Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

    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.
    Hi Varqm,

    I'm unaware of any document outlining the Coroner's views on the witnesses prior to them being called to testify, other than his comments that appear to caution some witnesses and/or reflect his doubt in their accuracy after they had testified. Can you please tell me where you found the information that "The Coroner had a difference of opinion with the police on Schwartz.", or are you only putting that forth as a hypothesis? (it's your phrasing of that point as a definite claim, rather than as a speculative one, that prompts me asking your intention on that because if you have information that documents that as a fact I would be very interested in seeing it as it).

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • On 5th November 1888, Robert Anderson drafted a letter to the Home Office regarding the name “Lipski.” It was a distillation of Abberline’s earlier report.

      Of real interest is Anderson’s opening statement—

      “Draft letter to H.O.

      “With ref. to yr letter &c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. 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 [Author’s italics].

      “With regard to the latter portion of yr letter I have to state that [copy passage in the report as written in blue].”

      Anderson’s draft letter had been prepared for Sir Charles Warren who, on 7th November 1888, sent a two-page report to the Home Secretary—

      “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 . . .”

      Anderson misinformed Warren, who in turn misinformed Home Secretary Henry Matthews, about Israel Schwartz appearing as a witness at the Elizabeth Stride inquest.

      Why would Anderson have done that?
      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
        "I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself."
        This doesn't address your point, Simon, but I find Anderson's use of the word "alleges" as somewhat interesting. Neither Swanson, nor Abberline, felt the need to use "alleges" when discussing Schwartz's account.

        I will be accused of reading too much into it, but there is the slightest whiff of...

        ...something.

        Comment


        • Hi RJ,

          . . . something, indeed.

          There is a reluctance, a timidity, an unwillingness, a refusal to suspect that the police might have had a hand in any of this phony baloney mystery.

          Be well.

          Simon
          Last edited by Simon Wood; 03-30-2021, 12:05 AM.
          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

            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
            I have already stated many times that the police believed in Schwartz just by Swansons Oct 19 report,AbberlinesNovember 1 and now this, Nov. 6 Warren's letter to the Home Office, all throughout the inquests for Stride.And that he was too important not to have been forwarded to the Coroner.
            But the Coroner is elected and independent of and separate from the police and makes his own decision as to who to put in the inquest,it was his decision separate from the police.The Coroner and the inquest is under the Coroners Act 1887 not any Police Act.He had his own budget.

            The letter you posted:

            " 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.
            "

            proved that Schwartz and his statement was forwarded to the Coroner,the police believed in him,the police was
            ready to have Schwartz in the inquest,along with the supposed baggage (from posters) that came with him,an
            interpreter and the concern that mentioning Lipski migh provoke an anti-semitic response.Schwartz was also
            written up in the newspapers.And it was now up to the Coroner whether to put him in the stand or not. Schwartz's
            statement was now on his desk.

            By not putting Schwartz in the stand I am saying the Coroner deemed Schwartz untrustworty because Schwartz made 2
            conflicting statements and that he was not going to try to determine in front of the jury which full statement is
            true, statement no. 1 (police) or no.2 (Star paper).Point to any incident in the C5 inquests Baxter held where he
            had to do this.This is the only reasonable reason otherwise what's another reasonable excuse?

            An example of Baxter not wanting to deal with 2 statements (guessing) is
            Chandler in the Chapman inquest.He 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.
            Last edited by Varqm; 03-30-2021, 02:51 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

              I have already stated many times that the police believed in Schwartz just by Swansons Oct 19 report,AbberlinesNovember 1 and now this, Nov. 6 Warren's letter to the Home Office, all throughout the inquests for Stride.And that he was too important not to have been forwarded to the Coroner.
              But the Coroner is elected and independent of and separate from the police and makes his own decision as to who to put in the inquest,it was his decision separate from the police.The Coroner and the inquest is under the Coroners Act 1887 not any Police Act.He had his own budget.

              The letter you posted:

              " 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.
              "

              proved that Schwartz and his statement was forwarded to the Coroner,the police believed in him,the police was
              ready to have Schwartz in the inquest,along with the supposed baggage (from posters) that came with him,an
              interpreter and the concern that mentioning Lipski migh provoke an anti-semitic response.Schwartz was also
              written up in the newspapers.And it was now up to the Coroner whether to put him in the stand or not. Schwartz's
              statement was now on his desk.

