Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

It refers to inquiries into statements, in the past tense.
It's over, and 'The numerous statements' is not some of them - it's the lot.

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?

Anderson's letter is titled; The Whitechapel Murders
It is not specific to the Stride murder or the double event.
The general inquiry is ongoing, for obvious reasons, but that in itself should not be holding-up one of the inquests.
Here is the relevant text:

At the present stage of the inquiry the best reply that can be made to the Secretary of State's request for a report upon these cases is to send the accompanying copy of detailed reports prepared by Chief Inspector Swanson, who has special charge of the matter at this office.
I wish to guard against it 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.

So the situation seems simple enough; the detailed reports prepared by Swanson are complete, and ready to be sent to the SofS.
Anderson is just concerned that it might be supposed that the inquiry itself, has concluded, and for that reason is not keen to have the reports sent on.

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.

You're right - my blurry eyes missed the closing ']'.
Can you see how dedicated I am, to finding the Ripper?

The point here is that Anderson's letter of Oct 23, suggests that by Oct 19, Swanson probably already had access to the police's opinion regarding Pipeman, and whoever and whenever that note was written, didn't have anything substantial to add.
Put it this way - if the police suspected Pipeman and had the suspect, something would have eventuated, but there seems to be no indication that it ever did.

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.

The question is really for anyone, including myself.
I would say that what MWR says in #1071, is pretty much spot on.
They have to draw the line somewhere, and nearly 3 weeks should be plenty of time to hunt down Schwartz' 2nd man, and possibly 1st man.
Also, Schwartz has partially verified his own story, with his visit to the mortuary.
So let's get on with it - call Israel to the inquest, and get it all over with.
But herein lies the problem - the police cannot find Israel Schwartz.
Either he is hiding away from BS Man, or the man that Abberline interviewed on the day of the murder, was not the witness that Abberline supposed him to be.

[Wickerman]

I know no-one asked about this recently, but there have been far too many discussions on whether the court record of an inquiry is the complete record of what the witness said. Here is the clause which only requires the court record to include what was deemed material evidence by the court, not everything the witness said.
The press often provide more detail than we find in the court record.

[JeffHamm]

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....

Oh fantastic. Thanks for that, it's very clear.

Hmmm, of course, given that it is on the last day that Elizabeth Stokes testifies that she is alive and well, etc, perhaps it was to ensure there was no doubt with regards to the identity of the victim that the inquest was adjourned - to give the police time to locate her, if they could.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I know no-one asked about this recently, but there have been far too many discussions on whether the court record of an inquiry is the complete record of what the witness said. Here is the clause which only requires the court record to include what was deemed material evidence by the court, not everything the witness said.
The press often provide more detail than we find in the court record.

Oh, that's good too, thanks again. The opening of the 2nd paragraph is, I think, important to note as it instructs the inquest record to be in the exact words of the witness, so when there is an issue of wording between a press report and the inquest record, the latter should be given priority as the newspaper would not be so obliged (and a reporter may "edit" the wording to make something read better.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

I know no-one asked about this recently, but there have been far too many discussions on whether the court record of an inquiry is the complete record of what the witness said. Here is the clause which only requires the court record to include what was deemed material evidence by the court, not everything the witness said.
The press often provide more detail than we find in the court record.

But there is no guarantee that what the newspapers record and print is what was actually said, and in the way that it was said, so caution should be exercised when referring to newspaper reports because as we have seen sometimes they print important facts and highlight issues and because we see that they are important we have to wonder why they did did not appear in the official witness testimony, especially when we see articles appearing in newspapers from far and wide, making it clear that they could not have had reporters present at the proceedings to record first hand the witness testimony

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Are there any hints in Baxter's summing up, as to the reason for the long adjournment after the second-last day?

[Times] The CORONER, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time. The first difficulty which presented itself was the identification of the deceased. That was not an unimportant matter. Their trouble was principally occasioned by Mrs. Malcolm, who, after some hesitation, and after having had two further opportunities of viewing again the body, positively swore that the deceased was her sister - Mrs. Elizabeth Watts, of Bath. It had since been clearly proved that she was mistaken, notwithstanding the visions which were simultaneously vouchsafed at the hour of the death to her and her husband.

