Tweet
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes
View Post
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?
“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?
[Schwartz] described the man with the woman as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society. 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.
What does or might "The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted" suggest, other than he was neither fully believed or disbelieved? As the first man was described in more detail, according to the Star report, could it be that the man being held for inquiries is potentially the broad-shouldered man? If yes, then what part of his statement is not accepted? The bit about not killing the woman?
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?
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?
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. If every man should be arrested who was known to have been seen in company with an abandoned woman in that locality on last Saturday night, the police-stations would not hold them. There are many people in that district who volunteer information to the police on the principle of securing lenient treatment for their own offences, and there are others who turn in descriptions on the chance of coming near enough the mark to claim a portion of the reward if the man should be caught, just as one buys a ticket in a lottery. Even where such information is given in good faith, it can rarely be looked upon in the light of a clue.
Comment