Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[harry]

It is argued that the police would have checked Hutchinson's story.That the journey to Romford,a significant part of that story,would have been followed up and checked as to it's veracity.Surely if that part was found to be true,it would strongly indicate Hutchinson told the truth.However it has been shown that Hutchinson soon came to be discredited.Is that because the story couldn't be verified, that the police didn't investigate,or they did and found it to be untrue?As to Walter Dew,he didn't substantiate anything.What he said was IF it had been a different day.Then it would have altered matters.No one can argue against that,but untill the IF can can be proved to be affirmative,Dew's words mean nothing.

[Ben]

“My stance is that the delay MAY not have been involved in the discrediting at all, not that it can not have been so.”

Well with respect, Fisherman, I don’t think there’s any disputing that it played some part. We’re just uncertain as to how significant a part this was, and Garry’s suggestion – with which I agree entirely – is that its role may have been minimal in spite of the Echo’s claim that it was THE reason for Hutchinson’s “very reduced importance”.

I’m sorry, incidentally, if you feel you’ve been misrepresented, but I’m not sure what else I’m supposed to conclude when you respond with “Absolutely!” to a question I posed that started: “Are you seriously suggesting that..”

“I am talking about the obvious reality that what got Hutchinson´s story dropped was there in the full already when the first Echo article from the 13:th was written.”

I would argue that the discrediting was more of a gradual process, with the “very reduced importance” reported on the 13th downgrading further to “now discredited” by the 15th, presumably in response to Hutchinson’s press accounts which further undermined his already very tenuous credibility in the minds of the police. Had the police suspected date-confusion on Hutchinson's part, there was absolutely nothing to prevent from divulging as much to the Echo, since it wasn’t anywhere near as embarrassing as the realisation that Abberline had initially swallowed a fabricated tale.

“It simply speaks of the exact same phenomenon that the Echo writes about - that it had been found out that Hutch was out on the dates.”

What? No, it doesn’t “speak” of anything of the sort. Neither the Echo nor the Star “speak” of Hutchinson being “out on the dates”, nor do they so much as hint that this was the case. If the truth entailed so innocent and non-embarrassing an explanation, there was no reason for them not to provide it. The Star was not any less “respectful” towards Hutchinson. They simply reported the truth of the matter, which was that Hutchinson had been discredited. The fact that they were bolder in their terminology than the Echo had been two days earlier is only evidence that the police were more certain of their convictions by that stage. The fact the Star also specified that the story was “worthless” and had led the police on a “false scent”, and was lumped together with Matthew Packer, tells its own very clear tale as to what the police thought of Hutchinson at the time, and it certainly wasn’t “honest date-confuser”.

They were clearly informed, along with the Echo, both that Hutchinson had been discredited and WHY.

“Why should your claim that this has all been rejected for decades and that nobody likes me in any way refrain me from "patting myself on the back" WHEN IT IS COMPLETELY TRUE THAT ALL THE BITS FIT?”

But it’s only a significant minority of people who agree that “all the bits fit”. Do you mean “fit” as in permitted by the evidence or actually probable? If the latter, then I’m frankly rather appalled. “It’s completely true that my theory is the most probable explanation!” is not a mantra that many would find palatable, especially when most people believe it to be wrong, as in your case. You just have to accept that your conclusions are for others to judge, and that you should expect a mixed reaction when you detail those conclusions in article-form, rather than compliance to your demand that others agree with your views and acknowledge how clever you’ve been. If you “know” you’re correct, you’re wasting your own time arguing with other people about it.

“Why would I accept that Hutch stood outside Crossinghams when he says that he went to the court?”

Because Hutchinson was obviously the man seen by Lewis, who was described as standing against the lodging house, which is mere feet away (the length of a Vauxhall Astra) from the entrance to Miller’s Court.

“Why would I accept that he lied and Lewis told the truth”

Because he waited three days in coming forward. Lewis didn’t.

Because he avoided the inquest. Lewis didn’t.

Because his evidence was discredited. Lewis’ wasn’t.

To acknowledge all this and still insist that Hutchinson is the more credible witness is still en avskyvärda fräckheten att rationellt tänkande, I’m afraid. It’s also patience-testing in the extreme when you describe Lewis’ testimony as having changed “totally and utterly” (which is a provably false assertion), when we know for a fact that Hutchinson’s evidence “changed” to a considerably greater extent, and incorporated many more “new details” on its second appearance than Lewis’ did.

“Why would I accept that Hutch forgot about the weather when he - according to you - concocted his story?”

Because that’s how lies are exposed as such – because they fail to incorporate certain practical elements that are in place at the time and location of the alleged sighting.

“Why would I accept that he spoke of the two people mentioned in the news articles, but forgot - or left out – Lewis”

To avoid making it obvious that he only came forward after discovering that Lewis had seen him loitering near the crime scene.

“Why would I give a rat´s behind about ramblings like these”

I don’t know, but you seem to spend an awful lot of time (and posts) on that which you profess not to give a “rat’s behind” about! Me, I tend to ignore that which doesn’t bother me. I don’t believe I ever sought to “disprove” your wrong-day theory (which appears, once again, to have invaded this thread unprompted), but I do consider it very improbable.

“the fact that it is only said that Hutch´s STORY was discredited, Dew´s assertion, the apparently good weather in Dorset Street, the walk on the streets "all night", the failure to spot Lewis, the failure to spot her couple, the fact that Hutch said "I went to the court" - why ALL of these things tally perfectly with a lost day scenario!”

But all you’re doing here is putting your own personal spin on the “things” in question and claiming they support your conclusion, which anyone can do. It would be akin to me saying that Hutchinson’s "deeply suspicious, lying behaviour “tallies perfectly” with the Hutchinson-as-murderer scenario", but discerning readers will rightly see through that unsuccessful debating strategy. “Failure to spot Lewis” is not a proven event, but rather your own personal view. I think it’s considerably more likely that he spotted her and avoided mentioning her. To say that your particular take on the non-reference to Lewis tallies with your date-confusion theory means literally that your opinion tallies with…your opinion.

Which doesn’t really achieve much, does it?

“The fact is, Ben, if anybody should be patting himself on the back here, that that´s me, not you.”

That’s an incredibly egocentric thing to say, but you go ahead and “pat yourself on the back" if you want. Unfortunately, your own opinion of your own...well...opinion isn’t really what you should concern yourself with. As for the “theory that I endorse”, I don’t feel like I’ve been through a minefield, since it tends to be the same small group of naysayers creating a minor nuisance.

“Police spokesman: "We´re afraid that mr Hutchinson´s story cannot be afforded the importance we originally believed, not by a long way. Investigations into the matter has shown this."

Echo journalist: "Aha. was it his late arrival that put you on the trail?"

Police spokesman: "A late arrival is of course never a good thing in errands like this, admittedly."

Echo journalist: "Okay, then. Thanks!"

Just how mumbo-jumbo and "cryptical" do you think this is, Ben?”

Not mumbo-jumbo at all, Fisherman.

Makes sense to me.

Providing of course that we accept that secretly squirreled-away evidence of “date confusion” had absolutely nothing to do with this exchange, and that the “late arrival” was certainly a factor in Hutchinson’s ultimate discrediting.

Finally, I don’t know what you’re complaining about. I haven’t insulted you at all. Sometimes my responses are pointed and intemperate, and you must fully expect this when you insist that “IT ALL TALLIES PERFECTLY!!” when you’ve already been challenged politely on that point. If you want to do away once and for all with frosty exchanges, then simply avoid statements like:

“All in all, the case I argue IS a very good one”

We, the intended audience for your “case”, will be the judges of that, thank you very much.

Why can’t you understand that?

I never called “wrong dates” a dim-witted idea, just a very improbable one, and it hasn’t been “inexplicably overlooked”, but rather known about but rejected. That’s why Dew’s speculations have not been the subject of dissertations over the last few decades.

Incidentally, if you want to see an example of a rude response to a perfectly friendly and light-hearted post, read the top two posts on this page:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3835&page=39

Enjoy your holidays.

[Garry Wroe]

The argument of rejection is purely modern, there's no suggestion in the contemporary press.

Then I would encourage you to revisit the relevant Echo and Star pieces, Jon. You’ll find more than a ‘suggestion’ that Hutchinson’s story had been discredited. Even Fisherman, who believes Hutchinson to have been Toppy and thoroughly truthful, readily admits that Hutchinson’s account was not accepted by senior investigators.

Let’s put it another way. Had Hutchinson’s alleged encounter with Kelly and Astrakhan been a true and accurate depiction of events, there would be little doubt but that Astrakhan was Jack the Ripper. Given that Hutchinson got a clear, close-up and extended sighting of this man, he would have assumed the status of a stellar witness as far as investigators were concerned. And yet Anderson’s witness (the only man who ever got a clear view of the killer) was beyond any shadow of doubt someone other than Hutchinson. Upon Sadler’s arrest, it was Lawende who was called in to look him over. Likewise with the case of Grainger.

The question, therefore, is eminently simple. Why, when Hutchinson got a clear and unrestricted view of the likely killer, would police have relied upon lesser witnesses for identificational purposes?

The answer, Jon, is also eminently simple. The evidence of the ‘lesser’ witness or witnesses was trusted. Hutchinson’s was not.

It really is that straightforward.

[Garry Wroe]

As to Walter Dew,he didn't substantiate anything.What he said was IF it had been a different day.Then it would have altered matters.No one can argue against that,but untill the IF can can be proved to be affirmative,Dew's words mean nothing.

As I've stated repeatedly, Harry, Dew was a lowly detective constable at the time of the murders and therefore not privy to the kind of sensitive case-related information restricted to the senior level of the command chain. He also revealed that his book was written purely from memories of fifty years earlier, from which it may be deduced that he neglected to refer to the case papers as he rose up through the ranks and thus remained ignorant of the thinking at senior level whilst the manhunt was in progress.

So whilst Dew's book is undoubtedly entertaining, it does not carry the authority that some would have us believe.

[Wickerman]

Hello Garry.

Then I would encourage you to revisit the relevant Echo and Star pieces, Jon. You’ll find more than a ‘suggestion’ that Hutchinson’s story had been discredited.

What I find to some degree rather astonishing is the reliance people put on one of the most unreliable sources – the Star. It is well recognised that the Star will inflate an initial story to such a degree as to put the police on the spot, only to turn 180 degree in the opposite direction to make the police look foolish.

When we think about the most volatile debates on Casebook or JTR Forums, be it Schwartz or Hutchinson it is in both cases due to members putting reliance on a quote from the Star which is the cause of such vociferous debates.
Why do you think that is?

If you truly think it is necessary to regurgitate these published opinions then take a look at the situation on the 13th.
The Star appears to attach no small importance to the description given by Cox, but then offer the subsequent scenario from the perspective of the police:

“The first care of the police on receiving this statement on Friday was to compare it with the descriptions given by various people and at various times of men supposed to have been seen in company of the murderer's previous victims. Unfortunately the accounts do not harmonise.”

The Star then readily admits the one given by Hutchinson is deemed important by the police.

“Strangely enough, since it DIFFERS SO COMPLETELY from the description given by Cox, the police are said to attach a good deal of importance to the man's statement.”

Then finally they admit:....”As far as inquiries have gone, no man answering the description given by Cox entered any tavern in the immediate neighborhood and took away beer.”

The press release from the Star on the 14 welcomed the revised description by Hutchinson with open arms, and no comment as to its veracity one way or the other.
Then we come to the predictable 'about-face' on the 15th, where the Star now offers Hutchinson's 'revised' description (which they had published the previous day) as 'discredited' though not suggesting this is the opinion of the police.

The Star have no trouble emphasizing police opinion when they have it, so if the police had issued an opinion towards discrediting anything we can be sure the Star would have given this equal space in their paper.
No such suggestion is made, which in itself speaks volumes to those who take care to read between the lines.

What you have Garry is another example of the Star fabricating a scenario, so much so that no other publication cared to repeat such an outlandish allegation, simply, because it was not true!


Now, what do the Echo have to say?
Well, I already explained what was meant by “diminution” in the context it was used. What you may not have noticed thought is that the Echo actually threw their support behind Hutchinson's description, on the basis that according to the police the description given by Cox bore no resemblance to any suspect in the vicinity of the previous murders.

The line to which you refer from the Echo on the 13th being:

“The importance which they then attached to it has since suffered diminution. That will be seen by the result of more recent inquiries.”

This once again is the opinion of the Echo, not of the police. And, the “recent inquiries” to which they refer are their own inquiries, not police inquiries, as the subsequent paragraphs make clear.

If you care to read the Echo 13th Nov. you will see that as is reported in the Star the police attempted to use Cox's description to draw a parallel with suspects in the other murders.
The City police saw no resemblance to Cox's man, yet the Echo take quite the opposite stance, they end the paragraph by saying:

“The descriptions of the dark foreign-looking man mentioned in connection with the previous crimes are, however, as we say, in the description of the man seen with the victim on the morning of the 9th.”

It is very apparent who the Echo is referring to as their own coverage of the description given by Hutchinson begins two paragraphs earlier with the line:
“This man states that on the morning of the 9th instant he saw the deceased woman, Mary Janet Kelly, in Commercial-street, etc.”

The Echo is giving their opinion that, against the suggested “diminution” argument, Hutchinson's description takes precidence over Cox's for practical reasons.

The Echo of 14th suggested that Hutchinson's description does not carry the weight it would have had it been offered at the inquest, this is what 'discounted' means, not that it has no value at all.
Any policeman will explain that one to you. It is not a strike against Hutchinson it is simply a statement of fact.

Indeed, if Hutchinson's veracity is without question, as the Echo among others affirm, then clearly Hutchinson can be relied upon as a witness.
And, there is nothing written to the contrary, especially nothing emanating from an official source like the police themselves.

All these quotes taken out of context from inflamatory sources (Star) and opinions given by the press with no official references (police) are all there is to use against Hutchinson.
When anyone tries to pass off press opinion as if it is police opinion it is called 'manipulating the source', and such arguments must be treated with absolute reservation they deserve.

That said, we know the police all the while carried on arresting 'respectable-dressed' suspects along with suspicious men and those with supposed medical training, and of course the occasional accused lunatic.

As Abberline admitted, the police really had no clue, all options were wide open to the very end.

All the best, Jon S.

[Garry Wroe]

What I find to some degree rather astonishing is the reliance people put on one of the most unreliable sources – the Star.

And what I find astonishing, Jon, is that you should first state …

The argument of rejection is purely modern, there's no suggestion in the contemporary press.

… only to launch into a denunciation of The Star when I cited it as one of the two newspapers that did reject Hutchinson’s Kelly-related account.

I also note that I’m the second poster who doesn’t much care for the condescending tone you have adopted of late. A few weeks ago you were oblivious to the latest developments regarding Hutchinson and his investigative fall from grace. Now, all of a sudden, you appear to regard yourself as quite the expert. For the record, Jon, I spent the better part of fifteen years trawling the municipal and national archives in search of Hutchinson- and other case-related information and am thus not the neophyte you appear to imagine. I suggest that you bear this in mind the next time you are tempted to give me a lesson in the finer points of historical research.

[Wickerman]

I also note that I’m the second poster who doesn’t much care for the condescending tone you have adopted of late. A few weeks ago you were oblivious to the latest developments regarding Hutchinson and his investigative fall from grace.

What I take issue with is the approach which is being promoted here that, "this issue has been decided".
Really, by whom?

By someone who believes in tabloid journalism practiced by a newspaper which can only offer an uncited source, and pass it off as the truth?
Of course I am talking about the Star, this is the same paper who after experiencing their own rejection by the police, stated:

"We have only probabilities to go upon, and we must piece these together as best we may."

They tell us right there, as the police refuse to talk to them they will resort to making it up as they go.


As far as the Echo goes, they do appear to provide a more balanced and believable report, in that some dept(?) "induced" the Met. to change their line of inquiry from the "well-dressed" gent to "Blotchy".
There is no mention there of Hutchinson, so no suggestion here of discredit yet this is precisely what the tabloid journalists at the Star would have us believe.
So the Echo are not claiming "discredit" for Hutchinson's story.


I was not talking about the Star's rejection of Hutchinson, I was talking about the Star implying that the police were their source that Hutchinson's story was rejected.
As the police were not communicating with the Star then the police could not have informed the Star of any hypothetical rejection.
This idea, as I said, is purely modern.

My comment regarding not being aware of any "fall from grace" by Hutchinson appears quite justified, in fact this is what this debate is intended to clarify.

So, who came up with this idea of a "fall from grace"? - because no such thing is suggested by the 'reliable' sources.

As any historian will tell you, if you cannot establish provenance, you have no argument, and the claims by the Star have no provenance.

The real story here should be to investigate just who could "induce" the Met. to change their line of inquiry (assuming this is true), and why?
The Home Office?

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Sorry for the late reply, but there are so many near-identical threads at the moment that some of them are difficult to keep track of.

“The Morning Advertiser reports on the first Police release”

No.

The paper had already reported on the “first police release” on 13th November. Their report on 14th November was in response to the account that Hutchinson himself had given to a reporter, presumably from the press association. Unfortunately, it appears that the Morning Advertiser were not nearly as well informed as their press contemporaries, most of whom knew full well that George Hutchinson was the source of the account, and that his name was not withheld.

It is completely wrong to state that the Echo published nothing of substance. Their information they provided came directly from police sources and stated that Hutchinson was “considerably discounted” over his three-day delay in presenting his evidence. Discounted meaning its veracity was doubted. The Echo reports are therefore to be trusted over any of the claims made in the Morning Advertiser or the Daily News. Moreover, the Echo did not distinguish between the police statement and the “second version”, contrary to your claim. They simply referred to the story in general. As early as 13th, the Echo were stating that a “very reduced importance” had been attached to Hutchinson’s account:

“Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?”

This was before the so-called “second version” even appeared with is red stone seals, American cloth and other goodies. It wasn’t the Echo’s “opinion” either. As you’ll see from the above quote, it was the “authorities” who inquired as to why he had not come forward before. The Echo were just the messengers in this regard and were not expressing any “opinions” of their own. Funnily enough, it was you who brought up the Echo articles that initiated the “Did Astrakhan Man exist” argument. It seems that because you’ve now picked up on its less than Hutch-friendly content, you’re no longer interested in “dwelling” on it.

There seems to be some confusion here regarding the Galloway sighting. Regardless of the date on which his account was published, the actual sighting was alleged to have occurred “in the early hours of Wednesday morning”, which was only a very short time after Hutchinson’s account had suffered a “very reduced importance”, as reported on Tuesday evening by the Echo. Since the first doubts surrounding Hutchinson’s credibility surfaced on the evening of the 13th, it is unsurprising that the policeman on beat were still searching for the Astrakhan man in the “early hours” of the 14th. This was all to change very quickly, of course. If nothing else, it demonstrates the extent to which Hutchinson’s short stay in the limelight derailed the investigation, with Cox’s potentially crucial evidence being temporarily cast aside in favour of a futile Astrak-hunt.

The bottom line here, however, is that the Star’s reporting did not “lack consistency” at all. They just conveyed an initial enthusiasm for Hutchinson’s account that had clearly evaporated by the 15th when the account was discredited by the police. They mentioned Packer in the same article, and the source for this "discrediting" was obviously the police. They also provided an account from a member of the public which demonstrated that the Astrakhan man was prioritized over Cox before this “discrediting” occurred. There is most assuredly no evidence that the Astrakhan description influenced the direction of the investigation thereafter, and no suspects arrested on the basis of perceived similarity with this description either.

The criticisms of the Star here appear highly irrational. They wholly support the earlier observations made in the Echo that came directly from the police, and both are supported by the conspicuous absence of Hutchinson from any police memoir or interview that discusses the eyewitness evidence. Garry has already touched upon the police preference for a Jewish witness over Hutchinson in attempts to pick out suspects. Press "opinion" has nothing to do with it,

Hutchinson was most assuredly discredited.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Sorry for the late reply, but there are so many near-identical threads at the moment that some of them are difficult to keep track of.

Say it isn't so Ben!
I agree, same problem, too many to keep track of.

No.

The paper had already reported on the “first police release” on 13th November. Their report on 14th November was in response to the account that Hutchinson himself had given to a reporter,

I don't think so Ben, just compare the details, eg; Pale Complexion, Light Waistcoat, and the similar wording of - trimmed on collar and cuffs with astrachan,, those details were not on the press release but only show up on the initial interview given by Hutch at the Station.

