Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[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.”

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I’m saying that, from that quote, we have the Police doubting the statement of the man that was arrested on Schwartz description and not on Schwartz himself.

[Abby Normal]

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.

they didnt. they doubted the arrested mans story. the Star got it messed up. thats how i read it anyway.

[Darryl Kenyon]

From The Star

It is but fair to say that the police have clutched eagerly at every straw that promised to help them out, but there is nothing left to work on. People have come forward by scores to furnish the description of a man they had seen with some woman near the scene, and not a great while before the commission of one or the other of
but no two of the descriptions are alike, and none of the accompanying information has thus far been able to bear investigation. 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.

Seems to me the police were edging their bets with Schwartz . They couldn't discount him completely [ how could they, his sighting is of the upmost importance, if true ], but they had reason [ whatever that was ], to look more closely into his story without being 100% sure that it was verbatim. I know this has been done to death but if they were 100% confident that BS man could have been Jack, or at least a witness of significant importance, why was Schwartz not at the inquest? Not only that but were is there a description of Pipeman at the inquest ? Another witness of vital importance. Yet nothing of him either, as a witness at the inquest if he had been identified early in the investigation.
The second from another source could have been Marshall or Smith for example.

Even in Swanson' s report of Oct 19 they issue two descriptions . Why bother with PC Smiths description if they were 100% confident in Schwartz . His description trumps Smith's and it is very unlikely they were the same man. Perhaps because Smith was known to be a reliable witness ?

If Schwartz had nothing to add to the inquest as some suggest, what was Brown doing there ? His description is ambiguous of someone he thought he saw with Liz. Not only that but there was no attack/assault and he didn't see the couple by the gates neither. Worse, it was at the same time as Schwartz alleged sighting. Surely Baxter would want to clear up who saw what at 12:45.

By Oct 23 Baxter in his summing up said - The jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time.

To me the truth of Schwartz account was never fully ascertained, but never fully disbelieved either.

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Darryl,

I think that this part shouldn’t be overlooked….

“…..but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.”

How much use was Schwartz description when they could hardly arrest every stocky guy with a moustache? Added to this they had other possible sightings with differing descriptions. It’s also worth mentioning that these ‘doubts’ were from the Press and not directly from the Police so perhaps it was more a case of how useful the Police believed the description to have been to them as opposed to how believable they felt that Schwartz was as a witness? Maybe the Police expressed this to a reporter who then misinterpreted what he’d been told and then stated that the Police doubted Schwartz as a witness.

If the Police believed Schwartz enough to make an arrest but only expressed ‘doubts’ after it how could the arrest have reflected on Schwartz honesty? What could the arrested man have said that reflected badly on Schwartz?

The problem with Schwartz non-appearance at the Inquest is that we know for a fact what the specific aims of the Inquest were and Schwartz couldn’t contribute to those aims. We can certainly ask why x was at an Inquest or why y wasn’t but this just shows that we can’t assume who should or shouldn’t have been called (unless they had a specific relevance to the 4 aims, which Schwartz didn’t) We have no way of knowing why he wasn’t called of course but numerous suggestions have been made. Personally I’m convinced by the research that has been done that Schwartz wasn’t omitted because the Coroner didn’t trust his evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

they didnt. they doubted the arrested mans story. the Star got it messed up. thats how i read it anyway.

When you think about it Abby, what good was Schwartz description to the Police in reality? They couldn’t have gone around questioning every stocky guy with a moustache. I can’t help wondering how they managed to arrest a man on Schwartz description alone…. unless it was Pipeman who they located? Maybe because he’d come from the doorway of the pub (or possibly from the pub itself) he was easier to track down? Easier than a random stocky bloke at any rate. Another few ‘maybes’ but maybe his version of events differed from Schwartz version in some way? Maybe Schwartz was mistaken about the knife? Maybe Pipeman saw the incident as a bit of drunken horseplay rather than any kind of attack? Maybe Pipeman described BS man but without having a moustache or as not being particularly stocky?

[Abby Normal]

When you think about it Abby, what good was Schwartz description to the Police in reality? They couldn’t have gone around questioning every stocky guy with a moustache. I can’t help wondering how they managed to arrest a man on Schwartz description alone…. unless it was Pipeman who they located? Maybe because he’d come from the doorway of the pub (or possibly from the pub itself) he was easier to track down? Easier than a random stocky bloke at any rate. Another few ‘maybes’ but maybe his version of events differed from Schwartz version in some way? Maybe Schwartz was mistaken about the knife? Maybe Pipeman saw the incident as a bit of drunken horseplay rather than any kind of attack? Maybe Pipeman described BS man but without having a moustache or as not being particularly stocky?

who knows? but if they doubted schwartz, why would they be arresting men on his story? also, ive often thought the change from pipe to knife was either the paper messing it up/ jazzing it up or schwartz embellishing to perhaps account for his less than brave behavior.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Did that recitation of the faith, help to calm your nerves?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

lol! Conspiracy Island

Who was on that island, Abby? Was Woolf Wess one of the conspirators? After all, he was the one who spoke of the murderer being pursued along Fairclough street, completely contradicting Schwartz.

By the way, if you're going to sum up other posters in such a casual manner, then be prepared to have them return serve. For example, I might be inclined to sum up your Casebook career in ...

two words-Peaked cap