If Schwartz Lied ...

[Simon Wood]

Hi Kattrup,

There's no reason on God's green earth why Schwartz should have known she was Elizabeth Stride. He only knew her as the woman he had seen attacked, the same woman whom he subsequently identified at the mortuary. She had no facial disfigurations, so how could Schwartz have been mistaken. And as there were no other women in the mortuary at the time, he was hardly spoiled for choice.

Simon

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup,

There's no reason on God's green earth why Schwartz should have known she was Elizabeth Stride. He only knew her as the woman he had seen attacked, the same woman whom he subsequently identified at the mortuary. She had no facial disfigurations, so how could Schwartz have been mistaken. And as there were no other women in the mortuary at the time, he was hardly spoiled for choice.

Simon

So you agree that Schwartz could not identify Stride AS Stride. Great.


Isn't that exactly what the statement you sought to refute also said? "Was Schwartz able to identify the deceased as Elizabeth Stride? Answer, no."

Hmm, yes, it is. Was there a point, then, to your posting?

[Varqm]

You can post it here as to Orsam's reason.It is pretty straightforward to me,based on:
- Schwartz's 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 victims body was found.
-the Coroner can call any witness he needed ,he can instruct the police to find the witness
-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.

The Coroner had to be objective and would not spend arguing with a witness whether his statement no. 1 was the correct statement or statement 2.With no science(DNA,fingerprints) the police relied on witnesses and JTR caught in the act to apprehend JTR and would hold on to a witness more,like Matthew Packer.The Coroner had no such concerns.

but the police have to deal with:

Superintendent Foster:

There are many people in that district who volunteer information to the police on the principle of securing lenient treatment for their own offences, and there are others who turn in descriptions on the chance of coming near enough the mark to claim a portion of the reward if the man should be caught, just as one buys a ticket in a lottery. Even where such information is given in good faith, it can rarely be looked upon in the light of a clue.
SUPERINTENDENT FORSTER stated to a Star reporter this morning that he believed they had to deal with a man who was far too clever to go about boasting of what he was going to do. Every drunken man was more or less liable to seek a temporary notoriety by proclaiming himself the Whitechapel murderer. Very many of these reports are taken in hand by the detectives at once, not so much because they expect to get a clue out of them as because it might be unsafe to neglect anything of that character.

The Star
Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom.
LONDON. TUESDAY, 2 OCTOBER, 1888.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Kattrup,

Your logic is mind-boggling.

I think you may have fallen under the spell of L.O., who is to the subject at hand what Socrates was to spot-welding.

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

You just can't have read it if you stand by your original belief Varqm. He deals with every point in detail. It's a slam dunk. Game over for that particular point. Schwartz categorically wasn't left out of the Inquest because the police didn't believe or trust him.

[rjpalmer]

So you agree that Schwartz could not identify Stride AS Stride. Great.


Isn't that exactly what the statement you sought to refute also said? "Was Schwartz able to identify the deceased as Elizabeth Stride? Answer, no."

Hmm, yes, it is. Was there a point, then, to your posting?

I've read Lord Orsam's article, and don't dispute that Schwartz was not required to attend.

At the same time, couldn't one genuinely wonder why he wasn't brought before the inquest anyway--all conspiracy theories aside?

After all, Lawende could not identify Eddowes as Eddowes, but only as the woman he had seen (and he could barely do that); Long could not identify Chapman as Chapman, but only the woman she had seen; Jumbo Fryday could not identify Coles as Coles, but only the woman he had seen.

Yet all three appeared, and Baxter was the coroner in two of those cases, just as he was the coroner at the Stride inquest.

So couldn't one argue that the 'powers that be' are holding their cards a little closer to their vest in this particular instance?

Any thoughts? Yes? No? Maybe?

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

A very fair point.

Simon

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I've read Lord Orsam's article, and don't dispute that Schwartz was not required to attend.

At the same time, couldn't one genuinely wonder why he wasn't brought before the inquest anyway--all conspiracy theories aside?

After all, Lawende could not identify Eddowes as Eddowes, but only as the woman he had seen (and he could barely do that); Long could not identify Chapman as Chapman, but only the woman she had seen; Jumbo Fryday could not identify Coles as Coles, but only the woman he had seen.

Yet all three appeared, and Baxter was the coroner in two of those cases, just as he was the coroner at the Stride inquest.

So couldn't one argue that the 'powers that be' are holding their cards a little closer to their vest in this particular instance?

Any thoughts? Yes? No? Maybe?

Hi RJ,

Yes, my sentiments exactly. I can't really fathom a good reason to actively leave Schwartz out, especially given the calibre of witnesses across all the inquests. I honestly think that if he was available, he'd have been there. Sadly, without any further information the door to conspiracy is open. But there is certainly enough evidence to show that the authorities were acting on his statement after the inquest. Could they have intentionally witheld his evidence? It's not an unreasonable assumption, but unless anything new comes to light, we'll never know.

