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

[curious4]

Gentiles?

Hello Lynn,

Get back to you on the rest later, but, er... how could anyone know for sure that Pipeman and Sailor were gentiles? At first the authorities took them for jews due to the use of the word "Lipski". There were (presumably) jewish sailors and pipesmokers?

Best wishes,

Gwyneth

[lynn cates]

slur

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

Yes, the marginal note indicated that "Lipski" was thought to be uttered by a Jewish person. It was also thought to refer to a proper name. It took Abberline to help then understand that it was a racial slur against Jews.

Now, I suppose that one may insult another member of one's own race. But is it not usually done against a member of another race? That seems to be Abberline's take.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

I suppose

Hello Lynn,

Yes, I will have to give you that one, I suppose. Feeling argumentative after a mosquito bite from yesterday.
(presumably a swedish one - joke!)


Yes, it was a bit early for the black bag and Toff idea, but the point I was trying to make was that people (after reading the newspapers) expected the killer(s) to be some sort of monster and to look like one, not a completely ordinary-looking man.

Best wishes,

Gwyneth

[lynn cates]

eventually

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

I believe that, in time, the description would have been exactly That.

Cheers.
LC

[Paddy]

Louis Hagens landlord of the Nelson

Its interesting to note that Louis Hagens landlord of the Nelson, could very likely be the one born 1831 Germany, that married an Emma Stevens in Deptford in 1859 and was a seaman......
He later ran the Duke of Cornwall pub in Wandsworth road in 1871 and 1881
By 1891 he was a labourer in south London
Being an ex sailor one could assume that his clients were likely to be sailors also?

Pat..................................

[m_w_r]

Being an ex sailor one could assume that his clients were likely to be sailors also?

Hi Pat,

I dunno. I was in a pub the other day which is run by a former officer of the Chicago Police Department. But I didn't get the impression that everybody else in there was in law enforcement.

Regards,

Mark

[Paddy]

Hi Mark you could be right. Its just possible that an ex Sailor landlord would welcome and encourage sailors, just up the road from the docks?
London pubs were numerous and quite a lot had particular drinkers go there.
I recall gangster pubs, Irish Pubs, Policemen pubs. Mainly because the landlord was connected to these trades.
Just a consideration really.
Pat......................................

[drstrange169]

If we're looking for some special significance to the date and content Anderson's October 23rd letter, we really need to look at the wider picture.

When Anderson wrote,

"... without our having the slightest clue."

He wasn't offering a newly found revelation, but rather simply repeating the official police line, previously put out by Warren on the 19th September,

"No progress has as yet been made in obtaining any definite clue to the Whitechapel murders. A great number of clues have been examined & exhausted with out finding any thing suspicious."

Perhaps of importance, with reference to how Schwartz would be later treated, is how Warren ends the letter.

"... the reporters for the press are following or detectives about everywhere in search of news & cross examine all parties interviewd so that they impede police action greatly- they do not however as yet know of cases 2 & 3."
( cases referred to were Puckeridge and a Brothel keeper.)


So Anderson's letter could simply be a matter of towing the Warren line.

Certainly, when Anderson wrote again on the subject of Schwartz on the 5th of November he gave absolutely on indication that Schwartz's story had been discredited in anyway.

[Wickerman]

I don't think that admission was an 'official line', especially not one originating from Warren.
That sad fact emanated from Swanson's office as a result of his assessment of all the police reports concerning the Whitechapel murders and was passed up the chain of command, rather than come down from the top.

Any conclusions which arrive at the Commissioners Office about the state of the investigation must first come from Insp. Swanson. That procedure was set up by Warren himself.

[drstrange169]

"...Any conclusions which arrive at the Commissioners Office about the state of the investigation must first come from Insp. Swanson. That procedure was set up by Warren himself..."

That certainly sounds plausible except for the timing. When Warren wrote on the 19th, Swanson had only just been appointed to his role and had not issued any reports that we know.
In fact, I'd suggest that Warren's opinion about the total lack of usable clues to date was the very reason Swanson was given the job of coordinating all the evidence.

[Wickerman]

"...Any conclusions which arrive at the Commissioners Office about the state of the investigation must first come from Insp. Swanson. That procedure was set up by Warren himself..."

That certainly sounds plausible except for the timing. When Warren wrote on the 19th, Swanson had only just been appointed to his role and had not issued any reports that we know.
In fact, I'd suggest that Warren's opinion about the total lack of usable clues to date was the very reason Swanson was given the job of coordinating all the evidence.

Indeed, but where did Warren get his information? - from the team of investigators. The direction of the flow of information was the same.

[drstrange169]

Ah ... I see want you mean, yes, the info was coming from the troops on the front-line so to speak.

My point wasn't who originated the idea, but that it wasn't exclusive to Anderson on the 23rd October. And therefore decrees the odds in the notion that Anderson was specifically referring to Schwartz.

[drstrange169]

Whoops!
That should read.
... decreases the odds ...

[Hunter]

Anderson simply meant that after all of these murders there was nothing of significance to go on, which was unusual. The murderer or murderers had left no clues. There were witnesses, but to date no apprehension of a solid suspect had resulted.

He did not mean the witnesses were valueless or discredited -- just no results.

Anderson was probably mistaken in his statement claiming Schwartz was at the inquest. He had not been in London during the first critical week after the Sept. 30th murders. If you carefully read Anderson's report, you see little real detail or substance. He forwards Swanson's report instead for that, and likely assumed this witness had appeared at the Stride inquest. He apparently didn't follow the inquest proceedings as most were conducted while he was abroad, with a long delay before the final session on Oct. 23.

In the end, it was the coroner's call anyway. And it wouldn't have mattered if Schwartz was believed or not. Baxter loved to trip witnesses up. He was a lawyer. It would have been to his benefit either way. Instead, there's not even a hint of this witness in all of Baxter's summary. And there's not even a hint of a possibly conflicting witness, James Brown, in Swanson's report.

[lynn cates]

Brown

Hello Cris.

"And there's not even a hint of a possibly conflicting witness, James Brown, in Swanson's report."

Quite true. How do you account for this?

Cheers.
LC