Help On Some Details

[Observer]

I totally agree.

So you're familiar with the yam yam accent then

[MrBarnett]

So you're familiar with the yam yam accent then

Not really, although my horse-slaughtering ancestors moved from Whitechapel to Wolves/Bilston briefly (1850-60).

[MrBarnett]

Black Country?

https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=25710&highlight=black+country+kate

[Wickerman]

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?

[Wickerman]

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

[GUT]

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

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

Not uncommon then, or now.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Monty]

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

[Observer]

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.

[Observer]

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.

[Observer]

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?

[Wickerman]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.