Suspect Witnesses?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why would Pipeman run off in fear? - How do we know that he did? Schwartz just noticed that he was initially going in the same direction as himself and in The Sun he didn’t mention running and in Swanson’s summing of of the Leman Street station interview he said:

“…then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

So Schwartz walked away, after an undisclosed period (but probably a short one) he turned around to see make sure that he wasn’t being followed and he saw Pipeman walking in the same direction. Schwartz then decides to run home.

As ever, I don’t see any mystery.

Why did Anderson mention Schwartz giving evidence at the inquest? He was a human being. He made an error.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Lewis.

Hi Andrew,

I don't have any definite views on any of these questions, but I do have some possible explanations for some of them.

Maybe Schwartz didn't really suppose that the two men were together. Maybe he was asked if he thought they were together and he said, "I don't know." This could have been summarized as, "Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other."

Perhaps. What would you suppose, if you saw what looked like a husband-and-wife quarrel, and then when you crossed the road you see a man lighting his pipe? Seemingly, these two men are not together or known to each other, so the logical answer would be "I don't think so".

Where Anderson mentions "supposed accomplice", maybe "possible accomplice" would have been a better choice of words. Or maybe Anderson knew at least one policeman who thought he was an accomplice, but this may not have represented a majority opinion among the police.

No, I don't think we can just suppose that Anderson chose the wrong word, nor would he have worded a letter to the Home Office that implied more than one policeman held that view, but that that was still a minority view. What we do know is that the police did not suspect the second man. Yet we seemingly have someone very senior and/or a consensus at Scotland Yard that the second man was an accomplice. Either that or it was Schwartz responsible for supposing that. However, that would contradict his opinion about the two men's relationship.

Anderson's statement about "the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest" might not mean that Schwartz himself was at the inquest, it could mean that someone at the inquest gave a report or summary of what Schwartz told the police.

We would still need to explain why no newspaper reported this, that we are aware of.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why would Pipeman run off in fear? - How do we know that he did? Schwartz just noticed that he was initially going in the same direction as himself and in The Sun he didn’t mention running and in Swanson’s summing of of the Leman Street station interview he said:

“…then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

So Schwartz walked away, after an undisclosed period (but probably a short one) he turned around to see make sure that he wasn’t being followed and he saw Pipeman walking in the same direction. Schwartz then decides to run home.

As ever, I don’t see any mystery.

Why did Anderson mention Schwartz giving evidence at the inquest? He was a human being. He made an error.

The reason you don't see any mystery, is that you don't accept the evidence. Schwartz ran and so did the second man.

Abberline: There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe. Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.

Why would a man witness a 'domestic', then light a pipe, and then:

A) Run off in fear
B) Pursue a man walking through the street, supposedly minding his own business

The story makes little sense. It is of no surprise whatsoever, that the Oct 2 edition of the Star contains the following:

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 the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Two men have been arrested in relation to Schwartz's statement, and the result has been to cast doubt on Schwartz!

[New Waterloo]

I think that Schwarz being unable to say "whether the two men were together or known to each other" appears to say little.

However I think it is a very good point made by Schwartz either through his own observation or as a result of questioning by the police.

Initially this is a murder investigation not a JTR murder investigation. Street 'domestic' type quarrels were then and are now unfortunately not uncommon. Punch ups start, people are murdered to this very day through jealousy, ignorance, too much alcohol, separation etc etc. Something terrible for all concerned. But it happens.

Its reasonable to question whether the parties in and around this disturbance were related, known to each other, out together etc. whether there was a feud (remember Kidney wasn't a very happy bunny at the time of Strides murder)

Any such relationship could have been the key to unlocking this crime.

I do tend to think that the individuals seen around Berner Street at the time of Strides death are seen as sort of living in their own world walking around like robots. There could be connections and relationships involved here. Somehow. Or we are back to JTR somehow slipping into the yard and cutting Strides throat. Possible indeed but I see the that there could have been some importance to what Schwartz's comments could have been shortly after the event. If that makes sense.

As NotBlamed says "Something is not right- it feels off"

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

The reason you don't see any mystery, is that you don't accept the evidence. Schwartz ran and so did the second man.

Abberline: There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe. Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.

Why would a man witness a 'domestic', then light a pipe, and then:

A) Run off in fear
B) Pursue a man walking through the street, supposedly minding his own business

The story makes little sense. It is of no surprise whatsoever, that the Oct 2 edition of the Star contains the following:

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 the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Two men have been arrested in relation to Schwartz's statement, and the result has been to cast doubt on Schwartz!

According to the interview statement summary he said:

“…then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.”

So he walked away from the scene and only broke into a run when he noticed Pipeman behind him.

BS man was being aggressive. Why should it surprise anyone that the two other men present scarpered?

No mystery.

[Duran duren]

Why indeed HS, makes sense.

[Sunny Delight]

Thank you Tom.

Posts like this actually make me happy the great ones no longer post here. (Almost all of them, thank you again, Tom.)

Instead of the careful, meticulous study and reflection, of let's say, a Stewart Evans, who tirelessly catalogued the known existing police documents in his books, collating it with the various press reports, etc, we get drivel.

We now get modern day anti-police, - the police must be the bad guy here, - everything the police do must be wrong, - of course, the police are anti-semitic, - I know better than the police did,- the police of the time do not live up to my up to date standards of protocol and deportment, record keeping, etc.

