If Schwartz Lied ...

[c.d.]

Grow up Michael or as the American’s say “smell the coffee.”

We Yanks also say "don't let your mouth write a check your ass can't cash."

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Grow up Michael or as the American’s say “smell the coffee.”

We Yanks also say "don't let your mouth write a check your ass can't cash."

c.d.

[Varqm]

1. Schwartz was likely excluded from the Inquest because they didnt trust, or couldnt validate his story.

Agreed. But it was the coroner's call not the police.Same as Mathew Packer.Both believed by the police but not included in the inquest.Packer got dropped by 1 November 1888 (Evening News),we do not know of Schwartz.But no police memoirs recall any assault on a JTR victim minutes prior to their murders.
Not having Schwartz in the inquest was like not having Lawende and company in the Eddowes inquest,or Long or Cadosche in the Chapman inquest,Mary Ann Cox in Kelly's case even,incomplete.The only possible reason was he was not believed by the coroner,same as Packer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed. But it was the coroner's call not the police.Same as Mathew Packer.Both believed by the police but not included in the inquest.Packer got dropped by 1 November 1888 (Evening News),we do not know of Schwartz.But no police memoirs recall any assault on a JTR victim minutes prior to their murders.
Not having Schwartz in the inquest was like not having Lawende and company in the Eddowes inquest,or Long or Cadosche in the Chapman inquest,Mary Ann Cox in Kelly's case even,incomplete.The only possible reason was he was not believed by the coroner,same as Packer.

Please read David Orsam’s piece on this subject. It should now be closed. Game absolutely over. The idea that he wasn’t at the Inquest because the police didn’t believe him is simply childish reasoning that flies in the face of all of the evidence. This is black and white. I genuinely can’t see why anyone can’t understand this. What hope have we of debating the debatable issues when we persist in wasting time on nonsense?

[c.d.]

Hello Herlock,

What is the name of Orsam's piece on this? And where does it appear?

c.d.

[FrankO]

Hello Herlock,

What is the name of Orsam's piece on this? And where does it appear?

c.d.

Hi C.D.,

The title is "An inquiry into a coronor's inquiry" and you can find it here (on the lower half of the page):
https://www.orsam.co.uk/orsamsays14th.htm

All the best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Herlock,

What is the name of Orsam's piece on this? And where does it appear?

c.d.

Frank beat me to it

[FrankO]

I thought I'd save you and C.D. some time, Michael.

[Simon Wood]

L.O.—"Was Schwartz able to identify the deceased as Elizabeth Stride? Answer, no."

Chief Inspector Swanson, report dated 19th October 1888—

" . . . Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands. "

I believe that is known as evidence.

[Kattrup]

L.O.—"Was Schwartz able to identify the deceased as Elizabeth Stride? Answer, no."

Chief Inspector Swanson, report dated 19th October 1888—

" . . . Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands. "

I believe that is known as evidence.

Hi Simon, I think you've accidently copy-pasted a wrong part of the report, since nowhere in what you've quoted does it state that Schwartz could identify Stride as Stride.

Please quote the relevant part that you believe is known as evidence.

[Simon Wood]

What other women did Schwartz see that night who subsequently turned up on a mortuary slab?

[Kattrup]

What other women did Schwartz see that night who subsequently turned up on a mortuary slab?

How is that relevant to what you posted?

[Simon Wood]

If you can't work that out, you're not worth arguing with.

Take care.

[Kattrup]

If you can't work that out, you're not worth arguing with.

Take care.

Simon, that's not very nice.

The question you quoted was "Was Schwartz able to identify the deceased as Elizabeth Stride? Answer, no."

You then sought to refute that with a report which does not in fact state that Schwartz was able to identify her as Stride.

It merely states that Schwartz identified her as the woman he'd seen. But since he did not know Elisabeth Stride, he could not identify her as Elisabeth Stride.

Which brings us back to the original question you quoted. The purpose of the inquest was, among other things, to identify the victim. Could Schwartz help with that? No, he could not.

[Varqm]

Please read David Orsam’s piece on this subject. It should now be closed. Game absolutely over. The idea that he wasn’t at the Inquest because the police didn’t believe him is simply childish reasoning that flies in the face of all of the evidence. This is black and white. I genuinely can’t see why anyone can’t understand this. What hope have we of debating the debatable issues when we persist in wasting time on nonsense?

You can post it here as to Orsam's reason.It is pretty straightforward to me,based on Schwartz 2 very conflicting statements,how the Coroners run inquests - creating timelines of the victims death especially during the evening leading to early morning of the victims death and the body's discovery,the importance of stating that an assault occurred on the same spot minutes before where the the victims body was found.And based on the Coroner can call any witness he needed and:
Coroners Act 1887-
Where a person duly summoned to give evidence at an inquest does not,after being openly called three times,appear
to such summons,or,appearing,refuses without lawful excuse to answer a question put to him,the coroner may impose
on such person a fine not exceeding forty shillings.