BillyE’s Jack the Ripper: Fact and Fiction

     Welcome back, reader(s?) 

     For my first post about Jack the Ripper I thought I should talk about an aspect of the case itself.  So I’ve decided to touch upon the suspect identification at the seaside home.  There is a bit of confusion as to who the witness called to the seaside home was.  The most common candidates are Israel Schwartz and Joseph Lawende.  Lawende is usually discounted because he was used to identify the suspect in the Francis Coles murder.  Why would he be called to identify the murderer of Coles as Jack the Ripper when he’d already been called to the seaside home to identify the same killer?  As a result of this argument most Ripperologists turn their attention to Israel Schwartz.

     If it was Schwartz who was called to the seaside home to identify Jack the Ripper Sir Robert Anderson, head of the Criminal Investigation Division and Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, as well as his assistant, Chief Inspector Donald Sutherland Swanson must have believed the killer of Elizabeth Stride was Jack the Ripper.  It was the assault on Stride that Schwartz was witness to, before the assailent’s cry of “Lipski” (a popular slur of Jews of the day) caused Schwartz to rush off.  I’ll leave the debate of whether Elizabeth Stride was a true victim of Jack the Ripper till another post of this blog.

     If, indeed, Schwartz was Anderson’s witness there are two possibilities, from which many scenarios may have played out.  Either Schwartz was there to identify the attacker of Liz Stride (broad-shouldered man), or he was there to identify the accomplice.  If he were there to identify the killer, then Anderson and Swanson believed a man named (Aaron?) Kosminski was Jack the Ripper.  That being the case Schwartz identified Kosminski as the attacker of Liz Stride, and possibly Jack the Ripper himself.

     If Schwartz had been brought in to identify Kosminski as the accomplice, Kosminski would be a vital link to capturing Jack the Ripper, but it is clear through the Swanson marginalia of Anderson’s memoir that they believed Kosminski to have been the attacker, and therefore Jack the Ripper.  However due to a language barrier Schwartz might not have understood this.  I’m thinking Schwartz’s knowlege of English was limited, and Anderson’s/Swanson’s knowlege of both Hebrew and Yiddish were non-existant.  If Anderson/Swanson brought him in to identify the attacker and Schwartz thought he was brought in to identify the accomplice it could lead to the confusion we have today.

     I believe it is most likely Schwartz could not identify the attacker.  Since Schwartz was across the street from the attack, and the attacker had his back to the street, the only time Schwartz could have seen the attacker’s face was when he turned to shout “Lipski,” and this would likely only be half the face, not to mention the poor lighting that would have been in the area.  I doubt Schwartz could have seen any part of his face.  The man who walked after Schwartz, whom many think may have been an accomplice, was also across the street, but not very far from Schwartz, and would have eventually walked under a lamp post, and given Schwartz a greater chance to have seen his face.  The fact he walked after Schwartz does not prove he was an accomplice.  He may have been fleeing from the “Lipski” slur the same as Schwartz.  Even Schwartz himself couldn’t exclude this idea.  He said he wasn’t sure if the man was working with the attacker or running away from him the same as Schwartz himself was.  I find it more likely Schwartz would have been able to identify this man, than “broad-shouldered man” who attacked Stride. 

     If Schwartz was identifying a possible accomplice, and Anderson/Swanson thought he was identifying the attacker they would feel he was positively identifying Jack the Ripper, which explains Swanson’s line in Anderson’s memoir “Kosminski was the suspect.”  When Anderson told Schwartz this information would send Kosminski to the gallows Schwartz refused to give testimony against Kosminski, not wanting the death of a fellow Jew on his conscience, especially at gentile justice.  And if, indeed, Kosminski was just trying to escape from the “Lipski” slur he would have been just as innocent as Schwartz of being Jack the Ripper!  It is really only because of the Swanson marginalia and his inclusion in McNaughton’s memorandum we even consider Kosminski as a suspect, and it’s likely McNaughton got Kosminski’s name from Anderson. 

     You’ll likely notice there are a lot of “ifs” in this entry.  Were the situation that played out at the seaside home had been better recorded there would have been far fewer “ifs” in the post you’re reading.  But such is the playing field in the game of “Find Jack the Ripper.”  Well, that’s my thoughts.  What are yours?