The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Another funny, but similar outdated term is ejaculated. As in to utter suddenly, as in surprise. So you could say that BS man ejaculated, and caused Schwartz to be incontinent!

[Joshua Rogan]

Fnar fnar!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haa...lmes-1.5231046

[JeffHamm]

There is always face value ready to be taken into account Sam, My interpretation is that he used the phrase based on its most obvious and primary definition. The act would be highly consistent with someone in sudden fear of their life, and not an uncommon occurrence either. People can be incontinent when laughing, scared, a myriad of causes actually.

You are applying today's use of the word to Victorian language, and that is a common mistake. In Victorian "speak", the obvious intention is that he fled with haste, not that he wet himself.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

I do realize that common speak in Victorian times is often quite different from todays vernacular Jeff. I also just realized that perhaps we've wet/dry trousers enough.

[drstrange169]

>> Secondary or tertiary results are by definition, not "the obvious".<<

They are only secondary or tertiary to those that did not know the meaning of the word as used in Victorian times, hence the obvious.

[Michael W Richards]

>> Secondary or tertiary results are by definition, not "the obvious".<<

They are only secondary or tertiary to those that did not know the meaning of the word as used in Victorian times, hence the obvious.

You presume that people always use the correct word, (common contemporary usage/vernacular), each time they speak, and that's incorrect for any historical period.

[c.d.]

You are applying today's use of the word to Victorian language, and that is a common mistake. In Victorian "speak", the obvious intention is that he fled with haste, not that he wet himself.

Maybe he wet himself as he fled. There you go. Kill two birds with one stone.

c.d.

[drstrange169]

Sam Flynn went market
Joshua Rogan stayed home
Jeff Hamm had roast beef
c.d. had none
And Micheal W Richards went wee, wee, wee all the way home!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't normally get involved in whether Schwartz was truthful, [but] there's something about his story that we are missing.
Swanson seems to have trusted him whereas the coroner didn't, or didn't think his story was of any value.

Hello Jon.

There is a massive clue in the Police Gazette, Oct 19.


APPREHENSIONS SOUGHT.

---

M U R D E R.

---

METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT.

The woodcut sketches, purporting to resemble the persons last seen with the murdered women, which have appeared in the "Daily Telegraph," were not authorised by Police. The following are the descriptions of the persons seen:-

At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at 1 a.m., same date, in Berner-street - A MAN, age 28, height 5 ft. 8 in., complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance. Carried a parcel wrapped up in newspaper.

At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street - A MAN, age about 30, height 5 ft. 5 in., complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.

At 1.35 a.m., 30th September, with Catherine Eddows, in Church-passage, leading to Mitre-square, where she was found murdered at 1.45 a.m., same date - A MAN, age 30, height 5 ft. 7 or 8 in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor.

Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland-yard, London, S.W.


So we have Smith's parcel man, Schwartz' broad-shouldered man, and Lawende's Church Passage Man, on the wanted list.

So why not Pipeman?

You cannot fully believe in Schwartz' account without believing in Pipeman. He is integral to the story, and Schwartz' reason/excuse for fleeing the scene.

The reason Pipeman is not on the list is simple; he has already been identified, found, and questioned.

So why the doubts over Schwartz, such as those expressed in 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.

It was because Pipeman gave a very different account, at least of his own behaviour, to that of Schwartz. Initially he was not believed, or to be more precise, not wholly believed. Star, Oct 1:

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.

Owning to the inquiries, the man's story was subsequently wholly accepted, and he was released. The doubts were then transferred onto Schwartz, and consequently into his police report.

It is owing to the partially unfavourable police report that Schwartz was not summoned to the inquest. However, doubts regarding the behaviour and description of BS man were far less, and this too was reflected in Schwartz' police report. Thus...

Swanson: If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt on it, it follows ... that the man Schwartz saw and described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer.

Swanson was specifically comparing BS man to Smith's parcel man. Baxter's decision regarding Schwartz was based on a wider view.

How did I come to these conclusions? Well I think I know who Pipeman was, what he was actually doing, and what was really going on with Israel Schwartz.

[Wickerman]

.....

Swanson: If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt on it, it follows ... that the man Schwartz saw and described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer.

To be honest, I think we've been misreading that quote. It may not say what we have always thought it said.
I suspect this is one of those occasions where Swanson only used one "if" where a second "if" would have changed the whole meaning for us.

Think of it this way. Schwartz gives his statement, and now the police are investigating what he told them. Once their investigation is complete, they will make a report. At the time Swanson wrote that line, the report had not been made, Schwartz was still under investigation.
With that view in mind, read Swanson's sentence again.

[I]"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt on it, it follows ... that the man Schwartz saw and described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer."

