Suspect Witnesses?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Here's a little curve ball...

Don't you think the story is curvy enough as it is?

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 following is a marginal note by someone from the Home Office, written in Swanson's October 19 dated report.

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.

[The Rookie Detective]

Does one of the other possibilities have anything to do with Woolf Wess?


A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the two latter running up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made about the difficulty there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be called from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally this fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.

Eerily similar to Schwartz being allegedly followed by Pipe man...

...but from a 3rd party observing Pipeman chasing Schwartz.

[seanr]

Does one of the other possibilities have anything to do with Woolf Wess?

Yes, the other two possibilities I had in mind as an alternative answer to the question 'who heard Schwartz story first - the Press or the Police?' is the members of the club or Schhwartz's employer heard it first before both Press and Police. Either the club or Schwartz's employer would have been able to provide an English speaker who could have interprepted on Schwartz's behalf.

A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the two latter running up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made about the difficulty there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be called from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally this fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.

That's interesting, the story of a man chased was talked about in the neighbourhood and they thought he was the murderer. So there was a rumour that might have led Schwartz to come forward, as he was thought to be the murderer.

'cannot remember the name' suggests he had once known the man's name. You'd think under the circumstances it'd have been possible to make enquiries as to who knew him and eventually find out the name.

[seanr]

Don't you think the story is curvy enough as it is?



The following is a marginal note by someone from the Home Office, written in Swanson's October 19 dated report.

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.

Either he has been found and named OR they have declined to name him in official documentation. It's a bit strange not to suspect him if you have no idea who he is.

You'd think they want to find him and rule him out of having a connection, over deciding not to suspect an unidentified man on a hunch.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Echo 1st Oct

A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

“In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- (so a member of the public [or more than one] saw Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky running for a Constable - the confusion would have been understandable as they were shouting “murder” at the time) being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, (as Edward Spooner returned with Diemschitz isn’t it likely that he was mentioned to Wess in a re-telling but he couldn’t recall the Spooner’s name because he wasn’t a club member) but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made [?] [?] [?] there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be [?] from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally [?] fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation”



The Star 1st Oct

“The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.”

So a witness, who obviously wasn’t Schwartz, was arrested. So this can only have been someone suspected of being either BS man or Pipeman.



The Star, Oct 2

“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.”

So although an element of doubt is introduced we don’t know what caused it but it seems certain that it was something that one or both of these arrested men said. What are the possibilities?

If one of the men arrested was suspected of being BS man might he have told them that this incident had occurred but earlier in the evening? - Might he have said “I was having a disagreement with Mary Smith…find her and she’ll tell you.” etc? - Might he have just provided an alibi (maybe ‘of sorts’)?

If one was suspected of being Pipeman - Might he also have suggested an earlier time? - Might he have been the source of the ‘it was just a domestic quarrel’ talk. - In an effort to show himself in a non-sinister light might he have denied following Schwartz? - Might the police have asked him about the ‘knife’ story but he denied it? Might he have denied hearing BS man shouting “Lipski” to Schwartz…claiming that he was talking to the woman that he was arguing with?


The most interesting part for me is this: “and a second on that furnished from another source,” surely this other source can only have been Pipeman?

[Paddy Goose]

And again, thinking outside the box is certainly encouraged and heartily applaused. But this thread has veered away from the original topic. Far away, actually, light years and eons of time and space away from the original topc. This thread has become a generic Schwartz, Pipeman, the man here, the man there, Wess, the club, etc. etc. of which there are alreaady literally dozens of threads about those things and hundreds IF NOT THOUSANDS of posts about those kind of things.

Llet's go back to opening thread POST #1

...
Here's a question for all of you wise and wonderful people...

Are there any individuals in the Ripper case, who didn't even exist?
Are there any individuals who the police invented...?
Could Schwartz have been completely fabricated by the police...?

Are there any individuals who the police invented? Was Schwartz completely fabricated by the police. This thread is about the police. It is not about so-and-so and who chased who down the street and which side of Berner Street is which, etc, to infinity and beyond.

Are you all now cognizant of that fact? This topic is about police malfeasance.

I cannot honestly say why the opening topic has been ignored. You tell me posters why you have seen fit to ignore the opening post and instead turn this into a generic discussion of the same old.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, the other two possibilities I had in mind as an alternative answer to the question 'who heard Schwartz story first - the Press or the Police?' is the members of the club or Schhwartz's employer heard it first before both Press and Police. Either the club or Schwartz's employer would have been able to provide an English speaker who could have interprepted on Schwartz's behalf.



That's interesting, the story of a man chased was talked about in the neighbourhood and they thought he was the murderer. So there was a rumour that might have led Schwartz to come forward, as he was thought to be the murderer.

'cannot remember the name' suggests he had once known the man's name. You'd think under the circumstances it'd have been possible to make enquiries as to who knew him and eventually find out the name.

Israel Schwartz, if anything in the Star report is correct, would have been known to the men of the IWEC. It was probably William Wess who went with Schwartz to the police station and translated for him. Schwartz and his identity were to be kept from the press, which is why he would have stated that he didn't remember the man's name. And which is why Schwartz's name didn't appear in the Star report - one of the few innovative ideas the police had (probably Anderson, in this case).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Paddy Goose]

So Tom, you seem to be saying that he was a real person. He was not invented by the police. That was the topic of this thread. The police making stuff up out of thin air. Us catching the police in a boldface lie. Us uncovering police malfeasance back in the day. The same thing people do nowadays 24/7 but now brought here to this site for jolly and because we can.

And it seems like you said that before, didn't you. Yes you did. Four pages ago. Again, thank you Tom.

