Schwartz v. Lawende

[Michael W Richards]

Agreed, specifically with the point you make about incomplete investigations. It has been my belief Schwartz's story was still under investigation and Scotland Yard had not determined the truth of what he said. This is how we should interpret Swanson's comment on Schwartz in his 19th Oct. notes.
That the police were still investigating the truth of his claim, which is why he was not made a witness for the coroner.

If they were still investigating his statement, which placed an assailant with Stride minutes just before she is cut, why would the Inquest proceed right away? Wouldnt his statement be the most germane if true? It would suggest Wilfull Murder as the likely cause and set up BSM as the likely culprit. They wouldnt have a reasonable opportunity to fully investigate his statement anyway, the Inquest started Monday morning. So, why not simply cite reasons for delaying the beginning of the Inquest so they could more fully sort out his story?

What you suggest isnt feasible anyway, with a Monday start they didnt have enough time to vet most of the witnesses that appeared at the Inquest,..... but they didnt withhold them. His story at the Inquest would have been the most important, likely the first one presented, instead its the glaring omission in this case. But this case is full of nonsense and diversions anyway,....I mean Mary Malcolm? Really? They knew she was wrong before they let her speak. So why do it?

[The Rookie Detective]

For Israel Schwartz to give a relatively detailed account of him being a first hand witness to a woman being assaulted in public just yards away from where she was found murdered around 15 minutes later... and for him to not even be at the inquest to give said evidence...that tells you all you need to know about Schwartz and his validity as a witness.

If Schwartz was there in Berner St, he's more likely to have been the killer himself and his account of being followed by Pipeman may have been him evading capture after being caught slashing Stride's throat.

What if Schwartz and BS man are the same person?

So Pipeman chased Bs Man/Schwartz and the alleged anti Semitic slur is false rhetoric from the killer to push the idea the Ripper was Jewish.

That would mean that it was Pipeman who disturbed Schwartz/BS man and that would coincide with press reports that the killer was seen being chased and that the person chasing wasn't connected to the club.

As I've posted before; the name Israel has direct biblical links to the name Jack.

Was it in fact Schwartz who was seen talking to Stride? Bearing in mind that Schwartz was the killer disguised as someone else; playing a character as it were.

Did the killer deliberately dress up to portray being a Jew, when he wasn't? All in an attempt to push the false claim of the killer being Jewish.

Of all the people present in Berner Street, Schwartz has remained a ghost.
But why is that?
Well, perhaps the stereotypical looking Jew was the killer in disguise.

It would also explain the Goulston Street graffiti.


Lots to ponder

RD

[c.d.]

I don't think that would be a good enough reason for excluding Schwartz from the inquest. Willliam Marshall could only overhear a few words of a conversation lasting several minutes, which occurred much further from the murder spot, yet he was called to the inquest.

You might not but Baxter might have. It is simply one possible reason.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

.....Why would the coroner be impeded by ongoing police investigations?

As the police regarded the first man as a suspect, but not the second, investigating the truth of his claim really just means they are still looking for Pipeman. Correct? Would there come a point when the police would tell the coroner they have given up on the search, and he may proceed with questioning Schwartz?

The coroner selects his witnesses from the list provided by police.
The witnesses story must be verified to some degree before they can tell the coroner the witness is to be believed.
You must remember the police interview hundreds of witnesses in the course of their investigations, but only a few are able to offer direct testimony relating to the victim at the time of the murder.

A coroner cannot use a witness who turned out to be mistaken about what they saw, or intentionally lying for some reason. The police are expected to question the witness and investigate the truth - in other words test the witness against all the other statements given to them.
The proof of this can be seen with the statement of Maxwell who's claim directly conflicted with medical evidence, but the police could not break her claim, so they had to put her name on the coroners list.

The coroner (or his secretary) then receives the list of names coupled with copies of their statements, and the coroners office then reads all the statements and will select which witnesses they will choose to attend the public inquiry.

What I am saying is the police were still investigating Schwartz's story, as Swanson says, there is no police report at the time, which means they were still investigating his story.
This, in my view, is why he did not appear as a witness.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Agreed, specifically with the point you make about incomplete investigations. It has been my belief Schwartz's story was still under investigation and Scotland Yard had not determined the truth of what he said. This is how we should interpret Swanson's comment on Schwartz in his 19th Oct. notes.

I think we should interpret Swanson's comments literally - the existing police report gives us no reason to doubt Schwartz. Why he mentions the possibility of doubt if there is no reason to, is an interesting question, but I take it he refers to Abberline's report of his interview with Schwartz, not ongoing police investigations.

That the police were still investigating the truth of his claim, which is why he was not made a witness for the coroner.

Why would the coroner be impeded by ongoing police investigations?

