Who do you credit as the most reliable witnesses?

[JeffHamm]

I recall the article being posted Jeff but I can’t remember the exact content. Was it specific to the Berner Street incident or could it have been connected to Best and Gardner for example?

At this point someone like Joshua usually comes up with the relevant quote…..

I can't recall the exact article, but I think it ends up pretty clearly linked to the Schwartz incident - just can't say how that link is made exactly (i.e. if it is specifically stated, or if it flows on from discussing "the Hungarian", etc).

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can't recall the exact article, but I think it ends up pretty clearly linked to the Schwartz incident - just can't say how that link is made exactly (i.e. if it is specifically stated, or if it flows on from discussing "the Hungarian", etc).

- Jeff

Cheers Jeff, I’m sure that you’re right.

[Elamarna]

?? Why would Baxter care what Schwartz said when not under oath and to the press and not to a court and/or police officer? At most, the differences between a story in the news and an official statement could be cleared up by questioning at the inquest. We see this with "the Pensioner" in the Chapman case, who wasn't a pensioner despite creating that impression with Annie and others. He told all sorts of stories to others, and yet, he's called to testify - and his status as a pensioner (or non-status) is cleared up by questioning him on it. There's certainly no dismissing of Paul in the Nichols case, and his statements to the press conflict with his statements to the police and yet, the inquest don't even mention the conflict with the press. They just go over the events and get Paul to recount things while he's under oath and suddenly he's not off on his own to find PC Mizen, and he's not the one who primarily talks to PC Mizen, rather he's more just sort of there, making one comment to PC Mizen to support statements made by Cross/Lechmere. Conflict with embellished news reports (Paul), or even a history of falsehoods (Pensioner), doesn't result in witnesses being discarded.

And anyway, how do you know that the bits that differ between the police statement and what appears in the Star even came from Schwartz and were not simply embellishments by the reporter or confusion during the translation (my personal thoughts are the "knife" comes from a leading question by the reporter, and the confusion over who shouts Lipski is probably poor translation)? More importantly, how would Baxter know which was the source of the changed details without actually questioning Schwartz? Baxter, if he even knew of the Star's article, would clear those up by asking Schwartz when he's under oath rather than sit down at breakfast, open his copy of the Star and cry out "Hey now, what's all this then, here's it's a pipe, but here it's a knife? I don't want to talk to this confusing chap, he's said two things already. It will be a cricket bat next, what what?" Seriously, Baxter and the police would be well aware that the press can embellish a story, and all they care about is what is said under oath (i.e. the police reports, the inquest testimonies). At most, they might want to clarify things found in the press if they thought it was for the public good (i.e. Pizer and Leather Apron), but in all probability, what was printed in a newspaper would be irrelevant to them as it was not given under oath and lying to the press isn't an offence. Also, I doubt Baxter read the Star, so we can't even be sure Baxter was even aware of that article in the first place.

- Jeff

Very well summed up Jeff.
Not forgotten about the routes and times for Mitre Square I promised , just been busy

Steve

[JeffHamm]

Very well summed up Jeff.
Not forgotten about the routes and times for Mitre Square I promised , just been busy

Steve

Cheers Steve. No rush, busy here too. Hope you had a good holiday season.

- Jeff

[etenguy]

Given the other witnesses invited to Stride's and the other victims' inquests, it seems to me that Schwartz would have been someone the coroner would have ordinarily called to give evidence. Indeed, William Marshall and James Brown were called and questioned about the couple standing by the club and had less information than Israel Schwartz to contribute. Therefore, it seems to me that there must have been a reason not to call Schwartz. It is not clear from the information we have what the reason might be, but it seems to me it was likely a conscious decision and that in itself may be important.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Having re read the official reports into Israel Schwartz and the cry of Lipski etc I have a problem.
He seems to have only been interviewed once, by Abberline on Sept 30 late afternoon/early evening.

Swanson's report dated 19 Oct - If Schwartz is to be believed and the police report casts no doubt on it. A strange thing to write, did one or more senior officers have doubts ?
He also mentions about the inspector who questioned Schwartz theorising that BS man may not have been the killer IE 15 mins from the altercation until Liz was found dead.
Abberline in his report 1 Nov - I questioned Schwartz very closely on the use of the word Lipski
So it follows that Abberline must have been the Inspector mentioned in Swansons report

Swanson didn't interview Schwartz [ he would have said ] nor most likely didn't Anderson, or he would probably have known that he didn't appear at the inquest. Draft letter dated 5 Nov.
There is also a letter from Henry Matthews dated 27 Oct suggesting that Schwartz may be able to identify pipeman, if he was called Lipski and if he was an accomplice.
To me that suggests pipeman up until that point was not found IE Schwartz account still wasn't verified.
The inquest by Baxter finished on Oct 23 after an 18 day adjournment. Perhaps Schwartz was never called [ even after the adjournment ], because pipeman [ never found ], PC Smith , Brown , Goldstein , Eagle , Mortimer , the couple Brown saw [ if not Liz ], none of them can corroborate Schwartz at all.
This may not mean anything but Inspector Reid was called but not Abberline and Reid makes no mention of Schwartz.

Going back to Swanson's 19 Nov report Pc Smiths description seen of a man with Liz was circulated amongst the police and the description given to the press.
While Schwartz description was just circulated amongst the police, Why ?
Doubts upon his evidence perhaps ? As the Star suggests.
Abberline interviewed Schwartz mere hours after Liz's murder with the aid of an interpreter, [ when feelings and the immediate search for clues would still be running high ]. As far as I can tell all other police reports, regarding Schwartz, Lipski etc stem from this interview.

With another witness, Hutchinson, he did not need an interpreter [ where subtle differences in testimony might occur through a third party ]. He gave a statement to the press [ I believe ],which was more or less the same as his statement to Abberline and most importantly in Abberline's report dated 12 Nov, Abberline writes that he believes Hutchinson's statement to be true.
Yet a lot of people doubt Hutch, including myself.
Abberline interview with Schwartz seems to be the crux of other senior officers memo's/reports etc.
And Schwartz was never questioned at an inquest, he had an interpreter at said interview and the one newspaper which got wind of his story doubted it.
Personally in my opinion, nothing totally discounts Schwartz story but there is enough there [ again in my humble opinion ], to treat his story with caution.

Regards Darryl

[Doctored Whatsit]

There's an article in one of the papers that talks about some (2?) arrests made based upon descriptions given by two different people, one of whom is probably Schwartz and the other is generally thought to be pipeman, although it does not specifically say this. But if it is not, then it would imply there was another witness to the Schwartz event for which we have no other information. As such, the view is that pipeman appears to have been identified. Given the lack of any indication of any of this in the police records, it could mean it is a press fabrication but also could just reflect how much less we know than the police did at the time.

- Jeff

I think you refer to an item in The Star, possibly the least reliable paper, on 1st October. At the end of the piece telling how Schwartz "saw the whole thing", it added, "The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. The prisoner has not been charged, but is held for enquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted." Some suggest that this means that Schwartz's statement is not accepted, but logically the writer has specified Schwartz as "the Hungarian" and the prisoner as the "one man", so "the man" is logically, the prisoner, whose statement was not accepted, which is why he was being held until inquiries were completed.

Unfortunately, the next day, the story becomes less clear! "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 St police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts"

There is, I think, nothing in any police record to indicate who these two persons might have been, nor is there anything in the record to suggest that the police ever rejected Schwartz's statement. Indeed, they seem to have still been accepting his story and descriptions weeks later.

I wonder whether the "prisoner" was Michael Kidney, who turned up drunk at the police station on October 1st, demanding to see a detective, and caused a bit of a scene. Maybe The Star got the story slightly wrong - they've done that before!

[JeffHamm]

I think you refer to an item in The Star, possibly the least reliable paper, on 1st October. At the end of the piece telling how Schwartz "saw the whole thing", it added, "The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. The prisoner has not been charged, but is held for enquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted." Some suggest that this means that Schwartz's statement is not accepted, but logically the writer has specified Schwartz as "the Hungarian" and the prisoner as the "one man", so "the man" is logically, the prisoner, whose statement was not accepted, which is why he was being held until inquiries were completed.

Unfortunately, the next day, the story becomes less clear! "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 St police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts"

There is, I think, nothing in any police record to indicate who these two persons might have been, nor is there anything in the record to suggest that the police ever rejected Schwartz's statement. Indeed, they seem to have still been accepting his story and descriptions weeks later.

I wonder whether the "prisoner" was Michael Kidney, who turned up drunk at the police station on October 1st, demanding to see a detective, and caused a bit of a scene. Maybe The Star got the story slightly wrong - they've done that before!

Hi Doctored Whatsit,

Yes, those are the articles. And I agree, The Star is not the most reliable of sources

I think it's the 2nd one that people have suggested implies that Pipeman may have been the 2nd person (2nd arrest "funished from another source") who could perhaps be the person arrested in the first story (as I say, it's only an inference, and could very well be wrong).

I agree the first story points doubts on the arrested man's story, while the 2nd seems to cast doubts on Schwartz. Given we know the police did doubt some aspects of Schwartz's statement (in particular to whom Broad Shoulders - B.S. - shouted Lipski, and therefore the relationship between Pipeman and B.S.) I've tended to think the Star may have got some hints towards that aspect and we see it in the 2nd story.

Running a bit with this, those doubts could also have been increased if indeed Pipeman was located (first story), and while he wasn't fully believed that day he was able to clear himself eventually, leading to increased doubts concerning Schwartz's interpretation of Lipski and Pipeman's involvement. And if neither Schwartz nor Pipeman could provide more details about B.S., then there's no further action they could take.

Something like that sort of ties a bunch of things together and makes some sense of things, but as I say, these are just ideas not facts and I'm sure there are other ways to arrange things.

- Jeff

[Varqm]

There you are again, the coroner would simply NOT reject out of hand, something the police believed was important. He would want to test it himself.

Anderson and Swanson clearly say the suspect their witness identified would be convicted and hung.
It's hard to think of anything other than an actual assault that would ensure that.
Just being seen with a victim before or close to a murder site just after a murder seems unlikely to be so certain.

Your continuing question as to how long the police considered him an important witness is impossible to answer. However, there is NO record, public or private that they ever reached that point, it's simply a question you have decided to use to allow you to reject Schwartz, a rejection against the evidence .

My friend, you seem so certain that Schwartz was rejected, you are not prepared to even consider other possibilities. Why is this I ask?

Steve

The fact Schwartz was not in the inquest said a lot, irrespective of the police views,the police could make mistakes too,Packer,Violena,Hutchinson.

[Varqm]

Having re read the official reports into Israel Schwartz and the cry of Lipski etc I have a problem.
He seems to have only been interviewed once, by Abberline on Sept 30 late afternoon/early evening.

Swanson's report dated 19 Oct - If Schwartz is to be believed and the police report casts no doubt on it. A strange thing to write, did one or more senior officers have doubts ?
He also mentions about the inspector who questioned Schwartz theorising that BS man may not have been the killer IE 15 mins from the altercation until Liz was found dead.
Abberline in his report 1 Nov - I questioned Schwartz very closely on the use of the word Lipski
So it follows that Abberline must have been the Inspector mentioned in Swansons report

Swanson didn't interview Schwartz [ he would have said ] nor most likely didn't Anderson, or he would probably have known that he didn't appear at the inquest. Draft letter dated 5 Nov.
There is also a letter from Henry Matthews dated 27 Oct suggesting that Schwartz may be able to identify pipeman, if he was called Lipski and if he was an accomplice.
To me that suggests pipeman up until that point was not found IE Schwartz account still wasn't verified.
The inquest by Baxter finished on Oct 23 after an 18 day adjournment. Perhaps Schwartz was never called [ even after the adjournment ], because pipeman [ never found ], PC Smith , Brown , Goldstein , Eagle , Mortimer , the couple Brown saw [ if not Liz ], none of them can corroborate Schwartz at all.
This may not mean anything but Inspector Reid was called but not Abberline and Reid makes no mention of Schwartz.

Going back to Swanson's 19 Nov report Pc Smiths description seen of a man with Liz was circulated amongst the police and the description given to the press.
While Schwartz description was just circulated amongst the police, Why ?
Doubts upon his evidence perhaps ? As the Star suggests.
Abberline interviewed Schwartz mere hours after Liz's murder with the aid of an interpreter, [ when feelings and the immediate search for clues would still be running high ]. As far as I can tell all other police reports, regarding Schwartz, Lipski etc stem from this interview.

With another witness, Hutchinson, he did not need an interpreter [ where subtle differences in testimony might occur through a third party ]. He gave a statement to the press [ I believe ],which was more or less the same as his statement to Abberline and most importantly in Abberline's report dated 12 Nov, Abberline writes that he believes Hutchinson's statement to be true.
Yet a lot of people doubt Hutch, including myself.
Abberline interview with Schwartz seems to be the crux of other senior officers memo's/reports etc.
And Schwartz was never questioned at an inquest, he had an interpreter at said interview and the one newspaper which got wind of his story doubted it.
Personally in my opinion, nothing totally discounts Schwartz story but there is enough there [ again in my humble opinion ], to treat his story with caution.

Regards Darryl

Yes there were doubts on Schwartz,they were unsure,it was just their opinions.The police most likely had nothing else but the two vastly different statements by Schwartz to the police and Star,both from the horse's mouth so to speak.

[Varqm]

So this inquest was different to every other inquest? I really don’t know where you get this idea from either. Inquests are to establish 4 things. This is simply a fact. Of all the possible reasons for Schwartz non-attendance the one that we can definitively dismiss with solid, black and white evidence is the suggestion that he wasn’t believed. The record proves this not to have been the case. I really can’t understand why you dispute something that’s in black and white? The ‘he wasn’t believed’ suggestion can be categorically dismissed. Only you appear to support it.

Do you have a theory that requires this suggestion to be true? To quote Steve:

“My friend, you seem so certain that Schwartz was rejected, you are not prepared to even consider other possibilities. Why is this I ask?”

You do appear rigid on this subject when the evidence is completely against you.

Read the Coroner's Act 1887 and look at the witnesses in all the five inquest.Its clear it was not only about the who,where, how ,when,just for one the police'witnesses.
Schwartz was too important to a murder inquiry,any inquiry into a murder not including an assault 15 minutes before where the victim's body was found is very very wrong.
I don't rely on Schwartz's truthfulness or not for anything.

[Varqm]

?? Why would Baxter care what Schwartz said when not under oath and to the press and not to a court and/or police officer? At most, the differences between a story in the news and an official statement could be cleared up by questioning at the inquest. We see this with "the Pensioner" in the Chapman case, who wasn't a pensioner despite creating that impression with Annie and others. He told all sorts of stories to others, and yet, he's called to testify - and his status as a pensioner (or non-status) is cleared up by questioning him on it. There's certainly no dismissing of Paul in the Nichols case, and his statements to the press conflict with his statements to the police and yet, the inquest don't even mention the conflict with the press. They just go over the events and get Paul to recount things while he's under oath and suddenly he's not off on his own to find PC Mizen, and he's not the one who primarily talks to PC Mizen, rather he's more just sort of there, making one comment to PC Mizen to support statements made by Cross/Lechmere. Conflict with embellished news reports (Paul), or even a history of falsehoods (Pensioner), doesn't result in witnesses being discarded.

And anyway, how do you know that the bits that differ between the police statement and what appears in the Star even came from Schwartz and were not simply embellishments by the reporter or confusion during the translation (my personal thoughts are the "knife" comes from a leading question by the reporter, and the confusion over who shouts Lipski is probably poor translation)? More importantly, how would Baxter know which was the source of the changed details without actually questioning Schwartz? Baxter, if he even knew of the Star's article, would clear those up by asking Schwartz when he's under oath rather than sit down at breakfast, open his copy of the Star and cry out "Hey now, what's all this then, here's it's a pipe, but here it's a knife? I don't want to talk to this confusing chap, he's said two things already. It will be a cricket bat next, what what?" Seriously, Baxter and the police would be well aware that the press can embellish a story, and all they care about is what is said under oath (i.e. the police reports, the inquest testimonies). At most, they might want to clarify things found in the press if they thought it was for the public good (i.e. Pizer and Leather Apron), but in all probability, what was printed in a newspaper would be irrelevant to them as it was not given under oath and lying to the press isn't an offence. Also, I doubt Baxter read the Star, so we can't even be sure Baxter was even aware of that article in the first place.

- Jeff

The police most likely had nothing else but the two vastly different statements by Schwartz to the police and Star,both from the horse's mouth so to speak.
Schwartz was too important to a murder inquiry,any inquiry into a murder not including an assault 15 minutes before where the body is found is very very wrong.The Coroner had to have compelling reasons not to have him there.Common sense,it had to be untrustworthiness.

