Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick,

That's still after the police have interviewed all of the club members and the people living nearby then searched for ‘Lipski’ or anyone else potentially involved. At some point the police had no one else to interview, no more leads to follow......

But, that doesn't appear to be the case Mike.
While it is true we do not know the precise date Swanson penned his Stride report, we do have him making clear that, at the time of his writing, the investigation was by no means over:

".....enquiry has been made into the movements of a number of persons estimated at upwards of 300 respecting whom communications were received by police & such enquiries are being continued."

also:

"Up to date although the number of letters daily is considerably lessened, the other inquiries respecting alleged suspicious persons continues as numerous."

Which tells us that whatever date Swanson concluded his report on the Stride murder, the police were still investigating many alleged suspicious persons. We don't know if these suspicious persons included BS-man and Pipeman, keeping Schwartz and his story on the backburner until the police conclude their investigations.

[Wickerman]

..... Then we have Abberline at the beginning of November still voicing no doubt about Schwartz.

He does?

I see the report dated 1 Nov., Abberline writes that he questioned Schwartz closely about the "Lipski" claim, but he doesn't say he believed him.

Do you remember when Abberline interviewed Hutchinson, he wrote: "...I am of the opinion his statement is true", we don't get anything like that in his interview with Schwartz.

Have you considered why the police are still talking about Schwartz's story in early November, if their investigation had already been concluded by early October?

[FISHY1118]

Mike.

That is what I first thought, but if we look over the reports in detail we see each report is in tabular form, and separate points begin by time and date format - eg; 3.45 am, 31st Aug.
I realized, a person cannot consult four murder files then write a report for each one, on the same day. Swanson did have other duties to perform, not the least of which was monitoring the whole investigation.

The first report concern's the Tabram murder, it was written on paper with a September header. No date was provided, but as we know he was tasked with creating these reports by Warren, who gave Swanson absolute administrative control over the Whitechapel Murder cases on 15 Sept. 1888. Therefore, we know the Tabram report was written between the 15th-30th of September.

There are four separate reports; Tabram, Nichols, Chapman & Stride.
At the end of the Stride report Swanson writes - there are 994 Dockets besides police reports, (a docket can be anything from a Wanted poster to a suspect file).
He also managed to have a City Police report created, from his equal Insp. McWilliam, for the Eddowes murder.

Swanson then studied and created reports from the Nichols, Chapman & Stride files, following a similar format. Each one carries a 19th Oct. date, as do the index pages.
Each stamped with a Home Office 'Received by' date of 25 Oct.

The 19th October is when he finished the reports, to hand them to Warren, who sent them to H.O., not when he wrote them.

As the penultimate Inquest date was 5 Oct., it is possible Swanson waited to see if the inquest produced anything of substance (the last inquest was merely the Coroner's summary on 23 Oct.)
We do see Swanson making reference to a suspect in a "kind of Yankee hat", which was mentioned by ACB in a memo dated 4 Oct. 1888. So he likely wrote his Stride report after that date, but before the 19th.

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 ?

[The Rookie Detective]

So Abberline believed Hutchinson, and almost certainly Schwartz...and neither 'witnesses' have been traced by any of the thousands of researchers who've tried to look for them over the last 136 years; either before or after the murders...

...and Abberline was the senior officer involved directly in the case.

..and the case was never solved.

Thumbs up all round then.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m unsure about this idea that Schwartz or Hutchinson haven’t been traced RD. Researchers have found possibles but how could it be known which of these men were the men in question? If we looked back at some case from say 1910 were a guy called Fred Smith found a murder weapon how would we be able to pinpoint him now from the other, reasonably local, Fred Smith’s?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But, that doesn't appear to be the case Mike.
While it is true we do not know the precise date Swanson penned his Stride report, we do have him making clear that, at the time of his writing, the investigation was by no means over:

".....enquiry has been made into the movements of a number of persons estimated at upwards of 300 respecting whom communications were received by police & such enquiries are being continued."

also:

"Up to date although the number of letters daily is considerably lessened, the other inquiries respecting alleged suspicious persons continues as numerous."

