The Absence Of Evidence

[DJA]

[Darryl Kenyon]

It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane.

The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

My mistake
Regards Darryl

[caz]

cmon cd the police were in on it with the club members.

Exactly, Abby. That crafty old Fred Abberline had to be in on it, because he was the one who made sure Schwartz got his story straight and saw a Gentile ripper.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...I strongly suspect that Schwartz was not lost in the shuffle, and the true answer is this: the police deliberately kept him from the inquest. Illegal, or pushing the envelope? Yes, but here in the U.S. you would get wealthy if paid a dollar every time the police & prosecution kept a witness from the defense, and this is not even a trial, but a coroner's inquest. At least the late, great Phil Sugden was willing to accept this as one possibility. "Perhaps they [the police] considered his testimony so important that they wished to keep the details secret." (p 202)

Seems entirely reasonable to me. The police were being embarrassed by all these murders, but here was a man who saw one of the victims physically assaulted. No witness mentioned in the MEPO/Home Office files is discussed more than Israel Schwartz. They are still arguing about him and analyzing the meaning of his account in early November.

The idea that he was discredited seems like a poor and convenient excuse to eliminate a witness that is harmful to so many pet theories, including my own.

This idea is growing on me, RJ, as it would help to resolve a few issues, wouldn't it?

Would it have been so out of order for the police to save this witness for a possible future prosecution of BS man, for the murder of Stride, if not for any of the others? It's not as if his testimony was crucial for the coroner's inquest, and if his appearance and questioning could have bolloxed the entire investigation I could well understand an executive decision to keep him on ice for the bigger prize.

Might this explain why the official record alludes to Schwartz being at the inquest when he wasn't? A strategic muddying of the waters? We all know how certain people in authority think rules are only to keep the lower echelons in order.

[caz]

I often get the feeling on here by the way that Schwartz is viewed by some that he must have stolen their family fortune or impregnated a number of their distant female relatives.

c.d.

At the very least, c.d.

I feel sorry for the poor chap if he was just trying to do the right thing. How thankless, to admit to everyone in his adopted country that he ran off in fright, leaving a poor abused woman to become the fourth murder victim since early August.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Roger:

.
If it makes you feel better, I, too, am an outcast, because I strongly suspect that Schwartz was not lost in the shuffle, and the true answer is this: the police deliberately kept him from the inquest. Illegal, or pushing the envelope? Yes, but here in the U.S. you would get wealthy if paid a dollar every time the police & prosecution kept a witness from the defense, and this is not even a trial, but a coroner's inquest. At least the late, great Phil Sugden was willing to accept this as one possibility. "Perhaps they [the police] considered his testimony so important that they wished to keep the details secret." (p 202)

Seems entirely reasonable to me. The police were being embarrassed by all these murders, but here was a man who saw one of the victims physically assaulted. No witness mentioned in the MEPO/Home Office files is discussed more than Israel Schwartz. They are still arguing about him and analyzing the meaning of his account in early November.

The idea that he was discredited seems like a poor and convenient excuse to eliminate a witness that is harmful to so many pet theories, including my own

Caz:

. This idea is growing on me, RJ, as it would help to resolve a few issues, wouldn't it?

Me too Caz. I can’t really see anything that would give us cause to eliminate it out of hand. Could we really state as a fact that the police, under huge pressure on all sides, wouldn’t have been prepared for a bit of rule-bending if they felt that it might help them get a result. Others might disagree of course but I think that it’s a feasible possible explanation for Schwartz absence. It’s certainly more feasible than the idea that the police didn’t value his evidence.

[caz]

I used kick around the following idea: that there was no broad-shouldered man. The broad-shouldered man was Schwartz himself.

He's hurrying home, he's tired, he doesn't know if his wife made the move. He's not in a good mood, and a streetwalker solicits him. He shoves her to the ground and keeps going, but someone sees him, yells a racial insult, and gives brief chase.

Schwartz flees home, only to learn the next morning that the woman he assaulted had been murdered. Terrified, he comes forward to clear himself, but lies about his own involvement for obvious reasons. Another man assaulted Stride--not him.

It could work, but I no longer think this is the correct answer.

Nor me, RJ. I just don't see him coming forward in those circumstances. A man who 'flees' home, and is 'terrified' by what has happened, and has no English to help him with the nuances of a police interrogation? He'd be relying on his own ability to stick to the script under pressure; the skills of an interpreter to deliver it; and the integrity of the police, not to set him up for one or more of the murders if they suspect him of lying.

