Tweet
I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on why the police treated the eyewitness descriptions from the night of the "double event" as they did. It all seems very puzzling.
Schwartz
Swanson in his report dated 19 October gives the description of the man seen by Israel Schwartz:
age about 30 ht. 5ft. 5in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands
and adds:
The description of the man seen by the P.C. was circulated amongst Police by wire, & by authority of Commissioner it was also given to the press. On the evening of the 30th the man Schwartz gave the description of the man he had seen ten minutes later than the P.C. and it was circulated by wire.
[Ultimate JTR Source Book, p. 137]
That suggests that Schwartz's description was initially circulated only within the police force, and not communicated to the press, and certainly P.C. Smith's description appeared frequently in the press reports of the next few days. Curiously, though, the Echo of 1 October gives a description almost identical to the one attributed to Schwartz in Swanson's report - with the addition of "stout build" - though without indicating the source, or even which of the two murders it related to.
Both the Echo and the Star of that date have a separate report (later repeated by other papers), apparently of the incident witnessed by Schwartz, in which the perpetrator is described only as "aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion". And of course the same issue of the Star has a report of its own interview with Schwartz, in which the attacker is described as "about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat". Beyond that nothing more about Schwartz's story seems to have been reported in the press, as far as I've seen, and of course he did not appear as a witness at the inquest (1-3, 5, 23 October), though writing in early November Robert Anderson evidently thought he had done.
Lawende
We know that the police made contact with Joseph Lawende on 30 September or 1 October, as a result of a house-to-house enquiry conducted by Edward Collard. On the 2 October a version of his description appeared in the Times, as that of a man seen "in a court in Duke-street, leading to Mitre-square" with the murdered woman. But, as in Schwartz's case, this description doesn't appear to be repeated by the press until Lawende gave his evidence at the inquest on 11 October - and at the inquest his evidence was interrupted by the City Solicitor, attending on behalf of the police, who said he had a "special reason" why the description should not be given.
The descriptions given by Schwartz and Lawende were finally published in the Police Gazette on 19 October, prefaced by a statement that sketches published by the Daily Telegraph [on 6 October, selected by Matthew Packer] had not been authorised by the police.
Curiously, more than three weeks later (on 12 November) the Daily Telegraph reported that a correspondent had forwarded a police notice giving the descriptions as printed in the Police Gazette together with the same introductory statement. Apparently the Telegraph was unaware that they had already been published, because it comments:
These authentic descriptions, we have reason to know, have been secretly circulated by the authorities of Scotland-yard since Oct. 26, but the complete details have never been made public. This reticence is one of the mysteries of police administration, and it is difficult to find an explanation to account for the fact that this important information has been "confidentially communicated" to police-officers throughout the kingdom, but has been withheld from the people who have had the best opportunities of seeing and of, therefore, recognising the assassin. The point which the police appear to have been at most pains to suppress is the significant one that the unknown murderer has the "appearance of a sailor."
The final comment is interesting, as "appearance of a sailor" and the description of the jacket are the only material details omitted from the 2 October report in the Times.
Essentially, the Telegraph seems to be correct, in that - while P.C. Smith's description was given to the press and widely reported - those of Schwartz and Lawende were apparently not released to the press until nearly three weeks after the murders, though each of them appeared in an isolated report.
Can anyone explain what could have been the police thinking behind this?
Schwartz
Swanson in his report dated 19 October gives the description of the man seen by Israel Schwartz:
age about 30 ht. 5ft. 5in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands
and adds:
The description of the man seen by the P.C. was circulated amongst Police by wire, & by authority of Commissioner it was also given to the press. On the evening of the 30th the man Schwartz gave the description of the man he had seen ten minutes later than the P.C. and it was circulated by wire.
[Ultimate JTR Source Book, p. 137]
That suggests that Schwartz's description was initially circulated only within the police force, and not communicated to the press, and certainly P.C. Smith's description appeared frequently in the press reports of the next few days. Curiously, though, the Echo of 1 October gives a description almost identical to the one attributed to Schwartz in Swanson's report - with the addition of "stout build" - though without indicating the source, or even which of the two murders it related to.
Both the Echo and the Star of that date have a separate report (later repeated by other papers), apparently of the incident witnessed by Schwartz, in which the perpetrator is described only as "aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion". And of course the same issue of the Star has a report of its own interview with Schwartz, in which the attacker is described as "about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat". Beyond that nothing more about Schwartz's story seems to have been reported in the press, as far as I've seen, and of course he did not appear as a witness at the inquest (1-3, 5, 23 October), though writing in early November Robert Anderson evidently thought he had done.
Lawende
We know that the police made contact with Joseph Lawende on 30 September or 1 October, as a result of a house-to-house enquiry conducted by Edward Collard. On the 2 October a version of his description appeared in the Times, as that of a man seen "in a court in Duke-street, leading to Mitre-square" with the murdered woman. But, as in Schwartz's case, this description doesn't appear to be repeated by the press until Lawende gave his evidence at the inquest on 11 October - and at the inquest his evidence was interrupted by the City Solicitor, attending on behalf of the police, who said he had a "special reason" why the description should not be given.
The descriptions given by Schwartz and Lawende were finally published in the Police Gazette on 19 October, prefaced by a statement that sketches published by the Daily Telegraph [on 6 October, selected by Matthew Packer] had not been authorised by the police.
Curiously, more than three weeks later (on 12 November) the Daily Telegraph reported that a correspondent had forwarded a police notice giving the descriptions as printed in the Police Gazette together with the same introductory statement. Apparently the Telegraph was unaware that they had already been published, because it comments:
These authentic descriptions, we have reason to know, have been secretly circulated by the authorities of Scotland-yard since Oct. 26, but the complete details have never been made public. This reticence is one of the mysteries of police administration, and it is difficult to find an explanation to account for the fact that this important information has been "confidentially communicated" to police-officers throughout the kingdom, but has been withheld from the people who have had the best opportunities of seeing and of, therefore, recognising the assassin. The point which the police appear to have been at most pains to suppress is the significant one that the unknown murderer has the "appearance of a sailor."
The final comment is interesting, as "appearance of a sailor" and the description of the jacket are the only material details omitted from the 2 October report in the Times.
Essentially, the Telegraph seems to be correct, in that - while P.C. Smith's description was given to the press and widely reported - those of Schwartz and Lawende were apparently not released to the press until nearly three weeks after the murders, though each of them appeared in an isolated report.
Can anyone explain what could have been the police thinking behind this?
Sink the Bismark
Comment