Two

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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

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]

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.

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/

[Supe]

Sam,

I might add to your above post that as late as November there were still memoranda between the Met and the Home Office that strongly suggest Schwartz was had not been discredited. It would seem that when the facts don't fit some folks' obssessive theories they are simply discarded--not just in Ripperdom but everywhere.
Don.

[Sam Flynn]

Im astounded...sort of...that anyone would claim that Israels Inquest absence is anything but intentional and absolute.

I dont know why he wasnt chosen to attend and add his story to the official records proceedings, no one does...., I only suggested its probably because they didnt believe his story.

I suggested that it was possible that they DID believe his story, and that's why they didn't want it getting wider coverage than necessary. I can't see why that's any less likely, given the experience with the erasure of the GSG.

He is not on those records even in passing or special mention.

The records are, as we know, sadly incomplete, Mike. We don't even have the official transcript of Stride's inquest at our disposal anymore.

People get all hung up about some support in memorandum regarding Israel, forgetting I assume that similar memos included support for Hutchinson. Someone formally discredited.

All that survives of Hutchinson's file is a single paragraph in a routine report penned by Abberline. Unless I'm much mistaken, there are far more "memo-miles" about Schwartz's story in the surviving records than there are about Hutchinson's.

Im astounded...sort of...that anyone would claim that Israels Inquest absence is anything but intentional and absolute.

I dont know why he wasnt chosen to attend and add his story to the official records proceedings, no one does...., I only suggested its probably because they didnt believe his story. He is not on those records even in passing or special mention. That means if they did as some of you seem to suggest, they withheld his testimony, then there must be a reason for that. Anyone have evidence of one? Anyone see Israel Schwartz's name ever crop up again in memos, file correspondence, or any of the records regarding the cases?

Its the most bleeding obvious answer. People get all hung up about some support in memorandum regarding Israel, forgetting I assume that similar memos included support for Hutchinson. Someone formally discredited.

The one that couldnt attend the Inquest as a witness because he wasnt registered as one until after it. Israel was and would have been compelled to appear had they reason to believe his story was vital. I believe he would have been legally strongarmed to do so.

Best regards

[Chris]

To be fair, one can't state categorically that:
a) Schwartz was not asked to appear, or that,
b) he did not appear because his testimony had been discredited by then.
There are several plausible reasons other than being discredited why he did not appear.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. We simply don't know why he didn't appear.

[Tom_Wescott]

That is very true, Don.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

Chris,

To be fair, one can't state categorically that:
a) Schwartz was not asked to appear, or that,
b) he did not appear because his testimony had been discredited by then.
There are several plausible reasons other than being discredited why he did not appear.

Don.