Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Trevor Marriott]

Sure, that could be why. I've got nothing substantial to base a counter argument upon, but I have a hard time dismissing the notion that his lack of appearance may have been something much more mundane, and he just didn't show up. But that's just an opinion, which nobody is beholden to agree with.

- Jeff

Even in today's world of policing witnesses will have statements taken from them by police, and then later on decline to cooperate with any further part of the investigation. In 1888 I guess If a witness knew they were likely to be summonsed they would obviously disappear before a summons could be served on them. Although technically nowadays a summons is sent to their last know address and that is now regarded as proof of service.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Even in today's world of policing witnesses will have statements taken from them by police, and then later on decline to cooperate with any further part of the investigation. In 1888 I guess If a witness knew they were likely to be summonsed they would obviously disappear before a summons could be served on them. Although technically nowadays a summons is sent to their last know address and that is now regarded as proof of service.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ah, thanks for that Trevor. Yes, I can see that being a solution to problems that may have existed back in 1888. It prevents the shifting location to avoid receiving a known contact letter requesting their presence.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

Here's a thought...If Schwartz was fearful of getting involved in what he thought was a domestic street incident, how much more fearful might he have been when he discovered it was actually a brutal murder? Despite this, it seems he does the right thing and reports what he witnessed to the police. But scarcely is the ink dry on his statement than a pressman runs him to ground. And if a reporter can find out where he lives, then so can the killer!
Time to move home again pronto, perhaps, without leaving a forwarding address.

Schwartz' evidence wasn't crucial to the outcome of the inquest, the jury would have given the same verdict whether or not he appeared* but could have proved vital to the police investigation. Yet if he was expecting anonymity from the police then he may have felt betrayed when the press tracked him down so quickly - and decided to have nothing more to do with them.


* unless, perhaps, the police had tracked down and charged the assailant(s) before it was concluded, in which case the person or persons would have been known, not unknown.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Time to move home again pronto, perhaps, without leaving a forwarding address.

That shouldn't be a big deal either, as he could get his wife to do the moving, while he goes out all afternoon and half the night.
On his way (to the newest) home, I suspect he would check on the Ellen street address, around 1 am, to make sure the wife is all done there, before proceeding to the new lodgings.
Wouldn't you?

Now while this move might seem like a good idea in theory, in practice the killer seems to have discovered the new address, by Oct 6.

PS You see I know your address .... must have been quite concerning.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Thankyou, that is what the word "report" alludes to in Swanson's comment. He wrote:

"If Schwartz is to be believed.." - meaning his statement is potentially credible.
"and the police report of his statement" - which refers to a report written by police after his statement has been investigated.
"casts no doubt upon it". - meaning, the police report will either confirm or cast doubt on his story.

Whatever the date was when Swanson wrote that comment, he had not seen this police report. And, because he was supposed to see every report from every officer as the investigation progresses (per Warren), then the report did not as yet exist, which means the police were still investigating the story as Swanson wrote that comment.

I'm not sure this is completely correct.
Swanson's report also includes this:

The numerous statements made to police were enquired into and the persons (of whom there were many) were required to account for their presence at the time of the murders & every care taken as far as possible to verify the statements.

The verification of statements appears to be complete by the time of Swanson's October 19 report.
So the police report may not have been finalized, but the investigation phase is over.
Swanson's report appears to be drawing on that investigation phase:

The Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz.

The obvious question here being; on what basis do the police not suspect Pipeman?
The wider investigation has also been completed:

80,000 pamphlets to occupier were issued and a house enquiry made not only involving the result of enquiries from the occupiers but also a search by police...

So why not delay the resumption of the inquest until long enough after the police report lands on Swanson's desk, that a summons can be sent to Schwartz, and he have time enough to respond?
If on the other hand, Schwartz' testimony is not critical in determining the cause of death, why was the inquest adjourned for 2½ weeks?

[Michael W Richards]

Which appears to suggest Schwartz's story may still be under investigation.

Almost 3 weeks later? Jon. They couldnt validate anything he said in three weeks time? Lets not lose track of reality...this wasnt police chasing down leads around the world, or looking for witnesses across continents...these were local witnesses witnessing local people. It would take very little time to authenticate a story. Taking 3 weeks to find one shred of corroberation, at a time when the locals screamed for an arrest, isnt even a remote possibility.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Wick,

Just let me say that I like your approach to the case and the way you analyze things. Very level headed.

c.d.

