Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[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

[Observer]

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark

Surstromming ?

[Observer]

If you're confused ask Fishy 118.

[FISHY1118]

If you're confused ask Fishy 118.

That's 1118

[Observer]

That's 1118

Take note Rookie Detective it's 1118

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

If Schwartz is to be believed, the Leman St report must be disbelieved

[The Rookie Detective]

Surstromming ?

Hamlet, Act One.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Schwartz is to be believed, the Leman St report must be disbelieved

How do you work that out?

[c.d.]

Do we know the basis for the apparent disbelief of Schwartz's account by Leman St.?

Was that disbelief set in stone never to change?

Wouldn't Abberline have been aware of Leman's St.'s position and wouldn't he have addressed those concerns with Schwartz?

[FISHY1118]

Do we know the basis for the apparent disbelief of Schwartz's account by Leman St.?

Was that disbelief set in stone never to change?

Wouldn't Abberline have been aware of Leman's St.'s position and wouldn't he have addressed those concerns with Schwartz?

To your first sentence ... Apparently Not.