Stride Bruising

[Wickerman]

Paddy & C4,

It is Anderson's draft letter but there is nothing to substantiate the comment about Schwartz. He was obviously given incorrect information.

You can tell by Baxter's summary to the jury from the inquest that it's quite clear Schwartz didn't testify. There is not one comment in his summary about anything close to what Schwartz is said to have seen.

His testimony was not held in camera because he didn't testify.

Cheers
DRoy

Exactly so.

A Coroner's Inquiry is a public inquiry.
I think part of the reason is so a statement can be questioned.
Giving evidence to the Coroner In Camera pretty well defeats the purpose.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Sigh...

So no consensus on yet another thing. Well at least we all agree that the women were murdered. Sweet, sweet solidarity!

[Wickerman]

One has to wonder why Schwartz's evidence was held In Camera. I am assuming here thats what happened.

For parts of the Inquest to be witheld from the public, there would have to be pretty strong reasons.
ie National security, Threat to a person or an Ongoing Police Enquiry (that this evidence was part of)

Pat............

In which case the description of the suspect might be withheld, but not his actions. We already have one example of this.

[DVV]

Paddy is right, and beside Anderson's draft letter, we have the 6th Nov report by Warren.

[curious4]

6th Nov report, Warren

Hello DVV,

Not familiar with this. Where do I find it?

Best wishes,
C4

[DVV]

Hi Curious4

Sourcebook/Companion p 136 (last page og the chapter "Murder of E Stride")

"...that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is...." (C. Warren, 6th Nov)

[Wickerman]

Hi Curious4

Sourcebook/Companion p 136 (last page og the chapter "Murder of E Stride")

"...that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is...." (C. Warren, 6th Nov)

The repetition of an error does not confirm the error as true.

It is very reasonable to assume the Coroner would have made reference to the incident in his summary seen by Schwartz even if his identity was kept secret.

To be honest I cannot see a 19th century press (including a radical press) keeping a secret from the public like an In Camera witness.
Either none of the press had an indication of his existence, which we know is not true or, there was no In Camera incident.

[curious4]

Schwarz

Hello DVV,

Got it. Different page in my version but easy to find anyway.

"the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwarz at the inquest in Elizabeth Strides' case....".

Thanks!

C4

[curious4]

Inquest testimony

The repetition of an error does not confirm the error as true.

It is very reasonable to assume the Coroner would have made reference to the incident seen by Schwartz even if his identity was kept secret.

To be honest I cannot see a 19th century press (including a radical press) keeping a secret from the public like an In Camera witness.
Either none of the press had an indication of his existence, which we know is not true or, there was no In Camera incident.

Hello Wickerman,

Found this in my Scotland Yard Investigates:

"Schwarz probably did not appear at the inquest because he spoke hardly any English and required an interpreter. The coroner had the authority to accept written statements in lieu of a witness actually appearing."

This could be another explanation.

Best wishes,
Gwyneth

[DVV]

Yes, Gwyneth, that is also an explanation.
Plus, the police didn't want Lawende & Schwartz to talk too much (publicly).
They thought BSM and Sailor Man were one and the same, and imo they were right.
I'm ashamed to be so classical and conservative.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Hello Wickerman,

Found this in my Scotland Yard Investigates:

"Schwarz probably did not appear at the inquest because he spoke hardly any English and required an interpreter. The coroner had the authority to accept written statements in lieu of a witness actually appearing."

This could be another explanation.

Best wishes,
Gwyneth

Indeed, but then we have to ask why is there no mention of the incident in the Coroner's summary?

[DVV]

Hi Jon,

you can ask, but the only answer is that the Coroner and the Police decided to do like this.

Slainte

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

The reference to an alleged appearance at the Inquest constitutes nothing without a substantiating source, like the recording of such an appearance in any published transcripts from the Inquest. There are also reports that at least 2 senior officers believed his account...which amounts to little more than their opinions on the matter.

There is a witness for 12:45 provided at the Inquest....and there is almost a day given to questioning a woman on the stand who claimed the deceased was her sister....while the police already had identified her as Liz Stride. The first witness to appear did not know the deceased and claimed to have left almost 1/2 hour before the earliest time she is cut...this was an odd Inquest to be sure.

Point here being that the entry referring to the appearance is only as valid as can be proven so....and it cant, to my knowledge.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

ps.....I believe the bruises on Liz Stride were the result of her having her back to wall she dies near while a thug poked her in the chest, likely giving her a threat or a piece of his mind.

Cheers again.

[DRoy]

Dave & C4,

Jon is right. What would be the benefit of having Schwartz testify in camera? There isn't one.

Notice the dates of these reports. November which is almost two weeks after the inquest. They begin with Anderson's report which is obviously wrong and it gets passed down from there. Obviously they didn't attend the inquest so it would be easy to make this mistake.

Just to be clear, Lawende didn't give a description of the suspect, that's it. He testified but the description was kept out. Schwartz didn't even have a description. So again, why sequester his testimony?

Cheers
DRoy