Which tells us that whatever date Swanson concluded his report on the Stride murder, the police were still investigating many alleged suspicious persons. We don't know if these suspicious persons included BS-man and Pipeman, keeping Schwartz and his story on the backburner until the police conclude their investigations.

And I accept of course Wick that the investigation wasn’t at a halt but the longer any case goes on there’s less chance of any new evidence appearing. As time went on the police must have thought - well we’ve followed every lead that we’ve had so far, we’ve interviewed everyone that we know of who might have had important information and we’ve discovered nothing that moves us further forward. We’re now at the stage where we’re hoping that someone new comes forward with information of value. - And even if they never tracked down BSMan or Pipeman or Parcelman or Brown’s couple it still wouldn’t have meant to the police that Schwartz couldn’t be trusted.

I also accept that Swanson might have meant - if Schwartz is to be believed, and so far we have absolutely no reason so far to disbelieve him, then…

It would basically have been a case of them keeping an open mind in case other evidence turned up which contradicted their current beliefs.

But back to the original point Wick - I still haven’t seen any actual evidence that the police mistrusted Schwartz. The only thing that we have to suggest that they weren’t solidly of the opinion that he was truthful is your interpretation of Swanson’s summary and you could be right on that interpretation Wick but it’s still one interpretation of two possibles. 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.

To be honest Wick, I don’t think that this is a particularly important point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He does?

I see the report dated 1 Nov., Abberline writes that he questioned Schwartz closely about the "Lipski" claim, but he doesn't say he believed him.

Do you remember when Abberline interviewed Hutchinson, he wrote: "...I am of the opinion his statement is true", we don't get anything like that in his interview with Schwartz.

Have you considered why the police are still talking about Schwartz's story in early November, if their investigation had already been concluded by early October?

See my other post Wick. I don’t mean that the investigation was concluded.

[Sunny Delight]

Mike.

That is what I first thought, but if we look over the reports in detail we see each report is in tabular form, and separate points begin by time and date format - eg; 3.45 am, 31st Aug.
I realized, a person cannot consult four murder files then write a report for each one, on the same day. Swanson did have other duties to perform, not the least of which was monitoring the whole investigation.

The first report concern's the Tabram murder, it was written on paper with a September header. No date was provided, but as we know he was tasked with creating these reports by Warren, who gave Swanson absolute administrative control over the Whitechapel Murder cases on 15 Sept. 1888. Therefore, we know the Tabram report was written between the 15th-30th of September.

There are four separate reports; Tabram, Nichols, Chapman & Stride.
At the end of the Stride report Swanson writes - there are 994 Dockets besides police reports, (a docket can be anything from a Wanted poster to a suspect file).
He also managed to have a City Police report created, from his equal Insp. McWilliam, for the Eddowes murder.

Swanson then studied and created reports from the Nichols, Chapman & Stride files, following a similar format. Each one carries a 19th Oct. date, as do the index pages.
Each stamped with a Home Office 'Received by' date of 25 Oct.

The 19th October is when he finished the reports, to hand them to Warren, who sent them to H.O., not when he wrote them.

As the penultimate Inquest date was 5 Oct., it is possible Swanson waited to see if the inquest produced anything of substance (the last inquest was merely the Coroner's summary on 23 Oct.)
We do see Swanson making reference to a suspect in a "kind of Yankee hat", which was mentioned by ACB in a memo dated 4 Oct. 1888. So he likely wrote his Stride report after that date, but before the 19th.

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?

[c.d.]

So Abberline believed Hutchinson, and almost certainly Schwartz...and neither 'witnesses' have been traced by any of the thousands of researchers who've tried to look for them over the last 136 years; either before or after the murders...

...and Abberline was the senior officer involved directly in the case.

..and the case was never solved.

Thumbs up all round then.

That only tells us that it has not been able to trace them. It tells us nothing as to whether or not Abberline was correct in his belief.

You seem to be operating under the premise that since Abberline's views don't match yours then he must have been wrong.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

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 ?

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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.