Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[caz]

Thanks George.

Yes, the possibility must exist that Pipeman waited for Schwartz and then BS man to skedaddle before sauntering over to Stride, pretending concern and buttering her up with cachous and sympathy. He could have heard the pony and cart approaching when he was about to make his move on her, giving him no choice but to cut and run.

The advantage for him would be that BS man was the more obvious villain of the piece, having been seen assaulting Stride.

Love,

Caz
X

[GBinOz]

Hi All,

I suspect Pipeman may have read the story in the Star and either came forward to give his version or police enquiries identified him on the information Schwartz had provided to the police - not to the Star. Their versions of the story, and descriptions of BS man and each other, would naturally have differed, making it necessary for the police to judge the reality.

Schwartz initially saw Pipeman as a possible accomplice of BS man, chasing him away, so it would make more sense if it was Pipeman who said he assumed it was just a quarrel between man and wife and therefore didn't interfere. Two men, using different excuses for not wading in to help the woman who was shortly to be found murdered.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I think your second option of the police locating Pipeman more likely, but I agree entirely with your conclusion. That said, I do not preclude Pipeman from being JtR.

Cheers, George

[Joshua Rogan]

I have to wonder if the doubts expressed by the police over Schwartz' story were not about the statement he gave to them, but about his story as reported by the Star.

[caz]

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.

What does NBFN imagine the police would have done, on reading the Star's report and noting that Pipeman had suddenly become Knifeman? Would they not have gone back to Schwartz and his interpreter to find out what the hell was going on? One man brandishing a knife near the crime scene, while the murdered woman was being thrown around by a second man?

We can't expect the Star to give us a reliable account of what the police were thinking, so the newspaper would be speculating at best, based on whatever crumbs the police were prepared to offer. The Star had no access to the police statements and reports that we are able to use for comparison purposes.

I suspect Pipeman may have read the story in the Star and either came forward to give his version or police enquiries identified him on the information Schwartz had provided to the police - not to the Star. Their versions of the story, and descriptions of BS man and each other, would naturally have differed, making it necessary for the police to judge the reality.

Schwartz initially saw Pipeman as a possible accomplice of BS man, chasing him away, so it would make more sense if it was Pipeman who said he assumed it was just a quarrel between man and wife and therefore didn't interfere. Two men, using different excuses for not wading in to help the woman who was shortly to be found murdered.

Two men arrested on their individual descriptions of BS man, neither of which need have been accurate. Clearly this didn't lead anywhere, but that in no way implies either Schwartz or Pipeman were deliberately bending the truth, or not describing the same man to the best of their recollection. Based on those descriptions, I imagine the police would have pulled in local men with a reputation for thuggish behaviour towards women. That being the case, any account of their movements would need to be checked and not just taken at face value.

There can be nothing black and white here, only varying degrees of speculation and interpretation on the part of all the parties directly or indirectly involved, including us here in 2022, of what Schwartz saw, or thought he saw, and whether any of it can shed more light on Stride's murder.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is that why you said ...?





Apparently, we don't need to know the identity of the murderer!

How are we going to discover the identity of the murderer from the evidence that’s been left to us? We won’t do it by imagining plots and we certainly won’t do it by a concerted effort to dismiss witnesses on the grounds of minor discrepancies.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The plot that I’m referring to is the one that you keep hinting at. The one that never happened.

Is that why you said ...?

Elaborate away.

There were errors and discrepancies. So what. No one was covering anything up. This is all that we need to know.

Apparently, we don't need to know the identity of the murderer!

[Herlock Sholmes]

The plot that I’m referring to is the one that you keep hinting at. The one that never happened.

There were errors and discrepancies. So what. No one was covering anything up. This is all that we need to know.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It’s not a contradiction at all. Firstly Abberline might simply have assumed that Schwartz had ‘stopped’ to look. It’s the kind of throw away comment that can be added to any retelling of an events. A bit like when someone says “I turned around and said.” They didn’t really turn around. Now I’ll re-phrase….

So ".. he stopped to look at the man ..." was a mere turn of phrase, and not meant to be taken literally? In an official police report?

Of course I can’t prove that Schwartz didn’t ‘stop’ but it doesn’t really fit with the image that we get of Schwartz.

We don't have an image of Schwartz. We know nothing about what he was like, the possible exception being a flamboyant dress sense.

How many people, seeing a woman being attacked, would just stand there (a very few yards away) watching?

Not many at all. It sounds like a bullshit story, doesn't it?

Surely it’s more likely that a person would either go to help or just hurry past.

