Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    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?

    no. why would they?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      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?
      hi herlock
      i tend to agree with this in general. schwartz wasnt the bravest man on the planet, i think he wasnt at tje inquest because he made himself scarce. he didnt want to get involved.its probably as mundane as that.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        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.



        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.
        -Schwartz sighting speaks for itself,it was crucial.Read the inquests again on how coroners run inquests and the witnesses they used.
        -Again.You are not reading and missing it,read the post again.We are solely focused on Schwartz's inclusion in the Inquest which was the Coroners call.
        In my previous post " The police believed differently,Swanson's report on Oct. 19 proves it",additionally Abberline's response to Matthew on Nov. proves.it,"but they also believed in Packer who was interviewed and re-interviewed".
        -There is no alternative explanation.The coroner had obligations to follow his duties. Schwartz was in the news and the police could not have hid him or refrained from attending.In fact most likely they submitted him as a witness to the Coroner.

        We end this argument, there is nothing new.
        Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
        M. Pacana

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Its very brave to issue a ‘challenge’ when you know for a fact that this can’t take place.
          It does not mean anything.You hang on to Orsam's words,I don't.
          Last edited by Varqm; 03-28-2021, 10:37 AM.
          Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
          M. Pacana

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

            It does not mean anything.You hang on to Orsam's words,I don't.
            I hang on evidence and fact which you deliberately ignore them because you are unwilling to admit that you’re wrong. Which you very, very obviously are.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            "The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.”

            ”The absence of doubt is not necessarily a sign of the presence of truth.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

              -Schwartz sighting speaks for itself,it was crucial.Read the inquests again on how coroners run inquests and the witnesses they used.
              -Again.You are not reading and missing it,read the post again.We are solely focused on Schwartz's inclusion in the Inquest which was the Coroners call.
              In my previous post " The police believed differently,Swanson's report on Oct. 19 proves it",additionally Abberline's response to Matthew on Nov. proves.it,"but they also believed in Packer who was interviewed and re-interviewed".
              -There is no alternative explanation.The coroner had obligations to follow his duties. Schwartz was in the news and the police could not have hid him or refrained from attending.In fact most likely they submitted him as a witness to the Coroner.

              We end this argument, there is nothing new.
              Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              "The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.”

              ”The absence of doubt is not necessarily a sign of the presence of truth.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                hi herlock
                i tend to agree with this in general. schwartz wasnt the bravest man on the planet, i think he wasnt at tje inquest because he made himself scarce. he didnt want to get involved.its probably as mundane as that.
                Hi Abby,

                it’s at least a possible explanation and logically if there are more than one possible explanations then we cannot state any one of them as a fact. This is elementary stuff but Varqm can’t see it. Or to be more precise, he doesn’t want to see it.

                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                "The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.”

                ”The absence of doubt is not necessarily a sign of the presence of truth.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                  The Schwartz discussion rages on. But if it were shown conclusively that he did in fact lie what does that tell us about Stride's death and whether or not she was killed by the Ripper? Does it confirm a club conspiracy?
                  Keep in mind that according to Schwartz Stride was still alive when he left the scene. c.d.
                  In my view, if Schwartz lied in order to deflect suspicion from the club, it does open up the question of why he lied - to simply keep the club out of the situation or possibly to protect someone at the club perhaps. However, so far I do not think we have any evidence to prove he did lie (though lack of evidence he lied does not, of course, mean he told the truth). If such proof existed, I think it would mean we should reconsider whether Stride was a Ripper victim.

                  As the thread has progressed, I have become just as interested in the opposite question -
                  If it were shown conclusively that Schwartz told the truth, what does that tell us about Stride's death and whether or not she was killed by the Ripper?
                  Again, if it was proven, it too opens up questions of whether Stride was a Ripper victim.

                  In the absence of any evidence from Schwartz, I think we would be more confident that Stride was a Ripper victim. The nature of his statement introduces doubt, in my mind, whether or not he told the truth.

                  Comment


                  • Schwartz's description of the man he saw attacking the woman in Berner Street appeared word-for-word in the Police Gazette, October 19th 1888.
                    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
                      These are the four points Orsam raises - Was Schwartz able to identify the deceased as Elizabeth Stride? Answer, no.

                      Was Schwartz able to say how Elizabeth Stride died? Answer, no.

                      Was Schwartz able to say when Elizabeth Stride died? Answer, no.

                      Was Schwartz able to say where Elizabeth Stride died? Answer, no.

                      What that shows, therefore, is that Schwartz was NOT an essential witness. He simply could not have answered any of the questions that the jury had to decide.

                      Can you please tell me Herlock were James Brown, who was called to the inquest a better witness than Schwartz at answering those questions if Schwartz is a 100 %. accurate.
                      In fact, Point 1 Schwartz did ID Liz at the mortuary. Point 3 Schwartz contradicts Brown on the timing of what happened fifteen minutes before Liz died, surely the coroner would have wanted both views to assess who is more likely correct. Point 4 Schwartz places Liz right next to were she died. Brown being slightly further away , again a differential the coroner would want to explore. Not only that but Brown gave a description of the man seen with Liz. Surely Schwartz description was better and more important.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                        These are the four points Orsam raises - Was Schwartz able to identify the deceased as Elizabeth Stride? Answer, no.

                        Was Schwartz able to say how Elizabeth Stride died? Answer, no.

                        Was Schwartz able to say when Elizabeth Stride died? Answer, no.

                        Was Schwartz able to say where Elizabeth Stride died? Answer, no.

                        What that shows, therefore, is that Schwartz was NOT an essential witness. He simply could not have answered any of the questions that the jury had to decide.

                        Can you please tell me Herlock were James Brown, who was called to the inquest a better witness than Schwartz at answering those questions if Schwartz is a 100 %. accurate.
                        In fact, Point 1 Schwartz did ID Liz at the mortuary. Point 3 Schwartz contradicts Brown on the timing of what happened fifteen minutes before Liz died, surely the coroner would have wanted both views to assess who is more likely correct. Point 4 Schwartz places Liz right next to were she died. Brown being slightly further away , again a differential the coroner would want to explore. Not only that but Brown gave a description of the man seen with Liz. Surely Schwartz description was better and more important.
                        I think the point about the first is that, as he didn’t know Stride, he could only say that it was the woman that he’d seen but he had to be told by someone else that her name was Stride.

                        On the timing, as David says, they weren’t looking for the time of death only the date. Point 4, he could say where she died because she was still alive when he walked away.

                        I don’t know why Brown was at the Inquest and Schwartz wasn’t though Darryl. Perhaps when they went to tell Schwartz that his presence was required at the Inquest he’d gone into hiding?

                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



                        "The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.”

                        ”The absence of doubt is not necessarily a sign of the presence of truth.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                          These are the four points Orsam raises - Was Schwartz able to identify the deceased as Elizabeth Stride? Answer, no.

                          Was Schwartz able to say how Elizabeth Stride died? Answer, no.

                          Was Schwartz able to say when Elizabeth Stride died? Answer, no.

                          Was Schwartz able to say where Elizabeth Stride died? Answer, no.
                          Wess, Eagle, Diemschitz, etc., none of them knew the victim.
                          Of those who claim to have seen her like Marshall, Brown, PC Smith, none of them knew her either, in fact the listed criteria can be applied to all the witnesses.

                          I've never thought that Schwartz lied, but I do think the statement we have from Swanson in his 19th Oct. report has been misinterpreted.


                          Last edited by Wickerman; 03-29-2021, 03:45 AM.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
                            It is clear to me your take is nonsense.Schwartz was afraid,imagining things, and was hiding or they could not find an interpreter,nonsense.Schwartz went to the police station and gave his statement and answered to the Star reporter.
                            Schwartz would have been mentioned in the inquest as a witness needed and police would have been instructed to find him.If called 3x he will be fined.Read the Coroners act again and how coroners interpreted and follow it.The Coroner and the police had a difference of opinion on Schwartz.You just keep on mumbling that somebody is wrong without saying anything.
                            Last edited by Varqm; 03-29-2021, 04:23 AM.
                            Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                            M. Pacana

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
                              And somebody who believe that an assault minutes before the victim's body was found on the same spot is not important,another nonsense.What is the point in arguing.
                              Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                              M. Pacana

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                                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.
                                Compare his police statement to the the statement he gave the Star reporter,just to touch on it basically, in his statement to the police it was the man on the right (BS man) being aggressive and in his Star statement it was the pipe man who was aggressive,and now the pipe man had a knife.It was a barren street ,with no other witnesses,he was facing the 3 persons,unless he was stoned he could not possibly mistake the two scenarios.So he was inventing things.

                                But police won't easily get rid of witnesses like Mathew Packer who first said he saw nothing then change his mind and said he saw Stride and companion and he sold them grapes,but later on the police dropped Packer.The police need witnesses,maybe it could lead them somewhere and would hold on to them longer but the Coroner would not care about this,just a straightforward inquest/testimony with no conflicts.As I said the coroner won't spend time trying to determine whether witness statement no.1 was the true statement or was it statement no.2 in front of the jury-look at the c5 inquest if this occurred.Caroline Maxwell did not have 2 conflicting story and was summoned.
                                Chandler in the Chapman inquest was caught by Baxter guessing and Baxter got irritated:
                                [Coroner] Did you see the handkerchief taken off the body? - I did not. The nurses must have taken it off the throat.
                                [Coroner] How do you know? - I don't know.
                                [Coroner] Then you are guessing? - I am guessing.
                                The Coroner: That is all wrong, you know. (To the jury). He is really not the proper man to have been left in charge.

                                Imagine Schwartz in the inquest shifting between his 2 statements.The coroner and the police had a difference of opinion on Schwartz all throughout the inquest/October.Also with Packer who probably should have been in the inquest too like Gardner/Best/Marshall/Brown who also saw a Stride and a companion.
                                Last edited by Varqm; 03-29-2021, 06:39 AM.
                                Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                                M. Pacana

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X