Announcement

**Herlock Sholmes** · 2024-10-20T20:17:56

Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

well said herlock, and as usual lord orsam put tje whole why wasnt he at the inquest question to bed along time ago. and there is indirect corroboration with Schwartz in that many other witnesses describe pretty much the same suspect that night. if we were dismiss all "uncorroborated" evidence there would be nothing left to go on at all.

And i think people need to be constantly reminded that even in a court of law uncorroborated testimony is totally admissible. i think there is a tendency on here for people to conflate mysteries when there isnt any.

There is nothing wrong with schwartz accept there was no one else around in the short time he witnessed the events, and perhaps a couple people off a little on their times.

Exactly Abby. For example, who corroborates how long Fanny was on her doorstep? No one saw her after all. Yes, she mentioned Goldstein but she could have seen him through her window for all that we know. Why is FM a paragon of honesty but Schwartz can’t be trusted? Look at Lave as an example of a useless witness. And yet these two are used to ‘prove’ Schwartz unreliable.

**Wickerman** · 2024-10-20T20:40:22

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

...

As has been shown on here by myself (numerous times RD) and by others inquests aren’t trials. They have 4 specific aims. Schwartz was vital to none of them. Not one. No matter how counter-intuitive it may seem to some it is however a fact. Yes, he might still have been called because other non-vital witnesses were called but it also appears to have been the case that some gave evidence because they turned up and offered their testimony without being called.
...

We wouldn't know anything about Lawende's sequestration (Eddowes) if not for a throw-away line in a newspaper.
There's no official paperwork on the subject, yet apparently the reporter believed it happened.
It is not necessary for the coroner and prosecuting officer to agree on who will appear at an inquest. We all know the coroner has the final say.

Schwartz's apparent disappearance may have been due to nothing more than the Met. Police sequestering him for his own safety, but in anticipation of him being called to give evidence, which never happened.
Swanson seems to hint that the police were still investigating his story, so they had not dismissed him, which is why they continued to use the suspect description he gave them?

**Wickerman** · 2024-10-20T20:49:49

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

...For example, who corroborates how long Fanny was on her doorstep? No one saw her after all. Yes, she mentioned Goldstein but she could have seen him through her window for all that we know. Why is FM a paragon of honesty but Schwartz can’t be trusted? Look at Lave as an example of a useless witness. And yet these two are used to ‘prove’ Schwartz unreliable.

Being used by some Casebook members, not by the authorities.
Lave & Fanny were not used at the inquest, likely for the same reasons. Negative evidence is not evidence, some members here try to use what they didn't see to bolster their theories - that's called negative evidence which is no evidence at all.