Why No Stride Mutilations ?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Could not an "in camera" hearing have taken place including the jury but excluding the press? The reference in the report to the Home Office does seem to be specifically nominating evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest, but having re-read the Coroner's summary, I have to agree that there is not even the slightest allusion to the Schwartz incident or to his evidence.

So what are we as later day arm chair investigators to glean from all these clues. Was Schwartz considered to be the only person to have got a good look at JtR, and therefore had reason to fear for his life? Could a secret inquest been held on the Thursday with the Coroner and jury on the basis that no public mention would be made of it to protect Schwartz, but reports to the Home Office were the exception? Otherwise, what was the purpose of skipping Thursday for the public inquest?

Smith was called to the inquest, as would be expected, but so were Marshall and Brown. The Coroner seemed to cast doubt on Brown's sighting of Stride at 12:45 due to the clothing description (full length coat) differences with Smith and Marshall, but did he also have in mind the conflict with Schwartz's time of 12:45?

It seems to me that Schwartz appears to be a far more important witness than either Marshall or Brown. Either he was not called to the inquest because his story was judged to be suspect or irrelevant, or he gave evidence in a protected environment. Schwartz's own story shows he was more oriented towards flight that fight, so we should not preclude the possibility that his co-operation had the price of secrecy.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

At this point in time I think we're just left with not knowing why Schwartz does not appear at the inquest, and because we have nothing recorded that hints at why that's the case, it can be dangerous for us to speculate too much because we will have a tendency to decide we "like" one speculation over the other despite having no evidence one way or the other.

I suppose, the reference to Schwartz's information "at the inquest" could suggest that the police expected him to appear, though other possibilities exist. I suggested one idea (note, idea, not fact) above as that statement reflecting some sort of generalisation of the concept "inquest" to include the statements the witnesses gave to the police and not only those statements given at the formal inquest sessions themselves. You've suggested an in camera presentation by Schwartz, but like you, I see nothing in the summing up to bolster that, and also it would appear to me that would be something commented upon by the press. The skipping of Thursday is not a big deal, really, given the delays between sittings for the other inquests, so it seems fairly typical that they didn't run on consecutive days.

As for Schwartz's lack of appearance at the inquest? I've seen a number of ideas suggested, a few that come to mind are:
1) the coroner didn't believe Schwartz so didn't call him
2) the police lost faith in Schwartz and didn't pass his testimony on
3) the police didn't submit Schwartz's testimony to the coroner because they held him back as too important
4) Schwartz didn't receive a summons (i.e. couldn't find him in time)
5) Schwartz didn't understand the summons (i.e. couldn't speak/read English)
6) Schwartz was sick and couldn't attend
7) Schwartz deliberately chose not to show as he was frightened

and I'm sure there are other ideas/suggestions too.

But the thing is, we have no basis for preferring any of those with regards to Schwartz because there is nothing recorded that suggests which of those is to be preferred. In the end, all we know, is that it appears that Schwartz didn't testify at the inquest, but we do not know why. We do not know if he was or was not summoned. If he was (included they tried to summon him but couldn't find him), we do not know why he doesn't appear, but other than #4, we would be looking at something like #5-#7. If he wasn't summoned, then something like #1 through #3 would be the type of explanation we might expect (and I'm sure there are others).

Sadly, we don't even know if he was summoned, or was intended to be summoned, or if he simply failed to appear. We know that failing to appear could net him a fine, and one might expect the Coroner to ask about where he is, but that might have been done in conversations prior to the start of the inquest on the day and so hasn't been recorded for us (if that happened). If, however, he wasn't summoned, then we don't know if it was due to him being considered unreliable or because he was considered too important! Both could be the case. We just have too little information. There are indirect aspects of the police behaviours that have been drawn upon to support both possibilities, but in the end, they are indirect.

