|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 90
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 6:07 am: |       |
G'day,
As the Home Office Files contain a 2 page report from Sir Charles Warren that says: '...the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case....', yet there is no sign of Schwartz's testimony in the newspaper reports, could it be possible that police thought his statement so important that they heard his testimony away from the ears of the press and public?
LEANNE
|
Wolf Vanderlinden
Police Constable
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 5:27 pm: | |
Leanne. Information contained in Sir Charles Warren's report, written on the 6th of November 1888, to the Home Office in which he states "...the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case..." was actually supplied by Assistant Commissioner Robert Anderson. Anderson's draft letter being written on the 5th of November. Therefor any details regarding Schwartz and the inquest come from one source only, Anderson.
Since the police believed that Schwartz was a valuable witness it is hard to understand why he wouldn't be called to give evidence at the inquest but it seems that this is exactly what happened. Although a suggestion has been made that Schwartz may have given evidence in camera this seems unlikely considering "in camera' means "in private"not "in secret" and no word of any private deposition to the Coroner and the jury was recorded at the time.
Also Coroner Baxter's summation to the jury shows no hint of any information that might have been supplied by Schwartz. For example Baxter states "With regard to the man seen, there were many points of similarity, but some of dissimilarity, in the description of the three witnesses," (The Times, 24 October, 1888.), the three witnesses being James Brown, William Marshall and P.C. William Smith. The relative merits of these three eyewitnesses are discussed by the Coroner but a discrepancy such as the fact that both Brown and Schwartz thought that they had seen Stride in different locations at exactly the same time is not even hinted at.
Sugden wonders whether Schwartz took a bunk or was perhaps ill during the proceedings but there is a possibility that the police may have decided not to give Schwartz's name to the Coroner in order to keep back his testimony. It must be remembered that at the last inquest, into Annie Chapman's death, Baxter had dragged information out of Dr. Phillips even though the doctor had felt that the ends of justice were being perverted by doing so. The fact that the inquest into the death of Mary Kelly was taken out of Baxter's hands also implies an official impatience with Baxter and his methods which might strengthen this view.
Wolf.
|
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 118
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 5:58 am: | |
G'day Wolf,
If the purpose of an inquest was merely to determine a victim's cause of death, (isn't that why Kelly's inquest was so short?), police may have had the power to justify Schwartz's absence or secrecy. What he witnessed wouldn't have added anything.
If they wanted to keep Schwartz's information from the ears of the press and public, the Coroner would've been instructed not to hint that a fourth witness saw something important. Anyone who read the newspapers, would have wondered who the fourth witness was.
And if it was Schwartz who eventually showed police the threatening letter he received on the 8th, (that did exist), that would further the reason for secrecy!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 5:07 am: | |
G'day,
I've just found another point supporting the argument that Israel Schwartz's information/testimony was deliberately held back from the ears of the press and public.
In Bruce Paley's 'The Simple Truth', while discussing the inquest that followed that of Elizabeth Stride, (that of Eddowes), are the lines: 'Nor did Lawende catch more than a passing look at the man, but it was enough to enable him to give the police a fairly detailed description, to which they attached considerable importance - so much so, that the police solicitor interrupted Lawende's inquest testimony to request that he not make his description public, presumably to allow the police time to search for the man without tipping him off.'
The 'Jack the Ripper A-Z' confirms this and adds: 'the Coroner assented and Lawende's described no more than the man's clothes'.
LEANNE |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Police Constable
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 4
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 4:16 pm: | |
Leanne,
A Coroner's inquest is a legal procedure and its purpose is to gather all the facts regarding the death of the person over whom it sits. All the circumstances surrounding the death must be presented. One of the responsibilities of the inquest jury is to try to determine if there is any evidence or cause for any person to be suspected in that death. Thus, as Israel Schwartz had claimed to have seen an attack on Elizabeth Stride 15 minutes before her body was discovered, rather than not adding anything, his testimony was vital. The question here is did Israel Schwartz testify at the inquest or not and if not, why not.
The question is really unanswerable with the meagre facts that we have at our disposal. That the police thought that Schwartz was a valuable witness tends to point to the probability that he did indeed give evidence at the inquest, (or at least that he should have,) and Anderson's draft letter would seem to prove this, but there is no record that Schwartz ever did so. Believing that Schwartz should have given testimony does not prove that he actually did.
If Schwartz did give testimony to the jury in camera then the circumstances surrounding this testimony must have been of the utmost secrecy, a secrecy that seems totally unnecessary. As you have pointed out when the police at the Catherine Eddowes inquest wanted certain parts of Joseph Lawende's testimony kept back the City Solicitor merely asked Coroner Langham to do so, the jury assented and that was that. Lawende was still able to provide information about what he witnessed that night but his description of the man he saw with Eddowes, a description that the police wanted to be kept back, was not made public. This same procedure could have been used to keep secret those parts of Schwartz's testimony that the police didn't want known while still giving important evidence to the jury.
If the police wanted to keep back the description of the two men or the fact that there were two men who may have been working in concert or the shout of "Lipsky" this would still leave the valuable information that Elizabeth Stride was attacked at 12:45 P.M. only feet from where her body was later discovered. Also, if Schwartz had indeed given his evidence to the jury in secret then why didn't Baxter allude to it during his summation? The inquisitiveness of the press and public be damned, Baxter was bound by law to conduct the inquest procedures faithfully and yet not once did he remind the jury of any "special witnesses" or their testimony. He didn't have to mention any names or facts but merely prompt the jury to take into consideration those facts that only they knew.
A close reading of the Coroner's summery tends to show that Schwartz had not given evidence at the inquest unless one wants to believe that the summery was part of an elaborate ruse to, not just hold back information, but to lull the killer into a false sense of security. Not surprisingly there is no evidence anywhere that would corroborate this.
While Schwartz stated in the Star that he had turned the corner from Commercial Road onto Berner Street and had witnessed "...some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated....the half-tipsy man halted and spoke with [Stride]," Baxter's summery of the events of the night were that Stride's companion, the man that she had spent the night with and seen by the other three witnesses, was her killer.
"If they were correct in assuming that the man seen in the company of deceased by the three was one and the same person it followed that he must have spent much time and trouble to induce her to place herself in his diabolical clutches....the place to which the two repaired could not have been selected on account of its being quiet or unfrequented. It had only the merit of darkness."
This statement does not take into account what Schwartz said he had witnessed. Nor does this next statement:
" If he, [Diemschütz,] had not actually disturbed the wretch in the very act, at least he must have been close on his heels; possibly the man was alarmed by the sound of the approaching cart, for the death had only just taken place."
Again, the Coroner merely had to make this statement but then remind the jury to take into account "other evidence" without elaborating what that evidence might be to prove that, not only had Schwartz spoken at the inquest, but that there was evidence that might point to a different set of circumstances surrounding the death of Elizabeth Stride. As Baxter doesn't at any point do so it seems likely that Schwartz did not testify.
Wolf. |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 5:41 am: | |
G'day Wolf,
Coroner Baxter wouldn't have even hinted of evidence given by Schwartz in his summation, because the press would have pounced on this information, using headlines such as 'LIPSKI RIPPER!' Why couldn't Schwartz's secret testimony have been for the Coroner's ears only? For all anyone knew at the time, The Whitechapel Murderer may have been sitting on the jury!
If Schwartz had've had a threatening letter to show the Police/Coroner, that he received on the 8th, would that have justified secrecy?
The summation would have been the same: "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown." They heard all the evidence they needed to hear, to determine that it wasn't an accidental death nor self-inflicted.
If the press and public had've got hold of Schwartz's statements, minus the descriptions, the fact that he heard the shout of 'Lipski!", would have been enough to start a few riots!
LEANNE |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Police Constable
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 5:04 pm: | |
Leanne,
As I have already stated, an inquest is a legal procedure in some ways like a trial in which evidence is presented to a jury in order that a verdict be given by that jury. It is of course possible that Israel Schwartz gave evidence personally and privately to the Coroner but if that evidence was not also presented to the jury then its value would be legally meaningless.
Imagine a murder trial in which an important witness is presented secretly to the judge and then gives his testimony only to the judge in his chambers. The judge then decides that although this information is vitally important he will not let the jury hear it. How then does the jury make an informed judgement when crucial information has been kept from them even if the judge has this information? Remember, it is up to the jury to decide guilt or innocence not the judge.
It is possible, of course, that Schwartz did give preliminary testimony to the Coroner in camera but that Baxter felt that he wasn't believable or trustworthy enough a witness to present to the jury. This seems an unlikely scenario based on the fact that the police did believe Schwartz and his information. It would, however, explain Anderson's draft letter and Schwartz's apparent no-show at the inquest itself but it cannot be proved either way.
Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be arguing that Coroner Baxter might have deliberately held back evidence from the jury in order to protect Schwartz, (from a threat that may or may not have been aimed at him,) and/or the Jewish community on the whole. For Baxter to hold back important information for any reason would be considered illegal and Baxter was not the sort of Coroner who took his duties and responsibilities lightly. The judicial investigation that is the Coroner's inquest was to be conducted on Baxter's terms only and those terms sanctioned a dogged search for all the facts, regardless of where those facts might lead.
This verbal sparring match between the relentlessly probing Coroner and the recalcitrant and guarded Dr. Phillips during the Annie Chapman inquest, I believe, proves my point:
The Coroner:, Whatever may be your opinion and objections, it appears to me necessary that all the evidence that you ascertained from the post-mortem examination should be on the records of the Court for various reasons, which I need not enumerate. However painful it may be, it is necessary in the interests of justice.
Dr. Phillips: ...I still think that it is a very great pity to make this evidence public. Of course, I bow to your decision; but there are matters which have come to light now which show the wisdom of the course pursued on the last occasion, and I cannot help reiterating my regret that you have come to a different conclusion....When I come to speak of the wounds on the lower part of the body I must again repeat my opinion that it is highly injudicious to make the results of my examination public. These details are fit only for yourself, sir, and the jury, but to make them public would simply be disgusting.
The Coroner: We are here in the interests of justice, and must have all the evidence before us. I see, however, that there are several ladies and boys in the room, and I think they might retire.
Dr. Phillips: In giving these details to the public I believe you are thwarting the ends of justice.
The Coroner: We are bound to take all the evidence in the case, and whether it be made public or not is a matter for the responsibility of the press....I have carefully considered the matter and have never before heard of any evidence requested being kept back.
Dr. Phillips: I have not kept it back; I have only suggested whether it should be given or not.
The Coroner: We have delayed taking this evidence as long as possible, because you said the interests of justice might be served by keeping it back; but it is now a fortnight since this occurred, and I do not see why it should be kept back from the jury any longer.
Dr. Phillips: I am of opinion that what I am about to describe took place after death, so that it could not affect the cause of death, which you are inquiring into.
The Coroner: That is only your opinion, and might be repudiated by other medical opinion.
Dr. Phillips: Very well. I will give you the results of my post-mortem examination.
From The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, September 20, 1888.
It seems unlikely that this same Coroner would then completely change tack only one month later and decide that secret information should be provided for his ears only.
Wolf.
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 167
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 12:24 am: | |
G'day Wolf,
The verdict would have been the same whether Schwartz appeared or not: 'Wilful murder by a person or persons unknown'! It wasn't a murder trial. It wasn't the jury's responsibility to say if "1st man did it", "2nd man did it" or "that particular unidentified suspect did it". They weren't after a "guilty/innocent" verdict.
No I didn't mean to imply that Baxter was protecting Schwartz or the Jewish community. I meant that he may have been asked by police not to give information of a suspects that would hinder the investigation. Remember when Warren ordered the wiping out of other important evidence, to avoid riots against a particular race!
Dr. Phillips tried to hold his medical evidence back from the public's ears and eyes too. What made him think he stood a chance? The evidence concerned the victim and the way she died. It was his opinion that the mutilations occured after her death, but the right to challenge that opinion remained open.
LEANNE |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1430
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 11:14 am: | |
One question often asked about Schwartz is why he was not called to give evidence at the inquest of Stride. Another potentially important witness who was not called to give inquest evidence was George Hutchinson in relation to the Kelly murder. But in his case we know why - namely, his tardiness in coming forward to give his evidence to the police. Relating this to the Schwartz evidence, I tried to ascertain exactly when Schwartz came forward to give his evidence and was surprised to find that the issue is less clear then I imagined.
The section on Schwartz in the Suspects section of casebook seems straightforward enough:
In any event, Schwartz's statement was taken on September 30th, the day of the murder, by Chief Inspector Donald Swanson
So, when I went to the documents in the Ultimate Sourcebook (my "bible" for checking documentary evidence) I fully expected to find a transcript of the Schwartz statement dated 30th September. But the case is by no means as clear as this. The wording quoted as Schwartz's statement as taken by Swanson on 30th of September is in fact part of a long report prepared by Swanson and dated 19th October. The "statement" by Schwartz is part of a chronological breakdown of the series of events attending the murder of Stride and the whole section is simply prefaced by the remark:
"From enquiries made it was found that:"
There is no indication or confirmation in this document as to on what date Schwartz actually made his statement.
There is a letter from Abberline commenting on Schwartz's testimony but this is dated 1st November. There is also an unsigned and undated "extract" which comments on various aspects of the evidence including Schwartz but the Sourcebook says this is presumably from a Home Office letter querying police reports, a draft reply to which from Anderson is dated 5th November.
Where all this leads me is to ask if there is any extant evidence as to the date when Schwartz gave his testimony. I have read Swanson's report carefully and can find no firm indication as to when or to whom Schwartz gave his testimony. The only date and time mentioned (12.45 a.m. 30th) obviously relates to the time to which the evidence refers, NOT the time and date when the statement was made.
I can find no documentary evidence which tells us when Schwartz gave his evidence and, until this is established, his absence from the inquest may be less problematic than it has often been made out to be.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3147
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 11:24 am: | |
Hi Chris
Sugden says that Schwartz made his statement at Leman Street Police Station on the 30th. I presume he's relying on the "Star's" word for it - in their Oct 1st issue they say "Information which may be important was given to the Leman Street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder...."
Robert |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 9:06 am: | |
Schwartz did not speak English so there would have been little point in him attending the inquest. He did make a statement to the police when, no doubt, an interpreter was used. The coroner would have accepted his police statement and waived the need for Schwartz to attend. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
