Is Mr Schwartz the equivalent of a Hasidic Hutchinson?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Michael. I know what you're saying. And I think I speak for you as well when I say that I'm not categorically stating that I think Schwartz was a liar and that his tale didn't happen. Because I'm not saying that. But like you, it's curious why Hutchinson is automatically taken as a bald-faced liar whereas Schwartz is chopping down cherry trees with George Washington. Witnesses are witnesses and they're not infallible. Many must be expected to be either 1) lying 2) mistaken 3) having witnessed something unrelated to the event and thus irrelevant. In the case of Schwartz, if he's telling the truth, then what he saw is most likely relevant to the murder, so then it's just a question of accuracy. But is it possible he lied? Absolutely, we just don't have a contemporary document telling us he did, so we can't discount his evidence.

Taking James Brown into account, it's possible the Schwartz episode happened first and the man Brown saw her with was Pipeman. Liz refuses to go to Pipeman's preferred location, so he escorts her back to the club gates, where the murder occurs. Just one possibility.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Hi Michael. I know what you're saying. And I think I speak for you as well when I say that I'm not categorically stating that I think Schwartz was a liar and that his tale didn't happen. Because I'm not saying that. But like you, it's curious why Hutchinson is automatically taken as a bald-faced liar whereas Schwartz is chopping down cherry trees with George Washington. Witnesses are witnesses and they're not infallible. Many must be expected to be either 1) lying 2) mistaken 3) having witnessed something unrelated to the event and thus irrelevant. In the case of Schwartz, if he's telling the truth, then what he saw is most likely relevant to the murder, so then it's just a question of accuracy. But is it possible he lied? Absolutely, we just don't have a contemporary document telling us he did, so we can't discount his evidence.

Taking James Brown into account, it's possible the Schwartz episode happened first and the man Brown saw her with was Pipeman. Liz refuses to go to Pipeman's preferred location, so he escorts her back to the club gates, where the murder occurs. Just one possibility.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Its not one Ive considered personally but well within the realm of the possibilities that exist when Browns sighting is given what I believe is the "creds" it deserves. Interesting idea combining the 2 rather than having a discard.

To me it seems clear that Schwartz... despite the written support given him and his tale, did not give a sighting that in the opinion of the authorities warranted his inclusion on the records of this murder investigation. Considering the nature of his story, that would be an unthinkable position.. if he was believed. It would be too important a clue if factual.

We know Hutchinson was not believed after some investigation of his story.....I feel that the same is the case with Israel, but it seems no-one asked any investigator directly about what happened to Israel and his story during or after the Inquest, so he fades away with even less fanfare than GH....with no official comment.

Im also wondering about the prevalence of antisemtism in the Legal system at that time, and if when Police were suggesting that the killer was a local Jew...whether they would trust the word of one as a witness. There is even a quote that the identification at the Seaside Home did not happen because a Jew wouldnt identify another Jew, it was not because he was not recognized by the witness.

It seems they trusted Lawende, if he was their go to guy from that point in time....but we dont even know that.

Bets regards Tom.

[perrymason]

Hi again,

I thought I kick this once more to see if its still breathing....

Is there a legitimate logical explanation for the complete omission of Israel Schwartz's tale at the Inquest that suggests that the words written by Swanson were accurate?

He, like Abberline, trusted the witness. We know why GH's story didnt get recorded at the Inquest, it was given until the 1 day Inquest was over. In the case of Strides murder, the Inquest was 5 days ending on I think Oct 23rd.

What sound explanation is there for 5 opportunities that were there for him to speak, and the total absence of him or his story?

Best regards folks.

[Chris]

perrymason

I still wonder whether the fact that Schwartz didn't speak English may be relevant. No doubt non-English-speakers could give evidence through interpreters, but if I remember correctly we don't have any examples from the inquests of Ripper victims where they did.

[Tom_Wescott]

Is there a legitimate logical explanation for the complete omission of Israel Schwartz's tale at the Inquest that suggests that the words written by Swanson were accurate?

He, like Abberline, trusted the witness.

