Is Mr Schwartz the equivalent of a Hasidic Hutchinson?

[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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[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?

[perrymason]

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]

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...

[Sam Flynn]

Thats purely a semantics call Sam, standing or walking he was right outside the Club yard according to his remarks.

If he were standing (i.e. stationary) outside the club, one could interpret that as his possibly being a member of that club... and only possibly, at that. Schwartz was walking down the street, however, which is an entirely different proposition - people walk past countless numbers of premises every day without having connections with any of them.

It's not a semantic argument at all.

[Supe]

Chris,

He may even have gone to the seaside for a while to convalesce...

But not, I trust, to the Seaside Home.

Don.

[Dave O]

Hi Chris,

Yes, I agree that Swanson would have known if Schwartz's story had been discredited by the police.

Re: Baxter, he had a choice over what witnesses to call, he's the person issuing the summons and the law gave him a discretion--section 4 (1) of the Coroner's Act 1887:

The coroner and jury shall, at the first sitting of the inquest, view the body, and the coroner shall examine on oath touching the death all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge of the facts whom he thinks it expedient to examine.

And there's this bit of commentary: It is the duty of all persons who are acquainted with the circumstances attending the subject of the coroner's inquiry to appear befoe the inquest as witnesses. . . . The coroner, being guided by the nformation he has received, usually sends a message to those witnesses whom he thinks material. (Jervis p. 29)

But listen, I agree with you--why not leave it to the jury to decide Schwartz's relevance? That's been my question as well, and is what I frankly don't understand about that inquest. Lipski, descriptions of the men he saw, language, religion--none of them seem to account for his absence, not to me. Baxter obviously would have liasoned with the police, but they don't instruct him who to call or not. It was his call, and he obviously was interested in Stride's last known movements and the company she kept, so why not include Schwartz?

PS Just saw you mention a possible illness, that's interesting. I will check Sugden out.

[perrymason]

Sam,

What the intended point was is that this is purely a Schwartz story, whose to say he was coming from anywhere but himself? No-one sees him, but the deceased and 2 men in his story, which also no-one else sees but him apparently.
Not even Fanny, who after 12:35 and PC Smith is possibly the only witness until 1:05am without some connection to the Club...if our theatrical looking witness was so affiliated.

Granted she was sporadic. But perhaps more trustworthy due to the above.

On the larger issue.....is Browns appearance and his story, which by the timing is co-existing with Israels at 12:45am, some evidence that this was the story that they felt was less biased... potentially?

All the best.

[Rosey O'Ryan]

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...

Hi all,
I believe he returned to his old Budapesht Alma Mater to continue teaching, hence, not available for further examination by the British authorities. But I could be mistaken.
Rosey :-)

[Tom_Wescott]

Schwartz: The Facts

Let's consider what we know for sure about the Schwartz Conundrum:

* Schwartz willingly went to the police with an interpreter. If I'm not mistaken, he alone of the Berner Street witnesses appearing at the inquest, did not come about from the police door knocking.

* Schwartz's description of the BS Man (though not Pipe Man) was distributed to the various police stations.

* There were no witnesses to corroborate Schwartz's story.

* Abberline did not voice disbelief in Schwartz's theory as of late October.

* Swanson found Abberline's report on Schwartz to be supportive of Schwartz's veracity.

* The Star landed the only interview with Schwartz

* The Star reported that the police made a couple of arrests based on Schwartz's evidence, but did not wholly believe his story, so they decided to wait until further evidence came to their attention which would support his story.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Let's consider what we know for sure about the Schwartz Conundrum:

* Schwartz willingly went to the police with an interpreter. If I'm not mistaken, he alone of the Berner Street witnesses appearing at the inquest, did not come about from the police door knocking.

* Schwartz's description of the BS Man (though not Pipe Man) was distributed to the various police stations.

* There were no witnesses to corroborate Schwartz's story.

* Abberline did not voice disbelief in Schwartz's theory as of late October.

* Swanson found Abberline's report on Schwartz to be supportive of Schwartz's veracity.

* The Star landed the only interview with Schwartz

* The Star reported that the police made a couple of arrests based on Schwartz's evidence, but did not wholly believe his story, so they decided to wait until further evidence came to their attention which would support his story.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thats a good list Tom, and I would just add that it does not include our knowledge that his statement was considered "evidence". As Dave pointed out, there are some guidelines here, and any arbitrary suppression of his remarks seems unlikely to have happened....so they are not part of the evidence presented at the Inquest because.........?

I think no matter how you address this,.. from Inquest form and process, or a logical matter of his relevance based on his actual statement....his absence means something,....but what, is the question.

Cheers Tom