Was Liz's "Date" Necessarily a Romantic One?

[mariab]

The question should be, in regards to Israel Schwartz, why did Wynne Baxter, who prided himself on being thorough in his inquests and presenting every bit of information available - sometimes, even, at the chagrin of the police- not call Mr. Schwartz to testify at the Stride inquest? He would have been the most critical witness, by far. So, what happened?

This has been discussed here: http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=8720&page=5

[Hunter]

Yes, Maria, it has been discussed at JTR Forums. You might want to check your link.

What do you make of the papers beginning to express doubt about his story?

Well, it was only the Star, if I recollect, that reported 'the Hungarian's' story and then, later, said the police discredited it. We know from Swanson's Oct. 19th Home Office report that that wasn't the case. They certainly didn't accept the Star's version, which is also evidenced by Swanson's report when he specifically mentioned the version Schwartz told to the police, "... the police report of his statement cast no doubt upon it." I believe Swanson would have only added this if it was in contrast to a press report that the Home Office had probably seen and was confused by.

The police, also circulated a description matching the man Schwartz saw after they had previously circulated the description given by PC Smith.

The question still is, since we know that as late as October 19th, the police considered Schwartz's statement important - and possibly later than that because Abberline reported in early November on the 'Lipski' question and he didn't refute Schwartz's story either- then, what was up with Wynne Baxter here?

And - just to add to this- both Warren and Anderson refer to Schwartz as testifying at the inquest.

[mariab]

the elusive Schwartz witness

The link to the JTRForums thread works fine from my computer. Thread's called Schwartz: at the inquest or not?

Well, it was only the Star, if I recollect, that reported 'the Hungarian's' story

Only the Star and the Scotsman. In my opinion, Schwartz was laying low with the press, though I'm not done researching this by a long shot.

As has been discussed in the JTRForums thread, we can assume that Swanson might have wanted to present things as tidy as possible in his report to the Home Office.

The question still is, since we know that as late as October 19th, the police considered Schwartz's statement important - and possibly later than that because Abberline reported in early November on the 'Lipski' question and he didn't refute Schwartz's story either- then, what was up with Wynne Baxter here?

What's left from the sources makes it real hard to answer this question, which I consider a very important one for an interpretation of the events on Berner Street. Did Schwartz testify (maybe in a written, translated statement) and the statement was withheld? Would Wynne Baxter and the press have allowed the police to pressure them into withholding Schwartz' statement from reports of the inquest? Did Schwartz get scarce before the inquest?

And - just to add to this- both Warren and Anderson refer to Schwartz as testifying at the inquest.

Anderson might have easily gotten his facts wrong, but Warren? Could you elaborate about the Warren quote, Hunter? I didn't even know about that, so thank you so much for mentioning it.

[lynn cates]

IS

Hello Cris. Is it possible that the "Star" were actually the ones who doubted? The Met put more stock in Schwartz than they did PC Smith, simply because of the reported times.

I had not seen the one about Schwartz at inquest. Wonder if it's marginally possible that he WAS there and by chance the reporters missed it?

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Only the Star and the Scotsman. In my opinion, Schwartz was laying low with the press, though I'm not done researching this by a long shot.

Hi Maria,

While The Scotsman reported a man being chased down the street, it seemed to know nothing about Schwartz; at least as far as his possible involvement in it or any testimony he may have given to the police.

What's left from the sources makes it real hard to answer this question, which I consider a very important one for an interpretation of the events on Berner Street. Did Schwartz testify (maybe in a written, translated statement) and the statement was withheld? Would Wynne Baxter and the press have allowed the police to pressure them into withholding Schwartz' statement from reports of the inquest? Did Schwartz get scarce before the inquest?

Since Baxter went ballistic on John Davies and the police for not finding the other witnesses with Davies at the Chapman murder scene - and Davies even told him he had no time because he had to work. Baxter told him his work wasn't as important as that inquest, as if this civilian was supposed to even know that beforehand - don't you think Baxter would have said the same thing he said at the Chapman inquest, "He must be found."?

Anderson might have easily gotten his facts wrong, but Warren? Could you elaborate about the Warren quote, Hunter? I didn't even know about that, so thank you so much for mentioning it.

Anderson's was in a letter dated Nov. 5 MEPO 3/140/221/A49301C, f 207.
Warren's was a report to the Home Office the next day: HO 144/221/ A49301C, ff200-201.
Both can be found in the Murder of Elizabeth Stride chapter of the Ultimate- Evans & Skinner

I suspect he was relying on Anderson's letter from the day before. They both could have assumed Schwartz had terstified without really knowning. Swanson would have been the man who would have known.

[mariab]

Hi Cris.

While The Scotsman reported a man being chased down the street, it seemed to know nothing about Schwartz; at least as far as his possible involvement in it or any testimony he may have given to the police.

In my interpetation, this is William Wess manipulating things a bit and covering his a$$ for his Club:
{...}In the course of conversation 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 some persons regard as the murderer - being chased by another man along Fairclough Street which runs across Berner Street, close to the club, and which is interesected on the right by Providence Street, Brunswick Street, and Christian Street, and on the left by Batty Street and Grove Street, the two latter running up into Commercial Road. The 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.

Since Baxter went ballistic on John Davies and the police for not finding the other witnesses with Davies at the Chapman murder scene - and Davies even told him he had no time because he had to work. Baxter told him his work wasn't as important as that inquest, as if this civilian was supposed to even know that beforehand - don't you think Baxter would have said the same thing he said at the Chapman inquest, "He must be found."?

I know, hence my suspicion that Schwartz might have either been withheld from testifying by the police itself (to avoid going public with the physical description of suspects, esp. since we know for a fact that the police had questioned 2 unnamed suspects who allegedly fitted the physical description given by Schwartz), or that Schwartz simply went into hiding before the inquest. In the latter scenario, would you expect Swanson to have reported Schwartz' disappearance to the HO?

Anderson's was in a letter dated Nov. 5 MEPO 3/140/221/A49301C, f 207. Warren's was a report to the Home Office the next day: HO 144/221/ A49301C, ff200-201. I suspect he was relying on Anderson's letter from the day before. They both could have assumed Schwartz had testified without really knowning. Swanson would have been the man who would have known.

Thanks so much for the citing. I'll look them up when I find a minute. I agree with you that both these letters/reports could be unreliable, but I need to see the exact context before forming an opinion.

I apologize for not being able to spend more time on this right now, but in the coming months I will.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon!

Thanks for the post, but this is not what the Scotsman speaks of. Their article focuses on witnesses seeing Schwartz´s flight, and so it seemingly corroborates what Schwartz said.

The best!
Fisherman

Fisherman, do you recall Schwartz mentioning in the police statement that he ran as far as the Railway Arch?
Where is there a railway arch on Fairclough St.?

There never was a north/south railway line across Fairclough St., all railway lines ran east/west in this part of town.
If a railway arch existed it was considerably further south by Cable St.

I mention this because the Scotsman article appears to tell us about two men running eastward along Fairclough St. which is what Diemschitz & Kozebrdoski did, they ran as far as Grove St.
Maybe the Scotsman published a confused account of Diemschitz & Kozebrodski, because Schwartz said he ran south, not east.

I misunderstood the corroboration you were meaning, but this Scotsman article doesn't seem to relate the Schwartz story to my mind.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

Diemschitz and Kozebrodski didn't chase each other through the neighborhood though, while Schwartz and Pipeman allegedly did – at least according to one Star report.

[Wickerman]

Diemschitz and Kozebrodski didn't chase each other through the neighborhood though, while Schwartz and Pipeman allegedly did – at least according to one Star report.

Look at it from the 'third-person' perspective.
Was Diemschitz following Kozebrodski, or was Kozebrodski behind Diemschitz?
Who reported this to the "Scotsman", and how did they get the story. Was it an agency, or some witness in the street?, certainly it is corrupt, and who knows to what extent.

Where's this railway arch that Schwartz ran towards?
If there isn't one along Fairclough St., then this "Scotsman" story is not about Schwartz.

Regards, Jon S.

[Hunter]

Hello Cris. Is it possible that the "Star" were actually the ones who doubted? The Met put more stock in Schwartz than they did PC Smith, simply because of the reported times.

I had not seen the one about Schwartz at inquest. Wonder if it's marginally possible that he WAS there and by chance the reporters missed it?

Hi Lynn,
That may be possible but they reported that the Leman Street police had reason to doubt his story. Of course, they most certainly had reason to doubt the Star's version of his story and that may have been what they were implicating. The Star wasn't likely to admit that and they never really knew what he had told Abberline.

As to whether Schwartz was at the inquest and the reporters missed it? I doubt it. Look what Baxter went through with Phillips at the Chapman inquest. It was like a wrestling match. Baxter even went so far as to insult Phillip's professionalism by implicating that other medical opinions might not agree with him. He was determined to get everything out and on record. He didn't even make as much as a passing reference to any witness like Schwartz in his summary. And by that time, the police had released the description of the man Schwartz had described.

What is known is that Baxter had his own investigators who operated independently of the police. Perhaps they uncovered something that caused him to not put much faith in the 'Hungarians' story. Still, it would have been unlike Baxter to call him up anyway, even just to discredit him.

My thought is that - and its only a thought - Baxter was pretty tough on the police and the divisional surgeon during the protracted Chapman inquest. The fruits of his labor in all of that was his fantastic 'organ specimen' theory at the end which backfired right in his face. By the time of the Stride inquest Swanson had taken over the investigation and had now been around long enough to be up to speed on everything and he wasn't about to let the coroner jeopardize the investigation. Swanson was a tough SOB himself and a 'company man' when it came to police procedure.

One can notice a totally different disposition in Baxter at the Stride inquest as opposed to the Nichols and Chapman inquests. He had toned down his rhetoric considerably. As a result, the police may have been more able to get their way with holding back a key witness. Even though Schwartz's description was circulated, I think the fact that he was a Jew and the man he alleged to have seen shouted 'Lipski' may have caused the police to consider the possible social turmoil if his testimony was brought to the inquest. Baxter was a lot of things, but he was also, a socially conscious man. He didn't hesitate to use his hearings to get up on a soapbox for certain causes that were related to incidents his proceedings were investigating. For once, he may have agreed with Swanson or some high police official that the matter warranted some discretion, considering the social climate.

Baxter was aware of the social stress and he was concerned about the Jewish community. Baxter had won a narrow victory over Dr. Macdonald in filling the late Sir John Humphrey's seat as coroner for the Eastern District. Without the support of the Jewish community, Baxter might not have won. He had campaigned for their vote. And since then (May of 1888) that district had been subdivided into the Northeastern and Southeastern districts with himself retaining the Southeastern while his political rival, Macdonald, got the other.

He had brought Pizer into his previous inquest the day after that man was released for the sole purpose of letting Pizer publicly exonerate himself so the 'Leather Apron' furor might be subdued. It was a brilliant move on Baxter's part and it worked.

[lynn cates]

observation

Hello Maria, Jon. Quite right that, when two people are running, it may be perceived as two running, or X chasing Y, or conversely.

Jon, "If there isn't one along Fairclough St., then this "Scotsman" story is not about Schwartz."

Or Schwartz got the story wrong, etc.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Schwartz et al

Hello Cris. Thanks.

"That may be possible but they reported that the Leman Street police had reason to doubt his story. Of course, they most certainly had reason to doubt the Star's version of his story and that may have been what they were implicating."

I think that is correct. I doubt the police found the "knife" version inspiring.

"As to whether Schwartz was at the inquest and the reporters missed it? I doubt it.'

So do I. It is very hard to harmonise the stories here.

"Look what Baxter went through with Phillips at the Chapman inquest. It was like a wrestling match.'

It was indeed. Baxter seemed almost to humiliate him.

"Baxter even went so far as to insult Phillip's professionalism by implicating that other medical opinions might not agree with him. He was determined to get everything out and on record. He didn't even make as much as a passing reference to any witness like Schwartz in his summary. And by that time, the police had released the description of the man Schwartz had described."

All true.

"What is known is that Baxter had his own investigators who operated independently of the police. Perhaps they uncovered something that caused him to not put much faith in the 'Hungarian's story."

If so, one wishes it had survived.

"My thought is that - and its only a thought - Baxter was pretty tough on the police and the divisional surgeon during the protracted Chapman inquest. The fruits of his labor in all of that was his fantastic 'organ specimen' theory at the end which backfired right in his face. By the time of the Stride inquest Swanson had taken over the investigation and had now been around long enough to be up to speed on everything and he wasn't about to let the coroner jeopardize the investigation. Swanson was a tough SOB himself and a 'company man' when it came to police procedure."

So perhaps Swanson nixed Schwartz's testifying? Could be. I suppose that would be analogous to the withholding of some of Lewende's description of Kate's "contact" near Mitre sq.

"One can notice a totally different disposition in Baxter at the Stride inquest as opposed to the Nichols and Chapman inquests. He had toned down his rhetoric considerably. As a result, the police may have been more able to get their way with holding back a key witness."

Very possible. Do you think the police applied just a bit of friendly persuasion to help him adjust his view, or was it more like embarrassment at his previous theory?

"Even though Schwartz's description was circulated, I think the fact that he was a Jew and the man he alleged to have seen shouted 'Lipski' may have caused the police to consider the possible social turmoil if his testimony was brought to the inquest. Baxter was a lot of things, but he was also, a socially conscious man. He didn't hesitate to use his hearings to get up on a soapbox for certain causes that were related to incidents his proceedings were investigating. For once, he may have agreed with Swanson or some high police official that the matter warranted some discretion, considering the social climate."

And so, not unlike Warren and the GSG?

"Baxter was aware of the social stress and he was concerned about the Jewish community. Baxter had won a narrow victory over Dr. Macdonald in filling the late Sir John Humphrey's seat as coroner for the Eastern District. Without the support of the Jewish community, Baxter might not have won. He had campaigned for their vote. And since then (May of 1888) that district had been subdivided into the Northeastern and Southeastern districts with himself retaining the Southeastern while his political rival, Macdonald, got the other."

I was unaware that the Jewish vote had helped Baxter. But, if so, yes, he would not wish to offend.

"He had brought Pizer into his previous inquest the day after that man was released for the sole purpose of letting Pizer publicly exonerate himself so the 'Leather Apron' furor might be subdued. It was a brilliant move on Baxter's part and it worked."

Indeed, before this, Pizer/Pizer's family and friends feared for his life according to his statement.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Fascinating, Cris. Your posts have been copied and pasted into my notes on Berner Street, and I'll most def be consulting you regularly (and crediting you) for my article, if it's OK with you. (Which has time, cuz for this month I need to mainly work on my book, only minimal Ripperology. Plus I've got some personal stuff going on.)
Agree about the Star possibly intentionally having mixed up which version of Schwartz' “testimony“ the police mistrusted, though I have a couple more ideas of what else the police might have mistrusted.

What is known is that Baxter had his own investigators who operated independently of the police. Perhaps they uncovered something that caused him to not put much faith in the 'Hungarians' story. Still, it would have been unlike Baxter to call him up anyway, even just to discredit him.

You probably meant to say, "like" Baxter? Do we have evidence that Baxter's investigators worked on the Chapman case? I agree that it would have been easy for Baxter's investigators to notice if Schwartz was related to the IWEC. And since the WVC was involved as well, maybe the police wasn't keen on letting things getting out in the open in the press.

