The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[Stewart P Evans]

Procedures

...
This is 100% true, with one exception – I believe the Star report has Pipeman taking off after Schwartz first, whereas Swanson’s version does not. This detail present in the Star is later confirmed by Inspector Abberline in his response to memos generated by Swanson’s Oct. 19th report. Since Abberline is the man who interviewed Schwartz at length and prepared the report from which Swanson based his summary, it must be considered an official source, even trumping the Swanson report. However, I don’t recall if Swanson merely didn’t include that detail, or conflicted with it. Posting from memory here.
...
Tom Wescott

The Star report is at total variance with the official versions (Swanson and Abberline) on this point.

The Star states, 'A second man came out of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder [Schwartz]. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.'

You apparently do not fully understand the police procedures and how they reported and submitted reports. I'm not quite sure what you think Abberline confirmed in The Star report that conflicted with what Swanson wrote. Below are extracts from the reports by Swanson and Abberline relative to the point.

[mariab]

unsollicited comment

The Star report is at total variance with the official versions (Swanson and Abberline) on this point.

I'm pretty sure that even the most neophyte newbie is aware of this fact.

I'm not quite sure what you think Abberline confirmed in The Star report that conflicted with what Swanson wrote. Below are extracts from the reports by Swanson and Abberline relative to the point.

I've already quoted one of these extracts from the Swanson report in my post #236. I'm not clear either on what Tom means when he's saying:

I believe the Star report has Pipeman taking off after Schwartz first, whereas Swanson’s version does not. This detail present in the Star is later confirmed by Inspector Abberline in his response to memos generated by Swanson’s Oct. 19th report. (...) However, I don’t recall if Swanson merely didn’t include that detail, or conflicted with it. Posting from memory here.

What on earth can “Pipeman taking off after Schwartz first“ mean? When one takes off after someone, he's running/walking “second“, not “first“. Or does this refer to an allegation of Pipeman having left the premises BEFORE Schwartz did?
Incidentally, the Star report (of October 1) states:
The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

I thoroughly agree with the following though:

Since Abberline is the man who interviewed Schwartz at length and prepared the report from which Swanson based his summary, it {Abberline's memos} must be considered an official source, even trumping the Swanson report.

With profound apologies for the unsolicited comment.

[Stewart P Evans]

'Thoroughly agree...'

...
I thoroughly agree with the following though:

With profound apologies for the unsolicited comment.

The observation was, 'Since Abberline is the man who interviewed Schwartz at length and prepared the report from which Swanson based his summary, it {Abberline's memos} must be considered an official source, even trumping the Swanson report.' You say that you 'thoroughly agree' with that observation so, perhaps, you may like to explain what you mean by this.

[mariab]

The observation was
Since Abberline is the man who interviewed Schwartz at length and prepared the report from which Swanson based his summary, it {Abberline's memos} must be considered an official source, even trumping the Swanson report.
You say that you 'thoroughly agree' with that observation so, perhaps, you may like to explain what you mean by this.

It's my impression that Tom has been expressing himself a bit unclearly in the post in question. Obviously there is no question whatsoever that the Swanson report is THE official source, esp. vs. the Star report! What I'm assuming that Tom is saying here and agreeing with is that, since Abberline was the investigative officer and the one to have interviewed Schwartz (at length and more than once), it's Abberline's expert opinion which should be taken at face value vs. a bureaucratic report prepared by Swanson and aimed for the Home Office, with the intention to make a good impression. (As discussed a few weeks ago in the JTRForums thread Schwartz: at the inquest or not?.) Unfortunately, the police reports are missing and we only have Abberline's memos.

Mr. Evans, might I please inquire if the hand who's written down the margins annotations in the Swanson report has been identified?

I'm also taking the liberty to add that the following quote totally cracked me up, as it's almost verbatim what Philip Gossett, my American boss favours to say about twice a year, when he's in a cranky mood (despite him knowing and frequently aknowledging that I'm a very good musicologist and researcher, as I've brought him many new sources at a frequent pace). In my boss' case, one needs only to substitute “the police procedure“ with “reading a full score“. The parallel quote made me smile. :-)

You apparently do not fully understand the police procedures and how they reported and submitted reports.

