Schwartz, a fraud?

[Hunter]

Hi Mike,

You probably didn't mean to imply such, but just to clarify, the police did not conduct inquests. The Coroner's Office was an entity all to itself that had an historical precedent predating the establishment of centralized police forces. The coroner even had his own officer and/or officers to track witnesses, issue summons, dispatch notices to physicians to conduct post-mortems and even to conduct independent investigations if the coroner so desired.

Certainly, the police and the evidence and witnesses they had acquired would be essential to a coroner's inquest and a representative on their behalf was usually present (in the Stride case it was Insp. Reid). It was often the case that the coroner was notified by the police about a homicide or suspicious death (Reid, again, to Baxter on the morning of the 30th). This was not always the case... i.e.- Emma Smith, where the police were notified by the coroner's office.

Since I am in the process of preparing a thesis on this subject I will not elaborate here. However, I did volunteer my alternative comment, so I will make this point:
Baxter held three sessions in the first week following the Stride murder. One final session was held on the 23rd of October where only Stride's identity was verified by Insp. Reid and Walter Stride and Elizabeth Stokes was allowed to make a comment about the mis-identification by her sister. The rest was Baxter's summary. On Oct. 19th, Swanson wrote his report on the Stride murder to the Home Office where he states that the police version of Schwartz's account was believed. That is two and a half weeks after the inquest had commenced.

Furthermore, a chain of correspondences resulted from Swanson's report, including an early Nov. statement from Abberline (who had interviewed Schwartz). This statement makes no mention that Schwartz's testimony had been seen as unreliable by police. Rather, he sees fit to offer his explanation on the epitaph 'Lipski', reported to have been used by the man alleged by Schwartz to have accosted a woman at the entrance to Dutfield's Yard.

And even further, Schwartz's description of both men he had seen in Berner Street is published in the Oct. 19th edition of the Police Gazette. So, clearly the police had not dismissed Schwartz as a witness.

[Cogidubnus]

I'm good at stating the bloody obvious, and someone has to...Surely Schwartz's non-appearance at the Inquest implies one of two possibilities...either

1) By this time the police have at least a suspicion that his evidence isn't relevant/truthful, and are quietly lessening their emphasis on his story.

or

2) The police think he's their ace in the hole for ripper identification purposes and wish to keep him back for later (per McNaghten perhaps as Lavende said he coulsn't identify his man if he saw him again)

There would seem to be good arguments in favour of each of these...Knowing how strongly some people feel about the subject, anybody want to go first?

EDIT...Ok looks like somebody already has!

All the best

Dave

[mariab]

Thank you so much for clarifying about the inquest Hunter. Great post, concentrating on the facts.

To Dave:
Your point #2 is the most plausible possibility.
Your point #1 is also a possibility. Personally I'm bothered by Swanson's assertion in his report that (paraphrasing) "There is no reason to suspect that the witness is not telling the truth." As if the question had been raised at some point during Schwartz' questioning by Abberline (also according to The Star, regardless of how reliable a source The Star was). As you might know, I'm working on researching several aspects of this.

[Hunter]

Maria,

The doubt came via the Star report. Swanson knew that the Home Office had read it and may have even questioned about it. Therefore, he clarifies that there was a police report and it was a different and more palatable version.

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement cast no doubt about it..."

[mariab]

Cris,
Very possibly, as the Star report was attached to one of the reports transcribed in The Ultimate, but as you know I have my suspicions about Schwartz' testimony having generated through William Wess. (Which, as well-known, is not my own idea per se, but I'm the one who discovered a Schwartz affiliated with Wess in the 1900s.) Plus I have some suspicions about a conflict having existed between the WVC and the IWEC, which also is not a new idea.

I'll need most of the summer to continue researching all this. I'm looking forward big time to your article(s) on inquests/coroners' politics, as I'm sure I'll be able to learn tons from your research. Plus you seem to have lots of documents available in the original as well.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Maria,

The doubt came via the Star report. Swanson knew that the Home Office had read it and may have even questioned about it. Therefore, he clarifies that there was a police report and it was a different and more palatable version.

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement cast no doubt about it..."

Maxwell appeared at an inquest even though she seemed to lack corroboration; so did Levy even though he didn't have much to offer.

So, either Schwartz was proven to be a liar or he was deliberately held back.

How could Schwartz have been proven to be a liar? Family member came forward to say he was elsewhere? I doubt it.

So held back? Of those witnesses we are aware of, he is the only one who could reasonably have been described as: "the only person who ever saw the murderer".

I argued for Lawende for a long time, but as things stand I'd argue for Schwartz.

It is argued that there were plenty of people milling about, and I've argued that in the past, but I just have a sneak for Schwartz these days; supported by what seemed to be Jack red handed - the only person who ever saw.....

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Hunter,

Thanks for pointing out that inference, which was unintended. And you've made your point that Israels statement was still talked about in memorandum while the Inquest was in process, facts that I was aware of. We also know that the Police Gazette of Oct 88 publishes Israel's suspect description.

What we do not know, despite the above, is why Israel Schwartz or his story arent mentioned in any reporting of the Stride Inquest.

His absence means, as Fleetwood Mac suggested, he was either determined to be less than useful or false, or he was sequestered and suppressed. As I indicated before, if the protocols did not differ substantially between the City and Metro for the conduct of an Inquest like this then they would have no reason to omit Schwartz entirely. He could have been entered as a witness and had the details of his account suppressed. Just like Lawende.

Which brings up another point....if Lawendes suspect account warranted that kind of treatment and expenditures by the City, and both City and Metro believed both murders were committed by the same killer, then why would Metro also pursue Israels story? Sailor Man and BSM are not a match.

