Tweet
Schwartz seems to have gone to Leman Street police Station on 30th September 1888 and given his statement. I think however we only have the Star as a source for that date, although Abberline stated in his report of 1st November 1888 ‘I questioned Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement’.
The coroner may have read Schwartz’s statement and decided not to call him.
As the findings of the inquest were decided by the jury not the coroner, then Schwartz’s statement cannot have been taken into account.
If Schwartz’s lack of English meant his written statement was preferred, then his written statement would have had to be read to the jury in open court. Which it clearly wasn’t.
The inquest sat on 1st October, 2nd October (hearing the testimony of Mary Malcolm who claimed deceased was her sister Elizabeth Watts), 3rd October (the deceased’s identity as Elizabeth Stride was mooted) and 5th October (the deceased’s identity as Elizabeth Stride was confirmed).
Swanson wrote his report on the Stride murder dated 19th October 1888. In it Schwartz’s version of events is given a prominent position.
The inquest reconvened on 23rd October 1888 and Elizabeth Stokes (ex-Watts) appeared and denied she was dead and said her sister (Mary Malcolm) had told a pack of lies.
In his summing up the Coroner caustically stated:
"The first difficulty which presented itself was the identification of the deceased. That was not an unimportant matter. Their trouble was principally occasioned by Mrs. Malcolm, who, after some hesitation, and after having had two further opportunities of viewing again the body, positively swore that the deceased was her sister - Mrs. Elizabeth Watts, of Bath. It had since been clearly proved that she was mistaken, notwithstanding the visions which were simultaneously vouchsafed at the hour of the death to her and her husband. If her evidence was correct, there were points of resemblance between the deceased and Elizabeth Watts which almost reminded one of the Comedy of Errors."
Anderson sent a letter to the Home Office dated 23rd October 1888 – the same day the Stride inquest closed. In it he stated:
“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….
“Moreover, the activities of the Police has been to a considerable extent wasted through the exigencies of sensational journalism, and the actions of unprincipled persons, who, from various motives, have endeavoured to mislead us.”
This is an interesting statement.
It strongly suggests that Schwartz wasn’t regarded as a reliable witness (possibly due to information available after Swanson's 19th October report).
It certainly discounts theories that the Met were onto Kosminsky as the Schwartz BS man at this stage.
It also suggests that Anderson included the Smith and Tabram murders in his list to make the 5. Or he may have included the City case Eddowes instead of Smith perhaps.
The Police time wasters Anderson refers to could be Mary Malcolm – whose intervention seems to have wasted a lot of time. It could refer to Le Grand’s actions. It could refer to the Ripper Letters. It could refer to the many newspaper reports of leads and so forth that so many still put their faith in on these message boards.
It probably refers to all of this.
Anderson’s letter – together with Swanson’s report of 19th October, were received by the Home Office on 25th October 1888.
These reports (clearly Swanson’s in particular) led to the Home Office picking up on Schwartz as a potential lead and resulted in a flurry of correspondence.
Abberline was tasked to write a response (dated 1st November 1888 – referred to above).
Anderson’s draft response to the Home Office dated 5th November 1888, which was superseded by Warren’s letter dated 6th November 1888, were clearly both based on Abberline’s 1st November report.
I would suggest that the most likely explanation for Anderson and Warren stating respectively ‘upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest’ and ‘upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest’ is that it is simply a mistake.
I think they misinterpreted or confused themselves over Abberline’s remark that ‘I questioned Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement’.
Warren was under a lot of pressure at that stage – the same day (6th November 1888) he wrote a letter to the Home Secretary attempting to justify his decision to have the Goulston Street graffiti erased before it could be photographed.
This still doesn’t tell us why Schwartz wasn’t called as a witness. Maybe it was a mistake and that is why Warren said he was called – to cover it up? Who knows.
The police could have told the Home Office that they did not regard Schwartz as reliable to shut them up – but they didn’t.
