Whiggishness and the anti-Anderson Lobby

[Paul]

I have examined and analysed the Star reports and have stated my opinion based on that analysis, an opinion that I stand by. However, you don't think that I am going to waste my time typing out full details of work that I have done at your request. If you check the boards you will see that dozens, including you, post their opinions with no full analysis accompanying them.

More to the point I am truly amazed at the utterly incredible proposal that you make in your book The Facts, where you state, 'Unless 'Those' was a slip of the pen, the newspaper seems to be suggesting that more than one person witnessed the assault and had expressed opinions about it. The only person other than Schwartz who witnessed the incident was Pipeman. Had the police talked to him? Is that why, as the Home Office observed, the 'police apparently do not suspect the second man'? Some evidence for this was contained in a report in The Star the following day...' (page 157); and, after a look at the second Star report you conclude, 'The other witness therefore has to be Pipeman.' (page 158). On page 196 you state, in a section quoting Warren, '...and that there was no information indicating an accomplice - an interesting observation given the Schwartz story (and perhaps additional confirmation that Pipeman had been identified).'

On page 382 of your book, in the chapter on Kosminski, you state, 'Neither the man nor 'Pipeman' need have been the killer, as the police observed at the time, but...it is statistically improbable that Stride was assaulted twice in the same place on the same night within fifteen minutes by different men. If it can be fairly said of anyone that he saw the murderer, it can only be said of Israel Schwartz.'

The police reports by Abberline, Swanson and the Home Office annotations make it clear that the second man had not been traced and I cannot agree that it would be improbable that Stride was assaulted twice at the same location within fifteen minutes, she was a soliciting prostitute, propositioning passing men, some of who would be drunk anyway, and it's not at all improbable. But, here again, you appear to be ignoring the content of the official files in favour of reports from The Star. No wonder that you act as apologist for that paper.

What am interesting first response, changing the subject.

[Jeff Leahy]

T
The official report has the suspect trying to pull Stride into the street but turning her round and throwing her down on the footway, outside the gateway (not back into the passage), and also warns that this attacker need not have been the murderer.

Apropos of the reporter, how do you arrive at the conclusion that 'he describes a domestic'?

Yes it says he tried to pull the woman into the street...it doesnt say he does..

So its logical to assume she was thrown down just inside the gateway...

Only feet from the murder spot

Yours Jeff

[SPE]

Ex-journalist

...
...I see no evidence of any questions being asked of The Star report, just a pejorative description of the journalist as “an enterprising individual seeking a sensational story as a scoop for his newspaper”, which as far as I can see is your opinion. For all you know he was a diligent journalist following up a lead, just as journalists are supposed to do. You have previously done this, claiming that the journalist was “clearly trying to show that Schwartz actually witnessed the murder of Stride by the unknown killer, who pushed her back to the spot where the body was later found, and who was probably working with an accomplice who also carried a knife”, when again for all you know the journalist had no ulterior motive in writing what he did, but was simply recording as faithfully as he could what Schwartz said.
...

Obviously as an ex-journalist you are going to have different opinions to an ex-police officer.

However, you appear to be assuming that the unknown reporter was 'a diligent journalist following up a lead'. I don't see that as being so very different to being 'an enterprising individual seeking a sensational story as a scoop for his newspaper.' After all a good journalist is surely enterprising, the murder of Stride was an undeniably sensational story and if he obtained a story which no other newspaper had (which was the case here) then surely it was a scoop? You tell me, you are the journalist. How can that be an unreasonable opinion to have?

The fact that the newspaper claimed that the witness they had found had seen 'the whole thing', that the man had pushed the woman back to the murder spot, that a second man with a knife 'rushed forward as if to attack' Schwartz are, I should have thought, sensational elements.

You continue, '...for all you know the journalist had no ulterior motive in writing what he did, but was simply recording as faithfully as he could what Schwartz said.' If we accept that at face value it still carries the caveats that it was obtained via a third party (who translated), it was not obtained with a stringent view to being used in evidence (as the police statement was), and was reproduced in the newspaper report by another unknown journalist who may himself have mistranscribed or even embellished things. So we are, apparently, talking about two journalists and not one. The picture is not as simple as you paint it.

