Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When The Killer Left Berner Street

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Dusty Miller View Post
    It's possible, I believe likely, that Schwartz brought his own interpreter.

    If he went to the police of his own volition, he almost certainly would have done so with an interpreter. If he was discovered as a result of a house to house search, the PC knocking on the door would not have been able to understand him and visa versa, Schwartz would not have understood the constable, unless someone in the house interpeted.
    Hi, Dusty:

    That's a nice, simple answer to something I was over-complicating. Your suggestion makes perfect sense!
    The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

    Comment


    • Nothing is simple when it comes to jtr;-)
      Thanks for your time,
      dusty miller

      Comment


      • Hi all,

        Thanks for providing those examples, Wicker. Schwartz's non-appearance at the inquest is indeed a mystery then. Certainly there's many different dialects he might have spoken, but surely no matter how obscure it was, there would've been some way of translating. The only other possibility I can think of is that somehow there was more of his evidence which the police wanted withheld from the media / public, or alternatively that Schwartz - who we know was cowed by his experience in Berner Street - was allowed to not testify over concerns for his own safety and / or that of his family. Again, we can only speculate.

        Cheers,
        Adam.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Adam Went View Post
          Hi all,

          Thanks for providing those examples, Wicker. Schwartz's non-appearance at the inquest is indeed a mystery then. Certainly there's many different dialects he might have spoken, but surely no matter how obscure it was, there would've been some way of translating. The only other possibility I can think of is that somehow there was more of his evidence which the police wanted withheld from the media / public, or alternatively that Schwartz - who we know was cowed by his experience in Berner Street - was allowed to not testify over concerns for his own safety and / or that of his family. Again, we can only speculate.

          Cheers,
          Adam.
          Hi Adam

          My own belief, (and obviously there aren't any facts to back it up - just a few snippets and a gut feeling) is that Schwartz was the Met's ace in the hole...I believe that after the Star got hold of him they decided to protect him, and struck a deal with the coroner not to call him...they may even have temporarily "disappeared" him...

          I believe they knowingly fed the Star that line about not giving Schwartz credence, because the internal memos up to at least 1st November tell a different story...The Star initially went for it, (2nd October), but there were subsequently rather disgruntled reports of the police misleading the papers...could they have finally worked out what the Met had done?

          Controversially I also believe Schwartz was the Seaside Home witness

          Cheers

          Dave

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
            Hi Adam

            My own belief, (and obviously there aren't any facts to back it up - just a few snippets and a gut feeling) is that Schwartz was the Met's ace in the hole...I believe that after the Star got hold of him they decided to protect him, and struck a deal with the coroner not to call him...they may even have temporarily "disappeared" him...

            I believe they knowingly fed the Star that line about not giving Schwartz credence, because the internal memos up to at least 1st November tell a different story...The Star initially went for it, (2nd October), but there were subsequently rather disgruntled reports of the police misleading the papers...could they have finally worked out what the Met had done?

            Dave

            That makes good sense Dave.
            Regards, Jon S.
            "
            The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
            " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
            Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Adam Went View Post
              Hi all,

              Thanks for providing those examples, Wicker. Schwartz's non-appearance at the inquest is indeed a mystery then. Certainly there's many different dialects he might have spoken, but surely no matter how obscure it was, there would've been some way of translating. ......

              Cheers,
              Adam.

              Hi Adam.

              Yes, the lack of an interpreter as a reason doesn't really fly. As Dusty has suggested even a private interpreter was available, though I expect he would have had to be 'okayed' by the Coroner before he could represent someone in court.
              But, the court also had other options, so the interpreter theory is out.

              What Dave suggested is good, yet I don't recall Schwartz claiming, even in the press, that he could identify the suspect again if he saw him.
              Regards, Jon S.
              "
              The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
              " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
              Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
                What Dave suggested is good, yet I don't recall Schwartz claiming, even in the press, that he could identify the suspect again if he saw him.
                But after the "Star" (1st October) he effectively disappears, and the following day the Star prints the bit suggesting his evidence is discredited...or at least downgraded (2nd October)...so he didn't exactly get much chance to say, one way or the other did he?

                Cheers

                Dave

                Comment


                • I think it would have been hard for Schwartz to have been able to identify a suspect. He saw BS Man mostly in movement. First there was walking ahead of Schwartz. BS Man stopped to talk to the woman--back to Schwartz? Then there was an active assault and Schwartz was across the street, albeit a narrow street. Lighting would have been nil or abysmal. Even if the man had faced Schwartz to snarl "Lipski"--if that was said at all--how clearly would he have been seen in the dark or semi-dark?

                  Maybe lighting or lack thereof had major influence on how police viewed witnesses. We cannot automatically think like they would have in 1888 because we are used to lighting. Those of us who live out of a town probably have a better feel for this. Late last night I heard a short, sharp cry outside my window that sounded vaguely human. My little dog reacted. I could not even detect motion in that level of darkness. I assume the cry was from a fox passing through.
                  The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                    But after the "Star" (1st October) he effectively disappears, and the following day the Star prints the bit suggesting his evidence is discredited...or at least downgraded (2nd October)...so he didn't exactly get much chance to say, one way or the other did he?

                    Cheers

                    Dave
                    Hi Dave, yes that was a mistake.

                    I had a thought of the comparison with Lawende, who was sequestered because he could recognise the suspect again.
                    I was wrong!

                    Lawende said he doubts if he could recognise the man again, so your hypothesis is more of a parallel than I first thought.
                    Regards, Jon S.
                    "
                    The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
                    " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
                    Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

                    Comment


                    • Hi Dave,

                      Although I can't agree with you about Schwartz being the Seaside Home witness (but then, I don't think Lawende was either - controversial also!), I reckon you're probably very close to hitting the nail on the head there in regards to why Schwartz wasn't called to the inquest. Schwartz would undoubtedly have been keen to strike a deal with the police as well, especially if it involved some sort of protection, as the whole Berner Street experience had evidently left him quite shaken and fearful.

                      Cheers,
                      Adam.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X