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup,

Your logic is mind-boggling.

I think you may have fallen under the spell of L.O., who is to the subject at hand what Socrates was to spot-welding.

Simon

Hi Simon

your logic is mind-boggling.

If L.O. is so completely irrelevant, why did you spend your time failing to refute one of his statements?

[Kattrup]

I've read Lord Orsam's article, and don't dispute that Schwartz was not required to attend.

At the same time, couldn't one genuinely wonder why he wasn't brought before the inquest anyway--all conspiracy theories aside?

After all, Lawende could not identify Eddowes as Eddowes, but only as the woman he had seen (and he could barely do that); Long could not identify Chapman as Chapman, but only the woman she had seen; Jumbo Fryday could not identify Coles as Coles, but only the woman he had seen.

Yet all three appeared, and Baxter was the coroner in two of those cases, just as he was the coroner at the Stride inquest.

So couldn't one argue that the 'powers that be' are holding their cards a little closer to their vest in this particular instance?

Any thoughts? Yes? No? Maybe?

Goodmorning RJ

I was merely plussed by Simon's nonsensical argument, so I felt I should point out that it did not actually make the point he thought he was making.

I am sure he intended to make the kind of argument you present here but his penchant for short cryptic nonsequiturs let him down.

Your post makes a very fair point. Unfortunately, without further information, we'll never know why Schwartz wasn't called. My guess would be that it was because they thought his statement was intended for the police and it would be best to keep it out of the public's eye.

[Varqm]

You just can't have read it if you stand by your original belief Varqm. He deals with every point in detail. It's a slam dunk. Game over for that particular point. Schwartz categorically wasn't left out of the Inquest because the police didn't believe or trust him.

I do not care about Orsam,let him come here and argue.You are not understanding the argument or the post.It has nothing to do with the police's belief,only the Coroner's.The inquest was run by the Coroner and it was his call to include Schwartz or not,and by not including him in the inquest he deemed Schwartz as unreliable,or making things up.Same with Matthew Packer who also had 2 conflicting statements.If you want to know as how Coroner actually interpret the Coroners Act 1887 look at how they run the inquest,all three Baxter,Langham,Mcdonald run it the same,create a timeline.And look at the witnesses they used,even Pierce,Clapp,Mulshaw,Monk,Venturney etc. were summoned.

The police believed differently,Swanson's report on Oct. 19 proves it,but they also believed in Packer who was interviewed and re-interviewed.But in the end:

--Evening News
1 November 1888

WHITECHAPEL HORRORS.
LATEST.

"On inquiry at the Leman-street Police-station, this morning, a representative of the Central News was informed
that no further arrest had been made in [connec-stion] with the Whitechapel murders. The police authorities do
not attach any importance to the statement attributed to Matthew Packer, the fruiterer, who says he sold grapes
to the deceased woman Stride on the night of the murder."
--

We do not know when they stopped believing in Schwartz.But both had 2 conflicting statements.In the end the Coroner was right,no report of any assault on a victim of JTR was ever uttered in police memoirs.Lawende,the worst witness,who said he could not identify the "sailor man" again was used.But still better than the rest who were "inventors".

But the police has reasons to continue believing in witnesses during the 1888 investigations:
With no science(DNA,fingerprints) the police relied on witnesses and JTR caught in the act to apprehend and would hold on to a witness longer,hoping something might come out of it.
And:
SUPERINTENDENT FORSTER
Very many of these reports are taken in hand by the detectives at once, not so much because they expect to get a clue out of them as because it might be unsafe to neglect anything of that character

The Star
Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom.
LONDON. TUESDAY, 2 OCTOBER, 1888.

Lastly arguing with people who believe that an assault minutes before on the same as spot as where the dead body was found was not crucial in inquests and investigation or fact-finding mission into a murder is ridiculous.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do not care about Orsam,let him come here and argue.You are not understanding the argument or the post.It has nothing to do with the police's belief,only the Coroner's.The inquest was run by the Coroner and it was his call to include Schwartz or not,and by not including him in the inquest he deemed Schwartz as unreliable,or making things up.Same with Matthew Packer who also had 2 conflicting statements.If you want to know as how Coroner actually interpret the Coroners Act 1887 look at how they run the inquest,all three Baxter,Langham,Mcdonald run it the same,create a timeline.And look at the witnesses they used,even Pierce,Clapp,Mulshaw,Monk,Venturney etc. were summoned.

