Schwartz, a fraud?

[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.....

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[Michael W Richards]

You almost answered you're own question; the Met as opposed to the City and Baxter as opposed to Langham.

Hey Hunter,

I would think that Policies override Personalities in situations like Inquests and although I am uncertain if there were any major discrepancies between how the Met police and how the City police conducted their Inquests, Im fairly confident that neither would knowingly present evidence to the jurors that could mislead them. I use Browns appearance to illustrate that point.

The juries were convened to determine cause of death, and contradictory evidence was presented...see Caroline Maxwell. Yet at Strides Inquest the witness on record for the time of approx 12:45 is just James Brown. Despite the fact that Israels statement included an assault on the soon to be deceased and the close proximity of that altercation to where she was murdered and found allegedly 15 minutes later.

If they felt it accurate, isnt presenting the evidence without at the very least referring to Schwartz's statement bound to mislead the jurors? I mean...when comparing the stories, who is more likely to have been the probable killer....Israels man assaulting the victim just before her murder, or Browns man with the young lady... at the corner?

Cheers Hunter,

Mike R

[Hunter]

To address your points Hunter, yes, the absence from the Inquest could mean something else, but we have a city Inquest that sequestered a witness then publicly announced at the Inquest that they were withholding his evidence due to the ongoing investigation. If the Metro police had similar policies, why not the same with Israel? And why allow Brown to be the only Inquest witness for the 12:45am time?

You almost answered you're own question; the Met as opposed to the City and Baxter as opposed to Langham.

Also, I'm glad you agree Fanny may well be a key here.

Yes, what Mortimer didn't see is just as important as what others did see. And I agree, she was likely out the greatest length of time (10 minutes?) up until and including the time Goldstein passed by. Whether she was out off and on previously - or not - she may have been occupied and less attentive.

[Michael W Richards]

So you reckon he's a put-up? (or aren't you prepared to go that far yet?)

Incidentally, I'm still wondering where it was Schwartz ran to in his panic...anyone got any good ideas?

All the best

Dave

Hi again Dave,

On your first point, I am skeptical about his story for being there at that time and why his statement lacks any corroboration from other witnesses. Nobody heard cries of any kind, no-one heard or saw the altercation he alleges, or his Broadshouldered Man or Pipeman, and no-one saw him leave hurriedly.

Even though at 12:45am we have Brown and the couple at the corner, Fanny by her door off and on, and Spooner and his date were lingering outside the Beehive at that time and didnt see anyone flee from Berner.

To address your points Hunter, yes, the absence from the Inquest could mean something else, but we have a city Inquest that sequestered a witness then publicly announced at the Inquest that they were withholding his evidence due to the ongoing investigation. If the Metro police had similar policies, why not the same with Israel? And why allow Brown to be the only Inquest witness for the 12:45am time?

Also, Im glad you agree Fanny may well be a key here.

My best regards,

Mike R

[harry]

Dave,
It appears that Schwartz continued in the same direction as when he was following BS.On over the intersection,without turning left or right. Whether there was an intended destination in that direction,is to me,not clear.
Regards.

[Hunter]

Hi Mike,

For me it is important to remember that we have a statement from Israel...not necessarily the facts. His apparent absence at the Inquest may well speak to that point.

His apparent absence from the inquest may mean something else.

If someone screams and no-one is around to hear it...is there any sound?

I guess there are different levels of screams and Schwartz did say that they were not very loud. The singing at the club could have muffled her to some degree.

You raise an interesting point about Fanny Mortimer. She did claim to hear other sounds; sounds that seemed to emanate right past her door. A woman screaming 'not very loudly' at about the same location where other noises are coming from may have been a little more difficult to ascertain or she could have been occupied with doing something at that moment that made a little noise itself.

[Cogidubnus]

So you reckon he's a put-up? (or aren't you prepared to go that far yet?)

Incidentally, I'm still wondering where it was Schwartz ran to in his panic...anyone got any good ideas?

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

Briefly, Tom you should be aware that I made that disclosure on my 2nd post on another thread and that I have no axes to grind, no bones to bare. Ive been allowed back on to discuss some things with people who have advanced knowledge of a study subject of mine, not to re-open past differences.

I appreciate your comments Dave and Ill go further by suggesting that the alleged "screams" and the call of "Lipski" are to me serious problems with the statement, because we have Inquest witnesses that were within earshot at the time. Its one thing to expect someone to have seen exactly what happened to whom by whom on a dark street in the wee hours, but sounds retain their potency even in the dark. Some are even amplified under the right conditions.

At approximately 12:45am we have the young couple on the corner that Brown saw, Brown, and very possibly Fanny Mortimer...as she need not have been at her door to have heard something. That is demonstrated by her recalling various sounds in her statement,... boots, a cart and horse and a "ruckus" of sorts after 1 at the Club. I don't believe she indicated that she was at her door for any of those.

Yet she was there.....at least when Leon Goldstein passes hurriedly by at 12:55-56am.

My best regards,

Mike R

[Cogidubnus]

Michael Richards = Perry Mason.

I've no idea under what circumstances Michael previously left Casebook...I have, however, read many older threads and, on the whole, enjoyed reading his input...So I can't say his reappearance unduly bothers me...far from it, I look forward to the debate!

For me it is important to remember that we have a statement from Israel...not necessarily the facts. His apparent absence at the Inquest may well speak to that point.

Pray enlarge... (I am suspicious of the gent myself)...what's in your mind?

All the best

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

For the unaware who may venture here.

Michael Richards = Perry Mason.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott