Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Pipeman?

Why then, would Leman street have reason to doubt the truth of the story?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

A man sees a man and a woman having some kind of disagreement in the street. The woman ends up on the ground. She ‘screams’ three times but the witnesses stresses that they weren’t loud screams. So from this he assumes at that time that this was just a domestic and probably alcohol-related as he’d mentioned BS man appearing drunk as he’d walked behind him along Berner Street. He assumes that this was a dispute between a couple. We have no need to presume that the witnesses needed to have been able to speak English or that the couple spoke any other language. It was just an impression and a natural assumption from a non-English speaker who had no way of knowing the cause of the confrontation.

The “took no notice” part clearly doesn’t preclude the man being able to offer an identification of Stride and BS man. He couldn’t have claimed to have ‘noticed’ an event that he hadn’t ‘noticed.’ I think that we can take the ‘took no notice of’ part as Schwartz explaining why he didn’t get involved and why didn’t hang around to give assistance to the woman. Because he felt that this was just a domestic. A not unfamiliar occurrence at that time and in that area.

Its also possible that he might have introduced the suggestion that this was just a domestic because he was embarrassed to have potentially abandoned a woman to her killer. An excuse for not stepping in.

I take "took no notice" as meaning, paid little attention. The problem with that is that Abberline stated that Schwartz stopped to watch what was going on. It's as though someone else had seen it. The age estimate is different to what Schwartz gave both the police and the press.

The problem with your interpretation is that, having given that excuse, there is no reason to suppose that Schwartz walked away scared or shaken, and therefore he has no reason to run off like a startled rabbit. Unless that is, the second man had a knife in his hand.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I didn't notice anyone agree with you, so I thought the question remains open.
Am I wrong?

No, of course not. Without agreement it is only the answer by default. But now we have other answers

[GBinOz]

A man sees a man and a woman having some kind of disagreement in the street. The woman ends up on the ground. She ‘screams’ three times but the witnesses stresses that they weren’t loud screams. So from this he assumes at that time that this was just a domestic and probably alcohol-related as he’d mentioned BS man appearing drunk as he’d walked behind him along Berner Street. He assumes that this was a dispute between a couple. We have no need to presume that the witnesses needed to have been able to speak English or that the couple spoke any other language. It was just an impression and a natural assumption from a non-English speaker who had no way of knowing the cause of the confrontation.

The “took no notice” part clearly doesn’t preclude the man being able to offer an identification of Stride and BS man. He couldn’t have claimed to have ‘noticed’ an event that he hadn’t ‘noticed.’ I think that we can take the ‘took no notice of’ part as Schwartz explaining why he didn’t get involved and why didn’t hang around to give assistance to the woman. Because he felt that this was just a domestic. A not unfamiliar occurrence at that time and in that area.

Its also possible that he might have introduced the suggestion that this was just a domestic because he was embarrassed to have potentially abandoned a woman to her killer. An excuse for not stepping in.

Hi Herlock,

I have the same interpretation.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Regarding the second arrest ...

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

Pipeman?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let's try to answer Wickerman's question.

If "the person who witnessed this" believed the quarrelling man and woman to be married, then what cues could this witness have been picking up on, in coming to that conclusion? Were references to their relationship overheard? Was it an argument over infidelity? Whatever the case, it seems we are dealing with someone who understands English. Although, I guess the quarrellers could have been speaking Swedish ...

Consider the Echo report (above). Which woman was seen thrown to the ground? How did the witness, who supposedly "took no notice" of the throwing down of the woman by the man she was quarrelling with, know that this was the subsequently murdered woman?

A man sees a man and a woman having some kind of disagreement in the street. The woman ends up on the ground. She ‘screams’ three times but the witnesses stresses that they weren’t loud screams. So from this he assumes at that time that this was just a domestic and probably alcohol-related as he’d mentioned BS man appearing drunk as he’d walked behind him along Berner Street. He assumes that this was a dispute between a couple. We have no need to presume that the witnesses needed to have been able to speak English or that the couple spoke any other language. It was just an impression and a natural assumption from a non-English speaker who had no way of knowing the cause of the confrontation.

The “took no notice” part clearly doesn’t preclude the man being able to offer an identification of Stride and BS man. He couldn’t have claimed to have ‘noticed’ an event that he hadn’t ‘noticed.’ I think that we can take the ‘took no notice of’ part as Schwartz explaining why he didn’t get involved and why didn’t hang around to give assistance to the woman. Because he felt that this was just a domestic. A not unfamiliar occurrence at that time and in that area.

Its also possible that he might have introduced the suggestion that this was just a domestic because he was embarrassed to have potentially abandoned a woman to her killer. An excuse for not stepping in.

