Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

[Trevor Marriott]

You've got to think Anderson and Swanson had more reason for suspecting "Kosminski" than him being a demented Jew.

Probably because he hadn't paid for a dog licence!

[Harry D]

You've got to think Anderson and Swanson had more reason for suspecting "Kosminski" than him being a demented Jew.

[mpriestnall]

Just saying...

Where I come from we shoot first, then ask questions.

Of course, we don't get so many answers that way!

[Wickerman]

........
Nonetheless, you must be very curious about Baxter's decision regarding Schwartz.
And I wonder what Scotland Yard made of it?
It really is an enigma.

Well, I've been curious for a long time

Yet, there are clues as to why Schwartz was not called by Baxter.
We know Schwartz gave a statement to police on the evening of the 30th Sept., yet the very next day (Oct. 1st) as the story broke in the press we read:

"The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted".

Then again, on the 2nd, we read:

"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."

It appears the police attempted to investigate the story given by Schwartz but could not confirm it in any way. Baxter may have taken this into account.

What has always caused contention in this is the subsequent report by Swanson where he suggests the statement given to police by Schwartz is believable. Yet Swanson only addresses the initial statement not the results of any follow up, whether they found the suspects who were described, or found confirmation of the statement.

Swanson was writing a report covering all the murders from Tabram to Eddowes that had been requested by Warren on his return in mid September, this is when he assigned Swanson to take charge of the investigation. Even though the report was completed on 19th Oct. it was most likely compiled in his spare time over the previous 4 weeks from police reports & statements. So, it may not be true to say Schwartz was still believed as late as 19th Oct.
In fact, the first day of the inquest was 1st Oct. so Baxter had already chosen his witnesses before the police had completed their investigation into Schwartz's story, if we are to believe the press.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is what I mean, the authorities at the time knew more than we do today.

In providing the conclusions I have, I was not pretending to have the right answers, just what the evidence suggests to me. But, like I said, there's much we do not know.

Yes, and of course you're not suggesting you have the right answers.
Nonetheless, you must be very curious about Baxter's decision regarding Schwartz.
And I wonder what Scotland Yard made of it?
It really is an enigma.

[Wickerman]

The other side of that coin, is that we can't refer to the killer stopping without defining what murder-free timespan after a murder, counts as having stopped.
Is a year without a murder to be regarded as the killer having stopped?
What about 6 months, or 3 months, or 6 weeks - after which we can confidently say, 'the Ripper must now be behind bars, or dead'.
Why is the rate of killing in the late August to early/mid-November period, the Ripper's 'natural' rate of killing, and not an anomaly to that rate?
There is really no more certainty in your opinion as to the fate of JtR, than in supposing that other factors were at play in the autumn of '88, regardless of ones ability to identify that factor or factors.

This is true, we know of serial killers who have stopped. Chikatilo has often been cited, and when you read his story there was a reason why, but he did start up again. Though it is equally true that very few have been known to just stop killing. So, because "he stopped" happens so infrequently does that make a "he just stopped" argument considered Special Pleading?
And, if JtR did just stop, why didn't he start up again?
Which then begs the question, how many S.K's have stopped for good, and continued their life?
Not many? - so another case of Special Pleading?

The conclusion I arrived at was, as I said, based on the best remaining evidence.

The counter argument for me in this is, not many S.K's have committed suicide shortly after, so that could also be labeled Special Pleading.
In recent years we've had a spate of mass shootings in the US where the killer turned the gun on himself. This is a recent phenomena and not readily comparable to the Jack the Ripper murders.
The fact remains, in general S.K's do not normally kill themselves.

On the other hand, it could be said that Schwartz' testimony conflicted with James Brown's story, so why not leave Brown out?
This is a crucial question - Schwartz conceivably witnessed the victim, her killer, and another witness, while Brown doesn't even witness Schwartz.
Did Baxter make a terrible mistake in not calling Schwartz, or was there stuff going on behind the scenes that we don't know about?

This is what I mean, the authorities at the time knew more than we do today.

In providing the conclusions I have, I was not pretending to have the right answers, just what the evidence suggests to me. But, like I said, there's much we do not know.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Without identifying a motive we can't answer these questions with any certainty.

In #39 you said:

There was one candidate responsible for at least five murders, and that person did not merely stop killing. In order to stop he must have been incarcerated or died. If he was incarcerated he will remain nameless, if he died the best candidate is Druitt.

The other side of that coin, is that we can't refer to the killer stopping without defining what murder-free timespan after a murder, counts as having stopped.
Is a year without a murder to be regarded as the killer having stopped?
What about 6 months, or 3 months, or 6 weeks - after which we can confidently say, 'the Ripper must now be behind bars, or dead'.
Why is the rate of killing in the late August to early/mid-November period, the Ripper's 'natural' rate of killing, and not an anomaly to that rate?
There is really no more certainty in your opinion as to the fate of JtR, than in supposing that other factors were at play in the autumn of '88, regardless of ones ability to identify that factor or factors.