In other words - 'providing the subsequent report casts no doubt on it'.

The sentence as it stands, the meaning is ambiguous, a second "if" is not necessary, but with only one "if" the meaning can be ambiguous. He meant one thing, we thought he meant something else.

If you understand what I'm saying, you'll see the meaning is completely changed.
If he had only used a second "if", there would have been no misunderstanding, like below:

[I] "If Schwartz is to be believed, and if the police report of his statement casts no doubt on it, it follows ... that the man Schwartz saw and described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer."

The bottom line is, for me, that Swanson was not saying the police believed Schwartz.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If you understand what I'm saying, you'll see the meaning is completely changed.
If he had only used a second "if", there would have been no misunderstanding, like below:

[I] "If Schwartz is to be believed, and if the police report of his statement casts no doubt on it, it follows ... that the man Schwartz saw and described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer."

The bottom line is, for me, that Swanson was not saying the police believed Schwartz.

I understand - the report is yet to be completed.
However, I don't think that is true, for a simple reason; I believe Baxter had read the report on Schwartz well before Oct 19 - probably prior to the fourth inquest day - and consequently decided not to include Schwartz in the inquest.
If you suppose the Schwartz report is still in the future as of Swanson penning his Oct 19 report, then there is no good explanation for Baxter not calling Schwartz.
In one newspaper report of his summing up, there are statements from Baxter that can be read as him justifying his decision not include Schwartz.
So I don't think there is any reason to make edits to Swanson's report, to make it mean what you think he meant. Just take it literally; the police report of his statement casts no doubt on it - where 'it' refers to "the man Schwartz saw and described" (BS man).

As for the police believing Schwartz or not; It's more complicated than yes/no.

Now back to what I think is the crucial issue; Pipeman.
In a marginal (Home Office) note of Swanson's report, there is this very interesting comment:

The police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz.

How could it possibly be that the police (which presumably refers to Leman street station police), do not suspect a man who apparently ignored the assault on Stride, but apparently followed Schwartz - possibly at speed - to the point that Schwartz ended up at 'the' railway arch? Whatever arch it was, that's quite a way.
Was the man pursuing Schwartz? There's only one way to find out; you have to talk to him. Pipeman was a known individual. Wess probably knows this individual (as do other club members), as hinted in the Echo, Oct 1:

The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

"Not a member of their body" means we are probably not talking about a mistaken chase, because Diemschitz and Kozebrodski were very definitely club members.
The bottom line for me is that Pipeman is not part of the Police Gazette report, because he is a known individual, and probably the prisoner referred to in the Star.

[Wickerman]

I understand - the report is yet to be completed.

Right, so I'm seeing him making a hypothetical assumption - if Schwartz can be believed, and if the subsequent report casts no doubt on it, then etc. etc.
The problem has always been that two press reports claimed the police do not believe the story, and the traditional interpretation of Swanson's remark appeared to contradict the press reports.
So, in my view, all Swanson was saying is, we can believe him providing his story checks out (re - the report).

So now there's no conflict.
But, there is another little problem, that of the date of 19th Oct.

However, I don't think that is true, for a simple reason; I believe Baxter had read the report on Schwartz well before Oct 19 - probably prior to the fourth inquest day - and consequently decided not to include Schwartz in the inquest.

I would say no.
The police will not pass Schwartz's statement to the coroner if they are still investigating his story. This, in my view, is why Wynne Baxter did not call Schwartz - he did not receive a statement by Schwartz from police.

Now, to deal with the date.
I think 19th Oct. is the date the reports were finished & sent to Warren. Every report will carry the same date.
Swanson's task, ordered by Warren in early September, was to provide detailed reports (incl. times, dates, names & places) on the murders of Tabram, Nichols, and Chapman. Swanson worked directly from the files to provide detailed reports. So, this will not be done in one day. In fact the Tabram report shows September in the header - no date given.
Swanson began compiling his reports in September and it took him a couple of weeks to do all three,but then Stride was murdered, so now it was four.
He finally finished on 19th Oct. so this date is put on each report.

When Swanson wrote that sentence concerning Schwartz it was probably earlier in October - like 1st or 2nd?

Now back to what I think is the crucial issue; Pipeman.
In a marginal (Home Office) note of Swanson's report, there is this very interesting comment:

The police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz.

How could it possibly be that the police (which presumably refers to Leman street station police), do not suspect a man who apparently ignored the assault on Stride, but apparently followed Schwartz - possibly at speed - to the point that Schwartz ended up at 'the' railway arch? Whatever arch it was, that's quite a way.
Was the man pursuing Schwartz? There's only one way to find out; you have to talk to him. Pipeman was a known individual. Wess probably knows this individual (as do other club members), as hinted in the Echo, Oct 1:

The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

"Not a member of their body" means we are probably not talking about a mistaken chase, because Diemschitz and Kozebrodski were very definitely club members.
The bottom line for me is that Pipeman is not part of the Police Gazette report, because he is a known individual, and probably the prisoner referred to in the Star.

