Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[c.d.]

Which still begs the question .. would the Police have ignored Shwartz press claim that the man in the doorway had a knife ?

moonbegger

Hello Moonbegger,

A very good point. Hard to believe that Schwartz wouldn't have gotten a visit from the police seeking verification of what they read in the papers. I would think that would go for pretty much any witness who had a major disparity from the statement previously given to the police.

c.d.

[Jonathan H]

We can see from other sources that the police probably discarded Schwartz as unreliable, as his accounts/descriptions were contradictory and not a clear match for the sighting of the Ripper with Eddowes. Certainly the man he allegedly saw assaulting Stride is not a match.

If we step back we see that secondary sources place much greater importance on this witness than do the primary ones.

I am not forgetting the modern notion that Schwartz was Anderson's witness, but I think that theory is untenable (eg. see 'Scotland Yard investigates' by Evans and Rumbelow).

[GUT]

Given the contradictory nature of Schwart's quotes, I really find it hard to believe that he was Anderson's witness and the only reason for no prosecution was that he refused to testify.

Just Pipe vs Knife would have given a defence attorney an absolute field day.

[Hunter]

We can see from other sources that the police probably discarded Schwartz as unreliable, as his accounts/descriptions were contradictory and not a clear match for the sighting of the Ripper with Eddowes. Certainly the man he allegedly saw assaulting Stride is not a match.

From police sources we can see that the police did not consider Schwartz's testimony as unreliable. Swanson's report leaves no doubt and he even compares Schwartz's man to Lawende's and doesn't rule them out or in as the same man. On the same day Schwartz's description is printed in the Police Gazette along with Lawende's. Even as late as Nov. 4, Abberline penned a special report to answer Home Office queries about the "Lipski" incident and further clarified that Schwartz's information had been acted upon. What eventually happened - as did with nearly all of the witnesses - was the information provided resulted in no conclusive determination as to the murderer or murderers.

[Jonathan H]

Fair enough, but it depends on which police sources and over what period of time.

By 1891 Schwartz, who never testified officially, is out.

[lynn cates]

smoke

Hello John. Thanks.

I am quite comfortable with the idea of mistranslation. In fact, there is a thread where the Hungarian word for "pipe" is compared to that for "knife." Although I do not feel inspired by the analysis I saw there, I DO feel sympathetic and consider such a possibility.

But the report says he was LIGHTING a pipe. Why would Schwartz say that? Well, if one does not stick at his overall story, then surely--given the story's veracity--it would explain why he was standing near a pub (The Nelson) which had closed about 3 1/2 hours earlier. The man was walking along and then paused for a smoke. Nothing strange about that?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

pursuit

Hello MB.

"Would the Police not want to double check with him regarding "Knife" or "Pipe", thinking they may have misinterpreted what he said , especially as it would have been pivotal to their suspect focus?"

Which police? The ones at Leman st station indicated that they would proceed no further until they had further evidence on the Schwartz story.

Of course, Swanson seems to have disagreed with them.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

brandishing

Hello Roy.

"That still leaves a problem with 'lighting' it though. Not sure what word sounds similar to that and would make sense in the context of a dagger but like I said I would assume it would be quite rare."

Perhaps one should try "brandishing"? A bit silly, but . . .

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Hello MB.

"Would the Police not want to double check with him regarding "Knife" or "Pipe", thinking they may have misinterpreted what he said , especially as it would have been pivotal to their suspect focus?"

Which police? The ones at Leman st station indicated that they would proceed no further until they had further evidence on the Schwartz story.

Of course, Swanson seems to have disagreed with them.

That was according to the Star. There is no "police" at Leman St. station and their opinion and then Swanson's separate opinion at CO. There was no disagreement. Abberline certainly doesn't indicate it and he was in charge of ground operations. Swanson was basing his summary report and the police indications regarding Schwartz from reports emanating from Leman St. which was the CID base of operations for the Whitechapel murders investigation. It is where Swanson went every night to confer with his detectives.

Once the story leaked to the Star (and it probably was from someone at Leman St.) CID (at Leman ST.) had no choice but to downplay Schwartz publicly and his information if they had any chance of following any leads regarding his reported evidence. There was a possibility that his or his family's life could be in danger from the man he allegedly saw if his story was true. The "police" did not have the luxury of forming an opinion on this witness' information. They had little else to go on and the witness himself had to be considered. In other words, the followup story from the Star was probably a "blind"... just as the City police did after the Times initially broke the Lawende story and the Met did after the EN initially broke the graffiti story.

[Abby Normal]

I have suggested before that Schwartz may have realized that he came across like a coward in his police interview.

Therefore, he may have swopped the pipe for a knife in the paper interview, giving himself a far better excuse to flee and to leave Stride behind to her fate.

It´s just a guess, of course, but one that sounds feasible to me.

All the best,

Fisherman

hi fish
I agree and often also said this in the past. I tend towards believing Schwartzs story except for the part about knife/pipeman which he may have added to help explain away his less than courageous behavior.

[Dr. John Watson]

Which still begs the question .. would the Police have ignored Shwartz press claim that the man in the doorway had a knife ?

moonbegger

What makes you think police ignored it?

[moonbegger]

We can see from other sources that the police probably discarded Schwartz as unreliable, as his accounts/descriptions were contradictory and not a clear match for the sighting of the Ripper with Eddowes. Certainly the man he allegedly saw assaulting Stride is not a match.

Hello Jonathan , Two things that spring to mind here ! firstly , looking at both reports , are they really that contradictory ? I think the only major discrepancy lies with the "Pipe/knife" malarkey , and as we have heard from earlier posts , it could well be just a Translation issue , ( Dagger , knife , pipe , ect ) . As for the witness comparison with Eddows killer , there is still no concrete evidence that she was killed by the same hand . Is there ?

Dr.John ,

What makes you think police ignored it?

I don't know that they did John , it seems highly unlikely that they would have . And the fact that Swanson still concluded it was a Pipe in his Oct 19th summery , must suggest he knew it was a pipe and not a knife . ( unless of course he was just copying the police report without paying much attention)

cheers

moonbegger .

[Jonathan H]

I see a [potential] police blunder, perhaps corrected later when Lawende, not Schwartz became the eyewitness the police reportedly used on two occasions to identify the Ripper (Salder in 1i891 and Grant in 1895--arguably the origin of Anderson's mistake about a Jewish witness affirming to a Jewishs suspect).

'Knifeman' is, very broadly speaking, a better fit for Lawende's Jack-the-Seaman than the man described by Schwartz assaulting Stride as recorded in the police report.

Whatever happened, or was said, or was mis-translated, or was decided upon, Israel Schwartz is--arguably--a minor sideshow to the main game.

[lynn cates]

out there

Hello Cris. Thanks.

"Once the story leaked to the Star (and it probably was from someone at Leman St.) CID (at Leman ST.) had no choice but to downplay Schwartz publicly"

Can't say I entirely disagree. And, of course, "The Star" may have misunderstood. All I'm saying is that their story--like Swanson's report--is out there.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

side show

Hello Jonathan.

"Israel Schwartz is--arguably--a minor sideshow to the main game."

Now you're talking, mate.

Cheers.
LC