That comment would make me nervous If I saw that after a post by me.

[Michael W Richards]

Unreal how people cling to some stuff.

Lots of opinions, now go back and answer the questions I asked on page 60, post 1035. People have just gone on past that and offered their 2 cents on what they think....those questions if answered truthfully address all of this nonsense since.

Is there any evidence at all that Schwartz had anything at all to do with the Inquest in any way, shape of form, and is there any possibility that if he was believed his story would not be THE most relevant witness account.

Head out the sand folks, hands off the eyes and ears....not addressing those key questions smacks of cowardice and ego. You dont want to be wrong, or you want Michael W Richards to be wrong cause hes an opinionated hard head...conceded... whatever your reason for not answering the most basic questions about Truth as it applies to Israel and the Inquest is still just cowardice and ego.

Now....if anyone out there finds one infinitesimal bit of actual supporting evidence for what you all contend is the REAL truth, Id be happy to set my hard head approach aside.

The silence is deafening.

[Michael W Richards]

Schwartz' evidence wasn't crucial to the outcome of the inquest, the jury would have given the same verdict whether or not he appeared* but could have proved vital to the police investigation.

Schwartz's statement would be the ONLY statement that gives the Wilful Murder finding validity Josh. The finding was based on the lack of evidence she killed herself or that this was accidental.

If you or anyone believes that the police were using Schwartz at the conclusion of the Inquest then you have to agree that they would have been intentionally and deliberately misleading the Inquest and the public. Oh my....not an ugly Conspiracy accusation....

Yep. The same people here who post over and over again about the unlikelihood of any Misrepresentational Conspiracies within these murder cases now have to support one by the Police no less....just to keep their own opinions about Schwartz and his Inquest absence alive. Painted oneself into a corner.

[c.d.]

Let's try it from another angle, Michael. Fanny Mortimer did not appear at the inquest. Therefore we know for an absolutely established fact that the police did not believe her story. There can simply be no other reason why she did not appear. Now please don't respond that other people's testimony confirms and supports her story. She did not testify. Again, this proves the police did not believe her story.

Now if you have trouble accepting that bit of reasoning about Fanny simply substitute Schwartz and you will see how absurd it is to insist that there can be no other reason why he did not appear at the inquest.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

I'm not sure this is completely correct.
Swanson's report also includes this:

The numerous statements made to police were enquired into and the persons (of whom there were many) were required to account for their presence at the time of the murders & every care taken as far as possible to verify the statements.

The verification of statements appears to be complete by the time of Swanson's October 19 report.

Where does it say that?
I read "numerous statements", not "every statement", nor anything to suggest their enquiries "were complete".

I should point you to the "Ultimate" pg 134 hdbk, towards the end of chapter 7. We have a letter from Anderson to Warren concerning the completed reports provided to him by Swanson, Anderson wrote:
"I wish to guard against its being supposed that the inquiry is now concluded. There is no reason for furnishing these reports at this moment except that they have been called for".
Dated Oct. 23, 1888.

What does that tell you about the state of the inquiry?

Swanson's report appears to be drawing on that investigation phase:

The Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz.

What you appear to have missed is that this quote (The police apparently....etc.) was from a note written by someone else in the margin. This could only have happened at the Home Office after the reports had been received, days or weeks after, is anybodys guess.

So why not delay the resumption of the inquest until long enough after the police report lands on Swanson's desk, that a summons can be sent to Schwartz, and he have time enough to respond?
If on the other hand, Schwartz' testimony is not critical in determining the cause of death, why was the inquest adjourned for 2½ weeks?

Why are you asking me?

My argument is that through the first week of October while Baxter was conducting his inquest (from 1st to 5th) the investigation into Schwartz story was still ongoing.
Why Baxter decided to adjourn the inquest for a further 2 weeks is a different question.
Clearly, the reason was connected to this immediate inquiry, but precisely why we cannot say. It must be admitted that either information or a person was missing that Baxter wanted to see.

[Wickerman]

Almost 3 weeks later? Jon. They couldnt validate anything he said in three weeks time? Lets not lose track of reality...this wasnt police chasing down leads around the world, or looking for witnesses across continents...these were local witnesses witnessing local people. It would take very little time to authenticate a story. Taking 3 weeks to find one shred of corroberation, at a time when the locals screamed for an arrest, isnt even a remote possibility.

"Couldn't validate anything"?

Where do I say "anything"?

If you check the Daily Telegraph of 12th Nov. 1888,

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881112.html

You will see three descriptions are published:
- The Smith suspect from Berner St.
- The Schwartz suspect, and
- The Lawende suspect from Mitre Sq.

Nov 12th is about 6 weeks after the murders and the police have still not found the suspects, you're complaining about 3 weeks. What I claimed was the investigation of his story was still ongoing, I didn't say why or what they were looking for. I couldn't possibly know, nor should I try to speculate. Swanson's own words suggest he had not seen a police report to verify Swanson's story. When did Swanson make that observation?, somewhere between the 1st - 19th Oct., thats all we can say.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Let's try it from another angle, Michael. Fanny Mortimer did not appear at the inquest. Therefore we know for an absolutely established fact that the police did not believe her story. There can simply be no other reason why she did not appear. Now please don't respond that other people's testimony confirms and supports her story. She did not testify. Again, this proves the police did not believe her story.

Now if you have trouble accepting that bit of reasoning about Fanny simply substitute Schwartz and you will see how absurd it is to insist that there can be no other reason why he did not appear at the inquest.

c.d.

I don't agree with the reasoning about Fanny Mortimer.

Mortimer does not appear to have made a statement to the police.
So what basis would the police have for not believing her story?

Were the police in the habit of believing witnesses or not, on the basis of quotes and the reported talk of witnesses, in the papers?
Did the police even speak to Mortimer?
If neither, how can you possibly suppose it to be an absolutely established fact that the police did not believe her story?

I would strongly suppose that only a police statement could be supposed to be true or not, and without a statement, the police would have no opinion on a potential witness, official or otherwise.
Otherwise they are just behaving like cowboys.

[JeffHamm]

I don't agree with the reasoning about Fanny Mortimer.

Mortimer does not appear to have made a statement to the police.
So what basis would the police have for not believing her story?

Were the police in the habit of believing witnesses or not, on the basis of quotes and the reported talk of witnesses, in the papers?
Did the police even speak to Mortimer?
If neither, how can you possibly suppose it to be an absolutely established fact that the police did not believe her story?

I would strongly suppose that only a police statement could be supposed to be true or not, and without a statement, the police would have no opinion on a potential witness, official or otherwise.
Otherwise they are just behaving like cowboys.

Well, we do know that when the police initially spoke to Packer during the house-to-house, Packer said he saw nobody of interest, and nothing much happened that night. It was when he then appeared in the paper saying the police never spoke to him (which was untrue), and was telling the newspapers about a couple and selling grapes, etc, that the police went back to him to get this new statement.

So, presumably, if someone appeared in the news to have information they were interested in, the police would try and track this person down and find out just how much they actually knew from direct experience, and how much was just them repeating what they heard through the grapevine (to pardon the pun).

Now whether or not they spoke to Fanny I don't know off hand, but I do know they did a house to house in the area and so presumably spoke to someone at least in that household. And if nothing was reported at that time, as with Packer, they were known to go back to get this new information (at least they did with Packer).

So yes, I think the police probably would have gone back to obtain a statement from her once she appeared in the paper claiming to have pertinent information. And the basis for not believing her could be anything. Just like you speculate the 18" x 6"-8" newspaper parcel becomes a collection of flyers, then I could suggest she told them she was just repeating things she heard and she doesn't really know what time she was at the door, but it made for a better story.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Thanks Wickerman. So they could summon a witness, not just request them, and there was a penalty for not showing up. But presumably the summons had to be delivered......

Jeff.

I found the section that deals with Witnesses, from the 1887 Coroner's Act.



Then we have a section that deals with Adjournment, for the reason to locate another Witness.
Perhaps, here lie the reason for Baxter's 2 week Adjournment?



There you go....