If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why Schwartz would have been called? Really? You really dont see how a witnessed assault just before her murder might affect the question.. the very question.. the Inquest is tasked to answer? And why we can say he wasnt there is pretty simple too....there is no record of him there. Or his story. None. People referring to him and mentioning the Inquest in the same breath were obviously in error...but that was in memos, not on a report, anyway. Perhaps something akin to mentioning a primary Suspect in a memo that it turns out was in jail the whole time.

I’ve never questioned the fact that he wasn’t at the Inquest. He wasn’t there.

You seem to believe that Inquests serve the purpose that you require of them rather than what they’re actually for. Why do we have to keep repeating facts Michael? We know the aims of an Inquest. We’re not guessing them, we’re not imagining them, we’re not ‘what-iffing’ them. We know. We know because it’s in writing. And yet Michael you persist in disputing it. Would you suggest that murder is actually legal? I just don’t get it. Why do you keep on with this?

1. He couldn’t identify her as Elizabeth Stride. 2. He couldn’t add to where she was killed because that wasn’t in question. 3. The TOD was arrived at by a Doctor so all that he’d have been able to have done was to have said that she was still alive at 12.45. 4. He couldn’t add to how she met her death. How were any of these vital to the aims of the Inquest? Answer - they very obviously don’t.

Your star witness Fanny Mortimer was 2 doors away. She was ‘allegedly’ on her doorstep at the time of the Schwartz incident. She heard Diemschutz return and so could confirm his arrival. Plus she saw the body and was in the yard immediately after the discovery of the body. Why wasn’t she called? Did the police not believe her? Why weren’t your 2 favourite witnesses Hoschberg and Koz called?

We do not know why Schwartz wasn’t called but we know for an absolutely provable fact that it wasn’t because the Coroner didn’t believe him. It wasn’t the Coroners job to do that for a start. Why didn’t he ditch Mary Malcolm when he obviously disbelieved her.

Its way past time that you simply conceded this point Michael.

[GBinOz]

I’ve never questioned the fact that he wasn’t at the Inquest. He wasn’t there.

You seem to believe that Inquests serve the purpose that you require of them rather than what they’re actually for. Why do we have to keep repeating facts Michael? We know the aims of an Inquest. We’re not guessing them, we’re not imagining them, we’re not ‘what-iffing’ them. We know. We know because it’s in writing. And yet Michael you persist in disputing it. Would you suggest that murder is actually legal? I just don’t get it. Why do you keep on with this?

1. He couldn’t identify her as Elizabeth Stride. 2. He couldn’t add to where she was killed because that wasn’t in question. 3. The TOD was arrived at by a Doctor so all that he’d have been able to have done was to have said that she was still alive at 12.45. 4. He couldn’t add to how she met her death. How were any of these vital to the aims of the Inquest? Answer - they very obviously don’t.

We do not know why Schwartz wasn’t called but we know for an absolutely provable fact that it wasn’t because the Coroner didn’t believe him. It wasn’t the Coroners job to do that for a start. Why didn’t he ditch Mary Malcolm when he obviously disbelieved her.

Its way past time that you simply conceded this point Michael.

Hi Herlock,

Could your please state, into which of your categories does Wess, Eagle, Spooner, Marshall and Brown fit?

You state for a fact that Schwartz wasn't at the inquest, but Anderson and Warren's memos suggest otherwise. You can't state that he didn't testify to the inquest as the transcript of the inquest has been lost. If there was an "in camera" inquest on the Thurday, the press wouldn't have been present so we would not have their reports. How can Schwartz be unimportant as a witness and also be suggested as Anderson's witness? Or if Lawende was Anderson's witness, into which of your categories did he fall?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Could your please state, into which of your categories does Wess, Eagle, Spooner, Marshall and Brown fit?

You state for a fact that Schwartz wasn't at the inquest, but Anderson and Warren's memos suggest otherwise. You can't state that he didn't testify to the inquest as the transcript of the inquest has been lost. If there was an "in camera" inquest on the Thurday, the press wouldn't have been present so we would not have their reports. How can Schwartz be unimportant as a witness and also be suggested as Anderson's witness? Or if Lawende was Anderson's witness, into which of your categories did he fall?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

All I can say is that the aims of the Inquest as stated previously are a fact. David Orsam made 8 suggestions as possible reasons why Schwartz might not have attended the Inquest. I think it was Wickerman who showed that ‘in camera’ testimony would still have been mentioned and so wouldn’t have gone unnoticed for 130 years (other than that I can’t comment on ‘in camera’ testimony.)

