Help On Some Details

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

[Observer]

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

[packers stem]

They really didn't care one jot if someone was reliable or whether what they saw may be of any value .
Mrs Malcolm stole the show with her dreams and James Brown ,by his own admission, wasn't observant so throwing 'unreliable' at Schwartz or Packer for that matter is unrealistic

[packers stem]

I was just having fun Nick.

Bob Hinton built a full scale mock-up and physically tried it himself, he said it worked fine.

At the time, back in the early 90's, I worked in engineering. At work I created a 3D computer model of that window & door around a corner.
It worked fine.

Both Bob & I used the size of the typical house brick & the cement line in use in the 19th century, as base for the scale. If you enhance that photo it is possible to count exactly how many bricks for both the height & width of both the window & door.
It works Nick - trust me
Or, trust Bob, either way.

Yes Jon
I've worked it all out using a lock central to the door .Arm length of just over 27" required to touch the edge of the brickwork .
Someone 5'6" is likely to have less than that as you're looking at around 33" from the centre of the chest to fingertips .
Don't forget just touching isn't sufficient .... you have to be able to turn or push the latch therefore you need your thumb forefinger to be able to bend .
There's a few inches gone
The bricks would , in all likelyhood be London yellow measuring around 9" x 4.3" by 2.7"

Even if you could ,by balancing on a wet sil , somehow get your shoulder through and touch the lock , you would have to be the dumbest person on earth to leave those shards in place .
Didn't happen .
The fact that Barnett was with everyone else in the court before the door was axed should give a little clue

[packers stem]

Mine is that all three are written by the same hand (Hutchinson's) but that he considered writing his middle name on the first page before realising (or being told) that it wasn't necessary. Hence the rather ornate 'H' which was originally going to be a 'T'. In the post CJA 1967 era a witness signs his or her statement at the foot of each page. I doubt it was significantly different in the LVP. Forging signatures would have been extremely foolish.

I'm suggesting it wasn't his real name ,therefore he was not in the habit of signing that particular name
That, to my mind , is easily is the most likely explanation for getting the H variations .

[packers stem]

The purpose of an inquest is to establish when, where and how someone died. The police surgeon's evidence, combined with that of Diemschutz establishes the time; the place is pretty much self-evident and the cause of death is obvious. Schwartz's evidence would add nothing and the coroner presumably decided that he wasn't needed. He would have been a vital witness to one party or the other at trial, but that's another matter. Schwartz not being called to give evidence by the coroner does not negate the credibility of his evidence.

So by your reasoning only Diemschutz needed to be called along with Phillips ?
I've heard this 'add nothing'argument many times and it's quite possibly the weakest get out clause in ripperology

Malcolm .... adds nothing
Smith ......adds nothing
Brown ..... adds nothing
Marshall ..... adds nothing

All called for absolutely no reason whatsoever .

Schwartz ..... almost certainly witnessed an assault on a woman who was found dead minutes later .
Not called because he could add nothing .

Ripperology at it's finest

[Monty]

So by your reasoning only Diemschutz needed to be called along with Phillips ?
I've heard this 'add nothing'argument many times and it's quite possibly the weakest get out clause in ripperology

Malcolm .... adds nothing
Smith ......adds nothing
Brown ..... adds nothing
Marshall ..... adds nothing

All called for absolutely no reason whatsoever .

Schwartz ..... almost certainly witnessed an assault on a woman who was found dead minutes later .
Not called because he could add nothing .

Ripperology at it's finest

It’s not Ripperology though is it?

It’s Inquest Coroners discretion.

Monty

[packers stem]

It’s not Ripperology though is it?

It’s Inquest Coroners discretion.

Monty

To prove the point you need to find cause for the others being called, and not just dismiss Schwartz as 'nothing to add'.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Packers,

Here's another for your collection.

Elizabeth Phoenix [Felix]. She had knowledge of MJK, and was known to the police on 11th November, yet was not called to the inquest on 12th November.

Schwarz also had a lot he could add, but, as you have shown, the inquests appear to have favoured witnesses who could throw no light on the various murders.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

To prove the point you need to find cause for the others being called, and not just dismiss Schwartz as 'nothing to add'.

The point is cause of death.

The only opinion that counts at inquest is that of the Coroners. For the record I’m surprised Schwartz wasn’t called as his evidence corroborates the medical evidence.

However, the verdict was pretty much settled with or without Schwartz’s testimony.

Monty

[GUT]

The point is cause of death.

The only opinion that counts at inquest is that of the Coroners. For the record I’m surprised Schwartz wasn’t called as his evidence corroborates the medical evidence.

However, the verdict was pretty much settled with or without Schwartz’s testimony.

Monty

Unfortunately many people forget the purpose of an inquest.

[Bridewell]

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?
Regards Darryl

I didn't argue that it was obvious when she died. I said that it was obvious where she died and that the police surgeon's evidence established the when.

[Bridewell]

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.

I agree.

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

His account is that Stride was still alive when he left the scene so I don't see what his evidence would add in establishing TOD. Only if his timing had been wildly inconsistent with the police surgeon's evidence would he have been needed IMHO.

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.

That's another possibility.

[Bridewell]

I'm suggesting it wasn't his real name ,therefore he was not in the habit of signing that particular name
That, to my mind , is easily is the most likely explanation for getting the H variations .

That would mean either that the police connived at the deception or that they didn't verify his identity, surely? I don't see either of those scenarios as likely.

[Bridewell]

So by your reasoning only Diemschutz needed to be called along with Phillips ?
I've heard this 'add nothing'argument many times and it's quite possibly the weakest get out clause in ripperology

Malcolm .... adds nothing
Smith ......adds nothing
Brown ..... adds nothing
Marshall ..... adds nothing

All called for absolutely no reason whatsoever .

Schwartz ..... almost certainly witnessed an assault on a woman who was found dead minutes later .
Not called because he could add nothing .

Ripperology at it's finest

One more time. The purpose of an inquest is to establish the identity of the victim, where, when and how the victim died.

Mary Malcolm, although later found to be mistaken, was positive that the victim was her sister. So that's to do with the identity and it's therefore untrue to claim that her evidence 'adds nothing'.

Smith confirms that Stride, whose body he saw in the mortuary, was the same woman he had seen alive on Berner Street a few minutes before her death which tends to confirm the where - that she wasn't killed elsewhere and her body moved to Berner Street. It is not true to say that his evidence 'adds nothing'.

Brown and Marshall, while they add nothing, both say that they were certain the woman they saw at or near the scene was the deceased which suggests that they had had the opportunity to see the body. This may be why they were called and Schwartz was not. Only the lond-dead coroner knows why he thought it appropriate to call the witnesses that he did and not Schwartz.. My point was, and remains, that his not being required by the coroner does not equate to his evidence being considered false or unreliable. It may have been but his absence from the inquest is not proof of the matter.