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.

[Tom_Wescott]

Israel Schwartz was a real person. Abberline talked to him, took his statement, vetted it, believed it (at least initially), and later answered questions from Home Office following Swanson's Oct. 19th report. If Schwartz was a hoax, it wasn't Swanson's hoax, it was Abberline's hoax, and frankly that's just nonsense.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

It is really the second man (Pipeman) that makes the story so odd. This is the initial report you refer to:

The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it.

Seems reasonable enough on its own, with no mention of another man at the scene. Yet if the incident was perceived as a husband-and-wife quarrel, why would a second man do either of:

A) Run off in fear
B) Pursue the man taking no notice of the man and wife

Makes little if any sense.

We then are told by Donald Swanson:

Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

Why would Schwartz suppose the men might have been together or known to each other, if the first man was physically separated from the second, and perceived to be the husband of the woman?

We then get this from Robert Anderson:

With ref. to yr letter &c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself. It appears that since the Lipski case, it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or speaking of Jews.

Who has supposed the second man was an accomplice? The police? Schwartz himself? On what evidence? How do we get from a married couple quarrelling to a suspect with an accomplice?

Meanwhile, James Brown walks home and sees Liz Stride talking quietly to a man, at the board school corner.

Even if we ignore the peculiar reference to Schwartz giving evidence at the inquest (which we should not do), something is not right - it feels off.

[Paddy Goose]

Thank you Tom.

Posts like this actually make me happy the great ones no longer post here. (Almost all of them, thank you again, Tom.)

Instead of the careful, meticulous study and reflection, of let's say, a Stewart Evans, who tirelessly catalogued the known existing police documents in his books, collating it with the various press reports, etc, we get drivel.

We now get modern day anti-police, - the police must be the bad guy here, - everything the police do must be wrong, - of course, the police are anti-semitic, - I know better than the police did,- the police of the time do not live up to my up to date standards of protocol and deportment, record keeping, etc.

Again, it makes me happy to think of back in the day. And just go with that.

Once again, thank you Tom.

[The Rookie Detective]

It is really the second man (Pipeman) that makes the story so odd. This is the initial report you refer to:

The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it.

Seems reasonable enough on its own, with no mention of another man at the scene. Yet if the incident was perceived as a husband-and-wife quarrel, why would a second man do either of:

A) Run off in fear
B) Pursue the man taking no notice of the man and wife

Makes little if any sense.

We then are told by Donald Swanson:

Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

Why would Schwartz suppose the men might have been together or known to each other, if the first man was physically separated from the second, and perceived to be the husband of the woman?

We then get this from Robert Anderson:

With ref. to yr letter &c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself. It appears that since the Lipski case, it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or speaking of Jews.

Who has supposed the second man was an accomplice? The police? Schwartz himself? On what evidence? How do we get from a married couple quarrelling to a suspect with an accomplice?

Meanwhile, James Brown walks home and sees Liz Stride talking quietly to a man, at the board school corner.

Even if we ignore the peculiar reference to Schwartz giving evidence at the inquest (which we should not do), something is not right - it feels off.

Excellent post.

I feel we are on a similar wave length with the whole Schwartz debacle.

[Paddy Goose]

Come to think of it, Rookie, your thread here blaming the police does remind me of one of the great ones, Simon Wood. He used to post here back in the day. But Simon was a thinker and researcher. He would share things he found. That was also back in the day when posters such as Chris Scott actually TRANSCRIBED the press articles they shared. Not just post up a grainy screen snag like now. I don't know if anyone now even knows what transcription is. Today it's all cut and paste.

But yes Simon blamed the police. The police were racist anti-semitic pigs in his book. Yes he wrote a book which was something like six thousand pages long called De-Mobbing Jack, or De-Construing Jack or something like that. I didn't read it though. But yes, that was back when people actually read books.

Oh, and then there was Perry Mason, also known as Michael Richards. I know he was a parcitular "favorite" of Tom. What a wack job. Remember young Perry, Tom?

But it's all good, Rookie. Casebook allows all kinds of stuff here. Everything's going to work out just fine in the end.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Paddy, thanks for the kind words. It's easy for us to forget in our nostalgic haze how much utter nonsense appeared on the boards back in the day. It was everywhere and I was responsible for my fair share of it. Perhaps I carried the load of several others as well. Simon Wood is one of the most woefully underappreciated researchers in Ripperological history. No doubt because many of his conclusions are barmy (or are they?). But he managed (and still manages) to highlight contemporary sources that, without him, might have fallen by the wayside and become forgotten. As for the anti-police take, there are two extremes - those who feel the police were corrupt to the core and positively too stupid to get out bed let alone catch a killer; and the other side, on which Simon (and Bruce Robinson, et all) falls, which is that they're corrupt to the core but capable of operating a far-reaching conspiracy so solid and successful that it has gone unnoticed through history...UNTIL NOW. On the flipside, there are those who present the police of 1888 as a well-oiled machine comprised solely of bastions of virtue and competence (Malcolm, Bell, Blomer, et al). I'm not sure which of these perspectives is more offensive to my sensibilities, but I am quite certain they are all incorrect.

And yes, I remember Michael 'Perry Mason' Richards. I think perhaps he's still around sometimes on the other forums?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Rookie Detective]

Come to think of it, Rookie, your thread here blaming the police does remind me of one of the great ones, Simon Wood. He used to post here back in the day. But Simon was a thinker and researcher. He would share things he found. That was also back in the day when posters such as Chris Scott actually TRANSCRIBED the press articles they shared. Not just post up a grainy screen snag like now. I don't know if anyone now even knows what transcription is. Today it's all cut and paste.

But yes Simon blamed the police. The police were racist anti-semitic pigs in his book. Yes he wrote a book which was something like six thousand pages long called De-Mobbing Jack, or De-Construing Jack or something like that. I didn't read it though. But yes, that was back when people actually read books.

Oh, and then there was Perry Mason, also known as Michael Richards. I know he was a parcitular "favorite" of Tom. What a wack job. Remember young Perry, Tom?

But it's all good, Rookie. Casebook allows all kinds of stuff here. Everything's going to work out just fine in the end.

I'm sure there's a underhanded compliment in there somewhere.

pah ha ha ha!

I tend not to waste time on transcribing; on the basis that if someone can't be bothered to read the original source that I upload, then why should I do the hard work for them and transcribe what's written.

I'm very much a...
"Look what I've found, now look for yourself" type of guy.

Not a...
"Look what I've found, but don't worry about looking for yourself, cos I will do it all for you."

If you catch my drift.

[Lewis C]

It is really the second man (Pipeman) that makes the story so odd. This is the initial report you refer to:

The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it.

Seems reasonable enough on its own, with no mention of another man at the scene. Yet if the incident was perceived as a husband-and-wife quarrel, why would a second man do either of:

A) Run off in fear
B) Pursue the man taking no notice of the man and wife

Makes little if any sense.

We then are told by Donald Swanson:

Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

Why would Schwartz suppose the men might have been together or known to each other, if the first man was physically separated from the second, and perceived to be the husband of the woman?

We then get this from Robert Anderson:

With ref. to yr letter &c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself. It appears that since the Lipski case, it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or speaking of Jews.

Who has supposed the second man was an accomplice? The police? Schwartz himself? On what evidence? How do we get from a married couple quarrelling to a suspect with an accomplice?

Meanwhile, James Brown walks home and sees Liz Stride talking quietly to a man, at the board school corner.

Even if we ignore the peculiar reference to Schwartz giving evidence at the inquest (which we should not do), something is not right - it feels off.

Hi Andrew,

I don't have any definite views on any of these questions, but I do have some possible explanations for some of them.

Maybe Schwartz didn't really suppose that the two men were together. Maybe he was asked if he thought they were together and he said, "I don't know." This could have been summarized as, "Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other."

Where Anderson mentions "supposed accomplice", maybe "possible accomplice" would have been a better choice of words. Or maybe Anderson knew at least one policeman who thought he was an accomplice, but this may not have represented a majority opinion among the police.

Anderson's statement about "the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest" might not mean that Schwartz himself was at the inquest, it could mean that someone at the inquest gave a report or summary of what Schwartz told the police.