For example, the police comment about his testimony "at the inquest" could reflect they expected him to testify, and the report about the conclusions drawn are based upon his police testimony and erroneously attributes it to his expected inquest testimony. But we see no indication he was fined, or that the coroner was peeved at the police when he doesn't appear. Which some have suggested means he was removed from the witness lists because he was deemed unreliable and yet, we get the whole misidentification fiasco from Mary Malcolm, where it is clear Baxter doesn't believe she's reliable. At one point he says "The Coroner: It is important that the evidence of identification should be unmistakable, and I think that the witness should go to the same spot in Chancery- lane on Saturday next, in order to see if her sister comes....", indicating he thinks her identification needs a more objective verification,
and even at the start of her testimony we have this exchange:
[Coroner] Who is it? - It is the body of my sister, Elizabeth Watts.
[Coroner] You have no doubt about that? - Not the slightest.
And his 2nd question sounds like he knows her identification is a bit suspect right from the start.
So if he allows Mary Malcolm to testify, it seems unlikely that he would turn away Schwartz simply because he might not be fully convinced of some of Schwartz's statements (presuming that even was the case).

Anyway, I suppose that's a long winded way of simply restating that we really just don't know why Schwartz isn't at the inquest, but from all we have, it seems he wasn't. And that's about as much as we can say, unless we are willing to read into things more than the evidence allows.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jeff,

Could not an "in camera" hearing have taken place including the jury but excluding the press? The reference in the report to the Home Office does seem to be specifically nominating evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest, but having re-read the Coroner's summary, I have to agree that there is not even the slightest allusion to the Schwartz incident or to his evidence.

So what are we as later day arm chair investigators to glean from all these clues. Was Schwartz considered to be the only person to have got a good look at JtR, and therefore had reason to fear for his life? Could a secret inquest been held on the Thursday with the Coroner and jury on the basis that no public mention would be made of it to protect Schwartz, but reports to the Home Office were the exception? Otherwise, what was the purpose of skipping Thursday for the public inquest?

Smith was called to the inquest, as would be expected, but so were Marshall and Brown. The Coroner seemed to cast doubt on Brown's sighting of Stride at 12:45 due to the clothing description (full length coat) differences with Smith and Marshall, but did he also have in mind the conflict with Schwartz's time of 12:45?

It seems to me that Schwartz appears to be a far more important witness than either Marshall or Brown. Either he was not called to the inquest because his story was judged to be suspect or irrelevant, or he gave evidence in a protected environment. Schwartz's own story shows he was more oriented towards flight that fight, so we should not preclude the possibility that his co-operation had the price of secrecy.

Cheers, George

You have to remember that there would have been a jury sitting at the inquest and they would have to have heard all the evidence before coming to a verdict. As Jeff stated to suddenly clear a court room and the press and with the exception of the jury and the coroner would without a doubt make the waiting press sit up and take note, and they would have reported this. After all there is no direct evidence that the man seen with Eddowes was her killer. The act of cutting her throat would have taken a matter of seconds so there is a 15 minute window for that to have ocurred.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

But would there be any purpose for Schwartz to present his information to the coroner given it is the jury who returns the verdict? The coroner's summing up does not appear to refer to anything that implies he is aware of Schwartz's information either. The press make no mention of any "closed meetings", which seems unlikely if it were the case that Schwartz (or a "secret witness") was being presented to the coroner alone.

Basically, I'm not aware that such a procedure was able to be done for an inquest, and unless the jury were present to hear his testimony, then such a meeting would be as good as him not presenting at all (since the coroner doesn't make the final call). Maybe it was legally possible for such an event, though, I don't know (I'm not familiar with the relevant laws, but I don't recall seeing anything that suggests it was an option).

In the end, all we know is that it appears that Schwartz did not testify at the inquest. The references to the contrary may be nothing more than the police referring to the taking of statements as "part of the inquest", generalising the term beyond the testimonies given in front of the jury. We do know the police wanted to keep information out of the press, and there's one point during an inquest where the police speak up and indicate they have reason to ask that the description a witness has given to them be withheld from the public. So it is entirely possible that the police requested that the coroner not call Schwartz on the basis that they held his information to be of very important value and didn't want it out there to alert people they wanted to find (yes, I'm just speculating, there are other explanations as well, there always are when you have no information to constrain the story).

I guess, before we can really entertain the "Thursday in camera" idea, we would have to establish that an in camera presentation to the coroner alone would be legally possible. Also, we have to explain why the press don't report that such an in camera session was being held, given they seem to catch wind of quite a few things and that would be a fairly big story I would think. Anyway, I can't say it's impossible, but without knowing more about the legalities of it, I'm not sure we can say it was possible either?

