Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[Chris]

Swanson's remark though, does not address the subsequent investigation that must have followed his statement.
He appears to be saying the statement itself is satisfactory, but takes it no further.

But if he had been aware - as he surely would have been - of further investigation that did cast doubt on Schwartz's credibility, would he have written what he did?

If he'd been reporting to me, and had said what he did, in the knowledge that there was reason to doubt Schwartz's word, I would have made sure that was the last report he made.

[Wickerman]

Swanson's remark though, does not address the subsequent investigation that must have followed his statement.
He appears to be saying the statement itself is satisfactory, but takes it no further.

Then there is this sentence..

"The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it."
The Echo, 1 Oct. 1888.
(my bold)

This didn't appear to be Schwartz's interpretation so, who are they talking about?

[Chris]

Surely the statement which is "not wholly accepted" is that of the man in custody who has not been charged "but is held for inquiries to be made". Had he admitted guilt he would have been charged. Clearly he did not do so and gave an account claiming his innocence. Had this been verified he would have been immediately released - yet he wasn't. I contend that it was his statement which was "not wholly accepted" and the investigation of which necessitated his continued detention.

I agree.

But the Star report the following day (2 October) does seem to suggest Schwartz's story was doubted by the police:
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.

On the other hand of course we have Swanson on 19 October saying:
If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement
casts no doubt upon it ...

[c.d.]

Even if it can be shown that Schwartz's story was discredited we would still need to know the reason why. Was he lying or was it because he was not sure what he saw along with the whole translation problem?

c.d.

[Bridewell]

Yes, I take it as the truth of the prisoner's statement is not wholly accepted.
Shame we are no wiser who this 'prisoner' was.

Thanks, Jon. It irks me somewhat when this passage is quoted in an attempt to show that Schwartz was discredited.

[Wickerman]

Yes, I take it as the truth of the prisoner's statement is not wholly accepted.
Shame we are no wiser who this 'prisoner' was.

[Bridewell]

The following is the text of an article published in The Star shortly after the murder of Liz Stride on Berner Street:

Information which may be important was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane. The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police. It is, in fact, to the effect that he saw the whole thing. It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb. A second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings. He described the man with the woman as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society. 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. (My block type)

Is this last sentence a reference to Israel Schwartz as is often claimed to be the case? I don't think so.

In the rest of the article (with one exception early in the piece) Schwartz is referred to throughout as either "he", "the Hungarian" or "the Foreigner".
The men he saw (BS Man & Pipeman) are referred to as "a man walking as if partially intoxicated", "the half-tipsy man", "a second man", "the man who was with the woman", "the second man", "the man with the woman" & "the man who came at him with a knife".

The final three sentences, long after the single reference to Schwartz as anything other than "Hungarian" or "foreigner", are as follows:

"The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for enquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted".

Surely the statement which is "not wholly accepted" is that of the man in custody who has not been charged "but is held for inquiries to be made". Had he admitted guilt he would have been charged. Clearly he did not do so and gave an account claiming his innocence. Had this been verified he would have been immediately released - yet he wasn't. I contend that it was his statement which was "not wholly accepted" and the investigation of which necessitated his continued detention.