Swanson did not trust Schwartz. He trusted Abberline and his report. There's a big difference there.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Michael,

I'm just glad that you and Tom both answered me on this thread. I have been repeating Phil Sugden's opinion on this matter here and on other Schwartz and Stride threads, and all I got was total silence. Sort of a strange feeling, like everyone else who read Phil Sugden's book disagrees with him except me. But won't say so. Or everyone except me considers Phil Sugden's opinion not worthy of discussion. But can that be? Or just what, I cannot say.

So at least I now know two people actually come out and say they disagree with Phil Sugden, who advanced an opinion on this, in writing. In his book.

Roy

[perrymason]

Hi again guys,

I think its possible that you may be correct in thinking language may have been an issue Chris, I just re-checked and Leon Goldstein, who is seen by Fanny Mortimer at what I believe is a critical point in Liz's last evening does not speak at the Inquest either. Tom once suggested that Wess interprets for Goldstein while making his statement, and Wess appeared at the Inquest, so its interesting that he wasnt asked to provide the translation again for the Jurors.

I also think Wess being the first witness called is rather remarkable considering by his own words he is a resident of #2 William Street and is the overseer of the printing office attached to #40 Berner. Is it me.....or does anyone else wonder why this man is one of the most important statements.....which the first few witnesses almost always are. He isnt even onsite when the body is found.

Odd.

Thanks for that clarification Tom, that support for a peer is different than support for a witness. I think Fredrick was working too hard myself....Its a hunch I have that he worked Fenian and Ripper investigations simultaneously. I think the cracking of the Balfour plot must at some point have relied on his intimate local associations and information streams.

Im not sure Id ever be comfortable with suggesting Philip Sugden had anything wrong in his book Roy, its among my most treasured subject matter resources. But I dont feel myself that this murder was perceived correctly, perhaps in part due to really substantial public pressure for answers. We have a growing mob mentality bubbling while the murders went on, I think that had to affect their ability to quietly sit back and piece together puzzles. Since it seems to be a good guess that Jack kills Kate, its proof positive that he was out that night, at that time, with his knife, and prone to kill.

That is logical thought, I agree, but the crucial questions that might reveal Liz Strides "Ripper" situation have no clear answers. We would need this alleged interruption, and an explanation for it that includes his warning for a minute or two or 3 before Diemshutz even pulls in... by his advancing sounds on the cobblestones.

Or we must believe that Jack the Ripper could just kill sometimes.

From my perspective, I dont see the man that killed Annie, who is my personal Ripper litmus test with which I can review comparables, ....as someone who can control this aspect of his person. I think he can control his emotions, his guilt or remorse if he felt any, his glee and pleasure at being the secret killer everyone is looking for,....he goes about his days and nights likely drawing no special attention, even when he might have a kidney in his pocket.

But I dont see post mortem activities as negotiable based on the individual circumstances. I think the only reason he kills the first two women is to take abdominal organs...so just committing the murder isnt what gets him out of the house.

Best regards gents.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Michael,

I don't 'suggest' that William Wess interpreted for Leon Goldstein, I state it as recorded fact, because it is. What I 'suggest' is that William Wess may also have served as interpreter for Israel Schwartz.
Goldstein did not appear at the inquest because he had nothing to report. Same as Fanny Mortimer and many others.
Only club members who could speak English were invited to speak, so that MAY lend support to the idea that Schwartz did not speak due to language barrier. Having said that, there really were no non-English speaking club members who would have had anything else to add to the proceedings. Kozebrodski could have supported Diemschutz's statement, but offered little else of value. Schwartz on the other hand would have been an integral and unique witness.

Another point of interest is that coroner Baxter appeared to be either unaware of Schwartz or silenced on the matter, because he made mention that there were other witnesses who had potentially important information but who did not speak at the inquest. He eluded to Packer and (if I remember correctly) Mrs. Mortimer, but not to Schwartz.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Hi Michael,

I don't 'suggest' that William Wess interpreted for Leon Goldstein, I state it as recorded fact, because it is. What I 'suggest' is that William Wess may also have served as interpreter for Israel Schwartz.
Goldstein did not appear at the inquest because he had nothing to report. Same as Fanny Mortimer and many others.
Only club members who could speak English were invited to speak, so that MAY lend support to the idea that Schwartz did not speak due to language barrier. Having said that, there really were no non-English speaking club members who would have had anything else to add to the proceedings. Kozebrodski could have supported Diemschutz's statement, but offered little else of value. Schwartz on the other hand would have been an integral and unique witness.

Another point of interest is that coroner Baxter appeared to be either unaware of Schwartz or silenced on the matter, because he made mention that there were other witnesses who had potentially important information but who did not speak at the inquest. He eluded to Packer and (if I remember correctly) Mrs. Mortimer, but not to Schwartz.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thanks Tom, and excuse my choice of words.

When I began looking closer at what we do use as evidence in this murder it seemed to me that some of the statements did not get the police "stamp of approval" ...to be put on during the Inquest testimony.

I know you've mentioned before that Goldstein seems innocuous, but he is a little odd to me. He likely would have been passing open gates when Liz was there, or her and her killer, and by Blackwell, its even possible that she was on the ground cut by then. He has a Gladstone like bag full of empty cigarette cartons, and in the yard cottages there are cigarette makers who said they were awake at the time.

I think he may have walked towards the open gates to bring those cartons into the cottagers....and may have seen something inside the gates that in an instant, made him think he should just "hurry" by.

Cheers Tom.

[Dave O]

Hi everybody

Say, I just had this thought regarding Wess being the first witness. In volume II of The King's Coroner, a commentary on inquest law and a description of procedure. It was written in 1906, but the relevant law is still Victorian (the Coroners Act 1887). R. Henslowe Wellington wrote the following on pp. 48-49:

"The Court being opened and the body "viewed," the first witness is now called by the Coroner or the clerk, who should invariably be one who can identify the body, unless it is a case of someone "unknown." The Coroner, with a report of the case before him, in addition to the notes already mentioned, supplied with the list of witnesses, stating briefly what they can prove, proceeds to put questions to the witness . . ." He goes on to describe typical questioning, i.e. "who are you," "have you seen the body," "did you know the deceased," "when was the last time you see the deceased alive", etc.

Now, when the Stride inquest began there's the question of whether she had been fully identified, and for that first session she's really still an "unknown" person. So that first session didn't address identity at all. Instead it was about trying to establish the timeline of the discovery of the body. And Wess' function at the inquest was to help establish the outside boundaries of that timeline, as best he could. On the surface, it seems strange he should go first but after thinking about it, it doesn't seem so remarkable given that issue with identity. So it seems to me, I could be wrong but figured I would share the thought.

Wynne Baxter was the person who decided who would appear as witnesses, not the police. The police had no authority or power to tell the coroner what to do or who to call, although as interested parties they would have had input (and after all, their investigation was the bedrock of the inquest, the coroner did not have anything like the manpower needed). But their function was to assist a public inquiry, and I don't think they would have withheld information from the coroner. The discretion to summon witnesses was Wynne Baxter's, and he was popularly elected (though the contest was messy), an independent official from the police, a magistrate.

Cheers,
Dave

[Dave O]

Sorry, just wanted to add that that last paragraph above is in reference to Schwartz's absence. IMO, he's not there because the coroner didn't choose to have him there. How come? I still don't think it was because of any language barrier--Chris raises a valid point about the lack of any non-English speakers. Why this is I don't know, but the coroner had the ability to bring in an interpreter, sworn to provide an accurate word for word translation. It seems very strange that Baxter, acting with the assistance of the police, could not have found any translators. It's not religion either. One thing I'm struck by, reading about oaths and witnesses, is that in a preliminary fact-finding inquiry like the inquest, it didn't matter who the hell you were, as long as you were rational enough to give testimony and able to make some sort of promise to tell the truth.

So, is it content? Roy Courdory brings up the Lipski factor. Maybe this is the reason--my question here would be, if mere mention of Lipski was too sensitive for the public (The Star apparently thought so), what about the publication of the Goulston Street graffiti? That went right into the record in the middle of October and the press published it. True, another coroner, another jurisdiction, another police force, but the information went out everywhere. People everywhere read that. And Tom Wescott brought up a terrific, important point somewhere else--really, the Metropolitan Police could, with the coroner's approval, have made a direct appeal to the jury's discretion to withhold certain information, like the Lipski reference, or Schwartz's detailed description, on the grounds that it would hinder their investigation, exactly as the City Solicitor did with Lawende at the Eddowes inquest. It's true that the jury might prove troublesome and insist on having the information in, in which case there would not have been anything to be done for it because that would be withholding information from the jury in open court, a no-no. Yet the jury would have been composed of law-abiding men owning some kind of property--would they have not been sympathetic to a similiar appeal? Crawford didn't seem to have had any problem doing what he did in the City, but perhaps it was different in the Metropolis.

