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

[lynn cates]

rumours

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Well, initially, they would have constituted little more than rumours. And, if you look at "The Star" report, there was nothing tangible.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Indeed. But still, in such a report, he might merely be acknowledging:

1. His awareness that doubts had been expressed.

2. That such doubts were NOT expressed at the time of the original statement.

Well, all I can say is that if I were the recipient of the report and I subsequently found out that when he wrote it Swanson had known that doubts had been expressed about Schwartz's veracity, my first reaction would be to ask him why the **** he hadn't said so.

[lynn cates]

report

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Indeed. But still, in such a report, he might merely be acknowledging:

1. His awareness that doubts had been expressed.

2. That such doubts were NOT expressed at the time of the original statement.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

But misleading whom?

It seems to me that, in the report, Swanson is practically having a dialogue with himself. And the part about doubt could well be within the context of:

"Lately, some (Leman st) have come to doubt this story. Well, they did not do so when the report was initially written."

What I meant was that if Swanson was aware of doubts, then what he wrote would have misled whoever read the report. We have to interpret this as a report intended to convey information to others, not as notes made by Swanson for his own use, in which things he was aware of could be left unsaid.

[lynn cates]

good copper

Hello Chris. Thanks.

But misleading whom?

It seems to me that, in the report, Swanson is practically having a dialogue with himself. And the part about doubt could well be within the context of:

"Lately, some (Leman st) have come to doubt this story. Well, they did not do so when the report was initially written."

It is curious that Sugden (see Stewart's remarks above) seems aware of all the possible problems with Schwartz's testimony, hence couching the discussion in cautious words.

Personally, I see Swanson as a good copper trying to be objective and weighing all the obvious possibilities.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Oh, yes--the ripper, as well.

Hello Stewart.

"all this against the backdrop of the newly started Special Commission enquiring into the growing scandal of the 'Parnellism and Crime' articles, a subject the press coverage of which dwarfed the reporting on the East End murders."

Precisely. Easy to lose sight of that fact.

Cheers.
LC

[harry]

Five

On 23 October,1888,Anderson is writing of Five successive murders.Kelly hadn't been killed by that date,so she makes six?

[Lechmere]

Schwartz seems to have gone to Leman Street police Station on 30th September 1888 and given his statement. I think however we only have the Star as a source for that date, although Abberline stated in his report of 1st November 1888 ‘I questioned Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement’.

The coroner may have read Schwartz’s statement and decided not to call him.
As the findings of the inquest were decided by the jury not the coroner, then Schwartz’s statement cannot have been taken into account.
If Schwartz’s lack of English meant his written statement was preferred, then his written statement would have had to be read to the jury in open court. Which it clearly wasn’t.

The inquest sat on 1st October, 2nd October (hearing the testimony of Mary Malcolm who claimed deceased was her sister Elizabeth Watts), 3rd October (the deceased’s identity as Elizabeth Stride was mooted) and 5th October (the deceased’s identity as Elizabeth Stride was confirmed).

Swanson wrote his report on the Stride murder dated 19th October 1888. In it Schwartz’s version of events is given a prominent position.

The inquest reconvened on 23rd October 1888 and Elizabeth Stokes (ex-Watts) appeared and denied she was dead and said her sister (Mary Malcolm) had told a pack of lies.
In his summing up the Coroner caustically stated:
"The first difficulty which presented itself was the identification of the deceased. That was not an unimportant matter. Their trouble was principally occasioned by Mrs. Malcolm, who, after some hesitation, and after having had two further opportunities of viewing again the body, positively swore that the deceased was her sister - Mrs. Elizabeth Watts, of Bath. It had since been clearly proved that she was mistaken, notwithstanding the visions which were simultaneously vouchsafed at the hour of the death to her and her husband. If her evidence was correct, there were points of resemblance between the deceased and Elizabeth Watts which almost reminded one of the Comedy of Errors."

Anderson sent a letter to the Home Office dated 23rd October 1888 – the same day the Stride inquest closed. In it he stated:
“That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal, is unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime….
“Moreover, the activities of the Police has been to a considerable extent wasted through the exigencies of sensational journalism, and the actions of unprincipled persons, who, from various motives, have endeavoured to mislead us.”

This is an interesting statement.
It strongly suggests that Schwartz wasn’t regarded as a reliable witness (possibly due to information available after Swanson's 19th October report).
It certainly discounts theories that the Met were onto Kosminsky as the Schwartz BS man at this stage.
It also suggests that Anderson included the Smith and Tabram murders in his list to make the 5. Or he may have included the City case Eddowes instead of Smith perhaps.
The Police time wasters Anderson refers to could be Mary Malcolm – whose intervention seems to have wasted a lot of time. It could refer to Le Grand’s actions. It could refer to the Ripper Letters. It could refer to the many newspaper reports of leads and so forth that so many still put their faith in on these message boards.
It probably refers to all of this.

Anderson’s letter – together with Swanson’s report of 19th October, were received by the Home Office on 25th October 1888.

These reports (clearly Swanson’s in particular) led to the Home Office picking up on Schwartz as a potential lead and resulted in a flurry of correspondence.
Abberline was tasked to write a response (dated 1st November 1888 – referred to above).
Anderson’s draft response to the Home Office dated 5th November 1888, which was superseded by Warren’s letter dated 6th November 1888, were clearly both based on Abberline’s 1st November report.
I would suggest that the most likely explanation for Anderson and Warren stating respectively ‘upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest’ and ‘upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest’ is that it is simply a mistake.
I think they misinterpreted or confused themselves over Abberline’s remark that ‘I questioned Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement’.

Warren was under a lot of pressure at that stage – the same day (6th November 1888) he wrote a letter to the Home Secretary attempting to justify his decision to have the Goulston Street graffiti erased before it could be photographed.

This still doesn’t tell us why Schwartz wasn’t called as a witness. Maybe it was a mistake and that is why Warren said he was called – to cover it up? Who knows.
The police could have told the Home Office that they did not regard Schwartz as reliable to shut them up – but they didn’t.
Having said that the aspect that the Home Office amateur sleuths seem to have fixated on was the use of the term Lipski and the Met-Home Office discussion seems to have gone off in that tangential direction.

[drstrange169]

"It amuses me when I read 'stick with the known facts' followed by a newspaper report."

Yes, perhaps a poor choice of heading on my part. Mea culpa.

My main point being, rather than a century-plus later speculation, the Telegraph claimed at the time to be in possession of police documents specifically referring to the holding back of witness information.

[Stewart P Evans]

Indeed

Indeed, it would be misleading (albeit arguably ambiguous).

[Chris]

"Yet he gives no indication in that report that any doubt had been cast on Schwartz's reliability."

You know, I have recently reread this report, but CAREFULLY for the first time. What Swanson REALLY seems to be saying is that the original police report, itself, casts no doubt on the story. But that says nothing about the day/s after.

Yes, but I can't believe Swanson would write "the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it" if he was aware that doubts had later been cast upon it. That would be positively misleading.

[Stewart P Evans]

Known Facts

It amuses me when I read 'stick with the known facts' followed by a newspaper report.

Obviously all the descriptions (given by PC Smith, Schwartz and Lawende) were immediately circulated by the police and it was also not unusual to withhold witness evidence from the press before that witness gave his evidence to the inquest, as we see in the case of Lawende.

In the Daily Telegraph report the 'appearance of a sailor' refers to the description given by Lawende and not that given by Schwartz.

Amongst the most popular Ripper authors the only trained and qualified historian is Sugden. And I cannot recommend strongly enough his analysis of the descriptions of suspects given by the various witnesses. With regard to Schwartz, caveats placed on him by Sugden include; 'if he was telling the truth'; 'on the face of it, he incriminated not one man but two, not Jews but Gentiles'; 'Schwartz's time, then, was not necessarily correct. Furthermore, altercations such as that he described seem to have been commonplace in the area'; 'If Schwartz was out just fifteen minutes in his reckoning, if the incident he saw took place, not at 12.45 but, say, at 12.30, then the significance of his statement is greatly reduced...it will always be on the cards that he was witness to nothing more than a street brawl.'

[Stewart P Evans]

Schwartz and Objectivity

There is another aspect about Schwartz and his story which should be noted. That concerns objectivity and bias.

It may be seen that Schwartz is totally missing from the earlier Ripper books and the reason for this was simple. He was not named by the press and his story was given in detail in only one newspaper (The Star) and then only as an anonymous Hungarian. Until the release of the official records in the 1970s his name was not known to the reader.

Since then it has become increasingly popular to suggest that Schwartz, not Lawende, was the un-named Jewish witness referred to by Anderson (in his book) and Swanson (in his annotations in Anderson's book). Of course on face value Schwartz makes a much better witness than Lawende as Anderson's 'only person who ever had a good view of the murderer.'

This has resulted in two distinct schools of thought and theorizing. The first, strongly argued by Messrs. Begg and Fido is in favour of Schwartz, whilst Sugden argues that Lawende was the Jewish witness. We then have the inevitable divisive result. Put quite simply, you agree with one or the other.

All of this naturally makes an objective analysis of Schwartz difficult and, whichever way you go, seems to indicate bias for one argument or the other. This dichotomy immediately paves the way for accusations of bias and lack of objectivity. This might be denied by the individual who feels that he is putting the correct historical interpretation on the written sources but he will inevitably be seen as either pro-Anderson/Jewish suspect/Kosminski, whilst the naysayer will be seen as anti-Anderson/Jewish suspect/Kosminski.

Not only this, amongst Ripper aficionados it may also indicate author bias. It is for this reason that I try to stress that all interpretation should be based on the written historical record, such as it exists, and not on the speculative arguments of authors. It is a case of sorting the wheat from the chaff. In noting the fact that the identity of the murderer will never be known it is a course that should be followed. That is not to say that the reader should come down in favour of one argument and not the other, both should always be borne in mind. But enthusiasts will always have their own preference (bias?).

These peripheral mysteries are very annoying because if all the police records had been preserved then most of them would be cleared up, especially the Schwartz/Lawende puzzle. Indeed, it would also have been nice if Anderson had not been so cryptic in his writings and given us a few more clues.

[drstrange169]

When in doubt stick with the known facts.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Schwartz's information was being deliberately withheld by the police. This would account for him not appearing at the inquest.

The Daily Telegraph

A correspondent forwards copies of descriptions of certain men who were last seen in the company of the woman who was murdered in Berner-street and of the woman who was mutilated in Mitre-square. These authentic descriptions, we have reason to know, have been secretly circulated by the authorities of Scotland-yard since Oct. 26, but the complete details have never been made public. This reticence is one of the mysteries of police administration, and it is difficult to find an explanation to account for the fact that this important information has been "confidentially communicated" to police-officers throughout the kingdom, but has been withheld from the people who have had the best opportunities of seeing and of, therefore, recognising the assassin. The point which the police appear to have been at most pains to suppress is the significant one that the unknown murderer has the "appearance of a sailor."
The notice is headed: "Apprehensions sought. Murder. Metropolitan Police District"; and it proceeds:
"The woodcut sketches, purporting to resemble the persons last seen with the murdered women, which have appeared in The Daily Telegraph, were not authorised by police. The following are the descriptions of the persons seen:
"At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at one a.m., same date, in Berner-street - A man, aged 28, height 5ft 8in, complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance; carried a parcel wrapped up in a newspaper.
At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.
"Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland-yard London, S.W.

[Stewart P Evans]

Oh, and by the way...

Oh, and by the way, all this against the backdrop of the newly started Special Commission enquiring into the growing scandal of the 'Parnellism and Crime' articles, a subject the press coverage of which dwarfed the reporting on the East End murders.