Tweet
Originally posted by The Rookie Detective
View Post
What if the story reported and subsequently printed in the English press (the Star) just a few hours after the murder, that related to a person having seen what they thought was a domestic... wasn't Schwartz, but instead....
was Pipeman?
I'm sure I read somewhere about Pipeman having been ruled out by the police?
What if Pipeman (and not Schwartz) was the person who went to the police or to the Star, and reported they had seen a domestic assault?
That would negate the need for the inevitable time delay in finding a translator.
Just a thought
was Pipeman?
I'm sure I read somewhere about Pipeman having been ruled out by the police?
What if Pipeman (and not Schwartz) was the person who went to the police or to the Star, and reported they had seen a domestic assault?
That would negate the need for the inevitable time delay in finding a translator.
Just a thought
This is rather confused: If the man whom the P.C. saw is not the same as the man whom Schwartz saw at 12.45 then it is clearly more probable that the man whom Schwartz saw was the murderer, because Schwartz saw his man a quarter of an hour later than the P.C. But I understand the Inspector to suggest that Schwartz’ man need not have been the murderer. True only 15 minutes elapsed between 12.45 when Schwartz saw the man & 1.0 when the woman was found murdered on the same spot. But the suggestion is that Schwartz’ man may have left her, she being a prostitute then accosted or was accosted by another man, & there was time enough for this to take place & for this other man to murder her before 1.0. The Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz.
Presumably, 3 weeks after the murder, the anonymous second man has not been identified. Why couldn't the police find him? The contrast of this with Wess's comments to the Echo reporter - who claimed to have been told the name of the pursuing man - is extraordinary.
Comment