Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Since I asked you what were the visual differences between a 23 and 30 year old and you named none, I’ll assume that you agree that unless there is something unusual- such as early graying or early balding- there really are no discernible differences visually between a 23 and 30 year old.




the court transcript says he was asked and he answered. The judge didn’t ask in Yiddish and nothing was said about an interpreter. Further, in his admittance papers to one of the asylums, it had “education: reading and writing”. This would’ve meant English. You’ve spent 19 pages of this thread trying to pass your opinions off as established fact, yet you refuse to admit every shred of evidence points to him understanding and speaking English. You just won’t admit it because it doesn’t align with your Kosminski “couldn’t have possibly been the killer” narrative.



Most Jews had Jewish beliefs just as most Americans and Brits have Christian beliefs. That does not mean every Jew was a hardcore practicing Jew any more than everyone who claims Christian beliefs is a hardcore practicing Christian. If he didn’t have the money or simply didn’t want to pay, he could’ve easily used the sabbath excuse. You are taking one tiny tidbit and trying to stretch it into him being the second coming of Moses who could never possibly commit any sin (even if it were actually his established mental illness causing him to commit the sin) because of his steadfast religious beliefs. Again, you’re grasping at straws to make something fit into the narrative you’re trying to present.

and I’m not even saying he wasn’t raised to be religious, he most likely was. It’s just ridiculous to even suggest that a religious belief is going to override a severe mental illness driving a person to do things that no normal person would.




lol. No drunkenness amongst Jews in the East End. So all those pubs and all those “Jewish mens’ clubs” that two prostitutes happened to be murdered outside of on the same night, but no drunkenness. I’d wonder how you propose that Jacob Levy got syphilis. Would you guess that he was a morally upstanding and sober person who got syphilis from sitting on the wrong toilet seat? He was an East End Jew after all, so theres no possible way that he was out getting drunk and having sex with prostitutes.






by your logic, I guess many black people don’t call each other a certain anti-black racial slur either do they? See every single rap album from the past 30 years as proof to the contrary.

you’d like me to ask an 1888 Jewish resident of the East End? I’d love to if you can produce one.









”If you mean that other words were said, they weren’t.” there you go again with the old passing your opinion off as fact. You weren’t there and have no clue what was said. There may have been one word, or more context, which of course the witness himself would not have known because it is established that he could barely speak any English.









Do you have a link to the inquest testimony where he said this?







I can’t even guess how you’d come to such a conclusion. A Hungarian who could speak almost no English would be able to differentiate the difference between a British and Polish accent based on hearing a single word in a split second under stress. That makes no logical sense.






The evidence is:
-there’s no obvious visual difference between most 23 and 30 year olds.
-most people base being “thin” or “stout” on size of chest, stomach, and hips and that “broad-shouldered” would not exclude someone from being thin anymore than “muscular calves” would.
-contrary what you’re trying to bend to fit your narrative, Jews are indeed capable of drinking alcohol, they are capable of being drunk, and even alcoholics. Some of them are capable of having mental illness, and some of them are even capable of murdering women.
-maybe “Lipski” was indeed used as a slur and maybe it wasn’t. We can’t know because the one who heard it could barely speak English. you of course take Abberline at his opinion of it, while ignoring Swanson’s opinion of it. We could debate which is more credible, but that’s a different argument.




I doubt very much that Schwartz was the seaside home witness. You doubt it too, but you’ve sure spent a lot of space arguing it. But anyone of these witnesses COULD have assumed that the suspect was Jewish and not had it absolutely confirmed until the seaside home.






I didn’t say the first thing about “a great hatred of prostitutes”. I would need more evidence to form my own opinion of that. Since the vast majority of the Scotland Yard WM file- including all or almost all of the suspect files- are now missing, I have no reason to assume that all these respected police officials were lying or that such evidence did not once exist. You however seem to be under the impression that because the files were pilfered and stolen, that means the evidence never existed at all and these officials were lying. That sir, is what is “not credible”.

my response was to your statement that Kosminski did not associate with prostitutes. You have no idea whether or not he associated with prostitutes. And if a person were extremely sick and had uncontrollable fantasies of butchering women, their religious beliefs wouldn’t come into it anyway. A sick person is a sick person, no matter how religious they were raised to be.

I’ll assume that you agree that unless there is something unusual- such as early graying or early balding- there really are no discernible differences visually between a 23 and 30 year old.


In that case, you're making an incorrect assumption.

There obviously is a difference between the appearance of a 23-year-old and a 30-year-old; otherwise, police wouldn't ask witnesses to give an estimate.




The judge didn’t ask in Yiddish and nothing was said about an interpreter.


How would we know whether anything was said in Yiddish?

I suggest you re-read my previous answer.




No drunkenness amongst Jews in the East End.


I refer you to a comment I made, to which you have made no response:

It was well-known that public displays of drunkenness by Jews in the East End of London were unheard of.

And it was noted by a leading detective in the Whitechapel Murders case.




I’d wonder how you propose that Jacob Levy got syphilis.


That's a good question, but you have never mentioned the fact that Jacob Levy was 5 ft 3 ins.

I do hope you are not going to ask me how one can tell the difference between someone who is 5 feet 3 inches tall and five foot 7 inches tall.



by your logic, I guess many black people don’t call each other a certain anti-black racial slur either do they? See every single rap album from the past 30 years as proof to the contrary.


Suggesting that the content of rap albums has any relevance to the way in which Jews in the East End of London addressed each other in 1888 is obviously not a valid point.



there you go again with the old passing your opinion off as fact. You weren’t there and have no clue what was said. There may have been one word, or more context, which of course the witness himself would not have known because it is established that he could barely speak any English.



The evidence is that only one word - an insult - was spoken.

That makes it a fact, to the best of our knowledge, unless you want to dismiss Schwarz as a credible witness, in which case he cannot be used to prove Kosminski's guilt.

I know what the evidence is, but you don't accept it.

In that case, there is no case against Kosminski.




A Hungarian who could speak almost no English would be able to differentiate the difference between a British and Polish accent based on hearing a single word in a split second under stress. That makes no logical sense.


Schwarz wasn't Hungarian.

He was Polish.

The word would not have taken a split-second to say, but about one second.

The man's pronunciation of the 'i's in 'Lipski' would have given away the fact that he was a native born Londoner and not a Pole.

That makes perfect sense if you know something about the Polish language and the differences in pronunciation.

If you don't have any familiarity with Polish, then you really have no right to say that my argument is illogical.





-maybe “Lipski” was indeed used as a slur and maybe it wasn’t. We can’t know because the one who heard it could barely speak English.



Since 'Lipski' was an anti-Jewish slur which was even chalked on the walls in Whitechapel, we can assume that Schwarz recognised it and, since the name is recognisably Polish, even when shouted by an Englishman, Schwarz was obviously capable of recognising it.

Schwarz's lack of knowledge of English is irrelevant.





But anyone of these witnesses COULD have assumed that the suspect was Jewish and not had it absolutely confirmed until the seaside home.



Well, I think your argument is not credible, because if the witness thought the suspect was Jewish and was unwilling to testify against him on account of his being Jewish, then why on earth would he have gone to the police?




You however seem to be under the impression that because the files were pilfered and stolen, that means the evidence never existed at all and these officials were lying. That sir, is what is “not credible”.



By 'these officials', I take it you mean Anderson and Swanson.

I didn't say they were lying - just fantasising.

If Anderson and Swanson were telling the truth, why is it that no-one else knew about it?

Abberline and Smith stated categorically that they had no idea who the murderer was.

Why did Anderson say previously that the man was never identified?

Why did Anderson say 'I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact' when neither Abberline nor Smith knew anything about it?

Why would the knowledge of a definitely ascertained fact be restricted to a circle of two people?

It's not as though Anderson was trying to keep the story secret - is it?




you have no idea whether or not he associated with prostitutes. and if a person were extremely sick and had uncontrollable fantasies of butchering women, their religious beliefs wouldn’t come into it anyway. a sick person is a sick person, no matter how religious they were raised to be.



There is no evidence that Kosminski ever associated with prostitutes.

He had schizophrenia, not syphilis.

According to his carers, he was harmless, which doesn't suggest he had any 'uncontrollable fantasies of butchering women'.

[Elamarna]

We don't have the actual record of his verbatim testimony, but we do have a record that he testified that the insult was directed at him.

Sorry, but the ONLY indication that Schwartz gave testimony at the inquest is in a letter from Anderson.
There is no mention in an inquest report.
that he testified at the inquest, this as been debated many times.
If you mean his police interview, well in an internal memo Abberline said it was unclear who the cry was aimed at, but he ( Abberline) believed it was aimed at Schwartz.

[Elamarna]

I despair at some of the comments made here, which simply cherry pick comments that support one argument, and at comments made without any real reference and which go against years of debate and research.

