Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help On Some Details

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

  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Thanks Bridewell

    but it would have also help establish verdict, no? of willful murder. A man seen attacking the victim shortly before she was found dead.

    people were known to commit suicide by cutting there own throat.
    I hold the view (which I suspect you share?) that it is much more likely that the man Schwartz claims to have seen assaulting her was her killer than that the same woman was attacked twice in quick succession by two different men. The fact remains that Stride was still alive when Schwartz left the scene. He can't say who she was - doesn't know her. He can't say when or where she died because he wasn't there. He can't say how she died because the assault he witnessed wasn't fatal. I think it highly likely that Stride was killed by the same assailant almost immediately after Schwartz had left but that's not something within Schwartz's knowledge; he would have to speculate which he would not be allowed to do.
    In terms of a verdict, there was nothing in her history or actions earlier in the day to suggest that she might take her own life. Also, at that time suicide was a criminal offence so, murder or suicide, would both be unlawful killings anyway. The absence of a knife at the scene would make the latter highly unlikely.

    The verdict reached was wilful murder by a person or persons unknown. Would the calling of Israel Schwartz have resulted in a different outcome? It's hard to see how it could.


    The value of Schwartz was (would have been) as a trial witness when he could have given vital evidence for one side or the other. I suspect that the police would have been quite happy to keep him under wraps.
    Last edited by Bridewell; 01-08-2019, 03:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
    I agree.



    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.



    That's another possibility.
    Thanks Bridewell

    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.

    but it would have also help establish verdict, no? of willful murder. A man seen attacking the victim shortly before she was found dead.


    people were known to commit suicide by cutting there own throat.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Bridewell; 01-08-2019, 02:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    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?
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    The point is cause of death.

    The only opinion that counts at inquest is that of the Coroners. For the record Iím surprised Schwartz wasnít called as his evidence corroborates the medical evidence.

    However, the verdict was pretty much settled with or without Schwartzís testimony.

    Monty
    Unfortunately many people forget the purpose of an inquest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    Itís not Ripperology though is it?

    Itís 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'.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post
    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
    Itís not Ripperology though is it?

    Itís Inquest Coroners discretion.

    Monty

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
    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 .

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X