Arbeter Fraint's Take

[Tom_Wescott]

Caz, you'll probably won't like my article

What kind of attitude is that? When I publish an article, I assume everyone will like it. As far as I know, everyone always does, except maybe stupid people.

Debs,

You're at it again with those wild theories, I see. LOL.

Rob House,

Your idea is possible only in the way that everything is possible. Otherwise, you're asking me to accept that two incidences, virtually identical to each, occurred in the same spot at the same time, with neither party any the wiser to the other. I honestly don't see any conclusion here other than what Wess related to the reporter was a version of the Schwartz story, possibly a correct version, and the reporter confused it in the telling, which is something we've seen time and time again the papers of that period (and our own!).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

What kind of attitude is that? When I publish an article, I assume everyone will like it. As far as I know, everyone always does, except maybe stupid people.

It's BAD attitude. Actually realistic attitude, cuz normally when I publish articles (about 2 dozen so far, counting 4 which I still need to expand from conf paper to more voluminous thing for publication) I have a pretty good idea of who will agree with my position and who won't. Though it's always nice to be surprised.
And I'll try to put in something about "stationary" specifically for Caz.

[mariab]

What WOULD be fatal would be a disclosed 15 minutes of inaction.

Vs. 15' min. of fame? ;-)
Greetings from Chicago O'Hare, Lynn.

PS.: The one who had his 15' min. of fame was Packer though. Schwartz was pretty low profile. I mean, I've been trying to nail this guy since about a year and even had to learn to read some Yiddish.

[Wickerman]

It is interesting to note that what Stride held in her hand is described as candies. That adds confirmation to the suspicion that the tablets were not strong cachous, as has been suggested by many a poster. It has been stated that they were probably tools of the trade for a prostitute, but the Arbeter Fraint instead describes them like candy, and thus potentially a gift, just like the rather elaborate flower Stride wore.

The best,
Fisherman

The cachous were a gift?
Might I make a suggestion?, the next time you take your significant other out on a 'date', give her a gift of breath mints.
We'll all start a poll on how many days it is before you can walk upright again!


If Stride had been given a "gift" of breath mints, it might be a male body that was found in Berner St.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

Quite fatal.

Hello Maria. Can you imagine Wess saying, "There was a murder at 12.45 but we waited until 1.00 to report it. Thought about moving the body, but, nah. There it is over there."?

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Oh Lynn - there was I thinking I was fighting a reluctant convert...

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

So....next...

[Wickerman]

Thank you Cris. So there goes Wick's and Debs' theory about the media-savy witness. So your explanation for Baxter not calling Schwartz at the inquest is cuz of Warren's fear of a Jewish upheaval (compare this to the erased graffito on GS). Still, not enough for me.

By rights, I suppose I should address any thoughts on this to Cris, because it is really his interpretation, but as you seem to be the intermediary, here's my two cents.
I do not see keeping a witness like Schwartz out of the inquest serving to alleviate unrest against the Jews.

With the GSG being so close to a piece of evidence, the wording might have been viewed (as we are all aware) as intending to place blame for the murders on the Jews.

Not so with Schwartz. Who in the world of gentiles would be aggravated at the Jews in general or Schwartz in particular because a Jew has fingered the murderer?
Are we to suppose that "Jack" had the support of the gentile community?

I don't think so.

On the other hand, with respect to an earlier post on this question, I still do not see what Baxter had to gain by keeping Schwartz out of the public eye.
Even had this been the case, I would expect at the very least that Schwartz's statement would have been made part of the public record in the original Stride Inquest files.
In consequence, Baxter in his summary would have been able to include some critical detail concerning what witness "x" had sworn/affirmed to in a "in camera" interview with Baxter. But we hear nothing concerning this, assumed to be, important statement.
How would this even work when part of the proceedure is that the jury hear all the evidence?

We might be reminded here by that one press release which suggested that the police at Leman St. had essentially lost interest in Schwartz's statement.
I know, we usually counter this observation by mentioning Swanson's Oct 19the report which implies the opposite.


All that said, I agree that there is no easy solution to the question of why Schwartz was absent.
What I do think though, is that if Schwartz had absconded, especially after being summonzed, we would have been well aware of it via the press & police records.
Such an action would have not been brushed aside with no comment from anyone in authority. So I think that is the least likely solution.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

nonplussed

Hello Dave. No, I'm convinced that the story does not add up.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

All that said, I agree that there is no easy solution to the question of why Schwartz was absent.
What I do think though, is that if Schwartz had absconded, especially after being summonzed, we would have been well aware of it via the press & police records.
Such an action would have not been brushed aside with no comment from anyone in authority. So I think that is the least likely solution.

On this, we agree, Jon. We should have seen something in a police document or a statement from Baxter himself. Baxter made a big ruckus about poor ol' Davis not finding Kent, Green and Holland to testify on the first day of the Chapman inquest. When Davis told Baxter that he didn't have time to find them because of his having to work, Baxter, emphatically told him that his job meant nothing compared to that inquest. "These men must be found!" Baxter shouted. Baxter really had no justification for coming down hard on Davis that way... But, that was Wynne Baxter.

Because of the incident just described and because he was angry that the police had not provided him a layout plan of 29 Hanbury St. for reference, Baxter abruptly adjourned the inquest. When the proceedings resumed on Wednesday afternoon, the three other witnesses and the plan were produced. Baxter had made his point that you didn't mess with him.

Both, John and Amelia Richardson gave conflicting testimonies about the goings on at 29 Hanbury St. Baxter had a field day picking these two witnesses apart; recalling them again just to trip them up. He relished this kind of stuff.

John Pizer had been all over the press - especially the Star- as the suspect 'Leather Apron'. Baxter didn't have to do it, but he had Pizer show up the day after his release at his inquest so Pizer could publicly vindicate himself and, thus, quell some of the social tension that was boiling over concerning this episode. It was a brilliant move on Baxter's part and it worked.

It was totally out of character for Baxter to not bring forth any relevant witness - if the previous inquests are any indication. And, for any practical purpose, Israel Schwartz would have been, probably, THE key witness in the Stride investigation. And, Baxter had to know about Schwartz. The Star didn't give the 'Hungarian's name and no other media printed the story. The police had a different version of Schwartz's testimony and seemed to believe him. So... what changed in this instance?

I don't believe Schwartz went into hiding - at least not from the authorities; nor do I believe the press report made any difference because the press reports had not mattered with previous witnesses.

[mariab]

Hello Maria. Can you imagine Wess saying, "There was a murder at 12.45 but we waited until 1.00 to report it. Thought about moving the body, but, nah. There it is over there."?

Yes, I know your stand on this Lynn.

By rights, I suppose I should address any thoughts on this to Cris, because it is really his interpretation, but as you seem to be the intermediary, here's my two cents.

LOL.

I do not see keeping a witness like Schwartz out of the inquest serving to alleviate unrest against the Jews. With the GSG being so close to a piece of evidence, the wording might have been viewed (as we are all aware) as intending to place blame for the murders on the Jews. Not so with Schwartz.

With Schwartz too Wickerman, cuz of “Lipski“. The GSG in the Eddowes inquest in combination with the epithet “Lipski“ in the Stride inquest bore the possibility of affecting and perhaps even compromising the investigation of the Double Event in a socio-political sense, so I totally see where Cris is coming from. However, I'm not entirely convinced that the sole reason for Schwartz not having appeared at the inquest was Warren's fear of a Jewish upheaval, even if we have documentation of Warren writing about this in – where was that again Lynn, could you remind us again? His Memoires?Warren went even so far as to claim he saw the Stride case as a conspiracy against the Jewish anarchists! (Which Lynn likes as a suggestion, of course.)

We might be reminded here by that one press release which suggested that the police at Leman St. had essentially lost interest in Schwartz's statement.

Could you please clarify Wickerman? Are you referring simply to the Star report implying that the police expressed doubts against Schwartz as a witness? Or perhaps to another newspaper report?

I know, we usually counter this observation by mentioning Swanson's Oct 19, the report which implies the opposite.

Yep, things don't exactly add up. I REALLY wish to look into the police officials' approach to the Stride inquest, and I hope that Cris and Neil/Monty will help me with information/reading suggestions. And I'm grateful that Cris is preparing an article on Baxter. This aspect of the case is definitely one of my newbie lacunae, but I hope not for long.

I don't believe Schwartz went into hiding - at least not from the authorities; nor do I believe the press report made any difference because the press reports had not mattered with previous witnesses.

Didn't press reports with the "witness“ Packer mattered a great deal though Cris?

All that said, I agree that there is no easy solution to the question of why Schwartz was absent. What I do think though, is that if Schwartz had absconded, especially after being summonzed, we would have been well aware of it via the press & police records. Such an action would have not been brushed aside with no comment from anyone in authority. So I think that is the least likely solution.