For instance, that Schwartz gave testimony at the inquest. ( now I have argued for years that he may have,or tgat a decision was made by Baxter either not to call him, or to hear him in camera.) Yet here we are told, that he certainly did give testimony.
The only indication is a letter from Anderson. Many of us have used this to argue he might have, but here we are boldly told he DID.

Such is research of the worst type.

2nd example, That Schwartz was Polish, this is presented as a definitive and conclusive fact.

No source is given, just the posters opinion is given as fact.
Details about Schwartz are scarce, hence why it's far from clear What became of him.
Yet the poster KNOWS.

And then the comment that if there is no difference in appearance at different ages the police would not ask for an estimate.

This is astounding, the poster truly believes that it's possible to judge a person's age to within 7 years, after childhood, by means of a viewing of a few seconds.

So we can all tell every 20 year old from someone who is 27.

We can all tell someone who is 28 from someone of 35.

We can all tell someone of 40 from someone of 47.

This is clearly unrealistic, it is theory driven.

And it's poor history and very poor research.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll assume that you agree that unless there is something unusual- such as early graying or early balding- there really are no discernible differences visually between a 23 and 30 year old.


In that case, you're making an incorrect assumption.

There obviously is a difference between the appearance of a 23-year-old and a 30-year-old; otherwise, police wouldn't ask witnesses to give an estimate.




The judge didn’t ask in Yiddish and nothing was said about an interpreter.


How would we know whether anything was said in Yiddish?

I suggest you re-read my previous answer.




No drunkenness amongst Jews in the East End.


I refer you to a comment I made, to which you have made no response:

It was well-known that public displays of drunkenness by Jews in the East End of London were unheard of.

And it was noted by a leading detective in the Whitechapel Murders case.




I’d wonder how you propose that Jacob Levy got syphilis.


That's a good question, but you have never mentioned the fact that Jacob Levy was 5 ft 3 ins.

I do hope you are not going to ask me how one can tell the difference between someone who is 5 feet 3 inches tall and five foot 7 inches tall.



by your logic, I guess many black people don’t call each other a certain anti-black racial slur either do they? See every single rap album from the past 30 years as proof to the contrary.


Suggesting that the content of rap albums has any relevance to the way in which Jews in the East End of London addressed each other in 1888 is obviously not a valid point.



there you go again with the old passing your opinion off as fact. You weren’t there and have no clue what was said. There may have been one word, or more context, which of course the witness himself would not have known because it is established that he could barely speak any English.



The evidence is that only one word - an insult - was spoken.

That makes it a fact, to the best of our knowledge, unless you want to dismiss Schwarz as a credible witness, in which case he cannot be used to prove Kosminski's guilt.

I know what the evidence is, but you don't accept it.

In that case, there is no case against Kosminski.




A Hungarian who could speak almost no English would be able to differentiate the difference between a British and Polish accent based on hearing a single word in a split second under stress. That makes no logical sense.


Schwarz wasn't Hungarian.

He was Polish.

The word would not have taken a split-second to say, but about one second.

The man's pronunciation of the 'i's in 'Lipski' would have given away the fact that he was a native born Londoner and not a Pole.

That makes perfect sense if you know something about the Polish language and the differences in pronunciation.

If you don't have any familiarity with Polish, then you really have no right to say that my argument is illogical.





-maybe “Lipski” was indeed used as a slur and maybe it wasn’t. We can’t know because the one who heard it could barely speak English.



Since 'Lipski' was an anti-Jewish slur which was even chalked on the walls in Whitechapel, we can assume that Schwarz recognised it and, since the name is recognisably Polish, even when shouted by an Englishman, Schwarz was obviously capable of recognising it.

Schwarz's lack of knowledge of English is irrelevant.





But anyone of these witnesses COULD have assumed that the suspect was Jewish and not had it absolutely confirmed until the seaside home.



Well, I think your argument is not credible, because if the witness thought the suspect was Jewish and was unwilling to testify against him on account of his being Jewish, then why on earth would he have gone to the police?




You however seem to be under the impression that because the files were pilfered and stolen, that means the evidence never existed at all and these officials were lying. That sir, is what is “not credible”.



By 'these officials', I take it you mean Anderson and Swanson.

I didn't say they were lying - just fantasising.

If Anderson and Swanson were telling the truth, why is it that no-one else knew about it?

Abberline and Smith stated categorically that they had no idea who the murderer was.

Why did Anderson say previously that the man was never identified?

Why did Anderson say 'I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact' when neither Abberline nor Smith knew anything about it?

Why would the knowledge of a definitely ascertained fact be restricted to a circle of two people?

It's not as though Anderson was trying to keep the story secret - is it?




you have no idea whether or not he associated with prostitutes. and if a person were extremely sick and had uncontrollable fantasies of butchering women, their religious beliefs wouldn’t come into it anyway. a sick person is a sick person, no matter how religious they were raised to be.



There is no evidence that Kosminski ever associated with prostitutes.

He had schizophrenia, not syphilis.

According to his carers, he was harmless, which doesn't suggest he had any 'uncontrollable fantasies of butchering women'.

PI, this is just a bit of advice that you can ignore or use; it isn’t criticism. You would save yourself the time and effort of having to type out the areas of the quote that you are making responses to by typing your responses within the box of quoted text and then emboldening it. If you are only, for example, responding to a part of a quoted paragraph you can just delete the parts of the quote that you’re not responding to. So you would get this as an example..

.
Why did Anderson say 'I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact' when neither Abberline nor Smith knew anything about it?

I don’t know why ….. etc

Why would the knowledge of a definitely ascertained fact be restricted to a circle of two people?

I would say …….. etc

[Varqm]

Sorry, but the ONLY indication that Schwartz gave testimony at the inquest is in a letter from Anderson.
There is no mention in an inquest report.
that he testified at the inquest, this as been debated many times.
If you mean his police interview, well in an internal memo Abberline said it was unclear who the cry was aimed at, but he ( Abberline) believed it was aimed at Schwartz.

Andersson's letter implied Schwartz was submitted to the inquest as a witness or his testimony but was not chosen by Baxter,as the Coroner not the police decides who goes in the witness stand.The coroner can also direct the police to find witnesses.

[Elamarna]

Andersson's letter implied Schwartz was submitted to the inquest as a witness or his testimony but was not chosen by Baxter,as the Coroner not the police decides who goes in the witness stand.The coroner can also direct the police to find witnesses.

The point my friend is there is no record of him giving testimony at the inquest.
Contrary to what was claimed by another poster.

You are of course that Baxter decided who was called.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I despair at some of the comments made here, which simply cherry pick comments that support one argument, and at comments made without any real reference and which go against years of debate and research.

For instance, that Schwartz gave testimony at the inquest. ( now I have argued for years that he may have,or tgat a decision was made by Baxter either not to call him, or to hear him in camera.) Yet here we are told, that he certainly did give testimony.
The only indication is a letter from Anderson. Many of us have used this to argue he might have, but here we are boldly told he DID.

Such is research of the worst type.

2nd example, That Schwartz was Polish, this is presented as a definitive and conclusive fact.

No source is given, just the posters opinion is given as fact.
Details about Schwartz are scarce, hence why it's far from clear What became of him.
Yet the poster KNOWS.

And then the comment that if there is no difference in appearance at different ages the police would not ask for an estimate.

This is astounding, the poster truly believes that it's possible to judge a person's age to within 7 years, after childhood, by means of a viewing of a few seconds.

So we can all tell every 20 year old from someone who is 27.

We can all tell someone who is 28 from someone of 35.

We can all tell someone of 40 from someone of 47.

This is clearly unrealistic, it is theory driven.

And it's poor history and very poor research.

I despair at some of the comments made here, which simply cherry pick comments that support one argument, and at comments made without any real reference and which go against years of debate and research.

Those are unjustified and prejudiced comments on your part.

After announcing that you were going to comply with the moderators' request that you 'cool it' - in other words, cease your personal attacks on me - you're evidently raring to go again.




For instance, that Schwartz gave testimony at the inquest... Yet here we are told, that he certainly did give testimony.
The only indication is a letter from Anderson. Many of us have used this to argue he might have, but here we are boldly told he DID.



Well, you are plain wrong.


The only indication is not from Anderson.
There is also a letter from Charles Warren.
The wording of the two letters is remarkably similar, but the letters indicate that both men were aware of Schwarz's testimony.



2nd example, That Schwartz was Polish, this is presented as a definitive and conclusive fact.

No source is given, just the posters opinion is given as fact.




Again, that is a completely unfounded statement.

I provided a link to the biography of Schwarz in Wikipedia, which provides a list of sources.

It seems you did not read it.






Details about Schwartz are scarce, hence why it's far from clear What became of him.
Yet the poster KNOWS.



I don't recall claiming that I KNOW what became of him.
You're complaining about something I didn't even write!




And then the comment that if there is no difference in appearance at different ages the police would not ask for an estimate.

This is astounding ...
This is clearly unrealistic, it is theory driven.

And it's poor history and very poor research.




You're writing nonsense.

There is no shortage of so-called suspects aged 22 or 23: Levy, Kosminski, Kłosowski .

You are 'astounded' that I treat the witnesses with more respect than you do, but are you not astounded that there is no description of a suspect being younger than 30?

You're prepared to consider Kosminski as a suspect even though two witnesses at different locations both estimated the suspect's age as 30.




Such is research of the worst type.


You're being condescending for the sake of it.

You talk about 'research of the worst type'.




What kind of researcher is seriously prepared to put forward the proposition that a Polish immigrant East End religious Jew, whose close family members had very dark hair - as evidenced by photographs provided by another member with the accompanying insult that I was ignorant for not recognising them - could have dressed as a sailor with blond hair, speaking English specially for the occasion of eviscerating a woman, and then turned up for a police identification wearing a religious skullcap and religious fringes, prominently on display, and spoken Yiddish for the occasion, in order to tighten the noose around his own neck?

Crafty 'Jack' (or Yankel, as you would have it) had the cunning to escape from Bucks Row as Lechmere approached, to slip away from Dutfield's Yard when Diemschutz arrived, to escape from Mitre Square even as a policeman was approaching it, yet when he appears at a police identification, according to you he does everything to get himself hanged.

And you consider YOURSELF to be a serious researcher?

[Varqm]

The point my friend is there is no record of him giving testimony at the inquest.
Contrary to what was claimed by another poster.

You are of course that Baxter decided who was called.

I see, the letter was interpreted wrong.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Sorry, but the ONLY indication that Schwartz gave testimony at the inquest is in a letter from Anderson.
There is no mention in an inquest report.
that he testified at the inquest, this as been debated many times.
If you mean his police interview, well in an internal memo Abberline said it was unclear who the cry was aimed at, but he ( Abberline) believed it was aimed at Schwartz.

I have to state that the opinion reached in this department upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth 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

(Sir Robert Anderson)

I have to acquaint you for the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name "Lipski", which he alleges was used by the man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berners Street on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself

( Sir Charles Warren, 9 November)

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I see, the letter was interpreted wrong.

I see, the letter was interpreted wrong.


Yes, indeed - by our friend EL AMARNA.


There were two letters:


I have to state that the opinion reached in this department upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth 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.

(Sir Robert Anderson)


I have to acquaint you for the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name "Lipski", which he alleges was used by the man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berners Street on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself.

( Sir Charles Warren, 9 November)

[Elamarna]

I despair at some of the comments made here, which simply cherry pick comments that support one argument, and at comments made without any real reference and which go against years of debate and research.

Those are unjustified and prejudiced comments on your part.

After announcing that you were going to comply with the moderators' request that you 'cool it' - in other words, cease your personal attacks on me - you're evidently raring to go again.




For instance, that Schwartz gave testimony at the inquest... Yet here we are told, that he certainly did give testimony.
The only indication is a letter from Anderson. Many of us have used this to argue he might have, but here we are boldly told he DID.



Well, you are plain wrong.


The only indication is not from Anderson.
There is also a letter from Charles Warren.
The wording of the two letters is remarkably similar, but the letters indicate that both men were aware of Schwarz's testimony.



2nd example, That Schwartz was Polish, this is presented as a definitive and conclusive fact.

No source is given, just the posters opinion is given as fact.




Again, that is a completely unfounded statement.

I provided a link to the biography of Schwarz in Wikipedia, which provides a list of sources.

It seems you did not read it.






Details about Schwartz are scarce, hence why it's far from clear What became of him.
Yet the poster KNOWS.



I don't recall claiming that I KNOW what became of him.
You're complaining about something I didn't even write!




And then the comment that if there is no difference in appearance at different ages the police would not ask for an estimate.

This is astounding ...
This is clearly unrealistic, it is theory driven.

And it's poor history and very poor research.




You're writing nonsense.

There is no shortage of so-called suspects aged 22 or 23: Levy, Kosminski, Kłosowski .

You are 'astounded' that I treat the witnesses with more respect than you do, but are you not astounded that there is no description of a suspect being younger than 30?

You're prepared to consider Kosminski as a suspect even though two witnesses at different locations both estimated the suspect's age as 30.




Such is research of the worst type.


You're being condescending for the sake of it.

You talk about 'research of the worst type'.




