Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Discussion: PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: The "Suspects": Current Opinion - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
General Discussion: PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron - by Trevor Marriott 5 hours ago.
Catherine Eddowes: The Chevrons - by pinkmoon 5 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: The "Suspects": Current Opinion - by pinkmoon 5 hours ago.
Catherine Eddowes: The Chevrons - by lynn cates 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: News Flash!! . . . VINCENT VAN GOGH WAS JACK THE RIPPER!! - (23 posts)
General Discussion: PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron - (17 posts)
Catherine Eddowes: The Chevrons - (6 posts)
Catherine Eddowes: skill - (6 posts)
Druitt, Montague John: Question about Druitt's occupation - (5 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: The "Suspects": Current Opinion - (5 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Mar 6, 2014, 11:56 pm
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm
Donald Swanson
Edit: Chris
Dec 9, 2012, 3:40 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.
Mike Covell: A Study in Red – The Secret Journal of Jack the Ripper
March 3, 2014, 3:42 am.
Mike Covell: Almost there….
January 24, 2014, 4:05 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper - Year in Review 2013
December 28, 2013, 7:31 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper At Last? - Review
December 9, 2013, 2:08 am.
Mike Covell: From Whitechapel to Whitefriargate
November 27, 2013, 4:15 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Elizabeth Stride

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #131  
Old 03-09-2012, 02:28 PM
lynn cates lynn cates is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,692
Default observation

Hello Maria, Jon. Quite right that, when two people are running, it may be perceived as two running, or X chasing Y, or conversely.

Jon, "If there isn't one along Fairclough St., then this "Scotsman" story is not about Schwartz."

Or Schwartz got the story wrong, etc.

Cheers.
LC
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 03-09-2012, 02:51 PM
lynn cates lynn cates is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,692
Default Schwartz et al

Hello Cris. Thanks.

"That may be possible but they reported that the Leman Street police had reason to doubt his story. Of course, they most certainly had reason to doubt the Star's version of his story and that may have been what they were implicating."

I think that is correct. I doubt the police found the "knife" version inspiring.

"As to whether Schwartz was at the inquest and the reporters missed it? I doubt it.'

So do I. It is very hard to harmonise the stories here.

"Look what Baxter went through with Phillips at the Chapman inquest. It was like a wrestling match.'

It was indeed. Baxter seemed almost to humiliate him.

"Baxter even went so far as to insult Phillip's professionalism by implicating that other medical opinions might not agree with him. He was determined to get everything out and on record. He didn't even make as much as a passing reference to any witness like Schwartz in his summary. And by that time, the police had released the description of the man Schwartz had described."

All true.

"What is known is that Baxter had his own investigators who operated independently of the police. Perhaps they uncovered something that caused him to not put much faith in the 'Hungarian's story."

If so, one wishes it had survived.

"My thought is that - and its only a thought - Baxter was pretty tough on the police and the divisional surgeon during the protracted Chapman inquest. The fruits of his labor in all of that was his fantastic 'organ specimen' theory at the end which backfired right in his face. By the time of the Stride inquest Swanson had taken over the investigation and had now been around long enough to be up to speed on everything and he wasn't about to let the coroner jeopardize the investigation. Swanson was a tough SOB himself and a 'company man' when it came to police procedure."

So perhaps Swanson nixed Schwartz's testifying? Could be. I suppose that would be analogous to the withholding of some of Lewende's description of Kate's "contact" near Mitre sq.

"One can notice a totally different disposition in Baxter at the Stride inquest as opposed to the Nichols and Chapman inquests. He had toned down his rhetoric considerably. As a result, the police may have been more able to get their way with holding back a key witness."

Very possible. Do you think the police applied just a bit of friendly persuasion to help him adjust his view, or was it more like embarrassment at his previous theory?

"Even though Schwartz's description was circulated, I think the fact that he was a Jew and the man he alleged to have seen shouted 'Lipski' may have caused the police to consider the possible social turmoil if his testimony was brought to the inquest. Baxter was a lot of things, but he was also, a socially conscious man. He didn't hesitate to use his hearings to get up on a soapbox for certain causes that were related to incidents his proceedings were investigating. For once, he may have agreed with Swanson or some high police official that the matter warranted some discretion, considering the social climate."

