Two

[perrymason]

Respectfully to you Don and Sam, memo's that indicate support pale in comparison to formal records that do not have said entries in them. Namely the entry of Israel Schwartz on the witness roster for the Stride Inquest.

Logically, if his story was thought to be relevant at all....wouldnt that story. even under an assumed name, be entered into the proceeding's records? On what legal basis could they withhold what seems to be vital information concerning a murder?

How could they call a witness to testify about the time of 12:45am if they had another trusted one that saw the victim being assaulted at that same time?

Responsibility for the compilation of all known data regarding the investigations into Liz Strides murder was in the hands of the Police...so was Schwartz's statement before the Inquest began.....it was re-convened a few times...there was ample opportunity to investigate, then call, the witness.

They didnt call him...but my bet is they investigated him. What does that say?

Cheers/

[Sam Flynn]

Respectfully to you Don and Sam, memo's that indicate support pale in comparison to formal records that do not have said entries in them. Namely the entry of Israel Schwartz on the witness roster for the Stride Inquest.

The number of mentions Schwartz gets in the surviving (official) records far outnumber those about Hutchinson, Mike. Indeed, going by Don's most recent post, official interest in Schwartz's story might even have outlived their interest in Hutchinson's.

Usual caveats about the incompleteness of records apply, of course, but - as noted already - the official records of the Stride inquest have yet to be rediscovered. On that basis, we can't rule out the possibility (however faint) that Schwartz attended the inquest, and we can't say that he wasn't asked to attend. Given that official interest in his story seems to have outlived the inquest, one thing we certainly can not say is that his evidence was in any way "discredited" by that time.

[perrymason]

The number of mentions Schwartz gets in the surviving (official) records far outnumber those about Hutchinson, Mike. Indeed, going by Don's most recent post, official interest in Schwartz's story might even have outlived their interest in Hutchinson's.

Usual caveats about the incompleteness of records apply, of course, but - as noted already - the official records of the Stride inquest have yet to be rediscovered. On that basis, we can't rule out the possibility (however faint) that Schwartz attended the inquest, and we can't say that he wasn't asked to attend. Given that official interest in his story seems to have outlived the inquest, one thing we certainly can not say is that his evidence was in any way "discredited" by that time.

We do have the entirety of the local coverage of the proceedings Sam, and none have Schwartz. I wonder about the semantics here...."discredited" requires formal pronouncement by someone in authority....but "disbelief" can be as simple as disinterest. His absence may be due to a feeling his story wasnt relevant....something I cannot fathom given the stories circumstances and timings.

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

We do have the entirety of the local coverage of the proceedings Sam, and none have Schwartz.

I say again, Mike - I wish that the official inquest transcripts had not survived. The press coverage of the proceedings could have been subject to official "suppression", as we see demonstrated in the Ripper case and elsewhere.

I wonder about the semantics here...."discredited" requires formal pronouncement by someone in authority

That didn't happen in the case of Hutchinson's "discrediting", Mike. The word gets used in a press report, that's all, and we have no idea that any official pronouncement was made in that regard. Another reminder that (a) the police records have survived in a very incomplete state; and (b) we should be wary of press accounts!

His absence may be due to a feeling his story wasnt relevant....something I cannot fathom given the stories circumstances and timings

As to circumstances - remember the erasure of the GSG, and the fear that senior Metropolitan officers had of "inflaming" local anti-semitic tensions.

[Tom_Wescott]

As long as we're all in agreement that Schwartz DID NOT appear at the inquest. As far as why he did not appear, we can only guess. We do have press reports stating that Schwartz was not wholly believed and he does not appear to have been used as a witness when the opportunity arose. Matthew Packer was also not called as a witness because the police weren't sure he was telling the truth. The same may have been the case for Schwartz. But by the same token, like Sam said, they may have had him under a gag order.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

I for one have no reason to doubt Schwartz's veracity. I think he reported what he thought he saw. So take it with a grain of salt. I just can't imagine that a Jewish immigrant who did not speak English would want to get mixed up in a murder case if he could avoid it. Maybe I'm being naive but I think he was just trying to do the right thing.

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

I think Schwartz didn't appear because he wouldn't have understood the language being spoken and his appearance would have necessitated the use of a translator. If he spoke Hungarian, and not Yiddish, it may have been a problem to locate someone to do just that. Regardless, if it was felt that his statement was accurate, and it seems to have been thorough, why create the headache that would have been necessary to get him to the hearing? His absence, instead of being a glaring omission, may be looked at as a nice piece of up front work in order to get a nice statement. Though we may see a few holes in it, it's because we are really looking for them. I think there was no more to ask him that they didn't already know.

Cheers,

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

C.D.,

That's not naive at all. There's no solid reason for us to discount Schwartz or call him a liar. Sure, there's reason to suspect the police may not have found him iron clad. But until something surfaces which gives us a real reason to doubt Schwartz's veracity, we have to conclude he saw what he said he saw (or rather, what Swanson and the Star say he saw).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Ive been looking at later mentions of Schwartz's statements and it seem to me the majority of any later discussions of it concern the call of "Lipski", not his witnessed assailant, the timing, or even a possible Pipeman-BSM team. This is in connection with some speculation at the time I believe by Major Smith that Anderson and the investigation had an anti-semetic tone to it and was "fruitless".

It seems that they were at the end of September having focused on a poor local Jew as Jack without any results and they were looking to see if the interpretation of the evidence collected thus far warranted that Jewish culprit spin. The discussion of what "Lipski" really meant was a part of that informal review.

As I said, his absence isnt uncertain, its absolute. Either they suppressed his statement and name and forced the press to do the same, or held Inquest proceedings that were secret and never revealed.....or they believed it was in the best interest of the Inquest to omit his witness account and instead offer James Brown for 12:45am.

If Schwartz appeared and no press was aloud, then the press would have reported on events they could not attend. They didnt. If Schwartz was suppressed due to his perceived value being high, then his witness status would be be evident in later usage by them...it wasnt.

To my eye although the sighting that he offers on the surface has great importance to the murder of Liz Stride if truthful, this is still the murder of the least likely Ripper victim, not the most. What would a fantastic ID of BSM give them.....maybe Strides killer? That does nothing for the case they were looking to make for a Ripper though.

Liz Stride is ONLY included in the Canonical Group because she dies on the same night and within walking distance from a much more probable Ripper murder...on the surface.

Schwartz's value was apparent if only for Strides killer, but not for "Jack"....and only if he had no affiliation with the Club or reason to fabricate any details. And if his translation was accurate.

Cheers all.