[Wickerman]

I didn't notice anyone agree with you, so I thought the question remains open.
Am I wrong?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

Well Jon, #89 has been up for about 5 days, with no replies. So I guess your question is answered.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

"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.

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 ...

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?

Let's try to answer Wickerman's question.

If "the person who witnessed this" believed the quarrelling man and woman to be married, then what cues could this witness have been picking up on, in coming to that conclusion? Were references to their relationship overheard? Was it an argument over infidelity? Whatever the case, it seems we are dealing with someone who understands English. Although, I guess the quarrellers could have been speaking Swedish ...

Consider the Echo report (above). Which woman was seen thrown to the ground? How did the witness, who supposedly "took no notice" of the throwing down of the woman by the man she was quarrelling with, know that this was the subsequently murdered woman?

In relation to the Star, Oct 2 report (see middle quote above), there seems to be an important clue in relation to the second arrest. Regarding the first ...

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

That is, obtained from Schwartz. This can be inferred from the Star of Oct 1 (first quote above):

The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes.

Regarding the second arrest ...

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

That is, a description obtained from someone other than Schwartz ('the Hungarian'). Which is interesting in its own right, because Schwartz said that there was no one else in the street at the time (other than the three people he described).

Putting all this together, we have:

* A probable English speaking witness, who ...

* Seems to have ended up seeing the victim, in the yard, and ...

* A reference to a witness who's description of a man led to the second related arrest

Without drawing any firm conclusions, who is a good fit for the criteria? Well, ...

Fanny Mortimer was English speaking.

Fanny Mortimer went to the yard and observed the victim.

Fanny Mortimer was conceivably in a position to witness the assault described by Schwartz.

It would be more than fair to point out that Mortimer did not mention an assault, to the press. Yet if she is not the answer to Jon's question, then who is?

[Simon Wood]

Hi c.d.,

Yes.

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

Hi All,

Try to square Schwartz's story with Wynne Baxter's 1.00 am mutilandum interruptus version of events, and, once you've realised they are wholly incompatible, you will have discerned the reason why Schwartz did not appear at Stride's inquest.

It ain't rocket science.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

I hate to display my ignorance so openly but could you clarify just a bit? Are you suggesting that Baxter is somehow involved in some sort of cover up?

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Michael,

You're very sharp.

Oh yes. There is more to the Mary Malcolm story than meets the eye.

Baxter and Joe send wags to Zoe.

Regards,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

Hi All,

Try to square Schwartz's story with Wynne Baxter's 1.00 am mutilandum interruptus version of events, and, once you've realised they are wholly incompatible, you will have discerned the reason why Schwartz did not appear at Stride's inquest.

It ain't rocket science.

Regards,

Simon

Nice to see you Simon, I visit far less frequently so its nice to see you when Im out and about. On the above, and this nasty business called an Inquest for Liz Strides murder, could you see an argument that proposes that Mary Malcom was inserted into what might have originally been a time slot left open for Israel? The fact they spend so much time with her while already knowing that she was incorrect or lying, is a baffling feature here.

I think they pulled Israel as a candidate and used a distraction to direct attention from that fact.

Cheers my friend, from me and my beagle/dachshund Zoey.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Try to square Schwartz's story with Wynne Baxter's 1.00 am mutilandum interruptus version of events, and, once you've realised they are wholly incompatible, you will have discerned the reason why Schwartz did not appear at Stride's inquest.

It ain't rocket science.

Regards,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

And if in fact the police did conclude that Schwartz had lied to them, what did they do about it.? Did they simply say " hey that son of a bitch Schwartz lied to us in a murder investigation. How about that. Let's go get a pint." It would appear to be relatively easy to make the connection to the club and conclude the club was involved as well. Since they apparently hated the club and what it stood for they now would have a green light to go after them. Yet, we have no evidence that anything like this took place.

c.d.

Who is to say that the police weren't manipulating this witness and the story from the very first cd? Did they want a gentile killer suggested instead of assumptions that one of the club members, almost exclusively immigrant Jews.... just like the ones a senior police official stated were suspected in the previous murders, were responsible. Remember those riots that were feared when the GSG was discovered...what do you think would have happened to the club and anyone obviously Jewish on the streets if the Police made statements that alluded to suspected club guilt, and a therefore an "Immigrant Jewish" Ripper? They could barely contain the minority uprising the previous Fall, how could they deal with a mainstream uprising against ethnic groups?

All Ive been saying without equivocation is that the Inquest was a sham, and that Israels story would have great bearing on the question of how she came to her death....the answer to which was the primary goal of the Inquest. He, or his tale, didn't answer anything at the Inquest that was held. Both were absent.

Cheers cd