And so, not unlike Warren and the GSG?

"Baxter was aware of the social stress and he was concerned about the Jewish community. Baxter had won a narrow victory over Dr. Macdonald in filling the late Sir John Humphrey's seat as coroner for the Eastern District. Without the support of the Jewish community, Baxter might not have won. He had campaigned for their vote. And since then (May of 1888) that district had been subdivided into the Northeastern and Southeastern districts with himself retaining the Southeastern while his political rival, Macdonald, got the other."

I was unaware that the Jewish vote had helped Baxter. But, if so, yes, he would not wish to offend.

"He had brought Pizer into his previous inquest the day after that man was released for the sole purpose of letting Pizer publicly exonerate himself so the 'Leather Apron' furor might be subdued. It was a brilliant move on Baxter's part and it worked."

Indeed, before this, Pizer/Pizer's family and friends feared for his life according to his statement.

Cheers.
LC
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 03-09-2012, 05:40 PM
mariab mariab is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Paris/Berlin/Chicago
Posts: 2,981
Default

Fascinating, Cris. Your posts have been copied and pasted into my notes on Berner Street, and I'll most def be consulting you regularly (and crediting you) for my article, if it's OK with you. (Which has time, cuz for this month I need to mainly work on my book, only minimal Ripperology. Plus I've got some personal stuff going on.)
Agree about the Star possibly intentionally having mixed up which version of Schwartz' “testimony“ the police mistrusted, though I have a couple more ideas of what else the police might have mistrusted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter View Post
What is known is that Baxter had his own investigators who operated independently of the police. Perhaps they uncovered something that caused him to not put much faith in the 'Hungarians' story. Still, it would have been unlike Baxter to call him up anyway, even just to discredit him.
You probably meant to say, "like" Baxter? Do we have evidence that Baxter's investigators worked on the Chapman case? I agree that it would have been easy for Baxter's investigators to notice if Schwartz was related to the IWEC. And since the WVC was involved as well, maybe the police wasn't keen on letting things getting out in the open in the press.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter View Post
As to whether Schwartz was at the inquest and the reporters missed it? I doubt it. Look what Baxter went through with Phillips at the Chapman inquest. It was like a wrestling match. Baxter even went so far as to insult Phillip's professionalism by implicating that other medical opinions might not agree with him. He was determined to get everything out and on record. He didn't even make as much as a passing reference to any witness like Schwartz in his summary.
IF the police (AKA Swanson and Abberline) had decided though to keep the Schwartz testimony suppressed from public knowledge, it's a whole different matter than the conflict between Baxter and Phillips/the police at the Chapman inquest. In the Chapman case we're talking incompetency, in the Stride case we're talking keeping things under wraps so as not to endager the ongoing investigation. Apples and oranges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter View Post
My thought is that Baxter was pretty tough on the police and the divisional surgeon during the protracted Chapman inquest. The fruits of his labor in all of that was his fantastic 'organ specimen' theory at the end which backfired right in his face. By the time of the Stride inquest Swanson had taken over the investigation and had now been around long enough to be up to speed on everything and he wasn't about to let the coroner jeopardize the investigation. Swanson was a tough SOB himself and a 'company man' when it came to police procedure. One can notice a totally different disposition in Baxter at the Stride inquest as opposed to the Nichols and Chapman inquests. He had toned down his rhetoric considerably. As a result, the police may have been more able to get their way with holding back a key witness. {...} For once, he {Baxter} may have agreed with Swanson or some high police official that the matter warranted some discretion
Fascinating analysis. That's exactly how I see it too, and besides the Jewish/social question I'd throw in the WVC in there as well, which was pursuing its own agenda, becoming a conflict to the police and a possible cause of embarrassment.

Fascinating about Baxter using the Jewish votes and exonerating Pizer when running against Dr. Macdonald. Is there somewhere where I can read about all this, or do you know about this through the press reports Cris?
Also, Cris, what would you say? In case Schwartz got scarce and hid away before the inquest, would you expect Swanson to advertize this fact chapter and verse to the HO, Warren and Anderson? Or maybe Warren/Anderson would have been informed and decided to not mention the witness' disappearance.
__________________
Best regards,
Maria

Last edited by mariab : 03-09-2012 at 05:44 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 03-10-2012, 06:30 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lynn cates View Post
Hello Maria, Jon. Quite right that, when two people are running, it may be perceived as two running, or X chasing Y, or conversely.
Exactly so, especially if one is shouting "murder", "police", a passer-by might assume one is chasing the other. However we look at it the Scotsman article is confused.

