Money

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Steve,

Ive made these suggestions before but could it have been the case that any doubts that might have been expressed by the police might simply have been on the issue of the time, considering the time that Schwartz said that he’d passed along Berner Street and then Fanny Mortimer’s evidence? So not the event but the actual time that the event occurred? Might another possibility be that perhaps just one or two Constable’s had doubts and they (or he) expressed them to a journalist and he, either mistakenly or intentionally, suggested that it was the opinion of the police as a whole?

Possible. Although I'd say it's more likely that they didn't believe Schwarz (in terms of what he claimed to have seen) because they believed the other witnesses and more or less the times they gave. In the absence of being there, I can't think of any other legitimate reason why the police would conclude that Schwarz wasn't straight down the line.

[Fleetwood Mac]

This was the report in The Star, 1st October:

As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more.

'Seems a departure from other reports from the same newspaper. I'd be more inclined to go with the interviews by police officers, while being cautious on Abberline's opinions.

[Elamarna]

Ok. Thanks, Steve. I would have to think that he made some sort of initial statement to the front desk when he first walked in. Maybe that could have been the source of their doubt because they would not have had the details that Abberline had.

I would also expect that Swanson would have wanted to discuss it with Abberline being that Schwartz might have seen the Ripper.

c.d.

On the first point, it's certainly possible I think.

On the 2nd, I am sure they did speak.
Within a day or so of Abberlines Memo, Anderson's sent memo to Warren, which talked strangely of Schwartz giving testimony at the recent inquest.
Very odd.


Steve

[c.d.]

Ok. Thanks, Steve. I would have to think that he made some sort of initial statement to the front desk when he first walked in. Maybe that could have been the source of their doubt because they would not have had the details that Abberline had.

I would also expect that Swanson would have wanted to discuss it with Abberline being that Schwartz might have seen the Ripper.

c.d.

[Elamarna]

Just the once to the police at Leman so far as we are aware.
There must have been at least an interpreter of some sort present.
It's possible that other officers were present I guess, but we have no record of such.

Abberline, then apparently passed the statement onto Swanson.
Who then refered to it in his own report.

This memo which contains Abberline's views on the statement, should I suggest be read in conjunction with the statement.

So far as we know, Swanson was not involved personally with interviewing Schwartz.


Steve

[c.d.]

I am a little confused about all of this. How many times did Schwartz tell his story at Leman and to whom? Were others present when he was interviewed by Abberline?

c.d

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Ive made these suggestions before but could it have been the case that any doubts that might have been expressed by the police might simply have been on the issue of the time, considering the time that Schwartz said that he’d passed along Berner Street and then Fanny Mortimer’s evidence? So not the event but the actual time that the event occurred? Might another possibility be that perhaps just one or two Constable’s had doubts and they (or he) expressed them to a journalist and he, either mistakenly or intentionally, suggested that it was the opinion of the police as a whole?

Hi Herlock,

Anything is possible, except those in authority at Leman didn't believe Schwartz..

My own view is either, it related to another witness, Pipeman? Maybe it was questioning if he actually chased Schwartz, clarifying so to speak and the Star presented it in a very different way.

Or they invented it.

I must say I like the idea, it might come from a couple of local constables.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have the following memo from.Abberline

"METROPOLITAN POLICE. Criminal Investigation Depa rtment, Scotland Yard, 1st day of November 1888 SUBJECT Whitechapel Murders REFERENCE TO PAPERS 52983 1,119 With reference to the annexed copy extract from Home Office Letter. I beg to report that since a jew named Lipski was hanged for the murder of a jewess in 1887 the name has very frequently been used by persons as mere ejaculation by way of endeavouring to insult the jew to whom it has been addressed, and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman. I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say. There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe. Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away. A house to house inquiry was made in Berner Street with a view to ascertain whether any person was seen acting suspiciously or any noise heard on the night in question but without result. Inquiries have also been made in the neighbourhood but no person named Lipski could be found. With regard to the second question I beg to report that searching inquiries were made by [“Sergt. Froest” – deleted and “an officer” put in marmargin] in Aberdeen Place St. Johns Wood the last known address of the insane medical student named “John Sanders”, but the only information that could be obtained was that a lady named Sanders resided with her son at No. 20, but left there to go abroad about 2 years ago. F.G. Abberline, Inspr. Supt."