[Stewart P Evans]

Not a question of...

It's my impression that Tom has been expressing himself a bit unclearly in the post in question. Obviously there is no question whatsoever that the Swanson report is THE official source, esp. vs. the Star report! What I'm assuming that Tom is saying here and agreeing with is that, since Abberline was the investigative officer and the one to have interviewed Schwartz (at length and more than once), it's Abberline's expert opinion which should be taken at face value vs. a bureaucratic report prepared by Swanson and aimed for the Home Office, with the intention to make a good impression. (As discussed a few weeks ago in the JTRForums thread Schwartz: at the inquest or not?.) Unfortunately, the police reports are missing and we only have Abberline's memos.
...

It's not a question of 'THE official source'. All the police and Home Office reports are official sources and no single report should be described as 'THE official source'.

Your reply is a bit confusing (or confused) and I simply cannot agree with your interpretation of the various police reports and their nature. I also do not understand the sentence, 'Unfortunately, the police reports are missing and we only have Abberline's memos.'

[Stewart P Evans]

Annotation

...
Mr. Evans, might I please inquire if the hand who's written down the margins annotations in the Swanson report has been identified?
I'm also taking the liberty to add that the following quote totally cracked me up, as it's almost verbatim what Philip Gossett, my American boss favours to say about twice a year, when he's in a cranky mood (despite him knowing and frequently aknowledging that I'm a very good musicologist and researcher, as I've brought him many new sources at a frequent pace). In my boss' case, one needs only to substitute “the police procedure“ with “reading a full score“. The parallel quote made me smile. :-)

It is a Home Office annotation, probably by Lushington on behalf of Matthews. Are you suggesting that I'm 'in a cranky mood'.?

[mariab]

Your reply is a bit confusing (or confused)

Hopefully not confused, but I haven't expressed myself well. I apologize.

It's not a question of 'THE official source'. All the police and Home Office reports are official sources and no single report should be described as 'THE official source'.

I shouldn't have referred to the Swanson report as “THE official source“ since we also have Abberline's memos.

I also do not understand the sentence, 'Unfortunately, the police reports are missing and we only have Abberline's memos.'

Again, silly of me to not clarify. I meant that Abberline's early handwritten reports about his interrogating Schwartz are missing (as in the Abberline report having survived about interrogating Hutchinson, for which it's clear that it's not the first, detailed one), and we only have Abberline's memos.

I'm so terribly sorry to insist, but has it been established who added the commentaries in the margins of the Swanson report?

[mariab]

It is a Home Office annotation, probably by Lushington on behalf of Matthews.

Oops, apologies, I should strike my last question from post #247. Thank you so much for the information, Mr. Evans. Going to read what it says, again, now that I know it's from the HO.

Are you suggesting that I'm 'in a cranky mood'.?

Absolutely not! And if you were, you are fully entitled to. My American boss (who's the SPE of 19th century opera research, and I'm probably sounding like a 5 year old now) is frequently in a cranky mood, but he's overworked and has pressures. (And has to deal with me too, on top of all else.:-))

[Stewart P Evans]

What...?

...
I shouldn't have referred to the Swanson report as “THE official source“ since we also have Abberline's memos.
Again, silly of me to not clarify. I meant that Abberline's early handwritten reports about his interrogating Schwartz are missing (as in the Abberline report having survived about interrogating Hutchinson, for which it's clear that it's not the first, detailed one), and we only have Abberline's memos.
I'm so terribly sorry to insist, but has it been established who added the commentaries in the margins of the Swanson report?

What, exactly, are 'Abberline's memos.'?

What exactly are 'Abberline's early handwritten reports about his interrogating Schwartz'?

I normally do not respond to someone 'insisting' I answer. I've answered this one anyway.

[Stewart P Evans]

Posts

Oops, apologies, I should strike my last question from post #247. Thank you so much for the information, Mr. Evans. Going to read what it says, again, now that I know it's from the HO.
Absolutely not! And if you were, you are fully entitled to. My American boss (who's the SPE of 19th century opera research, and I'm probably sounding like a 5 year old now) is frequently in a cranky mood, but he's overworked and has pressures. (And has to deal with me too, on top of all else.:-))

Our posts crossed.

