Is Mr Schwartz the equivalent of a Hasidic Hutchinson?

Dave,

I do get your interest in the process and the parameters of Inquests in the LVP, and Im sure that topic alone is worth a book or full dissertation at the least....but it is Israel Schwartz and his conspicuous absence from the formal "community" hearing on the evidence gathered to that date regarding the murder of Liz Stride that I am interested in here.

And I would think that to not present information that was taken prior to the Inquest, that was supported in memos by the investigators, and that was vitally important if true, placing the victim in a potentially precarious situation minutes before she was killed,....seems to indicate that they thought it would not assist the jurors or the Coroner in making a determination of whether this was a suicide or murder.

Since people were known to cut their own throats, ...(you may refer to the young man from Poplar who killed himself the day Mary was buried for one), and since Strides cut is predominant on one side of her neck only,...suicide had to be ruled out first. A witness that provided a potential killer must have been worthy to present.....if believed.

The only reason to exclude his remarks are for that reason,...if he was not believed,.. or some value they felt he might have as a "secret witness". Since there is nothing to suggest he was a suppressed witness, nor anything that suggests he was a witness that police kept silent about and protected, ....it doesnt leave many sound reasons on the table for his absence.

Best regards again Dave....and Happy Fathers Day to you.

[Dave O]

Hi Michael,

No, forget about Schwartz for a moment. At this point I'm not even talking about him anymore. What I mean is that you need to do some research on inquest. Then you will be in a better position to decide some things for yourself, like whether it's so odd that William Wess was the first witness at the Stride inquest. No one can say why Schwartz wasn't at the inquest, but you can at least read up on procedure and have some citations to back up your assertions. When you're making an assessment of Blackwell's veracity, besides looking at newspaper accounts, maybe an examination of the different type of medical witnesses there were may help you.

It's not that I'm disagreeing with you, or know the answers myself. Listen, I've tried to study inquests for several years now, which is hardly a sufficient amount of time, but I've made an attempt at least. Stil I'm scratching my head about Schwartz. So it doesn't do to be too skeptical or dogmatic when you haven't studied how an inquest works at all. On what basis are you skeptical of anything? You don't have one; your own common sense won't do.

You see, you're making up your mind about my link before having read it, but my link isn't to do with Schwartz, which is why it's there and not here. It's background for The Good Michael.

Dave

Some interesting points from that Link to your thoughts about the Coroner Dave....

"For a coroner to withhold evidence or impose a verdict upon the jury was misconduct...."

"....you have the police investigation and then you have inquest, which is nothing more or less than the people’s open investigation, held by themselves and their appointed coroner, aided by the police and the testimony of witnesses and experts (of varied quality), using all their knowledge pooled together (even the jury was invited to use their own personal knowledge)..."

"I don’t really know how the police viewed the inquest—I wouldn’t be surprised if they saw it as wasting time with laymen when they could have been working. Perhaps it hindered the investigation (I don’t think it did) or there were times they were giving out too much information, but this was their system and there was a saying “Publicity is the soul of justice”.

Im not sure how this ties in with your inference that witness statements, if potentially important and fully believed by the Investigators....as it seems were both the case with Israel, may not have appeared at Inquests.

Seems to me you cite full disclosure as essential for the safety of the community, and that that would be the guideline.

Best regards Dave.

Hi Dave,

The inference that you make is that in the LVP, Its possible that critical witness evidence gathered and likely investigated prior to a formal hearing of it by a Jury may well be omitted from any mention at the proceedings....for reasons other than precaution or clandestine tangential investigations.

Meaning,......it would not be unusual to have found that vital witness accounts were not presented with the physical evidence at the Inquest...even though in the possession of the authorities in this case for 3 weeks before the Inquest closes.

I respect your opinion, and Ill check your link, but as you can tell I am extremely skeptical that anything deemed vitally important and not withheld for reasons of further investigation would be omitted purposefully.....if believed as truthful and accurate.

Perhaps there is some evidence of this type of event happening via your link....well see.

Israel Schwartz's account would be vitally important, a man seen accosting a woman openly and then scaring the witness off within 14 minutes of her being found dead mere feet away would be a logical primary suspect in her death. Particularly this death, which has no Ripper characteristics or signatures present.

Best regards Dave

[Dave O]

Hi Mike and Don,

Thanks for the kind word, Don. I don't claim expertise as that would be a very stupid and big-headed thing for me to do, and it would be wrong. But I have at least tried to study how inquests worked using as many sources as I can get my hands on. I've started a separate thread to answer you Mike, here http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...87&postcount=1

For the board in general: The point of this all this being, the relevance as Michael says, is if you're wondering why Schwartz was absent at this inquest, or wondering about the quality of medical evidence, or would like to know, I don't know, something simple and basic like HOW ONE OF OUR MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION WORKED, then the English inquest should be studied just as the police should be studied, if only to dispose of some ideas or shed some light on a few things. Although you may find no ultimate answer, at least you will have an acquaintance with procedure and develop A BASIS FOR KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I have provided some good sources above; I think they are now available online through google books. They're not as dry as you might think.