It seems very obvious that Abberline had no doubts about the account given by Schwartz.
Given that on the ground , at Leman Street, Abberline was running the case, and had no doubts , it's very clear that the Star account is either inaccurate, invention or is being misinterpreted and should be applied to another witness, possible Pipeman.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Ive made these suggestions before but could it have been the case that any doubts that might have been expressed by the police might simply have been on the issue of the time, considering the time that Schwartz said that he’d passed along Berner Street and then Fanny Mortimer’s evidence? So not the event but the actual time that the event occurred? Might another possibility be that perhaps just one or two Constable’s had doubts and they (or he) expressed them to a journalist and he, either mistakenly or intentionally, suggested that it was the opinion of the police as a whole?

[Abby Normal]

We have the following memo from.Abberline

"METROPOLITAN POLICE. Criminal Investigation Depa rtment, Scotland Yard, 1st day of November 1888 SUBJECT Whitechapel Murders REFERENCE TO PAPERS 52983 1,119 With reference to the annexed copy extract from Home Office Letter. I beg to report that since a jew named Lipski was hanged for the murder of a jewess in 1887 the name has very frequently been used by persons as mere ejaculation by way of endeavouring to insult the jew to whom it has been addressed, and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman. I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say. There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe. Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away. A house to house inquiry was made in Berner Street with a view to ascertain whether any person was seen acting suspiciously or any noise heard on the night in question but without result. Inquiries have also been made in the neighbourhood but no person named Lipski could be found. With regard to the second question I beg to report that searching inquiries were made by [“Sergt. Froest” – deleted and “an officer” put in marmargin] in Aberdeen Place St. Johns Wood the last known address of the insane medical student named “John Sanders”, but the only information that could be obtained was that a lady named Sanders resided with her son at No. 20, but left there to go abroad about 2 years ago. F.G. Abberline, Inspr. Supt."


It seems very obvious that Abberline had no doubts about the account given by Schwartz.
Given that on the ground , at Leman Street, Abberline was running the case, and had no doubts , it's very clear that the Star account is either inaccurate, invention or is being misinterpreted and should be applied to another witness, possible Pipeman.

Steve

And there you have it. As ive said all along there is no reason to doubt schwartz and he is actually one of the more reliable witnesses in the whole case. His suspect description jibes with all the other witnesses that night, abberline found his account credible and does anyone think a traditional jewish man new to a country is going to lie in a murder case, therefore putting himself and his whole family at risk?

[c.d.]

Assuming this event actually happened, I'm not sure what would be gained from shouting 'Lispki' at a man watching an attack take place.

I think warning an accomplice that a man was approaching makes more sense.

I would take it as a threat not to interfere or you'll get the same treatment. Just keep moving.

c.d.

[Elamarna]

But why would The Star say that they doubted his story ? In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story . I get what you are saying regarding the Oct 1 article , but Oct 2 ? There is no mention of anyone else but Schwartz and they implicitly say the Lemen st police doubted the truth of the story. Whose story ? It must be Schwartz

Regards Darryl

We have the following memo from.Abberline

"METROPOLITAN POLICE. Criminal Investigation Depa rtment, Scotland Yard, 1st day of November 1888 SUBJECT Whitechapel Murders REFERENCE TO PAPERS 52983 1,119 With reference to the annexed copy extract from Home Office Letter. I beg to report that since a jew named Lipski was hanged for the murder of a jewess in 1887 the name has very frequently been used by persons as mere ejaculation by way of endeavouring to insult the jew to whom it has been addressed, and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman. I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say. There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe. Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away. A house to house inquiry was made in Berner Street with a view to ascertain whether any person was seen acting suspiciously or any noise heard on the night in question but without result. Inquiries have also been made in the neighbourhood but no person named Lipski could be found. With regard to the second question I beg to report that searching inquiries were made by [“Sergt. Froest” – deleted and “an officer” put in marmargin] in Aberdeen Place St. Johns Wood the last known address of the insane medical student named “John Sanders”, but the only information that could be obtained was that a lady named Sanders resided with her son at No. 20, but left there to go abroad about 2 years ago. F.G. Abberline, Inspr. Supt."