This appears to suggest the Morning Advertiser gained access directly from a police official - these differences do not appear in any other newspaper that I can see.

It is completely wrong to state that the Echo published nothing of substance. Their information they provided came directly from police sources and stated that Hutchinson was “considerably discounted” over his three-day delay in presenting his evidence. Discounted meaning its veracity was doubted.

Ben, Hutchinson's veracity was not questioned, even the Echo admitted (or repeated) this detail.
That being the case, that the veracity of the source runs counter to your claim of "discredit", therefore in this context "discounted" means as I already explained, "of lesser importance than if it had been sworn to", thats all.

I can't make it any clearer Ben, if you see a murder suspect on the street and report it to the police the value of your sighting would be, in 19th century Oxford English vocabulary "discounted" when compared to a "sworn" statement.

Hutchinson was most assuredly discredited.

I guess I should have asked but did I read somewhere that Hutchinson is your "murder suspect"? - if so that explains your obstinate refusal to accept him as a truthful witness, what was I saying about loosing objectivity?

The proof of the pudding, Ben.

All the best, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

The Morning Advertiser had already provided the description circulated by the police on 13th November, and it included the "dark complexion" version. This was the police endorsed release and it appeared in time for the morning papers, before the doubts about the account began to surface. By the same evening (13th), the account had already suffered a "very reduced importance". The Morning Advertiser named their source for their overly enthusiastic report of the 14th on Hutchinson, and it was not the police but the press association. It seems this particular newspaper made no connection, unlike the Echo, between the Astrakhan description reported on the 13th and the Astrakhan description reported on the 14th.

I also think the chances of a police official singling out a pub trade newspaper like the Morning Advertiser to share crucial information with are very slim indeed.

Ben, Hutchinson's veracity was not questioned, even the Echo admitted (or repeated) this detail.

Yes, it was.

The Echo did not admit any such thing.

They stated explicitly that Hutchinson's statement has been considerably discounted because of his failure to come forward earlier with his evidence. They made specific reference to his failure to appear at the inquest where he would have been quizzed "on oath". There was no logical reason to refer to this detail unless the "discounting" was connected to doubts surrounding his credibility.

I'm afraid "discount" means exactly as the dictionary described; to regard with doubt or disbelief, and not what you appear to want it to mean. I'm afraid I reject your assertion that the word had a completely different meaning in "19th century Oxford English vocabulary".

if so that explains your obstinate refusal to accept him as a truthful witness

If you think that the only people who don't accept Hutchinson as a "truthful witness" are those who also consider him to have been the murder, then you can't have been around here for as long as you've claimed.

All the best,
Ben

[Hunter]

I also think the chances of a police official singling out a pub trade newspaper like the Morning Advertiser to share crucial information with are very slim indeed.

And yet a tabloid such as the Star gets exclusive access to police information that is revealed in no other publication?

[Ben]

It wasn't "no other publication". The Echo received the same information. It seems that if any communication did take place between the Star and the police, the latter were less expansive on details than they had been previously with the Echo. I don't find it particularly surprising that the Star accessed certain details that their contemporaries missed. They were the ones who got the scoop on Israel Schwartz, after all.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Pale?

The Morning Advertiser - 13th November 1888

The man was about 5 feet 6 inches in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache, curled up at the ends. He was wearing a long dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, a white collar, with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshoe pin. He wore a pair of dark gaiters, with light buttons, over button-boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain

Hutchinson's statement to the police

34 or 35. height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surley looking dress long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin. Respectable appearance walked very sharp. Jewish appearance.

Spot the difference.

Hint: there is more than one..

[Hunter]

I don't find it particularly surprising that the Star accessed certain details that their contemporaries missed. They were the ones who got the scoop on Israel Schwartz, after all.

Yes, they did get the scoop on Schwartz, didn't they?

...And...well

No, this is too easy...

I'm going to let this one slide.

Yes, they did get the scoop on Schwartz.

[Ben]

Yes, they did get the scoop on Schwartz, didn't they?

Yes.

They were the only newspaper to track down and interview Schwartz.

The point being that we shouldn't be particularly surprised or suspicious whenever the Star provided information that didn't appear in other newspapers.