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

[Michael W Richards]

Schwartz did not speak English, so if he had appeared his evidence would have been given via an interpreter. This led me to think, at one time, that for this reason he was not called and the coroner accepted his written statement in lieu of an appearance (which a coroner could do).

However, examination of the coroner's summing up, at the end of the inquest, reveals that Schwartz's evidence was not taken into account, which deepens the mystery. There is only one explanation that I can see, which is why I feel that the date of the closing of the inquest is so significant.

2 very significant points in there Stewart, thanks for weighing in. I believe that if a statement had been accepted in lieu of an appearance, it still remains a puzzle that the existence of that evidence is never referred to, let alone a witness who could identify the Broadshouldered Man in the story...someone of great interest if the story was true.

Your end-line teaser in the second paragraph is interesting, I think Ill have to investigate that date before I will be able to get that reference.

My best regards

[Cogidubnus]

Slaps forehead

Hi Stewart

However, examination of the coroner's summing up, at the end of the inquest, reveals that Schwartz's evidence was not taken into account, which deepens the mystery. There is only one explanation that I can see, which is why I feel that the date of the closing of the inquest is so significant.

This is the second time you've made this reference and at last the penny has dropped (said I was a newbie!)...You suppose he was really referring to IS? I always took it to refer to the usual plethora of hangers on like Packer and the detective agency...but it could be...

Much to ponder

Thanks

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Stewart

And (no love lost, I know but...) nobody told Sir Charles for that long?

All the best

Dave

PS Putting two and two together to make seven and three quarters, when the scales dropped, would it go far to explain a subsequent fit of picque or am I just speculating far too far again?

[Cogidubnus]

And I always did feel it was a very sudden thing at the very end...

All the best

Dave

[Paddy]

Schwartzs statement

Originally Posted by Stewart P Evans
Schwartz did not speak English, so if he had appeared his evidence would have been given via an interpreter. This led me to think, at one time, that for this reason he was not called and the coroner accepted his written statement in lieu of an appearance (which a coroner could do).

Yes I agree with this Stewart.
My take is that a police statement was accepted and the coroner took time out to ask about the Lipski part. Was Lipski connected to BSM.
If there was a name involved and enquiries were ongoing, the inquest could not be wrapped up so easy.
The coroner also asked about the three medical students at this time.
I think the coroner would have to decide what parts of Schwartzs evidence could be presented without predjucing the investigation.
ie jury could have been told about the siting and time but not the name calling. For this reason I think Israel would not have testified in person and he would have just been known as police witness.
Its logical I think?
Pat...............................

[DRoy]

I don't believe that Schwartz not speaking English had anything to do with it. This was an apparent JTR murder! Willing to accept a statement given through an interpreter as reason to not have him testify in my opinion doesn't make any sense at all. The inquest ran 5 different days and ran almost a month long. They could have brought him in and it wouldn't have slowed the proceedings any.

If they had to determine her death then they only needed medical testimony, not witnesses who couldn't testify or provide any knowledge in how she died. If they had to determine whether she was killed in that spot, no witness that spoke gave anything of value but the medical testimony would.

Why did half of the other witnesses even testify? Name one witness who could top what Schwartz could testify to...

Wouldn't Schwartz have been the last to see her alive? Wasn't he also the last to see her alive in almost the exact spot her body was found? Was he not the only one who claims to see her being assulted? Could he not clarify where some of the 'bruising' and mud came? All of his testimony would give credence and support to the medical and witness testimony.

I believe that his story was believed up to a certain point and then it wasn't. When it wasn't, he was probably removed from the witness list.

I know some will then comment about Swanson's report and Anderson's draft letter in support of Schwartz. In my opinion Swanson was reporting what he believed to be true but based on old news that Schwartz's statement was worthy and true. Swanson it seems was just reporting on the statement taken by Abberline and most to do with the use of 'Lipski'. Anderson was just reiterating Swanson's report.

In regards to the use of 'Lipski', couldn't they have taken that part out of Schwartz's testimony and then still have him testify? Couldn't they just say BSM shouted something but witness could not confirm what it was?

Cheers
DRoy

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Pat/DRoy

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?

Just surmising...and maybe Stewart's found something....

All the best

Dave

[DRoy]

Dave,

Yes, sorry I was trying to respond to a few posts at the same time!

I'm sure I suggested something similar to what you've commented on but did so in a different thread. I think I used something like '*Poof* he's gone' in reference to Schwartz. If something was found I'd sure like to see it!!

Cheers
DRoy

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

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

Regards,

Simon

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[Cogidubnus]

now redundant...crossed