I'm cranky period. It's comes with age you know.

[mariab]

my misquoting the terminology

What, exactly, are 'Abberline's memos.'?

Profuse apologies again, I should have said “reports“ instead of “memos“, I'm just used to people mentioning them as “memos“ when discussing colloquially. I'm specifically referring to the Abberline report from Nov. 1 (is MEPO 52983 the correct way of referencing it?), transcribed by you on p. 141 of The Ultimate, and to Abberline having added the Star report as an attachment to Sergt. White's report from October 4 (MEPO 52983, transcribed on p. 145 of The Ultimate).

What exactly are 'Abberline's early handwritten reports about his interrogating Schwartz'?

Again, profound apologies, as I should have referred to these missing documents as “Abberline's statements about interrogating witnesses“ instead of “reports“. The sole statement having survived about Hutchinson is discussed in your old Ripper Notes article posted as a dissertation here: http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-witness.html
I promise I'll work through the correct terminology for police reports, and I won't forget about “report“ vs. “memo“ and about “statement“.

I'm cranky period. It comes with age you know.

I'm very used to cranky. I'm not cranky myself right now, but my left eye's leaking tears and stuff, I was supposed to be running errands and working in the library, but I'm trying to rest for half a day. (With profound apologies for the confessional tone.)

[Hunter]

Hi Maria,

The book: Jack the Ripper, the Casebook, by Richard Jones, has an excellent facsimile copy of Swanson's Oct. 19 report in it along with some other interesting copies of documents. Its a good book to have on hand for people unfamiliar with the case but would like a well illustrated short read.

Swanson's report, in my mind, is the most important surviving official document of this case. He summarizes the evidence in the Stride murder in detail and goes on to explain the police investigation in a way that no other document has. This was the man would would have known more about the police efforts than anyone else and was still there long after Abberline had been recalled to the CO.

His report does conflict with the Star's version significantly as it places Pipeman across the street instead of in front of the Nelson with a knife. This was extensively debated recently over at the other forums with Stewart and myself taking the position that what Abberline and Swanson described as being the most accurate. I'm sure Stewart remembers this debate very well.

[mariab]

Thank you so much, Hunter. I'm afraid this is the first time I'm hearing of JTR the Casebook by Richard Jones. Of course I own The Ultimate, which so far I've only used as a reference, but I'm planning to read it from cover to cover in the coming weeks and especially, I need to highlight it for quicker reference.
Thank you for stressing the importance of the Swanson report. Naturally I know about its discrepancies vs. the Star report of October 1. The debate with Mr. Evans started over a mystifying quote by Tom, about which it's unclear what he means:
Quote Wescott:
I believe the Star report has Pipeman taking off after Schwartz first, whereas Swanson’s version does not.

By the by, Hunter, your explanations on the different police sources have always been immeasurably helpful in my orienting myself.

[Tom_Wescott]

Ugh, I'll need to check later to see what i was talking about. But I seem to recall a detail present in the Star report that was not in Swanson's, but WAS corroborated by Abberline's memos, although I probably got the details wrong when posting last night. I'm definitely not up to my game if Leahy is agreeing with me and Stewart is not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Document Pack

...
The book: Jack the Ripper, the Casebook, by Richard Jones, has an excellent facsimile copy of Swanson's Oct. 19 report in it along with some other interesting copies of documents. Its a good book to have on hand for people unfamiliar with the case but would like a well illustrated short read.
...

A facsimile of the 19 October 1888 report by Chief Inspector Swanson is included, with other documents, in the Public Record Office document pack Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel murders compiled with 12 page brochure by Stewart P Evans and Keith Skinner, London, Public Record Office, 2002.

The publication Jack the Ripper The Casebook by Carlton, 2008, was intended to replace the document pack and Keith and I were approached to write it. However, I declined and it was written by Richard Jones. It's a very nice publication and also contains, like the document pack, several facsimile documents.