Schwartz, a fraud?

[Abby Normal]

To the original point of this thread.

Schwartz, a fraud?

I would say no. Would a jew new to a foriegn country risk causing severe problems to himself/family by lying to police in a murder investigation. I would say no.

Plus he casts himself pretty negatively in the story. I doubt if someone was going to lie about it and talk to both the police and the press for the whole world to know that they would cast themselves as a total coward.

[Hunter]

Just to explain what I meant Hunter, it appears that the City and Metro investigations were both operating from the premise that both DE murders were committed by one individual. The suspect in the City murder also apparently went into Metro jurisdiction after he committed the murder. Therefore the 2 investigations were essentially 1 investigation conducted by 2 parties due to overlapping jurisdictions.
Why then would both Israel and Lawendes statements be suppressed and the witnesses sequestered,.. their "suspects" do not seem to be the same person by description.
If Israels absence from the Inquest is representative of his perceived value as a witness, then why is Lawende also sequestered and his statement withheld? If both Met and City believed one killer was responsible, and the 2 respective witness accounts describe 2 different men, then why sequester both witnesses? Surely only 1 would be viable based on that single killer premise.
Seems illogical to me to secure 2 witnesses with differing suspects when 1 man working alone was sought, despite any overlapping jurisdictions.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for elucidating your point.

While some of the officials involved in the investigation did offer their opinions on the murders in later years - and Warren even offered one contemporaneously - I don't believe there was any 'official' opinion at the time. They were investigating a series of unsolved murders and would have been remiss - even derelict - if they did not pursue every lead available... even if some of it appeared contradictory. None of the witnesses throughout offered a definite correlation to the others. Policemen understand these discrepancies and try to work around them in the hope that something tangible will emerge. Swanson had a witness chart that included the sightings by Mrs. Long, PC Smith, Schwartz and Lawende.

As far as the comparison between Schwartz's man and Lawende's man, here's what Swanson wrote in his Oct. 19th HO report:

... I venture to insert here for the purpose of comparison with these two descriptions, the description of a man seen with a woman in Church Passage close to Mitre Square at 1:35 a.m. 30th by two men coming out of a club close by:[ he goes on the provide the description]. In this case I understand from City Police that Mr. [Lewende] one of the men identified the clothes only of the murdered woman Eddowes, which is a serious drawback to the value of the description of the man. Ten minutes afterwards the body is found horribly mutilated & it is therefore reasonable to believe that the man he saw was the murderer, but for purposes of comparison, this description is much nearer to that given by Schwartz than to that given by the P.C. [Smith].

Since this report is a matter of public record at the National Archives at Kew, I believe it is acceptable to display a copy of the original text. Use the zoom feature if the text is illegible in its original size.

[Bridewell]

Securing Both

Why then would both Israel and Lawendes statements be suppressed and the witnesses sequestered,.. their "suspects" do not seem to be the same person by description.

If Israels absence from the Inquest is representative of his perceived value as a witness, then why is Lawende also sequestered and his statement withheld? If both Met and City believed one killer was responsible, and the 2 respective witness accounts describe 2 different men, then why sequester both witnesses? Surely only 1 would be viable based on that single killer premise.

Seems illogical to me to secure 2 witnesses with differing suspects when 1 man working alone was sought, despite any overlapping jurisdictions.

Cheers Hunter,

Mike R

Hi Mike,

If Schwartz's and Lawende's suspects don't seem to be the same individual, but the police felt that the same individual was responsible for both Double Event murders, would that not suggest a belief that one of them saw the murderer and the other did not? If they didn't know which was which, would it not be logical to secure the testimony of both?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

Explanation

Hi all,

Just to explain what I meant Hunter, it appears that the City and Metro investigations were both operating from the premise that both DE murders were committed by one individual. The suspect in the City murder also apparently went into Metro jurisdiction after he committed the murder. Therefore the 2 investigations were essentially 1 investigation conducted by 2 parties due to overlapping jurisdictions.

Why then would both Israel and Lawendes statements be suppressed and the witnesses sequestered,.. their "suspects" do not seem to be the same person by description.

If Israels absence from the Inquest is representative of his perceived value as a witness, then why is Lawende also sequestered and his statement withheld? If both Met and City believed one killer was responsible, and the 2 respective witness accounts describe 2 different men, then why sequester both witnesses? Surely only 1 would be viable based on that single killer premise.

Seems illogical to me to secure 2 witnesses with differing suspects when 1 man working alone was sought, despite any overlapping jurisdictions.

Cheers Hunter,

Mike R

[Cogidubnus]

Fair enough Dave and ditto mate!

Dave

[Dave O]

Hi Dave

"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?"

You know, I really don't, because there would have been no need for such a thing. Hammond was the officer for Bow, Spitalfields, and Shoreditch, he's the guy who's going to go over to Miller's Court, and he was just doing what he would've done anyway, whether it was Joe Blow dead of a heart attack in his bed or Mary Kelly. In no case would he have removed Kelly's body to Whitechapel because that would leave Macdonald unable to inquire into a death that occurred in his district, and Hammond was Macdonald's man. So no need for the police to ask him to do something different. But imagine that you do have some sort of collusion going on--what's the point? There is Wynne Baxter waiting to hold a second inquest, because at that point in time it looked like Mary Kelly's body was going to wind up in Whitechapel, and it was only Henry Wilton's charity that stopped that, not anything the police did.

Anyway, good communicating with you Dave. Back to Schwartz.

Dave

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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]

"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

[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

[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

[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