The Absence Of Evidence

[erobitha]

As I see it, there is nothing strange about Schwartz's proposed move.

It's Saturday. It's the end of the week, and it's also the end of the month. That's when people normally move if they are paying rent on a week-to-week or month-to-month basis. They don't want to get stuck paying extra.

The obviously implication is that the Schwartz's were moving at the end of the week/month, but there were complications. Maybe the house they were moving into hadn't been vacated yet, or there was some other hold-up.

Either way, Schwartz still had work or had other important business to attend to, away from the area, and couldn't be in contact with his wife on Saturday. So, away all day, he didn't know whether she had been able to make the move or not. Nothing at all unusual in that. People worked long hours.

Now it's 1 a.m. and Schwartz is walking down Commercial Road, wanting to go home...but he doesn't know where home is. Did his wife make the move or not? He doesn't know.

Despite the common wisdom, I strongly suspect that Schwartz's "new" lodgings were a good distance away. Aldgate? Or was it the other direction Limehouse? Or Mile-End?

Again, we don't know, but not wanting to walk all that way unnecessarily, Schwartz decides to first stop by his "old" lodgings in case his wife hadn't been able to make the move.

These were at 22 Ellen Street. Yes, he turned onto Berner Street, but that was only to get from Commerical Road to Ellen Street, which was just south of Berner.

But, of course, he ran into Jack the Ripper and the rest is history.

In any event, the proposed move was evidently delayed. That's why Swanson still lists Schwartz's address as 22 Helen Street [Ellen Street] at the time of his interview on Sunday night. He was still at his old lodgings.

It's even possible that Schwartz then moved away, and was lost in the bureaucratic shuffle. "**** happens," as they say, and the best witness the Met had was AWOL.

P.S. You mentioned "Sarah Schwartz" of 22 Back Church Lane. Unfortunately, she was almost certainly not related to Israel Schwartz. She came to the UK alone, was headed to America, and had no friends or relatives in London. I am fairly certain she sailed to America a few months after her horrific ordeal, though I still need to confirm it. The 22 Back Church Lane address was long gone by 1888, so it could not be associated with Schwartz.

All fairly normal and above board stuff.

Nothing to question here at all? Saturday is the sabbath - I thought Jews do not traditionally work on the Sabbath? What was he doing exactly?

Nothing more than pure coincidence of 22 Back Church Lane and the attack on Sarah Schwartz three years prior, who actually was Hungarian? I think there is a collage of different stories going on here designed to deliberately confuse.

Then I’m a Maybrickian and in your eyes am no more than a wild fringe theorist.

Schwartz is and was never a reliable witness in my wild fringe theory view. No proof he even existed.

[Joshua Rogan]

P.S. You mentioned "Sarah Schwartz" of 22 Back Church Lane. Unfortunately, she was almost certainly not related to Israel Schwartz. She came to the UK alone, was headed to America, and had no friends or relatives in London. I am fairly certain she sailed to America a few months after her horrific ordeal, though I still need to confirm it. The 22 Back Church Lane address was long gone by 1888, so it could not be associated with Schwartz.

Coincidentally (or not), this and nearby addresses were I think demolished in 1886 to make way for the railway viaduct, beneath which the Pinchin Street torso would later be found in the very arch built over their back yards.

[Wickerman]

Interesting that in the case of Schwartz, it seems no other paper thought the price of a whiskey to be worth paying

We can say that about any story.
It is rare to find a variety of published interviews in the press concerning any witness. It happens, but it's rare.
The intent is to out perform your competitor, not follow in his footsteps.

[Wickerman]

What ya want gov? I've got lots of opinions, so if'n you don't like the first one I can give you another for another!

- Jeff

We do know there was a mandate which dictated the police were not allowed to talk to the press about on-going cases, but as with any such rule it was likely observed more by the upper ranks than those at the bottom.
The persuasive reporter may have cajoled a constable to share some privy information, but how mush would a beat constable really know about the plans at Scotland Yard. I doubt very little.
Also, the mandate only applied to the Met., and we know the City Police had a more amiable relationship with the press.

[rjpalmer]

So Mr Schwartz had apparently gone out all day, all evening, and well into the night, and then detoured into Berner street, just to check if Mrs Schwartz had completed the move she had expected to make. Fascinating!
What does 'expected to move' suggest? Did Mrs Schwartz not only change address on her own, but go house hunting on the day also?
Are we simply to assume that, having run as far as one of the railway arches, Mr Schwartz then cautiously makes his way to the new lodgings, finds his wife there, thus avoiding any need to return to Berner street?
If yes, then we are saying; Israel Schwartz had to check out an address on Berner street at a quarter to one in the morning, but having been chased away from the area, found that he didn't need to go back, oh and, this was occurring right when JtR was putting away another victim, who Schwartz had gone within yards of, right before fleeing the scene.
Is it that seriously what people believe?

As I see it, there is nothing strange about Schwartz's proposed move.

It's Saturday. It's the end of the week, and it's also the end of the month. That's when people normally move if they are paying rent on a week-to-week or month-to-month basis. They don't want to get stuck paying extra.

The obviously implication is that the Schwartz's were moving at the end of the week/month, but there were complications. Maybe the house they were moving into hadn't been vacated yet, or there was some other hold-up.

Either way, Schwartz still had work or had other important business to attend to, away from the area, and couldn't be in contact with his wife on Saturday. So, away all day, he didn't know whether she had been able to make the move or not. Nothing at all unusual in that. People worked long hours.

Now it's 1 a.m. and Schwartz is walking down Commercial Road, wanting to go home...but he doesn't know where home is. Did his wife make the move or not? He doesn't know.

Despite the common wisdom, I strongly suspect that Schwartz's "new" lodgings were a good distance away. Aldgate? Or was it the other direction Limehouse? Or Mile-End?

Again, we don't know, but not wanting to walk all that way unnecessarily, Schwartz decides to first stop by his "old" lodgings in case his wife hadn't been able to make the move.

These were at 22 Ellen Street. Yes, he turned onto Berner Street, but that was only to get from Commerical Road to Ellen Street, which was just south of Berner.

But, of course, he ran into Jack the Ripper and the rest is history.

In any event, the proposed move was evidently delayed. That's why Swanson still lists Schwartz's address as 22 Helen Street [Ellen Street] at the time of his interview on Sunday night. He was still at his old lodgings.

It's even possible that Schwartz then moved away, and was lost in the bureaucratic shuffle. "**** happens," as they say, and the best witness the Met had was AWOL.

P.S. You mentioned "Sarah Schwartz" of 22 Back Church Lane. Unfortunately, she was almost certainly not related to Israel Schwartz. She came to the UK alone, was headed to America, and had no friends or relatives in London. I am fairly certain she sailed to America a few months after her horrific ordeal, though I still need to confirm it. The 22 Back Church Lane address was long gone by 1888, so it could not be associated with Schwartz.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Absolutely, who knows what a beat constable might share for the price of a whiskey.

Interesting that in the case of Schwartz, it seems no other paper thought the price of a whiskey to be worth paying

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Taking the "French Colonel" route, now? We know he (LeGrand) sold his information about Matthew Packer to the Evening News. So not a stretch, really.

Not a Ripper route, a behind the scenes character. We already know that to be true, in one respect.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No, we can always nit-pick over any given decision, the fact remains the story of an important witness will not be forwarded to the court if the police are still investigating it.

Pall Mall Gazette, Oct 20:

No person is under detention at either of the police-stations. The house-to-house search is completed, and has led to no discovery of any value.

Give the above, and the absence of Pipeman from the Police Gazette of the 19th, I just cannot believe that by the 23rd, resources are still being poured into searching for Schwartz' first man.

She didn't see the victim assaulted, so her story wouldn't be subject to investigation.

Okay

The witness Brown provided what happened at 12:45. Whether we today agree with that (I don't) is immaterial to Baxter's mandate.

Are you saying that the inquest would have regarded Brown's testimony as making an appearance by Schwartz, redundant?
If yes, does redundant imply misleading, as in false evidence?

A statement given to police is not taken under oath, but if a witness is expected to present themselves in a court of law and offer evidence that may be used to identify an attacker, then the police should make every effort to establish the story of the witness.
Once the witness appears in court the testimony they give is under oath, so is important that they speak the truth.
It is the responsibility of the police to forward their statement to the coroner, so they bear a degree of responsibility as to it's viability.

You are suggesting they abdicate their responsibility, but on what grounds?

[Just to make clear, this reasoning is not based on any written law. It's my opinion, and of course others may disagree. The alternative is to suggest the police bear no responsibility in the information they hand to the courts, and in consequence may result in the condemnation of an innocent man]

In the case of Schwartz, these specific and general points would seem to add up the police taking responsibility:

Statement given to duty inspector
Extensive interview by Abberline
Publicised suspect descriptions
Many arrests, including some related to the incident
Distribution of thousands of pamphlets
Door-to-door house search

Not the same at all, no conclusion was necessary in that example. All Anderson was referring to is the fact that a comprehensive report is normally done at the conclusion of an investigation, not at any point midway through.

Okay fine. It's just that the Home Office got what they wanted, so I assumed the coroner might have too.

Andrew, I just want to clarify something here. The police view witnesses in different ways to the coroner.
The entire police effort is directed towards a trial (not an inquest), what they want to see is a viable witness who can assist the prosecution in a conviction.
My argument is based on the view that the police saw Schwartz as an obvious choice to assist a prosecution in a future trial, so his story, outside of all the rest that day, was a must for investigation.
The fact their process, due to the time it took, may have impeded the inquest was of no concern to the police.

Okay, but surely the police would take an interest in the inquest?
For example, Anderson's reference to the evidence given by Schwartz, at the inquest. Or is that not a good example?

[JeffHamm]

Absolutely, who knows what a beat constable might share for the price of a whiskey.

What ya want gov? I've got lots of opinions, so if'n you don't like the first one I can give you another for another!

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Yes, and of course, there's also the fact that the simple process someone leaking information is not exactly a new creation.

- Jeff

Absolutely, who knows what a beat constable might share for the price of a whiskey.

[JeffHamm]

Police stations back then were not always purpose built facilities, more often they were converted houses. So, the ground level would be three or four small rooms. During the Ripper scare reporters would often sit around the station waiting for the next big lead in the case. If reporters were not in conversation with the duty constables, then alternately they were in a position to overhear orders or directions being given. So an alert reporter could pick up on something spoken between the staff quite easily.
Trivia similar to this can be picked up from a few books like Jack the Ripper and the London Press, Curtis.
There's a host of similar books that give a good insight to how the press functioned in the late Victorian period.

Yes, and of course, there's also the fact that the simple process someone leaking information is not exactly a new creation.

- Jeff

[jerryd]

Re 'The Hungarian' in The Star



If that unscrupulous character had been a certain career criminal who was in the habit of writing letters in red ink, and the Star man were Fred Best or Tom Bullen, what might it be reasonable to suppose?

Grand work the last job was

Taking the "French Colonel" route, now? We know he (LeGrand) sold his information about Matthew Packer to the Evening News. So not a stretch, really.

[Wickerman]

...

Yet this does not explain how the tipster got the inside information about Schwartz' visit to Leman street.

Police stations back then were not always purpose built facilities, more often they were converted houses. So, the ground level would be three or four small rooms. During the Ripper scare reporters would often sit around the station waiting for the next big lead in the case. If reporters were not in conversation with the duty constables, then alternately they were in a position to overhear orders or directions being given. So an alert reporter could pick up on something spoken between the staff quite easily.
Trivia similar to this can be picked up from a few books like Jack the Ripper and the London Press, Curtis.
There's a host of similar books that give a good insight to how the press functioned in the late Victorian period.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Re 'The Hungarian' in The Star

If we assume the police did not disclose his name and address, there seems two ways the Star man could have ended up speaking to him:

One: Schwartz went to the press (with an interpreter), of his own accord - just like Goldstein and Wess did

Two: The Star man was tipped off, and managed to track Schwartz down.

The second sounds closer to 'ran him to earth'. So in that case the interpreter at hand would seem to be good luck for the reporter ... unless he came prepared.
Yet this does not explain how the tipster got the inside information about Schwartz' visit to Leman street.
So perhaps back to option one ... unless someone is getting inside information from the police, breaching confidentiality, and maybe making a quid out of the Star. So who might that unscrupulous character have been?

If that unscrupulous character had been a certain career criminal who was in the habit of writing letters in red ink, and the Star man were Fred Best or Tom Bullen, what might it be reasonable to suppose?

Grand work the last job was

[Wickerman]

Andrew, I just want to clarify something here. The police view witnesses in different ways to the coroner.
The entire police effort is directed towards a trial (not an inquest), what they want to see is a viable witness who can assist the prosecution in a conviction.
My argument is based on the view that the police saw Schwartz as an obvious choice to assist a prosecution in a future trial, so his story, outside of all the rest that day, was a must for investigation.
The fact their process, due to the time it took, may have impeded the inquest was of no concern to the police.