It seems very obvious that Abberline had no doubts about the account given by Schwartz.
Given that on the ground , at Leman Street, Abberline was running the case, and had no doubts , it's very clear that the Star account is either inaccurate, invention or is being misinterpreted and should be applied to another witness, possible Pipeman.

Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

The team aspect comes from Schwartz's original statement about how he thought Lipski was shouted to Pipeman as a warning, and how he felt Pipeman followed him. However, he was questioned closely on this, and it appears the questioning made him unsure (probably made him realise he could have been mistaken). Therefore, in the end, Schwartz cannot say if they were known to each other although it also seems quite apparent that he originally thought they were. I suppose it depends upon whether one is talking about Schwartz as he thought at the time, or Schwartz as he thought after being questioned.

- Jeff

Assuming this event actually happened, I'm not sure what would be gained from shouting 'Lispki' at a man watching an attack take place.

I think warning an accomplice that a man was approaching makes more sense.

[JeffHamm]

Where as Swanson report reads, ''Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were known to each other '' i dont see any indication Schwartz thought B.S and Pipeman were a team.

But your right Jeff, its much depends on which sourse of evidence and by whom one chooses to accept, when it come to all things JtR related.

The team aspect comes from Schwartz's original statement about how he thought Lipski was shouted to Pipeman as a warning, and how he felt Pipeman followed him. However, he was questioned closely on this, and it appears the questioning made him unsure (probably made him realise he could have been mistaken). Therefore, in the end, Schwartz cannot say if they were known to each other although it also seems quite apparent that he originally thought they were. I suppose it depends upon whether one is talking about Schwartz as he thought at the time, or Schwartz as he thought after being questioned.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Where as Swanson report reads, ''Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were known to each other '' i dont see any indication Schwartz thought B.S and Pipeman were a team.

But your right Jeff, its much depends on which sourse of evidence and by whom one chooses to accept, when it come to all things JtR related.

[JeffHamm]

But why would The Star say that they doubted his story ? In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story . I get what you are saying regarding the Oct 1 article , but Oct 2 ? There is no mention of anyone else but Schwartz and they implicitly say the Lemen st police doubted the truth of the story. Whose story ? It must be Schwartz

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

Comparing the story from the 1st and the 2nd, where the one on the 1st mentions the prisoner (and the wording suggests the doubt is with regards to the prisoner's statement), might it be that the story on the 2nd is a rehash of the original story, but edited out mentioning of the prisoner for some reason (it seems like an odd detail to omit, but the flow of the two stories is the same just with the information about the suspect removed). There's something odd about these two articles, and press reports go through so many edits, for various reasons (just to fit it into the column), that it might be worth considering something like that. Given the newsworthiness of a potential suspect being interviewed by the police, I admit I find it hard to believe that detail would get removed, but just because I find something hard to believe doesn't mean it couldn't happen (so we need to ponder it at least).

It is also possible that the original story, that included a prisoner/suspect, was the one in error and, as you suggest, the doubt was in regards to Schwartz. That might even fit things a bit better as we know Anderson doubted Schwartz's story with regards to things like whom Lipski was shouted at, and the relationship between Pipeman and B.S. While Schwartz thought they were a team, Andersen appears more inclined to think Pipeman was a bystander and that Lipski was shouted at Schwartz. So we know the police had doubts about Schwartz's story on those aspects. If the press got wind that the police didn't believe everything Schwartz said, but did not have the details about the exact nature of those doubts, then it could appear as in the version you've presented (the one without the prisoner). Of course, if there had been someone brought in who was thought might be either Pipeman or B.S., and the police weren't entirely satisfied with the person's account of themselves, then the other version could be the more appropriate one.

Sadly, we're left with so many "if's" because in the end it is just not clear what was meant given that on face value the two reports seem to cast doubt on different people.

- Jeff