And I should like to know how you can state on the documentary that the statement by Schwartz contained 'important new information that the attacker seen by Schwartz had pushed the woman by the shoulders into the yard' [hmm...you seem to think that is very relevant and indicated the actual killer]. You also stated, 'The Star report contained a potentially significant additional detail, that the attacker seen by Schwartz had pushed the woman by the shoulders into the yard...'

Very odd, yet this is the very wording that you have indicated is not sensational and that the reporter was not 'sexing up his story' (to use your words) as he'd have played up the assault and would not 'describe a domestic'! Really, just what are you trying to say???

[SPE]

No...

What am interesting first response, changing the subject.

No, I have put the point about your ridiculous scenario concerning 'Pipeman' being identified before, and received no comment from you. I am not changing the subject, it is all relevant. It shows how much weight you give to the Star reports as opposed to the official reports. Do you want some more examples? It's an old ploy of yours, to avoid addressing things you have no real answer for.

[SPE]

Illogical

Yes it says he tried to pull the woman into the street...it doesnt say he does..
So its logical to assume she was thrown down just inside the gateway...
Only feet from the murder spot
Yours Jeff

Just how illogical can you get? You are really plumbing the depths now.

[SPE]

Tell you what...

Tell you what boys, my time is too valuable to waste debating with two biased people who cannot admit what they have said. I'm going to call it a day unless I see more outrageous claims.

[Rob Clack]

When looking at historical source material we have to assess (inter alia) the quality, accuracy and relevance of that source information.

In this case our assessment of that quality and reliability relies heavily on the persons supplying the material. Here we are looking at two versions of the same story, the story told by the witness Israel Schwartz. The first source is the official one, via Abberline and Swanson, and the second source is an unknown reporter for the radical newspaper The Star. In Abberline and Swanson we have two hugely experienced career police officers who are committing the story to paper as evidence which might, eventually, be presented in court as sworn testimony. In the unknown Star reporter we have an enterprising individual seeking a sensational story as a scoop for his newspaper.

Abberline's interview with Schwartz (who spoke no English) was taken via the medium of a police employed interpreter, committed to paper, and would have been signed by Schwartz (and, I expect, the interpreter). As Abberline tells us, he questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement.'

The Star tells us that, 'A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane. The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police...'

Well that's incorrect for a start, as it was apparently not told 'just as he had given it to the police'. Or at least not correctly recorded as such. One of the significant differences was that the Star report had it that, 'The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage...' whereas, in his official report, Swanson states that, 'The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway...'

In your documentary you select the Star version for reconstructing the visual presentation of the attack, as opposed to the police version, and you describe it as, 'The Star report contained a potentially significant additional detail [it wasn't 'additional' it was a totally different version], that the woman seen by Schwartz had pushed the woman by the shoulders into the yard.' and; 'The statement by Schwartz contains important new information that the attacker seen by Schwartz had pushed the woman by the shoulders into the yard'.

It's fair enough to 'allow its content in', and Sugden shows us how that may be done, but its an entirely different thing to present it as 'new' or 'additional' information when clearly it is not. And any analysis should show that the police version is the more reliable source. No one here, including Rob, has not 'allowed its content into their assessment of the events to which it relates', as this debate has shown. However, in making their assessment others, including myself, have not thought the Star report to be particularly reliable and have relied on the police files to provide the more accurate account.

Thanks Stewart.

