Would It Be The Job of the Police Or the Grand Jury to Discredit Schwartz's Testimony

[Chris]

Yes, Jonathan. That's exactly what I'm saying. The police managed to keep it under wraps for quite a while. All that was publicly known concerned the apron only. The Pall Mall Gazette got wind of the graffiti story a couple of days after the murders and they were convinced (by the police) that it was an unfounded rumor.

The Star gets wind of Schwartz and tracks him down, resulting in a fantastic story. The next day the police shuts the lid on that witness too, even though they circulate Schwartz's description internally. The reason this was likely done was to keep any suspect from going underground and give their 'noses' time to find someone. This is how CID operated at the time.

I must say I find that a far more plausible suggestion than that Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest because he had been discredited, and that Swanson wrote a misleading report to conceal that fact - for no reason I can understand. And with every danger of being found out, because it was public knowledge that Schwartz had not appeared at the inquest, and it would have been quite natural for readers of his report to respond by asking him why that was.

Given the extreme nervousness of the police about the anti-semitic wall writing, I can't imagine, either, that they would have been keen on Schwartz recounting in court his story of the attacker shouting 'Lispki' - possibly to an accomplice.

[Wickerman]

Yes, Jonathan. That's exactly what I'm saying. The police managed to keep it under wraps for quite a while. All that was publicly known concerned the apron only. The Pall Mall Gazette got wind of the graffiti story a couple of days after the murders and they were convinced (by the police) that it was an unfounded rumor.

The Star gets wind of Schwartz and tracks him down, resulting in a fantastic story. The next day the police shuts the lid on that witness too, even though they circulate Schwartz's description internally. The reason this was likely done was to keep any suspect from going underground and give their 'noses' time to find someone. This is how CID operated at the time.

Good point Hunter.
In the police statement given by Hutchinson clear mention is made of the Jewish appearance of the suspect. Yet, the following morning in the highly stylized police release distributed across about 9 newspapers detailing the description of the suspect, the ethnicity is removed.

Consistent with your point above that the police tried to avoid potential ethnic conflict.

[lynn cates]

results

Hello Chris. Good.

And "lack of results" played a prominent role in the "Star" story about Leman st.

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

So they definitely, as a fact,kept it under warps because they said they did.

You still have a witness who cannot speak English and who is fearful of seeming to have done nothing to protect a Gentile woman, albeit a harlot.

Schwartz and his translator pal could still have enough smarts to know that the police were super-sensitive about anything which could trigger sectarian troubles.

Throwing in the anti-Semitic menace of 'Lipski', and I was chased so I was nearly a victim too, and I had no idea a knife was involved, is a much more self-serving tale that pushes the buttons set up by Warren's agenda.

Whereas 'The Star' is about a drunk who could barely walk, boozily pushing a harlot and so the witness moved right out of their way, only to see another man approaching to help her armed with a knife--a man who broadly resembles the man Lawende described (whereas BSM does not).

[Wickerman]

So they definitely, as a fact,kept it under warps because they said they did.

Hi Jonathan.
I think the proposition is somewhere between possibility and probability.
The thread is still pursuing alternates.

[lynn cates]

obvious

Hello Jonathan.

"Throwing in the anti-Semitic menace of 'Lipski', and I was chased so I was nearly a victim too, and I had no idea a knife was involved, is a much more self-serving tale"

I was wondering how long it would be before someone took note of the obvious. (I think I may love you. heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

...Whereas 'The Star' is about a drunk who could barely walk, boozily pushing a harlot and so the witness moved right out of their way, only to see another man approaching to help her armed with a knife--a man who broadly resembles the man Lawende described (whereas BSM does not).

In the Star account, "Knifeman" appears from the Nelson and comes after the intruder. The intruder is Schwartz, not the man accosting the woman.

Before you fall in love with someone, Lynn, make sure they're faithful and true.

I'm well aware of how Ripperology works, but this is not about what 'WE' think; its about how the police and the coroner dealt with the situations and circumstances in real time.

But first, folks need to get their facts straight.

[lynn cates]

self serving

Hello Cris. Thanks. The tale (either version) does seem self serving. Given the presence of the second man and that he MAY have been after Israel, and given he had an object in hand, then he has a perfect reason NOT to come to Liz's assistance.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

It isn’t necessary to come up with inventive reasons for the relevance of Schwartz’s story being discounted in some manner or to some degree.
There is nothing to substantiate any claim that Schwartz was in cahoots with the IWMC.

Swanson discusses the two descriptions given by PC Smith and Schwartz (ten minutes apart) and concludes that they had probably seen two different people, with Schwartz’s more likely to be the killer due to the time factor.
While Swanson used the phrase ‘If Schwartz is to be believed’, the context in which he said it casts no doubt that Schwartz was believed. Swanson was in no position to believe or disbelieve Schwartz as he had no first-hand knowledge of him and was writing a consolidated report based on a variety of reports from the officers on the ground, who did believe Schwartz.
Swanson went on to say that ‘I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer’.
Swanson came to that conclusion because there would have been ample time for another person to have carried out the attack after the scene Schwartz witnessed.
This rather obvious suggestion by Swanson was amplified by someone at the Home Office in the length marginal annotation that was written on Swanson’s report that reads:
‘the suggestion is that Schwartz’ man may have left her, she being a prostitute then accosted or was accosted by another man, & there was time enough for this to take place & for this other man to murder her before 1.0.’
(No doubt there that Stride was a working prostitute by the way).

Swanson also noted:
‘the enquiry into her history did not disclose the slightest pretext for a motive on behalf of friends or associates or anyone who had known her’.
To go off on a slight tangent - the police were not so stupid as to not look at each of these cases with a view to them being independent ‘domestics’ as is sometime suggested.

The probable reason for Anderson saying that there was no clue was that he felt it likely that Schwartz had not seen the murderer, but an unconnected incident that preceded the fatal attack.

Having said that clearly the police on the ground took Schwartz’s story seriously and according to Abberline (who would be in a position to know) a local search was made for someone called Lipski as a direct result of Schwartz’s statement.
Also when the Home Office queried the Lipski aspect of Schwartz’s story Warren notably did not reply by saying that Schwartz was now regarded as unreliable.

Warren – probably unintentionally – misled the Home Office in his reply by stating ‘that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest…’
Of course Schwartz didn’t give any evidence at the inquest.
But Warren was certainly basing his reply on a draft prepared by Anderson, which is virtually word for word exactly the same as Warren’s final version.

So honest Robert Anderson was actually responsible for Warren misleading the Home Office on this matter.

It has been noted that the Parnell Commission was sitting from September 1888 and attracted a lot of press interest. The Commission was very largely looking into allegations made by the Times newspaper in a series of articles entitled ‘Parnellism and Crime’.
When Macdonald, the manager of the Times, appeared before the Commission in February 1889 he stated under oath that the ‘Parnellism and Crime’ articles were written by several people including one Flannagan.
However it came to light in 1910 that honest Bob Anderson was the author as he candidly admitted this in his serialised memoirs in Blackwoods magazine.

Perhaps honest Bob Anderson was looking nervously over his shoulder in later October and early November 1888.
Is this distraction responsible for his error in suggesting Schwartz gave evidence at the inquest?
Or does this episode and his disingenuous silence over his authorship of the ‘Parnellism and Crime’ articles while the Commission was sitting and while the principals were still alive and while Anderson was still employed by the Police tell us something about Anderson’s truthfulness?

As I have said, I suspect Schwartz’s non appearance at the inquest was due to a cockup and Anderson was covering this up by telling Warren he was called. Warren could not be expected to be abreast of such minutiae any more than the mandarins at Whitehall would.
The ‘without our having the slightest clue’ remark was I would suggest a belts and braces approach to Schwartz, just in case his non attendance at the inquest was noted.
I would suggest the police were genuinely sceptical as the whether Schwartz did see the actual fatal attack and I share that scepticism.
However even if this were the case it would still have been proper for Schwartz to have testified at the inquest, but at least Anderson could give some reason for this if challenged.

I think this fits in with all the information to hand without inventing any spurious side conspiracies.

In any case, claims that Anderson as a sincere Christian theologian was incapable of lying or at the very least acting in a dishonest manner can be seen to be false.

[Michael W Richards]

Lechmere,

I would say that because someone categorizes someone as a prostitute, particularly someone who did not know the person, that does not make the statement the truth. In these reports a natural, human tendency to incorporate their own person feelings.... information they feel is the truth based on what they have been told....including rumors, speculations, and well meaning subjective interpretations.

The facts as we know them are that Liz Stride claimed to have been working in the weeks leading up to her death as a charwoman, she worked as a charwoman the day she is murdered, and that she has worked while living in London as a maid/nanny, a coffee shop person, and a charwoman. We know that she was seen meeting several men in the hours before her murder and we dont know what they may have discussed or done while they were in each others company that night. We know she left the lodging house with more than enough money to pay for her bed that night if she chose to, we know she was killed wearing a flower arrangement she did not have at the lodging house, and we know the medical examiner stated she had no alcohol in her system.

So...the actual "truth" is that we have no reason to assume a status of Prostitute for Liz Stride on her last night or on any night in the weeks leading up to her murder, we know she didnt drink away her earnings, and that she had been working "among the Jews" at the time of her death....in a passageway owned, operated, and occupied by immigrant Jews.

The only time we known that Liz Stride was a full time prostitute was when she lived in Goteborg, decades earlier than her death date. And we know that at that time she searched for an established a full time job as a nanny and used that reference to have her name stricken from the prostitute registry, something that was not done unless petitioned for by the person and proof of full time work, signed by the employer, was presented. It is said that this happened in very few cases.

IF Liz Stride ever solicited for money while in London, something I would imagine is possible knowing her issues over the years, then she did so as an Unfortunate.....a term that is specifically used to describe single women in The Late Victorian period in London who resorted to street prostitution because they were unable to find sufficient monies to secure their base level of Maslows Hierarchy, Food and Shelter on a daily basis. Or perhaps in some cases because they did earn enough money legitimately but then spent it on vices.

Swanson can categorize anyone he wants anyway he wants to, that doesnt make it fact nor can it be automatically assumed to be accurate.

I have tried over the years to decrease the amount of times we see the word Prostitute callously and often improperly implied, moralizations that teach us more about the author than any real truth out there.

Cheers

[Jonathan H]

From 'The Star' of October 1st 1888:

'... As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb

A SECOND MAN CAME OUT

Of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. 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. He described

THE MAN WITH THE WOMAN

as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society ...

I think this is much more ambiguous about who exactly was being threatened with a knife. Plus the second man is arguably a better generic fit for Lawende's description.

[Lechmere]

Michael
The 'prostitute' remark I quoted was by a Home Office official. But Swanson also said she was a prostitute and I would guess he was making that assessment based on reports from the local police, rather than just be making it up. I don't feel that I am in a position to know Elizabeth Stride's status better than they. I don't think any moralisations are attached to the use of the word.

According to Neal Sheldon in 'The Victims of Jack the Ripper', Elizabeth Stride appeared at Thames Magistrates Court on November 14th 1884 for soliciting.

[curious4]

Witness

Hello Gwyneth.

"And is it not possible that the police kept him under wraps as a very valuable witness?"

Quite possible. The key word being, of course, "kept," for his official testimony seems never to have made it to inquest.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

As Jack was never brought to trial, there would be no point in producing Schwartz.

I am a huge conspiracy fan, but in this case don't you think that whoever was behind such a conspiracy would have come up with a better story? One involving twirling moustaches, evil eyes, capes and flashing knives, for example. This one does seem a little lame. In my experience liars tend to exaggerate their stories. And why for goodness' sake choose a man who spoke no english? Surely anyone would realise that he would have to defend his story - why complicate things with a translator?

No, as a conspiracy theory I give this null points.

