Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • With regards to Schwartz, and the police view of him.

    I think the following report from Sir Charles Warren, stamped as received at the Home Office on the 7 Nov, 1888, and dated by him as 6th of Nov, 1888, clearly indicates the police had not dismissed him. While his report erroneously does state that Schwartz gave evidence at the inquest, I think this clearly reflects an error that could not have been made if the Police had culled him from attending, and rather reflects the fact they were expecting him to have been there. I suspect he's put inquest when he's really referring to Schwartz's interview. Notwithstanding that, I don't think he could have put inquest if the police had rejected Schwartz entirely, as is being suggested.

    This report can be found on page 135 of "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion" by Evans and Skinner (in my hard back copy; it's the end of chapter 7, just before chapter 8 covering the Stride inquest.) I've tried to include the various indents, though not to the exact spacing, and it's possible I've introduced some typos, but this is the report in its entirety. - Sigh, once I hit post, all my lovely spacing has been removed. I'll reindent with full stops.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Confidential

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Whitehall Place, S.W.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6th November, 1888.

    Sir,
    With reference to your letter of the 29th ulto. I have to acquaint you, for
    the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the
    evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the
    name "Lipski", which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting
    the woman in Berners [sic] Street on the night of the murder, was not
    addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself. It appears that
    since the Lipski case it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or
    speaking of Jews.
    With regard to the latter portion of your letter I have to state that
    searching enquiries were made by an officer in Aberdeen Place, St. John's
    Wood, the last known address of the insane medical student named "John
    Sanders", but the only information that could be obtained was that a lady
    named Sanders did reside with her son at No. 20, but left that address to go
    abroad about two years ago.

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I am,
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sir,
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Your most obedient Servant,
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. Warren

    The Under
    Secretary of State,

    &c. &c. &c.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, we know Schwartz didn't attend, and if the police had dropped him and were no longer of the belief his story was remotely true, there is no way Warren would have bothered to explain the interpretation of Lipski, nor would he make an error that suggests that Schwartz testified at the inquest. The inquest was held over a month prior to this report. If the police had dismissed Schwartz, his report would have detailed that belief, rather than explain how "Lipski" was used at that time - what would be the point?

    - Jeff
    Last edited by JeffHamm; 03-29-2021, 08:37 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
      With regards to Schwartz, and the police view of him.

      I think the following report from Sir Charles Warren, stamped as received at the Home Office on the 7 Nov, 1888, and dated by him as 6th of Nov, 1888, clearly indicates the police had not dismissed him. While his report erroneously does state that Schwartz gave evidence at the inquest, I think this clearly reflects an error that could not have been made if the Police had culled him from attending, and rather reflects the fact they were expecting him to have been there. I suspect he's put inquest when he's really referring to Schwartz's interview. Notwithstanding that, I don't think he could have put inquest if the police had rejected Schwartz entirely, as is being suggested.

      This report can be found on page 135 of "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion" by Evans and Skinner (in my hard back copy; it's the end of chapter 7, just before chapter 8 covering the Stride inquest.) I've tried to include the various indents, though not to the exact spacing, and it's possible I've introduced some typos, but this is the report in its entirety. - Sigh, once I hit post, all my lovely spacing has been removed. I'll reindent with full stops.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Confidential

      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Whitehall Place, S.W.
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6th November, 1888.

      Sir,
      With reference to your letter of the 29th ulto. I have to acquaint you, for
      the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the
      evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the
      name "Lipski", which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting
      the woman in Berners [sic] Street on the night of the murder, was not
      addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself. It appears that
      since the Lipski case it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or
      speaking of Jews.
      With regard to the latter portion of your letter I have to state that
      searching enquiries were made by an officer in Aberdeen Place, St. John's
      Wood, the last known address of the insane medical student named "John
      Sanders", but the only information that could be obtained was that a lady
      named Sanders did reside with her son at No. 20, but left that address to go
      abroad about two years ago.

      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I am,
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sir,
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Your most obedient Servant,
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. Warren

      The Under
      Secretary of State,

      &c. &c. &c.

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Again, we know Schwartz didn't attend, and if the police had dropped him and were no longer of the belief his story was remotely true, there is no way Warren would have bothered to explain the interpretation of Lipski, nor would he make an error that suggests that Schwartz testified at the inquest. The inquest was held over a month prior to this report. If the police had dismissed Schwartz, his report would have detailed that belief, rather than explain how "Lipski" was used at that time - what would be the point?

      - Jeff
      As posted earlier in the thread Swanson's Oct. 19 report, Abberline's Nov. 1 reply to Matthews about Lipski proved the police believed in Schwartz throughout the Stride inquests,as this letter.
      Also that the police likely submitted Schwartz as a witness to the coroner since his statement was too important,an assault on the victim on the same spot her dead body was found.It seems to me this letter proved it.But it was the Coroner's call to put him in the stand in front of the jury,not the police's.The Coroner had a difference of opinion with the police on Schwartz.
      Last edited by Varqm; 03-29-2021, 11:55 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
        Perhaps when they went to tell Schwartz that his presence was required at the Inquest he’d gone into hiding?
        Hi Herlock - Sorry for the tedious post, but I wonder if some might worry about your use of the word 'required'. Orsam's main point was that Schwartz was a non-essential witness, so his presence was not required.

        But, of course, that's not the same thing as saying that Schwartz couldn't have been called. It just means there was no negligence on the part of the police or the coroner if they decided not to call him. You, by contrast, seem to be saying that Schwartz would have been required to attend if Reid had submitted his name to Baxter, and if Baxter then summoned him to appear.

        So now we wander into the realm of speculation.

        If, as you suggest, Schwartz did a runner, wouldn't that have heaped enormous suspicion on his head? Here's a man who put himself near the scene of the crime, and described another man assaulting the victim, and was seen running away from the area--only to come forward later, presumably to clear himself---and now, when called to the inquest, he suddenly disappears?

        It's possible, but we see no indication of any of this in the Home Office or Met files, though I suppose one could argue that the police wouldn't have been too keen on advertising the fact that they had lost their star witness.

        And then we have the odd detail that Sir Robert Anderson was under the impression that Schwartz HAD appeared at the inquest, which seems to throw a spanner into any such possibility, unless one wants to argue that Anderson, too, was out of the loop.

        It's all rather conspiratorial. I think a simpler explanation is that the police didn't want Schwartz to appear, because they didn't want to tip-off the murderer, or murderers, and since he wasn't required, they were under no obligation to do so.
        Last edited by rjpalmer; 03-29-2021, 01:53 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post


          I think a simpler explanation is that the police didn't want Schwartz to appear, because they didn't want to tip-off the murderer, or murderers, and since he wasn't required, they were under no obligation to do so.


          Bingo


          And as I believe Schwartz was Anderson's witness against Kosminski, he did't mention his name there, only that he was a fellow jew.



          The Baron

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

            Bingo

            And as I believe Schwartz was Anderson's witness against Kosminski, he did't mention his name there, only that he was a fellow jew.

            The Baron
            Funny you should suggest this, for I was about to submit the following:

            I suppose if someone wanted to take a real walk on the wild side, they'd speculate that Schwartz was the witness referred to in the Swanson marginalia. He had been used in a police identity parade sometime after Oct 1st, but became non-cooperative, and thus was kept in the shadows.

            Which would explain The Star's enigmatic statement of Oct 2nd.

            'In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between the man and woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained..."


            Schwartz was used to I.D. this "arrested" suspect, but then backtracked so much, that the police at the Leman Street nick began to 'doubt the truth of his story.' It would be the exact equivalent of the Pizer/Violena I.D., which some historians of the case (including Rumbelow) used to believe was what Sir Robert Anderson was referring to when he wrote about a non-cooperative Jewish witness. But it wasn't Violena--it was Schwartz.

            But that would mean that pretty much everything we know about 'Kosminski' is wrong, and you'd still have to explain why Anderson was under the false impression that his all-important yet combative witness had been at the inquest.

            Yes, one could argue this angle, but I have reasons not to walk down this path.

            Comment


            • We cannot know for anything approaching certainty why Schwartz didn’t attend the Inquest as no one at the time mentioned a reason and apparently no one commented on his absence. And so, as we have no confirmed/proven reason it’s entirely unreasonable to state that the reason is known. We can all make suggestions but we can’t state a suggested reason as a fact which is essentially what Varqm is doing here.

              We don’t know how individual Coroner’s chose who to call and who to leave out of an Inquest and we can all name witnesses called where we might ask “Why?” If we look at the wording Coroner’s Act again:

              ”The Coroner and jury shall, at the first sitting of the inquest, view the body, and the Coroner shall examine on oath touching the death of all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge of the facts who he think it expedient to examine.”

              I read that as meaning that there were two categories of witnesses at an inquest. Firstly, those who ‘tender their evidence.’ People that turn up at an inquest believing that they have important information to offer. On a strict reading of the above section of the Act the Coroner was obliged to hear them out. Secondly, those who the Coroner himself wanted to examine (using his own individual judgment) Now some are saying that Schwartz was left out because he wasn’t believed so can we find any examples of a Coroner examining a witness that wasn’t believed (or considered with serious suspicion?) We have Mary Malcom who Baxter fairly obviously didn’t believe. He asked “You had some doubts at first?” then told her to go to the spot where she’d usually met her sister to see if she came again. Didn’t MacDonald have serious doubts about her evidence yet he still examined her.

              Might we not ask why Kozebrodski wasn’t called? Yes we might say that his evidence was covered by Eagle but aren’t we just making up the rules as we go along? Why call Robert Paul after Cross had been called? On James Brown’s evidence, the Coroner appeared to have been far from certain of is evidence:

              “Now, if this evidence was to be relied on, it would appear that the deceased was in the company of a man for upwards of an hour immediately before her death, and that within a quarter of an hour of her being found a corpse she was refusing her companion something in the immediate neighbourhood of where she met her death. But was this the deceased? And even if it were, was it one and the same man who was seen in her company on three different occasions?”

              So the Coroner expressed doubts about Brown but he examined him nonetheless.

              We can’t know why Schwartz wasn’t at the inquest but we can’t just state that the Coroner or the police disbelieved him. Even if someone believes it unlikely that Stride was initially attacked by someone else before she was killed it makes no difference to the fact that the police couldn’t have stated this as a fact at the time.

              This is from a report about inquests in Northern Ireland:

              “Prior to 1981, a Coroner was obliged to call as witnesses “all persons who tender their evidence regarding the facts.” Nowadays the Coroner has complete discretion about whom to call asa witness and can refuse to call someone who claims to have relevant evidence.” (Citation to Coroners (Practice and Procedure) Rules, Northern Ireland, 1963, rule 8 (1) as amended)”

              This points to the Coroner at the time of the Stride inquest not having complete control over who he examined because he was obliged to examine someone who claimed to have relevant information.

              The second part about ‘complete discretion’ could only have applied to Northern Ireland though because the wording of the 1988 Coroners Act (referred to below) seem to be the same as the 1887 Act.

              From a 2011 Court Of Appeal judgment:

              Numerous complaints are made about the coroners conduct of the inquest. The two primary complaints are about the witnesses whom the coroner decided to call or, more particularly, not to call.....The family set out at different times a list of witnesses they wanted called. The list was extensive...The point was validly made that the coroner could not reasonably have been expected to call every single witness who might be able to give relevant evidence; that would have taken many medical witnesses away from their responsibility for treating patients. In any event the matter is governed by law. Section 11 of the Coroners Act 1988 provides certain material:

              ”The Coroner shall, at the first sitting of the inquest, examine on oath touching the death any persons tending their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge of the facts whom he thinks it expedient to examine.”

              ....

              This clearly gives the coroner a wide range of discretion as to who he calls using his own individual judgment. The Coroner very obviously wasn’t required to call everyone available to give evidence. We can endlessly dispute “why x and not y” but this was down to the Coroners judgment (whether faulty or not.)

