A Case of Misattribution?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

In discussing the use of the name "Lipski", Anderson in a draft letter of 5th November wrote " . . . the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case . . ."

This draft appears to have been used by Warren in a 7th November report which, in discussing the same subject, reads "the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwarz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case . . ."

It looks like Warren got it from Anderson.

Small wonder we're confused.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

That's an interesting thought. If Schwartz gave evidence 'in camera' it would be unusual, but would reflect the perceived importance of his testimony. Schwartz had already had some press attention. What would the authorities do if they wanted to prevent a recurrence? Put it about that they had doubts about the credibility of his evidence perhaps?

Hi again Colin, and that's an interesting suggestion too!

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

In discussing the use of the name "Lipski", Anderson in a draft letter of 5th November wrote " . . . the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case . . ."

This draft appears to have been used by Warren in a 7th November report which, in discussing the same subject, reads "the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwarz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case . . ."

It looks like Warren got it from Anderson.

Small wonder we're confused.

Hi Simon

Yes, probably that's the origin of Paul Begg's suggestion, (assuming I recall the source correctly...I'll check later). Thanks, and yes, no wonder we're confused...It'd be intriguing if he did give evidence though...oh to be a fly on that particular wall...

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hi Dave,

That's an interesting thought. If Schwartz gave evidence 'in camera' it would be unusual, but would reflect the perceived importance of his testimony.

How would that work though?
I'm assuming you are talking about the Coroner's Inquest. Isn't it the Jury who are required to hear all the evidence?

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

The Jury

How would that work though?
I'm assuming you are talking about the Coroner's Inquest. Isn't it the Jury who are required to hear all the evidence?

Regards, Jon S.

Hi, Jon,

Good point. Coroners' Juries are smaller than those in the Crown Court, but there would still be seven people who would have to be kept quiet.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

Yes I believe legally you're right, so either:-

1) Schwartz wasn't called (for whatever reason, language difficulties or other) and no written statement by him was presented to the Coroner (else a mention in the summing up would be expected)...bearing in mind the potential importance of his evidence this is somewhat irregular...following on from this, Anderson made a mistake, which Warren repeated in his report.

2) Schwartz was called, or a statement of his was admitted in evidence, but the Coroner imposed some form of reporting restriction, which against all odds, succeeded. Anderson, (and in turn Warren), was correct.

3) Schwartz was called or his evidence was otherwise admitted in the presence of the Coroner and his Jury, but the Public and Press were excluded from this part of the inquest. This too is irregular as interested members of the public would not be able to question the evidence...again Anderson, (and in turn Warren), was correct.

4) Schwartz was indeed totally discredited by the time the inquest took place

My reluctant conclusion (?) is that the police may have publicly devalued Schwartz's evidence (in order to ensure that he wasn't called to appear at the Inquest, necessary because it was unlikely that Baxter or his officer just hadn't heard about Schwartz by then), then kept him "up their sleeve" for later use...unless someone else has more plausible ideas?

All the best

Dave

[Garry Wroe]

The only problem being, Dave, that the police were instruments of the Coroner's office and thus under a statutory obligation to make available all information relating to the death under investigation.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Garry

In which case one is perhaps drawn towards the conclusion that Schwartz is totally discredited?

Pray expand!

Dave

[Jonathan H]

To Simon

Fair enough, but Jim Swanson is a self-serving source on that point. I do not mean in a deceitful way. His grandfather probably was known to be sharp-witted right into old age.

Yet, inevitably, the grandson would have wanted to believe this, to emphasize this aspect, or else his scoop is undermined to a sceptical tabloid.

Look, people can, in general, have all their 'marbles' and still make mistakes of memory, especially when they have nothing but their memory to access.

I think the compromise position is more viable because it does not require any 'modern mischief'; eg. an act of conscious deceit, of which there is no evidence.

The muddled account which Swanson wrote on the flyleaf is, on the other hand, arguably evidence of a failing memory. It does not mean he was ga ga! He could so easily be conflating three separate bits here: 1) 'Kosminski' who did return briefly to his brother's home and was believed by Anderson and/or Swanson -- wrongly -- to have died shortly after being sectioned; 2) another suspect who was under surveillance by city police and who was removed to an asylum in Surrey; and 3) a Jewish witness, Lawende, describing a suspect dressed like a seaman and/or that a 'Sailor's Home' played a part in the Sadler tale -- which mutates into the unlikely 'Seaside Home' location but disposes of 'Jack the Sailor'.


The late Senator Ted Kennedy in his memoirs describes a scene between his brother Robert and LBJ which we know from other sources did not happen that way. Moreover, the point of the story -- Bobby asking to be made a kind of emissary over the Viet Nam War by his nemesis -- is just so highly unlikely.

On the other hand, the best theory is that the aged and ill Edward Kennedy, relying on memory instead of his aides, who could have checked, has merged two different encounters between his brother and President Johnson, one of which involved this emissary notion, thus creating a single story. One that, moreover, casts his beloved brother in an even better light.

Sound familiar?

[Garry Wroe]

In which case one is perhaps drawn towards the conclusion that Schwartz is totally discredited?

There's no evidence for such amongst the police files, Dave. On the contrary, he appears to have been regarded as an important witness. And, as I stated in my initial post on this thread, Schwartz was the only eyewitness whose evidence might have convicted a suspect on its own merit. There really isn't anyone else who fits the bill.

[Cogidubnus]

So Garry...do you veer towards option 1, 2 or 3 (or another of your own) ???

All the best

Dave

[Garry Wroe]

I honestly don't know, Dave. Something appears to be amiss whichever way you care to look at it, particularly since Fanny Mortimer seems not to have appeared before the inquest either.

[Cogidubnus]

Fanny

No Garry, that bugs me too...what she saw/heard (or didn't) was clearly pretty critical...

By the way, sorry if it looked like I was putting you on the spot...I didn't mean to do that - just curious about your views...

All the best

Dave

[Garry Wroe]

The thought never entered my head, Dave. I've been banging on for years that the Stride case is in dire need of some real critical analysis, so I'm hardly in any position to complain when it receives just that.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Garry,

I completely agree with you about Stride not being a Ripper victim.

However, it does leave us with the rather thorny problem of who wrote Saucy Jacky, the fortuitous postcard which claimed her as a Ripper victim.

Someone obviously had reasons for wanting people to believe it.

Regards,

Simon