If Schwartz Lied ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Haven't you been arguing that Mortimer saw Goldstein headed north "previously" to the sighting of him headed south?

Cheers, George

Well no, because south was previously, as per that quote, and north was just before she turned in, as per the interview quote, and Dew's comments.

[caz]

Okay I will try it, but the theory I currently have in mind seems even less related to sequences of events, than the above. Perhaps the problem is that I'm not thinking about events the way everyone else seems to. My impression is that things are meant to work like this:

For each murder, we start with a broad outline of what happened, and who was involved. This broad outline has two important characteristics. It forms the basis for discussion of each murder, and is therefore almost universally accepted. The other crucial element is that the broad outline is neutral with respect to everyone involved. No one can be implicated by the basic story. So for example, we can't have Goldstein walking out of Dutfield's Yard at 5 minutes to 1am as part of the accepted story, because that would make him the obvious candidate for the murder, and that would violate the principle of neutrality. The problem with that is obvious enough; at some point neutrality has to be 'breached', if the idea is to identify the WM. Yet the unwritten rules don't seem to allow for that.

Interesting, NBFN, but this would appear to dismiss the police as if they were not there, and played no active role in trying to identify and question anyone who presented as an 'obvious candidate' for the murder, or in fact any potential suspect or person of interest.

The police had the same, and arguably a lot more information than we do today, and Goldstein, to use your example, presented himself to the police to give an account of his whereabouts and movements around the time of Stride's murder. It doesn't matter if he was late to the party, or advised to go by someone else, because such matters would only have made the police keener to check his movements and make sure he wasn't being evasive or shifty. Certainly, they'd have checked on any associations he had with the club, and when he last attended, if at all. The idea that they simply took his word for everything he said without question seems absurd.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Did the police become despondent, and give up on Schwartz merely because the first two arrests hadn't resulted in any progress? No, I don't think so. Besides, if the two men had satisfied the police as to their whereabouts, why would it matter that the two descriptions (one hypothetical), were somewhat at odds?

I'm not sure I claimed it did 'matter'. I only observed that witness descriptions are notoriously unreliable, and whether the police arrested one, two or half a dozen men on the say-so of Schwartz [and/or Pipeman if he came forward], they were still left without a BS man to interrogate. They would therefore be needing additional information in order to take their enquiries into the witnessed assault any further. It's pretty standard language and the police would still be on the lookout for any fresh clues. It may even have been said to let BS man think the police had moved on and he had got away with it.

I don't really see the problem with any of this.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Reckon BS man was muscle for Stride who was to meet Sutton in the yard for a blackmail pay off.
Sutton was on the top floor of the Club watching proceedings below.
BS man leaves and returns,pulling Stride from the yard.He then leaves for good.
Schwartz hears "Lips,see"..Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia - Wikipedia
Beer shop owner is preparing a knock off pipe of tobacco and is cleaning his pipe.
When the coast is clear,Sutton is out the front door and into the yard.
He offers Stride the cachous,which she takes out of his hand.Last thing she ever does.

I'm beginning to think this has more legs than the guilty Goldstein theory.

Any idea which publication might have caught Sutton's eye with the slogan: HAVE YOU SEEN THE DEVIL?

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Interesting, NBFN, but this would appear to dismiss the police as if they were not there, and played no active role in trying to identify and question anyone who presented as an 'obvious candidate' for the murder, or in fact any potential suspect or person of interest.

Actually, the police play a big role in my thinking, which partly centres on the identification and questioning of Schwartz's second man - aka Pipeman. In the simplest terms, here is the issue.

Pipeman is not included the Police Gazette's Oct 19 issue, regarding apprehensions sought for murder. To have cleared Pipeman as having no involvement in the Berner street crime, I think it reasonable to suppose that Pipeman was identified, questioned, and if not immediately, soon cleared. Assuming this to be true, that would seem to validate Schwartz's story. Yet the Star's reporting suggests otherwise. According to that report, Leman street had developed severe doubts about Schwartz, no later than the Tuesday morning. Considering that Schwartz did not go to the police until late on the Sunday afternoon, the gap between the two arrests mentioned by the Star, and Schwartz's apparent loss of credibility, seems to be in the region of 24 hours, or less. Furthermore, the reference to "additional facts" being the requirement for further investigation based on Schwartz's statement, seems to suggest that the statements and/or information obtained on one or both of the men arrested, were the sole source of Leman street's doubts.

