for whatever reason; and some who feel it was Baxter who decided his evidence was not important enough to bother with. Hard to believe police would deliberately withhold evidence from the Coroner for any reason, and unlikely that Baxter would choose to ignore an eyewitness who claims to have seen a man attack Stride. That leaves the possibility that Baxter questioned Schwartz in a private session, but if he did, he made no mention of anything Schwartz claimed to have seen in his lengthy and detailed report of findings. Unfortunately the official records are silent on what appears to be an incredible oversight on the part of an otherwise capable official. All we are left with is conjecture.

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. But none seem to question that part of the statement in which Schwartz tells of witnessing a man attacking Stride while another man stands by. Later memos indicate a belief that Schwartz may be able to identify the Ripper, this obviously based on acceptance of the truth of his statement.

It seems apparent, though without definitive evidence, that no police official ever went on record as believing the entirety of Schwartz's statement, just as no official ever said he disbelieved the entire statement.

To my mind, we are left with a likelihood that most police officials, while perhaps doubting certain parts of Schwartz's statement, believed he was telling the truth about witnessing an attack on Stride within 15 minutes of the time her body was found and within feet of where Schwartz claims to have saw her attacked. 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.

John

[lynn cates]

no big deal

Hello John. Thanks.

Actually, I am NOT one of those who make a big deal about Schwartz's absence from inquest.

From my point of view, the story does not jibe with the facts--hence my hesitation.

Translational difficulties COULD explain some of Abberline's frustration, but he questioned Schwartz repeatedly about whom, and to whom, shouted "Lipski."

Hopefully, additional facts will emerge that will help tip the balance.

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Hi everyone,

If Schwartz witness an attack on a 'woman' and not Stride then everything except the identification by him fits what we know and even infer. As has been mentioned, Schwartz identified Stride as the one attacked after giving his statement and later after seeing her body. Could he have been mistaken?

Scenario:
- Schwartz isn't lying, he witnessed an attack exactly as stated...it just wasn't Stride.
- Abberline & Swanson and everyone else have no reason to doubt his story...except that it wasn't Stride.
- One of the two men (PM or BSM) could have been picked up by the police (he is now the suspect noted in The Star).
- PM and BSM are both important witnesses since one of them attacked a 'woman' and the other may well be an accomplice or a witness (hence the Police Illustrated News description)
- Abberline spends his time trying to conclude the Lipski comment (again in reference to PM and or BSM), not prove or disprove Schwartz's statement.
- Schwartz doesn't testify at Stride's inquest because besides his error(?) in identifying the 'woman' (not Stride), everything else checks out.

Am I missing other important factors to include here? It does seem to tie all the characters together (except maybe some of those at the club or Mortimer).

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

spot

Hello Roy. Interesting.

Are you suggesting that this happened at the club as well?

Cheers.
LC

[Dr. John Watson]

Hello John. Thanks.

Actually, I am NOT one of those who make a big deal about Schwartz's absence from inquest.

From my point of view, the story does not jibe with the facts--hence my hesitation.

Translational difficulties COULD explain some of Abberline's frustration, but he questioned Schwartz repeatedly about whom, and to whom, shouted "Lipski."

Hopefully, additional facts will emerge that will help tip the balance.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn. Surely you must see some significance in the fact that a witness who claims he saw a woman he identified as Stride, attacked at the very place where her body was found 15 minutes later, is not called upon to testify under oath at inquest. Considering all the others who testified concerning far less significant information, the absence of Schwartz stands out like a sore thumb, and the reason why he was not called is the elephant in the room!

Glad you accept the possibility of translation problems, but not sure which story "doesn't jibe" with what facts, in your view. I think if you accept the possibility of a few minutes difference in some of the times stated, Schwartz's story fits well with other testimony, in my extremely humble opinion.

Abberline seemed obsessed with the fine point of who was calling who "Lipski." Certainly something to want to get straight, but how much time did he spend with that line of questioning? Although he must have questioned Schwartz at length concerning everything he saw, the one thing he seemed to emphasize in his report was the "Lipski" quote. No way to really judge the completeness of his interview without being able to read the entirety of the original statement.

You mention additional facts "emerging" to clear things up - but from which source do you foresee these facts emerging? Our debates and discussions are certainly informative and often lead to new theories etc., but new "facts" seem to be in short supply these days. Much is still out there, I'm sure, but it lies moldering in dusty attics and cramped basements, in cardboard boxes that once belonged to now deceased police officials or Ripper researchers. And that's the optimistic view! Ashes and garbage dumps may be more realistic.

John the Realist