Is Mr Schwartz the equivalent of a Hasidic Hutchinson?

[Roy Corduroy]

Lipski

Exactly, Brad. And Robert, your post is beyond good. It's great.

Lipski is the reason that Israel Schwartz was not called to testify at the inquest. That's not an idea I dreamed up, I read it in Phillip Sugden's book. That's his opinion and I agree with it.

Israel Schwartz said he heard the killer shout Lipski, a derogatory name for Jew. It goes back to the Lipski murder one block away on Berner Street. In Evans & Skinner, we see the meaning of Lipski discussed right up the police ranks to the Home Office. A very serious matter indeed.

As armchair detectives, we tend to view the Ripper murder investigation as a mental set piece and disregard the real situation on the ground. The primary duty of any police force, whether it be the sheriff of a one horse town, or a large outfit like the Met, is to maintain order. Most police work consists of simply being seen, patrolling the streets, in order to encourage good behavior and provide a sense of well being to the citizenry. The JtR murder killing spree taxed the ability of the Met to do this, but they rose to the ocassion splendidly.

The murders set off all sorts of rumors, and suspicions, as well as prejudice against the Jews of the East End. The Met police acted to prevent this prejudice from turning ugly. They moved in to stop a riot against the Jews at one point, they advised Jews to move along at crime scenes lest they become victims of abuse, they erased the grafitto which contained the word Jews. And the authorities reasoned that having Israel Schwartz appear at the hearing, with his account containing the cry of "Lipski" would be a mistake. Star article or not. His testimony was not needed at inquest. There was plenty to rule murder without him. An inquest is not a trial.

This was the real world in the East End 1888. Not the make believe game we play.

Roy

[perrymason]

Hi folks and thanks for the contributions....like the Abberline support comments Chris.

The point I'm interested in ultimately is the witnesses reliability, and in the case of Schwartz, his merely being Jewish while giving a statement that reflects well upon the anarchist Jewish establishment and grounds and the members concerned might have been enough to look into him further. A statement that suggests the killer likely came from the street, from the direction of the International Club's locked front door... courtesy of Eagles testimony, is one of the most positive spin stories for the clubs sake,... perhaps too coincidentally.

It seems to me that they chose not to even so much as refer to his story at the Inquest is a damning clue that suggests they did not believe him, either that or he was potentially so useful that they kept his profile low and secretive for further investigations or ID's.

I dont believe Broadshouldered Man constitutes the suspect sighting that the police, or we, believe is most likely Jack the Ripper. By timing alone, Lawendes must be. And Israels description is general at best. So that means I think they did not believe him. And maybe didnt see fit to address his absence later on, or were never asked about it directly in interviews.

Schwartz, if believed, must be the key witness here, his disappearance without explanation is therefore troubling for those of us who'd like some authoritative position by the Investigators on the relevance or accuracy of his story.

It is James Brown who records Liz's activities at approx 12:45am that night on the stand, not Israel.

Best regards all.

[perrymason]

With all due respect, "Lipski" was a word thought to be used by Broadshouldered Man towards Schwartz as an antisemetic slur....its no reason for excluding Schwartz from all formal records. Just like the excuse for erasing the GSG, a suggestion they were attempting to quell potential riots doesnt wash. Tell me policemen couldnt prohibit view or passage to the Model Homes for 2 hours to get photos done....they blocked Millers Court off for everyone including the residents for 2 hours.

Schwartz is just press articles, and a notation from a few senior men.

Why should his story be given any credence by us, when on the records, it wasnt by them. Just like GH.

Best regards

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Michael,

"Lipski" was a very good reason to exclude Schwartz from testifying at inquest. In the real world. Not in our cyber parlor game. But again, I don't have an original thought on this. Phil Sugden put that idea in my head.

Roy

[celee]

Hi,

On one hand we have Abberline who obviously believed Hutchinson after interviewing him. We know he sent a note to that effect. On the other hand we have a newspaper articl that claims Hutchinson story had been discreditted. The articl does not have a quote from any Detetive. It is just a paragraph long and it does not give us a whole lot of information.

Anderson and Swanson seem to dismiss Hutchinson as a witness but we can not be sure what their views were since they never commented. I think they were cought up with their own witness who nobody besides them believed got a good look at the Ripper.

Abberline years later obviously lost faith in Hutchinson's story when he claimed no one ever got a good look at the Ripper Abberline seems to be disregarding all the eye witness accounts. Abberline may have just came to the conclusion that no one got a good look at the the Ripper. It is possible that Abberlined ruled out the suspect that Hutch had seen with Kelly. He may have believed Hutchinson story, However, he may have come to the conclusion that Hutchinson did not see the ripper that evening.

You friend, Brad

[Ben]

Hi Brad,

An investigating officer cannot responsibly discard a witness account purely on the assumption that the real killer must have come along after the suspect described by that witness had departed.