Surely it was not the word of one or two men, versus another, that was all it took to undermine Schwartz. Some critical piece of the puzzle seems to be missing. However, we can begin the search for that piece of the puzzle, by asking; who was in a position to validate or invalidate Schwartz, if not Pipeman? So if Pipeman is assumed to have been identified, then what was so convincing about his 'side of the story'? Consider that if Pipeman were the prisoner referred to by the Star, Oct 1 & 2, it had been 24 hours at most since he had this problem ...

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.

Evidently, the inquiries resulted in some extraordinary facts being obtained.

The police had the same, and arguably a lot more information than we do today, and Goldstein, to use your example, presented himself to the police to give an account of his whereabouts and movements around the time of Stride's murder. It doesn't matter if he was late to the party, or advised to go by someone else, because such matters would only have made the police keener to check his movements and make sure he wasn't being evasive or shifty. Certainly, they'd have checked on any associations he had with the club, and when he last attended, if at all. The idea that they simply took his word for everything he said without question seems absurd.

Love,

Caz
X

Right, and no one who (had) read this post, could conclude that I suppose Goldstein was taken on trust.

If the heading south from Spectacle Alley occurs first, then the round trip time is not the issue. Getting Goldstein into the yard, unseen, is the problem.

Okay, here is another theory. The police would obviously have read the EN interview, and determined that Goldstein's whereabouts had to be determined not only by investigations at the coffee house, but also at Goldstein's residence on Christian street. Had Goldstein left 22 and gone to the club, after having been seen by Fanny, then someone at 22 may well have been aware of that. So that person or persons had a choice - to provide Goldstein with an alibi, or tell the truth and effectively have him turned over to gentile justice. They chose the former.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'm not sure I claimed it did 'matter'. I only observed that witness descriptions are notoriously unreliable, and whether the police arrested one, two or half a dozen men on the say-so of Schwartz [and/or Pipeman if he came forward], they were still left without a BS man to interrogate. They would therefore be needing additional information in order to take their enquiries into the witnessed assault any further. It's pretty standard language and the police would still be on the lookout for any fresh clues. It may even have been said to let BS man think the police had moved on and he had got away with it.

I don't really see the problem with any of this.

Love,

Caz
X

This sounds like a Herlock Sholmes post. He often conflates 'this' explanation, with 'this' situation.

By the way, this is the situation ...

... the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

Pointing out that they do not have BS man to interrogate, does not provide an explanation.

[caz]

This sounds like a Herlock Sholmes post.

I'm genuinely flattered. Thank you for the compliment.

I'm happy to leave you to work out what you think was going on and why, and what sources you prefer to believe.

I'm sticking with my own conclusion that any real doubts the police may have had about Schwartz's story concerned his interpretation - and his translator's interpretation - of what he had witnessed, due to his lack of English and differences in the culture.

The newspapers were, and are, notorious for misinterpreting plain English, or misrepresenting/misquoting their sources, often on purpose but not always. They just can't seem to help themselves. So where there are discrepancies between a police and press statement or report, it would be folly to build any theories on the latter.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm genuinely flattered. Thank you for the compliment.

I'm happy to leave you to work out what you think was going on and why, and what sources you prefer to believe.

I'm sticking with my own conclusion that any real doubts the police may have had about Schwartz's story concerned his interpretation - and his translator's interpretation - of what he had witnessed, due to his lack of English and differences in the culture.

The newspapers were, and are, notorious for misinterpreting plain English, or misrepresenting/misquoting their sources, often on purpose but not always. They just can't seem to help themselves. So where there are discrepancies between a police and press statement or report, it would be folly to build any theories on the latter.

Love,

Caz
X

I’m flattered too Caz.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This sounds like a Herlock Sholmes post. He often conflates 'this' explanation, with 'this' situation.

By the way, this is the situation ...

... the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

Pointing out that they do not have BS man to interrogate, does not provide an explanation.

You obviously mean a post that’s made from planet Earth.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'm happy to leave you to work out what you think was going on and why, and what sources you prefer to believe.

I'm sticking with my own conclusion that any real doubts the police may have had about Schwartz's story concerned his interpretation - and his translator's interpretation - of what he had witnessed, due to his lack of English and differences in the culture.

Right. So let's not let inconvenient evidence get in the way of the preferred story. The unacceptable word truth must be replaced with the much more palatable interpretation. So let's do it ...

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 his interpretation of the story, and as a consequence they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

How strange.

The newspapers were, and are, notorious for misinterpreting plain English, or misrepresenting/misquoting their sources, often on purpose but not always. They just can't seem to help themselves. So where there are discrepancies between a police and press statement or report, it would be folly to build any theories on the latter.

Love,

Caz
X

It's funny how the 'notorious, unreliable press' are only ever referred to in that manner, when what they report is contrary to someone's preferred truth. As for a discrepancy between the police and a press report, where exactly is that discrepancy ...?

Swanson: If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it ...

If the police report of Schwartz's statement casts no doubt upon it, why phrase it in a way that seems to suggest that doubts do in fact exist? If you're sticking with your own conclusion, then presumably you can answer this question ...

Why do we never see such a disclaimer on any other witness statement “if so so and so is to be believed”? Clearly Swanson is acknowledging the issues with it.

[JeffHamm]

...

Swanson: If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it ...

If the police report of Schwartz's statement casts no doubt upon it, why phrase it in a way that seems to suggest that doubts do in fact exist? ...

But that statement explicitly says there are no doubts, and so in no way suggests doubts do in fact exist?

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But that statement explicitly says there are no doubts, and so in no way suggests doubts do in fact exist?

- Jeff

No, it doesn't say that. It only says that there are no doubts arising from the police report of his statement, which was largely due to Abberline. It says nothing about the opinions of lower ranked police, for example the police who described Schwartz as appearing to be in the theatrical line. Nor does it say anything about opinions outside of the police force.

If there were no doubts at all, then Swanson's reason for beginning that sentence with "If Schwartz is to be believed ...", is inexplicable. Unless perhaps, he supposed that someone might read his summary of Schwartz's tale, and think it far-fetched.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Pipeman is not included the Police Gazette's Oct 19 issue, regarding apprehensions sought for murder. To have cleared Pipeman as having no involvement in the Berner street crime, I think it reasonable to suppose that Pipeman was identified, questioned, and if not immediately, soon cleared. Assuming this to be true, that would seem to validate Schwartz's story. Yet the Star's reporting suggests otherwise. According to that report, Leman street had developed severe doubts about Schwartz, no later than the Tuesday morning. Considering that Schwartz did not go to the police until late on the Sunday afternoon, the gap between the two arrests mentioned by the Star, and Schwartz's apparent loss of credibility, seems to be in the region of 24 hours, or less. Furthermore, the reference to "additional facts" being the requirement for further investigation based on Schwartz's statement, seems to suggest that the statements and/or information obtained on one or both of the men arrested, were the sole source of Leman street's doubts.

Is this anomaly worthy of explanation?

[JeffHamm]

No, it doesn't say that. It only says that there are no doubts arising from the police report of his statement, which was largely due to Abberline. It says nothing about the opinions of lower ranked police, for example the police who described Schwartz as appearing to be in the theatrical line. Nor does it say anything about opinions outside of the police force.

If there were no doubts at all, then Swanson's reason for beginning that sentence with "If Schwartz is to be believed ...", is inexplicable. Unless perhaps, he supposed that someone might read his summary of Schwartz's tale, and think it far-fetched.

It doesn't say there were doubts being held by lower ranked police. Rather, it points out that the report, which would be based upon the most information available (direct interview with Schwartz, etc), indicates there is no doubt. While those with less information might hold doubts, the opinions of those not fully informed are immaterial with regards to the statement. The statement explicitly says there are no doubts held by those police (the report) who are in the best position to form an opinion.

Sure, others who have less information to work with might have doubts, but this statement isn't evidence of those doubts actually existing. The press do report there were concerns about some of Schwartz's statement, but we know what those were (mostly around Schwartz's interpretation of who Lipski was shouted at, and the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman) while it seems likely the press did not because they were less informed about police thinking than the writer of the police reports to HO.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

But what are these "doubts" referring to exactly? Is the implication that they believed Schwartz to be lying or are they essentially saying we don't know for certain whether he witnessed the beginning of Stride's murder or just a common street hassle? Or is that statement simply saying because of the language barrier and problems with interpretation we simply don't know what the hell he saw?

c.d.