The Absence Of Evidence

[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]

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?

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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]

...

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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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?

[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]

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