Originally posted by GBinOz
View Post
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.
Do you suppose this man, who had evidently been released by the next day, could have been BS? If not, then presumably he looked something like this:
Second man age 35 ht. 5 ft 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.
Consider the situation. Leman street has arrested one man, with apparently nothing more to go on than this description, and yet the man's statement is not wholly accepted. It was about a quarter to one in the morning - was he there or not? If he was, then in what regard was his statement only partly believed? Which part did they not believe one day, and did believe the next, and based on what new information?
The apparent ease in locating this man, tells me that Leman street had a bit more to go on than just a description. It's as though they had another source of information. Next day ...
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.
According to Schwartz, other than himself and BS, the only other man on the street was Pipeman. So once again, if Pipeman was the other source, why the continued search for Mr Lipski? That question is obvious enough, but there is another; if Schwartz was believed about who had been on the street at the time, then why was this other source apparently taken seriously? Was it because the other source was the vigilance committee?
Leave a comment: