Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[GUT]

G'day Dr John

Doesn't the law spell out what is required of police in assisting the Coroner during an inquest, so far as identifying witnesses, providing written statements, etc?

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they all have to be called.

And remember that Maxwell was called at MJK's inquest when clearly she was not believed.

[harry]

Would the appearance at the inquest by Schwartz,have made any difference to the overall picture we are faced with? I doubt it. We would still have an incident between a male person and a woman at the entrance to the yard,the appearance of another person as Schwartz was leaving,and that's about it.Nothing to determine who killed Stride or how,or when.

[GUT]

G'day Harry

Short answer, probably not.


In my opinion.

[caz]

Would the appearance at the inquest by Schwartz,have made any difference to the overall picture we are faced with? I doubt it. We would still have an incident between a male person and a woman at the entrance to the yard,the appearance of another person as Schwartz was leaving,and that's about it.Nothing to determine who killed Stride or how,or when.

Precisely, Harry. In fact, it might only have complicated matters, given the simple fact that the assault allegedly witnessed by Schwartz may have had bugger all to do with anything that followed, as I think Swanson himself observed - given how commonplace it must have been for females out alone on a Saturday night to be manhandled by drunks and lechers. I can't see too much of a problem with the coroner himself appreciating this, and deciding on balance that it was not especially in the public interest to hear Schwartz's account, and it almost certainly wasn't in Schwartz's interests to give it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

In the Star's version of Schwartz's account, after describing the attack on Stride, Schwartz tells of a second man who exited a public house, shouted out "some kind of warning" to the man attacking Stride and then "rushed forward as if to attack the intruder (witness)." Note what follows next: "The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in the second man's hand, but he waited to see no more." The writer's use of the word "positively" is significant, I think. It suggests that the reporter, recognizing the implications of a man with a knife near the scene of Stride's murder, questioned Schwartz closely about what the second man was holding in his hand, to insure that he understood exactly what the witness/interpreter was saying.

Hi Dr. Watson,

The problem is that a 'knife' is so much more sexy than a pipe to your average journalist - a hundred times more so at the height of the search for the crazed Whitechapel knifeman. If anyone (including the police) later questions or objects to this crucial part of the Star report, they have the ready 'lost in translation' excuse to protect them from accusations of out and out invention. How is stating 'positively' that it was a knife any different from stating 'positively' that it was a pipe - or a pork sausage - if the interpreter could have messed up when it came to the object itself? It's not as if the reporter would have seen the police report and was therefore seeking clarification on the pipe/knife issue, or you might have had a stronger argument.

I am also concerned that the Star may similarly have sexed up Schwartz's account to make it a better fit with where Stride was actually murdered:

'The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage...'

If the truth was contained in the police summary, which described BS man trying to pull her out into the street, that wouldn't help to turn him into Stride's obvious killer. And we know how the papers love to spin things round (quite literally in this instance) to make their readers swallow a certain conclusion.

It must have pained them to have the authorities put a damper on any of their juicier stories. Doesn't mean the authorities did not have their own finger on the pulse though. They arguably believed Schwartz's police statement was an honest account of what he thought he had witnessed, but they would have been wise to keep an open mind on whether or not he had seen the actual murderer.

Love,

Caz
X

[Dr. John Watson]

Would the appearance at the inquest by Schwartz,have made any difference to the overall picture we are faced with? I doubt it. We would still have an incident between a male person and a woman at the entrance to the yard,the appearance of another person as Schwartz was leaving,and that's about it.Nothing to determine who killed Stride or how,or when.

Hi Harry. The fact is, no one knows whether or not Schwartz's appearance at the inquest would have made any difference in the outcome of the investigation or the findings of the Coroner, and that's not really the issue here. The fact is, it's entirely possible that Mr. Baxter's probing questions would have elicited more information than is contained in either of his quoted statements and would hopefully have cleared up any confusion over pipe or knife. And what if the "second man" really held a knife in his hand; that would put a man with a knife only a few steps from the woman who was killed with a knife - show me any other Ripper murder with that combination. I know there appears to be a 10-15 minute gap between Schwartz's sighting and discovery of the body, but who's to say "knife man" didn't cross the street and chat with Liz a while before murdering her? I'm not suggesting the knife-man pipe-man was Jack, only that Schwartz's information was extremely pertinent to the investigation and should have been examined in detail by the Coroner.

John

[lynn cates]

agreed

Hello Caroline. I agree with you that the police report was more likely than "The Star" version--given Schwartz's veracity.

I recall that Abberline had spent a good bit of time taking his statement and could never get a straight answer concerning Lipski. And FGA had no journalistic axe to grind, so it was not likely dressed up.

Cheers.
LC

[Dr. John Watson]

Hi Dr. Watson,

The problem is that a 'knife' is so much more sexy than a pipe to your average journalist - a hundred times more so at the height of the search for the crazed Whitechapel knifeman. If anyone (including the police) later questions or objects to this crucial part of the Star report, they have the ready 'lost in translation' excuse to protect them from accusations of out and out invention. How is stating 'positively' that it was a knife any different from stating 'positively' that it was a pipe - or a pork sausage - if the interpreter could have messed up when it came to the object itself?

