Is Mr Schwartz the equivalent of a Hasidic Hutchinson?

[Chris]

perrymason

Well, I've already quoted to you the statement Blackwell made before the inquest, in which he said precisely that - "She could not have been dead more than twenty minutes, the body being perfectly warm."

And please do not misrepresent what I am saying. What I am doing is pointing out the contradictions between the different reports of Blackwell's testimony. I am not suggesting that we "discard" any of the reports.

As I keep saying, you can pick whichever report you like, and you can choose to believe what you like. Just don't mislead people by pretending the other versions don't exist, or pretending they mean the same thing, when they clearly don't.

[perrymason]

IM not pretending to read anything Chris....its there in black and white, as I quoted, and clearly so. And I dont need to win an argument here, I only used the good doctors own words, which included commentary on the time that single artery wound would take to bleed out......But root around for whatever suits you better by all means.....it has little or nothing to do with the thread anyway.

Which was.... what evidence exists beyond notations and commentary that Israel Schwartz was considered a credible and important witness?

And if his total absence in the official recording of the evidence gathered for the Liz Stride Inquest indicates he was not, then James Browns formal appearance providing a story that takes place at the same time as Schwartz's did must indicate they preferred his version of events at 12:45am to Israels.

Best regards

[Chris]

perrymason

As I've pointed out to you literally twenty or thirty times now, we don't have "the good doctors own words", we have various contradictory press reports of what he said.

It makes no more sense for you to pick the Telegraph version and say "its there in black and white" than it would for me to pick any of the other versions and say the same thing.

What do you find so hard about saying "Yes, the evidence about what Blackwell said is contradictory"?

[perrymason]

What do you find so hard about saying "Yes, the evidence about what Blackwell said is contradictory"?

Nothing. Some is.

Regards

[drstrange169]

T.O.D.

What time it actually rained is not important in this instance. What's relevant is the time Dr. Blackwell thought it rained. It’s an odd piece of testimony from Doc B. to have the sentences follow consecutively if he didn’t intend them to be related, as one negates the other if he knew the actuall time of rainfall. It’s all ripper lotto in the end, modern day researchers guessing at a meaning.

Not to tag team Tom but the fact that Blackwell’s time frame coincides with what he would have heard witnesses say, opens up another interpretation.

With specific reference to Michael’s comment,

“This guy was an expert, thats why he was brought there.”

I’d have to strongly disagree.
Blackwell was there by happenstance only. 100 Commercial Street was simply the nearest doctor’s office to the crime and it just so happened that Blackwell was there not Dr Kaye. To date I’ve only found one instance of Blackwell being involved in another murder case, so “expert” is definitely not an appropriate noun. Dr. Phillips on the other hand was an expert and it was his opinion that she had been alive, “within an hour” of his arrival. Unfortunately we don’t know exactly when he arrived. Some time between 1.40 and 2.00.

Yet another problem with the "10 minute" theory, is synchronicity. We have know idea if Blackwell’s 1:16 watch was on the same time frame as Diemshitz’s I.00. In fact the information we have suggests the timings are out of synchronisation. Spooner claimed he saw “two Jews running” at 12:55.
PC Lamb said he saw his running Jews, “shortly before 1.00”.
Both of which put Diemshitz’s discovery 10 minutes earlier!

All guess work aside, the unalerable fact is, Dr. Blackwell did not have the medical ability to pin the death to a ten minute window. If that was his intent, he should not be deemed credible.

[Jon Guy]

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.

[FrankO]

Which was.... what evidence exists beyond notations and commentary that Israel Schwartz was considered a credible and important witness?

And if his total absence in the official recording of the evidence gathered for the Liz Stride Inquest indicates he was not, then James Browns formal appearance providing a story that takes place at the same time as Schwartz's did must indicate they preferred his version of events at 12:45am to Israels.

Hi Mike,

Although it may be something of a mystery why Schwartz didn’t appear at the inquest, he definitely wasn’t considered an incredible or unimportant witness. From the existing police reports it can be gleaned that the police in fact placed a great deal of credence in Schwartz’s account. Abberline ‘closely questioned’ Schwartz, the cry of ‘Lipski’ seriously kept the police busy for some time, he was even taken to the mortuary to identify Stride’s body and, with the inquest well underway, almost 3 weeks after her murder he’s still in Swanson’s summarizing report and even in a report by Warren himself on 6 November, 2 weeks after the inquest into Stride's death had been concluded.

Perhaps the inquest didn’t find Schwartz important (although I highly doubt that), perhaps they did find him important, but for whatever important or logical reason he wasn’t called to give his testimony there. Maybe it was because he didn’t speak English, maybe the police wanted to keep his account back, maybe Schwartz was too scared.

But even regardless of all that, when comparing the accounts of both men the suggestion that the inquest would have preferred Brown’s over Schwartz’s seems quite implausible and unlikely. Brown simply didn’t have much to contribute, while this can’t be said of Schwartz.

Cheers,
Frank

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,

Although it may be something of a mystery why Schwartz didn’t appear at the inquest, he definitely wasn’t considered an incredible or unimportant witness. From the existing police reports it can be gleaned that the police in fact placed a great deal of credence in Schwartz’s account. Abberline ‘closely questioned’ Schwartz, the cry of ‘Lipski’ seriously kept the police busy for some time, he was even taken to the mortuary to identify Stride’s body and, with the inquest well underway, almost 3 weeks after her murder he’s still in Swanson’s summarizing report and even in a report by Warren himself on 6 November, 2 weeks after the inquest into Stride's death had been concluded.

Perhaps the inquest didn’t find Schwartz important (although I highly doubt that), perhaps they did find him important, but for whatever important or logical reason he wasn’t called to give his testimony there. Maybe it was because he didn’t speak English, maybe the police wanted to keep his account back, maybe Schwartz was too scared.

But even regardless of all that, when comparing the accounts of both men the suggestion that the inquest would have preferred Brown’s over Schwartz’s seems quite implausible and unlikely. Brown simply didn’t have much to contribute, while this can’t be said of Schwartz.

Cheers,
Frank

Frank, there is nothing in your post that is illogical, ill informed or unreasonable. Aside from perhaps suggesting that Israels story took three weeks and 5 Inquest days to validate or invalidate.

Regardless, Brown WAS the Inquest choice for the witness at 12:45am, Schwartz is not even mentioned nor was his story, so any support that Israel is given is written and without substance in real form. All that is missing when comparing the trust of his story is the formal declaration that the witness was "discredited"...just like Hutchinson was 72 hours after he gave his story.

I know it seems to many that he had support and was believed, yet few seem to accept that witnesses with stories that are believed and important would be required to take the stand at Inquest and tell them. Schwartz's story is in the press and reminiscences, not on record as official evidence collected for the Stride Inquest.

I know its hard to alter a perception on Israel....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 5 day Inquest.

I think suggesting he was believed even though he is not even a part of the proceedings is akin to suggesting that even though Hutchinson was discredited by the officials, he was telling the truth.

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?

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.

Best regards Frank.

[perrymason]

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

[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.

[perrymason]

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]

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.

[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

[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

[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.