Best regards Hunter,

Mike R

[Cogidubnus]

As I indicated before, if the protocols did not differ substantially between the City and Metro for the conduct of an Inquest like this then they would have no reason to omit Schwartz entirely. He could have been entered as a witness and had the details of his account suppressed. Just like Lawende.

Hi Mike

Yes I've seen this suggested before. However, the difference lies surely in the police perception of the character of the Coroner...Baxter, admirable as he may have been in many respects, had already proved unco-operative in the suppression of evidence - cf his treatment of Phillips at the Chapman Inquest, (despite the stated danger of the investigation being jeopardised).

The police view of Baxter is surely further hinted at by the location they subsequently chose for the reception of MJKs body, which led of course to a different Coroner for that particular inquest.

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

interpretation

Hello Mike, Dave. The upper echelon at the Met put great faith in Schwartz; the local coppers, not so much.

I have NO suggestions about how to interpret these phenomena.

Cheers.
LC

[Dave O]

"The police view of Baxter is surely further hinted at by the location they subsequently chose for the reception of MJKs body, which led of course to a different Coroner for that particular inquest."

Hi Dave,

That was Macdonald's officer who determined that, not the police.

Best,
Dave

[Cogidubnus]

That was Macdonald's officer who determined that, not the police.

Hi Dave (at the risk of veering off-thread)

Whilst appreciating that the Inquest had to be held in the area where the formal View could be arranged (thus the Coroners Officer would arrange the Inquest premises accordingly), I understood the View was held where the body was stored, the locus of the body therefore determining the venue for the Inquest.

Wouldn't it have been the police who decided MJKs body was to be carted off to Shoreditch - quite possibly even preceding the notification of death to the Coroner's Officer?

By the by, I assume this latter was the Mr Hammond referred to in the Inquest evidence...

All the best

Dave (not enough Daves on here!)

[Dave O]

Hi Dave,

Oh yes, you have that right, the inquest and the body needed to be close together for the convenience of the jury's view. Without the view, the inquest would be technically illegal, so the coroner holding the inquest had to have the body within his district. Very often you'll see police moving bodies when they're found outside, but when they're inside, they would wait for the coroner's officer to arrive--in Mary Kelly's case, Hammond as you say. This had an impact on both the Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly inquests.

Here's a pretty good account in The Star that puts it better than I can: "Who Will Hold the Inquest" about halfway down the page: http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

and the coroner's officer for the district being communicated with, he was obliged to take it where he could. If he had taken it to Old Montague-street, it would have gone from his control, so he took it to Shoreditch, which is within his district. It remains to be seen whether the Shoreditch Vestry will be content to afford mortuary accommodation in such instances of a neighboring district not within their parish, to oblige the coroner or his officer,

Fair enough Dave, I stand corrected (albeit on evidence from my least favourite news-sheet!)...but (again at the risk of straying off-thread) do you not think there might've been some unofficial connivance between the Met and Mr Hammond...something which was mutually beneficial to both parties?

To me it has that feel about it...

Either way, and returning to thread, I earlier observed:

the difference lies surely in the police perception of the character of the Coroner...Baxter, admirable as he may have been in many respects, had already proved unco-operative in the suppression of evidence - cf his treatment of Phillips at the Chapman Inquest, (despite the stated danger of the investigation being jeopardised).

and Lynn opined:

The upper echelon at the Met put great faith in Schwartz; the local coppers, not so much.

So did the local coppers view prevail, or was Schwartz kept on ice?

Best wishes

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

Hunter I think in fairness Baxter's insistence on having the medical findings read complete and aloud was because the actual methodolgy of the murder was being examined comparatively. And Im not so sure that the discretion was always the Coroners as to what evidence must be presented. If Israel Schwartz was believed as the Inquest was ongoing, which seems the case by the memos, then withholding him as a witness or the facts of his statement from the jury represents misconduct I would think. There are many ways that the jury could have been made aware of that story and not the witness or his whereabouts, but there is no way that they should have been denied access to vital witness testimony, possibly pertaining specifically to the method and manner of her death.

After all, her death could easily have just been the end of a drunken assault. One cut. An assault like Israel saw.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Hunter]

The subdivision of Baxter's 'Eastern District of Middlesex County' in the spring of '88 into the Northeastern and Southeastern districts placed Spitafields into the Northeastern district, and thus, after his election in June of that year, under Dr. Macdonald's jurisdiction. This separation did result into some confusion, but that had to do with Parishes and the mortuaries within them. Spitafields didn't have a mortuary. To stay in Macdonald's district Kelly's body had to be taken to the Shorditch mortuary.

Here's a little situation that I posted concerning Baxter and the division of his district for those who are interested:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=163987&postcount=10

Now back to the subject of this thread.

What we do not know, despite the above, is why Israel Schwartz or his story aren't mentioned in any reporting of the Stride Inquest.

Yes, we have established that the police had not discounted Schwartz's testimony given to them. And yet, as you correctly point out, he is not mentioned in any reporting on the Stride inquest or even in Baxter's summary. So, do you think Baxter wasn't aware of Schwartz? Of course he was. Did he know about him and didn't consider his testimony valid? I doubt that would have made a difference to the 'get everything on record' Baxter, now would it?

Which brings up another point....if Lawendes suspect account warranted that kind of treatment and expenditures by the City, and both City and Metro believed both murders were committed by the same killer, then why would Metro also pursue Israels story? Sailor Man and BSM are not a match.

I'm sorry, Mike. You lost me there. Metro did pursue Israel Schwartz's story. It was circulated on the wire and his description published in the Police Gazette. Maybe you can enumerate a little more.