Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[Dr. John Watson]

Hi Dr. Watson,

The problem is that a 'knife' is so much more sexy than a pipe to your average journalist - a hundred times more so at the height of the search for the crazed Whitechapel knifeman. If anyone (including the police) later questions or objects to this crucial part of the Star report, they have the ready 'lost in translation' excuse to protect them from accusations of out and out invention. How is stating 'positively' that it was a knife any different from stating 'positively' that it was a pipe - or a pork sausage - if the interpreter could have messed up when it came to the object itself?

Hi Caz! I confess your knowledge of what's sexy almost certainly exceeds mine (although I have known a certain number of ladies who might think "sausage" and even "pipe" to be suggestively sexy). I can't argue with your assessment of 19th century journalists in London, but there's no proof in this case the Star reporter/editor purposely altered what Schwartz is quoted as saying in his statement. I believe inclusion of the term "positively," in describing the man as holding a knife, not only reflects the reporter's attempt to emphasize the statement but also suggests he went over the sentence with the interpreter to verify he/she was translating Schwartz's words correctly. You appear to believe that the police version of "pipe man" is the correct one and suggest that the Star could claim the "lost in translation" excuse to protect them if pressed on the issue, but that same excuse could just as easily be used by police if it were later shown that Schwartz did say "knife" instead of "pipe."

It must have pained them to have the authorities put a damper on any of their juicier stories. Doesn't mean the authorities did not have their own finger on the pulse though. They arguably believed Schwartz's police statement was an honest account of what he thought he had witnessed, but they would have been wise to keep an open mind on whether or not he had seen the actual murderer.
Love,
Caz
X

Caz, you are among the most senior members of this forum, and I'm certain you've probably debated the pipe/knife issue before (although I really can't find a history of it), but I don't think you've really addressed the questions of why Schwartz's statements were apparently concealed from the Coroner and upon whose authority that decision was made. You have, however, raised another excellent question: Why didn't the Star publish the fact that their witness Schwartz was not called to testify at the inquest, and why didn't they demand an answer from Coroner Baxter?

By the way, thanks for the love and X (kiss)!

Flattered John

[lynn cates]

agreed

Hello Caroline. I agree with you that the police report was more likely than "The Star" version--given Schwartz's veracity.

I recall that Abberline had spent a good bit of time taking his statement and could never get a straight answer concerning Lipski. And FGA had no journalistic axe to grind, so it was not likely dressed up.

Cheers.
LC

[Dr. John Watson]

Would the appearance at the inquest by Schwartz,have made any difference to the overall picture we are faced with? I doubt it. We would still have an incident between a male person and a woman at the entrance to the yard,the appearance of another person as Schwartz was leaving,and that's about it.Nothing to determine who killed Stride or how,or when.

Hi Harry. The fact is, no one knows whether or not Schwartz's appearance at the inquest would have made any difference in the outcome of the investigation or the findings of the Coroner, and that's not really the issue here. The fact is, it's entirely possible that Mr. Baxter's probing questions would have elicited more information than is contained in either of his quoted statements and would hopefully have cleared up any confusion over pipe or knife. And what if the "second man" really held a knife in his hand; that would put a man with a knife only a few steps from the woman who was killed with a knife - show me any other Ripper murder with that combination. I know there appears to be a 10-15 minute gap between Schwartz's sighting and discovery of the body, but who's to say "knife man" didn't cross the street and chat with Liz a while before murdering her? I'm not suggesting the knife-man pipe-man was Jack, only that Schwartz's information was extremely pertinent to the investigation and should have been examined in detail by the Coroner.

John

[caz]

In the Star's version of Schwartz's account, after describing the attack on Stride, Schwartz tells of a second man who exited a public house, shouted out "some kind of warning" to the man attacking Stride and then "rushed forward as if to attack the intruder (witness)." Note what follows next: "The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in the second man's hand, but he waited to see no more." The writer's use of the word "positively" is significant, I think. It suggests that the reporter, recognizing the implications of a man with a knife near the scene of Stride's murder, questioned Schwartz closely about what the second man was holding in his hand, to insure that he understood exactly what the witness/interpreter was saying.

Hi Dr. Watson,

The problem is that a 'knife' is so much more sexy than a pipe to your average journalist - a hundred times more so at the height of the search for the crazed Whitechapel knifeman. If anyone (including the police) later questions or objects to this crucial part of the Star report, they have the ready 'lost in translation' excuse to protect them from accusations of out and out invention. How is stating 'positively' that it was a knife any different from stating 'positively' that it was a pipe - or a pork sausage - if the interpreter could have messed up when it came to the object itself? It's not as if the reporter would have seen the police report and was therefore seeking clarification on the pipe/knife issue, or you might have had a stronger argument.

I am also concerned that the Star may similarly have sexed up Schwartz's account to make it a better fit with where Stride was actually murdered:

'The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage...'

If the truth was contained in the police summary, which described BS man trying to pull her out into the street, that wouldn't help to turn him into Stride's obvious killer. And we know how the papers love to spin things round (quite literally in this instance) to make their readers swallow a certain conclusion.