What kind of researcher is seriously prepared to put forward the proposition that a Polish immigrant East End religious Jew, whose close family members had very dark hair - as evidenced by photographs provided by another member with the accompanying insult that I was ignorant for not recognising them - could have dressed as a sailor with blond hair, speaking English specially for the occasion of eviscerating a woman, and then turned up for a police identification wearing a religious skullcap and religious fringes, prominently on display, and spoken Yiddish for the occasion, in order to tighten the noose around his own neck?

Crafty 'Jack' (or Yankel, as you would have it) had the cunning to escape from Bucks Row as Lechmere approached, to slip away from Dutfield's Yard when Diemschutz arrived, to escape from Mitre Square even as a policeman was approaching it, yet when he appears at a police identification, according to you he does everything to get himself hanged.

And you consider YOURSELF to be a serious researcher?

Sadly, it is not I who am wrong on these issues.

So let's look

1. These are not personal attacks, th a comments are entirely justified, this is not an echo chamber. Desent is allowed.

2. ANDERSON, mentioning Schwartz "testimony" is not proof of trstimony being given. There is no record of such occurring.
To say I am plain wrong is simply wrong itself.
incidentally, I believe he may have given such testimony, but we can't prove it.

3. Using Wikipedia as a biography source is fraught with danger.
The truth is we have very little detail about him.
We DONT KNOW he was polish!!

4. What is astonishing is that you believe one can tell someone's age to within 7 years from a cursory glance .
Such is unrealistic, but does not surprise me.

It's for my peers to decide on the quality of my research and my contributions to Ripper Studies.

What is very cleat is that you feel your views are the only views that are credible.

[Elamarna]

I have to state that the opinion reached in this department upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth 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

(Sir Robert Anderson)

I have to acquaint you for the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name "Lipski", which he alleges was used by the man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berners Street on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself

( Sir Charles Warren, 9 November)

It is abundantly clear to most researchers that Warrens letter is taken from Anderson's.
Anderson's sends a report to Warren, who then sends a report to the home office.

Warren is clearly repeating what Anderson has written.

The point you don't seem to grasp is that we have no record at all of Schwartz appearing at the inquest, or of him giving testimony.

I would love to claim these letters prove he did give testimony, but they don't.
They ask the question.
They simply do not prove he did. That you think they do says so much.

[Elamarna]

I see, the letter was interpreted wrong.

The letter from Anderson ( to warren) clearly suggests he actually gave evidence at the inquest.

" upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case"

Warrens letter to the home office, sent after Anderson's updates him with this information is even clearer

"evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case"

We both know there is no record of such evidence being given

So either he did , and it was in camera, or he did not.

I don't see there is any interpretation of the letter required, it's very clear.

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is abundantly clear to most researchers that Warrens letter is taken from Anderson's.
Anderson's sends a report to Warren, who then sends a report to the home office.

Warren is clearly repeating what Anderson has written.

The point you don't seem to grasp is that we have no record at all of Schwartz appearing at the inquest, or of him giving testimony.

I would love to claim these letters prove he did give testimony, but they don't.
They ask the question.
They simply do not prove he did. That you think they do says so much.

I see.

So Swanson can validate what Anderson said about the Polish Jew 'suspect', but Warren can't validate what Anderson said about Schwarz having testified at the inquest!

You cannot produce a letter from Warren about a Jew refusing to testify against someone who was 'definitely ascertained' to have been the Whitechapel Murderer!

[Elamarna]

I see.

So Swanson can validate what Anderson said about the Polish Jew 'suspect', but Warren can't validate what Anderson said about Schwarz having testified at the inquest!

You cannot produce a letter from Warren about a Jew refusing to testify against someone who was 'definitely ascertained' to have been the Whitechapel Murderer!

What are you talking about.

The two situations are completely different.

Swanson, writes a private note, in his copy of Anderson's book , for himself.
He provides details Anderson does not give.


Warren, receives a letter from Anderson, he then sends his own letter to the Government, which in essence repeats almost word perfect Anderson's.

It is clear to most, he is using the information supplied to him by his head of CID, in effect forwarded it on.

I have made it clear that I believe there is a possibility that Schwartz was heard in camera, but we can't prove it.


The issue you are missing is that we have many reports of the inquest, there is no mention of Schwartz appearing.
So either for some strange reason the press do not report any comment about Schwartz, or he gives evidence in Camera, or he doesn't give any evidence at all.
That's the issue, you present your idea that he gave evidence as fact, when it's not.



Warren could only write such a letter, if the identification took place before he resigned.
Most, not all suggest the identification took place after, if not long after Warren resigned. Again to say I can't produce such a letter is a pointless statement.