Suspect Witnesses?

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi all


Those of you who are familiar with my research style, will know that I like to try and think outside the box and approach things in a rather unconventional way, so as to try and make things interesting, and perhaps even encourage others to open their minds and become more diverse and adaptable in their respective ways of thinking.


So...

Here's a question for all of you wise and wonderful people...


Are there any individuals in the Ripper case, who didn't even exist?

Odd thing to ask.

I know, right?


But, let's go with it...


Are there any individuals who the police invented so as to try and lure the killer into a false sense of security and/or to feed the real killer misinformation, in an attempt to push the killer into making a mistake and thus revealing themselves?

It's something that I have considered for a while, but let's say... Schwartz... (as an example only)


Could Schwartz have been completely fabricated by the police, in a bid to lure the killer to make a mistake?


Are there any other so called "witnesses" who were never seen in public, but who only exist in a police report as having given a statement?

I mean, that's more than 1 question, but you get the idea.


Thoughts?

[c.d.]

Could Schwartz have been completely fabricated by the police, in a bid to lure the killer to make a mistake?

Are you talking about the actual person or his story?

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

Could Schwartz have been completely fabricated by the police, in a bid to lure the killer to make a mistake?

Are you talking about the actual person or his story?

c.d.

Schwartz himself.

Oddly, the story of an unamed individual who thought they had witnessed a domestic between a couple and so gave them a wide berth, was reported very early on/soon after the murder.
The initial story reported was ambigious and didn't name the witness.

But then the story seems to blow up and become the Schwartz story.

One thing is evident; the story reported in the press soon after the murder, was almost certainly the same incident that we have come to know as Schwartz's story.

So either Schwartz went straight to the police to give his story, but the press withheld the specifics in their initial report, or the story was taken (authentic or not) and then is later revealed as Schwartz's statement.

But due to the fact that Schwartz only exists from a police report, and can't be found anywhere else, it to me begs the question; did the police take the story of the domestic seen by a random witness, and then make it their own by inventing a stereotypical Jewish man who claimed to have seen everything (relatively speaking)

Is it all possible that Schwartz was an intention based on the story of a witness having seen a domestic between a couple?

Possible?

[andy1867]

I honestly don't know, most of my research is done on here...or on google lol
But would reckon any sort of such "Luring" would have to be in collusion with the press ...that suerly would be the quickest way to spread it

[c.d.]

The answer of course is yes. Yes, meaning that it is possible. Do I have any reason to believe that that was the case? Personally, no.

c.d.

[Lewis C]

Schwartz himself.

Oddly, the story of an unamed individual who thought they had witnessed a domestic between a couple and so gave them a wide berth, was reported very early on/soon after the murder.
The initial story reported was ambigious and didn't name the witness.

But then the story seems to blow up and become the Schwartz story.

One thing is evident; the story reported in the press soon after the murder, was almost certainly the same incident that we have come to know as Schwartz's story.

So either Schwartz went straight to the police to give his story, but the press withheld the specifics in their initial report, or the story was taken (authentic or not) and then is later revealed as Schwartz's statement.

But due to the fact that Schwartz only exists from a police report, and can't be found anywhere else, it to me begs the question; did the police take the story of the domestic seen by a random witness, and then make it their own by inventing a stereotypical Jewish man who claimed to have seen everything (relatively speaking)

Is it all possible that Schwartz was an intention based on the story of a witness having seen a domestic between a couple?

Possible?

Hi RD,

There are 2 different accounts of Schwartz' story, one from the police and one from The Star. I could be wrong, but I thought that The Star talked directly to Schwartz. So I believe that for Schwartz to not be a real person, it would require that both the police and the Star were lying. I very much doubt that. I also can't think of any other suspect in the case that seems to me to likely be a police invention.

[c.d.]

And why would Swanson bother to write a report of the Schwartz incident for the eyes of Scotland Yard only if Schwartz was a fabrication?

c.d.