Dave

Hello all,

Forgive me, thats an interesting post by Dave, however I'm not seeing any relevance to the issue of why Schwartz might be absent from the formal proceedings in this instance.

It would seem his statement suggests an altercation with the deceased within minutes of her death just feet away from where it happens, and her assailant is described as confrontational with the witness. Im not sure what Dave meant by the LVP Inquests in this regard. Am I to assume that testimony like this if believed by the authorities would be suppressed to the extent it is completely absent from the formal records?

If its that important, then we must be missing all the vast documentation on how Schwartz is used as a witness or is working with police during and after the Inquest.

Arguably, the single best prospect for a Ripper suspect based on a witness sighting was Lawendes....and he is mentioned at the Inquest, and we are told they were working with him investigating it...and we do know they put him up in a hotel at some point to protect his identity while they worked with him.

What do we know about Israel?

That he gave a story, that in notation form it was supported by some senior authorities, that it is completely absent from the Inquest, and we know nothing of any special treatment or ongoing relationship with the authorities after his initial appearance in this story.

James Brown, a local and certainly not affiliated with the Club or the event that night, had a story too for 12:45am. His is told at the Inquest.

How does the above add up to Schwartz being believed and vital or important in any manner?

As I said early on, the only legitimate reason to suppress not only his complete story but his physical identity if not because he is disbelieved, is because it was important enough to keep secret.

Which seems more reasonable? With what is known. Is Schwartz the Jewish witness? Well, since his story appears in the murder least likely to have been a Ripper crime of all the Canonicals, and since Lawende's sighting catches a man with Kate who by the timing alone and by the actions taken almost must be the killer and very likely was the Ripper....I cant see how Israel can be considered to have been all that valuable.

And with the Stride Inquest recordings, I can see that he wasn't called to give his story at all, and James Brown was, and so was Lawende at Kates Inquest.

Best regards

[Supe]

Mike,

Good questions, but my knowledge is mostly limited to reading the work of Dave, Robert and John so I wouldn't presume to give any answers. Since Dave weighed in earlier today let us hope that he will respond to your queries soon.

Are you there Dave?

Don.

[The Good Michael]

Don and Dave,

When I read these inquest testimonies, I get the feeling that there is often posturing going on with the coroner playing the role of a upwardly mobile public official looking to further his career. Without going into specifics, there seems to be a lot of holes in the questioning, and the tone of the questioning takes center stage quite often. I believe some of the proceedings were detrimental to investigations, and that so much was left unasked that it was just a matter of going through the motions.

I assume that the appointment of coroner or deputy coroner was based upon political connections and not necessarily upon expertise. I also assume that there was no training for the position with regards to being able to conduct a good, sound investigation or inquiry, as a magistrate might have been able to do.

Are my thoughts correct about this? If so, this had to be a major hindrance to police investigation.

Also, upon finishing an inquest, was any power held by the coroner with regards to some sort of legal disposition toward witnesses?

Not the place for this, but it was the right time. Perhaps we can move it elsewhere if interest is sparked.

Cheers,

Mike

[Supe]

As an aside, Dave definitely knows the ins and outs of the Coronial system in Britain. And anyone seeking a full grounding in that subject would be well advised to read the multi-part series of articles--"The Green of the Peak: The Caronial System in Britain" Ripperologist 63-69 (January-July 2006)--that was written by Dave, John Savage and Robert Linford. A truly monumental tour de force that explains the system and provides full biographies of the cornoners associated with the Whitechapel murders.

Don.

[Dave O]

The Inquest is supposed to be "A judicial inquiry into a matter usually held before a jury, especially an inquiry into the cause of a death"...so why wouldnt a witnessed altercation with the deceased and a stranger mere feet and few minutes from her death be Inquest worthy?

Really. Dictionary.com offers the same bland, lifeless definition. For those who are really interested in discussing "why", it doesn't tell us anything about what inquests were like during the LVP, or how people interacted during them: the coroner with the police, the coroner with the jury, the coroner with the witness, the coroner with the medical witness, the coroner with his officer, the coroner and the press, etc. For that, law, parliamentary debate, Melsheimer's 5th edition of Jervis, and Wellington's The King's Coroner are good places to go.

To be fair to Dr Blackwell he was asked by the Coroner "how long had the deceased been dead when you saw her". It was his duty to estimate as best he can.

Hi Jon,

You might be interested in the following:

I would put it to you, sir, that when you are called before a jury of laymen to give evidence on technical questions they do expect that you will give a definite answer, and if you do not make a more or less dogmatic statement they will ask you for it, and they will press you for it. It is not always easy to say "I do not know." Most of us will admit it is a most difficult thing to ask a man who is supposed by his very position to be an expert to say "I do not know." He does say so at times. I have frequently heard it said that there was nothing definite. And then the question is put repeatedly, in form after form, by jurymen: "What do you think was the cause of death?" Or it may be put from the Bench in that way. I have had it done to myself: "Cannot you give me something more definite than that?" One is very strongly tempted to say, "I think probably so-and-so." But it is not returned as that; and we get it in the Council reports, sir, as a definite verdict. But please do not credit the medical man with having given it in that definite form. The object of an inquiry is to get a dogmatic statement of the cause of death, and with lay or legal coroners it is very often, I think, looked up as a sine qua non--at least, judging from personal experience in various parts of this country and several of our Crown colonies--to give such a statement. It has been my lot to be pressed into a very tight corner over and over again for a definite and dogmatic statement or opinion, when, as Dr. Smith truly says, it is utterly impossible to give one. Dr. Shepley Part, "A Discussion of Post-Mortem Examinations Which Do Not Reveal The Cause of Death", The Clinical Journal, April 04 1906, pp. 397-398.

