Stride Bruising

[DVV]

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

Hi Michael,

you rather have to prove that Warren was drunk on 6 November.

Cheers !

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

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

Slainte

Hi Dave.

We are reminded that the Coroner's Inquest is performed in order to establish the, Who, the When, the Where, & by what means of her death.
Wouldn't you say that Schwartz's claims of seeing BSman assault Stride had a direct impact on the Coroner's ability to determine the 'when' & 'where' of her death?

[DVV]

Jon, I would say it's a fact (that Schwartz gave his evidence, but not in public).
Sometimes, unusual things do happen. That was also the case with Lawende and the description of Sailor Man.
Not usual. But that was the police choice. And the Coroner agreed.

Tchin-tchin

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

you rather have to prove that Warren was drunk on 6 November.

Cheers !

Personal notations are worth very little without any substance David, just look at Macnaughtens "suspect" list if you doubt that at all.

What you suggest David is that the police conspired to suppress Israel Schwartz's appearance at the Inquest with all the press organizations, with all the attending spectators and participants, and without ever formally recording the nature of the secretive investigation they were conducting based on Israel's story.

When Im suggesting that a notation doesnt mean that Israel was there. As it seems is the case based on every published transcript record.

Whose suggestion smack of conspiracy and theatrics..and whose is based solely on the recorded activities? Im usually the one accused of that.

All the best David

[Michael W Richards]

Jon, I would say it's a fact (that Schwartz gave his evidence, but not in public).
Sometimes, unusual things do happen. That was also the case with Lawende and the description of Sailor Man.
Not usual. But that was the police choice. And the Coroner agreed.

Tchin-tchin

And it was announced at the same proceedings.

Cheers my friend

[DVV]

Personal notations are worth very little without any substance David, just look at Macnaughtens "suspect" list if you doubt that at all.

Michael, we're talking about a report addressed by Warren to the Home Office, not pencil notes found décades after by a pom-pom girl.

Santé !

[DRoy]

Dave,

Does Baxter seem the type of fella to not have evidence used in an inquest? Really? The inquest was almost a month long and 5 inquest sessions. To put all that time and effort into something where they could have very easily arrived at a cause of death decision without Schwartz's testimony just doesn't make sense.

Cheers
DRoy

[DVV]

Hi DRoy,

well, perhaps I'm mad and stupid, in which case SPE, Warren, etc, are equally mad and stupid.
Is Warren the kind of man to write in an official report that Schwartz gave evidence at the inquest, if Schwartz did not ?
Once again, remember Lawende and his (non) description of the suspect at the Eddowes inquest.

It went like this. That is all, my friend.

T'ena !

[lynn cates]

cachous

Hello Mike.

"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."

And she was holding the cachous at the time?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

The thug's name was Cachous Clay.
Hence the bruises.

[DRoy]

The thug's name was Cachous Clay.
Hence the bruises.

Haha awesome!

DRoy

[The Good Michael]

"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.

hey that's what I've been saying and was called silly! Who's silly now. naysayers?

Mike

[DRoy]

Hi DRoy,

well, perhaps I'm mad and stupid, in which case SPE, Warren, etc, are equally mad and stupid.
Is Warren the kind of man to write in an official report that Schwartz gave evidence at the inquest, if Schwartz did not ?
Once again, remember Lawende and his (non) description of the suspect at the Eddowes inquest.

Dave,

You aren't mad or stupid, you are someone i've respected and learned from over the years. I however disagree with you this time.

Like Jon hinted at earlier, once the first report came out it was assumed it was legit when it clearly wasn't. Everyone followed what they were told and reported the same, but it doesn't make it fact.

If Schwartz is such a good witness that he had to give his testimony in camera, how many times is he referenced to in any official documents, memoirs, newspapers, police officials like Abberline never mentions him again, etc.

Cheers
DRoy

[DVV]

DRoy, since Warren wrote in an official report that Schwartz gave his evidence at the inquest, that must be the case. Or let's say, that could well be true.
Clearly, after the double event, the police thought they were onto something : for the first time, the killer's face had been seen. And perhaps seen twice.
The police, I know, had already issued a description of Sailor Man, but this had soon been considered a mistake, as proven by the intervention of the City solicitor at the inquest. That would explain why Schwartz didn't give his evidence publicly (+ the fact that he couldn't speak English).

As for :

If Schwartz is such a good witness that he had to give his testimony in camera, how many times is he referenced to in any official documents, memoirs, newspapers, police officials like Abberline never mentions him again, etc.
DRoy

...I must say I'm a bit surprised. Official documents indicate, on the contrary, that he is, good or bad, an important witness.
Some researchers even think that it was he, and not Lawende, who has been called to identify the Seaside Home suspect. In any case, the question has been debated at length.

Have a look at the Sourcebook index, my friend : Lawende is referred to in 6 pages, Schwartz : 12.

All the best

[lynn cates]

D S S

Hello Roy.

"If Schwartz is such a good witness that he had to give his testimony in camera, how many times is he referenced to in any official documents, memoirs, newspapers, police officials like Abberline never mentions him again, etc."

Will Swanson do?

Cheers.
LC