The Absence Of Evidence

[Wickerman]

If it were further police investigation that uncovered the fabrication, then who should be embarrassed?
Yet if it were embarrassing, is that not more reason to suppose the police can manipulate the witness list, by deliberately delaying the finalisation of reports that they anticipate might come back to bite them?

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.

Also, how does Mary Malcolm rate on the embarrassment scale?

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

Resolved what issue? Why not have Schwartz appear on the 23rd?

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

Even if it were ambiguous, and the report is not finalised, is there not a mechanism for the police giving the coroner the existing evidence, such as Schwartz' original statement to the police at Leman street, or notes of Abberline's interview? Why can't the police just give Baxter what they have at the time?

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]

Would that not be equivalent to the Home Office demanding a report, which Anderson feels is inappropriate at the time, but that Scotland Yard produced anyway?

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'd prefer to say that I think he passed the club after Eagle returned and before Schwartz & BS man arrived.

So what are you current timings for Smith? Something like 12:42:30-1:10:00?

Is this sequence therefore correct ...

Eagle returns but presumably does not see Stride with parcel man
Smith passes and does see them
Schwartz incident with Stride initially alone and parcel man absent
Mortimer on doorstep seeing nothing unusual

That would seem to be incompatible with ...

It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so.

... in regard to clock time and order of events.
On the other hand, leave out the Schwartz incident and it becomes a close match.

For instance, the Daily Telegraph of 2 October: "What did you do with the pony? - I left it in the yard by itself, just outside the club door." I'm presuming that this was the same door that Eagle called the "side door", "back door" and "club door".

I meant someone other than Diemschitz

No, it seems that he heard Diemshutz just after he left the yard.

Does he go off with alone, with Isaacs, or someone else?

[FrankO]

I believe you put Smith's passing at 12:40, whereas I'd go back a tiny bit - 12:38 or 39.

I'd prefer to say that I think he passed the club after Eagle returned and before Schwartz & BS man arrived.

By the way, we seem to have erred about Eagle returning to the club from home (4 New Road).

I'm speaking for myself, but, seeing that Eagle saw his girl home before returning to the club and presuming that this wasn't 4 New Road, I was very carefull to say: An interesting thing is that Eagle lived at no. 4 New Road, which is just on the northern side of Commercial Street. Walking from his home to the club would have taken him right past PC 426 H, who would have been on duty at the corner of Grove Street & Commercial Street from 5 pm. Even if he didn’t pass that corner earlier on that particular evening, I’m sure he would have past it on several other occasions walking to the club or back home and it seems quite unlikely that he wouldn't have known about the fixed-point PC on that particular corner.

This seems reasonable, but isn't all the flailing around one reason we should suppose the search was indeed the extended one reported in multiple papers, rather than the much shorter theoretical one?

Not for me. This is the way I see it. The more time there was between Diemshutz running out of the yard in search of a PC and Eagle running out of the yard, the longer the total search would have taken. And, subsequently, the longer it took Eagle before he went in Ayliffe's direction, the more time it would add to the whole search.

Whatever the case, Eagle did not leave for the station immediately...

I never said he did or must have, although I don't think it took minutes before Lamb sent him away or before he left the yard again. A minute, but only maybe...

Can you point to a single witness statement, that implies or agrees with Diemschitz claim to have left pony & cart outside the side door?

For instance, the Daily Telegraph of 2 October: "What did you do with the pony? - I left it in the yard by itself, just outside the club door." I'm presuming that this was the same door that Eagle called the "side door", "back door" and "club door".

Do you mean that Eagle heard Diemschitz on his return from Grove street?

No, it seems that he heard Diemshutz just after he left the yard.

The EN quote of Eagle says; Later on I went over the same ground with Diemschitz.

I think that's a mistake. At least the Daily News has it like this: "I went over the same ground as Diemschitz did later on"

If Smith were at Gower's Walk at 1am, what time would he reach the top of Berner street?

A few minutes later.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

True, but that only refers to complete statements. Can you imagine the embarrassment by the police if they handed the coroner a story that turned out to have been a fabrication?

If it were further police investigation that uncovered the fabrication, then who should be embarrassed?
Yet if it were embarrassing, is that not more reason to suppose the police can manipulate the witness list, by deliberately delaying the finalisation of reports that they anticipate might come back to bite them?
Also, how does Mary Malcolm rate on the embarrassment scale?

This was important, the witness claimed to see the victim assaulted and potentially, saw the killer.
Swanson would know this witness was what the police would need for any subsequent future trial, so 'this' witness had to be investigated. Whereas a handful of others might be accepted at face value.
That said, it would only have been about 5 days. The report could have been complete by the 5th or 6th, but the inquest had resolved the issue by then.

Resolved what issue? Why not have Schwartz appear on the 23rd?

It wasn't critical though, people make two back-to-back statements using only one preposition (if) all the time.
It's just in this case it could be ambiguous.

There's another paragraph written by Swanson that does not quite flow as it should. In that case (Chapman) he is comparing witness testimonies of Richardson, Dr Phillips, Mrs Long, and the time of death.
The paragraph begins:
"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips...." (pg 68, Ultimate)
Here he says if Phillips is correct, then Richardson must be wrong, but he was thoroughly investigated. Then again, if Mrs Long is correct then Phillips must be wrong, but we only have his opinion so Mrs Long must be wrong...."
It just doesn't flow right.

Even if it were ambiguous, and the report is not finalised, is there not a mechanism for the police giving the coroner the existing evidence, such as Schwartz' original statement to the police at Leman street, or notes of Abberline's interview? Why can't the police just give Baxter what they have at the time?
Would that not be equivalent to the Home Office demanding a report, which Anderson feels is inappropriate at the time, but that Scotland Yard produced anyway?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Well Andrew, you took me by surprise with that, primarily because several posters over the years have looked for clues that might suggest the coroner was in some way aware of Schwartz's story.

However, I should point out that the exchange you quoted took place on Monday 5th, whereas the story by Schwartz was published by the Star on the 1st. So the foreman could have learned about the scuffle from the newspaper story.
Although, it is true that the story in the Star did not include the line "thrown to the ground", what we read there is "pushed her back". But, in the Echo of the same date we do read "...was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground".

So did the foreman read the story in the Echo, which prompted the question?

Alternately, back on the 2nd, Dr Blackwell was questioned on the issue of when the throat was cut. His response was to suggest "the throat might have been cut when she was falling..."

So either possibility may have led to the foreman's question.

The Echo story (and equivalents) do not place the throw down incident at the gates of Dutfield's Yard. Nor do they give a time.
If the individual who was responsible for that statement had witnessed it say, from the pub corner, and had given a time of about a quarter to one, then why do they not make an appearance at the inquest?
Why does Spooner not mention the chase?
If the 'chase' consisted of Louis 'chasing' Isaacs, then there was no real chase. So then the Schwartz account is at least partially false.

Back to the foreman's question. By associating the thrown down with the unlikelihood of holding onto the cachous, I think we have strong evidence that the foreman, and probably both Baxter and Phillips, new of the Schwartz incident, as told by Schwartz.
They seem to be giving it the thumbs down, yet the Echo/Star/People reports tell us that there was a throw down incident at some point.
It would seem Schwartz got it right to that extent, except for the time and place.
Then how did Wess - who supposedly has no association with Schwartz - get the same time and place as Schwartz, in the 'man pursued' report, and reiterate that time a few days later, in their own paper?
Seems we are missing an important piece of the puzzle.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Indeed, it does. The way I see it, is that Mrs. Diemshutz was just telling that the last person to enter by the side door did so at around 20 minutes before the discovery of the body and that she’d heard nothing in the yard between this person’s arrival and the discovery of the body. So, I think Lave went outside and inside again before Eagle arrived.

Let's say Lave entered at 12:38, and Eagle at 12:40.
I believe you put Smith's passing at 12:40, whereas I'd go back a tiny bit - 12:38 or 39. Echo, Oct 1:

Baxter: Did you a pass up the middle of the gateway?
Eagle: Yes. It was rather dark at the time, and I cannot say for certain whether there was anything there or not. Neither do I remember whether I met any one in Berner-street or in the yard. Had there been any one in the yard, however, I should have remembered it.

So Eagle might have met someone or ones on Berner street, just before entering the side door of the club at 12:40.
Now who might that have been?

