Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[Mark J D]

... Theres just one problem i see with that in regards to Pipeman being the killer . If it was indeed his intention to kill Stride, wether it be pre meditated or instant opportunity why would he need to follow schwartz down the road only to come back to murder Stride.? Who by that time could have been gone when B.S left her alone ?, Also Schwartz was already leaving the scene so why follow?, if his intent is to kill Stride he should have just waited till Schwartz and BS were gone.?

I'd say our man instantly took advantage of the unexpected opportunity while barely breaking step. Just veered into the dark gateway long enough to inflict what we all know was a single not very skilled knife cut, and then straight back out onto the pavement to follow Schwartz -- whose view of him as they both go south is the best defence he can have (at least until the pipe inexplicably becomes a knife: the Hungarian words are impossible to confuse). Amusingly, going 'towards the railway arches but not so far' takes Pipeman just about as far as Lechmere's mother's house in Maryann Street. And since the Lechmeres knew the Marshalls at No.64 Berner Street and had actually lived for yonks in James Street (no distance at all: I walked it the other weekend), he's not going to hang around to risk being seen, even though it means mutilation is out.

M.

[FISHY1118]

I'd say our man instantly took advantage of the unexpected opportunity while barely breaking step. Just veered into the dark gateway long enough to inflict what we all know was a single not very skilled knife cut, and then straight back out onto the pavement to follow Schwartz -- whose view of him as they both go south is the best defence he can have (at least until the pipe inexplicably becomes a knife: the Hungarian words are impossible to confuse). Amusingly, going 'towards the railway arches but not so far' takes Pipeman just about as far as Lechmere's mother's house in Maryann Street. And since the Lechmeres knew the Marshalls at No.64 Berner Street and had actually lived for yonks in James Street (no distance at all: I walked it the other weekend), he's not going to hang around to risk being seen, even though it means mutilation is out.

M.

Nope, i dont see it happening that way . The minute Schwartz hears B.S call out to him ''Lipski'', he walks away and pipeman follows him. I cant see a valid reason for Pipeman to double back just to cut Strides throat when he could have waited for B.S and Schwartz to move on, thus by watching what Stride movements after her first assault, He could then have killed her

My Post 158 describes it in more detail.

[caz]

The phrase 'appears to believe' are weasel words. Can you quote me suggesting that the Star had more information than what we see in their reporting?

Weasel words? I was merely giving you the opportunity to clarify your own thinking, because I didn't want to assume too much. Apologies if you took offence.

Have I ever implied that you did suggest the Star had more information than what they reported? Why would anyone think that was the case? I just don't think it would be sensible to rely on the newspaper having as much information as the police, or that what they did have would have been as reliable, let alone more so. How could it be ascertained if Pipeman was really Knifeman, unless he unwisely admitted it?

They would have taken Schwartz in, for further questioning.

And what could the police do, assuming he stuck to the pipe story and the Star could have got its wires crossed?

We cannot assume the Star's reporting on the matter, to be unreliable. To suppose that the Star must have been speculating, based on 'crumbs' from the police, is itself speculation.

Fair enough, but two cases of speculation don't make either one a fact. We certainly cannot assume the Star's reporting was 100% reliable, much less that the police would have kept them fully informed.

Also interesting that you make no reference to the subsequent search for a man named Lipski. Why would that have been necessary, if Pipeman had been located?

Because it was BS man who was heard to use the name, and only he could have explained what - or who - he meant by it. That would not change if Pipeman was located, regardless of what his real name was. It was only Abberline's assumption that it was directed at Schwartz due to his strong Jewish appearance. For all the police knew, BS man could have seen the two witnesses, Schwartz and Pipeman, and shouted a warning to an accomplice called Lipski who was waiting unseen in the yard. It would still be advisable to check on men of that name in the vicinity, since the name had been used shortly before Stride was found dead.

So the doubts over Schwartz cannot have been merely a matter of descriptions. There must have been more going on.