              By not putting Schwartz in the stand I am saying the Coroner deemed Schwartz untrustworty because Schwartz made 2
              conflicting statements and that he was not going to try to determine in front of the jury which full statement is
              true, statement no. 1 (police) or no.2 (Star paper).Point to any incident in the C5 inquests Baxter held where he
              had to do this.This is the only reasonable reason otherwise what's another reasonable excuse?

              An example of Baxter not wanting to deal with 2 statements (guessing) is
              Chandler in the Chapman inquest.He 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.
              Hi Varqm,

              Well, then we have Mary Malcolm, who misidentified Stride as her sister, Elizabeth Watts.

              Mary Malcolm said, - I live at 50, Eagle-street, Red Lion-square. I am married to Andrew Malcolm, a tailor. I have seen the body in the mortuary. I saw it on Sunday and twice yesterday. It is the body of my sister, Elizabeth Watts.

              The coroner. - You have no doubt about that?
              Witness - Not the slightest.
              The coroner - You had some doubts at first?
              Witness - I had, but not now. ....
              Later in her testimony we have:
              The coroner - Have you ever heard the name of Stride?
              witness - She never mentioned that name to me. ...

              This exchange hardly leads one to the conclusion that he had confidence in her identification, and that he already was aware the victim was Elizabeth Stride, and yet he allows her on the stand, knowing full well her identification is wrong.

              So, unless we have it documented somewhere that the coroner chose not to call Schwartz, we have no indication that he chose not to call witnesses he might have had doubts about simply because a newspaper printed something different than his police statement, particularly if the police had indicated they had faith in the events, if not necessarily the interpretations, given by Schwartz. After all, it is only a hypothesis that the coroner doubted Schwartz, we don't know that, it's an idea offered to explain why Schwartz was not there. But given other witnesses, who clearly are doubted by the coroner, are allowed to testify, that explanation seems unlikely as the reason for Schwartz not to appear.

              It appears to me that Schwartz was simply not there to call, rather than he was there and the coroner chose not to call him. But whether that is because he simply chose not to go (or didn't know about inquest in order to choose one way or the other, and given he didn't speak English that seems possible) or because there was some circumstance that prevented him from going (illness for example) or for some other reason I've not covered, we just don't know. But indications are it was not a decision by the police, nor does it appear the coroner blocked people whose testimony might conflict (he doesn't block Mary Malcolm, whose testimony conflicts with the actual identity of the witness, which by his question to MM shows they already know). The police later find MM's sister, alive and well, and had to go to that effort to overturn this error in the record, which, if the coroner could simply prevent by not allowing her to testify, would seem the more prudent choice.

              - Jeff
              Last edited by JeffHamm; 03-30-2021, 03:18 AM.

              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.

                That's a clueless response.And you don't even know judging by your response that the Coroner is independent of the police,it does not matter what witnesses the police put forth the Coroner can choose who to put in the inquest,it was his call not the police.The police even were sort of under him,he could instruct them to find witnesses he wants if he deemed them important.
                The Coroner is elected and independent of and separate from the police and makes his own decision as to who to put in the inquest.The Coroner and the inquest is under the Coroners Act 1887 not any Police Act.He had his own budget.

                -Coroners Act 1887:

                It shall be the duty of the coroner in case of murder or manslaughter to put into writing the statement on oath
                of those who know the facts and circumstance of the case,or so much of such statement as is material,and any such
                deposition shall be signed by the witness and also by the coroner.


                (3)
                After viewing the body and hearing the evidence the jury shall give their verdict and certify it by an
                inquisition in writing,setting forth,so far as such particulars have been proved to them,who the deceased
                was,and how,when,and where the deceased came by his death,and if he came by his death by murder
                or manslaughter,the persons,if any,whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter,or of
                being accessories before the fact to such murder. -

                Schwartz was part of the testimony where it says facts and circumstances of the case.like Lawende and co.,Long,Cadosche.The who was covered by relatives/partners,the when by the discoverer of the body and the doctor's estimated time of death,the how was covered by the post-mortem,the where by the discoverer of the body and subsequent witnesses.You are asking silly questions about Schwartz.As long as he could identify the woman assaulted was the victim and describe the circumstances he did his job.