[caz]

Or that he was paranoid from the minute he stepped into the yard but the desire to kill overcame his better judgment.

c.d.

Now don't be silly, c.d. If the ripper didn't consider it safe to linger in a particular location to whip out a womb, he'd have bought the lady an ice-cream, wished her a good evening and been on his way.

Love,

Caz
X

[Darryl Kenyon]

If the police wanted to keep Schwartz secret, to me they didn't do a very good job. We have The Star tracking him down but more importantly The Police Gazette gave out a description on Oct 19 from Schwartz but the inquest by Baxter didn't conclude to the 23rd .And in his summing up Baxter makes great pains comparing the descriptions of Brown etc but no mention of the description given by Schwartz. I would have thought he would be aware of the Police Gazette report ? Surely he would have asked the question were/who did this description come from -
At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street - A MAN, age about 30, height 5 ft. 5 in., complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.
Yet in his summing up he says -
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 on which they had devoted so much time.
Regards Darryl

[erobitha]

do you think hutch was a reliable witness?

No.

I think the account Hutchinson gave Abberline was deliberately elaborate for a reason. I have a pet theory with no substance as to why, and that for now will stay with me.

Unlike Schwartz however, I do believe some of his account. I believe he did see MJK around the time he said, and I do believe he was waiting outside in the cold. We have someone else to corroborate that at least.

[rjpalmer]

If the police wanted to keep Schwartz secret, to me they didn't do a very good job. We have The Star tracking him down but more importantly The Police Gazette gave out a description on Oct 19 from Schwartz but the inquest by Baxter didn't conclude to the 23rd

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but the Police Gazette was published by the Metropolitan Police and distributed to police stations all over England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. It was 'in-house' and not sold by news vendors, was it?

[erobitha]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but the Police Gazette was published by the Metropolitan Police and distributed to police stations all over England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. It was 'in-house' and not sold by news vendors, was it?

….and as such, none would have found their way to journalists in the print press? I think the point remains valid. If he was that secret, even a “police -only” periodical is not slightly risky?

[erobitha]

I feel sorry for the Jewish community of that time. Just normal men and women going about their business, trying to carve out new lives for themselves through industry and endeavour. Only to be treated with suspicion and outright anti-semitism. And that’s just the police!

After the Stride murder every man and his dog in the club were interviewed for hours. If I was part of that community I might feel peeved off enough to try and protect my community. At this stage everyone believes Jack was a Jew thanks to the Leather Apron nonsense and demonising of Jews in the papers.

I would feel compelled to potentially file a false witness account. Use details that are near impossible to verify but sound real enough to be taken seriously. Make it look like the Jewish man was simply walking by and witnessing the attack, but it was gentiles that committed it. Throw in a Lipski to show they were being anti-semitic, then they can focus on the killer being a drunk Englishman. I’d be angry enough to do that. Maybe one of the many theatrical types in the Jewish drama society could become ‘Israel Schwartz’.

Abberline being the diligent detective he was, took down the statement as intended. Except, his superiors were not buying it. They could smell a rat. Things did not add up. But they might yet still be able to use it to their advantage.

The fact that later Anderson, and I believe also Warren, both tried to insinuate Schwartz testified at the inquest is puzzling and confusing.

[rjpalmer]

….and as such, none would have found their way to journalists in the print press? I think the point remains valid. If he was that secret, even a “police -only” periodical is not slightly risky?

No, I'm afraid I don't see this objection as valid.

By the 19th, the police had ample time to quietly search for Schwartz's suspect without announcing the fact to the world--nearly three weeks.

The mere fact that they sent a description out in the Police Gazette on the 19th, does not, to my thinking, undermine the theory that Schwartz was kept from the first three sessions of the inquest, where his account would have been given official confirmation and be published in dozens of papers all over London and elsewhere, alerting the broad-shouldered man that the police had found Schwartz, thus he had been seen and described, and the police were now actively trying to find him (the alleged murderer).

No doubt a few master criminals would eagerly read every copy of the Police Gazette they could lay their hands on, but that can't be helped. Announcing a police operation on page two of The Times could be helped.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but the Police Gazette was published by the Metropolitan Police and distributed to police stations all over England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. It was 'in-house' and not sold by news vendors, was it?

Fair point RJ but I still feel publishing Schwartz description before the inquest concluded, if they wanted to keep him secret from Baxter and the inquest was risky.
Would Baxter not have contacts within the police force and be made aware of the description being circulated ? Maybe not, but still, why take the chance.
Regards Darryl