You can't assume this guy was a particularly normal human being.

Standing watching just seems the least likely.

Then the same should have occurred to Abberline. What was wrong with that guy?

Not impossible, but the least likely in my opinion.

The evidence we have, suggests the least likely in your opinion, was in fact how the story was told.

How may times is the story going to be changed, to make sense of it?

It might have been the case that after he’d crossed the road, and where he told The Star that he looked back, he might have come to a halt for a second or two before hurrying on.

The Star seems to be the more accurate account. That's how I'm reading you, anyway. So why not go all the way, and call a pipe a knife?

Either way, I don’t see this as being particularly important.

I don't see that you have much choice, having already decided that Schwartz is to be believed.

This isn’t a ‘nipped and tucked’ version. It’s an entirely reasonable way of assessing what went on given what information has been left to us.

It's reasonable to suppose that Abberline knew what he was talking about.

It’s a way of explaining events without veering into the fiction of plots.

It's a way of modifying the evidence we have, to make the story sound realistic.

You look at events and think “ok great, we have a few discrepancies here, surely a plot was afoot.” I look at events and think “ok, there are a few discrepancies here, can reasonable, prosaic explanations be applied because we’re not in a novel here?”

No, we are not in a novel, but are we reading from the pages of The Nip & Tuck Gazette.

Everything can be explained without resorting to the sinister and as street murder never involves plots it’s reasonable to assume that no plot occurred here.

What plot are you referring to? Is it the one in which Wess suggests that the man pursued was thought to be the murderer?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the authenticity of Schwartz's story can be determined by armchair reasoning, then an unlimited amount of rationalization can be justified. For example, the points I listed in #143. The resulting 'improvements' change the story so much that it becomes questionable as to what you're actually defending. Is it the words that came out of the man's mouth, in describing the incident, that you are referring to when setting up your dichotomy, or is it the repeatedly nipped and tucked version that we arrive at, once the armchair experts have finished explaining where everyone involved got it wrong?

Tell me, who said that Schwartz stopped to watch the incident at the gateway? Did Schwartz say that, or did Abberline inexplicably add that feature to the incident? As you think this was virtually impossible to have occurred, and that Pure Reason tells us that Schwartz could not have lied, then Abberline must have been at fault in imaging almost impossible things to have occurred that had no relation to what he was told. Yet your faith in Schwartz is largely due to Abberline giving him his seal of approval. That is a contradiction.

It’s not a contradiction at all. Firstly Abberline might simply have assumed that Schwartz had ‘stopped’ to look. It’s the kind of throw away comment that can be added to any retelling of an events. A bit like when someone says “I turned around and said.” They didn’t really turn around. Now I’ll re-phrase….

Of course I can’t prove that Schwartz didn’t ‘stop’ but it doesn’t really fit with the image that we get of Schwartz. How many people, seeing a woman being attacked, would just stand there (a very few yards away) watching? Surely it’s more likely that a person would either go to help or just hurry past. Standing watching just seems the least likely. Not impossible, but the least likely in my opinion. It might have been the case that after he’d crossed the road, and where he told The Star that he looked back, he might have come to a halt for a second or two before hurrying on. Either way, I don’t see this as being particularly important.

……

This isn’t a ‘nipped and tucked’ version. It’s an entirely reasonable way of assessing what went on given what information has been left to us. It’s a way of explaining events without veering into the fiction of plots. You look at events and think “ok great, we have a few discrepancies here, surely a plot was afoot.” I look at events and think “ok, there are a few discrepancies here, can reasonable, prosaic explanations be applied because we’re not in a novel here?” Everything can be explained without resorting to the sinister and as street murder never involves plots it’s reasonable to assume that no plot occurred here.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It’s a question of which is likeliest, a) the Schwartz incident occurred but there were errors of recollection, reporting and timing, or b) Schwartz was part of a plot and was actually never there.

No contest…..a)

At the end of the day though we’re never going to advance this topic unless some previously unknown information surfaces. Schwartz could have lied; it’s not an impossibility as some people are just attention seekers. It’s also possible, however unlikely, that he simply got his time wrong and that he’d passed earlier and seen an altercation between a man and a woman. But the suggestion that he was part of some kind of plot is just several steps too far into the world of fiction.

If everyone had mobile phones then the timing discrepancies might look suspicious but they didn’t so they don’t.
If Schwartz spoke English then we couldn’t suggest errors in translation but he didn’t so we can.
If the Press were paragons of honesty who would never stoop to ‘sexing up’ a story then we could suggest it, but they weren’t so we can.

We have no records of police interviews; we have no way of assessing any of the doubts that the Leman Street Police might have had. We’re left with snippets, summaries and suggestions.

I think that we’re at a total dead end pointlessly revving our engines but getting nowhere.

If the authenticity of Schwartz's story can be determined by armchair reasoning, then an unlimited amount of rationalization can be justified. For example, the points I listed in #143. The resulting 'improvements' change the story so much that it becomes questionable as to what you're actually defending. Is it the words that came out of the man's mouth, in describing the incident, that you are referring to when setting up your dichotomy, or is it the repeatedly nipped and tucked version that we arrive at, once the armchair experts have finished explaining where everyone involved got it wrong?

Tell me, who said that Schwartz stopped to watch the incident at the gateway? Did Schwartz say that, or did Abberline inexplicably add that feature to the incident? As you think this was virtually impossible to have occurred, and that Pure Reason tells us that Schwartz could not have lied, then Abberline must have been at fault in imaging almost impossible things to have occurred that had no relation to what he was told. Yet your faith in Schwartz is largely due to Abberline giving him his seal of approval. That is a contradiction.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But that’s just a created scenario which can never be proven or disproven.

That goes without saying

We can’t even assess the likelihood or otherwise.

I reckon we can

It appears that you are suggesting that either a) one of the club members matched the description, or b) one of the club members pointed a finger at someone (matching the description given by Schwartz?) who was subsequently able to prove his innocence?

a) is definitely out. Once again I refer you to #123

b) not necessarily, but I can't quote join the dots here. However, who here had supposed that a man, possibly arrested in relation to Schwartz's statement, may have been awoken from his sleep at 3:15am? Perhaps the police had more to work with, then just eyewitness descriptions.

Elaborate away.

It would require writing a long post. When I get around to it ...

[FISHY1118]

Schwartzs was ''Lipski''

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is it more likely that Swanson was summarizing from from various reports, or from memory?

The other other side of the road, is still not the doorway of the beerhouse. Which account is the authoritative one - police or press?

If seems that an awful lot is being explained away by the assumption of errors. Apparently:

* Abberline was wrong about Schwartz stopping to watch

* Swanson was wrong about the side of the street

* The Star was wrong (deliberately) about the device in hand

* Schwartz was wrong about the the intended recipient of 'Lipski'

* Schwartz was also wrong about a man running behind him (it was actually the Phantom Menace)


The correct version of the incident, is the one that Ripperologists have created in their own minds. Or so they think.

It’s a question of which is likeliest, a) the Schwartz incident occurred but there were errors of recollection, reporting and timing, or b) Schwartz was part of a plot and was actually never there.

No contest…..a)

At the end of the day though we’re never going to advance this topic unless some previously unknown information surfaces. Schwartz could have lied; it’s not an impossibility as some people are just attention seekers. It’s also possible, however unlikely, that he simply got his time wrong and that he’d passed earlier and seen an altercation between a man and a woman. But the suggestion that he was part of some kind of plot is just several steps too far into the world of fiction.

If everyone had mobile phones then the timing discrepancies might look suspicious but they didn’t so they don’t.
If Schwartz spoke English then we couldn’t suggest errors in translation but he didn’t so we can.
If the Press were paragons of honesty who would never stoop to ‘sexing up’ a story then we could suggest it, but they weren’t so we can.

We have no records of police interviews; we have no way of assessing any of the doubts that the Leman Street Police might have had. We’re left with snippets, summaries and suggestions.

I think that we’re at a total dead end pointlessly revving our engines but getting nowhere.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

But that’s just a created scenario which can never be proven or disproven. We can’t even assess the likelihood or otherwise. It appears that you are suggesting that either a) one of the club members matched the description, or b) one of the club members pointed a finger at someone (matching the description given by Schwartz?) who was subsequently able to prove his innocence?

Elaborate away.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Is it more likely that Swanson was summarizing from from various reports, or from memory?

The other other side of the road, is still not the doorway of the beerhouse. Which account is the authoritative one - police or press?

If seems that an awful lot is being explained away by the assumption of errors. Apparently:

* Abberline was wrong about Schwartz stopping to watch

* Swanson was wrong about the side of the street

* The Star was wrong (deliberately) about the device in hand

* Schwartz was wrong about the the intended recipient of 'Lipski'

* Schwartz was also wrong about a man running behind him (it was actually the Phantom Menace)


The correct version of the incident, is the one that Ripperologists have created in their own minds. Or so they think.