Who really witnessed Jack the Ripper?

[Batman]

The only problem being, is that the night Kelly was murdered Tumblety was banged up !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

From what I understand there are 2 arrest dates around this time that could allow for him to be out.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hutchinson described Tumblety down to his American cloth.

The only problem being, is that the night Kelly was murdered Tumblety was banged up !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Yes your right. Jewish appearance.

Have you seen the modern day photofit though?http://www.computer.org/portal/web/c...new/computer-r

I have, but as you say, it is modern, so how reliable is it?

From what I understand Tumblety was at least 5ft 10 inch tall and 55 yrs old in 1888.

I have no idea about Thompson's viability, the killer had to be someone, but I don't think Hutchinson saw the killer. The man he described was not her last client, in my opinion.

[Batman]

Yes your right. Jewish appearance.

Have you seen the modern day photofit though?http://www.computer.org/portal/web/c...new/computer-r

[Wickerman]

I never heard Tumblety described as a Jewish looking male, about 35 year old, and 5ft 6 inch tall.

FYI - American cloth is a term used to describe fake leather (ie, mottled/embossed oilskin).

[Batman]

Hutchinson described Tumblety down to his American cloth.

[Wickerman]

I believe the coroner knew of Schwartz through a transcript of what was interpreted and maybe for the protection of the witness, though I don't know that, didn't read the transcript. So I believe it was presented to the coroner, but not read in evidence. The press would not have known about it in that case.

Mike

I don't think that would be allowed Mike.
The Jury must hear everything. The result of an Inquest depends on the decision of the Jury not the Coroner.

It would be allowable for the Coroner to clear the court of press, public & witnesses, and then read the statement to the Jury.
If this did happen we might expect to read about this clearing of the court in the press coverage, even though they will not know what was said by the Coroner.

[Michael W Richards]

A little while back Stewart Evans said he knew why Schwartz wasn't at the inquest but I don't know if he ever elaborated.

I'm not surprised to hear that, and even if he suspects that Schwartz' s story and suspect were considered valued bits of evidence, it would conform what I believe we all must interpret from the available data...neither Israel or his story were part of the Inquest documentation or proceedings.

Its been suggested that his story wouldn't be critical to the outcome of the proceedings, a suggestion that doesn't make sense. BSM would be a primary suspect, he would also be the last person to be seen with the victim. As it is the last person thought to have seen the victim alive is James Brown, despite the fact that we know there were another young couple in the immediate area at the time, (Fanny saw them too), and the he saw "nothing of color" on either of them. He also says he saw that at the exact same time Israel claimed his activity took place.

If they felt that Browns sighting had merit enough to become the last witness sighting presented, then why is it that Israel isn't mentioned as a conflicting witness for that same time?

All that would be needed to put some caution in their stride would be to discover that Israel was a club attendee that night, which would mean he falsified why he really was at that location at that time. Coupled with the fact that his altercation takes place off the property, a claim that is unsubstantiated by any other witness. Had he actually seen what he says he did only changing some "minor" mechanical details,.... like about where he approached the couple from, and where exactly the altercation took place,.... they still would have cause to doubt the overall veracity.

Without Israel it becomes obvious that there is no impediment whatsoever for the killer of Liz Stride to have come from the club and the assault and cut to have occurred on the same spot she is found.

Cheers

[Abby Normal]

A little while back Stewart Evans said he knew why Schwartz wasn't at the inquest but I don't know if he ever elaborated.

[The Good Michael]

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

The conclusion of willful murder would have been the same. I believe the coroner knew of Schwartz through a transcript of what was interpreted and maybe for the protection of the witness, though I don't know that, didn't read the transcript. So I believe it was presented to the coroner, but not read in evidence. The press would not have known about it in that case.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Schwartz simply was not called by Baxter to protect the witness and let the police do there job. The circumstances at play at the time are keys to what was done with Schwartz.

Hi Cris.

Yes I have read your article in Ripperologist No. 135, you reference Coroner's Act 1887, Section 3 part 3.
No matter how many times I read through that section I cannot see it referring to witnesses. The paragraph is concerned with publicity and, to my mind, offers examples of those who may be excluded from hearing the evidence, not excluded from giving evidence.

We do read that witnesses may be excluded from hearing the testimony of other witnesses, for obvious reasons.
We also read ..."that the temporary interests of private individuals must yield to the public good". Which doesn't appear to support Schwartz being secreted away from the Inquiry.
The next paragraph then refers to the possible need for the inquiry to be conducted in secrecy, and that the accused should not learn of the evidence against him.
Then follows the statement, "...cases may also occur in which privacy may be requisite for the sake of decency; others in which it may be due to the family of the deceased. Many things may be disclosed to those who are to decide, the publication of which to the world at large would be productive of mischief, without any possibility of good. Even in cases in which absolute privacy may not be required, the exclusion of particular person's may be necessary and proper".

The above paragraph ends with the line:
"The coroner is therefore the proper person to exercise discretion as to the degree of publicity to be allowed in inquests held by him".

This demonstrates to me at least that the section is written to address who can hear the evidence, not who can give evidence. It is all about publicity.
I don't think that section helps to clarify the Schwartz problem Cris.

[Rosella]

I don't know but it would presumably have been somewhere within walking distance. Albert, (or should that be Alber,) was French, born in Paris, and the skunk later deserted his wife and children, moving up to the North of England. In Newcastle in 1893 he claimed to be 23 and married another woman in a bigamous ceremony in a Roman Catholic Church.

[RockySullivan]

You mean Albert Cadosch's body would be found too, with the killer long gone?

Albert Cadosch was a carpenter, resident at 27 Hanbury Street, Spitalfields...testified that on the morning of 8th September 1888, he got up at 5.15am and went into the yard, presumably to relieve himself. On going back to the house, he heard a voice say "No!" from behind the fence which divided the backyards of Nos.27 and 29 Hanbury Street. A few minutes later, he needed to use the yard again, whereupon he heard something touch the fence from the other side. His suspicions were not aroused as he had occasionally heard people in the yard of No.29 at that time of the morning.

I wonder where Cadosch worked as a carpenter?

[Rosella]

You mean Albert Cadosch's body would be found too, with the killer long gone?

[Hunter]

Schwartz simply was not called by Baxter to protect the witness and let the police do there job. The circumstances at play at the time are keys to what was done with Schwartz.