Suspect Witnesses?

[Paddy Goose]

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

Nope, none of the this even remotely suggest Schwartz was not a real person, a human being in flesh and blood, but instead the POLICE invented him out of thin air.

ONWARD

[Paddy Goose]

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

Not here

Worth noting that as this pursuit is implied to have proceeded East along Fairclough St at....

Not here, that's two more posts you didn't suggest Schwartz was not a real person, a human being in flesh and blook, but instead a POLICE invention.

[Paddy Goose]

I wonder how the club could have heard about it,
Agreed.

I find it hard to believe that Swanson would refer to an anonymous "second man" in his report, ...

Two more of your posts that do not suggest Schwartz was not a real person, a human being in flesh and blood, instead the POLICE invented him.

[Paddy Goose]

Before considering that, we need to go back a step t[/I]

No, but maybe he was Goldstein plus theatrics.

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

Two more of your posts where you didnt' suggest Schwartz was not a real person, a human being in flesh and blood, but instead the POLICE invented him.

[Paddy Goose]

Whatever the circumstances by which the Star obtained this information,.

[
What do you mean by "it's reasonable to conclude that he (or his source) confused the roles of the men"? Y

Clearly, the suggestion that Schwartz may not have been real has been extremely upsetting for you.

THIS IS THE ONE YOU SAY I AM EXTREMELY UPSET. PERISH THE THOUGHT.

Vice versa?

Nope, none of your posts on this thread suggested Schwartz was not a real person, a human being in flesh and blood, and instead the POLICE invented him and his whole story.


That's it! NONE of your posts suggest Schwartz suggest Schwartz was not a real person, a human being in flesh and blood, but instead a made up concoction by the police. No, your posts are simply more of the same old thing. Generic discussions like all the other generic Stride threads we've always had here since we actually were The Planet of the APES.



Schwartz on the left, Flower Lady in the Middle, and Lewis Dimestore on the Right. His cart had a flat tire. I betcha' didn't know that.

[Abby Normal]

I would suggest Scwartz's story is corroborated...in that all the witnesses describe a suspect wearing a peaked cap.

[Wickerman]

No, not in a Police station. Away from prying eyes would mean certainly not in a Police station. However if you seriously think Journalists didn't have their 'sources' formal or informal within a Police station, just as they do nowadays, well I am afraid you lack imagination.

And where you are lacking imagination yourself is to consider the temptation for any beat constable, in some dark alleyway, to concoct any untruths, or half truths, for the sake of 2d slipped into the hand.
Even in the 19th century stories had to be verified before going to press, but the Star was one of the first to bypass that journalistic caution, which then caused others to follow suit.

Did you read the press account of an assault in Cambridge Heath Road, close to the Foresters Music Hall, sometime in Sept. 1888?
This was the one story that was entirely invented by the press, the journalist did finally admit to this.
Couple that with the exaggerations and outright lies published by the Star against Pizer, and we have brief examples of misinformation that reached publication during the murders. Where and how these stories originated is anyone's guess.

Reliable leads would be sought from Scotland Yard, directly, which is why Warren issued his directive. Not from beat constables who are not privy to the details of murder investigations.

[Sunny Delight]

And where you are lacking imagination yourself is to consider the temptation for any beat constable, in some dark alleyway, to concoct any untruths, or half truths, for the sake of 2d slipped into the hand.
Even in the 19th century stories had to be verified before going to press, but the Star was one of the first to bypass that journalistic caution, which then caused others to follow suit.

Did you read the press account of an assault in Cambridge Heath Road, close to the Foresters Music Hall, sometime in Sept. 1888?
This was the one story that was entirely invented by the press, the journalist did finally admit to this.
Couple that with the exaggerations and outright lies published by the Star against Pizer, and we have brief examples of misinformation that reached publication during the murders. Where and how these stories originated is anyone's guess.

Reliable leads would be sought from Scotland Yard, directly, which is why Warren issued his directive. Not from beat constables who are not privy to the details of murder investigations.

