If Schwartz Lied ...

[c.d.]

Coroner: What were the man and woman arguing about?
Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.
Coroner: Why did the man push the woman?
Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.
Coroner: What did the man say to the woman?
Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.
Coroner: What did the woman say to the man?
Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.
Coroner: Do you think you might simply have witnessed a little street hassle?
Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.

c.d.

[Darryl Kenyon]

The Star story is often overlooked, yet make no doubt about it they had the scoop of the day, THE ONLY NEWSPAPER to interview a witness who saw one of the murdered women being assaulted fifteen minutes before, and right next to the very spot she was found killed. Think about that. A total scoop. Yet what does The Star say -

The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

And - It is but fair to say that the police have clutched eagerly at every straw that promised to help them out, but there is nothing left to work on. People have come forward by scores to furnish the description of a man they had seen with some woman near the scene, and not a great while before the commission of one or the other of
but no two of the descriptions are alike, and none of the accompanying information has thus far been able to bear investigation. In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

Plus - The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand.

That part to me is very important. Seems to me the reporter questioned Schwartz closely on that point, yet it differs from what he told the police. And if they wanted to embellish Schwartz story why mention the truth of his statement not being wholly accepted ?

I have often wondered if someone at Lemen St tipped the Star off on purpose just to see if he kept to the same story when interviewed by someone else? And because he didn't, that was enough for Baxter not to call him simply because, like today he wasn't 100% convinced on Schwatrz.

One last point, consider Violenia's testimony with Schwartz - He was walking along Hanbury st when he saw a woman quarrelling with a man [ Pizer ], threatening to stab the woman with a knife. And were was Violenia sent to Id Pizer - Leman st
Regards Darryl

[c.d.]

The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

That may mean that the police believed that he was lying but it could also mean that because of the language barrier and his short time on the scene that the police simply could not be sure exactly what he witnessed.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

That may mean that the police believed that he was lying but it could also mean that because of the language barrier and his short time on the scene that the police simply could not be sure exactly what he witnessed.

c.d.

Or, it reflects the doubts we do know the police had with regards to aspects of Schwartz's statement, like whether or not Lipski was shouted at pipeman and from that, whether or not pipeman was an accomplice. To me, that would make the most sense given we know the police did have doubts about those aspects of Schwartz's statement.

- Jeff

[harry]

If the police were in doubt,it might have been there was no indication an assault had been witnessed by Schwartz.'Threw her down'might have been the interpretation of the person speaking for Schwartz

[Wickerman]

Let me approach it from a different angle. If a witness is considered 'non essential,' could it only mean that he is not essential to the limited scope of an inquest--the filling out of a death certificate---and thus, the police can hold him back if doing so would be desirable to their aims?

Thus, from the angle of a death certificate, Schwartz is non-essential, but from the angle of a police investigation, he is anything but. So implying that he is a know-nothing of no value is about as wide of the mark as a person can be?

That must be an acknowledged caveat, when debating how essential the testimony of Schwartz was, we can only consider the inquest, not any future trial. That is a whole different consideration.

Or, that even though there were 5 sessions of the inquest, stretching from October 1st through October 23rd, no one thought of sending Schwartz a summons during that entire period.

Hmm, but in reality, it was only one week, from the 1st to the 5th - the following Monday.
There was a three week gap until the coroner's summary, but the whole case had been decided by the 5th.

In my view, the police may still have been investigating Schwartz's story on the 5th, so they couldn't verify his statement to the coroner.
There are no good reason's to explain his none appearance, I'm favoring that one myself for now.

[JeffHamm]

If the police were in doubt,it might have been there was no indication an assault had been witnessed by Schwartz.'Threw her down'might have been the interpretation of the person speaking for Schwartz

Hi harry,

Sure, they may have doubted anything, but we know they doubted Schwartz's interpretation that Lipski was shouted at pipeman, which in turn puts doubt on pipeman as an accomplice. They could have doubted more, but to the best of my knowledge, they didn't put that on paper. All I'm suggesting is that the doubt referred to in the news need not be referring to anything more than the doubt we already know existed. Doubting pipeman as an accomplice would affect the overall story in many ways, as it changes the dynamic of what was going on.

- Jeff

[caz]

Hi Darryl,

I assume, however right or wrongly, that Caz must think Phil Sugden was an idiot.

"Alone of the witnesses called forth by this terrible series of crimes, Schwartz may actually have seen a murder taking place. More than that, with its possible implication of two men, his evidence cautions against us against embracing too readily the conventional wisdom that the killings were the work of a lone psychopath." (p. 201)

Yet we are assured that Schwartz's account is so trivial that his presence at the inquest would not only have been pointless, but an outright laughing matter--a skit suitable for Benny Hill. He has nothing at all to tell us!

Oh do get yourself a sense of humour, RJ. Did you write the above while sucking a lemon?

Do you believe Schwartz saw 'a murder taking place', and would have been truthful if he had said as much, had he attended the Inquest?

Do you agree with Sugden that 'the killings' might all have been the work of Schwartz's dynamic duo?

All we know is that Schwartz didn't make it to the Inquest, and there is no record of any attempts to compel him. The inference is that someone in authority - police or Coroner or both - did not consider his evidence vital to the aims of the Inquest, while we know it was taken seriously - as indeed it should have been - for the purposes of the murder investigation itself.

Meanwhile, we are offered a "mundane" and therefore supposedly likely explanation that, having seen one of the Whitechapel Murder victims being physically assaulted, Schwartz became so ill for 23 days that he could not attend the inquest. Nothing to see there, of course.

Perhaps you could point Darryl - and me - to the post in which that explanation was suggested, as I don't recall it being one of mine and I'm sure you wouldn't want to mislead anyone.

Or, that even though there were 5 sessions of the inquest, stretching from October 1st through October 23rd, no one thought of sending Schwartz a summons during that entire period.

If they did, there is no record of it, and he still did not attend, despite your insistence that his evidence would have been deemed invaluable to the Inquest.

I think I'll pass on the mundane, and continue to believe that Schwartz was deliberately held back, though I concede that I can't prove it.

That's fine, RJ. You are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else here. But what that means, if you are right, is that whoever held Schwartz back decided that it was his non-attendance that was essential, not his attendance. Was his name Benny Hill?

[caz]

Coroner: What was the dead woman's name?
I don't know the dead woman's name but I identified her as the woman I saw being assaulted 15 min before she was found dead at the mortuary. Sorry if that is not relevant
Coroner: What was the cause of her death?
I don't know but since I saw a man assaulting her 15 min before she was found dead I think he would have a better idea. Sorry if you don't think his description is noteworthy.
Coroner: Where did she die?
I don't know but since I saw a man assaulting her 15 min before she was found dead right next to the spot I have heard she was found murdered I would have thought my evidence to were and how was important. Sorry if it isn't.
Coroner: When did she die - by which I mean the date? 15 min after I last saw her alive. Again sorry if that is not relevant.
Coroner: Not much help, are you laddy?
Certainly not, since it seems unlikely you called me to the inquest
Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

You pretty much said it all there and did a better job than me: "I don't know but... sorry if that's not what you asked me."

Everything after the "but" would have been for the police to investigate as part of their murder enquiries.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Coroner: What were the man and woman arguing about?
Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.
Coroner: Why did the man push the woman?
Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.
Coroner: What did the man say to the woman?
Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.
Coroner: What did the woman say to the man?
Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.
Coroner: Do you think you might simply have witnessed a little street hassle?
Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.

c.d.

Coroner: Do you suppose that what you witnessed led directly to the woman's death?
Interpreter: He doesn't know, but he is quite certain his hovercraft is full of...
Coroner: Stop that! It's getting silly!
Interpreter: He says you started it.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Hmm, but in reality, it was only one week, from the 1st to the 5th - the following Monday.
There was a three week gap until the coroner's summary, but the whole case had been decided by the 5th.

Hi Wick - Which is the exact point I made in Post #454, but let's add the caveat that Inspector Reid did depose to the jury on Oct 23rd, after this long 'gap,' and introduced two new witnesses, Walter Stride and Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes, who rebutted the earlier testimony of Mrs. Malcom. Other witnesses could have been called, and I've always assumed that part of the reason for this 'gap' before summation is to allow time for more information to emerge. Baxter's delay before summation was more than twice as long at the Stride inquest as it was at the Nichols or Chapman inquests. It's not clear why.

But the point is that there was time to bring forward Schwartz, had his appearance been desirable, so the suggestion (by others) that it his non-appearance was merely down to a clerical error and Baxter simply forgot to summon him, seems unlikely in the extreme.

In my view, the police may still have been investigating Schwartz's story on the 5th, so they couldn't verify his statement to the coroner.
There are no good reason's to explain his none appearance, I'm favoring that one myself for now.

Agreed, but I still favor the idea that the police wanted to keep his account quiet. It's not like Scotland Yard relished publicity; the philosophy of most of the top brass was that publicity was detrimental in a criminal case, and merely served to alert wrong-doers that the police where on to them. For me, it's really that simple.

[caz]

Hi harry,

Sure, they may have doubted anything, but we know they doubted Schwartz's interpretation that Lipski was shouted at pipeman, which in turn puts doubt on pipeman as an accomplice. They could have doubted more, but to the best of my knowledge, they didn't put that on paper. All I'm suggesting is that the doubt referred to in the news need not be referring to anything more than the doubt we already know existed. Doubting pipeman as an accomplice would affect the overall story in many ways, as it changes the dynamic of what was going on.

- Jeff

And that's what I feel may lie at the heart of the matter. Schwartz was the witness, so if he was unable to say whether a) was going on, or b), or even c) or d), how would that have changed at the Inquest, under even the closest questioning? How would anything have been resolved concerning Pipeman's role in the story, and what "Lipski" was all about?

The only way to get any further with this was to find Pipeman, and hope to get his account of the same incident.

I did previously suggest it may have been the thought of "Lipski" being repeated at the Inquest that made someone in authority decide it would be better if Schwartz wasn't called, given that he couldn't shed any light on that controversial matter, and it was always going to be open to interpretation anyway. Something similar to why the GSG was erased perhaps? Misjudged, possibly, but understandable and nothing more sinister than that?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Kind of like the Fast Eddy provenance, he mused, taking another sip of his morning coffee.

Very amusing, RJ.

I suppose I could start a new thread: What Eddie knows... but it would be unfair of me to invite such a discussion until everyone is up to date with the subject matter.

Eddie, unlike Schwartz, is a living, English speaking witness who, among others, knows the truth of what did or didn't happen on double event day 1992. If and when the whole business is up for discussion, it will be on a more level playing field, so you won't need to read between any lines, or fill the gaps with what, currently, you only think you know.

Now who does that remind you of?

[rjpalmer]

he still did not attend, despite your insistence that his evidence would have been deemed invaluable to the Inquest.

Good Grief, Caz.

Sadly, I am increasingly convinced that David B. is correct and you are the great misunderstander, unless you are deliberately misstating people's positions to score points.

I never said this, nor even implied it, and in fact I said the opposite. You seem to be having a difficult time distinguishing between what may be valuable, and what is essential. Surely the distinction is not too subtle?

To repeat myself:

"If a witness is considered 'non essential,' could it only mean that he is not essential to the limited scope of an inquest--the filling out of a death certificate---and thus, the police can hold him back if doing so would be desirable to their aims?

Thus, from the angle of a death certificate, [ie. the inquest!] Schwartz is non-essential, but from the angle of a police investigation, he is anything but. So implying that he is a know-nothing of no value is about as wide of the mark as a person can be"

The Coroner is not holding a police investigation. He is holding an investigation into the cause of death. If there is no specific 'defendant,' the inquest doesn't amount to much more than allowing a death certificate to be filled out. Thus, the police are not required to bring forward witnesses that are non-essential to this aim, and yes, I believe there may be times when they might withhold a non-essential witness because it might thwart the aims of justice. Yet he is still potentially invaluable to their aims---which is catching the murderer.

