Help On Some Details

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Bridewell]

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.

[packers stem]

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

Thank you Simon
I'd forgotten about Mrs Phoenix , couldn't have her rising from the flames could we ...

I suspect the line up for the stage show on the 12th was determined within hours and no late entries entertained

[Wickerman]

Unfortunately many people forget the purpose of an inquest.

I've lost count how many times I've had to lay out a reminder, an inquest is not a trail.
Some fail to appreciate the difference.

[Wickerman]

....

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.

And that!, in my view is what Swanson's opinion of Schwartz's evidence was intended for.

We have contentious arguments over the fact Swanson credits Schwartz as being reliable, yet the coroner did not call him for the inquest.
The two appear, on the surface to be contentious, but the value of Schwartz's evidence will be appreciated at a future trial. Whereas the more immediate inquest finds no real value in his evidence.

This I suspect is about as near a resolution for this conundrum we may ever get.

[Simon Wood]

Swanson never credited Schwartz as 'being reliable.'

[Darryl Kenyon]

Can I ask on here why some people feel that the coroner thought that Schwartz did not need to be called to the inquest please, when as I have mentioned previously that Brown and particularly Marshall where called. If an inquest was just to establish TOD, were and how?
I am no expert on police procedure but Marshall adds nothing to any of that. But he was questioned by the Coroner - [Coroner] Can you describe the man at all? - There was no gas-lamp near. The nearest was at the corner, about twenty feet off. I did not see the face of the man distinctly.
[Coroner] Did you notice how he was dressed? - In a black cut-away coat and dark trousers.
[Coroner] Was he young or old? - Middle-aged he seemed to be.
[Coroner] Was he wearing a hat? - No, a cap.
[Coroner] What sort of a cap? - A round cap, with a small peak. It was something like what a sailor would wear.
[Coroner] What height was he? - About 5ft. 6in.
[Coroner] Was he thin or stout? - Rather stout.
[Coroner] Did he look well dressed? - Decently dressed.
[Coroner] What class of man did he appear to be? - I should say he was in business, and did nothing like hard work.
[Coroner] Not like a dock labourer? - No.
[Coroner] Nor a sailor? - No.
[Coroner] Nor a butcher? - No.
[Coroner] A clerk? - He had more the appearance of a clerk.
[Coroner] Is that the best suggestion you can make? - It is.
Seems to me that he is trying to extract a description of a possible murderer.
So why not Schwartz?
Brown confirms that Liz was alive 15 mins before her body was found. That makes his sighting important as regards to TOD
So again why not Schwartz? Particularly since his evidence contradicts Brown on the TOD.
The only reason I personally can see why Schwartz was not called is because the police wanted to keep him under wraps.
But this has problems, if he was nervous and feared for his own safety why give the Star an interview? In fact why give the Star an interview at all. Surely if the police did want to keep him hidden in case it undermined a future trial they could have told him this. And once the cat was out of the bag why not call him to establish the differences between his interview and police statement. Also calling him to the inquest would have widened the scope to try and find Pipeman a vitally important witness prima facie [if he wasn't already found], as the newspapers would have been that medium.
Regards darryl

[Trevor Marriott]

