Jack The Ripper Forums  - Ripperology For The 21st Century  

Go Back   Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century > The Victims > Elizabeth Stride

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 12th, 2013, 11:08 PM   #11
Tom_Wescott
Researcher and Award Winning Author
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Tulsa, Ok. USA
Posts: 5,182
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cris Malone View Post
Curiously, Swanson never mentions Brown in his HO report on the Stride murder.
I'm not surprised by that. His report was written for a specific audience...his superiors...an as such it was slanted that way, so it looks like they've done a lot and found out a lot. That's why he compares the Met evidence against the City evidence (Lawene, etc) and concludes the Met is superior. The idea that police reports are unbiased, dry recitations of pure fact is really a bit of naive fantasy on our part. And that's no stab against the police, it's just reality, because then and now they're a corporation as any other. If you have bosses, you have to please said bosses.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
Tom_Wescott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2013, 07:03 AM   #12
Lynn Cates
Researcher & Author
 
Lynn Cates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,239
Default yes

Hello Paul. Thanks. Yes, and that seems to be part of the problem at Leman st.

Cheers.
LC
Lynn Cates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2013, 07:05 AM   #13
Lynn Cates
Researcher & Author
 
Lynn Cates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,239
Default new

Hello Adam. Schwartz possibly lying? What a novel concept! (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC
Lynn Cates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2013, 07:06 AM   #14
Lynn Cates
Researcher & Author
 
Lynn Cates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,239
Default I beg to report.

Hello Tom.

"The idea that police reports are unbiased, dry recitations of pure fact is really a bit of naive fantasy on our part. And that's no stab against the police, it's just reality, because then and now they're a corporation as any other. If you have bosses, you have to please said bosses."

Quite.

Cheers.
LC
Lynn Cates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2013, 10:51 PM   #15
Adam Went
Researcher
 
Adam Went's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,551
Default

Hi all,

Cris, aside from what Tom mentions, essentially James Brown's testimony is that "I didn't see anything." The majority of the focus will always be on witnesses who saw something - in the Stride case, Schwartz and Diemschutz.

Just like in the Eddowes case, Joseph Hyam Levy and Harry Harris are far more obscure than Joseph Lawende, simply because of the volume of their testimony.

Cheers,
Adam.
Adam Went is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2013, 12:02 AM   #16
Cris Malone
Historian
 
Cris Malone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Jackson, Tennessee
Posts: 2,441
Default

I agree with you, Adam. Brown's description was vague. He didn't even know if the man was wearing a hat. Putting Brown's statement into the Home Office report would have added nothing tangible - rather confusion about the timings of Brown and Schwartz's encounters.

I don't know if I'd agree that Swanson was necessarily trying to put the Met and its investigation in the best light, but he certainly knew who he was dealing with. The Lipski comments caused enough of a ruckus that Swanson or Anderson brought Abberline directly into the situation to clarify what was actually interpreted from Schwartz by the detective who interviewed him.

Warren had a specific reason for picking Swanson to represent the Central Office in this investigation. Swanson was an experienced detective who was good at sifting through information and finding what was relevant and what should be discarded. This was what was needed at a time when the investigation was rapidly expanding. He was also one of the few senior officials who had not involved himself in the internal feud that had existed within the CID at the time - someone who was able to work with all parties concerned, from the various division officers to the often vacillating officials at the Home Office, and even the ambitious patronage appointed officials directly above him.
__________________
Best Wishes,
Cris Malone
______________________________________________
"Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."
Cris Malone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2013, 11:12 PM   #17
Adam Went
Researcher
 
Adam Went's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,551
Default

Hi Cris,

Spot on about James Brown. His description was vague, his times were vague, and in all likelihood the couple he described weren't of any interest - just people in the wrong area at the wrong time. As you say, it would only have added confusion.

The "Lipski!" sledge is an interesting one - there has been some suggestions over the years that it might infact have been heard/interpreted incorrectly by the non-English speaking Schwartz, and in fact something else was being said. Even Schwartz himself could not say for sure who it was directed at.

Personally I think it probably was "Lipski" but the door is ajar for other possibilities with that.

Cheers,
Adam.
Adam Went is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2013, 12:55 AM   #18
Tom_Wescott
Researcher and Award Winning Author
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Tulsa, Ok. USA
Posts: 5,182
Default

Hi Cris,

Swanson was a Yes Man. That's why he got the post.