                But if you read the inquest and how the Coroners interpret the Act 1887 you can see something uniform, the Coroners did the practical seemingly simpler thing:
                Create a timeline,the victim is a stranger, summon her relatives/partner(s) fellow lodgers,lodging house deputies, witnesses she interacted with during the month/weeks previous her death.witnesses she interacted with starting from the previous evening leading up to the early morning till the dead victim was found,the police response,the doctor who examined the body in-situ,the post mortem.
                With all the above you cover all provisions of the Coroners Act 1887 without fuss and more.They even included George Clapp,Pierce,Mulshaw,Tomkin to give a better picture on what was going on around while she was getting killed ,that it was quiet,there were no carriages running,no fights,no loud arguments.etc.
                But go back to your belief that you are a Coroner since you won't read how the actual Coroners did it.
                Last edited by Varqm; 03-30-2021, 03:30 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 JeffHamm View Post

                  Hi Varqm,

                  Well, then we have Mary Malcolm, who misidentified Stride as her sister, Elizabeth Watts.

                  Mary Malcolm said, - I live at 50, Eagle-street, Red Lion-square. I am married to Andrew Malcolm, a tailor. I have seen the body in the mortuary. I saw it on Sunday and twice yesterday. It is the body of my sister, Elizabeth Watts.

                  The coroner. - You have no doubt about that?
                  Witness - Not the slightest.
                  The coroner - You had some doubts at first?
                  Witness - I had, but not now. ....
                  Later in her testimony we have:
                  The coroner - Have you ever heard the name of Stride?
                  witness - She never mentioned that name to me. ...

                  This exchange hardly leads one to the conclusion that he had confidence in her identification, and that he already was aware the victim was Elizabeth Stride, and yet he allows her on the stand, knowing full well her identification is wrong.

                  So, unless we have it documented somewhere that the coroner chose not to call Schwartz, we have no indication that he chose not to call witnesses he might have had doubts about simply because a newspaper printed something different than his police statement, particularly if the police had indicated they had faith in the events, if not necessarily the interpretations, given by Schwartz.

                  It appears to me that Schwartz was simply not there. But whether that is because he simply chose not to go (or didn't know about inquest in order to choose one way or the other, and given he didn't speak English that seems possible) or because there was some circumstance that prevented him from going (illness for example) or for some other reason I've not covered, we don't know. But indications are it was not a decision by the police, nor does it appear the coroner blocked people whose testimony might conflict (he doesn't block Mary Malcolm, whose testimony conflicts with the actual identity of the witness, which by his question to MM shows they already know). The police later find MM's sister, alive and well, and had to go to that effort to overturn this error in the record, which, if the coroner could simply prevent by not allowing her to testify, would seem the more prudent choice.

                  - Jeff
                  So the Coroner made a mistake.We have to agree to disagree.I believe Baxter would have done a professional job.Schwartz was too important in any factual inquiry,his statement was forwarded to him by the police,Schwartz was in the news,he would have been mentioned him in the inquest as a witness the Coroner wanted and instruct the police to find him,like the Ted Stanleys,Thomas Conways,etc, and if he does not come:

                  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.
                  Last edited by Varqm; 03-30-2021, 03:27 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

                    So the Coroner made a mistake.We have to agree to disagree.I believe Baxter would have done a professional job.Schwartz was too important in any factual inquiry,his statement was forwarded to him by the police,Schwartz was in the news,he would have been mentioned him in the inquest as a witness the Coroner wanted and instruct the police to find him,like the Ted Stanleys,Thomas Conways,etc, and if he does not come:

                    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.
                    Hi Varqm,

                    Do we actually know that Schwartz was summoned though? The police may have requested him to come to the inquest during his interview, and he may have agreed, and then for some reason we don't know didn't show. I don't think we have a surviving list of people issued summons. Then again, I don't know the details of how the inquests normally functioned, and whether or not it was rare or common for witnesses to be summoned. I could see a summons being used primarily to obtain experts to come testify, as they might otherwise not want to bother as they would have their work to do. Those who came may have done so at the request of the police during interviews, but that may not have been legally binding.

                    As I say, I don't know the legal ins and outs of how the witnesses end up at the inquest, whether most, if not all, by summons or if most, if not all, by their own choice? If it's the latter, then the Coroners Act doesn't apply. You can't fine someone if they don't show when they've not been summoned.

                    Do we know that Schwartz was summoned or do we assume that he was? I'm not aware of any surviving document showing he was, hence my asking.

                    Hmmm, if he was, and didn't show, then there might be a recording of a fine he was issued. I wonder if anyone has looked for such a thing?

