Prelude To a Scare

[Dan Norder]

So let's see... claiming that there are individual occasional mistakes in some police documents (I'm not bothering to look up Simon's claims to see if they are accurate or not, because it's meaningless either way) is supposed to justify completely throwing out what multiple official documents say in favor of what one single newspaper article claims?

There is always going to be multiple pieces of conflicting opinions and evidence on just about any topic one could care to research. The way you sort out what really happened and what did not is to put more weight onto those items that are more reliable than others. A police document by its nature is going to be more reliable than an average news account, because the people writing each have different levels of access to information. Multiple pieces of independent evidence tend to be more reliable than single unconfirmed pieces of information. Sources that are proven to be unreliable... such as newspapers with a demonstrated history of printing far more irresponsible and false claims than other papers... should be treated least seriously of all.

Now I know there are certain people who prefer to not use any rule of thumb for determining reliability other than any thing they can scramble for that might sound like it supports their own already established opinions on a topic -- including those who follow people around the message board making personal attacks because they've been shown to not know what they were talking about elsewhere and are desperate to try to score points any way they can, like "Pirate Jack" Jeff here -- but that's not what responsible researchers do.

[paul emmett]

I don't think that we should categorically give preference to police info over newspaper info. We should look at each situation. And here the Star assertion that police have come to doubt Scwartz would certianly answer the question of why he wasn't at the Inquest, a question which has come up repeatedly here. Also, as has been said, the Star seems to have no reason to "create" in this instance.

Finally, the line in the Star immediately before the quote about Scwartz provides additional information that could help us look at this situation. Talking about the various sightings stemming from the killings, the Star says. "no two were alike, and none of the accompaying information has thus far been able to bear investigation." Then right away, same paragraph, next sentence: the Hungarian.

So it seems that the police couldn't confirm all of the problematic parts of Scwartz's "story," just like many here who ask why didn't anyone else see or hear all of Scwartz's ruckus, so, again like many of us, they doubted the truth of his statement.

NO BIG SURPRISE.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Without wanting to beat this subject to death, we have to explain how, if by October 2nd the police doubted the truth of Schwartz's statement [as evidenced by his non-appearance at the inquest], almost three weeks later it found its way into Swanson's report of October 19th.

Regards,

Simon

[truebluedub]

the stars reliability

Hi
When judging the reliability of the Star we have to remember it was a major supporter of sensationalist new journalism (63) bordering on gothic horror (194-5) in fact it "wallowed in sensation horror" (118). In fact it was among the papers that "turned these shocking events into the crime of the century and beyond" (115)
The reporting was clearly ideologically infomed, according to a detractor it was "half a joke and half a crusade" (113).
Two other factors have to be remembered, that it was accused of libel in the case of Pizer (123-4) and portrayed the police as idiots (192).
Does this sound like a source to be prioritised over official documents.
Kind regards
Chris Lowe
P.S. all reference from Jack the Ripper and the London Press by L. Perry Curtis (2001)

[Simon Wood]

Hi TBD,

Regarding libel, I seem to recall that The Times was on trial for its life at The Parnell Special Commission at the Royal Courts of Justice, starting October 1888. So let's not be too hasty in tarring The Star with too big a brush. Launched in January 1888, it had a stellar editorial team and an impressive array of contributors—George Bernard Shaw and Annie Besant being amongst their number. It was radical, not sensationalist. In fact, The Star [together with many other popular newspapers] did a far better job of trying to unravel the WM than the police who, if not idiots, certainly portrayed themselves as such.

The police competent/newspapers incompetent argument doesn't wash. Sure the press made mistakes, released questionable stuff, but so did the cops—and in spades! The WM is littered with their spurious leads, arrests and witness statements which have shaped our understanding of events.

Once you subscribe to the police were right/everyone else was wrong scenario you are doomed. As T.S. Eliot observed, "We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started."

Which nicely sums up 120 years of Ripperology.

Regards,

Simon

[paul emmett]

Even if we take the lesser view of the Star, and I don't, there is nothing sinsational in this oh so brief comment about Scwartz, nothing to be gained. All it says is, "oops, our scoop from yesterday was wrong." Well, not quite wrong, because yesterday's scoop ended with the ambiguous, "the truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted."

As far as Swanson's report of 10/19, it includes Packer's statements too, and they couldn't have been too keen on him--he wasn't at the Inquest either.

[truebluedub]

Hi
Let us look at what we know:
1). Schwartz was found by the Star
2). Schwartz made a statement to the police which is no longer extant.
3). According to the Star the police do not believe him
4). Swanson provides an abstract of Schwartz statement
5). On Nov 1 Abberline gives a report on the use of the name Lipski including that a search for a person of that name was undertaken.
6). Anderson write a letter on the 5th of November pointing out that Lipski is a term for Jews
7). The Home Office wanted to know if the man Lipski was being traced (nd.)
All these are from the sourcebook (123-8) except for the Star
8) On the 25th of October and 29 of October there was discussion of the name Lipski. (ibid 131-2) and on 7th of November Warren reported to the Home Office on the subject. (ibid 135-6).
So based on the totality of the historical evidence we have to conclude that the police were still interested in Schwartz's account until November contrary to the Star's suggestion. Also we should ask where the Star got their information considering that they were vocal in their complaints that the police were not giving them information (Perry Curtis 188). Can I make clear here I have no problem with the Star's politics which would be further to the right than my own. What my problem is, is that people are placing their faith in a source which has issues according to the authority on Ripper news.
kind regards
Chris Lowe

[paul emmett]

So based on the totality of the historical evidence we have to conclude that the police were still interested in Schwartz's account until November contrary to the Star's suggestion.

The Star never said the police were not still interested in Scwartz' statement; indeed, they suggested that they were looking for "additional facts" because there was "reason to doubt." They could pursue "Lipski," the guy and the word, forever while still having doubts. Once again, we have seen there are some things to doubt here.

[DVV]

[QUOTE=paul emmett;23531]I don't think that we should categorically give preference to police info over newspaper info.

Well, in Schwarz' case, at least, it's obvious that Police report is more reliable than "newspaper info", unless you prefer "Knifeman" to "Pipeman" .
As a beginner, humble and happy "cadet" here, it's none of my business, but one answer to Dan Norder's post on this thread seems to me very unecessary, and quite ridiculous.
Yet I must confess I enjoy the show sometimes performed by AP, Nats, Tom Wescott, Norder, etc...
But all of them are magnanimous and tasty in the battlefield.
Baseless (if not inverted) despise is no entertainment.
Thanks all, and sorry for broken english,
DVV