Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In light of the quote posted by Joshua then it probably is a long shot but not impossible. It still doesn’t change the fact that the Police faced the task of arresting a man from the description that Schwartz gave them.

My theory (or one of them LOL), is that the police did have more to go on than just descriptions. Consider this report, East London Advertiser, Oct 6:

A man was brought to the Leman-street station on Sunday night, under circumstances which gave the police hopes at first that they had made an important capture. He was arrested, it seems, near Mitre-court, and could give no satisfactory account of himself. His appearance was anything but prepossessing. He was a short, thickset man of about 30, close shaven. Upon him was found 1s. 4½d. in money and a razor, and round his throat was a woollen scarf of a violet colour, upon which were several long hairs, evidently those of a woman. In reply to the inspector, he said that he had walked from Southampton, and belonged to the Royal Sussex Regiment (the very regiment, it will be remembered, whose cognisances was on the envelope found in the pocket of the Buck's-row victim). An examination of his boots, however, was not at all confirmatory of this statement, and he was taken to the cells for inquiries to be made about him. The man was ultimately released. There was another arrest made during the night, the prisoner being taken to Commercial-road police-station. The prisoner, however, readily furnished his name and address and apparently had no knowledge of the details of the murders. He was discharged upon his statement being verified. The man when taken into custody was in a very excited condition. At 3:15 on Monday morning a third man was arrested and likewise taken to Leman-street police station. He was also released in the course of the day.

Comparing this report, against the Star of Oct 2, the man arrested at 3:15 on Monday morning may well be this man ...

They arrested one man on the description thus obtained ...

That is, 'the prisoner'. One of the men arrested late Sunday night, may well be this man ...

... and a second on that furnished from another source ...

It is possible that the 3:15 arrest was of a man out on the street. It is also possible that the man was at home or at least indoors at the time, possibly asleep. If the later, on what basis was he arrested?

Maybe Pipeman came forward?

The word 'Lipski', was directed at either Schwartz, or Pipeman. If Pipeman came forward, there would be no reason to go looking for a 'Mr. Lipski'. That is because Israel was a 'Mr. Schwartz', and not a 'Mr. Lipski'.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That’s a list of men that had been interviewed already.

So let met spell it out for you. The men and women on Reid's list, accounted for their whereabouts when locked into the yard on the night of the murder. Schwartz spoke to the police the following evening. This led to the arrest of a man who was already known to police. When the contradictions in the respective men's stories were sorted out, the prisoner was released, and doubts were transferred onto Schwartz.

I can elaborate on that theory, if anyone is interested.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your summing-up is not logical, no does it match the evidence. The doubts over the story mean that investigations based on Schwartz's statement, are halting, and will not resume without "additional facts". Yet according to yourself, they not only have additional facts, they have Pipeman! Would not that be the perfect reason to do the exact opposite of what the Star report tells us is occurring? Who cares if the descriptions don't quite line up - they never do. With the second man identified, they should be continuing with the Schwartz-based investigation, full steam ahead. Instead, they are doing the opposite!

The evidence tells us that the Police considered Schwartz a valid witness and continued to do so. The report that Leman Street had doubts is vague to say the least and came via a Press report. How do we know that the reporter wasn’t just reporting an individual Police Officers doubts?

Why is it so unlikely that the Police might have simply had doubts that they would have been able to arrest the correct man based on Schwartz description and that additional information would be required to narrow down their search. I’ll ask again, how would the have gone about the task of arresting/questioning stocky men? Unless they had come across someone that they had reason for suspicion against and could stand him in front of Schwartz what real hope would they have had of luckily dropping on the right BS man?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no reference to the doorway of the pub, in Swanson's account. Instead the second man is on the side of the road that Schwartz crossed to. Don't you know that the Star jazzed-up the story, to sell more papers? Having said that, I'm not exactly sure how that 'argument' is supposed to work in practice, because to read the 'jazzed-up' story, one would first have to buy the paper.

Swanson’s version was a summing up of events written around 3 weeks later. I think it more likely that he simply made an error and assumed that Pipeman was on the side of the road that Schwartz crossed over to, when Schwartz actually saw him from the other side of the road.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yet no appearance from Pipeman at the inquest, or for that matter, in court. Didn't Doorway Man have a knife in his hand?

What use would he have been at an Inquest? The Inquests verdict would still have been ‘murder by person or persons unknown.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

The notion of Pipeman being someone connected to the pub, is a long shot ...

In light of the quote posted by Joshua then it probably is a long shot but not impossible. It still doesn’t change the fact that the Police faced the task of arresting a man from the description that Schwartz gave them. Maybe Pipeman came forward?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Reread #123, and see if you can find a reference to a list of names and addresses.

That’s a list of men that had been interviewed already.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But doubts about what? It certainly possible that they doubted that they would arrested the killer just on Schwartz description. It’s possible that they might have doubted the accuracy of Schwartz description of a man that he’d seen whilst hurrying past to avoid getting involved, especially when there were other sightings. And if Pipe Man was found (which has to have been at least a possibility) then maybe he didn’t describe BS man as being particularly stocky or maybe he described him without a moustache.

Did the Star say that Leman street doubted the truth of the story, or the accuracy of one or both of the descriptions?

The later notion is just something that Ripperologists have dreamt up, to reassure themselves the the narrative they have constructed is correct.

So to sum up Id say that it would be likeliest that Pipeman was found and that any doubts the local Police had would have been, a) on the value/accuracy of Schwartz description, or, b) on the likelihood of Schwartz description alone leading to an arrest.