We'll likely never know.
Though, we do know the testimony of James Brown must have conflicted with the story given by Schwartz, but there was a second couple in Berner St. that night.

On the other hand, it could be said that Schwartz' testimony conflicted with James Brown's story, so why not leave Brown out?
This is a crucial question - Schwartz conceivably witnessed the victim, her killer, and another witness, while Brown doesn't even witness Schwartz.
Did Baxter make a terrible mistake in not calling Schwartz, or was there stuff going on behind the scenes that we don't know about?

[Wickerman]

Did JtR start and stop within the autumn, or was that period actually a spike in activity?
If that later, could there have been an external motivation at work, lasting just that period?

Without identifying a motive we can't answer these questions with any certainty.

If the coroner does the choosing, what would 'deliberately omitted' actually mean, other than the coroner excluding an apparently important witness, for no obvious reason?

"Deliberately omitted" more often indicates a belief in a conspiracy among the higher police officials. I was merely pointing out that the coroner is not ruled by these same police officials.

Do you suppose Schwartz was not believed by Baxter, because the police had had no luck in finding Schwartz' first or second man, or because he didn't believe his story?

We'll likely never know.
Though, we do know the testimony of James Brown must have conflicted with the story given by Schwartz, but there was a second couple in Berner St. that night.

Does the failure to call several specific witnesses, across the investigation, who are individually studied in depth by modern Ripperologists, suggest that the attitude back then was more discerning than now - perhaps due to the relative scarcity of information now available, that leads researchers to possibly take some witnesses of marginal value, too seriously?

Yes, in my opinion, the authorities at the time knew far more about the case & the background of any witness claims than we do today. They were better able to accept or reject a story given by a witness. Whereas today modern theorists tend to criticize police for believing a witness when there is no surviving supporting evidence. "Surviving" being the operative word, just because this evidence no longer survives does not mean it never existed.
However, that void does permit a broader playing field for the modern theorist.

[DJA]

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Andrew

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Harsh

[NotBlamedForNothing]

1: There was one candidate responsible for at least five murders, and that person did not merely stop killing. In order to stop he must have been incarcerated or died. If he was incarcerated he will remain nameless, if he died the best candidate is Druitt.

Did JtR start and stop within the autumn, or was that period actually a spike in activity?
If that later, could there have been an external motivation at work, lasting just that period?

2: I don't believe anyone was deliberately omitted from any inquest.
Packer was confused but did not intentionally lie.
Schwartz was not believed by the coroner, that is the only reason he was not called to the inquest. Those who are called to give evidence are chosen by the coroner, the decision is not Scotland Yards.
Hutchinson did not come forward on the day because she was reported murdered in the late morning, many hours after he saw Astrachan. It was only established on the Sunday that she had died overnight which caused him to come forward with his story.

If the coroner does the choosing, what would 'deliberately omitted' actually mean, other than the coroner excluding an apparently important witness, for no obvious reason?

Do you suppose Schwartz was not believed by Baxter, because the police had had no luck in finding Schwartz' first or second man, or because he didn't believe his story?

Does the failure to call several specific witnesses, across the investigation, who are individually studied in depth by modern Ripperologists, suggest that the attitude back then was more discerning than now - perhaps due to the relative scarcity of information now available, that leads researchers to possibly take some witnesses of marginal value, too seriously?

3: I don't see any victim being deliberately targeted. They were all opportunistic victims.

Just a guess, but I think he may mean 'set up', more than specifically targeted by the Ripper.

[DJA]

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Some people only see what they want to see.

I have not been wasting my time for the last three years. I'm not the cowboy here!

Sometimes I like to take a ride on the wild side.

A few of the crazier suggestions I have come across in this forum, have led me to see things in interesting new ways.

It's not always the best logic, that provides the breakthroughs.

Good luck with the book.

[Wickerman]

Thanks for you comments, Wick.

I admit I wasn't being very clear.

All the following is belief without supporting evidence but is based on my research into own my candidate, which I want to keep for my book.

1. I believe JTR was arrested post the double-event,

2. I believe Packer, Schwartz, Hutchinson were all deliberately omitted from the respective victim's inquests to protect BSM and Astrakhan.

3. I believe that Stride and Kelly were deliberately targeted.

My original comment was just me joining the dots from beliefs 1 and 2.

Martyn

Hi Martyn.
In response to the three points you chose to list, I think the best available evidence is consistent with:

1: There was one candidate responsible for at least five murders, and that person did not merely stop killing. In order to stop he must have been incarcerated or died. If he was incarcerated he will remain nameless, if he died the best candidate is Druitt.

2: I don't believe anyone was deliberately omitted from any inquest.
Packer was confused but did not intentionally lie.
Schwartz was not believed by the coroner, that is the only reason he was not called to the inquest. Those who are called to give evidence are chosen by the coroner, the decision is not Scotland Yards.
Hutchinson did not come forward on the day because she was reported murdered in the late morning, many hours after he saw Astrachan. It was only established on the Sunday that she had died overnight which caused him to come forward with his story.

3: I don't see any victim being deliberately targeted. They were all opportunistic victims.

Regards, Jon S.