Would It Be The Job of the Police Or the Grand Jury to Discredit Schwartz's Testimony

[Stewart P Evans]

Valid Points

I think that there are some really good ideas being bounced around here, some very valid points noted and some incisive questions being asked.

For my part I should note that I am not interested in becoming embroiled in argument about hypotheses, interpretation and conclusions. Ergo I am not going to air, certainly at this stage, any personal take on all this. But I shall continue with a few more points that I feel are relevant. I must say that I am pleased to see the constructive response to the points already raised.

It will be seen in the Ultimate Sourcebook (Companion) that as far back as 2000 I had published what I felt were relevant points on this subject. I noted that, 'What this letter reveals is the degree to which the Home Office was following the police enquiries into the series of murders and their growing impatience for results.'

The letter referred to is that referenced by Anderson in his report of 5 November 1888 regarding Schwartz and the cry of 'Lipski', in which Anderson stated, '...upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz Stride's case...' [MEPO 3/140 folio 207]. This draft letter is followed by an extract from the Home Office letter to the police querying police enquiries [folios 208-210].

A further point to note at this stage is that Anderson had been the subject of Home Office disdain at his absence at the time of the Stride/Eddowes murders and at the height of the enquiries into the murders during the crucial period of 1st to 5th October 1888.

And we may further note that there was Home Office pressure (and criticism) being brought to bear; there was an apparent lack of progress in police enquiries in detecting the murderer; the coroner was not privy to the confidential police reports to the Home Office; and the rather noteworthy fact that the Home Office apparently did not pick up on the fact that Schwartz did not give evidence at the inquest when the press reports made this obvious.

[Wickerman]

In Schwartz we have a witness who told his story to the press before he was (possibly?) slated to appear at the Inquest.
But that is not all. Schwartz also, in the press article, introduced the murder weapon into the scene which he had not previously informed the police about.

How can the Coroner now trust that this man's story has not been tainted?


With respect to the comparison between Schwartz and Packer.

Once the police learned (via the press) that Packer was singing a different tune than that given in the statement to Sgt White, they may have hauled him in for a thorough (second) interview.

Although we have no direct proof of this, we have two indications.

First, Swanson notes that Packer gave "different statements". An interview with the press is not considered a legitimate statement, so possibly Swanson is saying that he gave different statements to the police.

Second, there are details contained within the summary written by ACB which do not appear in the statement given to Sgt White, nor the interview in the press.
So, from where did these details come?
Hence, a clue that Packer was brought in for a second interview.


With the above possibility as a reference, and the fact that Schwartz gave his story to the press before he should have appeared in court on the 5th Oct., is it unreasonable to consider that the police also felt the need to bring Schwartz in for a second interview, now that his story includes a murder weapon?

Lastly, regardless how convinced Swanson is, or Abberline, or, possibly after the second interview they were not so convinced, but still prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, they can only forward his statement to the Coroner.

It is still Coroner Baxter's decision whom to call, not Swanson.

If Baxter was not persuaded, but Swanson was (as he must have been for all the witnesses), it might answer the question as to why Schwartz did not appear. The fact that Swanson appeared to write so positive about Schwarts does not give him a free pass to the Inquest.

Just points to consider..

[lynn cates]

suspicions

Hello Chris.

"Yet he gives no indication in that report that any doubt had been cast on Schwartz's reliability."

You know, I have recently reread this report, but CAREFULLY for the first time. What Swanson REALLY seems to be saying is that the original police report, itself, casts no doubt on the story. But that says nothing about the day/s after.

"Conversely, could Schwartz have been discredited by the police. . ."

Well that may be over egging. "The Star" claims that the police questioned one man and now would like to see more evidence before acting on Schwartz's story.

". . . and could the coroner have been officially informed of that, without Swanson being aware of it?"

Possibly. But why is Swanson asking the question about Schwartz's veracity in the first place? Could he now have been aware of the suspicions at Leman?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

From a practical standpoint, even if Schwartz testified, would any conclusion be reached that was different from the old "person or persons unknown?" It's not like they could indict the B.S. man since they did not know who he was.

Also, could the police have cut a deal with Schwartz? If he was reluctant to give a statement at all, might they have said okay a written statement will suffice, you don't need to appear at the inquest? Just a thought.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

Ah!

Hello Stewart. Now you're talking!

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

I think I got it. Scwartz is Packer?

Either that or Scwartz was dismissed by police as a credible witness.

[Chris]

Regarding the timeline, what's most puzzling, to my mind, is that the inquest heard evidence about what happened on the night of the murder between 1 and 5 October; the evidence heard on 23 October related only to the identification of the victim.

The question is why Schwartz wasn't called during that initial period of 1-5 October. When he wrote his report on 19 October, one would hope Swanson was aware that Schwartz hadn't been called, and if so he would presumably have known why. Yet he gives no indication in that report that any doubt had been cast on Schwartz's reliability. Conversely, could Schwartz have been discredited by the police, and could the coroner have been officially informed of that, without Swanson being aware of it?

[Cogidubnus]

So does anybody else have any idea what Stewart is hinting at? I've been struggling from Day 1...was going to post asking for further hints, but these have now been supplied and I feel no wiser...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

now redundant...crossed

[Stewart P Evans]

A Few Relevant Points About Schwartz

1. The contrary nature of his claimed statement (police v. Star).

2. The Star discounting him as a witness the next day.

3. Schwartz's evidence publicly known, albeit as 'the Hungarian' and not by name.

4. Schwartz's evidence not heard at the inquest, nor taken into account by the coroner in his summing up on 23 October 1888.

5. No further mention of Schwartz after the October/early November exchange of police and Home Office.

6. The odd fact that Swanson appears to vindicate Schwartz as a witness in his 19 October 1888 report to the Home Office.

7. Last but not least, the similarities between Schwartz and Packer as witnesses.

[Stewart P Evans]

Anderson

The Stride inquest was closed on 23 October 1888. That very same day Anderson wrote, "That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal, is unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime."

This is, of course, also four days after Swanson's report detailing the evidence supplied by Schwartz. I appreciate that 'Andersonites' (who would like Schwartz and not Lawende to be 'Anderson's Jewish witness' in the past have argued that Anderson meant a physical clue although I can't help feeling that they are struggling to address Anderson's clear statement). However, this does not supply the answer to Schwartz's evidence not being heard at the inquest.

I do believe that a possible answer lies in the timeline of the known events based on various known sources.

[DRoy]

Simon,

I'm not sure it would as there are still many who believe in a different killer than BSM yet believe in Schwartz anyway.

Cheers
DRoy

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Chris

Well if it ain't Sir Robert Anderson's memo then I'm truly baffled...been pondering it ever since the first time Stewart dropped the hint...

All the best

Dave

[Chris]

I can't be 100% sure it's what Stewart means, but check out the date on the letter on P172 of Scotland Yard Investigates...compare it to inquest last date...now if it refers to Schwartz then Schwartz is out of the water...but nobody told Sir Charles because he was still writing in support of Schwartz on 6th November at least...but a few days later, very suddenly he's gone...did he find out and react in a fit of picque?

You are referring to a letter by Robert Anderson printed on p. 172 of "Scotland Yard Investigates", in which he mentions that certain "unprincipled persons" had endeavoured to mislead the police.

But Anderson, like Warren, later referred to Schwartz as having given evidence at the inquest (see draft letter dated 5 November, printed on p. 142 of the Ultimate Sourcebook). So I suspect that is not what Stewart Evans is getting at.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Schwartz's appearance at the Stride inquest would have torpedoed the 1.00 am Ripper interruptus story.

Regards,

Simon