Again, it makes me happy to think of back in the day. And just go with that.

Once again, thank you Tom.

It is the world we live in now. The world we live in now has a man in the White House spreading disinformation and misinformation, so much so it is hard to keep up. Everything is a conspiracy. Everything is a cover up. Frankly, I am absolutely disgusted by it all mentally. There is just so much. It even creeps its way onto a forum discussing killings from 140 years ago.

As you say it is a far cry from the meticulous, tireless brilliance of the great minds of the case. People who did the mundane, collating and analysing material. Not looking for cover ups or the deep state or a conspiracy at every turn. I miss days like those. Now its just descended in flat earthers and the we never landed on the moon type brigade.

[The Rookie Detective]

The thing i find intriguing about this report... (thanks NBFN for this)...

The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it.


... is that it appeared in the press very soon after the murder.

It seems to be an initial reference to the account given by Schwartz.


That means that Schwartz went to the police and/or spoke to the press almost immediately after the murder took place.


It's intriguing to me that the police and/or press managed to secure an interpreter so quickly after the murder.

Schwartz didn't speak a word of English after all.

[Sunny Delight]

The thing i find intriguing about this report... (thanks NBFN for this)...

The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it.


... is that it appeared in the press very soon after the murder.

It seems to be an initial reference to the account given by Schwartz.


That means that Schwartz went to the police and/or spoke to the press almost immediately after the murder took place.


It's intriguing to me that the police and/or press managed to secure an interpreter so quickly after the murder.

Schwartz didn't speak a word of English after all.

Schwartz was accompanied to the Police Station by a friend who interpreted for him. The papers also say a friend was there to interpret once a reporter found him at home. Not really that hard to fathom is it?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

According to the interview statement summary he said:

“…then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.”

So he walked away from the scene and only broke into a run when he noticed Pipeman behind him.

BS man was being aggressive. Why should it surprise anyone that the two other men present scarpered?

No mystery.

Why indeed HS, makes sense.

If Herlock or Duran had been Pipeman, and seen a man harassing a woman on the street, they too would have run off in fear. Makes sense.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The thing i find intriguing about this report... (thanks NBFN for this)...

The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it.


... is that it appeared in the press very soon after the murder.

It seems to be an initial reference to the account given by Schwartz.


That means that Schwartz went to the police and/or spoke to the press almost immediately after the murder took place.

According to the Star, "the Hungarian" went to the police late afternoon or early evening on the day of the murder (Sunday). The man and wife quarrel story appeared in Monday editions. Hard if not difficult to say when the press or the Star in particular became aware of Schwartz, and how and when the Star man managed to "run him to Earth", supposedly without the benefit of a name and address, which the police had not and probably never released. The probability that what occurred is just as we read it in Ripper books, is under 50%.

You have probably noticed that Abberline's second hypothesis - that the second man (Pipeman) was actually pursuing Schwartz with intent, is not even been being acknowledged here, let alone entertained as a serious possibility. The same is true of Anderson's reference to the supposed accomplice. Without reasonable arguments against, I can only suppose that these are possibilities that people just do not want to be the truth.

[The Rookie Detective]

Schwartz was accompanied to the Police Station by a friend who interpreted for him. The papers also say a friend was there to interpret once a reporter found him at home. Not really that hard to fathom is it?

You're missing my point.

All of the above occurred just a few hours after the murder took place.

The Star seemed to find Schwartz for an interview, but must have been given his address by the police; possibly an officer leaked the story.
That in itself would imply the Star had a contact within the police service who they could rely on to leak a story so quickly after a murder had taken place.

Or, perhaps Schwartz was interviewed by the Star before he gave his statement to the police, meaning that Schwartz actively got another man to accompany him for when he spoke to the press.

Regardless of the chronology of events, the idea that Schwartz went to the police with an interpreter to give a statement, and then a tabloid newspaper was able to somehow track him down at his address; without it being officially disclosed, and then that story appear in the paper just a few hours after the murder, is all rather impressive considering Schwartz couldn't speak English and no personal information on Schwartz was disclosed officially by the police. (as far as we know)

So, who learned of the Schwartz account first?

The police or the press?

Either way, the fact that both parties knew of Schwartz's account so quickly after the murder, and then that story appeared in the press just hours after the murder, either demonstrates incredible cohesion between the police and the press, or something doesn't ring true about the entire Schwartz debacle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Herlock or Duran had been Pipeman, and seen a man harassing a woman on the street, they too would have run off in fear. Makes sense.

I would hope that this isn’t how i would act Andrew but not everyone is the same. If Schwartz and Pipeman were cowards they certainly weren’t unique. Another suggestion, and that’s all that it is, what if when Schwartz walked off Pipeman advanced toward BS man. And he said something like “look, she’s fine, there’s no problem. She’s just a bit drunk etc…” and Pipeman turned around a walked away to be seen by Schwartz when he turned around.

[c.d.]

The press probably had people who hung around police stations and who would give someone a few bucks who turned them on to a good story.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

The press probably had people who hung around police stations and who would give someone a few bucks who turned them on to a good story.

c.d.

Did they have Yiddish/Hebrew translators too?

Schwartz couldn't speak English after all.