A Case of Misattribution?

[Wickerman]

To get back to the original premise for this thread - we cannot agree that the bs man was the ripper/killer. I think it is fair to say that the police in 1888 did not know whether he was the killer. Therefore the police would not have said that Schwartz was the only man to get a clear view of the ripper as they were by no means sure the bs man was the ripper. That is without even going into the area of whether Schwartz saw anything at all.

Which suggests that Anderson's after-the-fact claim was hyperbole.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

The problem being, Abby, that Schwartz saw Stride manhandled and then thrown to the ground. Her natural instinct would have been to use her hands to break her fall. Personally, I doubt that the paper containing the cachous would have survived such an impact, especially since the road and pavement were wet as a consequence of the earlier rain. Thus it seems likely that the packet would have either burst open or become sodden and fallen apart.

Stride’s clothing was neither damaged nor disarranged when her body was found, a reality that suggests she entered the yard consensually. My bet is that Stride went there for the purpose of mollifying Broad Shoulders. If so, it seems likely that this was the point at which she took the cachous from her pocket and offered one to Broad Shoulders. When at some point thereafter Broad Shoulders grabbed the neckerchief and used it to pull Stride off balance, the ligature effect of this action would have caused her to grip the cachous tightly, producing a similar muscular contraction to that which leads to the clenched fists seen in many strangulation victims. Once on the ground the throat wound was inflicted quickly, thus ensuring that the cachous remained intact and in Stride’s hand even after death.

And therefore, provided the Schwartz account is believed, what he saw was the prelude to the final act and not the beginning of the final act itself...that's certainly clear and logical thinking...but it's that "provided" that continues to puzzle me and I suspect many others...I started out firmly believing Liz was one of the canon...the more it's debated, and the more I learn, the more I begin to feel she maybe isn't...

Best regards all

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Which suggests that Anderson's after-the-fact claim was hyperbole.

Regards, Jon S.

I believe Jon that Anderson was capable of and culpable for many mismanaged remarks.

The best way we can judge what credence was given to any witness in any of these cases is to see how the police responded to the information. For example, although George Hutchinson's story was unknown by the authorities when arranging witnesses for the Kelly Inquest, there is little doubt that for a brief period of days his statements were acted upon. He was believed. We know that the City authorities sequestered Lawende, and publicly suppressed details of his statement. He was believed. We are shown at the Inquest that the authorities did not believe Carrie Maxwell, rather than omit her testimony, they introduced it as "contrary to all other evidence".

Israel Schwartz's statement got the attention of some senior men for a single element within his story...that possibly anti-Semitic taunt to Israel from BSM. They erased evidence fearing ethnic based violence. Many senior officials, like Anderson, went out and stated they thought the Ripper was a immigrant Jew.

But BSM and Pipeman are never discussed in depth at all in later memos, the actual suspects,.. and we all know that not one record can be found that states Israel was either at the Inquest or withheld as a witness.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Fleetwood Mac]

Which suggests that Anderson's after-the-fact claim was hyperbole.

Regards, Jon S.

Doesn't seem like Hyperbole.

In Andersons' book, he could have claimed they uncovered someone during the house searches but he doesn't.

It's a fairly low-key account of how he/they arrived at the conclusion.

The missing piece is that Anderson doesn't tell us how he came to be suspected. That would tie up a few loose ends.

All in all, though, he doesn't really go in for verbosity and obfuscation. He simply says they had a theory and it was proven correct upon identification.

[Wickerman]

I believe Jon that Anderson was capable of and culpable for many mismanaged remarks.

Yes Mike, only I wouldn't single Anderson out. I see much the same erroneous content in other memoirs, it appears to be the nature of the beast. Memoirs to a greater or lesser extent are untrustworthy with respect to specifics.

Israel Schwartz's statement got the attention of some senior men for a single element within his story...that possibly anti-Semitic taunt to Israel from BSM. They erased evidence fearing ethnic based violence. Many senior officials, like Anderson, went out and stated they thought the Ripper was a immigrant Jew.

But BSM and Pipeman are never discussed in depth at all in later memos, the actual suspects,.. and we all know that not one record can be found that states Israel was either at the Inquest or withheld as a witness.