Having said that the aspect that the Home Office amateur sleuths seem to have fixated on was the use of the term Lipski and the Met-Home Office discussion seems to have gone off in that tangential direction.
The coroner may have read Schwartz’s statement and decided not to call him.
As the findings of the inquest were decided by the jury not the coroner, then Schwartz’s statement cannot have been taken into account.
If Schwartz’s lack of English meant his written statement was preferred, then his written statement would have had to be read to the jury in open court. Which it clearly wasn’t.
The inquest sat on 1st October, 2nd October (hearing the testimony of Mary Malcolm who claimed deceased was her sister Elizabeth Watts), 3rd October (the deceased’s identity as Elizabeth Stride was mooted) and 5th October (the deceased’s identity as Elizabeth Stride was confirmed).
Swanson wrote his report on the Stride murder dated 19th October 1888. In it Schwartz’s version of events is given a prominent position.
The inquest reconvened on 23rd October 1888 and Elizabeth Stokes (ex-Watts) appeared and denied she was dead and said her sister (Mary Malcolm) had told a pack of lies.
In his summing up the Coroner caustically stated:
"The first difficulty which presented itself was the identification of the deceased. That was not an unimportant matter. Their trouble was principally occasioned by Mrs. Malcolm, who, after some hesitation, and after having had two further opportunities of viewing again the body, positively swore that the deceased was her sister - Mrs. Elizabeth Watts, of Bath. It had since been clearly proved that she was mistaken, notwithstanding the visions which were simultaneously vouchsafed at the hour of the death to her and her husband. If her evidence was correct, there were points of resemblance between the deceased and Elizabeth Watts which almost reminded one of the Comedy of Errors."
Anderson sent a letter to the Home Office dated 23rd October 1888 – the same day the Stride inquest closed. In it he stated:
“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….
“Moreover, the activities of the Police has been to a considerable extent wasted through the exigencies of sensational journalism, and the actions of unprincipled persons, who, from various motives, have endeavoured to mislead us.”
This is an interesting statement.
It strongly suggests that Schwartz wasn’t regarded as a reliable witness (possibly due to information available after Swanson's 19th October report).
It certainly discounts theories that the Met were onto Kosminsky as the Schwartz BS man at this stage.
It also suggests that Anderson included the Smith and Tabram murders in his list to make the 5. Or he may have included the City case Eddowes instead of Smith perhaps.
The Police time wasters Anderson refers to could be Mary Malcolm – whose intervention seems to have wasted a lot of time. It could refer to Le Grand’s actions. It could refer to the Ripper Letters. It could refer to the many newspaper reports of leads and so forth that so many still put their faith in on these message boards.
It probably refers to all of this.
Anderson’s letter – together with Swanson’s report of 19th October, were received by the Home Office on 25th October 1888.
These reports (clearly Swanson’s in particular) led to the Home Office picking up on Schwartz as a potential lead and resulted in a flurry of correspondence.
Abberline was tasked to write a response (dated 1st November 1888 – referred to above).
Anderson’s draft response to the Home Office dated 5th November 1888, which was superseded by Warren’s letter dated 6th November 1888, were clearly both based on Abberline’s 1st November report.
I would suggest that the most likely explanation for Anderson and Warren stating respectively ‘upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest’ and ‘upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest’ is that it is simply a mistake.
I think they misinterpreted or confused themselves over Abberline’s remark that ‘I questioned Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement’.
Warren was under a lot of pressure at that stage – the same day (6th November 1888) he wrote a letter to the Home Secretary attempting to justify his decision to have the Goulston Street graffiti erased before it could be photographed.
This still doesn’t tell us why Schwartz wasn’t called as a witness. Maybe it was a mistake and that is why Warren said he was called – to cover it up? Who knows.
The police could have told the Home Office that they did not regard Schwartz as reliable to shut them up – but they didn’t.
Having said that the aspect that the Home Office amateur sleuths seem to have fixated on was the use of the term Lipski and the Met-Home Office discussion seems to have gone off in that tangential direction.
Comment