Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There also The Star, Oct. 2:

Cheers Kattrup,

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?

Or was this just a case of The Star hearing that the Police had doubts about the arrested man’s story but they mistakenly assumed that they had doubts about Schwartz?

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

”….about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat.”

How many stout, moustachioed men would have fit the bill? So was there some other factor that led the police to arrest this man? And why did they discard him? Could he provide an alibi or was he presented to Schwartz who said “that’s not him.”

What could the arrested man have said to the Police that might have led them to doubt the validity of Schwartz story?

I don’t think that the Police doubted Schwartz.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But i see Kattrup has posted the stars oct 2nd report. that answers that ... Strange tho how ''they arrested one man from the description thus obtained ''

How could they doubt the truth if Schwartz description led them to an arrest? .

That is a question which goes into territory that is beyond the scope of Ripperology

[FISHY1118]

Also, the Star reported that 'the truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.' ''The official files refutes this'', showing that his statement was taken ''quite seriously''. Schwartz did not speak English, so the Star may have experienced a translation problem or embellished the story.
Schwartz



Then we have this to contend with , How many would accept the newspaper report over an Offical Police Investigation File ? Those who want too i guess.

[FISHY1118]

But i see Kattrup has posted the stars oct 2nd report. that answers that ... Strange tho how ''they arrested one man from the description thus obtained ''

How could they doubt the truth if Schwartz description led them to an arrest? .

[FISHY1118]

Just for my information (as I can’t remember) is this the only source for the suggestion that the Police had doubts regarding Schwartz?

“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.”

Genuine question , are you asking if the Police had doubts regarding Schwartz? based on this line from the Star Newspaper report


''The truth of the man’s statement is not wholly accepted''....... I take this to be the Stars opinion on Schwartz not the police.

[Kattrup]

Just for my information (as I can’t remember) is this the only source for the suggestion that the Police had doubts regarding Schwartz?

“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.”

There also The Star, Oct. 2:

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. If every man should be arrested who was known to have been seen in company with an abandoned woman in that locality on last Saturday night, the police-stations would not hold them. There are many people in that district who volunteer information to the police on the principle of securing lenient treatment for their own offences, and there are others who turn in descriptions on the chance of coming near enough the mark to claim a portion of the reward if the man should be caught, just as one buys a ticket in a lottery. Even where such information is given in good faith, it can rarely be looked upon in the light of a clue.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just for my information (as I can’t remember) is this the only source for the suggestion that the Police had doubts regarding Schwartz?

“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.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

A literal interpretation does not amount to reading in anything. Abberline said "... he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman", and, other than the possibility of interpreter error, I see no reason not to suppose that the reason Abberline stated this, was because Schwartz told him that that was what he did.


Regardless, that is the evidence we have. So if you suppose the chance of this occurring was remote at best, then your problem is with Schwartz, not Abberline. Actually, let me restate that. If Abberline believed things that Schwartz told him, that you find a remote possibility, then not only do you have a reason for not believing Schwartz, but you also have a reason for doubting Abberline's judgement of Schwartz.

”….had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.”

So Swanson makes no mention of Schwartz stopping.

”….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.”

No mention of Schwartz stopping in The Star.

In addition to there being no mention of him stopping, this point is worth noticing as it’s something that he obviously made a point of mentioning to The Star.

”….but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels,”

So is it likely that such a timid man would stand still to watch the confrontation between Stride and BS man occurring a very few feet away?

Or……is it either the result of an issue of interpretation where the mention of BS man ‘stopping’ got translated as Schwartz stopping. Or did Abberline simply misremembered this detail when writing up his notes?

[c.d.]

Yes, point to the sky and yell "da claim! da claim!"

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

I’ll tell you what happened…..Schwartz walked behind a drunken man who stopped to talk to Stride. There was a confrontation. Schwartz passed by and crossed over the road. He didn’t stop. BS man shouted ‘Lipski,’ and Schwartz left the street after seeing a second man.

No need for further discussion or repetition or flights of fancy. What are the chances that Schwartz was never there? Vanishing small as to be not worth mentioning. How many times did Fanny see Goldstein. Definitely once. Is it reasonable that no one else saw this incident. 100% certainly it was. Are any of the events in Berner Street suspicious? No.