              We can also see that the aims of the inquest (strictly defined as David O does) shows how Schwartz had almost nothing of value to add. David points out that the aim of the inquest wasn’t to show time of death; was only interested in showing the day (basically information which would be entered on the death certificate) When we get over our initially “surely he must have been called” and consider what he could have added of material value to the aims of the inquest we can see quite clearly that his absence was of little loss and that we have no idea why he was absent (meaning that we cannot assume to know.) We know for certain however that it wasn’t due to the police or coroner disbelieving him. The evidence simply doesn’t allow for this.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                Hi Herlock - Sorry for the tedious post, but I wonder if some might worry about your use of the word 'required'. Orsam's main point was that Schwartz was a non-essential witness, so his presence was not required.

                But, of course, that's not the same thing as saying that Schwartz couldn't have been called. It just means there was no negligence on the part of the police or the coroner if they decided not to call him. You, by contrast, seem to be saying that Schwartz would have been required to attend if Reid had submitted his name to Baxter, and if Baxter then summoned him to appear.

                So now we wander into the realm of speculation.

                If, as you suggest, Schwartz did a runner, wouldn't that have heaped enormous suspicion on his head? Here's a man who put himself near the scene of the crime, and described another man assaulting the victim, and was seen running away from the area--only to come forward later, presumably to clear himself---and now, when called to the inquest, he suddenly disappears?

                It's possible, but we see no indication of any of this in the Home Office or Met files, though I suppose one could argue that the police wouldn't have been too keen on advertising the fact that they had lost their star witness.

                And then we have the odd detail that Sir Robert Anderson was under the impression that Schwartz HAD appeared at the inquest, which seems to throw a spanner into any such possibility, unless one wants to argue that Anderson, too, was out of the loop.

                It's all rather conspiratorial. I think a simpler explanation is that the police didn't want Schwartz to appear, because they didn't want to tip-off the murderer, or murderers, and since he wasn't required, they were under no obligation to do so.
                Hi Roger,

                I apologise if I wasn’t clear enough.

                I was of course speculating about possible reasons why he might not have attended if he was indeed called. He might not have been called in the first place of course but my main point; and the starting point for this particular section of debate was Michael Richards and Varqm claiming as a fact that Schwartz wasn’t called because the police didn’t believe his evidence. This is provably untrue as the police were still using his evidence during and after the inquest so I find it pretty much impossible to understand why they continue to pursue the point?

                Basically we don’t know why Schwartz wasn’t at the inquest. We could as group no doubt come up with a list of ‘possibles’ and one of them might be correct or they could all be wrong. I just don’t think that we should state as a fact what is purely an opinion or a piece of speculation. Your suggestion appears plausible to me but it won’t be to those that are convinced that they somehow already know the answer.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                Comment


                • Basically we don’t know why Schwartz wasn’t at the inquest. We could as group no doubt come up with a list of ‘possibles’ and one of them might be correct or they could all be wrong. I just don’t think that we should state as a fact what is purely an opinion or a piece of speculation.

                  But somehow this very obvious fact required 412 posts.

                  c.d.

                  Comment


                  • So Schwartz who witnessed an assault before the victim was found dead on the same spot was non-essential but Pierce,Clapp,Monk,Venturney,Tomkins,Gardner and especially Mulshaw were essential.How did the Coroners came to those conclusions? Ridiculous nonsense.
                    And how did the above witnesses minus Schwartz contribute to the often quoted part of the Coroners At 1887 "who the deceased was,and how,when,and where the deceased came by his death"?
                    Last edited by Varqm; 03-29-2021, 06:18 PM.
                    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
                      So Schwartz who witnessed an assault before the victim was found dead on the same spot was non-essential but Pierce,Clapp,Monk,Venturney,Tomkins,Gardner and especially Mulshaw were essential.How did the Coroners came to those conclusions? Ridiculous nonsense.
                      And how did the above witnesses minus Schwartz contribute to the often quoted part of the Coroners At 1887 "who the deceased was,and how,when,and where the deceased came by his death"?
                      Still?

                      “Prior to 1981, a Coroner was obliged to call as witnesses “all persons who tender their evidence
                      Do you know which witnesses tendered their evidence that Coroner was obliged to call? Or those that the Coroner himself decided should appear? No one has called any witnesses essential except you. So unless you are somehow ‘in the know’ about any particular Coroner’s thought processes then neither you nor I nor anyone can know why they appeared.

                      So if you have evidence that the Coroner didn’t call Schwartz because the police didn’t believe him I’d ask that you provide it so that we can all read and assess it. And by ‘evidence’ I don’t mean either a) quoting the article in The Star, or b) simply stating that it was the case because you believe it to have been the case.

                      You might also want to educate us all by telling us how much vital evidence Schwartz could have bought to the inquest? And not what you think was important or what was important to the police investigation but what was actually important in regard to the legally stated aims of an inquest. I’ll do a bit of ‘echoing for you:

                      1. Was he able to identify the deceased as Elizabeth Stride? - and that doesn’t mean saying “yes that was the woman that I saw who has now been identified as Elizabeth Stride - it means, could he have said “the deceased was a woman that I know to have been called Elizabeth Stride.”

                      No he couldn’t because he didn’t know a woman called Elizabeth Stride.

                      2. Was he able to say how Stride died?

                      No, he very obviously couldnt.

                      3. Was he able say when Stride died?

                      No, because she was still alive when he left. Also, it wasn’t something that an Inquest needed establish.

                      4. Was he able to say where Stride died?

                      No he wasn’t.

                      And as he couldn’t mention her possible murderer by name then he was no help there either.

                      All that he could have added was that she was probably still alive at 12.45 in the area of Dutfield’s Yard.

                      Does this make Schwartz a vital inquest witness? It’s difficult to see how. A vital police witness...yes. But the two are not the same and you appear to have difficulty in distinguishing the two.


                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                        So Schwartz who witnessed an assault before the victim was found dead on the same spot was non-essential but Pierce,Clapp,Monk,Venturney,Tomkins,Gardner and especially Mulshaw were essential.How did the Coroners came to those conclusions? Ridiculous nonsense.
                        And how did the above witnesses minus Schwartz contribute to the often quoted part of the Coroners At 1887 "who the deceased was,and how,when,and where the deceased came by his death"?
                        Hi Varqm,

                        Well, given we do not know why Schwartz doesn't testify at the inquest, I think it's fair to assume that any explanation offered is given be viewed as an example of a general idea portrayed through the specifics of one possibility.

                        We are always in unknown territory when we try to offer illustrations of why Schwartz did not give testimony. However, while we may not know the reason he didn't attend, it is clear, both from the behaviour of the police (searching for Lipski families in the area) and their written communications (i.e. Charles Warren's above letter wouldn't explain what the police believed "Lipski" meant in that context, they would have just informed the H.O. that the witness Schwartz, under questioning, has been determined to be so unreliable that his information is of no use).

                        So, in the end, all we can be sure of is that Schwartz didn't testify, but it wasn't because the police had no belief in him. After that, speculations abound.

                        Given witnesses attended voluntarily, many of the witnesses you state above may simply have felt they had something to add, they need not have been summoned. They were not inundated with witnesses so there would be no necessary reason for the Coroner to cull any, even if he didn't think they added all that much. Given Schwartz had already given a statement to the police, he may very well simply have felt he had done his civic duty and didn't volunteer to testify at the inquest; or he may simply have been working at those times and couldn't attend. If he was encouraged, but not compelled, to attend (say at the end of his interview with the police), he may have agreed at that time, but for some unknown reason was unable to attend on the actual dates (as per above). Of course, I don't know any of that, nor do any of us - it's not recorded why he didn't attend, all we know is he didn't but the police were still following up on what he told them during his police interview.

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Still?



                          Do you know which witnesses tendered their evidence that Coroner was obliged to call? Or those that the Coroner himself decided should appear? No one has called any witnesses essential except you. So unless you are somehow ‘in the know’ about any particular Coroner’s thought processes then neither you nor I nor anyone can know why they appeared.

