Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[Simon Wood]

The most successful conspiracies are those about which nobody knows anything and suspect even less.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Simon,

I can think of a few -- sickness on Schwartz's part, inability to obtain a translator, possibly a deal cut with Schwartz when he initially gave his story to the police that he wouldn't have to appear at the inquest. Possibly, as Tom suggests, the police held his testimony back for some reason. Or it simply could be because given the apparent problem in getting his story straight in the first place (since it appears he was never completely clear on what was going on exacerbated by the language hurdle) that the police felt it would just confuse the jurors.

Finally, since no one was actually on trial, the jurors were going to return a verdict of the old person or persons unknown with or without Schwartz's testimony.

c.d.

There is ample evidence that Lawende was at the Eddowes Inquest, there is also ample evidence that he was sequestered before the Inquest, there is also evidence provided at the Inquest that Lawendes account would not be given in full, and that some of his statement was withheld.

Any evidence of ANY of that in Israels case? What is most annoying here cd is when members choose to believe whatever they wish to without providing a sound argument to back it up, yet they feel free to attempt to discredit others who do provide evidence.

Heres your evidence in this instance...without ANY record of Israel Schwartz attending the Inquest, without ANY evidence that his statement was withheld from it, without ANY evidence that his statement was entered into the records in his absence, that his statement was submitted by someone else, or that his story was given ANY consideration at the Inquest into the murder person he says he saw minutes before her death being assaulted,.....there is no reason whatsoever to assume, regardless of those fact,s that he was there and/or his story mattered.

Its fantasy...and I understand that we are just investigating real events here.

[Abby Normal]

The most successful conspiracies are those about which nobody knows anything and suspect even less.

Like the JtR was Real Association building a time machine to travel back to Victorian era London to write the Dear Boss letter?

[Michael W Richards]

Like the JtR was Real Association building a time machine to travel back to Victorian era London to write the Dear Boss letter?

Are you aware that the majority of the senior investigators in the Ripper cases were seasoned professional liars, conspirators, and that they financially aided anarchists for their assault upon England and the throne?

You and others talk about conspiracies like they were fantasies all the while ignoring those blatant facts.....the high level men investigating the Ripper cases were trained in deceit, falsifying evidence and creating erroneous cover stories. To think that they might have done so with these cases? Ohh...that's such nonsense is it?

At least you gave me a laugh out loud...so thanks for that.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Holy Moly!

What a joy. Someone else who gets it.

Keep it up.

Regards,

Simon

[jerryd]

Are you aware that the majority of the senior investigators in the Ripper cases were seasoned professional liars, conspirators, and that they financially aided anarchists for their assault upon England and the throne?

You and others talk about conspiracies like they were fantasies all the while ignoring those blatant facts.....the high level men investigating the Ripper cases were trained in deceit, falsifying evidence and creating erroneous cover stories. To think that they might have done so with these cases? Ohh...that's such nonsense is it?

At least you gave me a laugh out loud...so thanks for that.

Michael,

Not non-sense at all in my opinion. Just look at the Cleveland Street Scandal, full of lies and deception from High ranking officials both in and out of the police force. I've often wondered why Abberline migrated into that investigation? Was it because of his great ability to solve the Ripper case?

A quote from Matt Cook's book: London and the Culture of Homosexuality, 1885-1914.

The press drew attention to this supposed laxity and suggested a cosseted subculture which was protected at the highest levels. They foregrounded Saul's comment in the Euston libel trial that the police 'had been kind to him' and turned a blind eye 'to more than him'. Wide coverage also attended T.P O'Connor's observation in the Commons that whilst detectives 'dogged' Irish MP's, none could be found to 'dog the footsteps of a ruffian who, for upwards of a year, has kept a house in the city which has brought disgrace on the character of the city'.

[Michael W Richards]

I appreciate the sentiments SW and JD, I think anyone who imagines these cases in isolation is making a major mistake, some of these killings were merely a product of the times. Looking at any news its easy to see Terrorism is primarily intended to shock and frighten, not to educate people about any legitimate grievances of an ethnic or political group. As I once said to AP here, I think some of these may just be earlier examples of it.

Lest we not forget that the year following the so-called Ripper murders it was suggested by a senior official that he suspected a man behind the plot to assassinate Lord Balfour was also the so-called Ripper. I suppose its one example that justifies any credible search for links to any of the more militant and anarchistic groups working in London and Paris at the time.....oh yeah, Gay Paris, where Anderson returned from.... after leaving abruptly... at the height of the Ripper panic, and just after being appointed to the head position. Odd that he didn't mention Paris when we heard he was off to Switzerland for some rest.

I believe that the 2 women I can see any possible associations with any Irish factions would be Kate and Mary...Mr Conway, the man behind the TC on Kates arm, was involved within the Irish military and the community, and its quite possible that Mary may have had some similar friends due to her heritage and possible acquaintances made while as an escort in Paris. Is it possible that their deaths were connected in that fashion....sure. Is it possible that Kates use of the names and addresses in her last 24 hours Jane Kelly and Mary Kelly, at 6 Dorset Street/Fashion Street, indicate some knowledge of each other? Sure...why not?

Is it possible that some of the Ripper deaths were about silence rather than madness? Well, I know some secrets were going for a pretty heady rate at the Commission, and that when there are dangerous secrets around some people become unwitting risks to others.

Kate with her nose sliced off...to keep it to herself, and Mary, with her face all but obliterated.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

The most successful conspiracies are those about which nobody knows anything and suspect even less.

It strikes me that those are just the easiest to invent.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

If you KNOW FOR A FACT why Schwartz did not testify at the inquest please let the rest of us know. I see no point in keeping it to yourself.

c.d.

