Would It Be The Job of the Police Or the Grand Jury to Discredit Schwartz's Testimony

[DRoy]

Dave,

Yes, sorry I was trying to respond to a few posts at the same time!

I'm sure I suggested something similar to what you've commented on but did so in a different thread. I think I used something like '*Poof* he's gone' in reference to Schwartz. If something was found I'd sure like to see it!!

Cheers
DRoy

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Pat/DRoy

I can't be 100% sure it's what Stewart means, but check out the date on the letter on P172 of Scotland Yard Investigates...compare it to inquest last date...now if it refers to Schwartz then Schwartz is out of the water...but nobody told Sir Charles because he was still writing in support of Schwartz on 6th November at least...but a few days later, very suddenly he's gone...did he find out and react in a fit of picque?

Just surmising...and maybe Stewart's found something....

All the best

Dave

[DRoy]

I don't believe that Schwartz not speaking English had anything to do with it. This was an apparent JTR murder! Willing to accept a statement given through an interpreter as reason to not have him testify in my opinion doesn't make any sense at all. The inquest ran 5 different days and ran almost a month long. They could have brought him in and it wouldn't have slowed the proceedings any.

If they had to determine her death then they only needed medical testimony, not witnesses who couldn't testify or provide any knowledge in how she died. If they had to determine whether she was killed in that spot, no witness that spoke gave anything of value but the medical testimony would.

Why did half of the other witnesses even testify? Name one witness who could top what Schwartz could testify to...

Wouldn't Schwartz have been the last to see her alive? Wasn't he also the last to see her alive in almost the exact spot her body was found? Was he not the only one who claims to see her being assulted? Could he not clarify where some of the 'bruising' and mud came? All of his testimony would give credence and support to the medical and witness testimony.

I believe that his story was believed up to a certain point and then it wasn't. When it wasn't, he was probably removed from the witness list.

I know some will then comment about Swanson's report and Anderson's draft letter in support of Schwartz. In my opinion Swanson was reporting what he believed to be true but based on old news that Schwartz's statement was worthy and true. Swanson it seems was just reporting on the statement taken by Abberline and most to do with the use of 'Lipski'. Anderson was just reiterating Swanson's report.

In regards to the use of 'Lipski', couldn't they have taken that part out of Schwartz's testimony and then still have him testify? Couldn't they just say BSM shouted something but witness could not confirm what it was?

Cheers
DRoy

[Paddy]

Schwartzs statement

Originally Posted by Stewart P Evans
Schwartz did not speak English, so if he had appeared his evidence would have been given via an interpreter. This led me to think, at one time, that for this reason he was not called and the coroner accepted his written statement in lieu of an appearance (which a coroner could do).

Yes I agree with this Stewart.
My take is that a police statement was accepted and the coroner took time out to ask about the Lipski part. Was Lipski connected to BSM.
If there was a name involved and enquiries were ongoing, the inquest could not be wrapped up so easy.
The coroner also asked about the three medical students at this time.
I think the coroner would have to decide what parts of Schwartzs evidence could be presented without predjucing the investigation.
ie jury could have been told about the siting and time but not the name calling. For this reason I think Israel would not have testified in person and he would have just been known as police witness.
Its logical I think?
Pat...............................

[Cogidubnus]

And I always did feel it was a very sudden thing at the very end...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Stewart

And (no love lost, I know but...) nobody told Sir Charles for that long?

All the best

Dave

PS Putting two and two together to make seven and three quarters, when the scales dropped, would it go far to explain a subsequent fit of picque or am I just speculating far too far again?

[Cogidubnus]

Slaps forehead

Hi Stewart

However, examination of the coroner's summing up, at the end of the inquest, reveals that Schwartz's evidence was not taken into account, which deepens the mystery. There is only one explanation that I can see, which is why I feel that the date of the closing of the inquest is so significant.

This is the second time you've made this reference and at last the penny has dropped (said I was a newbie!)...You suppose he was really referring to IS? I always took it to refer to the usual plethora of hangers on like Packer and the detective agency...but it could be...

Much to ponder

Thanks

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Schwartz did not speak English, so if he had appeared his evidence would have been given via an interpreter. This led me to think, at one time, that for this reason he was not called and the coroner accepted his written statement in lieu of an appearance (which a coroner could do).

However, examination of the coroner's summing up, at the end of the inquest, reveals that Schwartz's evidence was not taken into account, which deepens the mystery. There is only one explanation that I can see, which is why I feel that the date of the closing of the inquest is so significant.

2 very significant points in there Stewart, thanks for weighing in. I believe that if a statement had been accepted in lieu of an appearance, it still remains a puzzle that the existence of that evidence is never referred to, let alone a witness who could identify the Broadshouldered Man in the story...someone of great interest if the story was true.

Your end-line teaser in the second paragraph is interesting, I think Ill have to investigate that date before I will be able to get that reference.

My best regards

[Errata]

Maybe they decided it was irrelevant, since that was not when or where she died.

[Stewart P Evans]

Schwartz

Schwartz did not speak English, so if he had appeared his evidence would have been given via an interpreter. This led me to think, at one time, that for this reason he was not called and the coroner accepted his written statement in lieu of an appearance (which a coroner could do).

However, examination of the coroner's summing up, at the end of the inquest, reveals that Schwartz's evidence was not taken into account, which deepens the mystery. There is only one explanation that I can see, which is why I feel that the date of the closing of the inquest is so significant.

[Michael W Richards]

Alternatively, as the purpose of the inquest was to determine how Elizabeth Stride died, a view may have been taken that, in that respect, Schwartz's evidence didn't add anything to the testimony given by other witnesses.

If they were to solve the riddle of how Liz dies Bridewell, certainly a story like the one Schwartz gave would be one of the first presented. Considering how close to the estimated range of time that the cut was made within.

It would also make Schwartz the last person to have seen Liz Stride alive. His testimony would be of paramount importance, if thought to be accurate.

Now that we have his remarks in proper context, ponder why not only do we not see this story presented to a jury in any coverage of the Inquest, we do not even hear from the officials....(those are the ones circulating those powerful internal memos Hunter, the same ones that appear to be chasing their own tail at times), ..about the mere existence of a witness that claims to have seen Liz Stride closer to her TOD than any other witness. Not even when they knew the press had already reported about this statement, and therefore the jury members would have already known about such a witness.

Im more surprised no-one raised any concerns at the Inquest about this reported incident than I am that Schwartz doesnt appear at it.

Also....consider the testimony of Mary Malcolm...and the extraordinary time allowed to her and her claim....when the police already knew who the deceased woman was.

Cheers

[DRoy]

Alternatively, as the purpose of the inquest was to determine how Elizabeth Stride died, a view may have been taken that, in that respect, Schwartz's evidence didn't add anything to the testimony given by other witnesses.

Bridewell,

So why then did half the other witnesses testify? What value did half of them provide?

Cheers
DRoy

[Bridewell]

Alternatively, as the purpose of the inquest was to determine how Elizabeth Stride died, a view may have been taken that, in that respect, Schwartz's evidence didn't add anything to the testimony given by other witnesses.

[Bridewell]

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/theatrical

If use of the word 'theatrical' is intended to denote a tendency to be "excessively dramatic" his attendance as an inquest witness might have been thought unwise - possibly.

[Errata]

Was he a possible witness to a murder?

No. Well maybe, if he did he never talked about it. But he was the head of an organization that researched gangs and "deviancy", so he was always hired to provide expert testimony. He specifically built the group so that he wouldn't have to be the one to take the stand. Despite the fact that technically he was the expert.