Regarding the three emphasized bits:

• What else could Baxter be talking about here, other than alluding to the non-appearance of Schwartz? Why the reference to 'the mysterious case'?
• The first difficulty was clear - Mrs Malcolm's testimony. So what the second difficulty? Baxter never tells us.
• The Elizabeth Stride/Watts issue had been sorted out well before Oct 23, so why would Baxter wait for Elizabeth Stokes (assuming this took many days), to tell him what he already knows?

The Morning Advertiser also notes:

After a close and careful review of the evidence respecting the circumstances of the murder, the coroner concluded with an illusion to the attention which Inspector Reid and the police had given to the case.

Not sure if the reference to an allusion is meant to be a hint to read between the lines, but I doubt the attention Reid and the police had given the case, after its second-last day, had much if anything to do with locating Liz Watts.

The truth is, they wanted Israel Schwartz there.
So where was he, and why?

[Joshua Rogan]

Here is a section from the Telegraph coverage of the Chapman inquest, concerning the mention of a witness who was wanted but couldnt be found;

"The Foreman of the Jury: Reference has been made to the Sussex Regiment and the pensioner. Are you going to produce the man Stanley? Witness: We have not been able to find him as yet.
The Foreman: He is a very important witness. There is evidence that he has associated with the woman week after week. It is important that he should be found. Witness: There is nobody that can give us the least idea where he is. The parties were requested to communicate with the police if he came back. Every inquiry has been made, but nobody seems to know anything about him.
The Coroner: I should think if that pensioner knows his own business he will come forward himself."

This was a man, Ted Stanley, who had been metioned by witnesses during the inquest, but had not been interviewed by the police at that time, as nobody knew hid whereabouts.

Schwartz, on the other hand, had already spoken to the police before the inquest started, had given a statement and had identified the body. There was no reason to delay calling him to give evidence unless he could not be found or was not considered important (or not important enough to warrant the trouble of translation, perhaps) to the enquiry.

[Wickerman]

But there is no guarantee that what the newspapers record and print is what was actually said, and in the way that it was said,..

The press certainly paraphrased whole sections of testimony, that is true. But, it is taking things much too far to then suggest the press are inventing testimony that was never said.

.....so caution should be exercised when referring to newspaper reports because as we have seen sometimes they print important facts and highlight issues and because we see that they are important we have to wonder why they did did not appear in the official witness testimony, especially when we see articles appearing in newspapers from far and wide, making it clear that they could not have had reporters present at the proceedings to record first hand the witness testimony

It is easy for us today to incorrectly identify what we think should have been important. I know some theorists have tried to argue this, but often this argument comes from a misunderstanding of the coroners duty. A coroner is not a judge, he is not there to try a criminal case. In fact the coroner does not have the authority to present a suspect in his court room.
The duty of a coroner (as we all know) is to present material evidence before a jury in order to assist them in determining the "Who" (identity of victim), the "Where", the "When", and "by what means", the victim met their death.

So, even though a journalist may be interested in recording background information about what the witness saw, said & heard, the court recorder may not deem much of that testimony to be material to the case. It's a subjective decision for sure, but we have no ground for claiming the missing testimony was invented by the press.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Its interesting who wasn't called to testify about what they had made statements about cd, I agree, and also interesting who, and in what order, they did call. They did not call people in multiples for time validation, that's one observation. 2 people are on records for having visual connection with that street at 12:45 ish, Spooner and Brown. They tell Spooner he must be wrong. And its far more probable Brown saw the young couple, (if not where did they go..they had been seen at times over that last half hour on the street), than he did Stride. And what of Goldstein...walks right past the gates after the earliest cut time..looks in...why not call him? 4 people including Spooner stated that they had all been in the passageway by the dying woman no later than 12:45, one was Spooner, so why not call anyone that validates his story instead of assuming he was incorrect.

The order in which you would think this should be conducted begins with the last person seen with the victim. This Inquest starts with Wess, who leaves before Liz's last sighting by PC Smith at 12:35. Do they then think he is the man Stride was seen with at that time, making him the last person? If so why doesn't anyone put that out for the record? Why not put Brown on first, if he supposedly Id's Stride? He would be the last person. Why Put Morris Eagle on second? He hears of this supposedly after he had been indoors for more than 20 minutes. By his story. No-one can validate that of course. Nor Laves story. Nor Louis's story. Because no-one saw anything apparently, even though Eagle must have passed Lave at the gates at 12:40 when he says he went into the passageway, using both their stories comparatively, and while unsure if a body lay there at the time. Then we wrap up the day with someone who believes the dead woman is actually her sister, after already being identified as Liz Stride by multiple witnesses before the Inquest.

I hope you get the point here cd, its not about me being right, its not about being closeminded to the possibilities that exist, its not about some large conspiracy of lies by anyone, its about what is obviously an unworkable scenario for the last half hour using uncorroborated witnesses, ignoring multiple accounts that can offer corroboration and help establish a timeline, its about witnesses not seeing what they must have seen and about witnesses that are left out that did not see what others claimed happened even with a view to the scene...(see Fanny Mortimer and Louis D's claimed arrival time, for one). Its about giving the stand to a woman whose testimony directly contradicts multiple ID's by those closest to Elizabeth Stride at that time. Its about medical opinion that in no way mirrors or matches any of the traditional Ripper characteristics taken from the 2 prior and the 2 subsequent murders, yet promoting this night as a "Double Event". Presumptions of Interruptions to explain those jarring differences, and increased violence in the second murder explained by a failed first attempt to mutilate.

All these Inquests raise more questions than they answer, but this one is truly odd.

That all aside, there is absolutely no reasonable answer to why Israels story about an assault on a victim minute(s) before her murder wouldn't be part of an Inquest into the circumstances of her death, Wilful Murder/Suicide/Accident/Misadventure... other than his story wasn't not considered relevant. Theres the small window...does that then mean they thought he lied, or couldn't prove his story? They had ample time to investigate his story before this Inquest closed...and that it was still unprovable suggests in part or in full, it was fabricated.

[Wickerman]

Also, Schwartz has partially verified his own story, with his visit to the mortuary.
So let's get on with it - call Israel to the inquest, and get it all over with.
But herein lies the problem - the police cannot find Israel Schwartz.
Either he is hiding away from BS Man, or the man that Abberline interviewed on the day of the murder, was not the witness that Abberline supposed him to be.

I don't disagree that the adjournment may have been to look for Schwartz, I'm saying the investigation was not compete for whatever reason.
Though in your first sentence of this post you argued the investigation WAS complete, as below:

It refers to inquiries into statements, in the past tense.
It's over, and 'The numerous statements' is not some of them - it's the lot.

And here...

So the situation seems simple enough; the detailed reports prepared by Swanson are complete, and ready to be sent to the SofS.

I fail to see how you can believe the adjournment was because Schwartz was missing, and you know he was never found. But in the same breath you choose to argue the reports by Swanson were complete?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It's interesting how the thread has moved from Mitre Square to Berner street.
It's almost as though all roads lead to the IWMEC.

4 people including Spooner stated that they had all been in the passageway by the dying woman no later than 12:45, one was Spooner, so why not call anyone that validates his story instead of assuming he was incorrect.

Spooner's reference to time at yard, is illogical.
He may have been misheard, but no one is going to accept that he arrived at 12:35.

As for Eagle, suppose we apply your 'can't be sure' logic to Wess, and see were that leads...

[MA1002]
When did the discussion cease?-About midnight, and the bulk of the people left the premises then.

Which way did they go out?-Through the street door, which is the most convenient. Some of the members, about 30, remained behind. These latter were singing, and discussing various questions.

Were the windows open?-Partly.

Where did you go when you left?-To my lodgings, 2, William-street, Cannon-street-road.

Which way did you go out of the club?-I went out of the yard passage. I noticed the gates were open, so I went that way.

Is there any light in the yard?-None whatever.

Are there any lamps in the street that light the yard?-There are lamps, but not opposite.

How is the yard lighted?-By the light of the club windows.

When you left the club did anything attract your attention?-No, sir; I noticed nothing as I looked towards the gates.

Was there anything on the ground?-I can't say.

Might there have been?-I don't know; it was rather dark, so there might have been.

Did you notice anyone in the yard?-No, sir.

Wess left the building at 12:15.
Given that he 'couldn't be sure' there was nothing on the ground at the gates, do we then conclude that Stride was killed around 12:10?
Of course not.
The club may not be innocent, or completely so, but your logic puts Eagle into a position from which he can't win, and you can't lose.

This Inquest starts with Wess, who leaves before Liz's last sighting by PC Smith at 12:35. Do they then think he is the man Stride was seen with at that time, making him the last person?

Good question.
Wess lives a 5 minute walk from the club.
So by the time Fanny Mortimer steps onto her doorstep, Wess is probably sitting up in his bed, reading War and Peace.

Now if they supposed at all, that Wess was the man seen with Stride, they might want to have him testify on the same day as the other William - PC Smith.
That doesn't occur though, so how can Wess be a more appropriate witness than Fanny Mortimer?
She does mention the victim being found with grapes in hand though.
Maybe it was thought Le Grand & Batchelor had influenced her?
It's enough to make one wonder about the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.
Were any Berner St club members, also members of the WVC?
Conflict of interest?
Check out this list of WVC members - there's a member named M. Isaacs!

[c.d.]

I recall a classic episode from "The Atheist Experience." The caller, Stephanie Thomason a well known Christian apologist was making the argument that the reason the Apostles came out of hiding after the crucifixion of Jesus was that they had seen the risen Christ. The host, Matt Dillahunty asked her how she knew that that was the reason. In a loud and obviously irritated voice she responded "WELL WHAT ELSE COULD IT HAVE BEEN?" To which Matt responded "maybe they got hungry."

Draw your own conclusions.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

Invented is such a strong word, at times less tha liberal with the truth is more appropriate.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

I recall a classic episode from "The Atheist Experience." The caller, Stephanie Thomason a well known Christian apologist was making the argument that the reason the Apostles came out of hiding after the crucifixion of Jesus was that they had seen the risen Christ. The host, Matt Dillahunty asked her how she knew that that was the reason. In a loud and obviously irritated voice she responded "WELL WHAT ELSE COULD IT HAVE BEEN?" To which Matt responded "maybe they got hungry."

Draw your own conclusions.

c.d.

If you think what Matt proposes is realistic, logical and reasonable, then I now can see why we have these issues. Within known evidence, Reasonable, Logical, Sensible, Plausible, Realistic, Defensible, Suggested/indicated by evidence, sound principally...feasible....

You have at your disposal lots of filters to run any idea through, if its clogs, then its unlikely, improbable, not suggested/indicated, unsupported, unproven, ...and that list goes on too.

Example: Statement: Liz Strides Killer was interrupted therefore he wasn't able to mutilate her.

There is nothing within any known data to support that, so why then would we consider that suggestion Reasonable, Logical, Sensible...…

Now try that with Israel.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't disagree that the adjournment may have been to look for Schwartz, I'm saying the investigation was not compete for whatever reason.
Though in your first sentence of this post you argued the investigation WAS complete, as below:



And here...


I fail to see how you can believe the adjournment was because Schwartz was missing, and you know he was never found. But in the same breath you choose to argue the reports by Swanson were complete?

And I fail to see how you cannot anticipate my answer.

Without the need for an adjournment, it would be logical to suppose that the inquest would have concluded Oct 6.
Reid and his men are probably not done by then, let alone the final report.
So they have a reasonable amount of time in which to complete the task, but not an indefinite amount.

Now if things are basically wrapped up by Friday Oct 19, and the inquest resumes Tuesday Oct 23, why not send Schwartz a summons on the Monday, in regard to him appearing the following day?
In other words, even in the worst case scenario, they still have a full working day to locate and alert Schwartz.
I would suppose that, in reality they have actually been looking for him for quite a bit longer than a day, by Oct 23.
Also, would the police wait until the coroner decides to call Schwartz, before alerting him that he is likely going to be required?