Best wishes,
Gwyneth/C4

[curious4]

Prostitute

Lechmere,

I would say that because someone categorizes someone as a prostitute, particularly someone who did not know the person, that does not make the statement the truth. In these reports a natural, human tendency to incorporate their own person feelings.... information they feel is the truth based on what they have been told....including rumors, speculations, and well meaning subjective interpretations.

The facts as we know them are that Liz Stride claimed to have been working in the weeks leading up to her death as a charwoman, she worked as a charwoman the day she is murdered, and that she has worked while living in London as a maid/nanny, a coffee shop person, and a charwoman. We know that she was seen meeting several men in the hours before her murder and we dont know what they may have discussed or done while they were in each others company that night. We know she left the lodging house with more than enough money to pay for her bed that night if she chose to, we know she was killed wearing a flower arrangement she did not have at the lodging house, and we know the medical examiner stated she had no alcohol in her system.

So...the actual "truth" is that we have no reason to assume a status of Prostitute for Liz Stride on her last night or on any night in the weeks leading up to her murder, we know she didnt drink away her earnings, and that she had been working "among the Jews" at the time of her death....in a passageway owned, operated, and occupied by immigrant Jews.

The only time we known that Liz Stride was a full time prostitute was when she lived in Goteborg, decades earlier than her death date. And we know that at that time she searched for an established a full time job as a nanny and used that reference to have her name stricken from the prostitute registry, something that was not done unless petitioned for by the person and proof of full time work, signed by the employer, was presented. It is said that this happened in very few cases.

IF Liz Stride ever solicited for money while in London, something I would imagine is possible knowing her issues over the years, then she did so as an Unfortunate.....a term that is specifically used to describe single women in The Late Victorian period in London who resorted to street prostitution because they were unable to find sufficient monies to secure their base level of Maslows Hierarchy, Food and Shelter on a daily basis. Or perhaps in some cases because they did earn enough money legitimately but then spent it on vices.

Swanson can categorize anyone he wants anyway he wants to, that doesnt make it fact nor can it be automatically assumed to be accurate.

I have tried over the years to decrease the amount of times we see the word Prostitute callously and often improperly implied, moralizations that teach us more about the author than any real truth out there.

Cheers

Hello Michael,

In Sweden at the time, due to laws brought in to stop the spread of STDs, a woman could be put on the register of prostitutes for having a child out of wedlock, or having an STD, both of which applied to Liz. As far as I know, there is no evidence that Liz ever worked as a full-time prostitute in Gothenburg.

Best wishes,

C4

[lynn cates]

conspiracy?

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

"As Jack was never brought to trial, there would be no point in producing Schwartz."

But surely this reasoning could be applied to EVERY one called to inquest?

"I am a huge conspiracy fan. . ."

Well, I am NOT.

". . . but in this case don't you think that whoever was behind such a conspiracy would have come up with a better story?"

Conspiracy? You mean story to get the whole business moved elsewhere?

"One involving twirling moustaches, evil eyes, capes and flashing knives, for example."

Actually, in a roundabout way, you have solved the conundrum. At the time this happened, there was no "Dear Boss" in the public domain, no "Jack," only a pair of killings which had taken place about a month ago. From the IWMEC's point of view, it was a woman being killed. So why not a drunken bully Gentile--replete with anti-Semitic racial slur ("See, he could NOT have been one of ours--he was a Gentile, NOT a Jew, and, a fortiori, not a Socialist Jew.")?

But I put it to you like this. Had there been more killings and the toff in the topper business had taken off, the story would have contained a figure such as you describe, it would contain a twit with a Mayfair accent and, "Now my dear, let's get down to business, what?"

"This one does seem a little lame."

Only a little?

"[W]hy for goodness' sake choose a man who spoke no English?"

Answer seems obvious.

"Surely anyone would realise that he would have to defend his story - why complicate things with a translator?"

Again, seems obvious. BUT, if he later gets called out on a detail--which he certainly did--one can always plead translator's error.

Cheers.
LC