Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Wickerman]

The letter is itself dated 19 Oct,

Yes, the same date is attached to every report - I know you have read them.

Warren requested a report covering all the murders from Swanson in mid September, the same time as he elevated Swanson to supervise the investigation.
We still have Swanson's reports on Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, & Stride - ALL dated 19th Oct. This is the date on the cover of the file that was presented to Warren. 19th Oct. was the date the reports were handed over.

Swanson had been working on them since mid September, and as anyone can see from the detail contained within (times, dates, places) Swanson worked from police files. So these reports will take a long time to put together while he is also supervising the murder investigation.

So, again, the overall impression is not that the police doubted Schwartz, at least not the extent that one would think they would not call him to present his testimony because they thought it was made up.

I think you have confused me with someone else.
I have not said they doubted Schwartz, I have pointed out that Schwartz's story was still under investigation in that first week of October. That is why he was not called to the inquest by Baxter.

This is what Swanson says (ie; providing the "report" of his statement), the police had not written their report on their investigation into his story by the time Swanson wrote his summary (dated 19th Oct.).

[Wickerman]

Is there any evidence that any of Schwartz's story was withheld?
Is there any evidence that any of Schwartz's story is entered into any records of the Inquest, even in notation form?
Is there anyone at the Inquest who gave statements that in any way supports any of Schwartz's?

Krants was asked if he heard a woman scream. Who else mentioned a "scream" besides Schwartz?

Would a believed account be withheld by authorities without any public notification that it was? Would a sighting of a victim being assaulted by someone within 5 minutes of her throat being cut, and within 10 feet or so from the spot the act itself takes place upon, be very relevant in the question of how the woman died...which is the function of the Inquest.

How she died was answered by the doctors.
When she died was between 12:45 & 1:00am.
Where she died was Dutfields Yard.
Baxter worked around the fact he did not have Schwartz testify.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, the same date is attached to every report - I know you have read them.

Warren requested a report covering all the murders from Swanson in mid September, the same time as he elevated Swanson to supervise the investigation.
We still have Swanson's reports on Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, & Stride - ALL dated 19th Oct. This is the date on the cover of the file that was presented to Warren. 19th Oct. was the date the reports were handed over.

Swanson had been working on them since mid September, and as anyone can see from the detail contained within (times, dates, places) Swanson worked from police files. So these reports will take a long time to put together while he is also supervising the murder investigation.



I think you have confused me with someone else.
I have not said they doubted Schwartz, I have pointed out that Schwartz's story was still under investigation in that first week of October. That is why he was not called to the inquest by Baxter.

This is what Swanson says (ie; providing the "report" of his statement), the police had not written their report on their investigation into his story by the time Swanson wrote his summary (dated 19th Oct.).

But if his evidence was deemed to be that vitally important then the coroner had the option to adjourn the inquest. I know you don't need reminding that the coroner's inquest was to establish a cause of death, and what that cause of death was. It was not to hold a full investigation into all the witnesses testimony. He had enough evidence to do that with what evidence was before him.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Krants was asked if he heard a woman scream. Who else mentioned a "scream" besides Schwartz?



How she died was answered by the doctors.
When she died was between 12:45 & 1:00am.
Where she died was Dutfields Yard.
Baxter worked around the fact he did not have Schwartz testify.

On the scream, an innocuous question considering she is killed with an open kitchen door and an open window upstairs. Whether a sound was heard would be natural fooder for questioning.

Youre jumping ahead to conclude what is not on paper Jon. That's she dies by knife wound was answered by Doctors, that's the vehicle, not the reason,.... whether it was self inflicted, accidental or not is the Inquest question. Schwartz would be the last person to see Liz Stride alive, other than the killer, and as such would be THE primary witness here. Because what he says very likley impacts the most probable answer to How she dies. BSM assaulting her just before her earliest cut time makes Willful Murder, or some form of second degree murder, very probable. Which is How she dies....which is what the Inquest looked to answer. There would be no getting around Schwartz's story or the need to have him participate...had the men arranging the Inquest been given his name as someone to summon.

The medical men gave us the knife as weapon, the scarf twisting single slit and dropped to bleed out scenario by Blackwell, whol also gives the cut timing and Dutfields Yard is the obvious location, without any blood evidence to suggest otherwise. none of that answer How she dies...Israels story might well have suggested Willful Murder immediately, then he would be called to give it in person, or had his statement recorded with the rest of the Inquest statements.

How she dies is the issue the Inquest is looking at...Israels statement would have direct bearing on that question.

IF believed, he would not have been allowed to dodge the proceedings, or at the very least would be noted in the documents created by it, or declared as a withheld wtnesses. He isn't...on all counts.

[Wickerman]

But if his evidence was deemed to be that vitally important then the coroner had the option to adjourn the inquest. I know you don't need reminding that the coroner's inquest was to establish a cause of death, and what that cause of death was. It was not to hold a full investigation into all the witnesses testimony. He had enough evidence to do that with what evidence was before him.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

True he had the option, but as you can see, he was able to arrive at the correct conclusion without Schwartz.
However, he did adjourn the inquest (as you say) for two weeks, until 23rd Oct. it was only then that the Jury was charged with returning a verdict.

[Michael W Richards]

In case I wasn't clear, the HOW Liz Dies Inquest question refers to the Circumstances, not the Method.

[Michael W Richards]

True he had the option, but as you can see, he was able to arrive at the correct conclusion without Schwartz.
However, he did adjourn the inquest (as you say) for two weeks, until 23rd Oct. it was only then that the Jury was charged with returning a verdict.

He was able to determine that a knife was used to end her life. That's not what the Inquest asks.

[Wickerman]

On the scream, an innocuous question considering she is killed with an open kitchen door and an open window upstairs. Whether a sound was heard would be natural fooder for questioning.

That's only an assumption, and I will say it has been a long-held assumption. Yet, if Baxter had read Schwartz's statement then our assumption would be wrong. We (collectively) have been wrong on so many assumptions over the years. This is likely another example.

Youre jumping ahead to conclude what is not on paper Jon. That's she dies by knife wound was answered by Doctors, that's the vehicle, not the reason,.... whether it was self inflicted, accidental or not is the Inquest question.

If it was suicide, the knife would be in the yard. This was ruled out by the doctors - I know you've read that yourself. So you know that they knew suicide was not the cause.

Schwartz would be the last person to see Liz Stride alive, other than the killer, and as such would be THE primary witness here. Because what he says very likley impacts the most probable answer to How she dies. BSM assaulting her just before her earliest cut time makes Willful Murder, or some form of second degree murder, very probable.

Precisely, which is WHY Scotland Yard were still investigating his story for several days.
You might not agree that they were still investigating him, but you have just provided the very reason they did.

Which is How she dies....which is what the Inquest looked to answer.

Suicide was ruled out - what else it left?
Either she did it to herself, or someone else did, right?

There would be no getting around Schwartz's story or the need to have him participate...had the men arranging the Inquest been given his name as someone to summon.

The coroner's office make all the arrangements. Baxter's officer (can't remember his name) requests all the police statements and compiles the Witness list, and writes out the summonses to hand to each one.
All I am saying is Baxter may not have been given Schwartz statement (in order to summon him) until the police were satisfied his story was true. This is probably why Baxter adjourned the inquest for two weeks.

The medical men gave us the knife as weapon, the scarf twisting single slit and dropped to bleed out scenario by Blackwell, whol also gives the cut timing and Dutfields Yard is the obvious location, without any blood evidence to suggest otherwise. none of that answer How she dies...Israels story might well have suggested Willful Murder immediately, then he would be called to give it in person, or had his statement recorded with the rest of the Inquest statements.

How she dies is the issue the Inquest is looking at...Israels statement would have direct bearing on that question.

No it does not!
Schwartz did not see a knife, all he saw was the victim thrown to the ground.
Schwartz police statement described Pipeman with only a pipe in his hand, not a knife, so Schwartz did not witness a murder.
You are assuming too much Michael.

[Wickerman]

In case I wasn't clear, the HOW Liz Dies Inquest question refers to the Circumstances, not the Method.

The Jury was able to determine from the evidence whether Stride did it to herself, or someone else did it to her.

[Michael W Richards]

That's only an assumption, and I will say it has been a long-held assumption. Yet, if Baxter had read Schwartz's statement then our assumption would be wrong. We (collectively) have been wrong on so many assumptions over the years. This is likely another example.

Its logical, that's all.


If it was suicide, the knife would be in the yard. This was ruled out by the doctors - I know you've read that yourself. So you know that they knew suicide was not the cause.

The knife, if a self inflicted wound, could have been picked up by anyone arriving at the scene first. It also could have been done accidentally.


Precisely, which is WHY Scotland Yard were still investigating his story for several days.
You might not agree that they were still investigating him, but you have just provided the very reason they did.

Investigating him, or his story?


Suicide was ruled out - what else it left?
Either she did it to herself, or someone else did, right?

Potentially accidentally. Don't rush to pronouncement.


The coroner's office make all the arrangements. Baxter's officer (can't remember his name) requests all the police statements and compiles the Witness list, and writes out the summonses to hand to each one.
All I am saying is Baxter may not have been given Schwartz statement (in order to summon him) until the police were satisfied his story was true. This is probably why Baxter adjourned the inquest for two weeks.

The part underlined speaks volumes.

No it does not!
Schwartz did not see a knife, all he saw was the victim thrown to the ground.
Schwartz police statement described Pipeman with only a pipe in his hand, not a knife, so Schwartz did not witness a murder.
You are assuming too much Michael.

