Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[Scott Nelson]

What missing "Witness" files?

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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]

"When I have fears . . ."

Hello Pat. Not sure why there should NOT be only a little interest in PM. After all, if Schwartz is to be believed, PM looks like an innocent bystander who had the same fears as Schwartz.

Cheers.
LC

[Dr. John Watson]

Hi GUT,

It was White who wrote about it and pipeman could have been one of the cops he mentions. It was also White that lead the street inquiry and questioned Packer.

Soon after White's death an article appeared in the "People's Journal" relating to the Whitechapel murders. It was written in the first person and tells how White and two other men had for five nights "been watching a certain alley just behind the Whitechapel Road. It could only be entered from where we had two men posted in hiding. . ."

White had come to hear the two officers latest report and "I was turning away when I saw a man coming out of the alley. He was walking quickly..." White got a good look at the man and tried to engage him in conversation without much success. As the man walked away "one of the police officers came out of the house he had been in, and walked a few paces into the darkness of the alley. 'Hello! What is this?' he cried..." The police officer had discovered "a body of a woman, and a pool of blood was streaming along the gutter from her body". White tried to catch up with the man he had seen "but he was lost to sight in the dark labyrinth of the East End mean streets."

It is just a theory so I would value some imput for and against...

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

If I'm not mistaken, that was the case of "Clay Pipe" Alice McKenzie, who was found dead in Castle Alley after midnight, July 18, 1889. She had been stabbed in the throat and slashed zig-zag fashion along the length of the abdomen. The Alley had been patrolled regularly, and it was the beat officer who discovered her body. He summoned several other PCs in the immediate area, none of whom was named White. Coroner Wynne Baxter conducted her inquest. The officer who discovered the body was PC Walter Andrews, and the discovery came just after Andrews had given his report to Sgt. Edward Badham. Although Sgt. White's name is not mentioned in police or news reports, it's possible he could have been in the area at the time of the murder as he states. His description of the crime scene certainly fits Castle Alley, and if his story is accurate, the man he encountered on the street was very likely McKenzie's killer - and possibly even Jack the Ripper!

John

[harry]

The police statement reports that Schartz saw the second man(pipeman) standing lighting a pipe.doesn't say specificly where he (pipeman) was standing.I have two things to say about that.
Firstly,when a man lights a pipe,on a dimly lit street,in inclement weather conditions,he would,in those times,use a match,and both hands to shield the flame and bowl of the pipe,thus causing the face to be obscured.Yet S chwartz describes,the above shoulders in detail.
Secondly,there is such a difference in a man standing lighting a pipe,as opposed to a man coming out of the shadows with a knife in his hand,that I fail to see how anyone ,in a matter of days,could be so confused as to which was correct.

[Paddy]

There would have been a lot of people about though ??

[Paddy]

Only Problem

Thanks Dave sorry yes I understand now. That would fit....

I too think it would have been watched. Probably why nobody can find many police records is that some evidence would expose surveillance.........all very secret squirrel.
Sent for some more files but not holding my breath as I am sure everything has been searched...

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

[Cogidubnus]

another proofless possibility

I didn't say the undercover cop chased Jack away, I said that Jack ran down the street not actually after Schwartz, but to escape the man who had just tried to talk to him and who would shortly discover poor Liz.

It was White not Smith who lead the street search, just looked it up.

I just cant help thinking this was one of the many circumstances that connected Kosminski...Along with Packers "he lives around here" and Mrs Kuers bloody laundry client. Fanciful I know but it fits so well !

Plus nobody ever mentioned Pipeman.. that is so odd. Surely the press would have been straight onto that? Its so likely that the club was being watched and that could not become public knowledge !

Just found out my friends' (from Birmingham) relative lived just round corner in Boyd street, what a small world it is. (Loads of your lot too)

Hi Pat

I wasn't implying that the undercover cop chased Jack away...rather that he'd mistakenly chased the genuine witness away leaving the killer with his victim, hence the subsequent hush-up...

Like you though I'm pretty sure the club was watched!

Cheers

Dave

[GUT]

Mea Culpa

You wrote Pipeman, I read Schwartz.