I made two suggestions of my own for what they’re worth. Maybe Schwartz genuinely believed that his life was in danger from the ripper, who had shouted threateningly at him, and so either, a) he went into hiding - possibly staying with a friend somewhere until the Inquest was over, or b) he expressed this fear to the Police and asked to be ‘excused’ from the Inquest. And as he wasn’t vital to those 4 aims the Coroner either assented or the Police didn’t give the Coroner his name.

One thought about ‘in camera’ testimony George. Wouldn’t the Press have gotten wind of it in some way? At least to the point of being able to mention the fact that a witness gave his testimony in secret?

[Herlock Sholmes]

We know Abberline was a well respected police officer and that he was tasked to find the ripper. We know that he, like the rest of the police, were under immense pressure from above and below. We also know that he believed that Israel Schwartz told the truth. So would he have been so blasé about the risk of following a duff lead without doing the bare minimum of checking? Should we assume that he simply ignored testimony from a woman that contradicted Schwartz or would he have checked?

We are left with fragments of statements received via the Press which is ripe ground for filling on the gaps (whether accurately or inaccurately) for reading between lines. Abberline on the other hand heard the lot. Often face to face with the witnesses. So is it impossible or unlikely that he checked out Mortimer before realising that her statement didn’t discount Schwartz. Would he have continued with Schwartz otherwise?

Abberline knew the full story. He knew that Mortimer’s evidence didn’t disprove Schwartz.

Why do we presume to know more than him?

[Michael W Richards]

I’ve never questioned the fact that he wasn’t at the Inquest. He wasn’t there.

You seem to believe that Inquests serve the purpose that you require of them rather than what they’re actually for. Why do we have to keep repeating facts Michael? We know the aims of an Inquest. We’re not guessing them, we’re not imagining them, we’re not ‘what-iffing’ them. We know. We know because it’s in writing. And yet Michael you persist in disputing it. Would you suggest that murder is actually legal? I just don’t get it. Why do you keep on with this?

Im pretty sure by the repetitive questioning about specifically what an Inquest is charged with in the LVP means you dont know. A definition would be that "an Inquest is an official fact-finding inquiry following a death. This is carried out by a coroner and the purpose is to answer four questions: 1. Who died 2. Where did they die 3. When did they die 4. How did they die (or sometimes in what circumstances the deceased came by their death)."

Now that we have the criteria, tell me again why what Israel Schwartz claimed to have seen happen to Liz Stride wouldnt be extremely germane to the Inquest objectives? Presumably he identifies Stride, he sees where she attacked just before being mortally injured, he knows an approximate time for when he saw it, and based on his sighting, Wilful Murder looks very likely for How. His story addresses ALL of the salient criteria.

So, why is he absent again?

[c.d.]

So, why is he absent again?

I don't know. Do you? And I mean actually know not speculate.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im pretty sure by the repetitive questioning about specifically what an Inquest is charged with in the LVP means you dont know. A definition would be that "an Inquest is an official fact-finding inquiry following a death. This is carried out by a coroner and the purpose is to answer four questions: 1. Who died 2. Where did they die 3. When did they die 4. How did they die (or sometimes in what circumstances the deceased came by their death)."

Now that we have the criteria, tell me again why what Israel Schwartz claimed to have seen happen to Liz Stride wouldnt be extremely germane to the Inquest objectives? Presumably he identifies Stride, he sees where she attacked just before being mortally injured, he knows an approximate time for when he saw it, and based on his sighting, Wilful Murder looks very likely for How. His story addresses ALL of the salient criteria.

So, why is he absent again?

No he doesn’t identify Stride. It wasn’t a case of saying “yes, that was the woman that I saw,” it had to be someone who could say “I can tell you that the dead woman was called Elizabeth Stride.” Schwartz couldn’t do that as he didn’t know her name. OBVIOUSLY.

He sees where she was attacked but she wasn’t found on the street. They didn’t need Schwartz to know where she was killed. The doctors and the police all stated that she was killed where she was found. So Schwartz wasn’t required for that. OBVIOUSLY.

On the question of how she died. Schwartz wasn’t there when she died. He didn’t see her being strangled and he didn’t see her being attacked with a knife let alone having her throat cut. The doctors told the Coroner categorically how Stride met her death. Schwartz was absolutely surplus to requirements on that. OBVIOUSLY.

