Favoured Suspects

[Tom_Wescott]

I see no evidence for the Met having mistrusted Schwartz, Tom. Indeed, as I have argued on other threads, Schwartz is the only witness who saw a victim being assaulted immediately prior to her murder, in which respect he is the only witness whose sighting could, as Swanson stated, have resulted in a conviction based upon the sighting alone.

As GUT said, our understanding of such issues would be greatly enhanced were we to have access to all of the files available to investigators at the time of the murders.

Swanson's feeling (as of Oct. 19th) was that Lawende is the person most likely to have seen the Ripper, but did not get good enough a view of him. Schwartz got a much better view, but because of the lapse of time (15 minutes) it couldn't be assumed he'd seen her killer. Therefore, neither of these witnesses could have led to a conviction without other evidence or a confession.

I agree there's no evidence (such as a statement) after Nov. 1st to the effect that Schwartz was no longer believed. I just think it's odd there's no statement to the effect that he was still believed. Plenty about Lawende, zero about Schwartz. It's perplexing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

However, the officials on the Met side seemed to have ended up favoring Lawende as a witness in any respect.

I see no evidence for the Met having mistrusted Schwartz, Tom. Indeed, as I have argued on other threads, Schwartz is the only witness who saw a victim being assaulted immediately prior to her murder, in which respect he is the only witness whose sighting could, as Swanson stated, have resulted in a conviction based upon the sighting alone.

As GUT said, our understanding of such issues would be greatly enhanced were we to have access to all of the files available to investigators at the time of the murders.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks, Dusty. I still have not been able to find any mention of Schwartz being viewed as a serious witness by police after November 1st, when Abberline wrote his last response to questions from Home Office. If you happen across anything, please let me know.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[drstrange169]

12th November.

Presumably, some reporter saw the police notice in a cop shop somewhere the day before.

[Tom_Wescott]

hello Tom,

A Daily Telegraph reporter claimed to have seen a police notice being circulated to police stations of suspect descriptions, including Schwartz's BS man.

"A correspondent forwards copies of descriptions of certain men who were last seen in the company of the woman who was murdered in Berner-street and of the woman who was mutilated in Mitre-square. These authentic descriptions, we have reason to know, have been secretly circulated by the authorities of Scotland-yard since Oct. 26, but the complete details have never been made public. This reticence is one of the mysteries of police administration, and it is difficult to find an explanation to account for the fact that this important information has been "confidentially communicated" to police-officers throughout the kingdom, but has been withheld from the people who have had the best opportunities of seeing and of, therefore, recognising the assassin."
...
"At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.
Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland-yard London, S.W."

Hi Dusty, thanks for that. Yes, that was the wire transmitted early October and then published in the Police Gazette of Oct. 19th. What was the date of the Daily Telegraph edition you're quoting?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[drstrange169]

hello Tom,

A Daily Telegraph reporter claimed to have seen a police notice being circulated to police stations of suspect descriptions, including Schwartz's BS man.

"A correspondent forwards copies of descriptions of certain men who were last seen in the company of the woman who was murdered in Berner-street and of the woman who was mutilated in Mitre-square. These authentic descriptions, we have reason to know, have been secretly circulated by the authorities of Scotland-yard since Oct. 26, but the complete details have never been made public. This reticence is one of the mysteries of police administration, and it is difficult to find an explanation to account for the fact that this important information has been "confidentially communicated" to police-officers throughout the kingdom, but has been withheld from the people who have had the best opportunities of seeing and of, therefore, recognising the assassin."
...
"At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.
Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland-yard London, S.W."

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom.
Do you think there may have been an under-current of politics vetween City and Metro at play here?

From the way i understand ,,the story,,, murdering Catherine in Mitre Square opened the case up to City Police. Could Lawende have been City,s entry and opportunity into apprehending the murderer instead of Metro, and possibly treated as their star witness?

Hi Robert. There is no question that politics were involved and some egos bruised. For instance, the press loved the City Police, who were more accommodating, and were terribly critical of the Met Police. Had the City Police captured Jack the Ripper it would have been a huge embarrassment to the Met Police. Men would have lost their jobs and reputations would have been ruined. No question about it. That's a purely academic point since the Ripper was never captured. However, the officials on the Met side seemed to have ended up favoring Lawende as a witness in any respect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Tom.
Do you think there may have been an under-current of politics vetween City and Metro at play here?

From the way i understand ,,the story,,, murdering Catherine in Mitre Square opened the case up to City Police. Could Lawende have been City,s entry and opportunity into apprehending the murderer instead of Metro, and possibly treated as their star witness?

[Tom_Wescott]

hello Tom,

>>Schwartz is dead in the water after Nov. 1st <<

The last reference I have of the police referring to Schwarz, or rather his description of BS, was in a newspaper dated Nov 12.

I vaguely recall one on the 19th, but I can't find it, so I might be misremembering.

Hi Doc. What newspaper report of the 12th are you referring to? Or is that the Star reviving the Police Gazette descriptions of Oct. 19th? I'd be very interested to know.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[drstrange169]

hello Tom,

>>Schwartz is dead in the water after Nov. 1st <<

The last reference I have of the police referring to Schwarz, or rather his description of BS, was in a newspaper dated Nov 12.

I vaguely recall one on the 19th, but I can't find it, so I might be misremembering.

[Tom_Wescott]

I doubt it is the 'official' police opinion.
No matter which official you look at they don't seem to describe the same witness, which they would do if the opinion was official.

Also, as each principal witness does describe someone different, the police cannot form a consensus what the killer looked like. Which in turn means they are required to either, dismiss all their principal witness testimony, or only select one witness to believe - which apparently different police officials did. It's just that they all chose a different witness.

Therefore, it's only their personal opinion.

Remarkably, many seem to have chosen a witness who didn't exist - the City PC in Mitre Square. I believe this is a confusion of PC Thompson and Joseph Lawende. In the end, Lawende appears to have been the preferred witness as he's the only one we have reports on being used in the 1890s.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Well, both, I suppose. More specifically, at the moment, I'm interested in how the police came to seemingly decide, after the murders had abated, that there was only one reliable witness.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I doubt it is the 'official' police opinion.
No matter which official you look at they don't seem to describe the same witness, which they would do if the opinion was official.

Also, as each principal witness does describe someone different, the police cannot form a consensus what the killer looked like. Which in turn means they are required to either, dismiss all their principal witness testimony, or only select one witness to believe - which apparently different police officials did. It's just that they all chose a different witness.

Therefore, it's only their personal opinion.

[GUT]

I'm convinced that there was a great deal more to his story than has been handed down to us through the newspaper reports and surviving police files.

That's true of so many people and issues in the case.

I have a sneaking suspicion we'd be a lot closer to a solution if we had all the police files available to us.

[Garry Wroe]

I'm interested in how the police came to seemingly decide, after the murders had abated, that there was only one reliable witness.

Well, Tom, that was Anderson's take on the issue, but then Anderson claimed that the killer's identity had been established as a 'definitely ascertained fact'. Others clearly disagreed with him. And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Macnaghten stated that no-one ever got a good view of the murderer. Good luck with Schwartz though. I'm convinced that there was a great deal more to his story than has been handed down to us through the newspaper reports and surviving police files.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom, are you interested in suspects or witnesses?

Well, both, I suppose. More specifically, at the moment, I'm interested in how the police came to seemingly decide, after the murders had abated, that there was only one reliable witness.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott