Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

Stephanie Thomason is a university professor. Yet she could not understand (even though Matt repeatedly pointed it out) that she had made a classic Argument from Ignorance.

Are you suggesting that the Apostles didn't need to eat?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

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?

There isn't likely to be a solution to this.
All we can say for certain is the police have an interest in locating Schwartz as part of the murder investigation, and their reasonable expectation of catching the culprit and using Schwartz as a witness at the trial. So, they will be continuously looking for this witness indefinitely.

However, we are less certain that Schwartz was required by Baxter as a witness for the inquest.
If Schwartz was required at the inquest, then this was only until the Friday, as by then Baxter had enough of the facts to charge the jury, which is why I'm not so convinced Baxter would adjourn the inquest for 2 weeks. I've admitted it is possible, I'm just not sure it was necessary.
Alternately, Schwartz may not have been required by Baxter, so our conjecture on this line of thinking is purely academic.

[JeffHamm]

There seem to be a number of ideas floating around about why Schwartz was not at the inquest, and I thought it might be useful to try and bring them together here. I'll list them as I think of them, and the order neither is intended nor implies a suggested preference. As all lines do have some counter-arguments, I'll try to suggest things in the evidence that might cause concern (though not of the refutation type).

1) Schwartz could not be found as he had moved (but a reporter seemed to have tracked him down pretty quickly)

2) Schwartz's testimony was not believed by the police/coroner so he wasn't called (but see Mary Malcolm and the fact that Stride had been positively identified prior to the inquest - her testimony was known to be false yet she was allowed to testify; )

3) Schwartz's testimony was still being investigated - (but wouldn't that apply to Richardson, Long, Lawende, Levy, ... and all potential eye-witnesses?)

4) Schwartz's testimony was considered unnecessary - (Baxter was also the coroner for Chapman, where he insisted evidence be presented despite medical opinion that it was all postmortem, while not an identical situation, it seems an uncharacteristic choice by Baxter, while Mary Malcolm's inclusion seems consistent with his apparently "present it all" attitude).

5) Schwartz's testimony was withheld by the police -
a) because of fear of social unrest (i.e. GSG was erased due to fear of the riots it would spark, Schwartz's testimony might have been viewed as worse)
b) because Schwartz's testimony was considered vital and locating BS/pipeman was hoped would crack the case and they didn't want to tip off those suspects
problem for both of those is that Schwartz's story was in the papers already.

It seems to me any of those basic lines of reasoning have been pro-offered at one point or another, and all have points in and against their favour. And that is exactly what happens when one reaches a point where the best we can do is just note that "we do not know why Schwartz did not testify at the inquest". Picking one of those and insisting that's the reason doesn't make it the only reasonable option, no matter how much it may appeal to you (using you in the undefined sense, as I'm not replying or referring to anyone in particular here).

In short, discussions on this will go round and round, spinning our wheels, because the evidence is not sufficient to rule out or shut down any of those lines of argument conclusively. And to pick one is to place a bet on a roulette wheel - but placing a bet doesn't mean you'll win.

- Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

So why did Robert Anderson misinform Sir Charles Warren, who in turn misinformed Home Secretary Henry Matthews, that Israel Schwartz had appeared as a witness at the Elizabeth Stride inquest?

Regards,

Simon

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

So why did Robert Anderson misinform Sir Charles Warren, who in turn misinformed Home Secretary Henry Matthews, that Israel Schwartz had appeared as a witness at the Elizabeth Stride inquest?

Regards,

Simon

I obviously don't have access to Andersen's internal thinking and decision making processes, so clearly can't know for sure. However, there are a few draft versions of letters by Andersen, and Warren, where they talk of evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest. There are other communications at that time where Schwartz's statement is referred to (his police statement, given prior to the inquest, that would be the basis of what would be expected to constitute their inquest statements/topics). In these communications is the discussion of "Lipski" being used as an insult, etc.

So, it seems to me there are a couple of possibilities that would explain those that do not necessitate concluding Andersen and Warren intentionally mislead.
First, it was simply a mis-phrasing, and referring to the evidence given "at" the inquest, it should have read something like "prior to" the inquest (another way would be to refer to it as his statement, which is how it is referred to in other communications).
An alternative is along the lines of poor phrasing, to use Warren's letter as an example, "...the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that ...". This could be interpreted as saying "the opinion was arrived at at the inquest, and the opinion relates to the statement given earlier by Schwartz". That's makes for a complicated parsing of the sentence structure though.

Of course, one could argue it means Schwartz actually did give evidence at the inquest, but there's nothing in the recorded record to suggest he did (nothing in the summing up, etc), and if something was given and the reporters told not to record it, etc, they would have reported upon that event happening, even if not the details (as they withheld reporting on Chapman's injuries, for example). So I don't think that line can withstand scrutiny.