Why the hell are there so many Berner Street-related threads? It’s like being on Fantasy Island.

lol! Conspiracy Island

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll tell you what happened…..Schwartz walked behind a drunken man who stopped to talk to Stride. There was a confrontation. Schwartz passed by and crossed over the road. He didn’t stop. BS man shouted ‘Lipski,’ and Schwartz left the street after seeing a second man.

No need for further discussion or repetition or flights of fancy. What are the chances that Schwartz was never there? Vanishing small as to be not worth mentioning. How many times did Fanny see Goldstein. Definitely once. Is it reasonable that no one else saw this incident. 100% certainly it was. Are any of the events in Berner Street suspicious? No.

Why the hell are there so many Berner Street-related threads? It’s like being on Fantasy Island.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Who knows? We can’t even be certain who they were unsure about.

So then, who knows if the "other source" was Pipeman? Could have been someone else at the scene, that Schwartz failed to mention.

The Star, Oct 1: The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Those who saw it?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is the problem with reading too much into wording.

” I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.”

A literal interpretation does not amount to reading in anything. Abberline said "... he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman", and, other than the possibility of interpreter error, I see no reason not to suppose that the reason Abberline stated this, was because Schwartz told him that that was what he did.

I reckon that the chances of Schwartz actually standing still just a very few yards away to watch the incident must have been remote to say the very least. I don’t think for a second that he actually ‘stopped.’

Regardless, that is the evidence we have. So if you suppose the chance of this occurring was remote at best, then your problem is with Schwartz, not Abberline. Actually, let me restate that. If Abberline believed things that Schwartz told him, that you find a remote possibility, then not only do you have a reason for not believing Schwartz, but you also have a reason for doubting Abberline's judgement of Schwartz.

Schwartz walked away ‘scared’ because BS man shouted at him because he saw him looking across at them.

The call of Lipski occurs after Schwartz sees Pipeman. The running away commences with Pipeman behind Schwartz, so it is not even clear how the call could have been directed at Schwartz, as Pipeman seems to be between the two men at this point. So Abberline's close questioning was probably pointless, and also, up to the point that Schwartz notices Pipeman following, he has zero reason to be scared of anything. According to yourself, he witnessed a domestic and said so. Then some pipe smoker walks in his direction after the 'husband' yelled a word. Did this one word have the power to make both men run off? Seems a bit far-fetched. But what if the pipe was actually a knife? Now it does make sense! Sort of.

By the way, what actually is the objection to the pipe really being a knife? Wasn't it a rough neighbourhood? Didn't the police expect to find knives in the club?

In The Star interview Schwartz made no mention of ‘stopping.’

“…..but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street.”

Would someone ‘timid of getting mixed up’ have stood there gawping? Or did he just look across as he was passing when BS man saw him and shouted at him?

While I'm inclined to agree with you that the Star account is the more accurate of the two, let's be fair to Israel. Schwartz was walking south on Berner street. Stopping to watch, and not wanting to get involved, might be possible if he stops a few yards shy of the man. At some point he wishes to continue on, but without walking right by the quarrelling couple. So he crosses the road and continues, but then hears more quarrelling. So it's not a completely unbelievable scenario, at least in that regard. However, this is a problem ...

The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage ...

That seems to be the last he sees of the woman. Not exactly a good basis for a mortuary identification. If Schwartz is to be believed, then the woman should be referred to by her name, in the Schwartz section of Swanson's report. So why wasn't she?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Who knows? We can’t even be certain who they were unsure about.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

This is the problem with reading too much into wording.

” I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.”

I reckon that the chances of Schwartz actually standing still just a very few yards away to watch the incident must have been remote to say the very least. I don’t think for a second that he actually ‘stopped.’

Schwartz walked away ‘scared’ because BS man shouted at him because he saw him looking across at them.

In The Star interview Schwartz made no mention of ‘stopping.’

“…..but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street.”

Would someone ‘timid of getting mixed up’ have stood there gawping? Or did he just look across as he was passing when BS man saw him and shouted at him?