As the police regarded the first man as a suspect, but not the second, investigating the truth of his claim really just means they are still looking for Pipeman. Correct? Would there come a point when the police would tell the coroner they have given up on the search, and he may proceed with questioning Schwartz?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Because Schwartz was not present at the start of the altercation and therefore didn't know its cause. He did not speak English and therefore could not determine what either Stride or the BS man was saying.

c.d.

I don't think that would be a good enough reason for excluding Schwartz from the inquest. Willliam Marshall could only overhear a few words of a conversation lasting several minutes, which occurred much further from the murder spot, yet he was called to the inquest.

[Wickerman]

I think we do not take into account the speed in which Inquests took place during this period. We must remember there were no telephones. The murder took place on the Sunday morning and the Inquest on the Monday. In fact that Inquests took place so fast that the enquiries into the murder were hardly in full progress. We have to live with that but that is how it was. Today Inquests would be opened and adjourned. Schwartz or any other witnesses may have been difficult to find. Presumably an officer would call to request his presence. The potential witness could be out, at work, not interested, gave the wrong address, address taken incorrectly, all sorts of reasons. Because of this short period I think we will never know why a witness does not attend unless it is specifically mentioned as it was in say the case of the Pensioner (Chapman case)

NW

Agreed, specifically with the point you make about incomplete investigations. It has been my belief Schwartz's story was still under investigation and Scotland Yard had not determined the truth of what he said. This is how we should interpret Swanson's comment on Schwartz in his 19th Oct. notes.
That the police were still investigating the truth of his claim, which is why he was not made a witness for the coroner.

[New Waterloo]

I think we do not take into account the speed in which Inquests took place during this period. We must remember there were no telephones. The murder took place on the Sunday morning and the Inquest on the Monday. In fact that Inquests took place so fast that the enquiries into the murder were hardly in full progress. We have to live with that but that is how it was. Today Inquests would be opened and adjourned. Schwartz or any other witnesses may have been difficult to find. Presumably an officer would call to request his presence. The potential witness could be out, at work, not interested, gave the wrong address, address taken incorrectly, all sorts of reasons. Because of this short period I think we will never know why a witness does not attend unless it is specifically mentioned as it was in say the case of the Pensioner (Chapman case)

NW

[c.d.]

Based on what source have you determined that Schwartz could not be certain of what he saw? What does that even mean? Why would Baxter pre-emptively determine Schwartz's confidence as a witness?


Not likely, because had Schwartz tried that, Baxter would have replied "So why did you go to the press?"

Because Schwartz was not present at the start of the altercation and therefore didn't know its cause. He did not speak English and therefore could not determine what either Stride or the BS man was saying.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Keep in mind that this was an Inquest not a Trial. There was no named suspect. With or without Schwartz the jury in all likelihood was going to deliver a verdict of person or persons unknown. Because of the language barrier and because Schwartz could not be certain of what he saw Baxter might have thought he would add little value.

Based on what source have you determined that Schwartz could not be certain of what he saw? What does that even mean? Why would Baxter pre-emptively determine Schwartz's confidence as a witness?

It is also possible (just a thought, no evidence) that Schwartz said something to the effect of look, I did my civic duty. I have a wife and young child. I don't want to be identified or get involved further. And Baxter accepted that.

c.d.

Not likely, because had Schwartz tried that, Baxter would have replied "So why did you go to the press?"

[Wickerman]

Goldstein was a club member, who was not with B, C, or anyone else.

Would you have understood better if I had said "all the men inside the club"?

[c.d.]

The notion of Baxter being aware of Schwartz's story, believing it, yet not calling him to the inquest, is a possibility. A very small one.

Keep in mind that this was an Inquest not a Trial. There was no named suspect. With or without Schwartz the jury in all likelihood was going to deliver a verdict of person or persons unknown. Because of the language barrier and because Schwartz could not be certain of what he saw Baxter might have thought he would add little value.

It is also possible (just a thought, no evidence) that Schwartz said something to the effect of look, I did my civic duty. I have a wife and young child. I don't want to be identified or get involved further. And Baxter accepted that.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Certainly a possibility. Since we don't know why he was not called any explanation is pretty much up for grabs.

c.d.

The notion of Baxter being aware of Schwartz's story, believing it, yet not calling him to the inquest, is a possibility. A very small one.

[c.d.]

What are the chances that Baxter believed Schwartz's story, but decided not to call him?

Certainly a possibility. Since we don't know why he was not called any explanation is pretty much up for grabs.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The problem I see with the killer being a club member is that the police interviewed all the members, and as would be expected they not only have alibi's, but all their stories will confirm each other. The police will be looking for an inconsistency, an example being 'A' says he was with 'B', whereas 'B' makes no mention of seeing 'A'.
Unless you want to proposed a conspiracy among club members then we can rest assured their stories all confirmed each other.
Lets be honest, to think the killer may have been a member of the club is hardly an outstanding theory, it was likely their first thought - hence the individual interrogations & personal searches of the members.

Goldstein was a club member, who was not with B, C, or anyone else.