Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Reread #123, and see if you can find a reference to a list of names and addresses.

That’s a list of men that had been interviewed already.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The notion of Pipeman being someone connected to the pub, is a long shot ...

In light of the quote posted by Joshua then it probably is a long shot but not impossible. It still doesn’t change the fact that the Police faced the task of arresting a man from the description that Schwartz gave them. Maybe Pipeman came forward?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yet no appearance from Pipeman at the inquest, or for that matter, in court. Didn't Doorway Man have a knife in his hand?

What use would he have been at an Inquest? The Inquests verdict would still have been ‘murder by person or persons unknown.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 evidence tells us that the Police considered Schwartz a valid witness and continued to do so. The report that Leman Street had doubts is vague to say the least and came via a Press report. How do we know that the reporter wasn’t just reporting an individual Police Officers doubts?

Why is it so unlikely that the Police might have simply had doubts that they would have been able to arrest the correct man based on Schwartz description and that additional information would be required to narrow down their search. I’ll ask again, how would the have gone about the task of arresting/questioning stocky men? Unless they had come across someone that they had reason for suspicion against and could stand him in front of Schwartz what real hope would they have had of luckily dropping on the right BS man?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That’s a list of men that had been interviewed already.

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In light of the quote posted by Joshua then it probably is a long shot but not impossible. It still doesn’t change the fact that the Police faced the task of arresting a man from the description that Schwartz gave them.

My theory (or one of them LOL), is that the police did have more to go on than just descriptions. Consider this report, East London Advertiser, Oct 6:

A man was brought to the Leman-street station on Sunday night, under circumstances which gave the police hopes at first that they had made an important capture. He was arrested, it seems, near Mitre-court, and could give no satisfactory account of himself. His appearance was anything but prepossessing. He was a short, thickset man of about 30, close shaven. Upon him was found 1s. 4½d. in money and a razor, and round his throat was a woollen scarf of a violet colour, upon which were several long hairs, evidently those of a woman. In reply to the inspector, he said that he had walked from Southampton, and belonged to the Royal Sussex Regiment (the very regiment, it will be remembered, whose cognisances was on the envelope found in the pocket of the Buck's-row victim). An examination of his boots, however, was not at all confirmatory of this statement, and he was taken to the cells for inquiries to be made about him. The man was ultimately released. There was another arrest made during the night, the prisoner being taken to Commercial-road police-station. The prisoner, however, readily furnished his name and address and apparently had no knowledge of the details of the murders. He was discharged upon his statement being verified. The man when taken into custody was in a very excited condition. At 3:15 on Monday morning a third man was arrested and likewise taken to Leman-street police station. He was also released in the course of the day.

Comparing this report, against the Star of Oct 2, the man arrested at 3:15 on Monday morning may well be this man ...

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

That is, 'the prisoner'. One of the men arrested late Sunday night, may well be this man ...

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

It is possible that the 3:15 arrest was of a man out on the street. It is also possible that the man was at home or at least indoors at the time, possibly asleep. If the later, on what basis was he arrested?

Maybe Pipeman came forward?

The word 'Lipski', was directed at either Schwartz, or Pipeman. If Pipeman came forward, there would be no reason to go looking for a 'Mr. Lipski'. That is because Israel was a 'Mr. Schwartz', and not a 'Mr. Lipski'.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[FISHY1118]

Schwartzs was ''Lipski''

[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 ...

[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.

[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 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?