The police believed differently,Swanson's report on Oct. 19 proves it,but they also believed in Packer who was interviewed and re-interviewed.But in the end:

--Evening News
1 November 1888

WHITECHAPEL HORRORS.
LATEST.

"On inquiry at the Leman-street Police-station, this morning, a representative of the Central News was informed
that no further arrest had been made in [connec-stion] with the Whitechapel murders. The police authorities do
not attach any importance to the statement attributed to Matthew Packer, the fruiterer, who says he sold grapes
to the deceased woman Stride on the night of the murder."
--

We do not know when they stopped believing in Schwartz.But both had 2 conflicting statements.In the end the Coroner was right,no report of any assault on a victim of JTR was ever uttered in police memoirs.Lawende,the worst witness,who said he could not identify the "sailor man" again was used.But still better than the rest who were "inventors".

But the police has reasons to continue believing in witnesses during the 1888 investigations:
With no science(DNA,fingerprints) the police relied on witnesses and JTR caught in the act to apprehend and would hold on to a witness longer,hoping something might come out of it.
And:
SUPERINTENDENT FORSTER
Very many of these reports are taken in hand by the detectives at once, not so much because they expect to get a clue out of them as because it might be unsafe to neglect anything of that character

The Star
Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom.
LONDON. TUESDAY, 2 OCTOBER, 1888.

Lastly arguing with people who believe that an assault minutes before on the same as spot as where the dead body was found was not crucial in inquests and investigation or fact-finding mission into a murder is ridiculous.

An Inquest isn’t simply a fact-finding mission Varqm. It’s an exercise in discovering certain very specific facts. No one was interested in victims hobbies or what her favourite type of cheese was. Looking at some of the witnesses that were called in this case I’ve often wondered if some of them were called simply to show that the Coroner was being ‘thorough’ for all of the use they were?


I find it hard to believe that you can keep making posts like this Varqm.

The inquest was run by the Coroner and it was his call to include Schwartz or not,and by not including him in the inquest he deemed Schwartz as unreliable,or making things up

Firstly, please prove that the Coroner didn’t call him to the Inquest? His absence is not proof that he wasn’t called it’s simply proof that he was absent. Or maybe you could point out where, on behalf of the deserving public, the Press demanded to know why such a vital witness wasn’t called to give evidence?

Secondly, please tell us why, as LO showed in his article, the police were acting on Schwartz evidence during and after the Inquest and why they were still naming him as a valued witness after the Inquest was done and dusted? Or is this simply a Police conspiracy?

Thirdly, please explain how you can write the above quote when possible alternative explanations are available. You are simply stating your opinion as a fact and it completely disregards the available evidence? Suggestions have been made on here as to why Schwartz didn't appear at the Inquest but none of those that have made those suggestions (including myself) have claimed them as facts. So, at the most basic level...if there are more than one possible explanation then no one explanation cannot be claimed as a fact.

We can say for certain that Schwartz wasn’t left out of the Inquest because the police didn’t believe him. I’m amazed that it’s even up for discussion. The evidence kicks that into the long grass and beyond. We can’t be anything like certain though of the reason that he didn’t attend. I still suspect that he may simply have gone into hiding and that the police probably made very little effort in looking for him considering the next-to-nothing of actual value or relevance that he could have added to the Inquest. But of course that might not have been the reasons.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I do not care about Orsam,let him come here and argue

Its very brave to issue a ‘challenge’ when you know for a fact that this can’t take place.

[Abby Normal]

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.

lol. how does that identify her as LIZ STRIDE??

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've read Lord Orsam's article, and don't dispute that Schwartz was not required to attend.

At the same time, couldn't one genuinely wonder why he wasn't brought before the inquest anyway--all conspiracy theories aside?

After all, Lawende could not identify Eddowes as Eddowes, but only as the woman he had seen (and he could barely do that); Long could not identify Chapman as Chapman, but only the woman she had seen; Jumbo Fryday could not identify Coles as Coles, but only the woman he had seen.

Yet all three appeared, and Baxter was the coroner in two of those cases, just as he was the coroner at the Stride inquest.

So couldn't one argue that the 'powers that be' are holding their cards a little closer to their vest in this particular instance?

Any thoughts? Yes? No? Maybe?

Hi Roger,

I still think that it’s possible that Schwartz might have made himself unavailable for the Inquest by disappearing. If Schwartz felt (justifiably or not) that he might have been in danger of reprisals from BS Man or Pipeman could have gone into hiding. How much time and effort would the Police have invested in looking for him considering the very little that he could have added that was of value? I’ve also wondered if it was at all possible that he’d asked the Coroner to be excused for the same reason that I mention above? If he genuinely felt that his life was potentially in danger (or even his family’s safety was under threat) might not the Coroner have weighed this against what Schwartz might have contributed and agreed not to call him?