Two

[Tom_Wescott]

Swanson and Anderson seemed to be relatively clueless about many things. Swanson seemed to have been completely unfamiliar with Schwartz prior to preparing his report on Oct. 17th. They were more familiar with Matthew Packer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Anderson never said that Schwartz appeared at the inquest.

What I said was that Anderson had written of Schwartz's having given evidence at the inquest. To be precise, he wrote:
"I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case ..."
[Draft letter to Home Office, 5 November; Ultimate Sourcebook, p. 142]

As I said, I assume that was an error, but nonetheless that is what Anderson wrote.

Anyhow, my point is that if Schwartz wasn't called to give evidence at the inquest because his story had been discredited, clearly Anderson knew nothing of it. Nor did Swanson, nor, apparently, did Abberline.

[Tom_Wescott]

Chris is correct in that we don't know and likely never will know why Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest. But I'd say we're past speculating that he might have appeared. Anderson never said that Schwartz appeared at the inquest. He mistakenly referred to Schwartz's evidence in Swanson's report as his inquest testimony, whereas we know from Swanson's own words that he was actually working from Abberline's written police report.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Out of interest, does it say anywhere that Schwartz definitely didn't appear, or are we assuming he didn't because the press transcripts don't mention him?

No, I don't think it does say anywhere that he didn't appear. Indeed, in one place Anderson writes of his having given evidence at the inquest. I assume that's an error, but that and the other later references to him in official documents should be weighed against the speculation that he didn't appear because his story had been discredited.

[Sam Flynn]

However much you keep on trying to spin certainty out of thin air, the fact remains: we have absolutely no evidence as to why Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest.

Out of interest, does it say anywhere that Schwartz definitely didn't appear, or are we assuming he didn't because the press transcripts don't mention him?

Idle speculation, I know, but I wouldn't rule it out. If only the official Stride inquest papers had survived...

[Chris]

perrymason

However much you keep on trying to spin certainty out of thin air, the fact remains: we have absolutely no evidence as to why Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest.

Of course, the simple fact is that, much as you may wish you knew why Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest, you don't. No one does.

There are logically 3 explanations for his absence....1 is that he was deemed untrustworthy to certify by an appearance at a formal Inquest, and 2, he was so important that his story was suppressed and he is probably the Jewish witness that is called several times over coming years to identify suspects, not Lawende. 3 is that he withdrew his statement.

He would not be excused from testifying without a mention had he been scared. He would not have been excused for illness, without mention. He would not be excused for safety sake....as I said, they sequestered Lawende and could have done the same for him and his wife. He would not be excused due to employment, or family affairs.

This was an Inquest to determine if Liz Stride was a victim of a murder by accumulating all the pertinent data known to that point on a formal police record. Israel Schwartz, allegedly the Hungarian Jew witness who says he saw the victim assaulted within minutes of her estimated death cut is not mentioned...his story is not referenced, he is in fact completely absent from the proceedings....instead the records show that the police organized witness for 12:45am is James Brown, a street resident and not affiliated in any way with the club.

If you have evidence that either of the other 2 possibilities should be seriously considered, speak up. Love to hear about that evidence.

Cheers.

[Archaic]

Thanks, Sam.

Cheers, Archaic

[Sam Flynn]

Hi, Sam, that's an interesting point, especially in light of how the police handled- or more accurately, obliterated- the Goulston Street Graffito.

But wasn't it already in the newspaper that the witness was Schwartz, a Hungarian Jew?

Surprisingly - or not, if my hunch is correct - the detail of his story actually didn't get all that much coverage, Arch. It was only, as I recall, really covered in the Star, and even then it doesn't mention the "L" word (i.e. the cry of "Lipski!") at all.

Do you think the police were just trying to take the focus off him, and off Jews in general?

I can well understand why they might have wanted to minimise the risk of too many Jewish resonances being picked up by the press... bearing in mind their reaction to the GSG.

[Archaic]

Thanks for the replies, everybody.

Hi, Sam, that's an interesting point, especially in light of how the police handled- or more accurately, obliterated- the Goulston Street Graffito.

But wasn't it already in the newspaper that the witness was Schwartz, a Hungarian Jew?

Do you think the police were just trying to take the focus off him, and off Jews in general?

Best regards, Archaic

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Arch,

If a witness such as Schwartz ought to have appeared to give his testimony, but claimed he was "too afraid" of the consequences- such as the killer seeking revenge against himself and his family- would the police have let him off?

Perhaps it was the authorities, rather than Schwartz, who feared the consequences of giving his testimony a wider audience. After all, here was a Jew who may well have seen Jack the Ripper assaulting a woman outside a Jewish club. To compound matters, the assailant shouted out the name of a Jewish murderer whose trial had been a public sensation, and whose case was still fresh in people's minds. In this context, it's worth remembering that senior Metropolitan officers wanted to suppress a mere chalk message for fear that it might spark an anti-semitic riot.

[Chris]

...he didnt appear because the police chose not to call him as a witness.

Of course, the simple fact is that, much as you may wish you knew why Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest, you don't. No one does.

Hi, Sam & everyone.

I have a question about Witness Procedure:

If a witness such as Schwartz ought to have appeared to give his testimony, but claimed he was "too afraid" of the consequences- such as the killer seeking revenge against himself and his family- would the police have let him off?

Thanks, Archaic

If his testimony was deemed vital, No. His statement could have been entered without him present, he could have written one anonymously that was read aloud at the Inquest, he could have been introduced under a false name, he could have been sequestered like Lawende was before the Inquest,...there are many ways to have his statement appear on record at the Inquest that would protect him and his identity.

Now...with that in mind....and with the knowledge that if he told the truth his statement is one of the more important statements of any Canonical murder....what does his absence likely indicate?

Its not a trick question...he didnt appear because the police chose not to call him as a witness.

Cheers Archy

[Archaic]

Witness Procedure

Hi, Sam & everyone.

I have a question about Witness Procedure:

If a witness such as Schwartz ought to have appeared to give his testimony, but claimed he was "too afraid" of the consequences- such as the killer seeking revenge against himself and his family- would the police have let him off?

Thanks, Archaic

[Sam Flynn]

Not as suggestive as Schwartz not being asked to appear.

Do we know that he wasn't asked?