On the question of when she died. It wasn’t the duty of a Coroner to resolve the TOD ( Hough my often shows interest in it) So as the Inquest didn’t aim to prove TOD the Schwartz possible sighting of Stride at 12.45 was neither her nor them on that issue. OBVIOUSLY.


I really can’t make it clearer. These are facts and not opinions. You are stating your opinions as facts.

ISRAEL SCHWARTZ CATEGORICALLY WASN'T EXCLUDED FROM THE INQUEST BECAUSE THE CORONER DIDN'T BELIEVE HIM.

AND HE CATEGORICALLY WASNT A VITAL WITNESS IN ACHIEVING THE 4 SPECIFIC AIMS OF AN INQUEST.

WHEN WILL THIS INCONVENIENT FACT SINK IN?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, why is he absent again?

I don't know. Do you? And I mean actually know not speculate.

c.d.

No c.d. h doesn’t. He just desperately needs Schwartz to be discredited to bolster a discredited theory. It’s staggering and sad.

[Michael W Richards]

So, why is he absent again?

I don't know. Do you? And I mean actually know not speculate.

c.d.

You see cd, this kind of argument calls for a suspension of application of logic and reason, and that for me doesnt work. You have the facts, he isnt coinsidered of value at the Inquest, so why would you use his story in any reconstruction attempts for that last half hour? They didnt think he mattered, though clearly his story would have if believed, so......

There are a variety of reasons that happened. But the most obvious and reasonable and logical is that they did not believe, or could not prove, anything he said in his statement.

[c.d.]

You see cd, this kind of argument calls for a suspension of application of logic and reason, and that for me doesnt work. You have the facts, he isnt coinsidered of value at the Inquest, so why would you use his story in any reconstruction attempts for that last half hour? They didnt think he mattered, though clearly his story would have if believed, so......

There are a variety of reasons that happened. But the most obvious and reasonable and logical is that they did not believe, or could not prove, anything he said in his statement.

So in other other words you don't actually know but are simply speculating. Thanks for clearing that up.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

So, why is he absent again?

I don't know. Do you? And I mean actually know not speculate.

c.d.

I see HS chimed in to sling some arrows,.....as Ive pointed out rather politely...you should consider that on occassion,....it seems Israel Schwartz was not considered useful. Why, as I said could be many reasons, but clearly..the most obvious are the 2 I mentioned. Lack of belief or inability to verify.

Now that we have at least established he wasnt there...(you both have hung onto that point for way too long, nice to have some progress)....try formulating your own hypothesis without BSM or Pipeman, Stride alive and on the street...that whole interaction, and that 12:45 time slot. Suddenly the empty street as stated by multiple witnesses around 12:40-45, locals not seeing Stride after 12:35, and the multiple witnesses who say they saw Stride on the ground dying in the passageway at 12:40-45, dont seem improbable.

Some witnesses claim differently, but none of those witnesses have secondary sources that back up what they claim.

[Michael W Richards]

So in other other words you don't actually know but are simply speculating. Thanks for clearing that up.

c.d.

Not quite, Im avoiding being oblivious to the obvious. Big differences there.

[c.d.]

Not quite, Im avoiding being oblivious to the obvious. Big differences there.

Good Lord! You are harder to hit than those moving ducks in a carnival shooting gallery. You are going to wear out your shoes tap dancing.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see HS chimed in to sling some arrows,.....as Ive pointed out rather politely...you should consider that on occassion,....it seems Israel Schwartz was not considered useful. Why, as I said could be many reasons, but clearly..the most obvious are the 2 I mentioned. Lack of belief or inability to verify.

Now that we have at least established he wasnt there...(you both have hung onto that point for way too long, nice to have some progress)....try formulating your own hypothesis without BSM or Pipeman, Stride alive and on the street...that whole interaction, and that 12:45 time slot. Suddenly the empty street as stated by multiple witnesses around 12:40-45, locals not seeing Stride after 12:35, and the multiple witnesses who say they saw Stride on the ground dying in the passageway at 12:40-45, dont seem improbable.

Some witnesses claim differently, but none of those witnesses have secondary sources that back up what they claim.

Pease explain why you make an issue of me accepting that Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest? I have never claimed that he was or might have been at the Inquest. I have ALWAYS said that he wasn’t at the Inquest.

Why the need to invent things?

[c.d.]

Now that we have at least established he wasnt there...(you both have hung onto that point for way too long, nice to have some progress)

Uh...no, not me. I have never stated or implied that he was at the inquest.

c.d.