It must have pained them to have the authorities put a damper on any of their juicier stories. Doesn't mean the authorities did not have their own finger on the pulse though. They arguably believed Schwartz's police statement was an honest account of what he thought he had witnessed, but they would have been wise to keep an open mind on whether or not he had seen the actual murderer.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Would the appearance at the inquest by Schwartz,have made any difference to the overall picture we are faced with? I doubt it. We would still have an incident between a male person and a woman at the entrance to the yard,the appearance of another person as Schwartz was leaving,and that's about it.Nothing to determine who killed Stride or how,or when.

Precisely, Harry. In fact, it might only have complicated matters, given the simple fact that the assault allegedly witnessed by Schwartz may have had bugger all to do with anything that followed, as I think Swanson himself observed - given how commonplace it must have been for females out alone on a Saturday night to be manhandled by drunks and lechers. I can't see too much of a problem with the coroner himself appreciating this, and deciding on balance that it was not especially in the public interest to hear Schwartz's account, and it almost certainly wasn't in Schwartz's interests to give it.

Love,

Caz
X

[GUT]

G'day Harry

Short answer, probably not.


In my opinion.

[harry]

Would the appearance at the inquest by Schwartz,have made any difference to the overall picture we are faced with? I doubt it. We would still have an incident between a male person and a woman at the entrance to the yard,the appearance of another person as Schwartz was leaving,and that's about it.Nothing to determine who killed Stride or how,or when.

[GUT]

G'day Dr John

Doesn't the law spell out what is required of police in assisting the Coroner during an inquest, so far as identifying witnesses, providing written statements, etc?

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they all have to be called.

And remember that Maxwell was called at MJK's inquest when clearly she was not believed.

[Dr. John Watson]

I don't think you can so easily explain away the deliberate suppression of Schwartz's evidence at an official inquest by suggesting he wasn't believed. In fact, I haven't seen any hard evidence that police disbelieved Schwartz, at least to the point of concealing his existence from the coroner. Even if his story was doubted, if true it would amount to critical evidence, so wouldn't it be proper to at least advise the Coroner and let him decide? I'd be interested to hear what some of the retired coppers on this forum (I know of several) have to say on the subject. Doesn't the law spell out what is required of police in assisting the Coroner during an inquest, so far as identifying witnesses, providing written statements, etc?

Still Curious John

[Hunter]

Not to be obtuse, but either party had the same goals didnt they?

No...

[Michael W Richards]

It was not up to the police to decide if Schwartz was to appear or not at the inquest. It was the coroner's decision.

Not to be obtuse, but either party had the same goals didnt they? Why would the coroner ignore the police support of Schwartz if it would be the single most important witness account at that Inquest.

I know youre a stickler for protocol, but please dont try and create scenarios where the coroner drives an ongoing murder investigation. The evidence does....the same stuff the police collected for the Inquest?

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

From a practical standpoint, what would be gained by having Schwartz appear or by having his statement read into the record? It was not as though his testimony would help establish quilt or exonerate a named suspect charged with Stride's murder. A simple explanation is that when the police reassessed his value as a witness at the inquest, given the difficulty in extracting an accurate statement from him due to the fact that he did not understand what was being said between the BS man and Liz coupled with the difficulty of getting an accurate translation, they concluded that his testimony was of little value to jurors and might only serve to confuse them. Whether his statement was true or not needn't factor into their decision.

c.d.

Hi cd,

If they believed the story and its contents, then it would have to factor into a decision about its value to the Inquest. Although the Inquest isnt designed to uncover a culprit per se, its to determine the likely cause of death, but a man seen assaulting her within minutes of her estimated time of throat cut is very likely to be her killer, and therefore Schwartz would become the only "witness" to a killing that many believe Jack the Ripper committed.

They would be compelled to base their investigation around his story details.

Cheers

[Hunter]

It was not up to the police to decide if Schwartz was to appear or not at the inquest. It was the coroner's decision.

[DVV]

A simple explanation is that when the police reassessed his value as a witness at the inquest, given the difficulty in extracting an accurate statement from him due to the fact that he did not understand what was being said between the BS man and Liz coupled with the difficulty of getting an accurate translation, they concluded that his testimony was of little value to jurors and might only serve to confuse them. Whether his statement was true or not needn't factor into their decision.

c.d.

Hi CD

I guess you're right.

[c.d.]

From a practical standpoint, what would be gained by having Schwartz appear or by having his statement read into the record? It was not as though his testimony would help establish quilt or exonerate a named suspect charged with Stride's murder. A simple explanation is that when the police reassessed his value as a witness at the inquest, given the difficulty in extracting an accurate statement from him due to the fact that he did not understand what was being said between the BS man and Liz coupled with the difficulty of getting an accurate translation, they concluded that his testimony was of little value to jurors and might only serve to confuse them. Whether his statement was true or not needn't factor into their decision.

c.d.