Suspect Witnesses?

[c.d.]

Did they have Yiddish/Hebrew translators too?

Schwartz couldn't speak English after all.

I'm suggesting that they (the newspaper people) spoke to the police who put them on to Schwartz. If they then got the story from Schwartz himself there must have been a translator present.

c.d.

[seanr]

It could have been the Police who informed the Press about a witness. There is another possibility. Or even two other possibilities.

Incidentally, the Police passing information to the Press directly about witnesses who have yet to testify, should probably be frowned upon.

[seanr]

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.

Some of you might be onto something... a little bit of lateral thinking and you might see something astonishing.

To the original point, I'm sure Schwartz was a real person who actually existed and gave a statement to the police.

[c.d.]

Didn't the police look into who might have wanted to kill Stride?

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

Here's a little curve ball...

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

[The Rookie Detective]

It could have been the Police who informed the Press about a witness. There is another possibility. Or even two other possibilities.

Incidentally, the Police passing information to the Press directly about witnesses who have yet to testify, should probably be frowned upon.

Exactly.

The fact that a man who couldn't speak English was able to go to the police and give a statement, and that story was then printed in the press so soon afterwards, indicates that there must have been some cohesion between the police and the press.

Likely, a leak to the press.

Did Schwartz's statement appear in a Jewish publication?
Because if it didn't, then it certainly should have done.

IMO, the initial report of a witness observing what they thought was a domestic assault, doesn't seem to have originated from Schwartz.

[Paddy Goose]

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.

Nope, sorry c.d. no newspaperman has ever hung around a police station house. That's why Rookie has rightly characterized this instance a case of-

incredible cohesion between the police and the press

That's right, it is incredible cohesion.

This is a game changer. An earth-shattering revelation which rewrites the story of journalism and police work in the history of western civilization.

The real question though, is it earth shattering enough to wake Diddles from a nap?

[seanr]

Did Schwartz's statement appear in a Jewish publication?
Because if it didn't, then it certainly should have done.

I do wish it was possible to check the back issues of the Arbeter Fraynd. I wonder what it would have said about this matter.

[seanr]

Nope, sorry c.d. no newspaperman has ever hung around a police station house. That's why Rookie has rightly characterized this instance a case of-



That's right, it is incredible cohesion.

This is a game changer. An earth-shattering revelation which rewrites the story of journalism and police work in the history of western civilization.

The real question though, is it earth shattering enough to wake Diddles from a nap?

Of course, enjoying a little payment for leaking information to a paying customer about a live investigation, is just one of the perks of the job.

I guess Diddles can stay asleep.

[seanr]

I do wish it was possible to check the back issues of the Arbeter Fraynd. I wonder what it would have said about this matter.

I just remembered the column on the murders from the Arbeter Fraynd from October the 5th 1888. Paddy Goose kindly linked to it in the Yom Kippur Ball thread. https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-fraint-s-take

It didn’t mention Schwartz at all. I expect they’d have been aware of him, so it’s interesting why he doesn’t get a mention.

[The Rookie Detective]

I just remembered the column on the murders from the Arbeter Fraynd from October the 5th 1888. Paddy Goose kindly linked to it in the Yom Kippur Ball thread. https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-fraint-s-take

It didn’t mention Schwartz at all. I expect they’d have been aware of him, so it’s interesting why he doesn’t get a mention.

I agree that it's interesting that there's no mention of Schwartz.

They must have known of his story by that time.

How odd would it be if Pipeman was the actual "witness" and that he had observed what he considered a domestic between a couple; this couple having been Stride and...B.S. man?


But what if BS man was actually Schwartz?


So the initial story given by Pipeman of witnessing a domestic, was a scuffle between Stride and Schwartz.

But then Schwartz comes forward to the police afterwards, and portrays a stereotypical and theatrical looking Jew, who can't speak English and needs an interpreter.

Schwartz then flips the story to say that he sees another man (BS man) and observes another man (pipeman) etc... at the scene.

...but all the while he is trying to get himself off the hook.

So in other words...

Pipeman witnesses a domestic
Schwartz is the man who assaults Stride
Schwartz gives an amplified version of Pipeman's account by inventing BS man.

I mean, its random, but I find it's always worth a punt.

[Paddy Goose]

Did they have Yiddish/Hebrew translators too?

Schwartz couldn't speak English after all.

This could be simple. It doesn't have to be conspiratorial.

The "translator" could easily have been a friend or acquaintance of Schwartz who accompanied him when he gave his account. A fellow traveler who had been in country longer and spoke English. There was a constant stream of immigation to the East End at this time. Chaim Bermant wrote a wonderful book about it titled Point of Arrival which I recommend. His primary focus was Jewish immigration, but he also looks at the Irish, Huguenots and Pakastani.

[Paddy Goose]

But then Schwartz comes forward to the police afterwards, and portrays a stereotypical and theatrical looking Jew, who can't speak English and needs an interpreter.

Schwartz then flips the story to say that he sees another man (BS man) and observes another man (pipeman) etc... at the scene.

...but all the while he is trying to get himself off the hook.
...

I mean, its random, but I find it's always worth a punt.

Actually this is thinking outside the box. Good on you.

So the bad guy here is Schwartz. Interesting. My take on the whole Schwartz thing is just because things don't "add up" doesn't signal a police conspiracy. That would be my main input.

Rookie, when I give you grief it's halfway in fun anyway. Me and Diddles.

You are doing a lot of searching and probing which is always a good thing.

Carry on.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I would hope that this isn’t how i would act Andrew but not everyone is the same.

I reckon you would, Michael. Just look at your avatar - Pipeman!

Actually, I doubt you would have ran off, and I doubt any man on the streets in that area at that time, alone, would have run off, having witnessed what must have been a fairly common occurrence. That leaves Abberline's second hypothesis - the man was pursuing Schwartz. So, what could Schwartz have done to 'deserve' being chased through the streets? He tells us he just observed the goings-on in the gateway. Oddly, the Star account refers to him as an intruder. I think there could be more to this than just Schwartz the unwanted observer.

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.

Remember that, according to the Star account, Schwartz walked down Berner St to see if his wife had moved house during his all day and half a night absence. If, as almost everyone believes, Pipeman was at the Nelson corner when spotted by Schwartz, had Pipeman walked from there to the gateway, Schwartz would be halfway along the next block by the time Pipeman turned around to walk back toward his initial location. By then, Schwartz would be knocking on the door.