But clearly, if they intended to deliberately mislead, this would have resulted in no end of trouble for them, given it's pretty easy to show Schwartz didn't actually appear at the inquest.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There seem to be a number of ideas floating around about why Schwartz was not at the inquest, and I thought it might be useful to try and bring them together here. I'll list them as I think of them, and the order neither is intended nor implies a suggested preference. As all lines do have some counter-arguments, I'll try to suggest things in the evidence that might cause concern (though not of the refutation type).

1) Schwartz could not be found as he had moved (but a reporter seemed to have tracked him down pretty quickly)

The Star reporter found him less than a day after he had gone to the police station.
How he managed to do so without a name or address, is completely unclear though. As the paper says:

He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane.

Contrast this with the Irish Times of the same day:

The authorities at Leman street Police Station are very reticent, and stated in reply to an inquiry late this evening that they had no further information to report.

So there are a number of points here:

• The day after Schwartz' interview with Abberline, in which he gave his new address as 22 Ellen street, he is actually found in Backchurch Lane
• The Star man seems to have access to information that other reporters at other papers, do not have. How else could he have run Schwartz to earth, without a name or address?
• The Star does not seem to know, or does not state, Schwartz' name - only referring to him as 'the Hungarian'. Either the Star was told not to disclose the name, by the police, or Schwartz himself has refused to provide it to the reporter
• Beyond about midday on Oct 1, no reporter of any newspaper, ever again manages to track down Schwartz

So if Schwartz is not found at his new lodgings, just a few hours after he and his wife supposedly moved there, why suppose he would be easy to find after Oct 5?

Regarding the 2nd point above, about the Star's seemingly unique ability to find Schwartz, I wonder if there is an explanation other than the Star man's exceptional detective skills?
When Schwartz is 'run to earth', he conveniently has an interpreter with him, and also worth noting that his wife seems not to be with him...

The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police.

So how did the Star man really 'get wind of his call'?
Was it an insider tip from the Leman street police, or did the tip in fact come from Schwartz' friend?
The idea being, presumably, to get Schwartz' story into the public domain, for similar reasons to wanting to go to the police with his story.

In other words, it is not that the Star has found Schwartz, and therefore that the police should have no trouble doing the same, but rather that the meeting between the Star reporter, Israel Schwartz and interpreting friend, is occurring on Schwartz' terms, and not that he has been unexpectedly approached while out shopping.
This would explain why Schwartz is happy to 'spill the beans' to the reporter, but not give his name.

Is it otherwise conceivable that a man could be pretty quickly found, without the aid of a name and address?
Perhaps the Star reporter was given a description of Schwartz, and that was all that was required to find him?
There is another curious detail in the Star report:

This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.

One can understand a man going to a police station well dressed, but what is with appearing to be in the theatrical line?
Is Schwartz a naturally flamboyant character, with a dress sense to suit?

[JeffHamm]

The Star reporter found him less than a day after he had gone to the police station.

Yes, which I've noted as well as one of the common counter-points.

How he managed to do so without a name or address, is completely unclear though. As the paper says:

He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane.

Contrast this with the Irish Times of the same day:

The authorities at Leman street Police Station are very reticent, and stated in reply to an inquiry late this evening that they had no further information to report.

So there are a number of points here:

• The day after Schwartz' interview with Abberline, in which he gave his new address as 22 Ellen street, he is actually found in Backchurch Lane
• The Star man seems to have access to information that other reporters at other papers, do not have. How else could he have run Schwartz to earth, without a name or address?
• The Star does not seem to know, or does not state, Schwartz' name - only referring to him as 'the Hungarian'. Either the Star was told not to disclose the name, by the police, or Schwartz himself has refused to provide it to the reporter
• Beyond about midday on Oct 1, no reporter of any newspaper, ever again manages to track down Schwartz

So if Schwartz is not found at his new lodgings, just a few hours after he and his wife supposedly moved there, why suppose he would be easy to find after Oct 5?

Regarding the 2nd point above, about the Star's seemingly unique ability to find Schwartz, I wonder if there is an explanation other than the Star man's exceptional detective skills?
When Schwartz is 'run to earth', he conveniently has an interpreter with him, and also worth noting that his wife seems not to be with him...

The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police.

So how did the Star man really 'get wind of his call'?
Was it an insider tip from the Leman street police, or did the tip in fact come from Schwartz' friend?
The idea being, presumably, to get Schwartz' story into the public domain, for similar reasons to wanting to go to the police with his story.

I think it is manifestly obvious that somehow the reporter did end up with Schwartz's name or information about him. That could come about along 3 different lines of thought, which you outline above as:

1) from the police (a leak; was given a scoop)
2) he got wind of local gossip (hardly surprising for Schwartz's bilingual friend to tell his tale, and for wind of it to get round)
3) contacted by Schwartz directly (through his bilingual friend, let's say).

While I can't disprove any of those, I think #3 would be the least likely. My thoughts are that if Schwartz was actively seeking to tell his story to a reporter, he would likewise have actively participated in the inquest as it would lean towards someone seeking their 15 minutes of fame, so to speak. In contrast, either of the first two options might, as I think you've mentioned before, result in him getting worried about his safety, and he may have moved again, hence him being hard to find by the police later, resulting in him not receiving his summons to appear at the inquest.

In other words, it is not that the Star has found Schwartz, and therefore that the police should have no trouble doing the same, but rather that the meeting between the Star reporter, Israel Schwartz and interpreting friend, is occurring on Schwartz' terms, and not that he has been unexpectedly approached while out shopping.
This would explain why Schwartz is happy to 'spill the beans' to the reporter, but not give his name.

Yes, but if he was found without initially approaching the reporter, so wasn't actively involved in making himself looked for, he may still have been willing to tell his story but later, with more thought, became fearful for his own safety.

Basicallly, we can't be sure he did talk easily. The reporter may have had to convince him to give his story, and so forth. Just because, in the end, Schwartz spoke to the reporter doesn't tell us how willing he was initially to do so.

Is it otherwise conceivable that a man could be pretty quickly found, without the aid of a name and address?
Perhaps the Star reporter was given a description of Schwartz, and that was all that was required to find him?
There is another curious detail in the Star report:

This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.

One can understand a man going to a police station well dressed, but what is with appearing to be in the theatrical line?
Is Schwartz a naturally flamboyant character, with a dress sense to suit?

I'm not sure how to interpret that line other than there was something about his style of dress that the reporter thought worth noting, and that was the description he used, but exactly what would constitute a "theatrical line" appearance is beyond me, not being an expert in Victorian clothing (or even modern clothing styles to be honest). It may also, of course, simply reflect the fact that Schwartz was a foreigner, and Jewish, and so his style of dress may have appeared odd to a local, Gentile, reporter.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes, which I've noted as well as one of the common counter-points.

I think it is manifestly obvious that somehow the reporter did end up with Schwartz's name or information about him. That could come about along 3 different lines of thought, which you outline above as:

1) from the police (a leak; was given a scoop)
2) he got wind of local gossip (hardly surprising for Schwartz's bilingual friend to tell his tale, and for wind of it to get round)
3) contacted by Schwartz directly (through his bilingual friend, let's say).

From an Echo journalist, at the Berner street club the day of the murder:

A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made [?] [?] [?] there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be [?] from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally [?] fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.


Assuming #2 is correct, was William Wess the source of the local gossip?

There is something very interesting in this quote.
Why the mention of the streets to the east of Berner street, that intersect Fairclough street?
Did Schwartz flee from Pipeman along Fairclough, and toward Christian street?
If yes, then why no mention of a man being pursued in that direction, from Edward Spooner?
A few minutes later, Spooner is aware of the 'two Jews' running in the same direction, but for some reason, not so Schwartz and Pipeman.
Why might that be?

[JeffHamm]

From an Echo journalist, at the Berner street club the day of the murder:

A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made [?] [?] [?] there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be [?] from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally [?] fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.


Assuming #2 is correct, was William Wess the source of the local gossip?

There is something very interesting in this quote.
Why the mention of the streets to the east of Berner street, that intersect Fairclough street?
Did Schwartz flee from Pipeman along Fairclough, and toward Christian street?
If yes, then why no mention of a man being pursued in that direction, from Edward Spooner?
A few minutes later, Spooner is aware of the 'two Jews' running in the same direction, but for some reason, not so Schwartz and Pipeman.
Why might that be?

My only comment is that I would recommend being very cautious about how much faith I would put in the newspapers. For gist, yes, I think that's relatively safe, for specifics, I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot barge pole. Look at all the information you have from those times, and rather than "pick one", average them all.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Assuming #2 is correct, was William Wess the source of the local gossip?

We don't know if Schwartz's interpreter was Wess, but if it was I suspect it was also Wess who was found by the Star reporter. Being the secretary of the club this is likely where the reporter would find him.

There is something very interesting in this quote.
Why the mention of the streets to the east of Berner street, that intersect Fairclough street?
Did Schwartz flee from Pipeman along Fairclough, and toward Christian street?
If yes, then why no mention of a man being pursued in that direction, from Edward Spooner?
A few minutes later, Spooner is aware of the 'two Jews' running in the same direction, but for some reason, not so Schwartz and Pipeman.
Why might that be?

The two Jews running east towards Grove street (shouting "murder") reflects Diemschutz & Kozebrodski who both claim to have run in that direction, and picked up Spooner on their return.