That's only your assumption, based on your own speculation.

The doubts could simply have been over his wavering interpretation of the incident he witnessed and the people he saw.

The police had nothing to go on, unless you include the club's outdoor lavatories.

Love,

Caz
X

[JeffHamm]

...
Fair enough, but two cases of speculation don't make either one a fact. We certainly cannot assume the Star's reporting was 100% reliable, much less that the police would have kept them fully informed.
...

I would go further, and suggest we should never assume a report in any paper is 100% reliable, moreover, that we know the police then, and now, deliberately hold back information they have from the press (so I think it is almost a sure thing that the police did not fully inform any paper with regards to the information the police had available to them - and indeed, the police may even have fed out misinformation as well, to be used to separate out the false confessions and so forth). Also, we should never assume that the information the police had was 100% accurate. While the police would be attempting to record, as reliably as they could, what a witness told them there is always the problem that eye witnesses are very error prone. Witness statements alone must be viewed with caution, and always require independent evidence to corroborate them. With the JtR case, that "independent evidence" is often nothing more than another eye witness, and today that is known to be suboptimal. We have advanced in so many areas, technologically and forensically, that modern police would be looking for more objective sources of information (i.e. CCTV footage; results from various biological and/or chemical analyses; etc) in order to cross compare with statements made by witnesses.

The fallibility of eye witnesses was, of course, known at the time, and we see that with Abberline's interview with Schwartz. Lacking any objective means to verify the observable "facts" of Schwartz's statement, Abberline questioned Schwartz closely on the more subjective interpretation of the events - specifically to whom was Lipski shouted, what was Pipeman's intentions when he moved toward Schwartz, and so forth. From that questioning, Abberline ascertained that Schwartz was not adamant that Lipski must have been shouted at Pipeman, allowing for the possibility that Pipeman was not associated with B.S., and that in turn questions the notion that Pipeman was chasing Schwartz.

Abberline, however, also appears to recognize that what he now has are two possible scenerios, the one Schwartz originally presented and the alternative based upon Lipski being shouted at Schwartz and Pipeman being a witness not an accomplice. Noting Schwartz had a strong Jewish appearance (objective source of information) and knowing how Lipski was used as an insult towards such people, combined with Schwartz's willingness to at least consider the alternative as being possible, Abberline would have good reason to prefer that interpretation but insufficient to rule out Schwartz's original statement. Hence the search for Lipski's continues even though Abberline seems to believe that to be less likely.

Even locating Pipeman would not be enough. Pipeman might be able to account for his presence sufficiently that the police had no grounds to hold him, that doesn't mean Pipeman wasn't lying (it seems improbable that he would just roll over and confess to his involvement if he were indeed, as Schwartz thought, in cahoots with B.S.). Moreover, as you suggest below, one must be open to the notion that "Lipski" was in the area but unseen by Schwartz. This can only be investigated by searching the Lipski's of the area and attempting to rule out any possible involvement by each of them. This appears to be what they did, or at least attempted to do.

Because it was BS man who was heard to use the name, and only he could have explained what - or who - he meant by it. That would not change if Pipeman was located, regardless of what his real name was. It was only Abberline's assumption that it was directed at Schwartz due to his strong Jewish appearance. For all the police knew, BS man could have seen the two witnesses, Schwartz and Pipeman, and shouted a warning to an accomplice called Lipski who was waiting unseen in the yard. It would still be advisable to check on men of that name in the vicinity, since the name had been used shortly before Stride was found dead.
...

Love,

Caz
X

In short, with regards to source reliability, the newspapers are known to be error prone. Not everything is wrong of course, but there are multiple examples of how stories presented in the news can be slanted, biased, selective, and manipulated. Newspapers were not investigating and recording events with the objective of solving the case, but rather with the objective of informing the public in such a way that they would also increase sales. Reporters interviewing someone will ask questions, which will not be presented in the news story. The "knifeman", for example, could easily have come about by the reporter asking Schwartz something like "Are you sure he was holding a pipe and it wasn't a knife?" and if Schwartz replied in anyway that allowed for that possibility (i.e. "I would be surprised if it were a knife, but I suppose it was dark and so there's a remote possibility it was") that is all the reporter would need to be able to justify reporting "Knifeman" - Schwartz allowed for that possibility, therefore the reporter informs the public that Schwartz admitted that possibility existed. The story is written in such a way that it implies Schwartz was sure it was a knife, that Schwartz spontaneously referred to it as such, but the reporter isn't quoting Schwartz. He's writing up a story, he's paraphrasing and condensing the information from his notes, and if he doesn't have column space to go into the fine details of Schwartz's confidence, well, that bit gets cut. And what a great story it becomes. Of course I'm not saying we know that is what happened in this instance, but we have to remember that we also do not know that Schwartz spontaneously referred to "knifeman".

The police, however, are recording statements with the goal of solving the case. They too will be asking questions, but to them, how confident the witness is becomes important information, as it is used (often incorrectly) as a marker of accuracy. A witness who is less confident of what they report, such as Schwartz, is viewed as being more likely to be wrong than a witness who is adamant in their interpretation. We know, of course, that people can be very confident about beliefs that are wrong and that others can be very cautious and recognize they could be mistaken even though they are actually correct. Confidence does tend to correlate with accuracy, but not to the point that the two should be seen as the same thing. Anyway, the reports we have from the police are, therefore, more likely to accurately reflect what a witness said (which doesn't mean what the witness said was accurate, only that at least we know what they did say). Unfortunately for us, we do not have the initial interview notes, and we only see that interview through subsequent paraphrasing by the police in their reports to Home Office. As such, we are often that one step removed from the witness. The exception, of course, are the transcript style reporting of the inquest proceedings, but for some unknown reason Schwartz does not give his statement at the inquest.

So what we have is a reference to "knifeman" that appears only in a source for which we have very good reasons to question the reliability, and only a reference to Pipeman in police sources, which we have good reason to believe will be more reliable recordings of a witness's statements and beliefs. Note, Abberline even mentions that Schwartz admitted he was unsure if "Lipski" was shouted at himself or at "pipeman", he does not say that Schwartz changed his mind and agreed that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman, only that he admitted the possibility was there to sufficient degree that he became unsure of whom to the intended target was). We have no other mention of Knifeman. We do know Schwartz was taken to view the body and he stated she was the woman he saw assaulted by B.S. We know Abberline spent a long time interviewing Schwartz as well. So we know the police interacted with Schwartz a great deal, and would have a lot more information available to them than we do. We know they questioned Schwartz's interpretation of the events, but we see no indication they disbelieved his statements of fact or that "knifeman" was ever mentioned to them by Schwartz.

In the end, we have no basis to suggest that Schwartz stated he saw a man holding a knife and very good reasons to believe that knifeman is simply another example of the press creating a sellable story. We can't guarantee that is the situation, but without something substantial to change the evidence we do have access too, little credence can be given to hypotheses that follow on from accepting "knifeman" to be "real" but rather good reason to believe he is a sensationalized version of "pipeman".

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Weasel words? I was merely giving you the opportunity to clarify your own thinking, because I didn't want to assume too much. Apologies if you took offence.

Taking offence is a surreptitious method of claiming status. I did not take offence.

Have I ever implied that you did suggest the Star had more information than what they reported? Why would anyone think that was the case?

You used the phrase 'chapter and verse' to imply that I had suggested the Star knew everything the police knew ...

Hi All,

I cannot fathom why NBFN appears to believe that the police were in direct and open communication with the Star newspaper, giving the visiting reporters chapter and verse on their enquiries and how they were progressing. The police decided what information, if any, to release to the press.

Obviously, we only get a few tantalizing clues from the Star. Perhaps 'troubling clues' would be a better description, considering the general reluctance to face up to them.

I just don't think it would be sensible to rely on the newspaper having as much information as the police, or that what they did have would have been as reliable, let alone more so. How could it be ascertained if Pipeman was really Knifeman, unless he unwisely admitted it?

What do you mean by 'information'? The police interviewed Schwartz. The Star interviewed Schwartz - possibly using a different interpreter.

If Pipeman was not Knifeman, why wasn't he located, possibly due to him coming forward? He was innocent, wasn't he? It would be great for the authenticity of Schwartz's story, if Pipeman was found, and known to be found. Yet there are no clues in Swanson's report, to suggest this.

And what could the police do, assuming he stuck to the pipe story and the Star could have got its wires crossed?

Not act further on the same information without additional facts.

Fair enough, but two cases of speculation don't make either one a fact. We certainly cannot assume the Star's reporting was 100% reliable, much less that the police would have kept them fully informed.

Which of the two interpreters was the most reliable?

Did Schwartz run away from a man smoking a pipe, or a man wielding a knife? What is it about the latter that you do not care for, even though it provides a more realistic reason for Schwartz to have run?

Because it was BS man who was heard to use the name, and only he could have explained what - or who - he meant by it. That would not change if Pipeman was located, regardless of what his real name was. It was only Abberline's assumption that it was directed at Schwartz due to his strong Jewish appearance. For all the police knew, BS man could have seen the two witnesses, Schwartz and Pipeman, and shouted a warning to an accomplice called Lipski who was waiting unseen in the yard. It would still be advisable to check on men of that name in the vicinity, since the name had been used shortly before Stride was found dead.

An accomplice in the yard? How did BS man, who had just walked down Berner street, know of this man and his presence? Both men must have been from the club, right?

As for Schwartz and his strong Jewish appearance, that was a comment on how Schwartz appeared to Abberline. How did Schwartz appear on the street that night, though? Was it his face and hair, or his attire, that gave him the strong Jewish appearance?

That's only your assumption, based on your own speculation.

The doubts could simply have been over his wavering interpretation of the incident he witnessed and the people he saw.

The police had nothing to go on, unless you include the club's outdoor lavatories.

Love,

Caz
X

The Star clearly states that what is doubted is the story itself, not interpretations of who said what to who.

You gave a possible reason for continuing to search for Lipski, even if Pipeman had been found. Surely that scenario steps way beyond any interpretation given by Schwartz. So if true, the police aren't going to give up on Schwartz because they thought his perception was not 100% accurate. So why does the Star report suggest that not only were there doubts, but further investigation was being put on hold until additional facts were obtained? Especially if it is supposed that Pipeman was found. What a strange time to give up on Schwartz!

Something doesn't add up. All this might have been cleared up if Schwartz had been called to the inquest. Did the coroner have as much information as the police, when he decided not to call Schwartz?

[GBinOz]

What a strange time to give up on Schwartz!

Something doesn't add up. All this might have been cleared up if Schwartz had been called to the inquest. Did the coroner have as much information as the police, when he decided not to call Schwartz?

Hi Andrew,

Both Anderson and Warren refer to "evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest". This was not a newspaper report, but was in official files of correspondence with the Home Office. The inquest ran Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday leaving Thursday for and "in camera" appearance by Schwartz before the coroner.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

Both Anderson and Warren refer to "evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest". This was not a newspaper report, but was in official files of correspondence with the Home Office. The inquest ran Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday leaving Thursday for and "in camera" appearance by Schwartz before the coroner.

Cheers, George

Hi George.

Anderson spoke of a "supposed accomplice". Did he get or read that into Abberline's report, or was it based on a later statement or testimony? Either way it sounds more like the Star account, than Swanson's report. I've suggested two vaguely accomplice scenarios. One is men from the WVC. The other is Eagle and Lave.

That's all I'm going to say for now. I've done myself an injury and need to recover.

Cheers, Andrew