Would It Be The Job of the Police Or the Grand Jury to Discredit Schwartz's Testimony

[lynn cates]

Swanson

Hello Cris. Swanson certainly did, remarking that there was no doubt expressed in the police reports.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Pure surmise, but is it conceivable that the Coroner wanted time out on the 4th either to consider, or perhaps hear arguments, as to whether Schwartz was called or not?

Just a passing thought - doubt very much if it's an original one either!

An interesting thought nevertheless.

From what I understand the Coroner directs the Inquest, the Jury still must hear all evidence available. So, the Coroner will not hear evidence in-camera, as they say today.

In considering such a scenario I can't help thinking that the press would have got hold of the fact that a session was being held without any public or media present.
I'm sure we would have heard about it, if by no other means than criticisms voiced in the papers.

P.S.
He may hear evidence in-camera to decide if it is worthy to bring before the Jury, but clearly what Schwartz had to say clears that hurdle.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

I wasn't suggesting it was an in-camera hearing...just an informal meeting between Senior Policemen and the Coroner perhaps? We've had it suggested in the past that Baxter might've been in hot water with his guv'nors (Lord Chancellors Department?) by then, so could he perhaps be acting a tad more co-operatively by now?

Either way it was just a passing thought that took my fancy

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

I would think the obvious answer to the question cd poses would be that the police would have vetted the witness stories and put forward for the jury only witnesses that have relevance to the investigation at hand, and the question they are to address....was the deceased killed accidentally or intentionally.

I would also assume that the witnesses would be presented in a manner most conducive to a reconstruction of the events leading up to the discovery of the dead body, trying to determine who saw them last . Starting with the person that discovers the body for example.

A problem with my assumptions is a witness like Mary Malcolm. Or Carrie Maxwell. Or William Wess. Witnesses that were presented when the police already felt, or knew, that the content of their testimony was irrelevant. When Mary Malcolm was presented, the authorities already knew the identity of the murdered woman was Liz Stride. When Maxwell was presented, they felt the TOD estimates had effectively ruled out her stories veracity. William Wess takes the stand first in the Stride Inquest even though his statement places him off the premises and safe at home when the murder occurs.

In fact there seems to be a variety of approaches to presenting these witness stories to a jury....in the Tabram Inquest the man that found her spoke first, Reeves. In the Nichols Inquest, her father spoke first. In the Chapman Inquest, Davies, the man who finds the body. In the Stride Inquest, its Wess for some unknown reason. In Kates Inquest, her sister Eliza. At Marys, its Barnett.

It really should have been Reeves, Neil, Davies, Diemshitz, Watkins and Bowyer or McCarthy....respectively.

There doesnt seem to be consistency in how these witnesses were chosen and when they would be presented based on their potential worth to the matter at hand.

There is one thing though....if a witness was deemed to have information sensitive to the ongoing investigation...like being able to identify a potential suspect....the police would withhold some of the details that relate to that statement. Or perhaps the witness him or herself.

We are told such a situation occurs with Lawende. Openly, at the Inquest. There is no record of a similar disclosure, or sequestering, in the case of Israel Schwartz. He doesnt appear in the records, and there is no explanation of his absence. Which seems to drive the people who believe Swanson's stamp of approval in a memo, crazy. For me its about actions, not words, and Lawende was sequestered and suppressed ..... on the record.

Hell...we have all sorts of examples of police saying they believed certain witnesses stories.....support that is not present in their actions.

Cheers

[Hunter]

The support was present in their actions. They issued an internal memo relating Schwartz's descriptions immediately after he gave his testimony. On October 19th, without detailing the witness, they went public in the Police Gazette with the description. With so few leads, they couldn't afford to dismiss any witness without probable cause. And considering the extant files, they didn't discredit this one.

They were trying to protect the witness and that's probably why Baxter did not call him to the inquest as well. The Coroner's Act provided for such measures and Baxter likely used his discretion considering the circumstances at that time (which some folks do need to study a little more.) Langham, the City Police, and the City Solicitor, Mr. Crawford took a different tact when dealing with Lawende's information. Its as simple as that.

I have no idea about anyone being driven crazy about Swanson's statement. It is there and part of the historical record.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hunter,

I really admire your certitude.

Regards,

Simon

[Errata]

It could be a lot of reasons Schwartz wasn't called to testify.

The guy I used to work for almost never testified. One of us (the lackeys) did it (and it was only me once because of the circumstances). The lackeys barring me had academic credentials enough to be considered experts, so it wasn't a problem. But Dick almost never took the stand. He had a curiously high pitched voice. Higher than Michael Jackson. Sounded like a 12 year old girl. You didn't notice it after awhile, but you spent the first couple of days at work not hearing a word he said because of his voice.

Schwartz was said to have a theatrical appearance. We aren't sure what that means, but if he wore a half cape that he snapped around him like a bad Dracula and thigh high boots, or had a Tumblety moustache, that would qualify. And they may have considered that the distraction caused would not be worth the fairly unspecific testimony offered. And why he may not have been believed.

[Wickerman]

It could be a lot of reasons Schwartz wasn't called to testify.

The guy I used to work for almost never testified.

Was he a possible witness to a murder?

[Errata]

Was he a possible witness to a murder?

No. Well maybe, if he did he never talked about it. But he was the head of an organization that researched gangs and "deviancy", so he was always hired to provide expert testimony. He specifically built the group so that he wouldn't have to be the one to take the stand. Despite the fact that technically he was the expert.

[Bridewell]

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/theatrical

If use of the word 'theatrical' is intended to denote a tendency to be "excessively dramatic" his attendance as an inquest witness might have been thought unwise - possibly.

[Bridewell]

Alternatively, as the purpose of the inquest was to determine how Elizabeth Stride died, a view may have been taken that, in that respect, Schwartz's evidence didn't add anything to the testimony given by other witnesses.

[DRoy]

Alternatively, as the purpose of the inquest was to determine how Elizabeth Stride died, a view may have been taken that, in that respect, Schwartz's evidence didn't add anything to the testimony given by other witnesses.

Bridewell,

So why then did half the other witnesses testify? What value did half of them provide?

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

Alternatively, as the purpose of the inquest was to determine how Elizabeth Stride died, a view may have been taken that, in that respect, Schwartz's evidence didn't add anything to the testimony given by other witnesses.

If they were to solve the riddle of how Liz dies Bridewell, certainly a story like the one Schwartz gave would be one of the first presented. Considering how close to the estimated range of time that the cut was made within.

It would also make Schwartz the last person to have seen Liz Stride alive. His testimony would be of paramount importance, if thought to be accurate.

Now that we have his remarks in proper context, ponder why not only do we not see this story presented to a jury in any coverage of the Inquest, we do not even hear from the officials....(those are the ones circulating those powerful internal memos Hunter, the same ones that appear to be chasing their own tail at times), ..about the mere existence of a witness that claims to have seen Liz Stride closer to her TOD than any other witness. Not even when they knew the press had already reported about this statement, and therefore the jury members would have already known about such a witness.

Im more surprised no-one raised any concerns at the Inquest about this reported incident than I am that Schwartz doesnt appear at it.

Also....consider the testimony of Mary Malcolm...and the extraordinary time allowed to her and her claim....when the police already knew who the deceased woman was.

Cheers

[Stewart P Evans]

Schwartz

Schwartz did not speak English, so if he had appeared his evidence would have been given via an interpreter. This led me to think, at one time, that for this reason he was not called and the coroner accepted his written statement in lieu of an appearance (which a coroner could do).

However, examination of the coroner's summing up, at the end of the inquest, reveals that Schwartz's evidence was not taken into account, which deepens the mystery. There is only one explanation that I can see, which is why I feel that the date of the closing of the inquest is so significant.

[Errata]

Maybe they decided it was irrelevant, since that was not when or where she died.