Is Mr Schwartz the equivalent of a Hasidic Hutchinson?

[Chris]

Is it possible, since we know so little about Israel as it is, that he was simply unavailable? That is, in hospital, traveling (even out of the country) or no valid address at the time. After all, he may seem an important witness to us at this remove in time but, in terms of fulfilling the charge of an inquest, not absolutely essential.

Yes, Sugden suggests he may simply have fallen ill. Or, not wanting to appear at the inquest, may have absented himself from his lodgings. He may even have gone to the seaside for a while to convalesce...

He was walking down the street, Mike, not standing outside.We don't know that it was - at least, not to incomers. At that time of night, it may as well have been the Jewish radical equivalent of "last orders at the bar".

It strikes me that, if Schwartz were a member, he'd more likely have been inside the club, rather than walking past it.

Thats purely a semantics call Sam, standing or walking he was right outside the Club yard according to his remarks, and the Gates were wide open.,.and Eagle had just used the yard to get into the club 5 minutes earlier. Lave was in the yard at the same time. The singing upstairs was clearly heard through the open window, and the kitchen door was ajar. I think rather than wonder why Schwartz if a member was not inside, question a known member who rushes past the gates near 12:55, looks inward and doesnt go in.

It strikes me that this seems to be the only night in the neighbors recent memory that didnt have people in that yard until well past 1am. So a Club member or many might easily on any other given Sat/Sunday morn, be loitering in the yard or just outside the gates....and these were not described as upright citizens,....but rather as "low men".

Israel may not have been a member, but he could be a sympathizer, and he could have attended the meeting that ended between 11 and 11:30 and hung around. The meeting was to attract new members, not to get together and sing.

All the best Sam.

[Chris]

Why couldn't Swanson have had one view and Baxter another? Certainly the police and coroner conficted on ocassion, Rose Mylett shows us so.

I wasn't really thinking about differing views of Schwartz's veracity, but about the suggestion that his story had been definitely discredited by the police. That's what I would find it difficult to believe could have happened without the knowledge of Swanson and Abberline.

Would it have been proper for Baxter simply to decide Schwartz wasn't telling the truth, without any particular evidence that that was the case, and on that basis not to call him? Shouldn't he have let the jurymen judge that for themselves?

[Sam Flynn]

Im inclined to believe that a Jewish Man standing outside a known Jewish club

He was walking down the street, Mike, not standing outside.

still open

We don't know that it was - at least, not to incomers. At that time of night, it may as well have been the Jewish radical equivalent of "last orders at the bar".

It strikes me that, if Schwartz were a member, he'd more likely have been inside the club, rather than walking past it.

As we all know the absence of "dismissal" evidence from the investigators doesnt rule out that they did in fact discredit his account privately. Unlike the information they felt was fair to release in the Kelly case.. that they had discredited Hutchinson.

I find "what is" more compelling than "what if"...and in this case, it doesnt appear that the story he told merited Inquest Witness status. For whatever reason.

Im inclined to believe that a Jewish Man standing outside a known Jewish club still open and with members on premises singing near 1am might be suggestive...that his story about checking on his wifes move from earlier that day near noon is suspect, and that without his story the yard of the club could well be where the killer comes from.

Those factors concern me regarding his possible affiliations or allegiances.

If Wess interprets for him like he does for Goldstein, that only adds to a potential link of Schwartz with the Club.

Best regards all.

But of course there is the fact that although Lawende appeared at the Eddowes inquest, the most pertinent part of his testimony - the description of the man he saw - was suppressed at the request of the police (via the City Solicitor). In the same way, we know that the police did not for some time authorise the release to the press of the description given by Schwartz. These descriptions were not officially released until 19 October.

Thats a good point Chris, and it illustrates that they would and could deny the right of the jurors to hear evidence based upon the sensitivity of the witness and the investigations. But that leaves the complete absence of Israels story even more confusing. Because Lawendes treatment clearly shows us that they could and did name witnesses during the Inquest but suppress some details

The delay in releasing information may have related to the investigations of his story, but the Inquest wasnt over until the 23rd, and if they did believe him, he could have been called after the investigation was complete and his full story was made public, as you say, with their approval.

They didnt supress Hutchinsons accounts, but they didnt re-open the Inquest for them either.

Best regards

[Supe]

Dave & Chris,

Is it possible, since we know so little about Israel as it is, that he was simply unavailable? That is, in hospital, traveling (even out of the country) or no valid address at the time. After all, he may seem an important witness to us at this remove in time but, in terms of fulfilling the charge of an inquest, not absolutely essential.

Don.

[Dave O]

Hi Chris,

Why couldn't Swanson have had one view and Baxter another? Certainly the police and coroner conficted on ocassion, Rose Mylett shows us so.

[Chris]

Dave

I'm sure it's correct that we don't have enough information for any firm conclusions.

But I do find it difficult to believe that he could have been "officially" discredited by the police - in the sense that the coroner would have been informed of it and decided not to call Schwartz - without the knowledge of Swanson (certainly) or Abberline (apparently). Particularly as nearly half of Swanson's report of 19 October is taken up either with Schwartz's story, or with discussion of whether Schwartz or Smith was more likely to have seen the murderer.

