With regards to Schwartz, and the police view of him.
I think the following report from Sir Charles Warren, stamped as received at the Home Office on the 7 Nov, 1888, and dated by him as 6th of Nov, 1888, clearly indicates the police had not dismissed him. While his report erroneously does state that Schwartz gave evidence at the inquest, I think this clearly reflects an error that could not have been made if the Police had culled him from attending, and rather reflects the fact they were expecting him to have been there. I suspect he's put inquest when he's really referring to Schwartz's interview. Notwithstanding that, I don't think he could have put inquest if the police had rejected Schwartz entirely, as is being suggested.
This report can be found on page 135 of "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion" by Evans and Skinner (in my hard back copy; it's the end of chapter 7, just before chapter 8 covering the Stride inquest.) I've tried to include the various indents, though not to the exact spacing, and it's possible I've introduced some typos, but this is the report in its entirety. - Sigh, once I hit post, all my lovely spacing has been removed. I'll reindent with full stops.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidential
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Whitehall Place, S.W.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6th November, 1888.
Sir,
With reference to your letter of the 29th ulto. I have to acquaint you, for
the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the
evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the
name "Lipski", which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting
the woman in Berners [sic] Street on the night of the murder, was not
addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself. It appears that
since the Lipski case it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or
speaking of Jews.
With regard to the latter portion of your letter I have to state that
searching enquiries were made by an officer in Aberdeen Place, St. John's
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 did reside with her son at No. 20, but left that address to go
abroad about two years ago.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I am,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sir,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Your most obedient Servant,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. Warren
The Under
Secretary of State,
&c. &c. &c.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, we know Schwartz didn't attend, and if the police had dropped him and were no longer of the belief his story was remotely true, there is no way Warren would have bothered to explain the interpretation of Lipski, nor would he make an error that suggests that Schwartz testified at the inquest. The inquest was held over a month prior to this report. If the police had dismissed Schwartz, his report would have detailed that belief, rather than explain how "Lipski" was used at that time - what would be the point?
- Jeff
I think the following report from Sir Charles Warren, stamped as received at the Home Office on the 7 Nov, 1888, and dated by him as 6th of Nov, 1888, clearly indicates the police had not dismissed him. While his report erroneously does state that Schwartz gave evidence at the inquest, I think this clearly reflects an error that could not have been made if the Police had culled him from attending, and rather reflects the fact they were expecting him to have been there. I suspect he's put inquest when he's really referring to Schwartz's interview. Notwithstanding that, I don't think he could have put inquest if the police had rejected Schwartz entirely, as is being suggested.
This report can be found on page 135 of "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion" by Evans and Skinner (in my hard back copy; it's the end of chapter 7, just before chapter 8 covering the Stride inquest.) I've tried to include the various indents, though not to the exact spacing, and it's possible I've introduced some typos, but this is the report in its entirety. - Sigh, once I hit post, all my lovely spacing has been removed. I'll reindent with full stops.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidential
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Whitehall Place, S.W.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6th November, 1888.
Sir,
With reference to your letter of the 29th ulto. I have to acquaint you, for
the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the
evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the
name "Lipski", which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting
the woman in Berners [sic] Street on the night of the murder, was not
addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself. It appears that
since the Lipski case it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or
speaking of Jews.
With regard to the latter portion of your letter I have to state that
searching enquiries were made by an officer in Aberdeen Place, St. John's
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 did reside with her son at No. 20, but left that address to go
abroad about two years ago.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I am,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sir,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Your most obedient Servant,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. Warren
The Under
Secretary of State,
&c. &c. &c.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, we know Schwartz didn't attend, and if the police had dropped him and were no longer of the belief his story was remotely true, there is no way Warren would have bothered to explain the interpretation of Lipski, nor would he make an error that suggests that Schwartz testified at the inquest. The inquest was held over a month prior to this report. If the police had dismissed Schwartz, his report would have detailed that belief, rather than explain how "Lipski" was used at that time - what would be the point?
- Jeff
Comment