Quote:
Jon, "If there isn't one along Fairclough St., then this "Scotsman" story is not about Schwartz."

Or Schwartz got the story wrong, etc.
You think his story, was just a story?

We might think that he would know where any railway arch's existed between Dutfields Yd. and his new residence in Backchurch Lane.
If he was chased all the way the nearest railway arch, this guy was not running with him he was running after him. The nearest railway arch is several streets away to the south & S/W of Dutfields Yd.

Regards, Jon S.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
If nonsense were solid, the nonsense that is written against Hutchinson would sink a Dreadnought
Inspired by, Robert Anderson.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 03-10-2012, 04:24 PM
Hunter Hunter is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariab View Post
You probably meant to say, "like" Baxter? Do we have evidence that Baxter's investigators worked on the Chapman case? I agree that it would have been easy for Baxter's investigators to notice if Schwartz was related to the IWEC. And since the WVC was involved as well, maybe the police wasn't keen on letting things getting out in the open in the press.
Yes, that was a typo. No we don't have direct evidence that Baxter's 'investigators' worked on the Chapman case. There was one incident, on the first day of the inquest, where Baxter was frustrated that the other witnesses involved with John Davies had not been located. Baxter threatened to use his 'officer' to find these men if Davies or the police couldn't. Baxter's 'officer' in this instance was a Mr. Banks. One has to understand Wynne Baxter's background a little. He wore many hats in his life, but he was best known as a successful attorney. One reason for this is because when he had a case, he used associates working for him to investigate a particular case so he was better prepared when presenting his side. He carried on this tactic when he became coroner. People like Mr. Banks fulfilled that role.

Quote:
IF the police (AKA Swanson and Abberline) had decided though to keep the Schwartz testimony suppressed from public knowledge, it's a whole different matter than the conflict between Baxter and Phillips/the police at the Chapman inquest. In the Chapman case we're talking incompetency, in the Stride case we're talking keeping things under wraps so as not to endager [endanger] the ongoing investigation. Apples and oranges.
No, it wasn't a matter of incompetency in the Chapman case. It was a conflict of interest. The police were conducting an ongoing investigation and thought some details should not be public knowledge. If you will remember, at one point, Mr. Phillips even accused Baxter of 'thwarting justice' by attempting to divulge the missing organ details from him. Baxter thought it was his duty to get everything on record, now, so it could be later used at a trial if someone was apprehended and prosecuted. He had learned - once again as an attorney- that evidence needed to be gathered and recorded quickly, because over time, evidence could be lost, witnesses could be lost or their memory fade.

With Schwartz, you had a Jewish witness who claimed to see an altercation between a man and the murder victim. The epitaph 'Lipski' was used. I don't want to go long here because folks don't like long threads, so I'll just throw in this reminder; Baxter had presided over the inquest into the death of Miriam Angel. There was much racial tension involved there and Baxter would remember it well.


Quote:
Fascinating about Baxter using the Jewish votes and exonerating Pizer when running against Dr. Macdonald. Is there somewhere where I can read about all this, or do you know about this through the press reports Cris?
This is rather complicated and since I am working on a manuscript involving this topic I'll just say that I'll provide source material in my footnotes. One correction though; Baxter didn't use Pizer to exonerate himself when running against Macdonald. That election happened in early 1887, as a result of the death of Sir John Humphreys. Baxter was the Conservative Union candidate and Macdonald was, perceived at least, as a radical Irish Home Rule candidate. Martin Fido talks about this in one of his books.

The demographics of the district were as such that many of the Irish immigrants lived in the Northeastern part of the district while many of the Jews lived and had their shops in the Southeastern part and closer to the old City... ie- Middlesex, Goulston, Aldgate (Witechapel Rd)...etc. There was tension between these two immigrant groups. The old adage, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies here. The Irish sided with Macdonald while the Jews went with Baxter. It was a bitterly fought election with even a debate about whether a doctor should be coroner as opposed to a lawyer holding the position. This was, also, the last time that the coroner's office would be an elective position.