Adam and Cris,

As for James Brown, he was 'almost positive' that he saw Stride. That's hardly tantamount to "I didn't see anything". In fact, it's one of the most honest answers we see and yet because he's honest, many researchers completely disregard him. The other reason people disregard him is that they don't do their research and continue to think there was a couple standing at that corner at 12:45 when there was not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
Tom_Wescott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2013, 02:52 AM   #19
Monty
---- ---
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cris Malone View Post

I don't know if I'd agree that Swanson was necessarily trying to put the Met and its investigation in the best light, but he certainly knew who he was dealing with. The Lipski comments caused enough of a ruckus that Swanson or Anderson brought Abberline directly into the situation to clarify what was actually interpreted from Schwartz by the detective who interviewed him.

Warren had a specific reason for picking Swanson to represent the Central Office in this investigation. Swanson was an experienced detective who was good at sifting through information and finding what was relevant and what should be discarded. This was what was needed at a time when the investigation was rapidly expanding. He was also one of the few senior officials who had not involved himself in the internal feud that had existed within the CID at the time - someone who was able to work with all parties concerned, from the various division officers to the often vacillating officials at the Home Office, and even the ambitious patronage appointed officials directly above him.
Absolutely Cris,

His track record dismisses Toms claim of a mere yes man. His ability in identifying pertinent evidence amongst a wealth of information runs through his work, whilst, looking at the surving personal material and family recollections, his methodical and organised manner spills into his private world also.

There was no better man for the job in CID at the time, he had all the credentials.

Monty


PS Feud Cris? Can you be more specific.
Monty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2013, 10:50 AM   #20
Cris Malone
Historian
 
Cris Malone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Jackson, Tennessee
Posts: 2,441
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
PS Feud Cris? Can you be more specific.
I probably could have used a better term than 'feud' but I was referring to the rather open conflagration between Warren and Monro that started with the 'Section D' controversy. While the uniformed branch of the Met seemed to stand behind Warren, the CID was caught in the middle. Swanson had been through such stuff before (such as the turf fraud scandal and the Jenkins episode.) He steered clear of any controversies and just did his job. As you know, it was the lot of a career policeman to have that career often in the hands of appointed senior officials who came and went, and sometimes had difficulties with each other. Even in his personal letters, Swanson was restrained in his judgment toward others. It was his character to give people a nudge instead of a push. And in the often fluid situation of a bureaucracy ran by men with strong ambitions this was a rare asset for someone who wanted to remain effective and climb the rather rigid latter that was in place at the time.

Ironically, Warren and Monro worked together at first to streamline CID and actually make the Central Office more effective at command and control of the investigative branch of the department. That's why experienced detectives like Swanson and Abberline were brought into CO and the number of inspectors across the board was increased. The creation of Chief Constable of CID was part of this and both Warren and Monro agreed upon the necessity of such a position. They just didn't agree on who was to fill that position. Warren wanted an experienced policeman and Monro wanted one of his buddies with no experience. And ironically, Monro would eventually succumb to the same difficulties that Warren faced.

This is off topic for this thread but needs to be clarified. Swanson was an experienced and effective investigator who was also able to work within a system that was volatile at times. That this second trait of his is seen as being a 'yes man' is unfortunate. Instead, he was just trying to get a job done in spite of the imperfections of that very system and knew how best to do it.

Many Ripperologists have viewed Swanson through the prism of Robert Anderson and the working relationship the two developed. There are many other aspects of Swanson's career and character that remain virtually unknown by most - even though he was probably the most central figure in it all. That is about to change.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
__________________
Best Wishes,
Cris Malone
______________________________________________
"Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."
Cris Malone is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When The Killer Left Berner Street Howard Brown Elizabeth Stride 9 November 28th, 2016 05:18 PM
Liz Stride: Reasons For Her Presence On Berner Street Howard Brown The Crime Scenes 1 February 24th, 2010 06:59 PM
A Matter Of Timing- Berner Street & Witness Time Howard Brown The Crime Scenes 11 February 10th, 2010 08:22 PM
Packer - Was He A Witness? Part II DAVE YOST Howard Brown Elizabeth Stride 0 January 5th, 2010 06:16 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10 Beta 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright @ Howard & Nina Brown 2015-2022