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

[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

[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?

[Abby Normal]

I think I got it. Scwartz is Packer?

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

[lynn cates]

Ah!

Hello Stewart. Now you're talking!

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]

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

[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..

[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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Oh, and by the way...

Oh, and by the way, all this against the backdrop of the newly started Special Commission enquiring into the growing scandal of the 'Parnellism and Crime' articles, a subject the press coverage of which dwarfed the reporting on the East End murders.

[drstrange169]

When in doubt stick with the known facts.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Schwartz's information was being deliberately withheld by the police. This would account for him not appearing at the inquest.

The Daily Telegraph

A correspondent forwards copies of descriptions of certain men who were last seen in the company of the woman who was murdered in Berner-street and of the woman who was mutilated in Mitre-square. These authentic descriptions, we have reason to know, have been secretly circulated by the authorities of Scotland-yard since Oct. 26, but the complete details have never been made public. This reticence is one of the mysteries of police administration, and it is difficult to find an explanation to account for the fact that this important information has been "confidentially communicated" to police-officers throughout the kingdom, but has been withheld from the people who have had the best opportunities of seeing and of, therefore, recognising the assassin. The point which the police appear to have been at most pains to suppress is the significant one that the unknown murderer has the "appearance of a sailor."
The notice is headed: "Apprehensions sought. Murder. Metropolitan Police District"; and it proceeds:
"The woodcut sketches, purporting to resemble the persons last seen with the murdered women, which have appeared in The Daily Telegraph, were not authorised by police. The following are the descriptions of the persons seen:
"At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at one a.m., same date, in Berner-street - A man, aged 28, height 5ft 8in, complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance; carried a parcel wrapped up in a newspaper.
At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.
"Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland-yard London, S.W.

[Stewart P Evans]

Schwartz and Objectivity

There is another aspect about Schwartz and his story which should be noted. That concerns objectivity and bias.

It may be seen that Schwartz is totally missing from the earlier Ripper books and the reason for this was simple. He was not named by the press and his story was given in detail in only one newspaper (The Star) and then only as an anonymous Hungarian. Until the release of the official records in the 1970s his name was not known to the reader.

Since then it has become increasingly popular to suggest that Schwartz, not Lawende, was the un-named Jewish witness referred to by Anderson (in his book) and Swanson (in his annotations in Anderson's book). Of course on face value Schwartz makes a much better witness than Lawende as Anderson's 'only person who ever had a good view of the murderer.'

This has resulted in two distinct schools of thought and theorizing. The first, strongly argued by Messrs. Begg and Fido is in favour of Schwartz, whilst Sugden argues that Lawende was the Jewish witness. We then have the inevitable divisive result. Put quite simply, you agree with one or the other.

All of this naturally makes an objective analysis of Schwartz difficult and, whichever way you go, seems to indicate bias for one argument or the other. This dichotomy immediately paves the way for accusations of bias and lack of objectivity. This might be denied by the individual who feels that he is putting the correct historical interpretation on the written sources but he will inevitably be seen as either pro-Anderson/Jewish suspect/Kosminski, whilst the naysayer will be seen as anti-Anderson/Jewish suspect/Kosminski.

Not only this, amongst Ripper aficionados it may also indicate author bias. It is for this reason that I try to stress that all interpretation should be based on the written historical record, such as it exists, and not on the speculative arguments of authors. It is a case of sorting the wheat from the chaff. In noting the fact that the identity of the murderer will never be known it is a course that should be followed. That is not to say that the reader should come down in favour of one argument and not the other, both should always be borne in mind. But enthusiasts will always have their own preference (bias?).

These peripheral mysteries are very annoying because if all the police records had been preserved then most of them would be cleared up, especially the Schwartz/Lawende puzzle. Indeed, it would also have been nice if Anderson had not been so cryptic in his writings and given us a few more clues.

[Stewart P Evans]

Known Facts

It amuses me when I read 'stick with the known facts' followed by a newspaper report.

Obviously all the descriptions (given by PC Smith, Schwartz and Lawende) were immediately circulated by the police and it was also not unusual to withhold witness evidence from the press before that witness gave his evidence to the inquest, as we see in the case of Lawende.

In the Daily Telegraph report the 'appearance of a sailor' refers to the description given by Lawende and not that given by Schwartz.

Amongst the most popular Ripper authors the only trained and qualified historian is Sugden. And I cannot recommend strongly enough his analysis of the descriptions of suspects given by the various witnesses. With regard to Schwartz, caveats placed on him by Sugden include; 'if he was telling the truth'; 'on the face of it, he incriminated not one man but two, not Jews but Gentiles'; 'Schwartz's time, then, was not necessarily correct. Furthermore, altercations such as that he described seem to have been commonplace in the area'; 'If Schwartz was out just fifteen minutes in his reckoning, if the incident he saw took place, not at 12.45 but, say, at 12.30, then the significance of his statement is greatly reduced...it will always be on the cards that he was witness to nothing more than a street brawl.'

[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.

Yes, but I can't believe Swanson would write "the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it" if he was aware that doubts had later been cast upon it. That would be positively misleading.

[Stewart P Evans]

Indeed

Indeed, it would be misleading (albeit arguably ambiguous).

[drstrange169]

"It amuses me when I read 'stick with the known facts' followed by a newspaper report."

Yes, perhaps a poor choice of heading on my part. Mea culpa.

My main point being, rather than a century-plus later speculation, the Telegraph claimed at the time to be in possession of police documents specifically referring to the holding back of witness information.