I am most assuredly not saying Schwartz was "deemed invaluable" to the inquest, I am saying his presence was not necessary, because it wasn't relevant to Baxter's limited aims. Had there been an actual "defendant" in custody, as there was in the Coles inquiry, (Sadler), then the inquest would have morphed into something more akin to an American grand jury, and such depositions would have been more relevant.

So I am stating the exact opposite of what you imply. Schwartz was NOT 'deemed invaluable' to the aims of the Inquest. The aims of the inquest were limited. The aims of the police was to find the murderer, and if you don't think Schwartz wouldn't have been highly valuable to them, then your aren't thinking at all.

Hi Darryl,

Everything after the "but" would have been for the police to investigate as part of their murder enquiries.

Which is exactly what I've been saying, Caz. So, we have reached agreement. See how easy that was?

So why drag Schwartz before the inquest and alert broad shoulders and the pipe smoker to the fact that the police are trying to trace them? Why do you find this possibility so controversial??

It is assumed by many commenting here, that the public, and presumably the coroner, were already well-aware of Schwartz. That he was "before the public." I don't agree. This is hindsight thinking. He is mentioned in a single snippet in one newspaper only, and not even by name, and the Star published several editions that day, so unless someone was buying every newspaper in London, and already had the benefit of the hindsight of what we know is in the existing MEPO files, it would have been easily missed. Further, as the Stride murder was part of a double event, and the Eddowes inquiry was also flooding the papers, dozens of other accounts and stories were also in circulation. The very existence of Schwartz would have been very easily missed in the media blitz.

Ultimately, we know that Schwartz was taken seriously by having access to Swanson's report, etc. The police could have held Schwartz back from the public, and no one would have been the wiser. And in my view, Scotland Yard C.I.D. viewed themselves as a very tight-lipped organization. They avoided publicity if they could.

I don't think my belief is even slightly far-fetched.

[JeffHamm]

And that's what I feel may lie at the heart of the matter. Schwartz was the witness, so if he was unable to say whether a) was going on, or b), or even c) or d), how would that have changed at the Inquest, under even the closest questioning? How would anything have been resolved concerning Pipeman's role in the story, and what "Lipski" was all about?

The only way to get any further with this was to find Pipeman, and hope to get his account of the same incident.

I did previously suggest it may have been the thought of "Lipski" being repeated at the Inquest that made someone in authority decide it would be better if Schwartz wasn't called, given that he couldn't shed any light on that controversial matter, and it was always going to be open to interpretation anyway. Something similar to why the GSG was erased perhaps? Misjudged, possibly, but understandable and nothing more sinister than that?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Maybe there was something similar to the GSG behind it, or maybe after being questioned Schwartz was much less confident in what he could testify to, and as a result, would be too wishy-washy on the stand to be considered useful? The complete lack of anything in the police files concerning him, though, could indicate the police weren't really surprised at his non-attendance, which would fit with him not being called. The notes we do have, where Abberline indicates that after careful questioning Schwartz couldn't say who Lipski was directed to, could be the indication of Schwartz waffling in confidence, and so the police really didn't have a need to record it in anything that has survived to us.

Baxter doesn't seem to ask where he is, and he has asked about others (the pensioner I believe, in Annie's inquest), so Baster too doesn't seem concerned. So either Baxter has no idea Schwartz existed, or he's been informed that Schwartz is unreliable as a witness unless they can locate pipeman and they're investigating.

Anyway, nothing is recorded indicating a concern about Schwartz's lack of showing, which would fit with them not expecting him to. And I suppose given what we know of his statement, not expecting him to would indicate he probably was dropped from the list. They were investigating his story, so it can't be the doubted him completely, but if Schwartz now came across as indecisive, and he needed a translator, and they were still investigating, etc, it may just be he was "too hard", and since other testimony would narrow the time of her murder to a similar range, others were giving descriptions, and the potential for inflaming tensions with Lipski testimony, maybe that's all it was - he was just "too hard for no gain"? Though I doubt they would have phrased it that way, but that sort of thing could be all there was to it.

I just wish we had something more solid than guess work.

- Jeff