Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Precisely because his story is vital the police are taking longer to investigate it, and until they have finished they cannot hand it to Baxter in good faith.

That could take many weeks, or even months.
By Oct 23, that investigation probably hadn't been completed, so if Schwartz' story is vital, why didn't Baxter delay the conclusion of the inquest until it was?

Regardless, is all this talk about needing to thoroughly investigate Schwartz' story, before he can be called to the inquest, ignoring a vital detail?

Swanson: Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen...

Schwartz has identified Stride at the mortuary, and his own statement and the testimony of Diemschitz, places Schwartz very close to the victim, fairly near to the time of death.
How much verification is required, before they get on with things and call Schwartz?

Perhaps the problem has nothing to do with verification, at all.
The real problem is; the police cannot locate Schwartz.
As every day passes with no success in locating Pipeman, the police must have started to wonder about Schwartz himself, given his mortuary identification.
Maybe they realized they had 'him' (at the station), and let him go.
Is that what Anderson hints at years later, when tempted to disclose the ID of the murderer, but deciding to stop short of that, because:

...no public benefit would result from such a course, and the traditions of my old department would suffer.

Why would naming a world famous serial killer, go against the traditions of Scotland Yard?

[c.d.]

Why would naming a world famous serial killer, go against the traditions of Scotland Yard?

This gives Anderson an out for not naming the killer if there was no real evidence against him. It also fends off a libel suit.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

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.

If that's true my friend I'm sure you're partly responsible.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why would naming a world famous serial killer, go against the traditions of Scotland Yard?

This gives Anderson an out for not naming the killer if there was no real evidence against him. It also fends off a libel suit.

c.d.

In 1910 and later, who would be in a position to discredit Anderson's naming of the killer, due to there being no real evidence against him?

Also, is a libel suit of real concern, given that Kosminski has been asylumed for many years, and unlikely to ever be released?
If it is of concern, Anderson could have told a descendant, in return for a promise not to reveal the truth to the world, until after Robert's death.
As this apparently did not occur, should we then go back to your first point about a lack of real evidence?

[Wickerman]

Yes, fair enough. I think it's fair to note that any major changes in opinions would be indicated in the final copies, that's all.

On the surface that sounds reasonable, but let me ask you this. How many books have been published on the ripper murders where every detail is correct?
Don't these authors have plenty of time to get their facts right?
Your point sounds reasonable but this is not a perfect world. The old adage "Haste makes Waste" is not modern, it equally applies to police files as it does to crime authors & newspaper editors.
We can't base an argument on a perfect scenario when we both know perfection is rare.

The biggest obstacle I see is the fact most of those reports have a heading with "19th October" as the date, with the exception of Tabram, being some date in September. Even the file cover & index has 19th October as this was the completion date. It is not difficult to see Swanson's secretary? adding this final date to the individual reports that had no apparent date on them.
All those reports created by Swanson were compiled from police reports of the individual cases, and the measures taken he listed in chronological order, which takes some time. Swanson was responsible for supervising the Ripper investigation as his daily duties, so all things considered he wouldn't have the time to write these reports all in one day.

What I'm suggesting, and I think you agree with, is that it appears the police did not think Schwartz's testimony was bogus on the 19th, well into the inquest (doesn't mean they had verified it, but it appears to have been viewed as an important lead, might be the best way to phrase it).

Well, I'm of the opinion the paragraphs on Schwartz were likely written down earlier than the 19th, but that is a point we need not disagree on because the 19th still falls before Baxter called his final sitting of his inquest on the 23rd to summarize the case.
I have no opinion on the truthfulness of Schwartz, I just wanted to point out that Swanson's words were not necessarily confirming Schwartz's story, which many members have always assumed was the case, as I had for the longest time.
Whether the press story that the Leman police no longer believe Schwartz was true or correct will never be known for sure. Others can argue about that point. All my concern was that in my view Schwartz was not called by Baxter because his story was still under investigation.

Yes, a Schwartz's statement had led to a current investigation, still in progress, type thing, which demonstrates that the police were taking his statement as a serious and valid lead, which I think you would agree with.

Yes, I agree.

[Wickerman]

I have a quick question with regards to Inquests and how they worked. Could someone be compelled to give evidence, or did witnesses volunteer to be present? I'm just wondering how much personal choice needs to be considered with regards to Schwartz. Obviously, if there was no power to compel a witness to testify, then there's no reason to conclude his absence is due to a choice on the police/coroner's part.

- Jeff

Witness statements are always voluntary. Once given to police the witness can be summoned to appear in a court, and there are penalties for not answering a summons. However, once in court the witness cannot be compelled to testify to anything beyond what was included in his police statement.
A complication would arise when the witness is asked a question because the Coroner (at an inquest) holds the witnesses statement in his hand. This statement forms the basis for the questions posed to the witness. So, much depends on the actual response by the witness to the question, anything from; a refusal to talk, to claiming his statement was false, could incur the ire of the coroner and penalties may be imposed on the witness.

There are differing rules for an inquest as opposed to a trial.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So the police have been trying to verify Schwartz' statement, from the time he made it late on the day of the murder, and are presumably still trying by the time Baxter resumes the inquest on Oct 23.

Meanwhile, someone has noticed that a certain customer, seen several times in the area of the murder before that night, has not been seen since...

[LE1018] An Echo reporter called yesterday afternoon upon Mr. Packer, the Berner-street fruiterer, where the murderer bought the grapes for Elizabeth Stride. It now appears that the man was known by Mr. Packer, who positively asserted, "I had seen him in this district several times before, and if you ask me where he lives I can tell you within a little. He lodges not a great way from the house where Lipski, who was hanged for poisoning a woman, lived." "How many times have you seen him?" was asked Mr. Packer. "About twenty; and I have not seen him since the murder."

How odd that a supposedly non-English speaking man would volunteer himself as a witness to an assault on a woman, occurring close to the time and location that the woman is found murdered, and utilizing the time of a friend to act as an interpreter to do so, and then, other than when run to earth by an enterprising journalist the next day, is never interviewed by the media, or heard from in an official context, ever again.

Even more so, given that the inquest seems to have been adjourned for an extended period, awaiting police verification of Schwartz' statement.

[Wickerman]

Perhaps the problem has nothing to do with verification, at all.
The real problem is; the police cannot locate Schwartz.

I'm really concerned with interpreting Swanson's words.
For some reason the investigation of Schwartz'z story had not been completed (no police report available) by the time Swanson wrote that sentence.
The police had not been able to confirm his story, for whatever reason.

[JeffHamm]

On the surface that sounds reasonable, but let me ask you this. How many books have been published on the ripper murders where every detail is correct?
Don't these authors have plenty of time to get their facts right?
Your point sounds reasonable but this is not a perfect world. The old adage "Haste makes Waste" is not modern, it equally applies to police files as it does to crime authors & newspaper editors.
We can't base an argument on a perfect scenario when we both know perfection is rare.

The biggest obstacle I see is the fact most of those reports have a heading with "19th October" as the date, with the exception of Tabram, being some date in September. Even the file cover & index has 19th October as this was the completion date. It is not difficult to see Swanson's secretary? adding this final date to the individual reports that had no apparent date on them.
All those reports created by Swanson were compiled from police reports of the individual cases, and the measures taken he listed in chronological order, which takes some time. Swanson was responsible for supervising the Ripper investigation as his daily duties, so all things considered he wouldn't have the time to write these reports all in one day.

All very good points, and certainly I can't prove it's not just such an error, but nor can I prove it is either. All I can point to is that, barring it being an inaccurate statement, it appears to point to the police being of the attitude that Schwartz's statement was worthy of continued efforts to follow up. Or, more simply, it was considered a valid lead - even if as a lead they were working on substantiating it, it seems clear they had not discredited it and therefore could not be said to have no faith in his statement.

Well, I'm of the opinion the paragraphs on Schwartz were likely written down earlier than the 19th, but that is a point we need not disagree on because the 19th still falls before Baxter called his final sitting of his inquest on the 23rd to summarize the case.

I have no problem with that. Although, of the cases being summarized, it seems that Stride would be one that was composed closest to the 19th relative to the others, given the chronological order of the offenses. But I suppose that could be argued to be in error as he may have worked backwards in time.

I have no opinion on the truthfulness of Schwartz, I just wanted to point out that Swanson's words were not necessarily confirming Schwartz's story, which many members have always assumed was the case, as I had for the longest time.

Ah, I'm not suggesting this demonstrates Schwartz was being truthful/accurate, only that it appears the police had not, by this time at least, dismissed him. I'm focusing on the attitudes of the police, not on the accuracy of Schwartz's statement itself (the police could have been investigating his statement under the belief he was accurate, when in truth Schwartz may have been inaccurate; I'm focusing on the former not the latter here).

My reason for focusing on the police attitude is because some have suggested Schwartz did not appear at the inquest because it was the police who had dismissed his testimony as untruthful, therefore drawing the conclusion that the police had information that Schwartz was inaccurate that is now lost to us. I think these reports, and the actions of the police at the time, which all but cover the whole of Stride's inquest, demonstrate they had not dismissed him in that way, making that suggestion as to why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest untenable and removing the argument that information was at one time available, but not now, that showed Schwartz's testimony should be set aside is flawed. It speaks nothing to the actual truthfulness/accuracy of Schwartz, though, only to whether or not the police had filed him in "unreliable witness" bin. I think it's clear they had not.

Whether the press story that the Leman police no longer believe Schwartz was true or correct will never be known for sure. Others can argue about that point. All my concern was that in my view Schwartz was not called by Baxter because his story was still under investigation.

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

[JeffHamm]

Witness statements are always voluntary. Once given to police the witness can be summoned to appear in a court, and there are penalties for not answering a summons. However, once in court the witness cannot be compelled to testify to anything beyond what was included in his police statement.
A complication would arise when the witness is asked a question because the Coroner (at an inquest) holds the witnesses statement in his hand. This statement forms the basis for the questions posed to the witness. So, much depends on the actual response by the witness to the question, anything from; a refusal to talk, to claiming his statement was false, could incur the ire of the coroner and penalties may be imposed on the witness.

There are differing rules for an inquest as opposed to a trial.

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. Given Schwartz had said he and his wife had moved, and given it seems to have been common practice for people to give false addresses (we see many witnesses over these cases where multiple addresses appear to have been recorded after all, in addition to use of aliases, etc), then it may be that the police simply could not find him again in order to issue the summons. There are, of course, a myriad of other possibilities, and I'm not suggesting this is anything more than another one to go on the "to be considered" pile.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

So the police have been trying to verify Schwartz' statement, from the time he made it late on the day of the murder, and are presumably still trying by the time Baxter resumes the inquest on Oct 23.

Meanwhile, someone has noticed that a certain customer, seen several times in the area of the murder before that night, has not been seen since...

[LE1018] An Echo reporter called yesterday afternoon upon Mr. Packer, the Berner-street fruiterer, where the murderer bought the grapes for Elizabeth Stride. It now appears that the man was known by Mr. Packer, who positively asserted, "I had seen him in this district several times before, and if you ask me where he lives I can tell you within a little. He lodges not a great way from the house where Lipski, who was hanged for poisoning a woman, lived." "How many times have you seen him?" was asked Mr. Packer. "About twenty; and I have not seen him since the murder."

How odd that a supposedly non-English speaking man would volunteer himself as a witness to an assault on a woman, occurring close to the time and location that the woman is found murdered, and utilizing the time of a friend to act as an interpreter to do so, and then, other than when run to earth by an enterprising journalist the next day, is never interviewed by the media, or heard from in an official context, ever again.

Even more so, given that the inquest seems to have been adjourned for an extended period, awaiting police verification of Schwartz' statement.

You're suggesting Schwartz was the man who bought grapes from Packer?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You're suggesting Schwartz was the man who bought grapes from Packer?

Packer is not suggesting that the man who bought grapes from him that night, was Schwartz - he only knows the man by sight - so I'm not suggesting it either.

Who the grapes customer was though, I really have no strong opinion on - but perhaps it was Francis Tumblety?
That would seem to fit with reports of Tumblety's manner of speaking, and with Packer agreeing that the man had a partial American accent.

Regardless, we have the interesting parallel of the inquest being adjourned for many days, and Packer's non-witnessing of the man he claims to have been in the company of Stride, since buying grapes from him that night.

[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.

The Witnesses were all summoned in writing, and hand delivered. A summons could be left with another person, next of kin, family member, etc. It didn't have to be placed in the hand of the witness.
The witness needed a summons in writing as proof so he could later claim his payment for his/her time for attending court.

Given Schwartz had said he and his wife had moved, and given it seems to have been common practice for people to give false addresses (we see many witnesses over these cases where multiple addresses appear to have been recorded after all, in addition to use of aliases, etc), then it may be that the police simply could not find him again in order to issue the summons. There are, of course, a myriad of other possibilities, and I'm not suggesting this is anything more than another one to go on the "to be considered" pile.

- Jeff

Well, because Schwartz admitted to moving address over that weekend it would be incredibly remiss of an interviewing detective to forget to get both addresses from the witness.
No-one knew better than the police how easy it was for anyone to change their name and disappear, but a witness is not a suspect. If they "do a runner" the police will naturally wonder why but they can't compel him to give testimony, unless he received the summons.

[Wickerman]

Packer is not suggesting that the man who bought grapes from him that night, was Schwartz - he only knows the man by sight - so I'm not suggesting it either.

Who the grapes customer was though, I really have no strong opinion on - but perhaps it was Francis Tumblety?
That would seem to fit with reports of Tumblety's manner of speaking, and with Packer agreeing that the man had a partial American accent.

Regardless, we have the interesting parallel of the inquest being adjourned for many days, and Packer's non-witnessing of the man he claims to have been in the company of Stride, since buying grapes from him that night.

Ok, then I had misunderstood that previous post.
It read to me like you were drawing a parallel between Packer's suspect, and the non-english speaking man (Schwartz?) who could not be found.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Ok, then I had misunderstood that previous post.

Due to me not being clear.

It read to me like you were drawing a parallel between Packer's suspect, and the non-english speaking man (Schwartz?) who could not be found.

I think there could well be a parallel, just not as simple as Packer's suspect being Schwartz.
Having said that, who really knows how much of what Packer says, at any stage, is the truth?
Charles Le Grande was obviously a very dodgy character, but hard to tell how much influence he had on Packer, both in the days immediately after the murder, and ongoing.

On the subject of Le Grande, does the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee's decision to hire this man as a detective, lead to doubts over the integrity of that organization?

I believe Le Grande wrote some of his threatening letters in red ink, which may indicate another parallel.

To be honest, Jon, I'm becoming suspicious of just about everyone involved.

Le Grand work the last job was

They say I'm a doctor now. harry harris