Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[FISHY1118]

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

Hi Caz , Theres just one problem i see with that in regards to Pipeman being the killer .

If it was indeed his intention to kill Stride, wether it be pre meditated or instant opportunity why would he need to follow schwartz down the road only to come back to murder Stride.? Who by that time could have been gone when B.S left her alone ?, Also Schwartz was already leaving the scene so why follow?, if his intent is to kill Stride he should have just waited till Schwartz and BS were gone.?


Now if that was the case and indeed he did double back , then we have a new set of circumstances that have to be weighed up .

1 ,Theres no why of knowing where Stride was by the time Pipeman got back. Maybe she was in the same spot maybe not .

2. The possiblity of new witnesses that may or may not have turned up and saw Pipeman now chatting up Stride and perhaps witnessing a murder or assault as what Schartz did .

3. A later kill time,? that really messes things up for obvious reasons where witness testimony is concerned and the discovery of strides body by Big D.

All in all i just dont see Pipeman as the Man were all searching for . Just my opinion tho of course. Fishy

[caz]

Hi FISHY,

Well, I can't claim to know what would have gone on in the mind of Stride's killer, whoever he was and whether or not he was also JtR.

All I know is that time must have been pretty tight in that location, given all the comings and goings, but he managed to strike while the coast was clear and she was in the darkness of the yard. A single swift, silent sweep of the knife, suggesting someone who knew what he was doing, and she was done for.

Beyond that, it's anyone's guess really.

Have a good weekend all.

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

Hi FISHY,

Well, I can't claim to know what would have gone on in the mind of Stride's killer, whoever he was and whether or not he was also JtR.

All I know is that time must have been pretty tight in that location, given all the comings and goings, but he managed to strike while the coast was clear and she was in the darkness of the yard. A single swift, silent sweep of the knife, suggesting someone who knew what he was doing, and she was done for.

Beyond that, it's anyone's guess really.

Have a good weekend all.

Love,

Caz
X

That someone for me more than anyone else was indeed......... B.S man . Have a great one too . Fishy

[Abby Normal]

That someone for me more than anyone else was indeed......... B.S man . Have a great one too . Fishy

a very reasonable conclusion!

[GBinOz]

Hi FISHY,

Beyond that, it's anyone's guess really.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

In one short sentence you have summed up most of Ripperology.

Schwartz saw Pipemen advance towards him but was too busy running away to know how far, if at all, he followed after that. I think it played out as you suggested ...perhaps with Pipeman "encouraging" the departure of BSMan? We don't know the whereabouts of Parcelman, so it may have been he that interrupted the killer. Anyone's guess!

Last night I read this interesting short thread on Nathan Shine and am reviewing my thoughts: https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4926/12027.html

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

The phrase 'appears to believe' are weasel words. Can you quote me suggesting that the Star had more information than what we see in their reporting?

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?

That is not just a question for NBFN, it is also a question for the Gurus of Ripperology. I'll go first though ...

They would have taken Schwartz in, for further questioning. This predicts that while being held for this purpose, he would have been unable to attend the inquest, and thus there should no sign of his attendance.

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.

We cannot assume the Star's reporting on the matter, to be unreliable. To suppose that the Star must have been speculating, based on 'crumbs' from the police, is itself speculation.

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.

Interesting that you suppose Pipeman might have come forward, having read about himself in the Star. I wonder if the man was amused to find "that Pipeman had suddenly become Knifeman?".

Also interesting that you make no reference to the subsequent search for a man named Lipski. Why would that have been necessary, if Pipeman had been located?

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.

So why no mention from Swanson that Pipeman had been identified? Would someone reading his report suppose that he had been?

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.

So the doubts over Schwartz cannot have been merely a matter of descriptions. There must have been more going on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

That is not just a question for NBFN, it is also a question for the Gurus of Ripperology. I'll go first though ...

They would have taken Schwartz in, for further questioning. This predicts that while being held for this purpose, he would have been unable to attend the inquest, and thus there should no sign of his attendance.

How long would this interview have taken?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

We cannot assume the Star's reporting on the matter, to be unreliable. To suppose that the Star must have been speculating, based on 'crumbs' from the police, is itself speculation.

But it’s true that we can’t be certain of the origin of or the reason behind these doubts. How many at Leman Street had them? How do we know that the officer who spoke to the Press wasn’t just expressing his own opinion or his own opinion plus another Constable or two? Abberline appeared to have no such doubts of course.