Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help On Some Details

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
    Hi Observer I posted this on another thread, hope it is relevant regarding Schwartz testimony - Wynne Baxter gave a very detailed summing up on the last day of the inquest.
    The CORONER, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time.
    Note something further being ascertained. So if Schwartz had gone missing or was difficult to find Wynne Baxter would certainly have adjourned the inquest again. Not only that but he goes into detail of the sightings of Marshall, Pc Smith and most tellingly James Brown. He then sums up whether they all saw the victim with the murderer or not,the time differences, and the differences in their descriptions, without debunking any of them. This is important with Brown because he allegedly saw Stride at the same time as Schwartz. Surely this would cast doubt on Brown seeing the victim but nowhere does he say or even hint at it. IE There is some evidence which is still being investigated which may suggest that the victim was seen in the company of another man the same time as the witness James Brown was alleged to have seen her. This would protect Schwartz whilst at the same time opening up the possibility that Brown was mistaken. Maybe just maybe the veracity of Schwartz was being investigated during the adjournment. But by the 23rd [Swanson's report is the 19th] he was considered to be too unreliable to take the stand, so the summing up went ahead.
    Regards Darryl
    H Darryl

    Yes, one wonders who compiled the list as to who should appear at the inquest. Brown is an interesting inclusion. He was adamant that the woman he saw shortly before the Schwartz incident was Liz Stride, and yet he reported that the man wore an overcoat reaching down to his heels. Neither PC Smith nor Schwartz, described their suspects thus. I doubt Brown saw Stride that night. It leads one to reflect on other witnesses involved in the case, Lewis, Hutchinson, Mortimer, Packer, Richardson, Cadoch, and yes Schwartz to name but a few. Theories are based on those witnesses. How many came forward for their 15 minutes of fame? The majority of them I'd say.

    Regards

    Observer

    Leave a comment:


  • Darryl Kenyon
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    So on those grounds you believe that the police dropped Schwartz as a credible witness?
    Hi Observer I posted this on another thread, hope it is relevant regarding Schwartz testimony - Wynne Baxter gave a very detailed summing up on the last day of the inquest.
    The CORONER, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time.
    Note something further being ascertained. So if Schwartz had gone missing or was difficult to find Wynne Baxter would certainly have adjourned the inquest again. Not only that but he goes into detail of the sightings of Marshall, Pc Smith and most tellingly James Brown. He then sums up whether they all saw the victim with the murderer or not,the time differences, and the differences in their descriptions, without debunking any of them. This is important with Brown because he allegedly saw Stride at the same time as Schwartz. Surely this would cast doubt on Brown seeing the victim but nowhere does he say or even hint at it. IE There is some evidence which is still being investigated which may suggest that the victim was seen in the company of another man the same time as the witness James Brown was alleged to have seen her. This would protect Schwartz whilst at the same time opening up the possibility that Brown was mistaken. Maybe just maybe the veracity of Schwartz was being investigated during the adjournment. But by the 23rd [Swanson's report is the 19th] he was considered to be too unreliable to take the stand, so the summing up went ahead.
    Regards Darryl

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    the fact that Schwartz was not at the inquest is no indication of his credibility or non revelance.
    there is no evidence he wasn't credible on record.


    but he should have-he can help establish TOD and verdict.

    we have no idea why he wasn't at the inquest. Its probably something mundane like he couldn't be found in time, or didn't respond etc.
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 01-07-2019, 08:09 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    I was merely trying to give some examples of why Schwartz might not have appeared at the inquest Wick. The point is his non appearance at the inquest does not imply that he was dropped as a credible witness by the police.
    Agreed, his non-appearance is not a reflection on his credibility. The solution lies elsewhere.

    Also, as you have pointed out, Inquest proceedings were treated differently than criminal proceedings.
    Yes, and the local coroner did not have the same financial resources granted to the criminal courts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    There is no record of any notes from Abberline, to suggest there was without any proof is misleading.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    There's no written record of the autopsy by Philips either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
    Schwartz was probably the last person to see Liz alive of course his evidence is vital. And if you argue that it was obvious when she died, why was Brown called? Maybe to confirm she was still alive at 12:45? And why was Marshall called? He saw Liz a full hour before Schwartz. Maybe it's because he could give a description of a man in her company?
    One witness for time, one for description. Schwartz could do both.
    And if an argument can be made about no interpretor who was the one when he gave his statement? Surely if he wasn't available for the first few days of October, by the end [when the inquest was reopened], of said month one would have been found.
    Not only that but he wasn't too difficult to find either with his address just being round the corner [22 Ellen St], from the murder site. The Star certainly found him.
    Regards Darryl
    So on those grounds you believe that the police dropped Schwartz as a credible witness?

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    I can't see the lack of an interpreter being an issue.
    Interpreters were present in courts in several cases, though the instances I found were criminal courts not inquests.
    Could the fact the coroner bore all the costs of professionals required to attend, be a factor?

    Charles Ludwig, most members will recognise that name. He used an interpreter (Mr. Smaje) in his trial, though an accused may be treated different than a witness.
    I was merely trying to give some examples of why Schwartz might not have appeared at the inquest Wick. The point is his non appearance at the inquest does not imply that he was dropped as a credible witness by the police.

    Also, as you have pointed out, Inquest proceedings were treated differently than criminal proceedings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Not really, although my horse-slaughtering ancestors moved from Whitechapel to Wolves/Bilston briefly (1850-60).
    It's a small World, I forgot Kate Eddowes had links to the Wolverhampton area. My kin were in the Boglands of Ireland at that time although that's another story. The Midlands of course had a large Irish presence at that time. It would have been quite comical to have heard the thick Irish brogue trying to communicate with an inhabitant of Dudley during that period.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    So why was Henry Tomkins called to give evidence at Polly Nichol's inquest? Or Pizer at Chapman's?
    Points of clarity.

    Incidentally, re interpreters. There was no official police interpreters list until the 1890s (after a review by Swanson of all people). Up until then one had the option of relying on a Constable or privateer.

    Monty

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Exactly, so if he didn't, why do it?
    There is no record of any notes from Abberline, to suggest there was without any proof is misleading.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Darryl Kenyon
    replied
    Schwartz was probably the last person to see Liz alive of course his evidence is vital. And if you argue that it was obvious when she died, why was Brown called? Maybe to confirm she was still alive at 12:45? And why was Marshall called? He saw Liz a full hour before Schwartz. Maybe it's because he could give a description of a man in her company?
    One witness for time, one for description. Schwartz could do both.
    And if an argument can be made about no interpretor who was the one when he gave his statement? Surely if he wasn't available for the first few days of October, by the end [when the inquest was reopened], of said month one would have been found.
    Not only that but he wasn't too difficult to find either with his address just being round the corner [22 Ellen St], from the murder site. The Star certainly found him.
    Regards Darryl

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Here's a case of an interpreter used by a witness at an inquest.

    Not uncommon then, or now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Here's a case of an interpreter used by a witness at an inquest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    I can't see the lack of an interpreter being an issue.
    Interpreters were present in courts in several cases, though the instances I found were criminal courts not inquests.
    Could the fact the coroner bore all the costs of professionals required to attend, be a factor?

    Charles Ludwig, most members will recognise that name. He used an interpreter (Mr. Smaje) in his trial, though an accused may be treated different than a witness.



    I've been trying to find the transcript of Sadler's trial, wasn't he held in custody while his statement was read aloud to the court, without him being present?

    So, couldn't the same be done for a witness?

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Black Country?

    https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread...k+country+kate

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X