The Coroner's Act of 1888 changed that and, ironically, Baxter's district was subdivided into the Northeastern and Southeastern districts with Macdonald gaining the coroner's seat for the Northeastern district. Baxter's pay got cut in half as a result, because he, hypothetically, was now only representing half of what he once did. Baxter, being the lawyer he was, actually sued the council for his pay, which had been set when Sir John Humphreys was still in office in 1886 and the tenure was supposed to remain in effect for five years.

As mentioned before, Baxter used his inquests to champion certain causes. Tying in with Baxter and the Jewish question, here's one example: It was reported in the Echo... can't remember the date off hand, as I'm going from memory here. There was a elderly Jewish couple who had resided in a tenement that they were subleasing to other tenants. The wife had committed suicide and the husband claimed it was a result of her being distressed over the high rent which made them unable to find sub-renters. Whitechapel had been plagued with this problem for years and it affected the Jewish community in particular. At the inquest, Baxter used this case as an opportunity for a 'bully pulpit' to make this case an example of the problem that existed, stating that the rent was too high in many of the buildings, that it caused economic hardship to these people and 'look at the result that this caused.' That was Wynne Edwin Baxter.


Quote:
Also, Cris, what would you say? In case Schwartz got scarce and hid away before the inquest, would you expect Swanson to advertise this fact chapter and verse to the HO, Warren and Anderson? Or maybe Warren/Anderson would have been informed and decided to not mention the witness' disappearance.
I don't know, Maria. I don't think Schwartz was hidden away because Swanson does explain him to the HO in his report and both Warren and Anderson mention him as well. I just think, on this one, the socially conscious Baxter- knowing the tensions that existed and remembering the Lipski case- decided to work with the police on this one instead of his usual 'get everything out in the open' stance. And, as I said in the previous post, this is just my perception purely based on historical analysis of the people involved and the social and political climate of the time.

I've gone long enough. Folks don't like to read long posts. They may think they're on a Hutchinson thread... LOL.
__________________
Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________

When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

Last edited by Hunter : 03-10-2012 at 04:28 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 03-11-2012, 07:05 PM
mariab mariab is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Paris/Berlin/Chicago
Posts: 2,981
Default

FASCINATING, Cris, and I'm so glad you're preparing an article on this. Will it be about Baxter/coroners and politics? The Ripper mags most definitely need some well-researched articles covering Victorian politics in relation to the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter View Post
No, it wasn't a matter of incompetency in the Chapman case. It was a conflict of interest. The police were conducting an ongoing investigation and thought some details should not be public knowledge. If you will remember, at one point, Mr. Phillips even accused Baxter of 'thwarting justice' by attempting to divulge the missing organ details from him.
I see. In this case it makes sense that Baxter might have mellowed down his behaviour after his failing with his "missing organs" theory. (Shades of Trevor Marriott?) Plus, like you said, by the time of the Stride inquest Swanson had gained significantly in experience, authority, and power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter View Post
I don't know, Maria. I don't think Schwartz was hidden away because Swanson does explain him to the HO in his report and both Warren and Anderson mention him as well.
Yet I'm still wondering: In case Schwartz had gone in hiding shortly before the inquest, would Swanson, Warren, and co. have come out completely clean about the fact? Or maybe, would they have covered this by omission?
__________________
Best regards,
Maria
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 03-12-2012, 03:12 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
There is actually an article that offers some sort of possible corroboration, Jon. It was published in "The Scotsman" on the 2nd of October and the relevant part goes like this:

" In the course of conversation the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had, no doubt, been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen - or, at least, a man whom some persons regard as the murderer - being chased by another man along Fairclough Street which runs across Berner Street, close to the club, and which is interesected on the right by Providence Street, Brunswick Street, and Christian Street, and on the left by Batty Street and Grove Street, the two latter running up into Commercial Road. The pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body."
Compare this quote from The Echo, 1st Oct.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

Identical stories, apparently The Scotsman used the report published by The Echo, or their same source.