Sorry, Rob, but both the police and the journalist interviewed the same witness and reported what he said. Unless you can show that The Star report is other than a faithful record of what Schwartz told the journalist then there is no conceivable way that The Star report is or can be considered to be "worthless". Dismissing a source as "worthless" and not allowing its content into an assessment of the events to which it relates is one of the most serious actions a historians can take and needs to be explained in detail.
Paul

Hi Paul,

If the police and the journalist interviewed the same witness (and I have no doubts that they did) then there should be more consistency between the two reports. There isn't. There is quite a wide variance between the two, which brings into doubt one of the reports. In my opinion the Official Report is the more reliable of the two and should take precedence over the Star report. I'd rather dismiss the Star as a whole instead of using selective parts of it which have no other sources to corroborate it. Where the Official reports have several.
And as I have said, I am no historian and just trying my best to make use of what materials we have.

Regards

Rob

[SPE]

Great

Thanks Stewart.
Hi Paul,
If the police and the journalist interviewed the same witness (and I have no doubts that they did) then there should be more consistency between the two reports. There isn't. There is quite a wide variance between the two, which brings into doubt one of the reports. In my opinion the Official Report is the more reliable of the two and should take precedence over the Star report. I'd rather dismiss the Star as a whole instead of using selective parts of it which have no other sources to corroborate it. Where the Official reports have several.
And as I have said, I am no historian and just trying my best to make use of what materials we have.
Regards
Rob

Great, a voice of sanity amidst the chaos.

[Wicker Man]

... but "opposite side of the road" could be from the perspective of BS man or from that of Schwartz....

Paul.
It means opposite the altercation, so yes from the point of view of BS & ES, but Schwartz had moved away from them by this point so no, not from Schwartz's perspective.

You 'must' take the sentences in the context with which they were written.

The context is that the two sentences which include the word "opposite" are in each case purely with reference to the location of the altercation at Dutfields Yard.

As previously outlined..

http://jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=133795&postcount=713

Which then renders any debate on the meaning of "On crossing" redundant.
Regards, Jon S.

[SPE]

Correction...

Paul.
It means opposite the altercation, so yes from the point of view of BS & ES, but Schwartz had moved away from them by this point so no, not from Schwartz's perspective.
You 'must' take the sentences in the context with which they were written.
The context is that the two sentences which include the word "opposite" are in each case purely with reference to the location of the altercation at Dutfields Yard.
As previously outlined..

http://jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=133795&postcount=713

Which then renders any debate on the meaning of "On crossing" redundant.
Regards, Jon S.

A correction, two voices of sanity, thank you Jon. (I don't include myself as a voice of sanity, as some irritating person has driven me insane).

[Jeff Leahy]

Just how illogical can you get? You are really plumbing the depths now.

Why illogical? Can you explain?

No you cant...you've spent most of the last two days arguing that we should take every word at face value...then the moment its pointed out to you that the word TRIED means precisely that....TRIED to pull the woman into the Street...

ie NOT... he pulled the woman into the Street, or the woman fell on to the footway.

He TRIED...which to everyone else means a LACK OF SUCCESS...unless your going to a different School of English to the rest of us..

The logical conclusion from that statement is that she was still in the gateway after a failed attempt to pull her into the street.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

No, I have put the point about your ridiculous scenario concerning 'Pipeman' being identified before, and received no comment from you. I am not changing the subject, it is all relevant. It shows how much weight you give to the Star reports as opposed to the official reports. Do you want some more examples? It's an old ploy of yours, to avoid addressing things you have no real answer for.

No. It is you that is failing to give a reason why you feel the Star report unreliable...

[Wicker Man]

A correction, two voices of sanity, thank you Jon. (I don't include myself as a voice of sanity, as some irritating person has driven me insane).

Thankyou Stewart, but you certainly have more stamina than I do.
If you know what I mean...

Best Wishes...

[Stephen Thomas]

Oh I get it now.

Anything transcribed by a policeman is Holy Writ.

And anything transcribed by a journalist is the work of the Devil.

[Jeff Leahy]

T

If the police and the journalist interviewed the same witness (and I have no doubts that they did) then there should be more consistency between the two reports. There isn't.
Rob

Hi Rob

I really don't understand the reasoning for this statement (and I'm not trying to wind anyone up as Stewart claims here)

To me the two accounts are remarkably similar given that the reporter could have had no knowledge of what is contained in the Home Office report?

Yours Jeff