Can I ask on here why some people feel that the coroner thought that Schwartz did not need to be called to the inquest please, when as I have mentioned previously that Brown and particularly Marshall where called. If an inquest was just to establish TOD, were and how?
I am no expert on police procedure but Marshall adds nothing to any of that. But he was questioned by the Coroner - [Coroner] Can you describe the man at all? - There was no gas-lamp near. The nearest was at the corner, about twenty feet off. I did not see the face of the man distinctly.
[Coroner] Did you notice how he was dressed? - In a black cut-away coat and dark trousers.
[Coroner] Was he young or old? - Middle-aged he seemed to be.
[Coroner] Was he wearing a hat? - No, a cap.
[Coroner] What sort of a cap? - A round cap, with a small peak. It was something like what a sailor would wear.
[Coroner] What height was he? - About 5ft. 6in.
[Coroner] Was he thin or stout? - Rather stout.
[Coroner] Did he look well dressed? - Decently dressed.
[Coroner] What class of man did he appear to be? - I should say he was in business, and did nothing like hard work.
[Coroner] Not like a dock labourer? - No.
[Coroner] Nor a sailor? - No.
[Coroner] Nor a butcher? - No.
[Coroner] A clerk? - He had more the appearance of a clerk.
[Coroner] Is that the best suggestion you can make? - It is.
Seems to me that he is trying to extract a description of a possible murderer.
So why not Schwartz?
Brown confirms that Liz was alive 15 mins before her body was found. That makes his sighting important as regards to TOD
So again why not Schwartz? Particularly since his evidence contradicts Brown on the TOD.
The only reason I personally can see why Schwartz was not called is because the police wanted to keep him under wraps.
But this has problems, if he was nervous and feared for his own safety why give the Star an interview? In fact why give the Star an interview at all. Surely if the police did want to keep him hidden in case it undermined a future trial they could have told him this. And once the cat was out of the bag why not call him to establish the differences between his interview and police statement. Also calling him to the inquest would have widened the scope to try and find Pipeman a vitally important witness prima facie [if he wasn't already found], as the newspapers would have been that medium.
Regards darryl

I would suggest the time of death of Stride is a very contentious issue. as is the identification by Brown who it is suggested was the last person to see Stride alive at about 12,45am. If you regard his evidence as being unreliable which I do then it opens up a whole new can of worms as to when she was killed.

We have no evidence to tell us how busy Berner Street was at that time of the morning, how many males and females were moving about, how many people were loitering around the Chandlers shop, or in the vicinity of the club.

We have no idea as to how far away the couple were described by Brown, or what the lighting conditions were where he saw them, or how close he came to them.

[Coroner] Did you see enough to make you certain that the deceased was the woman? - I am almost certain.
[Coroner] Did you notice any flower in her dress? - No.

As is known Stride had a flower attached to her dress. so that may mean Brown was mistaken about who he actually saw.

As to the identification he made at the mortuary that again is unreliable. We know it was the practice that when bodies were taken to the mortuaries, they were stripped of all clothing. So did Brown make his identification of Stride simply by facial recognition if so that must be unreliable because he it would seem was never that close to her.

On a further note he cannot remember whether the man with this female was wearing a hat or not..

So realistically his evidence is totally unreliable.

Much of what I have stated above also refers to the Schwartz identification

Even today identification in criminal investigations and trials come under close scrutiny, and as a result of the case of R v Turnbull 1976, a number of guidelines were introduced and adopted to assist the courts and juries.

A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE:

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

Time lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

I know these guidelines were adopted for use in connection with the identification of modern-day offenders and suspects however; they can still safely be applied to the various witnesses and the description they give from 1888. Taking all that into account I would reiterate that in any event the various witness descriptions and timings are unsafe and should not be totally relied upon.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[packers stem]

I would suggest the time of death of Stride is a very contentious issue. as is the identification by Brown who it is suggested was the last person to see Stride alive at about 12,45am. If you regard his evidence as being unreliable which I do then it opens up a whole new can of worms as to when she was killed.

We have no evidence to tell us how busy Berner Street was at that time of the morning, how many males and females were moving about, how many people were loitering around the Chandlers shop, or in the vicinity of the club.

We have no idea as to how far away the couple were described by Brown, or what the lighting conditions were where he saw them, or how close he came to them.

[Coroner] Did you see enough to make you certain that the deceased was the woman? - I am almost certain.
[Coroner] Did you notice any flower in her dress? - No.

As is known Stride had a flower attached to her dress. so that may mean Brown was mistaken about who he actually saw.

As to the identification he made at the mortuary that again is unreliable. We know it was the practice that when bodies were taken to the mortuaries, they were stripped of all clothing. So did Brown make his identification of Stride simply by facial recognition if so that must be unreliable because he it would seem was never that close to her.

On a further note he cannot remember whether the man with this female was wearing a hat or not..

So realistically his evidence is totally unreliable.