I am not talking about beat constables. I thought that was clear. If you do not believe the press had formal or informal sources, just as they do now, within a Police station then you are deluded. What the Press often complained about was the official line they got when they formally approached the Police for comment. They were fed the official line. But I would imagine there were plenty in CID not particularly enamoured to Warren's directive and who sought to either pass on information for a few quid, because they felt it might help the investigation or perhaps they just felt like giving 2 fingers to the bosses. Maybe even a combination of all three. How else was Schwartz found out about?

[Wickerman]

Nothing that James Brown claims to have seen can be corroborated by any other witness or persons physically in Berner Street at the time.

Brown heard the shouts of "police" from someone running away towards Grove St.
Diemschutz said he ran shouting for police "as loud as he could".
Kozebrodski ran in the same direction, so there were two men running towards Grove St.

Brown passed a couple standing on the corner of Berner & Fairclough, right where Mortimer said the 'sweetheart' couple had been standing just before the murder.

That is corroboration.

Nothing that Matthew Packer claims to have seen can be corroborated by any other witness or persons physically in Berner Street at the time.

Packer did see Stride with a man, who bought a package of grapes (just before he shut up shop around 12:30).

PC Smith saw Stride with a man around 12:30am, the man was carrying a parcel/package of wrapped up newspaper.

That is also corroboration.

Which does show that Brown, Mortimer, Packer & Smith were telling the truth on those particular points, however little that helps.

[Wickerman]

. . . The police were keeping him under lockdown. There's no way he gave the Star interview without their permission. . .

I fail to see how we can claim that without some indication Schwartz might have been sequestered, like Lawende.
Without that, they have no way to keep the press from Schwartz, plus the fact the Star account is a lengthy piece, you seem to be suggesting the whole story is a fabrication.
Such a claim should require some kind of corroboration.

[Wickerman]

. . . But I would imagine there were plenty in CID not particularly enamoured to Warren's directive and who sought to either pass on information for a few quid, because they felt it might help the investigation or perhaps they just felt like giving 2 fingers to the bosses. Maybe even a combination of all three. How else was Schwartz found out about?

Exactly, you choose to imagine it, not that you have any reason or indication detectives were unofficially speaking to the press.
It's your preference to think so, nothing more.
In spite of the fact various press media complained the Met. Police will tell them nothing.
Which only serves to demonstrate how you prefer to ignore evidence, and replace it with speculation.

[The Rookie Detective]

Is it agreed that the article that appeared in the newspaper a day after the murder, which referenced a witness who claimed to have observed a domestic assault having taken place, but that they chose to give it a wide berth, is indeed the SAME as that supplied to the Police (and the Star) by Schwartz?

If not, then we have another unidentified witness.

If so, then why did the Schwartz story evolve into the huge dramatic event that wasn't implied in the initial press report?

[Paddy Goose]

No one is discussing the thread topic:

Could Schwartz have been completely fabricated by the police, in a bid to lure the killer to make a mistake?

I now know with certainty the thread topic is not going to be mentioned again on this thread. Not even by you, Rookie. I'd be willing to lay money on it. Cash money.

[The Rookie Detective]

No one is discussing the thread topic:



I now know with certainty the thread topic is not going to be mentioned again on this thread. Not even by you, Rookie. I'd be willing to lay money on it. Cash money.

The thread is entitled "Suspect Witnesses?"

Ergo, dodgy Witnesses.

(It's a play in words)

Discussion on Schwartz is fair game, as is the likes of Hutchinson, Maxwell, Lewis, Mccarthy, Harvey etc...etc...

Schwartz was mentioned initially to kick things off.

Schwartz and Hutchinson remain the most enigmatic "witnesses"...yet it's odd that only Hutchinson is also considered a potential suspect, while Schwartz isn't.

Why is that?

For all we know, Schwartz cut Stride's throat.

Nobody saw or heard anything he did anyway, so it's a viable possibility.

[Lewis C]

Schwartz and Hutchinson remain the most enigmatic "witnesses"...yet it's odd that only Hutchinson is also considered a potential suspect, while Schwartz isn't.

Why is that?

They might have that in common, but they differ from each other in other ways, and the ways that they differ are why they're viewed differently. One difference is that Hutch gave an unbelievably detailed description of the man he saw, but Schwartz didn't. Another difference is that what Schwartz said he did sounds like normal behavior, if not very courageous, while Schwartz following the couple and lingering outside Kelly's apartment sounds like odd behavior.