By the way, we seem to have erred about Eagle returning to the club from home (4 New Road). EN, Oct 1:

I frequent the club. I went into it about 12.40 on this night that you are asking me about, which was about 20 minutes before the body was discovered. I had been in the club before that evening, and had left the premises at midnight in order to see my girl home, with whom I was keeping company. I saw my sweetheart to the door of the house where she was living, and then walked back to the club through little small streets. On my way I saw nothing to excite my attention. There were numbers of persons about of both sexes, and several prostitutes; but there are always a lot of people in the streets, and they are generally very lively at this time of night. I can swear that there was nothing in the streets to arouse my suspicions or the suspicions of any other man in his senses. After seeing my girl home, I went back to the club in Berner-street. The front door was closed, so I went round to the back door on the left-hand side. Later on I went over the same ground with Diemschitz. There is nothing unusual in members of the club going in to the club by the side door; in fact, we often do so, when we go in to the club late at night, so as to prevent the knocking at the door, which might be a nuisance to the neighbours. There is no light of any sort in the yard, though there are lights in the street, as there are in every other street. In the club we had a rare good time. We were singing songs and all that sort of thing. Then there was a sudden scare among us; Diemschitz came in and said a woman had been murdered outside. I ran into the yard immediately and I saw in the yard a stream of blood. There was a general hue and cry for the police. I an others went off to find the officers, so I had no opportunity of seeing the body. Besides, I did not want to look at it, as those sights make me feel ill.

I'm afraid my answer is: no one that we know of.

Be afraid Frank, be very afraid

My take is that the members of the public who were involved in the direct aftermath of the discovery of the body, would have been very agitated by seeing a woman with her throat cut and all the blood right next to their club or so close to where they lived. And that would have had a direct influence on their thinking and memories in the sense that they may not have been able to think as straight as they normally would, nor that their memories would have recorded everything as well as they normally would. This would certainly explain why Eagle may have turned left on the top of Berner Street instead of turning right and directly to Ayliffe or why Diemshutz went looking for a PC in Fairclough Street instead of in Commercial Street.

Besides all of this, they couldn't know where Lamb, Smith or Collins would approximately be the moment they went looking for a PC.

This seems reasonable, but isn't all the flailing around one reason we should suppose the search was indeed the extended one reported in multiple papers, rather than the much shorter theoretical one?

I don’t see it as odd. There’s nothing to suggest that Eagle didn’t know the area. In fact, as you say, Eagle being a traveller, even suggests that he would have been familiar with the area.

But if he didn’t know where the station was, he could have asked Lamb. It wouldn’t have been difficult to (explain how to) find it. The police station was 3 left turns from the yard going via Commercial Street and 1 right turn, 1 left turn and 2 right turns via Hooper Street.

Whatever the case, Eagle did not leave for the station immediately...

Eagle: There were lots of people present in the yard at the time we returned. One of the constables said to his companion, "Go for a doctor," and turning to me he said, "Go to the police-station for the inspector."
Baxter: Did anyone appear to be touching the body?
Eagle: The policeman touched the body; not those standing close by. The people seemed afraid to go near it.

Besides – again - if Eagle ran at 3 m/s instead of 2 he would have covered the 610 to the station in less than 3 and a half minutes, leaving enough room to take 1 or 2 wrong turns.

Unless he stopped on the way to catch his breath

Of course, anything is possible - but why wouldn’t Diemshutz have entered by the side door? He had his pony parked just outside this door and according to Eagle the front door was closed, which is why he entered the club by the side door at about 12.40, and it was also customary for members of the club to go in by the side door to prevent knocking at the front.

Can you point to a single witness statement, that implies or agrees with Diemschitz claim to have left pony & cart outside the side door?

Mrs D: ... I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs. Up till then I had not heard a sound-not even a whisper. Then suddenly I saw my husband enter, looking very scared and frightened.

Surely the clip-clop of hooves would have been audible through the open door, but apparently not.
I'm not even 100% sure that Diemshitz was the discoverer of the body.

Furthermore, Diemshutz ran inside, said that there was a woman lying in the yard, asked for a candle and match and ran back out into the yard, lighted a match and seeing all the blood went for a PC. Eagle was upstairs when he learned about the woman in the yard, which makes it all the more probable that Diemshutz had already left for a PC when he lighted his match and said “Get up”. This also fits with a remark of his that he heard Diemshutz calling for the police just before he went running in the direction of Commercial Street.

I think Louis actually went in through the back door, which would make sense of the AF account, and his wife's surprise at his sudden appearance.

Do you mean that Eagle heard Diemschitz on his return from Grove street?
The EN quote of Eagle says; Later on I went over the same ground with Diemschitz.

Seeing that Eagle returned shortly after this with Lamb & Ayliffe, it’s perfectly possible that they’d already found the police when Mortimer arrived in the yard. They just hadn’t arrived yet.

That's entirely possible.