[Doctored Whatsit]

The police most likely had nothing else but the two vastly different statements by Schwartz to the police and Star,both from the horse's mouth so to speak.
Schwartz was too important to a murder inquiry,any inquiry into a murder not including an assault 15 minutes before where the body is found is very very wrong.The Coroner had to have compelling reasons not to have him there.Common sense,it had to be untrustworthiness.

The police had their statement made by Schwartz, and the limited records we have support the notion that they believed him at the time, and for some time later. There is no evidence that they did not. The Star was a newspaper with a reputation for the sensational. It was not reliable, and there is no reason to say that anyone should believe every word written in it. Therefore neither the police nor the coroner would regard The Star as a credible source of factual information.

I don't know why Schwartz didn't attend the inquest, but it wasn't because The Star published a story that differed from his statement to the police.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doctored Whatsit,

Yes, those are the articles. And I agree, The Star is not the most reliable of sources

I think it's the 2nd one that people have suggested implies that Pipeman may have been the 2nd person (2nd arrest "funished from another source") who could perhaps be the person arrested in the first story (as I say, it's only an inference, and could very well be wrong).

I agree the first story points doubts on the arrested man's story, while the 2nd seems to cast doubts on Schwartz. Given we know the police did doubt some aspects of Schwartz's statement (in particular to whom Broad Shoulders - B.S. - shouted Lipski, and therefore the relationship between Pipeman and B.S.) I've tended to think the Star may have got some hints towards that aspect and we see it in the 2nd story.

Running a bit with this, those doubts could also have been increased if indeed Pipeman was located (first story), and while he wasn't fully believed that day he was able to clear himself eventually, leading to increased doubts concerning Schwartz's interpretation of Lipski and Pipeman's involvement. And if neither Schwartz nor Pipeman could provide more details about B.S., then there's no further action they could take.

Something like that sort of ties a bunch of things together and makes some sense of things, but as I say, these are just ideas not facts and I'm sure there are other ways to arrange things.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I have fairly similar thoughts, but think that Kidney might have been the first arrest, and Pipeman was the second. Kidney had a bit of "form" being previously accused of violence against Stride, and the relationship having ended recently, with an allegation of an argument. He was at the police station on the relevant day. Maybe Pipeman partially confirmed Schwartz's story about BS man etc, but had some different or fresh information, and didn't identify Kidney as BS man.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Read the Coroner's Act 1887 and look at the witnesses in all the five inquest.Its clear it was not only about the who,where, how ,when,just for one the police'witnesses.
Schwartz was too important to a murder inquiry,any inquiry into a murder not including an assault 15 minutes before where the victim's body was found is very very wrong.
I don't rely on Schwartz's truthfulness or not for anything.

Ive read the act and I’ve read David Orsam’s article where he explains how you’ve misunderstood it. No matter what you say Israel Schwartz wasn’t a vital witness at the inquest. Important to the police yes but inquest no. We can all quote the names of people that weren’t called to inquests who could have been, or people who were called and could add nothing of value. It tells us nothing about who should or shouldn’t get called. So….

1. Why were witnesses like Malcolm and Maxwell called when they were very clearly doubted?

2. If Schwartz was disbelieved why wasn’t Fanny Mortimer called because her evidence was the main cause of doubts? Did the police disbelieve her too?

3. Would the outcome of the inquest have altered in any way had Schwartz testified? (No, it would still have been murder by person or person’s unknown)

4. Even if the police had their doubts about Schwartz, would his appearance at the inquest have caused issues for either the inquest itself or the police’ suspect investigation? (Absolutely not)

5. Do we have any evidence of witnesses being omitted because there might have been doubts? (I know of none)

6. Do we have solid, written evidence that after the inquest the police still considered Schwartz an important witness? (Absolutely yes)

You might have doubts about Schwartz (others do too) but the police clearly regarded him as important to their own investigation.

We don’t know why Schwartz wasn’t at the inquest. We can speculate and produce a list of ‘possibles,’ but even then we might be missing the true reason. In the absence of proof it makes no sense to express confidence in claiming to know something which can’t possibly be known. What we do know for a fact though is that the evidence is categorically against the suggestion the he was left out because the police disbelieved him. We can state with confidence that this couldn’t have been, and wasn’t, the case.