Originally posted by Losmandris
View Post
For everyone else, if Pipeman had possibly chased Schwartz away (as per the title of this thread), he could have been an accomplice of the murderer, and so the police must have wanted to talk to him. Yet he is not on that list. Why not? Well if he was found and cleared, we are left to wonder why there is no record of this, from any source. We would also wonder why he fled the scene, as Schwartz himself claimed to, when this snippet from the Star suggests otherwise:
The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.
If Pipeman claimed to have neither fled nor chased away another man, then Schwartz's story would seem to be false. Obviously, Pipeman must have been identified and questioned for him to have denied running from the scene. Yet if that was what had occurred, how could the police have known which of the two men (Pipeman, Schwartz) was telling the truth? A clue may be contained in the Star quote (above). How did the person whose statement was the basis for the report, know that the woman thrown to the ground was also the woman murdered?
Leave a comment: