Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Observer]

That's 1118

Take note Rookie Detective it's 1118

[FISHY1118]

If you're confused ask Fishy 118.

That's 1118

[Observer]

If you're confused ask Fishy 118.

[Observer]

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark

Surstromming ?

[The Rookie Detective]

Ultimately, all of the most senior police figures involved in the case at the time, had different favoured suspects.

So unless there were multiple killers, then at the very most, only one of them was on the right track.

If you have at least 4 senior officers all believing the Ripper was someone different, then only one of them could have been right; if at all, and at least 3 of them were blatantly wrong.


This tells us all we need to know about the manner of policing at the time; a Whac-a-mole approach involving the arrest of literally hundreds of different individuals over the period of time covered by the murders.

Eventually, they opted for the posthumous...(paraphrasing) "We knew who the killer was, but we won't name him now because it would no longer benefit the public" ... mixed in with the "lunatic Jew" cliché.

It would not surprise me if the Ripper wasn't a serving or ex serving police officer.

Or perhaps a small group of officers with a penchant for controlling and slaying unfortunates.

It is intriguing how some of the murders were committed within a precise time frame based around the rotation of police beats and for some of the murders the adage of the last minute changes to said beats that meant the likes of Coles and Pinchin St were discovered by officers on their first beat of that particular rotation.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark

[FISHY1118]

Your question seems to be based on a false premise, which is why I didn't respond initially.

What you are essentially saying is, that as you seem to believe the Whitechapel Murder files are complete, that nothing is missing, then you want me to show you the report you are waiting to see.

I happily would, if the above were true.

The reality is, we have to interpret the surviving paperwork in the best way possible. And, if we arrive at a conclusion that conflicts with any preconceived theories, then we should resist the temptation to dismiss the conclusion, as evidence official or unofficial, is hardly ever perfect.

I have drawn attention to the sentence structure used by Swanson as being unclear.
If you look at Swanson's report, at the end of the paragraph concerning Schwartz there is a footnote by, I think, someone at the Home Office (Lushington?), where we read:
"This is rather confused...."

So, it isn't just me.

This is why these threads go on for ever and ever because of post like above, I ask simply question that requires a simple answer based on the evidence or lack of, that may provide an end to endless hypothetical go nowhere useless debate
.
We have an official document that led the police investigation to accept as true and accurate in Swansons report, which some want to say contradicts a unverified newspaper article of the lemen st police opinion of The same event.

All I'm saying is let's compare the pair accurately when two versions of the same event are up for the debate....
i.e one official report against another.

The Leman st police opinion of the Schwartz event either exist or it doesn't in some official capacity. Its not enough to argue just because it hasn't surfaced yet, that it isn't out there somewhere in the universe .Thats just a cop out im afraid.

As with all things JtR , (for me anyway,) dont waste my time asking me to believe a newspaper / press report over a high ranking police officials opinion ( who was there at the time) based on that document .

Give me something official from Lemans st in regards to the police there not believing Schwartz , or lets stop using them as excuse to disbelieve him

[JeffHamm]

To me, "unprincipled persons" seems to be referring back to the actions of the journalists.

As for Pipeman, would you expect a 100% effort from the citizens of the East End with no exceptions?

c.d.

I suspect "unprincipled persons" also refers to the letter writers.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

To me, "unprincipled persons" seems to be referring back to the actions of the journalists.

Anderson is comparing these persons to "the public generally and especially the inhabitants of the East End". I don't think he is only referring to journalists. The "unprincipled persons" have "various motives", so, this in not just a matter of sensationalist journalism causing problems for the police.

The "unprincipled persons" possibly included the two 'detectives' utilized by the Evening News for the Packer story.

As for Pipeman, would you expect a 100% effort from the citizens of the East End with no exceptions?

c.d.

I would think it highly likely that Pipeman was amongst the vast majority who assisted police. Highly likely, that is, if Schwartz is to be regarded as a principled person.

[c.d.]

To me, "unprincipled persons" seems to be referring back to the actions of the journalists.

As for Pipeman, would you expect a 100% effort from the citizens of the East End with no exceptions?

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi wick , I'm still waiting for any official Lemans st police report/document that says they didn't believe Schwartz eyewitness account of the assault on liz stride .

It a genuine question as I have seen no such evidence of this.

So if there is no such report, then are we comparing Swansons "official" report against a press report as might have been given to a Leman street police officer ?

While the following report to the Home Office doesn't mention Schwartz, we might wonder if he were one of the "unprincipled persons, who, from various motives, have endeavoured to mislead us".


The Whitechapel Murders
At the present stage of the inquiry the best reply that can be made to the Secretary of State’s request for a report upon these cases is to send the accompanying copy of detailed reports prepared by Chief Inspector Swanson, who has special charge of the matter at this office.
I wish to guard against its being supposed that the inquiry is now concluded. There is no reason for furnishing these reports at this moment except that they have been called for.
That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal, is unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime. The result has been to necessitate our giving attention to innumerable suggestions, such as would in any ordinary case be dismissed unnoticed, and no hint of any kind, which was not obviously absurd, has been neglected. Moreover, the activity of the Police has been to a considerable extent wasted through the exigencies of sensational journalism, and the action of unprincipled persons, who, from various motives, have endeavoured to mislead us. But on the other hand the public generally and especially the inhabitants of the East End have shown a marked desire to assist in every way, even at some sacrifice to themselves, as for example in permitting their houses to be searched as mentioned at page 10 of the last report. The vigilance of the officers engaged on the inquiry continues unabated.

R.Anderson
Oct 23/88


It's a shame that Pipeman doesn't seem to have been one of the inhabitants of the East End who have shown a marked desire to assist in every way, even at some sacrifice to themselves.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, he may have been drinking. In addition to what you said, it was also a Saturday night.

If we were to throw out all evidence in the case that was only witnessed by one person, we'd have to throw out quite a bit. And I agree that it's not surprising that no one that we know of heard Stride. It could also be that the sound reached a few eardrums, but the person didn't think the sound significant, and it was forgotten. Just as I'm sure I hear things everyday that I promptly forget about, such as someone calling out or a car door closing.

A point worth stressing I think Lewis. Sometimes we hear background sounds that just don’t register because they are a part of the soundtrack of our lives.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Correct Mike.
As the conventional view has got us nowhere for decades, I'm suggesting we have been guided by erroneous assumptions.

Plainly, we know Schwartz did not appear at the inquest, the question has always been why.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume, either he was not believed by someone, or, his story was still being investigated.

Secondly, that press report that Leman-street police have reason to doubt his story. Which could be false hype, it could be an exaggeration, or it could be true.
I'm suspicious that the press have perceived undue attention to the investigation of Schwartz's story, which they have decided to publish in the most controversial way possible, for their benefit (to sell newspapers).

Regardless, both issues suggest the police are not wholly convinced - as opposed to our modern assumption that Swanson 'clearly' believed Schwartz's story - but did he?
Have we wrongly assumed his words, largely because of his less than straight forward turn of phrase.

Our conventional views of those three issues are at odds, one is for Schwartz, two are against - something is wrong.

I don’t think that we can get anywhere this far from the events in question Wick. I also don’t think that we can assume why he wasn’t at the inquest considering that he couldn’t contribute toward the 4 aims. All that he’d have provided was non-important (to an inquest at least) background info and so he was no loss. If I had to favour a reason why he wasn’t there it would be that Schwartz was scared of repercussions from the killer if he was identified at the inquest and so either a) he did a runner and stayed with a friend (possibly away from the East End) or b) he told the police that he was going to do a runner but they agreed not to call him to the inquest if he agreed to stick around so that they could call on him for the purpose of identifying anyone that they might have arrested. So the way that I see it is…

First….his non-attendance at the inquest is entirely understandable and nothing to do with his reliability as a witness.
Second….the Leman Street police story probably came from some reporter talking to a Constable who was just giving his own opinion or the opinion of a few Constable’s.
Third….that Swanson meant ‘if Schwartz was telling the truth, and our investigation so far indicates that he was…’

So I don’t see the 3 as being at odds. I said in an earlier post Wick that I can’t really recall you and I disagreeing on much at all over the years. This might be one occasion where we do but I don’t see it as a major issue within the subject as a whole. You could be right of course. So could I.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

I’d say that we should keep in mind any reasonable possibility. Witnesses can be mistaken. Perhaps the police, when talking to Schwartz, believed what he said but were a bit wary of how he estimated the time that he passed (if he didn’t have a watch on) They would also have something else to consider, as should we. Had he been drinking? How do we know that Schwartz hadn’t had 10 pints? The subject is never mentioned and Schwartz didn’t turn up for interview until hours later so how can we know? It’s hardly far-fetched for a man out on the street at 12.45 to have consumed at least some alcohol. If we saw someone today we would pretty much assume it. Of course, he may not have touched a drop. So maybe the police had a slight doubt about his time. So I’d say that it’s at least a possibility that Schwartz might have seen a confrontation between a man and a woman, at that spot, slightly earlier in the evening. 12.20/12.25 say.

I’ve never understood why some are so quick to disbelieve Schwartz simply because no one saw or heard the incident. Especially when we know that sounds can get lost in the background. When we know that people can be in different parts of a house. And when the witness tells us that no great noise was made. Where is the problem? There is none. It’s an invention; a piece of imagination. To give it even a bit of weight we need good evidence….we have none.

Yes, he may have been drinking. In addition to what you said, it was also a Saturday night.

If we were to throw out all evidence in the case that was only witnessed by one person, we'd have to throw out quite a bit. And I agree that it's not surprising that no one that we know of heard Stride. It could also be that the sound reached a few eardrums, but the person didn't think the sound significant, and it was forgotten. Just as I'm sure I hear things everyday that I promptly forget about, such as someone calling out or a car door closing.

[Wickerman]

I respect your knowledge on this subject and the depth of analysis on evidence you have seen. I respect your clear thinking. However do you not believe that:

1) Any request from the Home Office or report to the Home Office took precedence over other tasks and

2) Before committing to sending the report- even if it was written a week or two beforehand, a man in Swanson's position would ensure what he sends is accurate and he looked over what he wrote before committing to sending it?

Thankyou Sunny, but to your first point, no.
In fact I would go so far as to expect Swanson to study the murder files on his own time, at home on evenings & weekends.
The murder investigation took precedent over any other duties, read Warren's letter in promoting Swanson - there was no more important issue than Swanson's control over the investigation.

As to your second point, I'm not saying it was not accurate - any fault concerning interpretation lies with us, today, not with those officers at the time.

I fully expect Swanson will read his own draft, and Warren will do the same as he would naturally sign the files himself. Between Swanson finalizing his report and it being sent to Home Office, several days may have passed.
While police are required to see credence, any 'belief' in a witnesses story lies with the courts, not with the police. Swanson's duty is to investigate a story and decide whether it is credible. This may have taken longer than expected, the inquest began and ended within the same week - Monday to Friday (except the summary on 23rd).

[Wickerman]

... What I’m wary of, and I know for a fact that this isn’t your aim, is that any opportunity of denigrating Schwartz is being seized upon because the ‘Schwartz was a liar’ angle is more interesting than the alternative.
...

Correct Mike.
As the conventional view has got us nowhere for decades, I'm suggesting we have been guided by erroneous assumptions.

Plainly, we know Schwartz did not appear at the inquest, the question has always been why.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume, either he was not believed by someone, or, his story was still being investigated.

Secondly, that press report that Leman-street police have reason to doubt his story. Which could be false hype, it could be an exaggeration, or it could be true.
I'm suspicious that the press have perceived undue attention to the investigation of Schwartz's story, which they have decided to publish in the most controversial way possible, for their benefit (to sell newspapers).

Regardless, both issues suggest the police are not wholly convinced - as opposed to our modern assumption that Swanson 'clearly' believed Schwartz's story - but did he?
Have we wrongly assumed his words, largely because of his less than straight forward turn of phrase.

Our conventional views of those three issues are at odds, one is for Schwartz, two are against - something is wrong.