What Schwartz says he saw happened feet from and within minutes of her murder. You cannot be seriously contending that it isnt vital evidence if looking at what the Circumstances were. His makes him the last person seen with the victim, and while assaulting her. Lets not be sidestepping the obvious just to disagree with me.

Many people trying to justify his absence while trying to protect his viability...the problem is that no evidence exists for that premise.

[Michael W Richards]

The Jury was able to determine from the evidence whether Stride did it to herself, or someone else did it to her.

Using what was given to them at the Inquest. If Schwartz was believed and appeared there, it would have been far easier to conclude she was likely murdered, and most probably by the same man she struggled with in Israel's story.

[Wickerman]

Its logical, that's all.

Both arguments are logical.

The knife, if a self inflicted wound, could have been picked up by anyone arriving at the scene first. It also could have been done accidentally.

But that is total speculation, any evidence behind it?

Investigating him, or his story?

The difference is academic to police, they are investigating his story which cannot be isolated from investigating him at the same time.

Potentially accidentally. Don't rush to pronouncement.

Who suggested "accidental"?
Investigators are supposed to let the evidence speak, not invent scenario's.
If a knife had been found at the scene then "suicide" or "Accidental death" would be possible. As no such instrument was found, it is not our place to invent one.

The part underlined speaks volumes.

Thankyou, that is what the word "report" alludes to in Swanson's comment. He wrote:

"If Schwartz is to be believed.." - meaning his statement is potentially credible.
"and the police report of his statement" - which refers to a report written by police after his statement has been investigated.
"casts no doubt upon it". - meaning, the police report will either confirm or cast doubt on his story.

Whatever the date was when Swanson wrote that comment, he had not seen this police report. And, because he was supposed to see every report from every officer as the investigation progresses (per Warren), then the report did not as yet exist, which means the police were still investigating the story as Swanson wrote that comment.

What Schwartz says he saw happened feet from and within minutes of her murder. You cannot be seriously contending that it isnt vital evidence if looking at what the Circumstances were. His makes him the last person seen with the victim, and while assaulting her. Lets not be sidestepping the obvious just to disagree with me.

Precisely because his story is vital the police are taking longer to investigate it, and until they have finished they cannot hand it to Baxter in good faith.
Besides, Baxter was able to arrive at the required conclusions without Schwartz.

Many people trying to justify his absence while trying to protect his viability...the problem is that no evidence exists for that premise.

Some are also trying to make him out to be a liar, and others label everyone else is a liar except Schwartz.
I'm doing neither. All I am interested in is finding the most rational reason for him not being called, and it seems the evidence was there in front of us all along.
Whether he was telling the truth or not is entirely another matter.

[c.d.]

Hello Wick,

Just let me say that I like your approach to the case and the way you analyze things. Very level headed.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

Yes, the same date is attached to every report - I know you have read them.

Warren requested a report covering all the murders from Swanson in mid September, the same time as he elevated Swanson to supervise the investigation.
We still have Swanson's reports on Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, & Stride - ALL dated 19th Oct. This is the date on the cover of the file that was presented to Warren. 19th Oct. was the date the reports were handed over.

Swanson had been working on them since mid September, and as anyone can see from the detail contained within (times, dates, places) Swanson worked from police files. So these reports will take a long time to put together while he is also supervising the murder investigation.

Yes, fair enough. I think it's fair to note that any major changes in opinions would be indicated in the final copies, that's all. No doubt the reports were worked on over an extended period of time, and there would have been multiple drafts as they were prepared and no doubt earlier drafts would be modified if any new information came in changing "current view". What I'm suggesting, and I think you agree with, is that it appears the police did not think Schwartz's testimony was bogus on the 19th, well into the inquest (doesn't mean they had verified it, but it appears to have been viewed as an important lead, might be the best way to phrase it).

I think you have confused me with someone else.
I have not said they doubted Schwartz, I have pointed out that Schwartz's story was still under investigation in that first week of October. That is why he was not called to the inquest by Baxter.

Ah, sorry, that wasn't phrased well. I didn't think you viewed it as doubted Schwartz (as if they had concluded his statement was bogus, they wouldn't bother with it further after all), and was more presenting my opinion on it's own, rather than making a counter point to yours. A shift of intention on my part that wasn't well signaled in my post.

This is what Swanson says (ie; providing the "report" of his statement), the police had not written their report on their investigation into his story by the time Swanson wrote his summary (dated 19th Oct.).

Yes, a Schwartz's statement had led to a current investigation, still in progress, type thing, which demonstrates that the police were taking his statement as a serious and valid lead, which I think you would agree with.


- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I have a quick question with regards to Inquests and how they worked. Could someone be compelled to give evidence, or did witnesses volunteer to be present? I'm just wondering how much personal choice needs to be considered with regards to Schwartz. Obviously, if there was no power to compel a witness to testify, then there's no reason to conclude his absence is due to a choice on the police/coroner's part.

- Jeff