Strangely, and annoyingly, The Star raised the issue of doubt the very next day, 2nd Oct.
"In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story."

And yet, Swanson reported to the Home Office on the 19th Oct. how Schwartz appeared trustworthy from the point of view of the police.
Other police officials from this date on through to the 29th and finally Charles Warren on 6th Nov. all wrote of Schwartz in a positive light.
Warren actually being under the impression that Schwartz had appeared at the Inquest.

Either these police officials were completely out of touch with the boots on the ground at Leman St. and, The Star is correctly expressing the majority opinion, or, The Star is once again spreading incorrect police opinion.
Which then leaves us to speculate with a range of somewhat unsatisfactory reasoning as to why there is no record of him appearing at the inquest.

We know Schwartz gave a statement to the police, so I think we can be reasonably certain Coroner Baxter had read it, so what happened next?...

Regards, Jon S.

[Fleetwood Mac]

To get back to the original premise for this thread - we cannot agree that the bs man was the ripper/killer. I think it is fair to say that the police in 1888 did not know whether he was the killer. Therefore the police would not have said that Schwartz was the only man to get a clear view of the ripper as they were by no means sure the bs man was the ripper. That is without even going into the area of whether Schwartz saw anything at all.

The police certainly couldn't be sure that BS Man was the killer.

But, they would have put this man right at the top of the pile. I think you can be as certain of this as you can of almost anything else in this case. He was the only person seen struggling with a victim not long before she was found dead - supposedly.

There is a pre-requisite, though: when they spoke of the 'only man', is Schwartz that man, i.e. did they believe his story?

I would argue he wasn't as the claims amount to the murderer being seen with the victim minutes before the body was found, not that the murderer was seen attacking the victim minutes before. It is inconceivable that the attack would have been left out of the equation when attempting to prove the point that this was the murderer.

From there, I think there's one conclusion: Schwartz was not the witness and it follows thus they did not believe Schwartz; it also follows that the police did not believe BS Man existed - otherwise, Schwartz would have been the primary witness and the attack would have been mentioned in the claims in order to bolster the proposal.

[Cogidubnus]

Exactly Mac...an awful lot stands or falls on Schwartz...

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

One way or another Schwartz wouldn't have been accurately described as someone who got a clear view of the killer.
I think Anderson was making a false self congratulatory statement. However he was dependent on Information coming to him from underlings and the information about Schwartz would at best be inconclusive. So even if he was talking rubbish (which i think he was) I doubt Anderson was even eluding to Schwartz.

[Fleetwood Mac]

One way or another Schwartz wouldn't have been accurately described as someone who got a clear view of the killer.
I think Anderson was making a false self congratulatory statement. However he was dependent on Information coming to him from underlings and the information about Schwartz would at best be inconclusive. So even if he was talking rubbish (which i think he was) I doubt Anderson was even eluding to Schwartz.

Clear view?

I would say he had as clear a view as you're going to get in these affairs - assuming the incident actually happened.

The fact that the supposed attack drew his attention to BS Man is a good start. The next best available is Lawende who saw nothing untoward, and gave a description accordingly.

Based on Anderson's book, I don't think he goes over the top at all.

He as good as states that they were relying on a house-to-house search and it didn't uncover anything except that they came to the conclusion that he must live with people and due to this these people must know of his guilt.

That's some admission to lay bare for all to see - they didn't have a clue and the best they could offer was a house to house search based on an estimation that he lived in the immediate vicinity.

So, boil it down further, and the best they could do was an assumption that he lived in the immediate vicinity - all opinions stated within Anderson's book regarding what they knew in October, were based on that one basic assumption.

That's some admission of 'self-congratulation'.

[Garry Wroe]

To get back to the original premise for this thread - we cannot agree that the bs man was the ripper/killer. I think it is fair to say that the police in 1888 did not know whether he was the killer.

The same objection can be applied to both Schwartz and Lawende, Lechmere. It wasn’t about ‘knowing’. It was about likelihood given a specific set of circumstances.

Therefore the police would not have said that Schwartz was the only man to get a clear view of the ripper as they were by no means sure the bs man was the ripper.

