"The truth of the man's statement..."

[DirectorDave]

Both men seemed to belong to the same grade of society. The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. The prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

From this piece in the Star it has been assumed that the police doubted Schwartz's evidence (even though there is other evidence to suggest it was not doubted)...but to me it reads that it is the Prisoners statement that has not been accepted?

Would the term "The man" be assigned to Schwarts or more likely "The man" who they did not know the name of who had been detained?

[Wickerman]

From this piece in the Star it has been assumed that the police doubted Schwartz's evidence (even though there is other evidence to suggest it was not doubted)...but to me it reads that it is the Prisoners statement that has not been accepted?

Would the term "The man" be assigned to Schwarts or more likely "The man" who they did not know the name of who had been detained?

Yes, 'The man' is 'The Prisoner' in the quote you provided.

Are you aware of what The Star reported the following day?

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 Star, 2nd Oct. 1888.

There are also two other considerations, just to muddy the waters a little

The credibility of The Star has always been a point of debate, even in 1888. Also, in general, how accurate press reports were concerning the police investigation is also questioned.

[The Good Michael]

From this piece in the Star it has been assumed that the police doubted Schwartz's evidence (even though there is other evidence to suggest it was not doubted)...but to me it reads that it is the Prisoners statement that has not been accepted?

Would the term "The man" be assigned to Schwarts or more likely "The man" who they did not know the name of who had been detained?

I have no doubt that this meant the man detained from Schwartz' evidence.

Mike

[Bridewell]

I have no doubt that this meant the man detained from Schwartz' evidence.

Mike

That is my interpretation also, but there is an ambiguity.

[Cogidubnus]

There's a slight chance of a minor ambiguity Colin, but like yourself, Michael and Jon I favour the transparently obvious interpretation.

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Ive often wondered whether "the man" was the person questioned based on Schwartz's description, or the source of the story, Schwartz.

It is slightly ambiguous enough to allow for either interpretation I believe.

When we know that there is no evidence, as in transcripts, that Israel was called to testify at the Inquest, or that his story was somehow entered as evidence even though not acknowledged by the coroner in summation, ...that quote could go a long way to addressing that question.

Depending on how one reads it, of course.

Cheers