Stride Bruising

[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

[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

[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.

[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)

[curious4]

6th Nov report, Warren

Hello DVV,

Not familiar with this. Where do I find it?

Best wishes,
C4

[DVV]

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

[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.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Sigh...

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

[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.

[lynn cates]

goo goo ga joob

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

"Not with you that she met her murderer at the club, though. Outside the gates, perhaps."

OK. But she was killed inside them.

"May I also express my admiration for the moustache?"

Thanks you. Almost a walrus?

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

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

[lynn cates]

double or nothing

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Think you'd better nix Kate from the roll. She doesn't belong there.

Cheers.
LC

[Paddy]

Schwartz's evidence

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............

[curious4]

Evidence

Hello DLDWatson,

A little off-thread this, but anyway. Wasn't there at the time but presumably the police would have checked with his landlord, neighbours etc. Don't know what would have impressed Anderson, but it seems he did. If he was the recipient of the "Don't contact the police, I know where you live" letter, and provided it was genuine, he may well have been able to identify the killer. (Pure speculation this)

Best wishes,
C4

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Thanks.

My library is small and I was unaware of that. But the police believing him doesn't verify the validity of his statement. Belief does not constitute evidence. So what evidence is there that does support his statement?