Much of what I have stated above also refers to the Schwartz identification

Even today identification in criminal investigations and trials come under close scrutiny, and as a result of the case of R v Turnbull 1976, a number of guidelines were introduced and adopted to assist the courts and juries.

A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE:

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

Time lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

I know these guidelines were adopted for use in connection with the identification of modern-day offenders and suspects however; they can still safely be applied to the various witnesses and the description they give from 1888. Taking all that into account I would reiterate that in any event the various witness descriptions and timings are unsafe and should not be totally relied upon.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And the only witness to ever come close to satisfying ADVOKATE guidelines would be ......
Caroline Maxwell
Strange that

[Sam Flynn]

And the only witness to ever come close to satisfying ADVOKATE guidelines would be ......
Caroline Maxwell

I'd say that George Hutchinson comes pretty darned close to meeting those criteria, perhaps more so than Caroline Maxwell.

[packers stem]

I'd say that George Hutchinson comes pretty darned close to meeting those criteria, perhaps more so than Caroline Maxwell.

Thought we were talking about 'real' witnesses only ?

[Sam Flynn]

Thought we were talking about 'real' witnesses only ?

He was real enough - whether his story was real is another matter. Taken at face value, Hutchinson fits the ADVOKATE criteria very well.

[Monty]

He was real enough - whether his story was real is another matter. Taken at face value, Hutchinson fits the ADVOKATE criteria very well.

ADVOKATE?

Sounds familiar.

Monty

[Monty]

I would suggest the time of death of Stride is a very contentious issue. as is the identification by Brown who it is suggested was the last person to see Stride alive at about 12,45am. If you regard his evidence as being unreliable which I do then it opens up a whole new can of worms as to when she was killed.

We have no evidence to tell us how busy Berner Street was at that time of the morning, how many males and females were moving about, how many people were loitering around the Chandlers shop, or in the vicinity of the club.

We have no idea as to how far away the couple were described by Brown, or what the lighting conditions were where he saw them, or how close he came to them.

[Coroner] Did you see enough to make you certain that the deceased was the woman? - I am almost certain.
[Coroner] Did you notice any flower in her dress? - No.

As is known Stride had a flower attached to her dress. so that may mean Brown was mistaken about who he actually saw.

As to the identification he made at the mortuary that again is unreliable. We know it was the practice that when bodies were taken to the mortuaries, they were stripped of all clothing. So did Brown make his identification of Stride simply by facial recognition if so that must be unreliable because he it would seem was never that close to her.

On a further note he cannot remember whether the man with this female was wearing a hat or not..

So realistically his evidence is totally unreliable.

Much of what I have stated above also refers to the Schwartz identification

Even today identification in criminal investigations and trials come under close scrutiny, and as a result of the case of R v Turnbull 1976, a number of guidelines were introduced and adopted to assist the courts and juries.

A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE:

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

Time lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

I know these guidelines were adopted for use in connection with the identification of modern-day offenders and suspects however; they can still safely be applied to the various witnesses and the description they give from 1888. Taking all that into account I would reiterate that in any event the various witness descriptions and timings are unsafe and should not be totally relied upon.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I include the use of ADVOKATE in my book, also in relation to Hutchinson. Evidence shows the Victorian Bobby used this criteria, or rather a form of it.

An ANACAPA exercise could be useful, if complex. If anyone had the time and inclination it would result in the reduction of a lot of pointless speculation seen on this thread. And elsewhere for that matter.

Monty

[Abby Normal]

And that!, in my view is what Swanson's opinion of Schwartz's evidence was intended for.

We have contentious arguments over the fact Swanson credits Schwartz as being reliable, yet the coroner did not call him for the inquest.
The two appear, on the surface to be contentious, but the value of Schwartz's evidence will be appreciated at a future trial. Whereas the more immediate inquest finds no real value in his evidence.

This I suspect is about as near a resolution for this conundrum we may ever get.

hi wick and bridewell
are you suggesting that the police intentionally kept him away from the inquest?

why?

how would that negatively affect or impede there use for him at trial?