Non-English-speaking witnesses at inquests

[Chris]

Thinking about Israel Schwartz's non-appearance at the Stride inquest, I wondered whether his inability to speak English might have been a factor.

Just looking quickly at the Daily Telegraph's report of that inquest, I can't see any reference to interpreters, though it's noted that several witnesses affirmed instead of being sworn.

Is it possible that the coroner(s) might have been discouraged from calling Schwartz - and perhaps other Yiddish-speaking witnesses - for this reason?

[Dave O]

Hi Chris,

I am puzzled by Schwartz's absence, too. I don't think an interpreter or an oath would have been why. Here is a little bit from 5th edition of Jervis, 1888:

It sometimes happens that witnesses acquainted with the circumstances relative to the inquiry are foreigners, and are unacquainted with the English language: such must be examined through the medium of an interpreter, who must be sworn well and truly to interpret as well the oath as the questions which shall be put to the witnesses by the Court and jury, and the answers which the witnesses shall give. (p.35).

Form 25, the oath for interpreters:

You shall well and truly interpret unto the several witnesses here produced on the behalf of our sovereign lady the Queen, touching the death of R.F., the oath that shall be administered unto them, and also the questions and demands which shall be made to the witnesses by the court or the jury concerning the matters of this inquiry, and you shall well and truly interpret the answers which the witnesses shall thereunto give, according to the best of your skill and ability. So help you God. (pp. 233-4).

Besides the affirmation for atheists, religious oaths conformed to the witness. Jervis again:

The oath must be administered in the form most binding upon the conscience of the witness; and he is in all cases bound by the oath administered, provided it have been administered in such form and with such ceremonies as he may declare to be binding. A Jew is sworn upon the Pentateuch, a Turk upon the Koran, and each witness according to the peculiar form of his religion. It seems, however, to have been no ground for a certiorari to bring up and quash a coroner's inquisition that evidence not on oath was received; nor can there be any objection to hearing statements not on oath, which, though not received as evidence, may assist the inquiry. (p. 33).

Cheers,
Dave

[perrymason]

Hi Chris,

A while back on this site Tom Wescott and I were discussing the interpreter issue a bit, and it was his feeling that Schwartz may have been translated for by Wess, who it seems does translate for Goldstein. I think thats a reasonable guess on his part. It might also have some bearing on whether Israel may have had a membership there.

Wess speaks first at the Inquest, something I find quite odd considering that he has no known tie to the discovery of the body or Liz Stride, but that does mean that a "translator" was available in court, so perhaps the fact that Schwartz is not in attendance, and the fact that his story is not even introduced into the transcripts, means that the Police didnt believe his tale.

The PC at 12:35 seems just to be followed by Mr Browns sighting at approx 12:45....at which time he says hes almost certain he saw her with a man, and that she had no flower on her. 15 minutes later she is dead, wearing a flower.

Best regards all.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Schwartz didn't appear at Stride's inquest for the same reason that Hutchinson didn't appear at Kelly's.

Neither man existed, except in the mind of FGA.

Health, wealth and happiness for 2009.

Regards,

Simon

[Dave O]

For me, the question is what relevance Wynne Baxter put on Schwartz's testimony. The discretion over what witnesses were called belonged to him. The language barrier, the religious barrier, would not have been an issue. It seems to me that either the issue would have been relevance--and although the coroner acted independently of the police or any other authority, still he would have had the input of the police as they were interested parties, and no inquest into murder would not have been possible without the input of the police--or there would have been a question about the public safety of local Jews given the reference of the Lipski case. We should remember that inquests were also about preventing future deaths, as well as attempting to solve those that had already happened.

I may be wrong, but my thinking is that the Lipski case was already of public interest, Schwartz's description was already in the press, and Baxter was on record in the Chapman case as declaring "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." Samuel Langham's inquest into the death of Catherine Eddowes did not withhold the Goulston Street Graffiti. The inquest was a fact finding mission and public declaration of the facts was a matter for the press to undertake--therefore any sensitive issues regarding Jews would be a matter for the press to report, or not to report, the inquest would proceed regardless.

It seems to me that Schwartz's absence at the inquest should be indicative of the relevance of his testimony to the authorities, as it was perceived at that time. There is, I think, a question of whether the jury should have had the opportunity to decide his relevance. Once again, I may be totally wrong, I am aware that this is controversial, so I am open to correction, but that is how it seems to me.

Cheers,
Dave

[Dave O]

Just a correction, although Schwartz's encounter is described in The Star 1 October, there's no mention of Lipski, unless I've missed it so I guess I am in error about the Jewish implications in his account, so far as the press goes. I am not sure if there is another account. Phil Sugden also references the similarties between the man William Marshall described with Schwartz's man, and Baxter's keen interest in Marshall's description although Sugden writes the police were apparently not interested in him. Yet, if they are similiar descriptions, and the police were interested in Schwartz, why no Schwartz at the inquest? I definitely do not think Baxter would have kept back Schwartz's account of an attack on the victim, in an inquiry of the victim's death, if he thought it relevant. The police would have had input, but no authority to forbid him calling him as a witness. Definitely, if Baxter had wanted Schwartz at the inquest, he could have had him. I think the jury could have asked about him, for that matter, and that would have happened in an open court for the press to witness--there is no record of Baxter closing access of the inquest to the press that I am aware of, and if he had done so, the press would certainly have complained about it. And if the coroner forbids the jury a witness they want to hear, particularly in a sensational case that is widely reported, he is opening himself to a potential review by the Queen's Bench.

So, why no Schwartz at the inquest? An interesting puzzle.

[Chris]

Dave O

Thank you for your responses. Obviously I must bow to your superior knowledge of coronial procedure, though it still seems a bit strange to me that (apparently) not a single witness who didn't speak English gave evidence at Stride's inquest.

On the question of whether Schwartz's story was believed, we do know that Swanson (writing on 19 October) explicitly says that "the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it" (Ultimate Sourcebook, pp. 136-138) and that Anderson (writing on 5 November) actually thought he had given evidence at the inquest (Ultimate Sourcebook, p. 142). So if Schwartz's story had been discredited, the senior officers hadn't been made aware of it.

It's true that the Star had reported on 2 October that "the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story". But it seems to me that this may be based on a misunderstanding of a rather ambiguously worded report in the same paper the previous day, with reference to a man arrested because he fitted the description given by Schwartz, that "The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=56223&postcount=89

[Dave O]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your post and your link, those are all good points that you make. I also agree with you that Schwartz's absence at the inquest is strange, but all I can do is ponder the coroner's discretion in not calling him, and not having him on record about his decision, all that is left is a resort to general procedure. Although I have read a bit about procedure, and tried to learn about it, please do not think that I claim to have digested it fully (the reason why I sometimes like to supply lengthy quotations in my posts, so others can see what I am seeing).

Besides what I have quoted above concerning language and religion, Jervis also describes taking the testimony of lunatics, hearing-impaired (misunderstood in Victorian fashion below), and children:

Idiots, madmen, and lunatics during the influence of the frenzy, are incompetent to give evidence; but during the lucid intervals, lunatics may be examined. Persons deaf and dumb, if they are capable of communicating their ideas by signs, and have a due sense of the obligation of an oath, may be admitted as witnesses and examined through the intervention of an interpreter. The competency of children depends not upon their age, for there is no fixed and settled age at which an infant may be sworn, but upon the degree of knowledge and understanding which, upon examination, they appear to possess. Children cannot be examined except upon oath, and it is therefore not their general acquirements, but their knowledge of religion and a future state, which will determine their competency. Questions of competency are purely in the discretion of the Court: and for the purpose of ascertaining this, it is usual to examine children of tender age before the oath is administered to them. In criminal cases it is desirable that these prefatory questions and answers should also be entered upon the depositions. (5th ed Jervis, pp. 33-4)

When I wonder Schwartz got off to as far as the inquest goes, I can only think that whatever his religion or language, as long as he possessed any type of belief in something--a higher power or some kind of sense of obligation to the "future state", there would have been no problem with having him testify. Surely Baxter would have had no problem arranging for the interpreter--at the very least, he could have had whomever the police used, I would suppose.

There must have been another reason for the absence.

Cheers,
Dave