It was still absolutely imperative for the police to track down the Astrakhan man in order to interview him and "eliminate him from their inquiries", and to do that meant keeping Hutchinson's statement in the frame and using it for potential identity parades etc. As of the 15th November, we learn that the account was "discredited" and subsequent police memoirs, interviews and reports would tend to bear this out. Since you can't "discredit" a witness account on the assumption that the suspect mentioned might not be the killer, it appears that the statement (or at least the Mr. Astrakhan part of it) was discarded for a "better" reason.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hutchinson was discredited? The only prove we have of this is a Newspaper articl that ran a paragragh claiming that his story was discredited, am I missing something?

You're not, Brad. It was Hutchinson's story - as opposed to the man himself - that was reported as being discredited, although (as I've pointed out on another thread) "discredited" needn't have meant "brought into disrepute", merely "no longer believed".

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
The problem is none of us were around then, we simply dont know what happened in the next week after the kelly murder.
Yes a report did state that the statement was discredited, but that does not mean that it was, if, and i do mean if, Topping was Hutch, and he was paid one hundred shillings for his walkabouts, then he was taken very seriously.
We must get the facts right , concerning the value of onehundred shillings in 1888, it is approx three hundred pounds in todays terms, so when one thinks about it , is is not a life changing sum is it?
Many police informers are paid that on a daily basis , if not more by our police forces today.
Nothing to do with this actual thread, but i would still love to know where George Topping Hutchinson became aware of a payment made for assistance, when it only appeared in a very obscure newspaper that even casebook was not aware of until relatively recently.... if ever there was proof of identity its that, not to mention the family, and the signatures.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Yes a report did state that the statement was discredited, but that does not mean that it was

It's a pretty good indicator that it was, but it's only when taken in conjunction with the subsequent commentry from senior police officals that the conclusion that Hutchinson's statement was discredited becomes pretty inescapable.

I'm afraid we're miles off topic with the whole payment/Toppy issue, but as I've explained before, the chances of Hutchinson being paid such a vast sum for something he would have been forced - if necessary - to do anyway, stike me as incredibly slim, especially when such a strategy had such potentially dire consequences for the police in the form of other "witnesses" coming forward all hoping to be "reimbursed" to a similar tune.

Nothing to do with this actual thread, but i would still love to know where George Topping Hutchinson became aware of a payment made for assistance,

I don't think he did "become aware" of it. Frankly, I think either Toppy or his son made it up, which isn't such an outrageous accusation when you consider that the "sum" mentioned was allegedly hush money to cover up the fact that he'd seen Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper. The newspaper article was headlined "gossip" and made various claims that were in direct contradiction to all other press versions, thereby inviting suspicion as to its content.

Best regards,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

You're forgetting the correspondence about his evidence by Abberline and Anderson - the latter of whom actually believed he had given evidence at the inquest. If Schwartz was discredited by the police, they didn't tell Anderson about it!

Hi Chris. I don't think it's so much that Anderson didn't "believe" that Schwartz appeared at the inquest as he "assumed" that to have been the case based upon Swanson's notes. Neither of them appear to have been all that familiar with Schwartz prior to the compilation of the requested report, more than two weeks following the murder.

If Schwartz wasn't called because he was somehow discredited, why would Swanson be unaware of that when he came to discuss his evidence in detail more than a fortnight later?

That's a good question, but had he been as familiar with Schwartz's evidence as we would expect him to have been, the correspondence with Abberline following the circulation of his report would have been unnecessary.

Lipski is the reason that Israel Schwartz was not called to testify at the inquest. That's not an idea I dreamed up, I read it in Phillip Sugden's book. That's his opinion and I agree with it.

Hi Roy. I'm not sure I can agree with that. Schwartz could have been called but censured, just as Lawende was at the Eddowes inquest, where he gave his description and that was that. Matthew Packer wasn't called, but his story is all over the inquest in the questions asked by the coroner about grapes, etc. Schwartz, as I recall, isn't even alluded to when asking questions of James Brown and the police. However, Schwartz's description of BS Man was included in the private circular distributed to police stations.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Roy Corduroy]

Hello Tom,

The grapes got in, but no Lipski. (mission accomplished). To think they could limit or channel Israel's testimony through an interpeter, well why bother. The authorities were not crafting the inquest to be used as a future game of Clue.

Nice talking with ya, Tom. And please let us know the latest good stuff Debra and you have got going with LeGrand.

Roy

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Roy. What I was saying is that Israel could have appeared only to give a description, but that was not done. It was done in the case of Lawende. So the Lipski thing had absolutely nothing to do with why he didn't appear. It would have been too easy to get around.