[Dave O]

On the other hand, can't we conclude from the fact that he wasn't called that it wasn't considered vital?

Hi Chris,

Maybe, that's where I lean. Perhaps Baxter thought him redundant? But then it pays to keep an open mind and play devil's advocate with yourself--obviously we're missing a bit of information that in the end will probably prove to be something commonplace. Also, don't we have examples of witnesses who weren't vital but were still called? And forget abut the description of the two men, doesn't Schwartz at least have something to say about the victim's movements, the circumstances leading up to her death?

And yet . . . look at Baxter's summation and see the amount of time he spends talking about Smith, Marshall, and Brown. Going by the account in The Times, he gives them space for about 750 words out of a total of almost 3000--don't trust my math, but isn't that about a quarter of the summation? Don't you think that's a significant amount? Clearly he's interested, but no Schwartz.

Perhaps it's better to agree that we don't have enough information to draw any firm conclusions!

Dave

[Chris]

No, I wasn't thinking they wouldn't be able to find an interpreter. Just that using an interpreter would be a rather cumbersome procedure, which the coroner might prefer to avoid.

Not that that would have prevented Schwartz being called if his evidence were considered vital. On the other hand, can't we conclude from the fact that he wasn't called that it wasn't considered vital?

[Dave O]

Hi Chris,

Do you mean, maybe they couldn't find an interpreter? I'd think, since they're moving fast anyway, they'd have just done the simple thing and had whoever the police used. Or if not him, Baxter spent his time constantly criss-crossing his district, traveling from inquest to inquest, and had been doing so for over a year and a half. I will bet that it wasn't unusual for him to hold 20 a week, (that is a Macdonald number). Surely he knew the population very well and could have located someone, a native, a student, somebody.

But when I talk about the oaths and commentary about them, what I take away isn't just procedural--it's the spirit that I find present in the variety of oaths. It seems to me that if the coroner decided he wanted you, he would have you so long as you were capable of making some sort of promise to tell the truth.

Cheers,
Dave

[Chris]

For example, you can read about oaths and see that religion or language would not have been an obstacle for them having him.

Of course I accept that Schwartz could have given evidence through an interpreter, so that there would have been no procedural obstacle. But I'm still not entirely convinced that his inability to speak English wouldn't have been seen as an obstacle in practical terrms.

[Chris]

Since there is nothing to suggest he was a suppressed witness, nor anything that suggests he was a witness that police kept silent about and protected, ....it doesnt leave many sound reasons on the table for his absence.

But of course there is the fact that although Lawende appeared at the Eddowes inquest, the most pertinent part of his testimony - the description of the man he saw - was suppressed at the request of the police (via the City Solicitor). In the same way, we know that the police did not for some time authorise the release to the press of the description given by Schwartz. These descriptions were not officially released until 19 October.

I have never understood why the police should want to suppress these descriptions, particularly as they authorised the circulation of the one given by P. C. Smith. Maybe an explanation of that might shed some light on Schwartz's absence from the inquest.

[Dave O]

Hi Michael,

Im not sure how this ties in with your inference that witness statements, if potentially important and fully believed by the Investigators....as it seems were both the case with Israel, may not have appeared at Inquests.

I'm confused; I don't recall having made any such inference. I think this is an inference you've made about me, mistakenly.

My position is that one can study inquest procedure and make a little headway in the Schwartz debate, though not much. For example, you can read about oaths and see that religion or language would not have been an obstacle for them having him. You can study the role of coroner and know that the police had no power to instruct him on what witnesses to call (I would like to know a court where they do that). You can learn that while he had to satisfy the jury on the evidence so far as possible, he also had a discretion over who to summon (described in the law). He was independent of the police or the Home Office. You can learn about the role of the police as interested parties to the inquest, and learn something about how they interacted with the jury (see Tom Wescott's excellent citation of Sir Homewood Crawford at Eddowes).

The bottom line that I look at is Wynne Baxter's discretion at summoning witnesses. Descriptions and Lipski, if these were real concerns, can be excluded, but only with the jury's permission. Language and religion were no barrier. You may very well be correct that Baxter did not find Schwartz relevant, but we don't know. If in the end you find that Baxter didn't find him relevant, it's also quite possible that Baxter was mistaken to do so. He seems so interested in those descriptions of Stride and her man. What I wonder about is why he didn't leave Schwartz's relevance to the jury's discretion. As I said, the coroner summons the witness, the jury believes or doesn't believe the witness.

So, it doesn't quite make sense to me.

When I say that the coroner cannot withhold evidence from the jury, I mean that in the boundary of law, he must give the jury an opportunity for them to pose their own questions to any given witness. If there is a witness who says he has evidence, and the jury want to hear it, then the coroner ought to let that person speak. If you read the inquest accounts of the Ripper murders, you will see that the coroner defers to the jury upon the evidence, makes sure they're satisfied so far as it's possible to satisfy them. If you read of inquests that went up for High Court review in the 19th century, the question often revolves around whether the coroner inhibited the jury's ability to assess evidence.

Dave