Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[Wickerman]

I didn't notice anyone agree with you, so I thought the question remains open.
Am I wrong?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let's try to answer Wickerman's question.

If "the person who witnessed this" believed the quarrelling man and woman to be married, then what cues could this witness have been picking up on, in coming to that conclusion? Were references to their relationship overheard? Was it an argument over infidelity? Whatever the case, it seems we are dealing with someone who understands English. Although, I guess the quarrellers could have been speaking Swedish ...

Consider the Echo report (above). Which woman was seen thrown to the ground? How did the witness, who supposedly "took no notice" of the throwing down of the woman by the man she was quarrelling with, know that this was the subsequently murdered woman?

A man sees a man and a woman having some kind of disagreement in the street. The woman ends up on the ground. She ‘screams’ three times but the witnesses stresses that they weren’t loud screams. So from this he assumes at that time that this was just a domestic and probably alcohol-related as he’d mentioned BS man appearing drunk as he’d walked behind him along Berner Street. He assumes that this was a dispute between a couple. We have no need to presume that the witnesses needed to have been able to speak English or that the couple spoke any other language. It was just an impression and a natural assumption from a non-English speaker who had no way of knowing the cause of the confrontation.

The “took no notice” part clearly doesn’t preclude the man being able to offer an identification of Stride and BS man. He couldn’t have claimed to have ‘noticed’ an event that he hadn’t ‘noticed.’ I think that we can take the ‘took no notice of’ part as Schwartz explaining why he didn’t get involved and why didn’t hang around to give assistance to the woman. Because he felt that this was just a domestic. A not unfamiliar occurrence at that time and in that area.

Its also possible that he might have introduced the suggestion that this was just a domestic because he was embarrassed to have potentially abandoned a woman to her killer. An excuse for not stepping in.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Regarding the second arrest ...

... and a second on that furnished from another source ...

Pipeman?

[GBinOz]

A man sees a man and a woman having some kind of disagreement in the street. The woman ends up on the ground. She ‘screams’ three times but the witnesses stresses that they weren’t loud screams. So from this he assumes at that time that this was just a domestic and probably alcohol-related as he’d mentioned BS man appearing drunk as he’d walked behind him along Berner Street. He assumes that this was a dispute between a couple. We have no need to presume that the witnesses needed to have been able to speak English or that the couple spoke any other language. It was just an impression and a natural assumption from a non-English speaker who had no way of knowing the cause of the confrontation.

The “took no notice” part clearly doesn’t preclude the man being able to offer an identification of Stride and BS man. He couldn’t have claimed to have ‘noticed’ an event that he hadn’t ‘noticed.’ I think that we can take the ‘took no notice of’ part as Schwartz explaining why he didn’t get involved and why didn’t hang around to give assistance to the woman. Because he felt that this was just a domestic. A not unfamiliar occurrence at that time and in that area.

Its also possible that he might have introduced the suggestion that this was just a domestic because he was embarrassed to have potentially abandoned a woman to her killer. An excuse for not stepping in.

Hi Herlock,

I have the same interpretation.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I didn't notice anyone agree with you, so I thought the question remains open.
Am I wrong?

No, of course not. Without agreement it is only the answer by default. But now we have other answers

[NotBlamedForNothing]

A man sees a man and a woman having some kind of disagreement in the street. The woman ends up on the ground. She ‘screams’ three times but the witnesses stresses that they weren’t loud screams. So from this he assumes at that time that this was just a domestic and probably alcohol-related as he’d mentioned BS man appearing drunk as he’d walked behind him along Berner Street. He assumes that this was a dispute between a couple. We have no need to presume that the witnesses needed to have been able to speak English or that the couple spoke any other language. It was just an impression and a natural assumption from a non-English speaker who had no way of knowing the cause of the confrontation.

The “took no notice” part clearly doesn’t preclude the man being able to offer an identification of Stride and BS man. He couldn’t have claimed to have ‘noticed’ an event that he hadn’t ‘noticed.’ I think that we can take the ‘took no notice of’ part as Schwartz explaining why he didn’t get involved and why didn’t hang around to give assistance to the woman. Because he felt that this was just a domestic. A not unfamiliar occurrence at that time and in that area.

Its also possible that he might have introduced the suggestion that this was just a domestic because he was embarrassed to have potentially abandoned a woman to her killer. An excuse for not stepping in.

I take "took no notice" as meaning, paid little attention. The problem with that is that Abberline stated that Schwartz stopped to watch what was going on. It's as though someone else had seen it. The age estimate is different to what Schwartz gave both the police and the press.

The problem with your interpretation is that, having given that excuse, there is no reason to suppose that Schwartz walked away scared or shaken, and therefore he has no reason to run off like a startled rabbit. Unless that is, the second man had a knife in his hand.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Pipeman?

Why then, would Leman street have reason to doubt the truth of the story?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I take "took no notice" as meaning, paid little attention. The problem with that is that Abberline stated that Schwartz stopped to watch what was going on. It's as though someone else had seen it. The age estimate is different to what Schwartz gave both the police and the press.

The problem with your interpretation is that, having given that excuse, there is no reason to suppose that Schwartz walked away scared or shaken, and therefore he has no reason to run off like a startled rabbit. Unless that is, the second man had a knife in his hand.

This is the problem with reading too much into wording.

” I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.”

I reckon that the chances of Schwartz actually standing still just a very few yards away to watch the incident must have been remote to say the very least. I don’t think for a second that he actually ‘stopped.’

Schwartz walked away ‘scared’ because BS man shouted at him because he saw him looking across at them.