Via the press not at all, as we all know how scarce and garbled up (intentionally or not) the Schwartz press coverage came out to be. The police is another matter. Is there perhaps a possibility that they might have kept mum for fear of embarrassment if Schwartz suddenly got scarce before the inquest? I'm only contemplating this as a distant possibility. Schwartz not having been subpoenaed might also be related to the fact that the 2 unnamed “suspects“ Abberline and co. interviewed after Schwartz' testimony were proven a dead end. Which agrees with Debs' suggestion (or should I simply say “question“?) as quoted below:

I asked if anyone on the thread knew if legally, a witness could be used as a witness again if they had identified a police suspect, known or later proven to be innocent.

Wow! Isn't this case complicated and the sources extremely scarce AND contradicting each other? But somehow it keeps my interest that it's such a challenge!
With best regards from Stockholm Arlanda,
Maria

[Wickerman]

With Schwartz too Wickerman, cuz of “Lipski“.

Hi Maria.
Not really. If you recall, the public were unaware of the shout of "Lipski", it was not reported in the press.

The Star only suggested that when "Knifeman/Pipeman" emerged from the doorway he shouted a warning to BS-man.

Abberline, who interviewed Schwartz, suggested that the term "Lipski" had been aimed at Schwartz himself, due to his strong Jewish appearance and that Schwartz thought BS-man shouted it. As it happens Abberline had determined that Schwartz was unable to say with any certainty who the name "Lipski" had been directed to, himself or Pipeman.

In the 19th Oct. report, Swanson wrote that BS-man shouted "Lipski" to "Pipeman", not to Schwartz.

One thing is certain, there is no clear understanding of who shouted to whom.
With respect to any possible civil unrest, the press never reported the actual name "Lipski", so there was no cause for concern on that account.

Had Schwartz appeared at the Inquest, the Coroner need only make the same request that was made to Lawende when he was requested to not giving a detailed description at that time.
There's no need to keep Schwartz out of sight altogether, simply that he not divulge any words he may have heard shouted at the time, seeing as how he was not certain who the "shout" was aimed at.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

I know, but the “Lipski“ shout could have still gotten out inadvertedly at the inquest and such an incident would have been considered as “provocatory“ in Victorian Whitechapel – especially when associated with another slaying of an “unfortunate“. However, I completely agree with you that considering the “Lipski“ shout as the sole reason Schwartz did not appear at the inquest is not convincing.

Wickerman, when you said that one press release suggested that “the police at Leman St. had essentially lost interest in Schwartz's statement“, were you simply referring to the Star report implying that the police expressed doubts against Schwartz as a witness, or perhaps to another newspaper report?

[Wickerman]

Wickerman, when you said that one press release suggested that “the police at Leman St. had essentially lost interest in Schwartz's statement“, were you simply referring to the Star report implying that the police expressed doubts against Schwartz as a witness, or perhaps to another newspaper report?

Thats the only one I know of Maria..

The Star
LONDON. TUESDAY, 2 OCTOBER, 1888.

The threads that had been taken up on the possible chance of their leading to something tangible have been laid down again. It is but fair to say that the police have clutched eagerly at every straw that promised to help them out, but there is nothing left to work on. People have come forward by scores to furnish the description of a man they had seen with some woman near the scene, and not a great while before the commission of one or the other of

SUNDAY MORNING'S CRIMES,

but no two of the descriptions are alike, and none of the accompanying information has thus far been able to bear investigation. In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Just because this is the Star, I wouldn't put a great deal of faith in it. The Star have been known to exaggerate reports one day, only to deride the same report the next day.
I mention it because it exists and because we don't know otherwise, we can't ignore it.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

Yes, that's the well-known Star report. Thanks for posting it here Wickerman. I've been wondering if the second “arrested man on information furnished from another source“ could simply be referring to Leon Goldstein having “turned himself in“ to Leman Street after having been identified by Fanny Mortimer. Presented in a lightly garbled version by the Star.
As for the first “arrested man on the description thus obtained“, Paul Begg in The Facts hypothesized that Pipeman's identity might have been known to the police, but the subsequent official reports and the sustained written communication between Abberline and Swanson make it obvious that Pipeman was never traced by the police. (Whether Pipeman was known to the IWEC is a whole another matter though.)

Won't be doing much Ripperology in the next couple days. Have just arrived in Berlin (after 3 months of working in the US), finished sorting through my post, and am BURRIED in bureaucracy on 4 different matters. Pertaining to some nice funding I'll be getting, but with still tons of details requiring to get untangled. Monday's gonna be a real nice day, lol.

Off to unpack my suitcase. I'm so done in from lack of sleep/extensive sitting on the planes, I'm walking with a limp, lol.