There was no guarantee that Church Passage man was the Ripper, but investigators clearly felt that Lawende had sighted Eddowes’ killer. What I’m sensing here is the psychological phenomenon known as ‘belief perseverance’ – the tendency to cling to pre-existing convictions even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Let’s forget the Lawende as stellar witness arguments of old. Swanson stated that the evidence of Anderson’s witness would have been sufficient in itself to secure a conviction. This alone tells us that the witness was privy to more than a mere sighting. In order for Swanson’s observation to hold true, the witness must have seen an actual attack in progress. Thus the witness could not have been Lawende. It must have been Schwartz.

[Garry Wroe]

One way or another Schwartz wouldn't have been accurately described as someone who got a clear view of the killer.

It was as clear, if not clearer, than that of Lawende, Lechmere.

I think Anderson was making a false self congratulatory statement. However he was dependent on Information coming to him from underlings and the information about Schwartz would at best be inconclusive. So even if he was talking rubbish (which i think he was) I doubt Anderson was even eluding to Schwartz.

Swanson clearly didn’t think that Anderson was blowing hot air, Lechmere. He corroborated Anderson’s claimed identification and went further by stating that the witness’s evidence was such that it would have secured a conviction in its own right. We can either assess the evidence objectively and systematically, or we can disregard it in favour of anti-Anderson rhetoric. At present this thread appears to have lapsed into the latter.

[Abby Normal]

Which suggests that Anderson's after-the-fact claim was hyperbole.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker

From Anderson(memo recommending Swanson to be put in charge):

"I am convinced the the Whitechapel murder case is one which can be successfully grappled with if it is sytematically taken in hand. I go so far as to say that I could myself in a few days unravel the mystery provided I could spare the time and give undivided attention to it."

Seems like his hyperbole was also present before-the-fact!

And no Garry its not anti-anderson rhetoric. The whole basis of your theory hinges on the credibility/accuracy of those making the statements. I think its clear we need to keep that in mind when we assess what Anderson and his loyal follower Swanson say about it.

[Tom_Wescott]

What I’m sensing here is the psychological phenomenon known as ‘belief perseverance’ – the tendency to cling to pre-existing convictions even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This is precisely what I sense whenever I see anyone still arguing that Stride was not a Ripper victim "based on the evidence." Of course, the evidence that has presented over the last few decades to strike Stride from the cannon is 1) Michael Kidney was really her killer (since shown not to be the case, 2) A different knife was used (a mistaken conclusion drawn from evidence about the Coram knife), 3) her killer was left-handed, unlike the Ripper (her killer was not left-handed), ad infinitum. All of us read this stuff in the books over the last few decades, and from it was created a small section of otherwise solid researchers who now have an ingrained belief that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim. Literally every main reason given by authors to dismiss Stride has been proved to be erred or outright wrong, yet in some, there's that 'belief perseverance' which requires more and more imagination to support their argument. But there really just isn't an argument any more except the only legit argument there has ever been - that Stride was not mutilated beyond her throat wound.

One of the more amusing arguments I've read recently has been that Stride couldn't be a Ripper victim because her killer was more capable than the Ripper at cutting throats. I love it! Jack the Ripper, an experienced throat-slitter, couldn't have killed Stride because she was clearly the victim of a more experienced and capable throat-slitter!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Tom,
like you said, the only argument that has some validity for Stride being a "non canonical" is the lack of postmortem mutilations. There are these people who, against all evidence, insist that Stride must have been killed as early as 00.30 and therefore she cannot have been a "Ripper interruptus". All kind of pseudo-evidence is used for this: Mortimer having allegedly spent an entire half hour "in front of" her doorstep, Kozebrodsky stating that Diemschitz called him out to the Yard at 00.40 a.m.. These are the misconceptions that need to be corrected.
But Berner Street continues to be so neglected as a sub-field of Ripperology, that people (and not necessarily newbies!) keep stating the Thomas Coram knife or take Matthew Packer's suspect for granted.

[martin wilson]

We have corroboration on two hats,William Marshall and Israel Schwartz both saw someone with a peaked cap. Marshall said "like a sailors" Schwartz nothing I found on a quick look.
Well,it could have been a sailors,or it could have been a kashket, a cap I am reliably informed by wiki of the type worn by poorer Hasidic jews.
Now if Scwartz knew the type of hat but said nowt,does it strengthen the case for him being Andersons witness?
All the best.