Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[Wickerman]

As I mentioned earlier, Sadler also did not testify in person at the Coles inquest, yet his police statement was read out to the court by the Prosecutor Mr Mathews.

So not appearing in person may not be so unusual, but more to the point is why was the statement by Schwartz not entered into evidence by someone at the court?

[Jonathan H]

Sadler? Who was arrested for Coles' murder and reportedly 'confronted' by what must be Joseph Lawende--who said no. it's not him.

Are you confusing Tom Sadler with Lawende?

[Wickerman]

No Jonathan, Sadler was under arrest on the 24th Feb. when his statement was read aloud to the Inquest.
He was not present.

[GUT]

G'day Jon

I'm fairly sure that in 1880-90 UK a person under arrest for a murder was not permitted to give evidence at the inquest into the victim's death.

[Wickerman]

I'm fairly sure that in 1880-90 UK a person under arrest for a murder was not permitted to give evidence at the inquest into the victim's death.

So long as his statement is read to the court by someone then he gave evidence, yes?

His status is given as:
"James Thomas Sadler, a ship’s fireman, now stands remanded from the Thames Police-court, charged with causing the death of the deceased."

[GUT]

G'day Jon

So long as his statement is read to the court by someone then he gave evidence, yes?

Almost the same, but no chance to question and no self-incrimination issues.

[Michael W Richards]

As I mentioned earlier, Sadler also did not testify in person at the Coles inquest, yet his police statement was read out to the court by the Prosecutor Mr Mathews.

So not appearing in person may not be so unusual, but more to the point is why was the statement by Schwartz not entered into evidence by someone at the court?

Lawende was also introduced as a witness even though they admittedly suppressed some of his statement as it was still being investigated at that time. The fact that there is no record that the "evidence" given by Israel Schwartz on Sunday evening, October 30th, through an interpreter, to the Police, is entered as part of the Inquest documentation, mentioned or even foot-noted, referenced and/or compared with testimony provided in the cross examination of other witnesses...(as in the case of Caroline Maxwell for example), or cited as withheld due to "a protected investigative witness", suggests strongly that despite the mentions of support in some correspondence internally, Israels story did not constitute what they considered to be crucial evidence in the matter of Liz Strides death.

Since his story places a woman who had her throat cut likely between 12:46 and 12:56 in a struggle with someone at approximately 12:45...its unimaginable the the content of the story wasnt of great value...if they believed it to be true.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

You seem to want to turn an assumption into a fact. It is hard to get to "suggests strongly" when the only fact is that we simply don't know why he did not appear or have his testimony entered into the record.

c.d.

[c.d.]

From a practical standpoint, what would be gained by having Schwartz appear or by having his statement read into the record? It was not as though his testimony would help establish quilt or exonerate a named suspect charged with Stride's murder. A simple explanation is that when the police reassessed his value as a witness at the inquest, given the difficulty in extracting an accurate statement from him due to the fact that he did not understand what was being said between the BS man and Liz coupled with the difficulty of getting an accurate translation, they concluded that his testimony was of little value to jurors and might only serve to confuse them. Whether his statement was true or not needn't factor into their decision.

c.d.

[DVV]

A simple explanation is that when the police reassessed his value as a witness at the inquest, given the difficulty in extracting an accurate statement from him due to the fact that he did not understand what was being said between the BS man and Liz coupled with the difficulty of getting an accurate translation, they concluded that his testimony was of little value to jurors and might only serve to confuse them. Whether his statement was true or not needn't factor into their decision.

c.d.

Hi CD

I guess you're right.

[Hunter]

It was not up to the police to decide if Schwartz was to appear or not at the inquest. It was the coroner's decision.

[Michael W Richards]

From a practical standpoint, what would be gained by having Schwartz appear or by having his statement read into the record? It was not as though his testimony would help establish quilt or exonerate a named suspect charged with Stride's murder. A simple explanation is that when the police reassessed his value as a witness at the inquest, given the difficulty in extracting an accurate statement from him due to the fact that he did not understand what was being said between the BS man and Liz coupled with the difficulty of getting an accurate translation, they concluded that his testimony was of little value to jurors and might only serve to confuse them. Whether his statement was true or not needn't factor into their decision.

c.d.

Hi cd,

If they believed the story and its contents, then it would have to factor into a decision about its value to the Inquest. Although the Inquest isnt designed to uncover a culprit per se, its to determine the likely cause of death, but a man seen assaulting her within minutes of her estimated time of throat cut is very likely to be her killer, and therefore Schwartz would become the only "witness" to a killing that many believe Jack the Ripper committed.

They would be compelled to base their investigation around his story details.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

It was not up to the police to decide if Schwartz was to appear or not at the inquest. It was the coroner's decision.

Not to be obtuse, but either party had the same goals didnt they? Why would the coroner ignore the police support of Schwartz if it would be the single most important witness account at that Inquest.

I know youre a stickler for protocol, but please dont try and create scenarios where the coroner drives an ongoing murder investigation. The evidence does....the same stuff the police collected for the Inquest?

Cheers

[Hunter]

Not to be obtuse, but either party had the same goals didnt they?

No...

[Dr. John Watson]

I don't think you can so easily explain away the deliberate suppression of Schwartz's evidence at an official inquest by suggesting he wasn't believed. In fact, I haven't seen any hard evidence that police disbelieved Schwartz, at least to the point of concealing his existence from the coroner. Even if his story was doubted, if true it would amount to critical evidence, so wouldn't it be proper to at least advise the Coroner and let him decide? I'd be interested to hear what some of the retired coppers on this forum (I know of several) have to say on the subject. Doesn't the law spell out what is required of police in assisting the Coroner during an inquest, so far as identifying witnesses, providing written statements, etc?

Still Curious John