Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

c.d.

If you don't mind, c.d., I'd like to point to the following post.

Why do we never see such a disclaimer on any other witness statement “if so so and so is to be believed”? Clearly Swanson is acknowledging the issues with it.

My guess (and that is all that it is) is that no aspersion is being cast on Schwartz's veracity but rather the problems inherent in the fact that he did not speak or understand English. In other words, the police simply didn't know what the hell he saw.

c.d.

Apparently the police did know what the hell he saw ...

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.

He saw a man and wife quarrelling, and so paid little attention. So you may want to guess again ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

”….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 didn't need to - stopping was implied. If Schwartz kept going when he "had got as far as the gateway", he would not have seen the assault. He stopped to watch, then he crossed the road. Funny how Jack the Ripper didn't mind him watching his work, don't you think?

The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away ...

This also implies that Schwartz stopped - a second time.

”….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.

That may be due to the Star sensationalizing the account, to sell more papers. Makes sense to me.

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?

Nice sleight of hand.

Or……is it either the result of an issue of interpretation where the mention of BS man ‘stopping’ got translated as Schwartz stopping.

Apparently, all talk of the possibility of translation errors, amounts to idle speculation.

Or did Abberline simply misremembered this detail when writing up his notes?

Or did he simply invent that detail, to spice up the story?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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?

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.

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.

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

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 ...?

”….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.”

D-I Reid: As soon as the search was over the whole of the persons who had come into the yard and the members of the club were interrogated, their names and addresses taken, their pockets searched, and their clothes and hands examined. There were 28 of them.

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

I do street patrol for the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.

I don’t think that the Police doubted Schwartz.

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

These are possibly the men the Star referred to ...

DN, Oct 3: Last night two men were still detained at the Leman-street Police-station "on suspicion," but so weak was the evidence against them that there could be little doubt that they will be almost immediately discharged, if indeed they have not already been liberated.

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.

If the contradictions between the statements of Schwartz and one or both of the arrested men were serious enough, is it possible that Schwartz had to make another visit to Leman street? Being in police custody would have prevented him from appearing at the inquest.

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

Why would Baxter need to adjourn the inquiry, for Schwarz to appear? Would his appearance have depended on the police first finding him?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

who knows? but if they doubted schwartz, why would they be arresting men on his story?

Because the situation is dynamic. Abberline's interview on the Sunday evening, is not the be all, end all, of police opinion regarding Schwartz.

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.

The Star apparently went to a lot of trouble to find Schwartz. They must have thought his story worth hearing for themselves. Why go to all that trouble, only to embellish the story?

The knife was invented by Schwartz to account for his cowardly behaviour theory, is contradicted by the report ...

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

His crossing had nothing to do with the knife, which is yet to enter the story.

A better theory than both of these, points to the interpreter friend at Leman street. Sensing the risk of mentioning a knife in the hand of an unidentified man - perhaps one who would never be identified - the interpreter quietly changed 'knife' to 'pipe'. The Star's interpreter was more accurate. Do you really think Schwartz would have bolted, having seen a man lighting a pipe, walking in his direction? A knife makes much more sense, in that regard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

[FISHY1118]

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.

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.



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 ...?



D-I Reid: As soon as the search was over the whole of the persons who had come into the yard and the members of the club were interrogated, their names and addresses taken, their pockets searched, and their clothes and hands examined. There were 28 of them.



I do street patrol for the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.



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.

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 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.

[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.

[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 ?

[FISHY1118]

Waiting ? NBFN

[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.

[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]

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]

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?