Cheers,
Dave

[FrankO]

....but tell me, can you really stand by a "believed account" position when its blatantly obvious that he wasnt called at all, not on any day of the 5day Inquest.

I’m afraid I can, Mike. From their reports it’s clear that the police took Schwartz seriously throughout the inquest. Why else would Warren still have needed to write about Schwartz on 6 November, 2 weeks after the inquest had been concluded? Maybe he was discredited sometime after 6 November, but not before.

So, there’s really only one likely option: it wasn’t because Schwartz wasn’t believed any longer that he didn’t appear at the inquest, but because of some other important reason. It’s either that, or coroner Baxter for some reason just didn’t believe Schwartz. But considering the police clearly did, that seems unlikely to have been the case.

The answer is, It would of course be important and worthy for an Inquest, unless it could not be verified, trusted or believed. You can take your pick....but one of those words and some disbelief must be involved in the absence of Israel Schwartz.

That some of us today question Schwartz's veracity should be left out of the picture. Back then, the police clearly did take Schwartz seriously until 6 November at least. It’s there for everybody to see in the surviving documents. Furthermore, many witness statements could not be verified. Yet, they were made at inquests. So, my ‘pick’ is as stated above.

All the best, Mike.
Frank

[Chris]

I gave you a quote with no amibiguity and clear intent and you insult me?

Because you seem utterly incapable of understanding that your "quote with no amibiguity and clear intent" is only one of a host of contradictory reports about what Blackwell actually said - and it is in a definite minority, which gives weight to the suggestion that the reporter got it wrong.

Do you really not see that if you have a dozen contradictory reports of what someone said, then you don't actually know what they said?

And if you think that your crude insults and threats carry any weight, you're quite wrong. Don't think for a moment that I've forgotten your threatening behaviour a couple of years back when you went under another name. There's no reason anyone here should have to put up with that kind of thing.

I gave you a quote with no amibiguity and clear intent and you insult me?

You can consider yourself a very fortunate a**h*** that I dont have access to you like I do accurate press reports.

And for the last time, I could care less to hear what you believe about Blackwells cut time estimate on a thread created to discuss Schwartz's absence at the Inquest. Perhaps the fool here is the one who cant read a thread heading correctly......but claims to be able to accurately interpret nonsense.

Start your own fantasy thread if you want.

Cheers.

[Chris]

perrymason

I'm sorry to be blunt, but I don't think I have ever witnessed such pig-headedness and sheer stupidity in my life.

Yes, two reports of Blackwell's testimony say Stride had been dead "From twenty minutes to half an hour" (the Times and the Daily Telegraph).

But all the rest say something quite different. They say something like "I do not think the deceased could have been dead more than twenty minutes, or at the most half an hour" (Morning Advertiser).

There is absolutely nothing "incorrectly constructed" about that sentence, and there is nothing that is at all hard to understand. The meaning is perfectly clear and unambiguous.

And as if that weren't clear enough, Blackwell made a separate statement earlier on, in which he said simply that that he thought Stride "could not have been dead more than twenty minutes".

And, for the umpteenth time, no, Blackwell could not have estimated the time accurately to within a ten-minute period, as you have claimed. That's a matter of simple scientific fact.

Is it too much to hope that you will have the good grace to shut up, and stop wasting everybody's time with this nonsense? I suppose it is.

To be fair to Dr Blackwell he was asked by the Coroner "how long had the deceased been dead when you saw her". It was his duty to estimate as best he can.

Ive never been unfair to Blackwell Jon, people who assume a senior medic could not determine the time of a cut that in his own opinion was certainly made within a 1/2 hour, are.

His quote again, so any "contradictory" elements like in other press coverage mentioned will be visible to all.....

Coroner:" Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead?"
Blackwell: "From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived."

The only ambiguity in that remark is the missing "from" that is instead written as "when". It clearly denotes a time frame most likely, and that was from 12:46am to 12:56am by his remarks and his use of his own arrival time of 1:16am.

Yes, some papers say "not more" than 20 minutes, and then say he added "perhaps half and hour". Since this is an educated man having taken both written and oral English Language lessons, it would seem unlikely that he would use a sentence that is so very incorrectly constructed. Not more time clearly cannot be construed to mean more time....yet that quote suggests it was what he said anyway.

Thats why I agree some quotes are contradictory....and they suggest that Blackwell was at times incapable of proper sentences. Thats why I dont use them....because its clearly nonsense.

Best regards