As to whether Schwartz was at the inquest and the reporters missed it? I doubt it. Look what Baxter went through with Phillips at the Chapman inquest. It was like a wrestling match. Baxter even went so far as to insult Phillip's professionalism by implicating that other medical opinions might not agree with him. He was determined to get everything out and on record. He didn't even make as much as a passing reference to any witness like Schwartz in his summary.

IF the police (AKA Swanson and Abberline) had decided though to keep the Schwartz testimony suppressed from public knowledge, it's a whole different matter than the conflict between Baxter and Phillips/the police at the Chapman inquest. In the Chapman case we're talking incompetency, in the Stride case we're talking keeping things under wraps so as not to endager the ongoing investigation. Apples and oranges.

My thought is that Baxter was pretty tough on the police and the divisional surgeon during the protracted Chapman inquest. The fruits of his labor in all of that was his fantastic 'organ specimen' theory at the end which backfired right in his face. By the time of the Stride inquest Swanson had taken over the investigation and had now been around long enough to be up to speed on everything and he wasn't about to let the coroner jeopardize the investigation. Swanson was a tough SOB himself and a 'company man' when it came to police procedure. One can notice a totally different disposition in Baxter at the Stride inquest as opposed to the Nichols and Chapman inquests. He had toned down his rhetoric considerably. As a result, the police may have been more able to get their way with holding back a key witness. {...} For once, he {Baxter} may have agreed with Swanson or some high police official that the matter warranted some discretion

Fascinating analysis. That's exactly how I see it too, and besides the Jewish/social question I'd throw in the WVC in there as well, which was pursuing its own agenda, becoming a conflict to the police and a possible cause of embarrassment.

Fascinating about Baxter using the Jewish votes and exonerating Pizer when running against Dr. Macdonald. Is there somewhere where I can read about all this, or do you know about this through the press reports Cris?
Also, Cris, what would you say? In case Schwartz got scarce and hid away before the inquest, would you expect Swanson to advertize this fact chapter and verse to the HO, Warren and Anderson? Or maybe Warren/Anderson would have been informed and decided to not mention the witness' disappearance.

[Wickerman]

Hello Maria, Jon. Quite right that, when two people are running, it may be perceived as two running, or X chasing Y, or conversely.

Exactly so, especially if one is shouting "murder", "police", a passer-by might assume one is chasing the other. However we look at it the Scotsman article is confused.

Jon, "If there isn't one along Fairclough St., then this "Scotsman" story is not about Schwartz."

Or Schwartz got the story wrong, etc.

You think his story, was just a story?

We might think that he would know where any railway arch's existed between Dutfields Yd. and his new residence in Backchurch Lane.
If he was chased all the way the nearest railway arch, this guy was not running with him he was running after him. The nearest railway arch is several streets away to the south & S/W of Dutfields Yd.

Regards, Jon S.

[Hunter]

You probably meant to say, "like" Baxter? Do we have evidence that Baxter's investigators worked on the Chapman case? I agree that it would have been easy for Baxter's investigators to notice if Schwartz was related to the IWEC. And since the WVC was involved as well, maybe the police wasn't keen on letting things getting out in the open in the press.

Yes, that was a typo. No we don't have direct evidence that Baxter's 'investigators' worked on the Chapman case. There was one incident, on the first day of the inquest, where Baxter was frustrated that the other witnesses involved with John Davies had not been located. Baxter threatened to use his 'officer' to find these men if Davies or the police couldn't. Baxter's 'officer' in this instance was a Mr. Banks. One has to understand Wynne Baxter's background a little. He wore many hats in his life, but he was best known as a successful attorney. One reason for this is because when he had a case, he used associates working for him to investigate a particular case so he was better prepared when presenting his side. He carried on this tactic when he became coroner. People like Mr. Banks fulfilled that role.

IF the police (AKA Swanson and Abberline) had decided though to keep the Schwartz testimony suppressed from public knowledge, it's a whole different matter than the conflict between Baxter and Phillips/the police at the Chapman inquest. In the Chapman case we're talking incompetency, in the Stride case we're talking keeping things under wraps so as not to endager [endanger] the ongoing investigation. Apples and oranges.

No, it wasn't a matter of incompetency in the Chapman case. It was a conflict of interest. The police were conducting an ongoing investigation and thought some details should not be public knowledge. If you will remember, at one point, Mr. Phillips even accused Baxter of 'thwarting justice' by attempting to divulge the missing organ details from him. Baxter thought it was his duty to get everything on record, now, so it could be later used at a trial if someone was apprehended and prosecuted. He had learned - once again as an attorney- that evidence needed to be gathered and recorded quickly, because over time, evidence could be lost, witnesses could be lost or their memory fade.

With Schwartz, you had a Jewish witness who claimed to see an altercation between a man and the murder victim. The epitaph 'Lipski' was used. I don't want to go long here because folks don't like long threads, so I'll just throw in this reminder; Baxter had presided over the inquest into the death of Miriam Angel. There was much racial tension involved there and Baxter would remember it well.

Fascinating about Baxter using the Jewish votes and exonerating Pizer when running against Dr. Macdonald. Is there somewhere where I can read about all this, or do you know about this through the press reports Cris?

This is rather complicated and since I am working on a manuscript involving this topic I'll just say that I'll provide source material in my footnotes. One correction though; Baxter didn't use Pizer to exonerate himself when running against Macdonald. That election happened in early 1887, as a result of the death of Sir John Humphreys. Baxter was the Conservative Union candidate and Macdonald was, perceived at least, as a radical Irish Home Rule candidate. Martin Fido talks about this in one of his books.

The demographics of the district were as such that many of the Irish immigrants lived in the Northeastern part of the district while many of the Jews lived and had their shops in the Southeastern part and closer to the old City... ie- Middlesex, Goulston, Aldgate (Witechapel Rd)...etc. There was tension between these two immigrant groups. The old adage, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies here. The Irish sided with Macdonald while the Jews went with Baxter. It was a bitterly fought election with even a debate about whether a doctor should be coroner as opposed to a lawyer holding the position. This was, also, the last time that the coroner's office would be an elective position.

The Coroner's Act of 1888 changed that and, ironically, Baxter's district was subdivided into the Northeastern and Southeastern districts with Macdonald gaining the coroner's seat for the Northeastern district. Baxter's pay got cut in half as a result, because he, hypothetically, was now only representing half of what he once did. Baxter, being the lawyer he was, actually sued the council for his pay, which had been set when Sir John Humphreys was still in office in 1886 and the tenure was supposed to remain in effect for five years.

As mentioned before, Baxter used his inquests to champion certain causes. Tying in with Baxter and the Jewish question, here's one example: It was reported in the Echo... can't remember the date off hand, as I'm going from memory here. There was a elderly Jewish couple who had resided in a tenement that they were subleasing to other tenants. The wife had committed suicide and the husband claimed it was a result of her being distressed over the high rent which made them unable to find sub-renters. Whitechapel had been plagued with this problem for years and it affected the Jewish community in particular. At the inquest, Baxter used this case as an opportunity for a 'bully pulpit' to make this case an example of the problem that existed, stating that the rent was too high in many of the buildings, that it caused economic hardship to these people and 'look at the result that this caused.' That was Wynne Edwin Baxter.

Also, Cris, what would you say? In case Schwartz got scarce and hid away before the inquest, would you expect Swanson to advertise this fact chapter and verse to the HO, Warren and Anderson? Or maybe Warren/Anderson would have been informed and decided to not mention the witness' disappearance.

I don't know, Maria. I don't think Schwartz was hidden away because Swanson does explain him to the HO in his report and both Warren and Anderson mention him as well. I just think, on this one, the socially conscious Baxter- knowing the tensions that existed and remembering the Lipski case- decided to work with the police on this one instead of his usual 'get everything out in the open' stance. And, as I said in the previous post, this is just my perception purely based on historical analysis of the people involved and the social and political climate of the time.

I've gone long enough. Folks don't like to read long posts. They may think they're on a Hutchinson thread... LOL.