Can’t a policeman under oath have been mistaken? I’m not suggesting that Smith told porkies. I believe that he believed what he said. He was just mistaken by minutes, which would be nothing sinister or outlandish. Either that, or he was somewhere on his way to Berner Street, perhaps at the top of Gower's Walk as you suggest, when he saw a clock indicating 1 o'clock.

A policeman under oath, can be mistake. A club steward under oath, can be mistaken.

If Smith were at Gower's Walk at 1am, what time would he reach the top of Berner street?

[JeffHamm]

For those who have not read the inquest testimony recently (not suggesting you are one of those, Jeff), it might come as surprise to learn that the Schwartz incident is actually referred to, at the inquest ...

The Foreman: Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted?
Dr Phillips: That is an inference which the jury would be perfectly entitled to draw.

This is clearly a reference to what Schwartz described - so the Foreman knows of the incident, Phillips does not wonder what the point of the question is, and Baxter does not seem to have objected to it. They all know about Schwartz' tale!
Both the phrasing of the loaded question ("Do you not think..."), and Phillips' answer, suggest that these men regarded the BS Man story as less than genuine.

Hi NBFN,

That's an interesting idea above, and while your suggestion is not inconsistent with it, I'm not sure the question from the foreman indicates that Schwartz's tale was necessarily known. Shortly before the above, we have:

[Coroner] What is your idea as to the position the body was in when the crime was committed? - I have come to a conclusion as to the position of both the murderer and the victim, and I opine that the latter was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, and that the murderer was on her right side when he inflicted the cut. ...

Dr. Phillip's description of her being "placed" on the ground before cutting her throat could very well be the prompt for that question (clarifying that she was "placed" rather than put to the ground more roughly. That part of his testimony alone could easily be all that it took for such a question, reflecting the juror's attempt to understand the events.

Following the above, Dr. Phillips goes on to explain why he believes Stride was on the ground when her throat was cut, with the following:

[Coroner] But why did she not cry out while she was being put on the ground? - She was in a yard, and in a locality where she might cry out very loudly and no notice be taken of her. It was possible for the woman to draw up her legs after the wound, but she could not have turned over. The wound was inflicted by drawing the knife across the throat. A short knife, such as a shoemaker's well-ground knife, would do the same thing. My reason for believing that deceased was injured when on the ground was partly on account of the absence of blood anywhere but on the left side of the body, and between it and the wall.

NOTE, the bolded but and the comma after "body", are not in the version found here on Casebook, but appear in the Time's coverage found in the Ulitmate Sourcebook. Given the circumstances of Stride's body position as reported from multiple sources, it appears the Daily Telegraph has misprinted the statement (omitted the but and comma; leaving them out makes the statement improbable given all we know).

Anyway, Dr. Phillips appears to believe Stride must have been lowered to the ground, which presumably suggests manual strangulation (possibly only partial of course), before her throat is cut (though why she wouldn't drop them during that action is also unexplained).

In short, given Dr. Phillips indicates Stride was on the ground at the time her throat was cut, understanding how she got to the ground becomes a matter for the jury to consider. They need not be aware of Schwartz's story about her being roughed up, and falling to the ground, in order to make inquiries into that (particularly as being "placed" would probably be considered more unusual than her being roughly put down).

That being said, I want to be clear that the above doesn't prove your idea to be false, nor am I presenting this as such. Rather, all I'm suggesting is that the above does not prove your idea to be true, either, it just means your idea remains a viable working hypothesis, but that there are also viable hypothesis that result in the polar opposite conclusion. Stride's case, I find, is filled with this sort of thing.

This is Baxter's summing up, from the Evening Post, Oct 23:

The Coroner, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case to which they had patiently devoted so much time. It was true that one of the principal duties of the Court was to inquire “who gave the wounds, and who are, in what manner, culpable either of the act or of the force, and who were present, either men or women.” It was also true that the facts proved in evidence were insufficient to return a positive answer to this inquiry; but it might surely be urged that they had had before them those who appeared most likely to afford information, and that the interval which had occurred since the death justified a doubt if even a long adjournment would place them in a more satisfactory position. There was in the evidence no clue to the murderer, and no suggested motive for the murder. Those who knew deceased were unaware of anyone likely to injure her. She never accused anyone of having threatened her. She never expressed any fear of anyone, and although she had outbursts of drunkenness, she was generally a quiet woman. The ordinary motives of murder – revenge, jealousy, theft, and passion – appeared, therefore, to be absent from this case: while it was clear from the accounts of all who saw her that night, as well as from the post-mortem examination, that she was no otherwise than sober at the time of her death. In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. There had been no skilful mutilation as in the case in Mitre-square – possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which unfortunately for the piece (sic) of the inhabitants and the trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful.

The phrase "but it might surely be urged that they had had before them those who appeared most likely to afford information", suggests to me that questions had been raised, or at least rumours existed, that at least one individual who was not called to the inquest, should have been. My money is on Israel Schwartz - I don't think Baxter believed his tale, and thought it best not to summon him.
When one considers "that one of the principal duties of the Court was to inquire “who gave the wounds, and who are, in what manner, culpable either of the act or of the force, and who were present, either men or women.”", then how on earth could Schwartz not have been called, unless not believed? If believed, he would have been Baxter's first pick!

While I suppose Schwartz could be one of them, the above also sounds like nobody in particular is intended - basically, that given enough information has been presented to come to a decision, waiting further in case anybody at all should be found who could add more information is not required, and even if they did find some additional witnesses the new information they could add is not going to change much with regards to the outcome.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Schwartz could put a name to BS man, then they might not have needed an inquest at all.
So that seems a very high bar to me, and much higher than for other witnesses.

Who knows what we might have learned from having Schwartz at the inquest?
Baxter would have prided himself on drawing information out of witnesses, so Schwartz' absence should be of concern.

The Foreman's question has a hint of ridicule about it, Baxter didn't summon him, Leman street had serious doubts, and the Star was dismissive.
Would it be far wrong to say that everyone could see right through Israel Schwartz, except Abberline?

But not everyone interviewed him face to face. Unless they could have stood BS Man or Pipeman in front of Schwartz for a positive ID he was of little use.

Im not setting a high bar I’m just saying that describing BS Man was no good as far as the requirements of the Inquest. The police inquiry yes, but not the Inquest where only a name would have been of use to the Coroner.

[Wickerman]

Something that I probably learned from reading your posts, is that the police cannot withhold relevant information from the coroner.

True, but that only refers to complete statements. Can you imagine the embarrassment by the police if they handed the coroner a story that turned out to have been a fabrication?
This was important, the witness claimed to see the victim assaulted and potentially, saw the killer.
Swanson would know this witness was what the police would need for any subsequent future trial, so 'this' witness had to be investigated. Whereas a handful of others might be accepted at face value.
That said, it would only have been about 5 days. The report could have been complete by the 5th or 6th, but the inquest had resolved the issue by then.

As you say, it boils down to supposing Swanson left a critical 'if', out of his report.

It wasn't critical though, people make two back-to-back statements using only one preposition (if) all the time.
It's just in this case it could be ambiguous.

There's another paragraph written by Swanson that does not quite flow as it should. In that case (Chapman) he is comparing witness testimonies of Richardson, Dr Phillips, Mrs Long, and the time of death.
The paragraph begins:
"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips...." (pg 68, Ultimate)
Here he says if Phillips is correct, then Richardson must be wrong, but he was thoroughly investigated. Then again, if Mrs Long is correct then Phillips must be wrong, but we only have his opinion so Mrs Long must be wrong...."
It just doesn't flow right.

[Wickerman]

For those who have not read the inquest testimony recently (not suggesting you are one of those, Jeff), it might come as surprise to learn that the Schwartz incident is actually referred to, at the inquest ...
The Foreman: Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted?
Dr Phillips: That is an inference which the jury would be perfectly entitled to draw.

This is clearly a reference to what Schwartz described - so the Foreman knows of the incident,

Well Andrew, you took me by surprise with that, primarily because several posters over the years have looked for clues that might suggest the coroner was in some way aware of Schwartz's story.

However, I should point out that the exchange you quoted took place on Monday 5th, whereas the story by Schwartz was published by the Star on the 1st. So the foreman could have learned about the scuffle from the newspaper story.
Although, it is true that the story in the Star did not include the line "thrown to the ground", what we read there is "pushed her back". But, in the Echo of the same date we do read "...was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground".

So did the foreman read the story in the Echo, which prompted the question?

Alternately, back on the 2nd, Dr Blackwell was questioned on the issue of when the throat was cut. His response was to suggest "the throat might have been cut when she was falling..."

So either possibility may have led to the foreman's question.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Would it be far wrong to say that everyone could see right through Israel Schwartz, except Abberline?

So the conclusion of the one person that actually questioned Schwartz at length (and that person being a seasoned detective) as opposed to the others listed should be dismissed because he apparently had a different view?

Why do we have to see Schwartz in either black or white? Meaning did he lie or was he telling the truth? Think of a child telling something that is questionable. Do we immediately conclude the child is lying or do we accept the story but keep in mind that this is a child with a child's view of the world? I think Schwartz related what he saw but did not understand because of the language barrier. Why does it have to be more complicated than that? Simply take it with a grain of salt.

c.d.

Why does the reality of 133 years ago have to be more complicated than I'd prefer it to be?
Well actually, it doesn't. You can believe whatever you like.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There would be no problem if Swanson's words had a different interpretation.
As I've explained in other threads, I think Swanson was only saying that we may accept Schwartz statement "if" the subsequent police report (of the investigation into his story) confirms his story.
It really boils down to Swanson using one "if", instead of two, which is a purely natural thing for him to do.

What I believe he meant was - we can believe Schwartz if the police report (in progress) confirms his story.
At the time of his writing that note, the police were still investigating Schwartz, the report had not been made.

Something that I probably learned from reading your posts, is that the police cannot withhold relevant information from the coroner.
Yet if Schwartz were not called due to the police report remaining in progress for the duration of the inquest, then we have what amounts to a massive loophole.
Suppose the police really don't want a witness to testify. Simple - just keep the relevant report status; pending. The coroner is in no position to complain.
Could such a massive loophole have really existed?

As you say, it boils down to supposing Swanson left a critical 'if', out of his report.
However, if we take Swanson at face value, the Schwartz report already exists by the time he refers to it.
It really is a big call to say that Schwartz' inquest absence can be explained by supposing Swanson was actually talking about the future, and not existing reality, simply due to him forgetting an 'if', which essentially amounts to a typo.
How do actually know that he did forget, though? Is it because Schwartz was not called to the inquest? That would be circular reasoning.

[c.d.]

Would it be far wrong to say that everyone could see right through Israel Schwartz, except Abberline?

So the conclusion of the one person that actually questioned Schwartz at length (and that person being a seasoned detective) as opposed to the others listed should be dismissed because he apparently had a different view?

Why do we have to see Schwartz in either black or white? Meaning did he lie or was he telling the truth? Think of a child telling something that is questionable. Do we immediately conclude the child is lying or do we accept the story but keep in mind that this is a child with a child's view of the world? I think Schwartz related what he saw but did not understand because of the language barrier. Why does it have to be more complicated than that? Simply take it with a grain of salt.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Because Israel Schwartz couldn't put a name to BS Man. Without a name it would still have been 'person or person's unknown.'

If Schwartz could put a name to BS man, then they might not have needed an inquest at all.
So that seems a very high bar to me, and much higher than for other witnesses.

Who knows what we might have learned from having Schwartz at the inquest?
Baxter would have prided himself on drawing information out of witnesses, so Schwartz' absence should be of concern.

The Foreman's question has a hint of ridicule about it, Baxter didn't summon him, Leman street had serious doubts, and the Star was dismissive.
Would it be far wrong to say that everyone could see right through Israel Schwartz, except Abberline?

[Wickerman]

.....
We accept Schwartz because Swanson does. If Swanson did not, I doubt anyone would believe his account. In fact other reports around the time did cast doubt.

Yes but, to me this has always been the problem.
Traditionally, we have interpreted Swanson's comment as if he is endorsing Schwartz. Yet, this view seems to go against the grain.

On the one hand we have the obvious problem in the coroner not calling Schwartz to the inquest.
The assumption being he was not satisfied with the man's story.
This c/w the Star article of 2 Oct. - "the Leman-street police have reason to doubt his story".

Contrary to this we have the apparent endorsement by Swanson.

Even if we disregard the Star article, we are still left with the coroner's choice.

There would be no problem if Swanson's words had a different interpretation.
As I've explained in other threads, I think Swanson was only saying that we may accept Schwartz statement "if" the subsequent police report (of the investigation into his story) confirms his story.
It really boils down to Swanson using one "if", instead of two, which is a purely natural thing for him to do.

What I believe he meant was - we can believe Schwartz if the police report (in progress) confirms his story.
At the time of his writing that note, the police were still investigating Schwartz, the report had not been made.

The date of 19th Oct. is when the complete report into all four murders (Tabram, Nichols, Chapman & Stride) was finished, which must have taken weeks to create working from the files.
We can't say for sure what date the sentence about Schwartz was written, but likely I suspect between the 1st - 5th Oct., just for arguments sake.