Ok, I don't see any conflict between your take & my own. I will be interested to learn who you think Pipeman was, you ended your previous post with:
"...Well I think I know who Pipeman was, what he was actually doing, and what was really going on with Israel Schwartz."

Will we have to wait to learn your thoughts?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Right, so I'm seeing him making a hypothetical assumption - if Schwartz can be believed, and if the subsequent report casts no doubt on it, then etc. etc.
The problem has always been that two press reports claimed the police do not believe the story, and the traditional interpretation of Swanson's remark appeared to contradict the press reports.
So, in my view, all Swanson was saying is, we can believe him providing his story checks out (re - the report).

So now there's no conflict.
But, there is another little problem, that of the date of 19th Oct.


I would say no.
The police will not pass Schwartz's statement to the coroner if they are still investigating his story. This, in my view, is why Wynne Baxter did not call Schwartz - he did not receive a statement by Schwartz from police.

Jon,
do really think the police are still banging on with their Schwartz report as late as Oct 23 (the last day of the inquest)? No way! The situation is explained in The Star:

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.

The investigation of the Schwartz incident is complete by press time, Oct 2. If additional facts subsequently come to light, they will recommence investigating, but for now, the police are done with Schwartz.

The Star continues...

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.

I wonder which man (arguably) should be arrested who was known to have been seen in company with an abandoned woman in that locality on last Saturday night? Sounds fascinating. What is being alluded to?

Now, to deal with the date.
I think 19th Oct. is the date the reports were finished & sent to Warren. Every report will carry the same date.
Swanson's task, ordered by Warren in early September, was to provide detailed reports (incl. times, dates, names & places) on the murders of Tabram, Nichols, and Chapman. Swanson worked directly from the files to provide detailed reports. So, this will not be done in one day. In fact the Tabram report shows September in the header - no date given.
Swanson began compiling his reports in September and it took him a couple of weeks to do all three,but then Stride was murdered, so now it was four.
He finally finished on 19th Oct. so this date is put on each report.

When Swanson wrote that sentence concerning Schwartz it was probably earlier in October - like 1st or 2nd?

I don't see why it would not be more like 11th or 12th - toward the final report date. Makes sense to me, as it was the most recent murder.
But of course you suppose the Schwartz report to be pending, pending, pending ... whereas for me, it was done and dusted well before the 19th, and therefore there was ample scope to get Schwartz to the inquest on the 23rd. Yet, no Schwartz.

Ok, I don't see any conflict between your take & my own.

My position has two main components.
Firstly, the apparent contradiction between Swanson and Baxter's assessments of Schwartz is more apparent than real.
If Schwartz is to be believed... refers specifically to BS man, whereas Baxter's rejection of Schwartz was on account of the whole story not adding up (in his eyes).
I believe there was controversy at the inquest regarding Baxter's summoning decisions - people not called who arguably should have been - which he dealt with in his summing up. However, to the critical point as to whether Schwartz was believed by the police who wrote the Schwartz report, my simplified answer is...

BS man - yes
Pipeman - no

Secondly, and this is something you haven't directly responded to as yet; why is a (pipe)man who's behaviour strongly suggests he could be an accomplice to the other (BS) man, not on the police's wanted list, yet the other man is?
BS man was on the list - therefore Schwartz was either totally believed, or at least was given the benefit of any (very early) doubts. Yet to do so obliges one to believe in the existence of Pipeman - but the wanted list is sans Pipeman. This is illogical, except if...

The police know the (pipe)man's identity, and have investigated him already.

Wess and others club members knew who this character was. How could they possibly know, admit to knowing publicly, but the police never worked out who he was? No way!

I will be interested to learn who you think Pipeman was, you ended your previous post with:
"...Well I think I know who Pipeman was, what he was actually doing, and what was really going on with Israel Schwartz."

Will we have to wait to learn your thoughts?

It's a matter of slowly putting the pieces together.

They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source...

Another source? Other than Schwartz, BS, Pipeman, & Stride, wasn't the street otherwise empty?

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.

Those who saw it? WTF?

[drstrange169]

>>do really think the police are still banging on with their Schwartz report as late as Oct 23 (the last day of the inquest)? No way!<<

The police were still issuing Schwartz's description to police stations as late as November. Abberline also referenced Schwarz in his November report, as did Warren.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Spill the beans NBFN. Who do you think was Pipeman? I seem to recall another poster naming a candidate somewhere but I can’t recall the details.