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

[Wickerman]

It could be a lot of reasons Schwartz wasn't called to testify.

The guy I used to work for almost never testified.

Was he a possible witness to a murder?

[Errata]

It could be a lot of reasons Schwartz wasn't called to testify.

The guy I used to work for almost never testified. One of us (the lackeys) did it (and it was only me once because of the circumstances). The lackeys barring me had academic credentials enough to be considered experts, so it wasn't a problem. But Dick almost never took the stand. He had a curiously high pitched voice. Higher than Michael Jackson. Sounded like a 12 year old girl. You didn't notice it after awhile, but you spent the first couple of days at work not hearing a word he said because of his voice.

Schwartz was said to have a theatrical appearance. We aren't sure what that means, but if he wore a half cape that he snapped around him like a bad Dracula and thigh high boots, or had a Tumblety moustache, that would qualify. And they may have considered that the distraction caused would not be worth the fairly unspecific testimony offered. And why he may not have been believed.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hunter,

I really admire your certitude.

Regards,

Simon

[Hunter]

The support was present in their actions. They issued an internal memo relating Schwartz's descriptions immediately after he gave his testimony. On October 19th, without detailing the witness, they went public in the Police Gazette with the description. With so few leads, they couldn't afford to dismiss any witness without probable cause. And considering the extant files, they didn't discredit this one.

They were trying to protect the witness and that's probably why Baxter did not call him to the inquest as well. The Coroner's Act provided for such measures and Baxter likely used his discretion considering the circumstances at that time (which some folks do need to study a little more.) Langham, the City Police, and the City Solicitor, Mr. Crawford took a different tact when dealing with Lawende's information. Its as simple as that.

I have no idea about anyone being driven crazy about Swanson's statement. It is there and part of the historical record.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

I would think the obvious answer to the question cd poses would be that the police would have vetted the witness stories and put forward for the jury only witnesses that have relevance to the investigation at hand, and the question they are to address....was the deceased killed accidentally or intentionally.

I would also assume that the witnesses would be presented in a manner most conducive to a reconstruction of the events leading up to the discovery of the dead body, trying to determine who saw them last . Starting with the person that discovers the body for example.

A problem with my assumptions is a witness like Mary Malcolm. Or Carrie Maxwell. Or William Wess. Witnesses that were presented when the police already felt, or knew, that the content of their testimony was irrelevant. When Mary Malcolm was presented, the authorities already knew the identity of the murdered woman was Liz Stride. When Maxwell was presented, they felt the TOD estimates had effectively ruled out her stories veracity. William Wess takes the stand first in the Stride Inquest even though his statement places him off the premises and safe at home when the murder occurs.

In fact there seems to be a variety of approaches to presenting these witness stories to a jury....in the Tabram Inquest the man that found her spoke first, Reeves. In the Nichols Inquest, her father spoke first. In the Chapman Inquest, Davies, the man who finds the body. In the Stride Inquest, its Wess for some unknown reason. In Kates Inquest, her sister Eliza. At Marys, its Barnett.

It really should have been Reeves, Neil, Davies, Diemshitz, Watkins and Bowyer or McCarthy....respectively.

There doesnt seem to be consistency in how these witnesses were chosen and when they would be presented based on their potential worth to the matter at hand.

There is one thing though....if a witness was deemed to have information sensitive to the ongoing investigation...like being able to identify a potential suspect....the police would withhold some of the details that relate to that statement. Or perhaps the witness him or herself.

We are told such a situation occurs with Lawende. Openly, at the Inquest. There is no record of a similar disclosure, or sequestering, in the case of Israel Schwartz. He doesnt appear in the records, and there is no explanation of his absence. Which seems to drive the people who believe Swanson's stamp of approval in a memo, crazy. For me its about actions, not words, and Lawende was sequestered and suppressed ..... on the record.

Hell...we have all sorts of examples of police saying they believed certain witnesses stories.....support that is not present in their actions.

Cheers

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

I wasn't suggesting it was an in-camera hearing...just an informal meeting between Senior Policemen and the Coroner perhaps? We've had it suggested in the past that Baxter might've been in hot water with his guv'nors (Lord Chancellors Department?) by then, so could he perhaps be acting a tad more co-operatively by now?

Either way it was just a passing thought that took my fancy

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Pure surmise, but is it conceivable that the Coroner wanted time out on the 4th either to consider, or perhaps hear arguments, as to whether Schwartz was called or not?

Just a passing thought - doubt very much if it's an original one either!

An interesting thought nevertheless.

From what I understand the Coroner directs the Inquest, the Jury still must hear all evidence available. So, the Coroner will not hear evidence in-camera, as they say today.

In considering such a scenario I can't help thinking that the press would have got hold of the fact that a session was being held without any public or media present.
I'm sure we would have heard about it, if by no other means than criticisms voiced in the papers.

P.S.
He may hear evidence in-camera to decide if it is worthy to bring before the Jury, but clearly what Schwartz had to say clears that hurdle.

[lynn cates]

Swanson

Hello Cris. Swanson certainly did, remarking that there was no doubt expressed in the police reports.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Cris

You may well be right...definitely agree with you regarding Schwartz!

All the best

Dave

[Hunter]

Baxter was notorious for holding long protracted inquests. The inquest wasn't completed until the 23rd. The reason for an adjournment for a couple of days was likely to give Phillips some time for a re-examination of the body in light of some questions raised during his initial testimony. Also the inquest into the Mitre Square murder was scheduled for the 4th (Thursday) and it probably wasn't yet known if Phillips would be called to testify there as well, since he was involved with that investigation representing the Metropolitan Police.

Despite the Star report, it is evident from police files that Schwartz was taken seriously by them.

[Mr Lucky]

It's possible that if Schwartz gave evidence at the inquest, and if the killer was neither BS or Pipeman, then the accused defence council, when it came to trial, could cite his evidence for their defence.

Schwarz's evidence is pretty useless as a prosecution witness, as a defence witness for someone other than BS or Pipeman's, his statement could throw a lot of doubt on to the case for the prosecution. So, it may have been wise not to let him give evidence at the inquest for that reason, unless the investigators were absolutely sure that BS (or possible even Pipeman) was the killer.

[Cogidubnus]

Does anybody other than myself find it a little odd that the Stride Inquest is adjourned after it's third consecutive day, Wednesday 3rd October until, not the following day, but Friday 5th October? Dr Bagster Phillips evidence is thus split across two sessions separated by a day. The final day seems incredibly distant too (Tuesday 23rd October).

This seems odd, knowing how notoriously difficult it could sometimes be to hold on to juries.

Pure surmise, but is it conceivable that the Coroner wanted time out on the 4th either to consider, or perhaps hear arguments, as to whether Schwartz was called or not?

Just a passing thought - doubt very much if it's an original one either!

All the best

Dave

[Mr Lucky]

Hi C.D.

Basically, if the police can't actually disprove the statement, then when the case went to trial, it and all the other evidence they had would be presented before the Grand Jury, and if they believe that there was a case to answer to, and the evidence is admissible, it would go to trial. All the evidence gathered would then be presented to the Jury in court, and it's ultimately the Juries job to do the believing or disbelieving, when the find the accused not guilty/guilty.

[Phil H]

Yes, in English law an inquest has a jury - in most cases.

Phil

[c.d.]

Is there such a thing as a "grand jury (in the US sense) in British/English law? Was there in 1888?

Phil

Hi Phil,

That didn't sound quite right when I wrote it. I meant the people who were part of the inquest. Are they referred to as jurors or what?

c.d.