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Could not an "in camera" hearing have taken place including the jury but excluding the press? The reference in the report to the Home Office does seem to be specifically nominating evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest, but having re-read the Coroner's summary, I have to agree that there is not even the slightest allusion to the Schwartz incident or to his evidence.

So what are we as later day arm chair investigators to glean from all these clues. Was Schwartz considered to be the only person to have got a good look at JtR, and therefore had reason to fear for his life? Could a secret inquest been held on the Thursday with the Coroner and jury on the basis that no public mention would be made of it to protect Schwartz, but reports to the Home Office were the exception? Otherwise, what was the purpose of skipping Thursday for the public inquest?

Smith was called to the inquest, as would be expected, but so were Marshall and Brown. The Coroner seemed to cast doubt on Brown's sighting of Stride at 12:45 due to the clothing description (full length coat) differences with Smith and Marshall, but did he also have in mind the conflict with Schwartz's time of 12:45?

It seems to me that Schwartz appears to be a far more important witness than either Marshall or Brown. Either he was not called to the inquest because his story was judged to be suspect or irrelevant, or he gave evidence in a protected environment. Schwartz's own story shows he was more oriented towards flight that fight, so we should not preclude the possibility that his co-operation had the price of secrecy.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

Do you completely discount the evidence of the Home Office reports by both Anderson and Warren concerning the "evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case"? Remember that the inquest ran from Monday to Wednesday plus Friday, leaving Thursday as a possibility for an "in camera" appearance by Schwartz at a closed inquest hearing at an unspecified location.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

But would there be any purpose for Schwartz to present his information to the coroner given it is the jury who returns the verdict? The coroner's summing up does not appear to refer to anything that implies he is aware of Schwartz's information either. The press make no mention of any "closed meetings", which seems unlikely if it were the case that Schwartz (or a "secret witness") was being presented to the coroner alone.

Basically, I'm not aware that such a procedure was able to be done for an inquest, and unless the jury were present to hear his testimony, then such a meeting would be as good as him not presenting at all (since the coroner doesn't make the final call). Maybe it was legally possible for such an event, though, I don't know (I'm not familiar with the relevant laws, but I don't recall seeing anything that suggests it was an option).

In the end, all we know is that it appears that Schwartz did not testify at the inquest. The references to the contrary may be nothing more than the police referring to the taking of statements as "part of the inquest", generalising the term beyond the testimonies given in front of the jury. We do know the police wanted to keep information out of the press, and there's one point during an inquest where the police speak up and indicate they have reason to ask that the description a witness has given to them be withheld from the public. So it is entirely possible that the police requested that the coroner not call Schwartz on the basis that they held his information to be of very important value and didn't want it out there to alert people they wanted to find (yes, I'm just speculating, there are other explanations as well, there always are when you have no information to constrain the story).

I guess, before we can really entertain the "Thursday in camera" idea, we would have to establish that an in camera presentation to the coroner alone would be legally possible. Also, we have to explain why the press don't report that such an in camera session was being held, given they seem to catch wind of quite a few things and that would be a fairly big story I would think. Anyway, I can't say it's impossible, but without knowing more about the legalities of it, I'm not sure we can say it was possible either?

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

The question is how reliable did the police think that Schwartz was he never got called to the inquest having witnessed a significant part of what might have been the lead up to Strides murder, or was it that the police could not find him. or that he gave false details or a false statement?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Do you completely discount the evidence of the Home Office reports by both Anderson and Warren concerning the "evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case"? Remember that the inquest ran from Monday to Wednesday plus Friday, leaving Thursday as a possibility for an "in camera" appearance by Schwartz at a closed inquest hearing at an unspecified location.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Thanks Trevor.

Brown said at least 6” too.

So unknown exactly but 6” or more. 9” not impossible.

I still wonder how much of a coincidence was involved in the discovery of the Coram knife. A blood stained knife with a 10" blade with a blood stained cloth wrapped around the handle found on the night after the double event in front of the brothel where Cohen was arrested. Then there is the report in the Evening News 1 Oct:

INTERVIEW WITH A NEIGHBOUR.
Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, and formed a strong contrast to many of those around her. I got into conversation with her and found that she was one of the first on the spot.
TEN INCHES OF COLD STEEL.
"I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife.