In The Star interview Schwartz made no mention of ‘stopping.’

“…..but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street.”

Would someone ‘timid of getting mixed up’ have stood there gawping? Or did he just look across as he was passing when BS man saw him and shouted at him?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why then, would Leman street have reason to doubt the truth of the story?

Who knows? We can’t even be certain who they were unsure about.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is the problem with reading too much into wording.

” I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.”

A literal interpretation does not amount to reading in anything. Abberline said "... he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman", and, other than the possibility of interpreter error, I see no reason not to suppose that the reason Abberline stated this, was because Schwartz told him that that was what he did.

I reckon that the chances of Schwartz actually standing still just a very few yards away to watch the incident must have been remote to say the very least. I don’t think for a second that he actually ‘stopped.’

Regardless, that is the evidence we have. So if you suppose the chance of this occurring was remote at best, then your problem is with Schwartz, not Abberline. Actually, let me restate that. If Abberline believed things that Schwartz told him, that you find a remote possibility, then not only do you have a reason for not believing Schwartz, but you also have a reason for doubting Abberline's judgement of Schwartz.

Schwartz walked away ‘scared’ because BS man shouted at him because he saw him looking across at them.

The call of Lipski occurs after Schwartz sees Pipeman. The running away commences with Pipeman behind Schwartz, so it is not even clear how the call could have been directed at Schwartz, as Pipeman seems to be between the two men at this point. So Abberline's close questioning was probably pointless, and also, up to the point that Schwartz notices Pipeman following, he has zero reason to be scared of anything. According to yourself, he witnessed a domestic and said so. Then some pipe smoker walks in his direction after the 'husband' yelled a word. Did this one word have the power to make both men run off? Seems a bit far-fetched. But what if the pipe was actually a knife? Now it does make sense! Sort of.

By the way, what actually is the objection to the pipe really being a knife? Wasn't it a rough neighbourhood? Didn't the police expect to find knives in the club?

In The Star interview Schwartz made no mention of ‘stopping.’

“…..but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street.”

Would someone ‘timid of getting mixed up’ have stood there gawping? Or did he just look across as he was passing when BS man saw him and shouted at him?

While I'm inclined to agree with you that the Star account is the more accurate of the two, let's be fair to Israel. Schwartz was walking south on Berner street. Stopping to watch, and not wanting to get involved, might be possible if he stops a few yards shy of the man. At some point he wishes to continue on, but without walking right by the quarrelling couple. So he crosses the road and continues, but then hears more quarrelling. So it's not a completely unbelievable scenario, at least in that regard. However, this is a problem ...

The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage ...

That seems to be the last he sees of the woman. Not exactly a good basis for a mortuary identification. If Schwartz is to be believed, then the woman should be referred to by her name, in the Schwartz section of Swanson's report. So why wasn't she?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Who knows? We can’t even be certain who they were unsure about.

So then, who knows if the "other source" was Pipeman? Could have been someone else at the scene, that Schwartz failed to mention.

The Star, Oct 1: The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Those who saw it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll tell you what happened…..Schwartz walked behind a drunken man who stopped to talk to Stride. There was a confrontation. Schwartz passed by and crossed over the road. He didn’t stop. BS man shouted ‘Lipski,’ and Schwartz left the street after seeing a second man.

No need for further discussion or repetition or flights of fancy. What are the chances that Schwartz was never there? Vanishing small as to be not worth mentioning. How many times did Fanny see Goldstein. Definitely once. Is it reasonable that no one else saw this incident. 100% certainly it was. Are any of the events in Berner Street suspicious? No.

Why the hell are there so many Berner Street-related threads? It’s like being on Fantasy Island.

[Abby Normal]

I’ll tell you what happened…..Schwartz walked behind a drunken man who stopped to talk to Stride. There was a confrontation. Schwartz passed by and crossed over the road. He didn’t stop. BS man shouted ‘Lipski,’ and Schwartz left the street after seeing a second man.

No need for further discussion or repetition or flights of fancy. What are the chances that Schwartz was never there? Vanishing small as to be not worth mentioning. How many times did Fanny see Goldstein. Definitely once. Is it reasonable that no one else saw this incident. 100% certainly it was. Are any of the events in Berner Street suspicious? No.

Why the hell are there so many Berner Street-related threads? It’s like being on Fantasy Island.

lol! Conspiracy Island

[c.d.]

Yes, point to the sky and yell "da claim! da claim!"

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A literal interpretation does not amount to reading in anything. Abberline said "... he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman", and, other than the possibility of interpreter error, I see no reason not to suppose that the reason Abberline stated this, was because Schwartz told him that that was what he did.


Regardless, that is the evidence we have. So if you suppose the chance of this occurring was remote at best, then your problem is with Schwartz, not Abberline. Actually, let me restate that. If Abberline believed things that Schwartz told him, that you find a remote possibility, then not only do you have a reason for not believing Schwartz, but you also have a reason for doubting Abberline's judgement of Schwartz.

”….had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.”

So Swanson makes no mention of Schwartz stopping.

”….he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street.”

No mention of Schwartz stopping in The Star.

In addition to there being no mention of him stopping, this point is worth noticing as it’s something that he obviously made a point of mentioning to The Star.

”….but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels,”

So is it likely that such a timid man would stand still to watch the confrontation between Stride and BS man occurring a very few feet away?

Or……is it either the result of an issue of interpretation where the mention of BS man ‘stopping’ got translated as Schwartz stopping. Or did Abberline simply misremembered this detail when writing up his notes?