Regards, Jon S.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
If nonsense were solid, the nonsense that is written against Hutchinson would sink a Dreadnought
Inspired by, Robert Anderson.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 03-12-2012, 03:35 AM
mariab mariab is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Paris/Berlin/Chicago
Posts: 2,981
Default

Thank you so much for posting this Wickerman, I was under the impression I had mixed up the Echo with the Scotsman report when Fish posted the Scotsman. Now I see they are identical. There might be even other, undiscovered reports of Schwartz' testimony. I'll be attempting a 'comprehensive' newspaper search at some point in April/May, but for the next 2 weeks I'm grounded, working mainly on my book. (And further looking for Schwartz in the AFs from the spring of 1905.)
__________________
Best regards,
Maria
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 03-12-2012, 04:35 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,022
Default

Hi Maria, you're welcome, in fact that is the original article I intended to post instead of the Star, but I couldn't remember where I had read it.

What I find interesting is the suggestion there was a rumour on the street that the man being chased was the murderer.
Where would anybody get that idea from before Schwartz story was first published in the Star the same evening?

If the theory was current on Sunday, how come neither the press nor the police had not heard of it from any of the many interviews they conducted.
On top of this, we read that the Secretary had known the second man's name, but couldn't remember it.

So are we to believe the Club Secretary new Pipemans name?, yet had not divulged it to the police? If any club member had told them that the supposed murderer had been chased by someone from the club, it seems strange we do not know about it from them.
The police did take statements from every club member, which includes this secretary, before any were allowed to leave.

Yet the police & press both knew that two men had run eastward along Fairclough St., but was Kozebrodski actually a club member? Is this the name the Secretary couldn't remember?
In other words, is this just a confused story about Diemschitz & Kozebrodski running along Fairclough St.?

Regards, Jon S.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
If nonsense were solid, the nonsense that is written against Hutchinson would sink a Dreadnought
Inspired by, Robert Anderson.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 03-12-2012, 05:32 AM
mariab mariab is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Paris/Berlin/Chicago
Posts: 2,981
Default a theory on Berner Street

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Where would anybody get that idea from before Schwartz story was first published in the Star the same evening? If the theory was current on Sunday, how come neither the press nor the police had not heard of it from any of the many interviews they conducted. On top of this, we read that the Secretary had known the second man's name, but couldn't remember it. {...} Yet the police & press both knew that two men had run eastward along Fairclough St., but was Kozebrodski actually a club member? Is this the name the Secretary couldn't remember? In other words, is this just a confused story about Diemschitz & Kozebrodski running along Fairclough St.?
Hello Wickerman. No, I don't believe this was about William Wess disremembering Kozebrodski's name. In my interpretation, this is William Wess giving an interview to The Echo in an attempt to control things about his Club post Stride. I also suspect that William Wess had his hand in the Schwartz Star interview (possibly translating and manipulating the testimony), and that Wess went with Schwartz to Leman Street to translate. (Remember, Wess went there documentedly with Leon Goldstein.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
So are we to believe the Club Secretary new Pipemans name?, yet had not divulged it to the police?
Pipeman's physical description fits Le Grand. Le Grand's boss Joseph Aarons had approached the IWEC to see if the WVC could organize meetings in the IWEC premisses (this is documented by a newspaper report). This approach failed, and we're not clear yet what kind of conflict existed between the WVC and the IWEC. There was a Schwartz Polish/Hungarian/no English speaking anarchist orator acquainted with William Wess and followed by the French secret police in 1902-1905 whom the AF omits mentioning, despite our knowing that Schwartz prominently spoke at certain dates in Whitechapel (this is corroborated by French spy reports located by me at the Archives Nationales in Paris). My suspicion is that Wess used Schwartz (a minor IWEC resident) to testify about "Pipeman" to apply pressure on Le Grand, who was getting on Wess' bad side. This is a theory I've formulated based on earlier interpretations by other Ripperologists, but developed further. I've been researching things with Lynn and will be writing an article on this at some point in late spring/early summer.
Still need to research a lot of stuff on the WVC, plus I was hoping to manage nailing Schwartz, whom I personally suspect to have gone in hiding before the inquest. (The anarchist orator Schwartz documentedly kept changing his first name.)
__________________
Best regards,
Maria
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.