Jack The Ripper - Mark Whitehead [22]
Schwartz did not know whether the two men knew each other but felt that, because of this exchange, they did. He described the first man as about 30, 5 feet 5 inches tall, of fair complexion with dark hair and a small brown moustache. He was full faced and broad shouldered with a dark jacket and trousers, wearing a black, peaked cap.The second man was taller, about 5 feet 11 inches, and about 35 years old. His hair and moustache were light brown. He wore a dark overcoat and an old black hard felt hat with a wide brim. Given that Stride was dead fifteen minutes later, Schwartz’s report was widely accepted by the police as being a glimpse of the killer.The phrase used by the man was much discussed by the police. Swanson felt that ‘Lipski’ implied that the killer was Jewish. This was read the same way by the Home Office, who assumed that he was addressing the second man as ‘Lipski’, implying that, not only was the killer a Jew, but also that he had a Jewish accomplice.
Inspector Abberline, with his knowledge of the area, reversed this theory entirely. He pointed out that the previous year Israel Lipski had been hanged for the murder of a Jewish woman. Since then, his surname had been used as an insulting epithet to Jews in the East End. Other possibilities suggested are that the man used it as a verb (i.e. ‘I am going to “Lipski” this woman’ – although, as Lipski actually used poison, this seems a little tenuous) or, as Philip Sugden suggests, it was used to disguise the identity of the second man and, as with the Goulston Street graffito, to imply that Jews were behind the Whitechapel murders.
Despite the seeming importance of Schwartz’s evidence there is no record of him ever testifying at Stride’s inquest. Although all of Baxter’s inquest papers into the Ripper’s victims are missing, no press reports carry Schwartz’s testimony. One of Dr Robert Anderson’s memos during the police debate over the meaning of ‘Lipski’ mentions that he did testify. If this wasn’t an error on Anderson’s part then it suggests that the newspapers withheld reporting his evidence on the grounds that it might, once more, inflame anti-Semitic feeling. Wynne Baxter was notably thorough in hearing all evidence and the police would certainly have been acting unlawfully to have kept Schwartz from attending. Given the haste to erase the Goulston Street graffito, this wouldn’t be entirely out of the question.
The statement of Mrs Fanny Mortimer, through inaccurate reporting, brings us the most enduring Ripper myth. In her statement, she mentions ‘the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from Commercial Road’. The man, Leon Goldstein, voluntarily reported to Leman Street police station to clear himself. His bag contained empty cigarette boxes. However, connected with Bagster Phillips’ speculation that the killer might be a doctor, the black bag fixed itself in the public consciousness and has remained there ever since.
Elizabeth Stride’s post-mortem was conducted at St George’s Mortuary by both Dr Blackwell and Dr Phillips. Phillips noted that the throat wound bore signs of having been inflicted by a short, probably blunt, blade, like a shoe-maker’s knife. No other injuries were found. There was some bluish discoloration to both shoulders, pressure marks, which suggested that Stride had been forced to the ground. Her left ear lobe had been torn at some previous juncture, but had long since healed over. Phillips found no trace of narcotics or anaesthetic in her stomach.
The post-mortem did raise one or two interesting differences between