[Tom_Wescott]

So Tom, you seem to be saying that he was a real person. He was not invented by the police. That was the topic of this thread. The police making stuff up out of thin air. Us catching the police in a boldface lie. Us uncovering police malfeasance back in the day. The same thing people do nowadays 24/7 but now brought here to this site for jolly and because we can.

And it seems like you said that before, didn't you. Yes you did. Four pages ago. Again, thank you Tom.

HI Paddy. I believe the police orchestrated the Star interview with Schwartz with the purposes of drawing out either Pipeman or BS Man. The Star editor got savvy to it rather quickly. The police purportedly did something similar with Sadler's wife in order to bolster their failing case against Sadler. But, of course, Schwartz was a real person.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[seanr]

Israel Schwartz, if anything in the Star report is correct, would have been known to the men of the IWEC. It was probably William Wess who went with Schwartz to the police station and translated for him.

Gosh. I wonder who else Schwartz would have known.

I wonder who his employer was. I've seen a claim that Schwartz worked for Joseph Bessler's [sic] Pavilion Theatre on this old blog. https://thepublici.blogspot.com/2020...er-twenty.html

His name was Israel Schwartz. He was a recent immigrant, an Hungarian Jew, who spoke very little English. He worked in the Yiddish Theater at Joseph Besslers Pavilion Theatre on Commercial Road

That doesn't check out though because the Pavilion Theatre doesn't appear to have staged Yiddish productions until the 1890s and Joseph Kessler was to become actor/manager of the Pavilion Theatre in the twentieth century, was born in 1881. I should stop talking about theatres.

Schwartz and his identity were to be kept from the press, which is why he would have stated that he didn't remember the man's name.

It's the man who gave chase whose name cannot be recalled. If the chase was Pipeman and Schwartz, it's seemingly Pipeman's name which has been forgotten. But Herlock Sholmes suggests it might have been Diemshitz and Edward Spooner, and in the confusion of the event, that's possible.

[Paddy Goose]

Sean, what is your opinion on the thread topic?..

From Post #1

Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
...
Here's a question for all of you wise and wonderful people...

Are there any individuals in the Ripper case, who didn't even exist?
Are there any individuals who the police invented...?
Could Schwartz have been completely fabricated by the police...?

What do you think Sean, was Schwartz a real person, or was he "completely fabricated by the police?"

[seanr]

Sean, what is your opinion on the thread topic?..

Addressing the questions one at a time.

Are there any individuals in the Ripper case, who didn't even exist?

Named individuals? - I don't think so.
Various characters in witness reports or rumours reported in the press, maybe were apocryphal and didn't exist. I have my doubts about the accuracy of Bethnell Green Botherer, if 'Leather Apron' was a name used for one person in particular or if several persons who wore such an apron might have been nicknamed as such.

Are there any individuals who the police invented...?

I don't think so. If one were to say the police invented someone than there should be evidence cited to support that.

Could Schwartz have been completely fabricated by the police...?

I've already said in post #33, that I'm confident that Schwartz was a real person. If we can establish that he had connections to the IWEC members or a local employer, that would tend bolster the credibility of his existence.

Is it even a fair question to ask in the first place? - Well, The Star on October 2nd cited above stated The Star, Oct 2 “the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story". Note they don't doubt the accuracy of the story, nor is the claim they found the people involved and cleared it up or some other circumstance that leads to doubting the usefulness of the story.

No, it was reported there were doubts about the truth of the story. Implying suspicions that Schwartz had misled the police. So questions as to whether there was something 'fishy' about Schwartz seem reasonable to ask.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Eerily similar to Schwartz being allegedly followed by Pipe man...

...but from a 3rd party observing Pipeman chasing Schwartz.

Worth noting that as this pursuit is implied to have proceeded East along Fairclough St at ~12:45, our man Edward Spooner would have been in a position to witness it. Of course, he did see men running along that street, but that was men from the club looking for a policeman.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes, the other two possibilities I had in mind as an alternative answer to the question 'who heard Schwartz story first - the Press or the Police?' is the members of the club or Schhwartz's employer heard it first before both Press and Police. Either the club or Schwartz's employer would have been able to provide an English speaker who could have interprepted on Schwartz's behalf.

I wonder how the club could have heard about it, assuming they did. The club wasn't easy to get into the day of the murder; in fact, it was paywalled. Perhaps Schwartz knew someone from club. Had there been another observer of the street, Stride should have been seen standing in the gateway. Neither Lave nor Eagle claimed to see her alive.

That's interesting, the story of a man chased was talked about in the neighbourhood and they thought he was the murderer. So there was a rumour that might have led Schwartz to come forward, as he was thought to be the murderer.

As noted, Ed Spooner seems not to have seen this chase. Also, there is no mention from the police of other witnesses.

'cannot remember the name' suggests he had once known the man's name. You'd think under the circumstances it'd have been possible to make enquiries as to who knew him and eventually find out the name.

Agreed.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Either he has been found and named OR they have declined to name him in official documentation. It's a bit strange not to suspect him if you have no idea who he is.

You'd think they want to find him and rule him out of having a connection, over deciding not to suspect an unidentified man on a hunch.

I find it hard to believe that Swanson would refer to an anonymous "second man" in his report, without mentioning that he had been identified. Also, why would Abberline be speculating weeks after interviewing Schwartz, about this man's motive for running (see #18), if they could just ask the bloke?

The HO comment about the 2nd man was probably due to off-the-record conversations with the police, who were just going on what they had, and that may have included what they got from the one or both of the arrests noted by the Star. Having said all that, I agree that it would be odd to be ruling out an unidentified suspect, even more so when considering Anderson's "supposed accomplice" remark.