                          So if you have evidence that the Coroner didn’t call Schwartz because the police didn’t believe him I’d ask that you provide it so that we can all read and assess it. And by ‘evidence’ I don’t mean either a) quoting the article in The Star, or b) simply stating that it was the case because you believe it to have been the case.

                          You might also want to educate us all by telling us how much vital evidence Schwartz could have bought to the inquest? And not what you think was important or what was important to the police investigation but what was actually important in regard to the legally stated aims of an inquest. I’ll do a bit of ‘echoing for you:

                          1. Was he able to identify the deceased as Elizabeth Stride? - and that doesn’t mean saying “yes that was the woman that I saw who has now been identified as Elizabeth Stride - it means, could he have said “the deceased was a woman that I know to have been called Elizabeth Stride.”

                          No he couldn’t because he didn’t know a woman called Elizabeth Stride.

                          2. Was he able to say how Stride died?

                          No, he very obviously couldnt.

                          3. Was he able say when Stride died?

                          No, because she was still alive when he left. Also, it wasn’t something that an Inquest needed establish.

                          4. Was he able to say where Stride died?

                          No he wasn’t.

                          And as he couldn’t mention her possible murderer by name then he was no help there either.

                          All that he could have added was that she was probably still alive at 12.45 in the area of Dutfield’s Yard.

                          Does this make Schwartz a vital inquest witness? It’s difficult to see how. A vital police witness...yes. But the two are not the same and you appear to have difficulty in distinguishing the two.

                          Hi Herlock As I have said, all these points apply the exact same as James Brown who we know was at the inquest so why him and not Schwartz ? Two people at at around the same time seeing Liz with probably two different men. Surely Baxter would want to clear up the discrepancies because say Schwartz was out by ten minutes IE 12.55 the man he saw would almost certainly be the ripper. But if he was out by ten minutes, say 12.35 then the man seen by Brown would take on extra importance as the last man seen with Liz before she died. If the coroner [Baxter], wasn't interested in descriptions etc why ask Brown and others for them?.
                          Not only that but the coroners reports appeared almost verbatim next day in newspapers. Surely Schwartz description of pipeman would help the police find this vital witness and also help make him come forward.
                          Regards Darryl

                          Comment


                          • I'll answer later.From the C5 inquests you can look more into how the actual professional Coroners run their inquests and see how they interpret the Coroners Act 1887 and what witnesses they choose.For a minute look to the professionals instead of your own interpretation of the Coroners Act 1887.
                            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 Darryl Kenyon View Post

                              Hi Herlock As I have said, all these points apply the exact same as James Brown who we know was at the inquest so why him and not Schwartz ? Two people at at around the same time seeing Liz with probably two different men. Surely Baxter would want to clear up the discrepancies because say Schwartz was out by ten minutes IE 12.55 the man he saw would almost certainly be the ripper. But if he was out by ten minutes, say 12.35 then the man seen by Brown would take on extra importance as the last man seen with Liz before she died. If the coroner [Baxter], wasn't interested in descriptions etc why ask Brown and others for them?.
                              Not only that but the coroners reports appeared almost verbatim next day in newspapers. Surely Schwartz description of pipeman would help the police find this vital witness and also help make him come forward.
                              Regards Darryl
                              Hi Darryl,

                              I can only suggest that maybe Brown presented himself at the inquest and so the coroner was obliged to examine him? To be completely honest Darryl I can’t really answer your question about Brown except to echo David’s point about the discovery of the time of death not being an aim of the Inquest. All I think that we can say for certain is that Schwartz wasn’t omitted because she wasn’t believed.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                                I'll answer later.From the C5 inquests you can look more into how the actual professional Coroners run their inquests and see how they interpret the Coroners Act 1887 and what witnesses they choose.For a minute look to the professionals instead of your own interpretation of the Coroners Act 1887.
                                Im not interested in prolonging your game I’m afraid Varqm.

                                Produce your evidence that proves for a fact that Schwartz was intentionally omitted because the police didn’t believe. This is the crux of the argument. Opinion stated as fact. You’ve repeatedly said it so why do you need time to research a response?
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X