Curious that an unknown person was reported to have, within minutes of Stride's murder, described the murder weapon as having the same length blade as the knife found by Coram on the very next evening. Could be just a coincidence...I suppose?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

So I don’t see how someone who is undecided on whether Stride was a victim or not can be described as ‘blinkered?’

Hi Herlock,

Like yourself, and Jeff, I am undecided on whether Stride was a JtR victim. I don't see that there is evidence either way sufficiently convincing to be otherwise. While I have noticed that you tend to be a little traditional in your opinions, you are certainly not intransigent, and the ability to change one's opinion in the light of arguments presented by others could not be considered to be "blinkered". I find that whenever I start leaning one way or the other on this question, someone presents an argument that re-centres my pendulum.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

In the case of Chapman Dr Phillips stated "He should say that the instrument used at the throat and abdomen was the same. It must have been a very sharp knife with a thin narrow blade, and must have been at least 6 in. to 8 in. in length, probably longer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks Trevor.

Brown said at least 6” too.

So unknown exactly but 6” or more. 9” not impossible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or you could have replied intelligently.

Couldn't you?

M.

I don’t see what was wrong with my questions. It’s often been stated that the location of family dwellings would have given Lechmere a reason for being somewhere if questioned but “I’ve been visiting x” would hardly have washed at 2am would it?

Secondly, what would have been in the slightest bit risky about carrying a knife in a coat pocket when visiting family? Unless she searched the pockets of his coat how could she have got to have known about it? It’s not an issue.

And thirdly, where do you get a 9” knife from?

After Trevor’s post, and after also checking Brown, it appears at least 6” possibly longer, so it could have been 9” but I don’t know why you quoted 9” exactly?

[Mark J D]

I wonder how often he visited his mother in the early hours of the morning? And when he did visit her I wonder how often she searched his clothing? And how do you know it was a 9” blade?

Or you could have replied intelligently.

Couldn't you?

M.

[Trevor Marriott]

I wonder how often he visited his mother in the early hours of the morning? And when he did visit her I wonder how often she searched his clothing? And how do you know it was a 9” blade?

In the case of Chapman Dr Phillips stated "He should say that the instrument used at the throat and abdomen was the same. It must have been a very sharp knife with a thin narrow blade, and must have been at least 6 in. to 8 in. in length, probably longer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah, like he's really going to want to visit his mother with a nine-inch blade tucked into the coat she takes off him and hangs up in the hallway. Just like Peter Sutcliffe carrying a hammer and screwdriver to a Christmas party at his rellies'.

The knife-work of the 'double event' has always been considered anomalous. I offer a reason why, and people run a mile. The loss isn't mine.

M.

I wonder how often he visited his mother in the early hours of the morning? And when he did visit her I wonder how often she searched his clothing? And how do you know it was a 9” blade?

[John Wheat]

The quoted analysis surely has to be seen as reactionary, given the way it pretends that no-one ever thought of placing Lechmere in the frame...



In fact...

The time of the murder - breaks the previous pattern because Lechmere wasn't travelling to work on Sunday morning.
The location - unrelated to his work, and a couple of hundred yards from his mother's house.
The only murder commited south of the Whitechapel Road - it's where his mother lived, thus strongly connected.
The weapon used - not being on his way to work, Lechmere wouldn't have been wearing his work clothes or been carrying his usual knife.
The killer placing himself in the public domain when people were still moving about and risking being identified - yes: the single anomalous, hit-and-run murder took place in the very area where he had previously lived and was certainly known. Quelle surprise...

M.

But there is no evidence whatsoever that Lechmere murdered anyone.

[Mark J D]

... Do you really think that Lechmere couldn’t have carried his work knife unless he was wearing his work clothes?

Yeah, like he's really going to want to visit his mother with a nine-inch blade tucked into the coat she takes off him and hangs up in the hallway. Just like Peter Sutcliffe carrying a hammer and screwdriver to a Christmas party at his rellies'.

The knife-work of the 'double event' has always been considered anomalous. I offer a reason why, and people run a mile. The loss isn't mine.

M.

[Trevor Marriott]

Even though I’m undecided on whether it was a ripper murder your exaggerating the importance of your ‘points against.’

They are valid points that should not be discounted lightly, and collectively they make up a good case to show Stride was not a victim of JTR based on his MO with regars to all the other victims

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk