Suspect Witnesses?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Yes.

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?

Before considering that, we need to go back a step to see what the initial police reaction was to one of the arrested men. Star, Oct 1:

[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?

As seanr pointed out in #57, the issue with Schwartz's statement (when reading the Star, Oct 2 report) seems to concern its truthfulness, not its accuracy. Perhaps Pipeman did deny following Schwartz. That would make it difficult to tell if he had any relationship with BS. The question is then, why was he released the next day, if it's one man's word against another?

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?

I wouldn't say only. There could have been another man on the street at around that time who gave a seemingly important description to the police. That is less hypothetical than it might sound. Note what the Star says about people volunteering information to the police:

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Was Schwartz completely fabricated by the police.

No, but maybe he was Goldstein plus theatrics.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...artz-goldstein

[seanr]

No, but maybe he was Goldstein plus theatrics.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...artz-goldstein

I'm certain that it is possible to find a simpler explanation than this.

[Sunny Delight]

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.

'INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT
was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane. The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police.'

How did the Press know he was well dressed and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. How did they know he was accompanied by a friend who acted as interpreter. How then did the Pressman find out his address?

Because someone at the Station told him, probably for a few quid on the side.

[The Rookie Detective]

'INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT
was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane. The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police.'

How did the Press know he was well dressed and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. How did they know he was accompanied by a friend who acted as interpreter. How then did the Pressman find out his address?

Because someone at the Station told him, probably for a few quid on the side.

This is a brilliant post!

It highlights the point that because Schwartz's account appears in the press on the day after the murder in the Star (almost certainly the story written in the Star, about the person who thought they'd witnessed a domestic argument, and had chosen to give the couple arguing a wide berth) and that Schwartz had gone to the Leman Street police station to give his statement BEFORE the Star reporter tracked him down in Backchurch Lane, and the story RETOLD to the reporter, goes some way in confirming that Schwartz must have made his statement to the police very soon after the murder had occurred, and furthermore, that someone at the police station almost certainly had leaked his address to the reporter for the Star, and various other details that were specific to Schwartz's appearance and the fact he couldn't speak English and needed a translator.

The timing for all the above is relatively quick, especially when we compare it to someone like Hutchinson, who came forward to the police AFTER Kelly's inquest had already closed.


What I do find a little odd though, is that if Schwartz believed he had witnessed a domestic assault and presumebly nothing too serious from his point of view; then what made him go to the police so quickly (with a translator) after the murder to report what he had seen?

Had Schwartz in fact believed he had seen the murder, and so went to the police as soon as he could, but then the story in the press about the "domestic" assault was then printed, but deliberately downplayed (by request of the police) in a bid to try and oust the killer into believing that Schwartz hadn't seen the murder, but rather, just an assault?

In other words, was the initial report printed in the Star regarding a witness who had witnessed a domestic assault (Schwartz) deliberately played down as a means to protect their key witness to the murder?

This would be on the premise that the killer would no doubt be reading the press reports to see what the police knew etc...


Did the Star print an ambiguous report, so that the killer would think nobody had seen him kill Stride; when in reality, Schwartz had witnessed the murder outright?


There was at least some evidence of collusion between the police and the press on the Schwartz story.

It may also explain why there's a reference made to Schwartz's evidence being heard at the inquest, despite him not ever appearing there.

Were the police protecting their key witness by trying to downplay what he had actually seen?

And was it then the Star who chose to blow up the story and run with it; the police losing leverage over the entire Schwartz debacle.

Lots to ponder.

[Tom_Wescott]

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



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.



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.

It's a case of primary versus secondary sourcing. Swanson's notes and Abberline's comments can be counted as primary sourcing because Abberline derived his information directly from Schwartz. The pressman writing this report did not, and it's reasonable to conclude that he (or his source) confused the roles of the men. There is no indication that Diemshitz and Spooner were seen running away from Dutfield's Yard and along Fairclough Street, nor any indication that they were viewed suspiciously by anyone. It is certainly possible that BS Man, upon seeing Pipeman and sensing danger, blamed Schwartz for the woman on the ground, causing Pipeman to give chase. But that's only one of the possibilities. And there's nothing to indicate Pipeman came forth and gave a statement. In fact, the report written by Swanson almost three weeks after the murder, which was commented upon by Abberline (who would have personally interrogated Pipeman), and in which Pipeman is referred to as the 'supposed accomplice' of BS Man, argues strongly against such a conclusion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

. . . But Herlock Sholmes suggests it might have been Diemshitz and Edward Spooner, and in the confusion of the event, that's possible.

Thats right, this was gone over in detail a few years back.
I think it was James Brown who said he heard shouts of 'police', 'murder' coming from persons moving towards Grove St.
That was Diemschutz & Kozebrodski, but it was Spooner who returned with Diemschutz, and he was not a member of the club, as Wess related.

If Wess had been Schwartz's interpreter, he would have known Schwartz's story, so he would have known the "man being chased" was not the murderer - it was Schwartz (in that story).
As it happens, that 'chase' was not Schwartz & Pipeman, but Diemschutz with Kozebrodski.