Who really witnessed Jack the Ripper?

[Wickerman]

It seems to me that the newspapers do not give a verbatim record of inquest proceedings. If they had, in the case of Stride, we have at most an hour's material spread out over 5 days. That makes no sense. I absolutely believe Schwartz' testimony was given in some form at the inquest, but as it made no difference to the verdict of willful murder, it wasn't necessarily a highlight for an inquest. For a police investigation, it most certainly was.

Mike

Hi Mike.
When we compare the original Inquest documents (Kelly, Eddowes) with the respective mainstream press coverage, there are no witnesses missing in the press versions.
In many cases their testimony is edited down, in some cases expanded on, but no missing witnesses, if that is what you are suggesting with the Stride case.

Given the animosity towards authority by some of the press, if there had been an attempt by the Coroner's office, or Scotland Yard to suppress any mention of the presence of one particular witness (given that these are public hearings), I'm sure we would have heard about it in the media.

[Hunter]

It would have made a difference in Baxter's summary and the conclusions he reached.

[The Good Michael]

Hi Michael.

It is difficult to dismiss what Swanson wrote about the importance of Schwartz's evidence, especially when coupled with the fact the description he gave was circulated internally by Scotland Yard to all members of the Met. force as late as the 19th.

It seems to me that the newspapers do not give a verbatim record of inquest proceedings. If they had, in the case of Stride, we have at most an hour's material spread out over 5 days. That makes no sense. I absolutely believe Schwartz' testimony was given in some form at the inquest, but as it made no difference to the verdict of willful murder, it wasn't necessarily a highlight for an inquest. For a police investigation, it most certainly was.

Mike

[Hunter]

A solution is readily available - albeit no provable.

[Wickerman]

Hi Michael.

It is difficult to dismiss what Swanson wrote about the importance of Schwartz's evidence, especially when coupled with the fact the description he gave was circulated internally by Scotland Yard to all members of the Met. force as late as the 19th.

I think we all recognize the dilemma but a solution to this problem is not so readily available.

[Michael W Richards]

Fair enough Michael, but as you know the Stride Inquest was spread over 5 sessions (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, & 23rd Oct.).
Witnesses Marshall, Smith & Brown all gave their evidence on the 5th. This then would likely be the date Schwartz would have appeared.

So, are you suggesting his 'story' was not worthy by the 5th?

Then why was the 'description' he gave to police published on the 19th Oct. in the Police Gazette?

A question I wish I could answer empirically for you Jon, but as you well know, I cant. Im more of a Proof is in the Pudding kind of guy when to comes to this sort of conundrum, and I see no proof that what was written about Schwartz by the police was supported by a submission of his statement, a formal public statement, or even the details of his statement being provided to a hearing that was looking at the murder of Liz Stride.

Ergo, Pudding without the proof.

Cheers Jon

[Wickerman]

With respect to Israel Schwartz....
The fact that he doesn't appear anywhere in the transcripts, and there is no record of his statement being entered into evidence at the Inquest with or without him being present, it would seem that this age old suggestion that his story was relevant to the proceedings is erroneous.

Fair enough Michael, but as you know the Stride Inquest was spread over 5 sessions (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, & 23rd Oct.).
Witnesses Marshall, Smith & Brown all gave their evidence on the 5th. This then would likely be the date Schwartz would have appeared.

So, are you suggesting his 'story' was not worthy by the 5th?

Then why was the 'description' he gave to police published on the 19th Oct. in the Police Gazette?

[Michael W Richards]

With respect to Israel Schwartz, he had a translator when he gave his statement which suggests that there was no language barrier IF he was called to take the stand at the Inquest. The fact that he doesn't appear anywhere in the transcripts, and there is no record of his statement being entered into evidence at the Inquest with or without him being present, it would seem that this age old suggestion that his story was relevant to the proceedings is erroneous. It would have been....had it been determined to have been true and accurate, since the assault takes places feet from where and moments before she is actually killed. But evidently it wasn't.

So...the best witness for that night is arguably PC Smith, since he noticed the colored flower on her breast, which Brown did not see with his young couple.

Couple with Strides actual single wound, her dress and demeanor, its improbable that any Jack the Ripper had anything to do with Liz Strides murder.

The Best witness for a Ripper killing is an audial witnesses, and that's Albert Cadosche, who heard a woman call out "no" from the same spot that Annie is killed on, at approximately the same time as she was killed. Had he just leaned over the fence for a look, we all would likely have very different historical hobbies.

[lynn cates]

Och!

Hello Jon.

"Och, Captain, I do nae think she'll hold. It's going to blow!!" (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Of all the possible witnesses I tend to believe that Albert Cadosch probably heard JTR dealing with Chapman in the next door back yard, so he was physically the closest, but, apart from hearing voices from next door followed by a bump on the fence, his statement isn't of much help in identifying the Ripper.

I think that PC Smith probably saw Stride with her killer, even if it was a little earlier than Schwartz's encounter. Smith gave a good description, was observant, and the man he saw was carrying a small parcel, in the same way as Astrakhan Man was, by the way.

The trouble with Israel Schwartz (and I do think he witnessed an assault where he said he did) and Hutchinson, is that neither man gave testimony at either of the inquests. What we have from Scwartz is via newspaper reports, and although Hutchinson was believed by Abberline, who took his statement, that's as far as it went.

You get interesting results indeed when you regroup Smith, Lawende and Schwartz witness accounts. Unfortunately, you can't go really far with only age and clothing.

[Rosella]

Of all the possible witnesses I tend to believe that Albert Cadosch probably heard JTR dealing with Chapman in the next door back yard, so he was physically the closest, but, apart from hearing voices from next door followed by a bump on the fence, his statement isn't of much help in identifying the Ripper.

I think that PC Smith probably saw Stride with her killer, even if it was a little earlier than Schwartz's encounter. Smith gave a good description, was observant, and the man he saw was carrying a small parcel, in the same way as Astrakhan Man was, by the way.

The trouble with Israel Schwartz (and I do think he witnessed an assault where he said he did) and Hutchinson, is that neither man gave testimony at either of the inquests. What we have from Scwartz is via newspaper reports, and although Hutchinson was believed by Abberline, who took his statement, that's as far as it went.

[Wickerman]

Beam me up Scotty.....

[Vincent alias Jack]

Dew Knew Who

Detective Walter Dew’s choice of best witness was Mary Cox. He believed she saw Jack the Ripper up close. Referring to her description of the killer, Dew wrote:

“I believe that the man of the billycock hat and beard was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer.”

Cox described the man as being 35, having blotches on his face and a carroty mustache. In other words, Vincent van Gogh.

But why would the killer go ahead with the murder after being seen standing in his victim’s room? Because he knew the false image of black hair, black mustache, and black bag created by misguided witnesses would keep a blonde-haired man with red facial hair from suspicion. “Go on Mary Cox, give the police my description. No one will believe it’s that of the killer.” And Cox’s description was mostly overlooked. However, Detective Dew’s book reveals the police gave considerable consideration to Cox’s description.

Van Gogh was not as he seems. And for those who don’t know, Vincent was not in the least famous during his life. He blended in well with the East Enders.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha,

I wonder if the reason why he didn't initially report what he'd witnessed was because, being an immigrant and unable to speak English, he was the type of person to be naturally wary of the police or authority in general? This might be especially true if he came from a country where it was common to be distrustful of the police.

Regarding the assault, although murder was very uncommon in Whitechapel- well, at least until 1888!- common assault was perhaps more of a regular occurrence. If so, he maybe didn't consider what he'd witnessed to be particular unusual, at least in that neighbourhood

Hi John,

That seems a good reason, but he did step forward to ID Stride. Also why not tell someone about the assault?

The Assault: There had been a few previous murders, so I would have thought that would make him think this assault may result in murder

[lynn cates]

G P I

Hello Michael. Thanks.

My best guess is that the workhouse infirmary sent him there because his symptoms approximated GPI. Dr. Mickle at Grove Hall was perhaps the
world's foremost expert on that malady.

So maybe it was a freebie for study purposes? That might explain his later transfer to Banstead.

Cheers.
LC