[Bridewell]

There is however no evidence that what Israel described ever occurred.

What Schwartz described was a woman being attacked on Berner Street, at the entrance to Dutfields Yard, for which there is incontrovertible evidence. Okay, so nobody else saw what Schwartz claims to have done but somebody killed Stride at or about the time that Schwartz describes a woman being attacked. The police arrested a man based on Schwartz's description - presumably not chosen at random. If the man arrested was based on Pipeman's description there must have been a man answering that description close enough to the scene for someone to have made a connection. The same goes for BS Man.

In my view the reason that Schwartz was not called to the inquest is quite simple. The function of an inquest is:

(i) to identify the deceased in a sudden death
(ii) to establish when she died
(iii) where she died and
(iv) how.

Schwartz can say nothing with regard to (i) and (ii), (iii) and (iv) are clear from the medical evidence. Other witnesses were called but they didn't necessitate the cost of an interpreter.

Schwartz would be a crucial witness at trial in establishing the identity of the killer but that is not the purpose of an inquest.

[GUT]

What Schwartz described was a woman being attacked on Berner Street at the entrance to Dutfields Yard for which there is incontrovertible evidence. Okay, so nobody else saw what Schwartz claims to have done but somebody killed Stride at or about the time that Schwartz describes a woman being attacked. The police arrested a man based on Schwartz's description - presumably not chosen at random. If the man arrested was based on Pipeman's description there must have been such a man close enough to the scene for someone to have made a connection. The same goes for BS Man.

In my view the reason that Schwartz was not called to the inquest is quite simple. The function of an inquest is:

(i) to identify the deceased in a sudden death
(ii) to establish when she died
(iii) where she died and
(iv) how.

Schwartz can say nothing with regard to (i) and (ii), (iii) and (iv) are clear from the medical evidence. Other witnesses were called but they didn't necessitate the cost of an interpreter.

Schwartz would be a crucial witness at trial in establishing the identity of the killer but that is not the purpose of an inquest.

But to be fair they appear to have arrested a LOT of people, releasing them very soon thereafter.

Your point about inquests is well made and often forgotten [sometimes I suspect by the coroner himself].

[David Orsam]

The function of an inquest is:

(i) to identify the deceased in a sudden death
(ii) to establish when she died
(iii) where she died and
(iv) how.

This may be true of a modern inquest but does not apply to an inquest in the time period under discussion, in the sense that the list is incomplete. I refer to Jervis on Coroners, Fifth Edition, (1888) which says, firstly:

"It shall be the duty of the coroner in a case of murder or manslaughter to put into writing the statement on oath of those who know the facts and circumstances of the case."

And secondly:

"After viewing the body and hearing the evidence the jury shall give their verdict, and certify it by an inquisition in writing, setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them, who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and, if he came by his death by murder or manslaughter, the persons if any, whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter, or, of being accessories before the fact to such murder".

Consequently, as commented in Jervis, "It is obvious, although the inquiry of the coroner is preliminary only, that it may, and frequently does, lead to accusation."

This is an important aspect of inquests relating to murders in 1888 which I get the feeling is often overlooked.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

If you KNOW FOR A FACT why Schwartz did not testify at the inquest please let the rest of us know. I see no point in keeping it to yourself.

c.d.

I don't cd, and I don't have to know to see that he didn't appear in any records of it. If you believe his story, then you must see his story is essential to the Inquest material, its an assault on the deceased feet from and minutes before her death...making Israels alleged assailant THE most likely suspect..not this phantom Jack.

But as we can all see, the Inquest spent ample time on someone who had nothing at all to do with the Inquest and after they already knew the woman was incorrect about the ID, and had a witness who recorded a 12:45 sighting on record....so, Israels absence must mean he wasn't considered germane to the proceedings. Something unthinkable if they really believed his story.

Cheers

[Abby Normal]

I don't cd, and I don't have to know to see that he didn't appear in any records of it. If you believe his story, then you must see his story is essential to the Inquest material, its an assault on the deceased feet from and minutes before her death...making Israels alleged assailant THE most likely suspect..not this phantom Jack.

But as we can all see, the Inquest spent ample time on someone who had nothing at all to do with the Inquest and after they already knew the woman was incorrect about the ID, and had a witness who recorded a 12:45 sighting on record....so, Israels absence must mean he wasn't considered germane to the proceedings. Something unthinkable if they really believed his story.

Cheers

uh no. he could have been absent for any number of reasons other than not being "germaine" to the preceedings.
Just off the top of my head:
the police kept him secret
he was sick
he was out of town
he didn't want to attend, so didn't
logistics/problems with language barrier

[Michael W Richards]

uh no. he could have been absent for any number of reasons other than not being "germaine" to the preceedings.
Just off the top of my head:
1. the police kept him secret
2. he was sick
3. he was out of town
4. he didn't want to attend, so didn't
5. logistics/problems with language barrier

None of those reasons would preclude announcing those facts or entering them into the records.

1. The fact that his story has every bearing on whether Liz Stride may have died by person or persons unknown, hardly likely that his story would be unrecorded in the Inquest documents.
2. Then they would have entered his statement and advised the jury he was unable to attend personally.
3. Then they would have advised the jury that they have been unable to contact or reach the witness.
4. It wasn't a voluntary situation.
5. They had a translator when he gave his statement, so that seems to address your speculation. Translators were available.

To pretend that he was a part of the Inquest anyway, or that he waa so important and secret that no document anywhere confirms his involvement in any police investigation into the death of Stride isn't police work...its wishful thinking in order to facilitate a belief you have.

Cheers