Hi Caz! I confess your knowledge of what's sexy almost certainly exceeds mine (although I have known a certain number of ladies who might think "sausage" and even "pipe" to be suggestively sexy). I can't argue with your assessment of 19th century journalists in London, but there's no proof in this case the Star reporter/editor purposely altered what Schwartz is quoted as saying in his statement. I believe inclusion of the term "positively," in describing the man as holding a knife, not only reflects the reporter's attempt to emphasize the statement but also suggests he went over the sentence with the interpreter to verify he/she was translating Schwartz's words correctly. You appear to believe that the police version of "pipe man" is the correct one and suggest that the Star could claim the "lost in translation" excuse to protect them if pressed on the issue, but that same excuse could just as easily be used by police if it were later shown that Schwartz did say "knife" instead of "pipe."

It must have pained them to have the authorities put a damper on any of their juicier stories. Doesn't mean the authorities did not have their own finger on the pulse though. They arguably believed Schwartz's police statement was an honest account of what he thought he had witnessed, but they would have been wise to keep an open mind on whether or not he had seen the actual murderer.
Love,
Caz
X

Caz, you are among the most senior members of this forum, and I'm certain you've probably debated the pipe/knife issue before (although I really can't find a history of it), but I don't think you've really addressed the questions of why Schwartz's statements were apparently concealed from the Coroner and upon whose authority that decision was made. You have, however, raised another excellent question: Why didn't the Star publish the fact that their witness Schwartz was not called to testify at the inquest, and why didn't they demand an answer from Coroner Baxter?

By the way, thanks for the love and X (kiss)!

Flattered John

[moonbegger]

Hello Caz ,

'The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage...'

I think the key words contained but often overlooked in the Police report are " But he turned her around " which essentially leaves us with the same scenario ? She ended up closer to where she met her death , than she did the street .

The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway

cheers

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

And remember that Maxwell was called at MJK's inquest when clearly she was not believed.

I think that's it , in a nut shell ..

moonbegger

[Dr. John Watson]

Hello Caroline. I agree with you that the police report was more likely than "The Star" version--given Schwartz's veracity.

I recall that Abberline had spent a good bit of time taking his statement and could never get a straight answer concerning Lipski. And FGA had no journalistic axe to grind, so it was not likely dressed up.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn: Maybe I'm missing something, but when you say "given Schwartz'a veracity," where is the evidence that his honesty was in question? Was Abberline the one who took Schwartz's original police statement, or is there a report on file of a later interview? If Abberline used the same interpreter as the one Schwartz brought to the Lemon station, perhaps that could explain his initial problem with the Lipsky quote. The police have Schwartz saying it was the man assaulting Stride who shouted "Lipsky" at the pipe-man (which makes no sense at all), whereas the Star version has Schwartz saying the knife-man was "shouting out some sort of warning {"Lipsky"?] to the man with the woman." Wouldn't that interpretation make more sense (likening the assailant to the lady-killer Lipsky) than yelling it at Schwartz because he looked Jewish?

I don't think Abberline had an ax to grind with anyone (nor did the Star that I could find), but as far as Schwartz's statement goes, he seems to have devoted most of his time trying to clear up the Lipsky business. Did he spend as much time in tracking down either Stride's assailant or the pipe-man?

Still Wondering John

[moonbegger]

The police have Schwartz saying it was the man assaulting Stride who shouted "Lipsky" at the pipe-man (which makes no sense at all), whereas the Star version has than yelling it at Schwartz because he looked Jewish?

Ok , silly question time .... But has anyone entertained the possibility that "Lipsky" was in fact the Pipe/knife man or assailants name that was being called out ?

On the other hand , I do think Dr John's interpretation makes most sense .
"Schwartz saying the knife-man was "shouting out some sort of warning {"Lipsky"?] to the man with the woman." Wouldn't that interpretation make more sense (likening the assailant to the lady-killer Lipsky")

cheers

moonbegger

[lynn cates]

underwhelming

Hello John. Thanks.

Does someone's honesty need to be in question to make a lie possible?

As far as Abberline goes, yes, he questioned him thoroughly.

Did he try to find Pipe Man? No, but according to "The Star" story, the Lehman lads had detained one or two. The results were underwhelming.

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

G'day Moonbegger

Either explanation could be the correct interpretation.

Personally I lean towards it being equal to "Mate there's a Jewish chap there, get rid of him."

However we must remember where the term came from, ie it was a surname so it could be "Jones {Lipski}, get rid of him."

[lynn cates]

theory

Hello MB.

"Ok, silly question time .... But has anyone entertained the possibility that "Lipsky" was in fact the Pipe/knife man or assailant's name that was being called out?"

Absolutely. That was the theory of choice. FGA was able to straighten that one out by saying it was a racial slur. By the way, he tried to discover whether BSM was calling Schwartz or PM Lipski. Schwartz drew a blank.

Cheers.
LC