I do think this remains, and in my own mind I keep going back and forth--did Baxter find Schwartz credible? Well, I also agree with Tom that there's no evidence that Schwartz was lying, I don't see any reason to suppose he was. Was his information relevant? The Home Office thought it was. Could Baxter have thought he was mistaken? Or his testimony unnecessary? Well, Schwartz identified the body; the inquest was as much about the circumstances leading to the murder as the cause of death and the identity of the victim, and Baxter seems to me especially interested in the company Stride kept (look at the time he spends on it in his summation of the evidence). Even if what Schwartz saw wasn't related to the murder, it still says something about the victim's movements. Really, you'd think Schwartz would be as relevant as Mary Malcolm. Baxter, drawing upon the police's information, decides who testifies. The jury decides whom they believe.

In the end I'm left scratching my head trying to figure out why he's not at that inquest. For some reason, late Sunday seems to be my night to think about these things and now I will be up all night.

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Dave,

Thanks for those thoughts and that information. Personally, I don't find anything odd about Wess being the first to speak. Someone had to be first and he was chosen because he could 'set the scene', so to speak, in explaining who and what the IWEC was so that the following witnesses would make sense to the jury.

Michael,

Leon Goldstein didn't see anything, or if he did, Fanny Mortimer was lying to cover for him. He couldn't have because it was too dark inside the yard. He carried a 'black bag' but I doubt it was a Gladstone bag. Keep in mind that Fanny Mortimer watched him walk by the house and 'glance up' at it. He didn't stop, go to the gate, and peer in. He kept going.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Dave,

Thanks for those thoughts and that information. Personally, I don't find anything odd about Wess being the first to speak. Someone had to be first and he was chosen because he could 'set the scene', so to speak, in explaining who and what the IWEC was so that the following witnesses would make sense to the jury.

Michael,

Leon Goldstein didn't see anything, or if he did, Fanny Mortimer was lying to cover for him. He couldn't have because it was too dark inside the yard. He carried a 'black bag' but I doubt it was a Gladstone bag. Keep in mind that Fanny Mortimer watched him walk by the house and 'glance up' at it. He didn't stop, go to the gate, and peer in. He kept going.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

I dont see his appearance as necessarily unimportant Tom as he is walking past open gates to a yard that at that very moment, may have had a murder ongoing, or a body left behind one gate. He has cigarette cartons in his Gladstone....and cigarette makers are in cottages in the yard awake. Suggestive. If Blackwell got his timing right when he said "20 minutes before I arrived, at the most, 1/2 hour"....for Liz's cut time, Goldstein is walking past at the 20 minute mark. His preferred cut time initially.

There is no reasonable explanation for Wess speaking first unless he owned the property, saw the murder, found the body, or knew the victim. None of those apply.

There is no reasonable explanation for Schwartzs and his stories omission at the formal Inquest....unless they believed him and were protecting him from the public eye....or they didnt believe his story was important to tell. The second option includes thought his story was false.

May people try to dismiss many relevant points with a wave of a hand, but Schwartz and Wess and Goldstein are likely relevant to this event. But in Schwartz case, apparently only informally.

All the best.

[Dave O]

Thanks for that, Tom. I know that you weren't wondering about Wess, but Michael, or Perry Mason, was. He apparently finds my explanation unreasonable though. I wonder whether he is basing that on something he's read, as I'd like to see it. I am always ready to learn something.

Dave

[Chris]

If Blackwell got his timing right when he said "20 minutes before I arrived, at the most, 1/2 hour"....for Liz's cut time, Goldstein is walking past at the 20 minute mark. His preferred cut time initially.

Blackwell did not say that.

According to most newspapers he said some variant of "not more than 20 minutes, or at the most half an hour". According to a couple of others he said "20 minutes to half an hour".

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=21678&postcount=192