Your summing-up is not logical, no does it match the evidence. The doubts over the story mean that investigations based on Schwartz's statement, are halting, and will not resume without "additional facts". Yet according to yourself, they not only have additional facts, they have Pipeman! Would not that be the perfect reason to do the exact opposite of what the Star report tells us is occurring? Who cares if the descriptions don't quite line up - they never do. With the second man identified, they should be continuing with the Schwartz-based investigation, full steam ahead. Instead, they are doing the opposite!

The alternative would be that Schwartz lied about being there and so placed himself alone at the scene of a murder. I don’t think that we should waste any further time on that one.

Then who was lying? We know about the movements of Eagle, Lave, and Brown, and the existence, location and approximate timing, of the board school couple. So if we should not waste any more time on Schwartz, then who should we take a closer look at?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Where would they have got a shortlist from?

Reread #123, and see if you can find a reference to a list of names and addresses.

They had 2 people to trace purely from Schwartz descriptions of them…..BS man and Pipeman. We surely can’t suggest that the Police went around knocking on doors for stout, moustachioed men so that they could ask “ by the way, did you attack a woman in the gateway of Dutfield’s Yard?” Isn’t it more likely that Pipeman was found?

If the police had 2 people to trace purely from Schwartz descriptions of them, then isn't less likely that Pipeman was found?

After all he was seen in the doorway of the pub so the Police would have talked to the owner.

The notion of Pipeman being someone connected to the pub, is a long shot ...

Unlikely to have been the proprietor, or anyone, leavig the pub at that hour, Sir;

Times 2 Oct, Wess:
"On the same side as the club is a beershop and I have seen men and women coming from there.
A Juryman. - That is always closed about 9 o'clock."

At least it was something for the Police to go on. Perhaps the pup owner said “our Barman, Frank, left around that time. The description sounds like him and he smokes a pipe.” With BS man they had nothing to go on apart from a description that would have meant the Police arresting locals in droves.

Yet no appearance from Pipeman at the inquest, or for that matter, in court. Didn't Doorway Man have a knife in his hand?

There is no reference to the doorway of the pub, in Swanson's account. Instead the second man is on the side of the road that Schwartz crossed to. Don't you know that the Star jazzed-up the story, to sell more papers? Having said that, I'm not exactly sure how that 'argument' is supposed to work in practice, because to read the 'jazzed-up' story, one would first have to buy the paper.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I’d call it a vain hope that events in Berner Street could be viewed without interpreting everything as being sinister.

I'd call it a vain hope that you could make arguments, without erecting strawmen

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Who claimed this ?


When I heard the alarm, I ran around to Dutfield's Yard and saw the deceased. I recognized her at once as the woman I had seen thrown to the ground a short while earlier, by a man she was quarrelling with. At the time, I thought the man and woman were married, so I paid them little attention.

Herlock asked a hypothetical, but pertinent question ...

So the first quote shows that the Police’s ‘doubts’ were in regard to the man that was arrested on the strength of Schwartz description. The second one is perhaps a little strange. As they acted on Schwartz information and arrested a man then it seems that their doubts only came about after that arrest was made. So what could the arrested man have said that might have raised doubts for the Police?

I gave a hypothetical response. I immediately followed with this ...

In other words, Pipeman admitted to being on the street at the time, but denied running away or chasing another man, from the soon to be crime scene. Hence ...

The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

That's one theory. I have another.

Fairly obvious, I would have thought, and I'm sorry if it was confusing for you.

[FISHY1118]

Waiting ? NBFN

[FISHY1118]

''I recognized her at once as the ''woman I had seen thrown to the ground a short while earlier, by a man she was quarrelling with''. At the time, I thought the man and woman were''


Is this not corroboration of the same incident Schwartz saw ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the Leman lads, Donald Swanson, and Robert Anderson, all had their doubts. After the unsuccessful search for a Mr. Lipski, doubt probably spread to the Home Office.

But doubts about what? It certainly possible that they doubted that they would arrested the killer just on Schwartz description. It’s possible that they might have doubted the accuracy of Schwartz description of a man that he’d seen whilst hurrying past to avoid getting involved, especially when there were other sightings. And if Pipe Man was found (which has to have been at least a possibility) then maybe he didn’t describe BS man as being particularly stocky or maybe he described him without a moustache.

So to sum up Id say that it would be likeliest that Pipeman was found and that any doubts the local Police had would have been, a) on the value/accuracy of Schwartz description, or, b) on the likelihood of Schwartz description alone leading to an arrest.

The alternative would be that Schwartz lied about being there and so placed himself alone at the scene of a murder. I don’t think that we should waste any further time on that one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My Question……Another question worth asking in my opinion is how did the Police manage to arrest a man on Schwartz generic description?


Your answer……Perhaps the Star helped them? They were apparently pretty good at finding people. Or perhaps the police had a short list of names to work with ...?

.

Where would they have got a shortlist from? They had 2 people to trace purely from Schwartz descriptions of them…..BS man and Pipeman. We surely can’t suggest that the Police went around knocking on doors for stout, moustachioed men so that they could ask “ by the way, did you attack a woman in the gateway of Dutfield’s Yard?” Isn’t it more likely that Pipeman was found? After all he was seen in the doorway of the pub so the Police would have talked to the owner. At least it was something for the Police to go on. Perhaps the pup owner said “our Barman, Frank, left around that time. The description sounds like him and he smokes a pipe.” With BS man they had nothing to go on apart from a description that would have meant the Police arresting locals in droves.