Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[lynn cates]

running

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

Cheers.
LC

[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]

doubt

Hello Roy. Thanks.

Perhaps so, but I am trying to stay with Swanson's language. He seems to be aware that some doubt, but he seems not to share it.

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

G'day Harry

Why would he run away from a man lighting a pipe?

Maybe he was allergic to tobacco.

[harry]

Sorry,I meant after.Age is catching up.

[harry]

Should have put 'no' before perceived.

[harry]

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?

[Dr. John Watson]

To my mind, the importance of Schwartz's statement is the undisputed fact that he observed a woman getting beaten by a man, while a second man watched, all within 15 minutes of when Stride's body was discovered only a few feet away. The fact that Schwartz identified Stride as the woman he saw makes his statement all the more significant, especially if one concedes that the 15-minute time interval is an estimate and that it refers to the time her body was discovered, not the time she was murdered. Police were unable to identify either Stride's assailant or the second man, and neither ever came forward. At the very least, the events described by Schwartz amount to a remarkable coincidence, if that's all it was. However, despite the time interval, the fact that two men, one violent and one possibly armed with a knife, were observed at the scene of the murder only minutes earlier should have been sufficient cause for police to pull out all the stops in identifying and locating both men for questioning. After all, either man could have lingered with Stride after Schwartz departed or reappeared within a few minutes to accost her. 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.

John

[Wickerman]

So his evidence would have been given secretly or in camera as they say.

A classic case of the police withholding evidence.

Stephen, the Coroner's Inquiry is a public inquiry. It is the public who judge the testimony not the Coroner.