The lack of any recent Le Grand publications is my fault. I've had little time to write. But I am picking at an essay which I hope Debs will be so kind as to clean up and repair. She's already turned up a lot of material, although I look forward to the day when I have more time to follow up some promising leads (not all to do with Le Grand).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Roy Corduroy]

What I was saying is that Israel could have appeared only to give a description, but that was not done. It was done in the case of Lawende. So the Lipski thing had absolutely nothing to do with why he didn't appear. It would have been too easy to get around.

Tom, I see things exactly opposite as you. Cutting off Lawende's testimony was the easy part. He only had a description to tell. His story had nothing about a man shouting out anything. He, Lawende spoke English.

Schwartz spoke no English. Some sort of arrangement would be necessary with the interpeter to control the testimony, but who knows, Schwartz might blurt out "Lipski" anyway and reporters could pick up that word and broadcast it. So I think you have it backwards when you say easy. That applies to limiting Lawende's testimony, not Schwartz.

And another thing, Lawende was testifying in the Mitre Square case. Schwartz would have been testifying in the Berner St case, which occured only one block away from Batty St, and remembrances of the infamous Lipski murder. So I don't find it an apt comparison on several levels.

But most of all, I think police took certain steps to keep a lid on the prejudice engendered by the crime spree, and this was one of those steps.

I have given a reason why I think Schwartz did not testify. Lipski. Do those who disagree consider his not testifying was a mystery, or do you propose a reason?

Roy

[perrymason]

Hi Roy.

What I was saying is that Israel could have appeared only to give a description, but that was not done. It was done in the case of Lawende. So the Lipski thing had absolutely nothing to do with why he didn't appear. It would have been too easy to get around.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

The above is the crux here Tom, thanks.... there are few reasons why he wouldnt have at least been cited and placed in the records during the Inquest...they had 5 days of it over 3 weeks, there was time to investigate his "suspects" and him as well.

The purpose for me in opening this dialogue is to make clear that Israel Schwartz, despite the potential importance of a story like his and our assurances from Swanson and Abberline as to his "believability", is not the witness of record for the sighting at approx 12:45am..... that of Liz Stride with a man near the front gates.

The story of record for 12:45am has James Brown seeing Liz Stride talking with a man by the Board School, her back to the wall facing him, his arm on the wall.

That is an entirely different kettle of fish from Schwartz's claim, which gives us an assailant and a perhaps unwilling partner just feet from her murder site, 15 minutes before being found dead there.

Liz's estimated cut time is not affected with either suspect, whether she was with Broadshouldered Man being accosted at 12:45am, or with Browns man at the School at that time....but the story that was allowed to be given at Inquest allows for many different possibilities that were less likely with the presence of a man interacting with the victim aggressively before she is murdered.

According to Brown, she may have been having a nice personal conversation, comfortable, secure at that moment, and even considering having a cashous. Her having a quiet conversation then being found dead holding cashous allows for her present partner to be her killer or anyone coming up to say hello or from inside the yard to grab her after she parts with him, including Jack. It suggests she was unaware she was in danger when he strikes. That is a better explanation for the cashous in my opinion.

Her being helped to her feet by a man that roughly pulled her off her feet then yelled threateningly at a witness or witnesses seems to suggest she is with the type that might kill someone in anger already. Liz must have felt some apprehension, anger or fear at this encounter...and perhaps too flustered to have a cashous at that time. She may have been anticipating more aggression at this time.

I think the key with all these crimes is in the POV of the Investigator. If you investigate this murder using Schwartz, then her being killed by that same man that accosted her is quite possible. With Browns suspect, we may be seeing a personal or "professional" meeting that appears to not be a threat to her, and is taking place nowhere near the front gates of Dutfields Yard.

If the man seen with her by the school leaves, its a very real possibility her killer came at her from that yard....the one that 2 club witnesses swore was empty at 12:40am. Methinks the club dodged a bullet with some creative storytelling.

Using Browns account changes the entire pre-attack scenario, and therefore the potential killer.

Best regards all.

[celee]

Hi Brad,

An investigating officer cannot responsibly discard a witness account purely on the assumption that the real killer must have come along after the suspect described by that witness had departed.

It was still absolutely imperative for the police to track down the Astrakhan man in order to interview him and "eliminate him from their inquiries", and to do that meant keeping Hutchinson's statement in the frame and using it for potential identity parades etc. As of the 15th November, we learn that the account was "discredited" and subsequent police memoirs, interviews and reports would tend to bear this out. Since you can't "discredit" a witness account on the assumption that the suspect mentioned might not be the killer, it appears that the statement (or at least the Mr. Astrakhan part of it) was discarded for a "better" reason.

All the best,
Ben

Well Ben if you would kindly go to the "Jack the Ripper was" thread you will see that I feel they did track down the man Hutchinson saw and questioned him.

Your friend, Brad