Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[lynn cates]

Big brother is watching.

Hello Pat, Dave. There can be little doubt that the club was watched. But please to recall that the main meeting had long since broken up and socialising and chit-chat had begun. Likely, the watchers had returned to station.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

contrived

Hello Harry. On the other hand, if one is repeating a contrived story, one may become VERY confused when needing to explain some portion of it in greater detail.

Example: To whom was "Lipski" directed?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Caz, you are among the most senior members of this forum...

In age only, John, I'm sure.

...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.

The key word here for me is 'apparently'. Where do you get the idea that the police 'concealed' anything from the coroner? I assumed (as per one of my earlier posts) that the coroner made the decision to include or not to include certain testimony - but I may of course be wrong regarding Schwartz. Nobody seems to know for sure what went on there.

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?

I don't know, but didn't the paper go on to claim (rightly or wrongly) that the police now doubted the truth of the story? In which case the police may have told them that to pre-empt such questions and possibly give Stride's killer a false sense of security. They must have hated potentially important witnesses blabbing to the press.

Love,

Caz
X

[Dr. John Watson]

Hello Pat, Dave. There can be little doubt that the club was watched. But please to recall that the main meeting had long since broken up and socialising and chit-chat had begun. Likely, the watchers had returned to station.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn. Can you tell me what information in the contemporary police files or press reports lead you to have "little doubt that the club was watched," meaning of course the workingman's club where Stride's body was found? It's certainly possible, but why that particular place when the force had the entire Whitechapel area to cover? And why would you think it likely the watchers returned to the station when the socializing and chit-chat had begun; wouldn't that be the most likely time for Jack to be "on the hunt" so to speak?

John

[DRoy]

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.

Harry,

Couldn't a similar thing be said of the other inquests where witnesses didn't really provide anything of value?

In fact, Baxter himself allowed Thomas Ede to testify at the Nichols inquest and all he saw was a man with a knife 8 days after her murder. Yet within 15 minutes of Stride's death, Schwartz's incident isn't of any value at the inquest?

Many witnesses provided nothing of value at all. They didn't hear or see anything or anyone yet they were called to share that anyway.

I don't agree with your opinion we'd learn nothing from Schwartz testifying.

Cheers
DRoy

[Dr. John Watson]

In age only, John, I'm sure.



The key word here for me is 'apparently'. Where do you get the idea that the police 'concealed' anything from the coroner? I assumed (as per one of my earlier posts) that the coroner made the decision to include or not to include certain testimony - but I may of course be wrong regarding Schwartz. Nobody seems to know for sure what went on there.

Caz, it's my understanding that an Inquest is held so that the Coroner can secure all evidence relative to a death and make a determination as to what and who caused the death. Since no one has yet quoted English law on what information police are required to present to a Coroner's Inquest, I'll have to research that myself. But I'm fairly certain they have to produce all the evidence gathered up to the time of the Inquest. If they did so, that would support your suggestion that it was Baxter who decided to omit Schwartz from the witness list. But considering the fact that he's the only witness that not only observed Stride get attacked, but also saw a second man who may have held a knife in his hand, it just doesn't seem logical that he would not be subject to probing examination under oath, irregardless of what importance police placed on his story. Of course, at this point we have only the fact that Schwartz's testimony cannot be found, in the record or in the Press, to assume he did not testify. It's possible he could have testified in camera, in which case we might never know for certain.

I don't know, but didn't the paper go on to claim (rightly or wrongly) that the police now doubted the truth of the story? In which case the police may have told them that to pre-empt such questions and possibly give Stride's killer a false sense of security. They must have hated potentially important witnesses blabbing to the press.

I don't recall reading that police doubted the truth of Schwartz's story, unless it was his reference to pipe-man shouting "Lipski," which Abberline spent some time investigating and finally decided it was used as a "mere ejaculation" intended to insult Schwartz. This may have cast doubt on Schwartz's entire statement, at least in Abberline's eyes. Of course, Abberline apparently misunderstood Schwartz to say the insult was hurled at him, when in fact it was shouted at the man assaulting Stride, which makes much more sense. Why would Schwartz be singled out for a Jewish insult when there were many Jews in the area at the time? On the other hand, someone coming out of a pub and seeing a man assaulting a women might very well have shouted at him, "Hey Lipski," referring of course to the Jew who murdered a woman in that neighborhood not long before.

Your last paragraph is the most logical solution to the mystery and one that seems most likely to me. Protecting Schwartz from further contact with the Press and keeping his evidence secret would signal that he was considered a very important witness, one who may have actually seen the Ripper in person. Schwartz, in fact, is my favorite candidate as the witness Swanson mentions being taken to the Sea Side Home to view the Ripper suspect. I know, popular belief favors Joseph Lawende, but that's conjecture - just like my suggestion.

If only those missing "Witness" files could be found!

Wistful John

[moonbegger]

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

Hello Lynn ,

Do we know how FGA could be so sure , and how he came to straighten it out ? Do we just have his conclusion that it was a racial slur pertaining to the earlier Lipski murder ? And finally how common was that name , and was an effort made to find a likely local lipski ?

Also .. PM steps out of the rain , stops to light his pipe in the shelter of a doorway of a closed pub . after doing so , and shouting some abuse at a bully beating on his missus , he heads back out into the drizzle , homeward bound , probably walking a little faster than he would had it been a dry night . not even paying any attention to Schwartz on the dark side of the street! Could a paranoid Schwartz could also fit the bill ?

cheers

moonbegger

[Scott Nelson]

What missing "Witness" files?

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Scott

I'm assuming he's referring, specifically in this instance, to the original witness statement taken by Abberline from Schwartz, which Swanson later precised...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

Special Branch

Hello John. Thanks.

Actually, "JTR" had NOTHING to do with why the club was being watched. In fact, there was, at this time, NO "JTR." (Only a "Leather Apron" was of concern.)

No, they watched the club because they were anarchists. Same for the various "Irish" gathering places. That was the job of Special Branch.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Star

Hello (again) John. Actually, the doubts at Lehman st (Swanson did not doubt) were recorded in "The Star."

Abberline could not get Schwartz to say whom was the recipient of "Lipski."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Forecast calls for . . .

Hello MB. Thanks.

"Do we know how FGA could be so sure, and how he came to straighten it
out? Do we just have his conclusion that it was a racial slur pertaining to the earlier Lipski murder?"

Because FGA knew the East End cold. Also, you may wish to look at the reports on this in "The Ultimate."

"And finally how common was that name, and was an effort made to find a likely local Lipski?"

Yes, some search was made. No luck.

"Also .. PM steps out of the rain, . . ."

It was not raining.

". . . stops to light his pipe in the shelter of a doorway of a closed pub. after doing so, and shouting some abuse at a bully beating on his missus, . . ."

1, PM was not shouting ANYTHING.

2. His missus? Why is she two doors down and he is loitering at the pub?

". . .he heads back out into the drizzle, . . ."

No, not drizzling at that time.

". . . homeward bound, probably walking a little faster than he would had it been a dry night."

If Schwartz is to be believed, he is running away from BSM--just like Israel.

". . . not even paying any attention to Schwartz on the dark side of the street!"

Eh?

"Could a paranoid Schwartz also fit the bill?"

Even better if it were a "mendacious Schwartz."

Cheers.
LC

[Scott Nelson]

Not only all that, but it cannot be agreed upon which side of the street PM was standing when first observed by Schwartz.

[moonbegger]

Not only all that, but it cannot be agreed upon which side of the street PM was standing when first observed by Schwartz.

I think both reports have him standing in the doorway of the corner pub ( same side as Liz & assailant )

moonbegger

[c.d.]

Hello Harry. On the other hand, if one is repeating a contrived story, one may become VERY confused when needing to explain some portion of it in greater detail.

Example: To whom was "Lipski" directed?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Wouldn't that also hold true if the question had to be translated into Hungarian and then the answer translated into English? I would also think that it could be quite difficult if he wasn't quite sure that what he heard was actually "Lipski" in the first place. Conveying "sounded like" as opposed to definitely heard is going to be tough in any language.

c.d.