[Michael W Richards]

We don't know if Schwartz's interpreter was Wess, but if it was I suspect it was also Wess who was found by the Star reporter. Being the secretary of the club this is likely where the reporter would find him.



The two Jews running east towards Grove street (shouting "murder") reflects Diemschutz & Kozebrodski who both claim to have run in that direction, and picked up Spooner on their return.

As to the first point, iots likely Wess did translate...he translated for Goldstein, and there is some evidence to suggest Wess and Schwartz knew each other.

As to the second point, Issac K's own words make that scenario, Louis and Issac[s] meaning Kozebrodski, impossible.

""I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening. About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was. When we had got outside he struck a match, and when we looked down on the ground we could see a long stream of blood. It was running down the gutter from the direction of the gate, and reached to the back door of the club. I should think there was blood in the gutter for a distance of five or six yards. I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers. The officers did not touch the body, but sent for a doctor. A doctor came, and an inspector arrived just afterwards. While the doctor was examining the body, I noticed that she had some grapes in her right hand and some sweets in her left. I saw a little bunch of flowers stuck above her right bosom".^["

Spooner says 2 jews, he doesn't later identify them as Louis or Issac K as those same Jews. If you stop and address how many questionable elements get introduced by Louis, an arrival time that isn't verified by a witness to the street at the time, a trip out by Issac K...by himself..that is not mentioned by Louis, 2 jews that Spooner saw that have been assumed were Louis and Issac K but cannot be by virtue of Issac's quoted remarks that remain nameless and unmentioned,...youll be more wary of accepting anything else he says....in particular, when he arrived. 4 people disagreed with him on that, yet they agreed with each other. One last bit...Louis never mentions Spooner joining him.

[DJA]

There is no evidence that Wess and Schwartz knew each other in 1888.
Also unlikely Wess translated for Schwartz,unless it was in Yiddish ..... which is also unlikely.

[Michael W Richards]

There is no evidence that Wess and Schwartz knew each other in 1888.
Also unlikely Wess translated for Schwartz,unless it was in Yiddish ..... which is also unlikely.

Thanks for playing. We know later on that they did know each other, and here Israel is, supposedly, right outside where Wess works and attends meetings. Not hard to imagine they already knew each other at that time. And I believe Woolf Wess spoke several languages.

But disparage away, I already know the likelihood of what you've espoused is your belief about these murders is so far fetched it would make far more sense as a good premise for a fictional action adventure mini series than a Ripper theory, so I know how to assess the comments about others ideas.

Too bad you didn't address the obvious and documented incorrect information Louis espouses, its far more relevant and uses real evidence, not just imagination.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

One last bit...Louis never mentions Spooner joining him.

From the official documents section:

[Coroner] Did you touch the body?
[Diemschitz] No, I ran off at once for the police. I could not find a constable in the direction which I took, so I shouted out "Police!" as loudly as I could. A man whom I met in Grove- street returned with me, and when we reached the yard he took hold of the head of the deceased. As he lifted it up I saw the wound in the throat.

Who do you suppose Diemschitz is referring to here?

I see you're having a dig at Dave for saying something reasonable, but as usual, you don't have your facts straight.

[Michael W Richards]

From the official documents section:

[Coroner] Did you touch the body?
[Diemschitz] No, I ran off at once for the police. I could not find a constable in the direction which I took, so I shouted out "Police!" as loudly as I could. A man whom I met in Grove- street returned with me, and when we reached the yard he took hold of the head of the deceased. As he lifted it up I saw the wound in the throat.

Who do you suppose Diemschitz is referring to here?

I see you're having a dig at Dave for saying something reasonable, but as usual, you don't have your facts straight.

First off... note that Louis says..."I ran off, I could not, I shouted, I met...how does that then match with his contention that he left with Issac[s]? Not a "we" among them. Plus...Louis said he didn't arrive until "precisely 1", Issac says he left around 12:45 just after being notified to go seek help ...by Louis. Issac K does not see Spooner. Which means what? It wasn't Louis and someone that Spooner saw, nor was it Issac k. Or did Louis leave with someone just after sending Issac K at 12:45, ...maybe. 4 people say Louis was there then. It would means Spooners estimate might have been early, but not by as much as 25 minutes as the Inquest seems to suggest.

Next, when DJA knows well there has been a connection between Wess and Schwartz established...which he doesn't happen to believe...and that Wess spoke several languages and wouldn't be limited to translating in just Yiddish...then its not reasonable questioning.

He said what he said then said it was unlikely...when he has a theory that has all 5 Canonicals blackmailing people...something without a shred of evidence to support it and miles of common sense, logic and reason to justifying tossing it. Its just creative storytelling. We have a Fiction area, maybe he would be more comfortable just discussing his objections there.