                    - Jeff
                    Last edited by JeffHamm; 03-30-2021, 07:05 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Since the Coroner's Act is being mentioned, it's worth noting that it doesn't specifically mention any summoning process. It describes people "who tender their evidence", but makes no mention of whether this is voluntary or via a summons. It does later state that a summoned witness can be fined for non attendance, so summoning definitely happens, but there's no way of telling who was summoned.

                      Interestingly, section 9 states that a coroner can be fined for neglect for not "taking delivery" of the deposition of someone who "ought to be called", which seems pertinent in this case. If the coroner alone decides who appears, who determines who "ought to be called?"

                      So if not summoning Schwartz might risk a disciplinary, could that bolster the argument that he was summoned and didn't attend? Additionally, if the coroner simply chose to ignore Schwartz, that's at odds with the police, who one would imagine knew they could take action against the coroner for this.

                      At any rate, none of it points to the coroner willfully dismissing him because of the report in the Star.
                      Thems the Vagaries.....

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                        That's a clueless response.And you don't even know judging by your response that the Coroner is independent of the police,it does not matter what witnesses the police put forth the Coroner can choose who to put in the inquest,it was his call not the police.The police even were sort of under him,he could instruct them to find witnesses he wants if he deemed them important.
                        The Coroner is elected and independent of and separate from the police and makes his own decision as to who to put in the inquest.The Coroner and the inquest is under the Coroners Act 1887 not any Police Act.He had his own budget.

                        -Coroners Act 1887:

                        It shall be the duty of the coroner in case of murder or manslaughter to put into writing the statement on oath
                        of those who know the facts and circumstance of the case,or so much of such statement as is material,and any such
                        deposition shall be signed by the witness and also by the coroner.


                        (3)
                        After viewing the body and hearing the evidence the jury shall give their verdict and certify it by an
                        inquisition in writing,setting forth,so far as such particulars have been proved to them,who the deceased
                        was,and how,when,and where the deceased came by his death,and if he came by his death by murder
                        or manslaughter,the persons,if any,whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter,or of
                        being accessories before the fact to such murder. -

                        Schwartz was part of the testimony where it says facts and circumstances of the case.like Lawende and co.,Long,Cadosche.The who was covered by relatives/partners,the when by the discoverer of the body and the doctor's estimated time of death,the how was covered by the post-mortem,the where by the discoverer of the body and subsequent witnesses.You are asking silly questions about Schwartz.As long as he could identify the woman assaulted was the victim and describe the circumstances he did his job.

                        But if you read the inquest and how the Coroners interpret the Act 1887 you can see something uniform, the Coroners did the practical seemingly simpler thing:
                        Create a timeline,the victim is a stranger, summon her relatives/partner(s) fellow lodgers,lodging house deputies, witnesses she interacted with during the month/weeks previous her death.witnesses she interacted with starting from the previous evening leading up to the early morning till the dead victim was found,the police response,the doctor who examined the body in-situ,the post mortem.
                        With all the above you cover all provisions of the Coroners Act 1887 without fuss and more.They even included George Clapp,Pierce,Mulshaw,Tomkin to give a better picture on what was going on around while she was getting killed ,that it was quiet,there were no carriages running,no fights,no loud arguments.etc.
                        But go back to your belief that you are a Coroner since you won't read how the actual Coroners did it.
                        It’s impossible not to notice that you haven’t provided the proof that Schwartz wasn’t called because he wasn’t believed and no amount of cutting and pasting will alter this fact Varqm. This section of debate is very specifically about the fact that you (and Michael) state as a fact that you know the reason why Schwartz wasn’t called to the inquest despite the very obvious fact that his absence doesn’t prove that he want called.

                        I and others have suggested possible alternative reasons but we have been very clear in admitting that we are simply speculating and have at no time claimed to know the reason for Schwartz absence and this is the big difference between our two positions Varqm. You are claiming to know something as a fact that you cannot possibly know because there is simply no evidence for it. Evidenced by the fact that you haven’t produced any. And won’t.

                        You are piling up the untruths here Varqm.

                        Ive never claimed, asserted or even hinted that the Coroner wasn’t independent of the police so I really can’t see why you bring up this piece of straw man reasoning? This for example:

                        . .As long as he could identify the woman assaulted was the victim and describe the circumstances he did his job.
                        So this alone was justification for Schwartz attendance despite the fact that David explained this very clearly and I echoed it in a previous post? Identification didn’t mean saying “yes, the deceased was the woman that I saw.” The identifying requirement at the Inquest would have been a witness who could say “I can confirm that the deceased was called Elizabeth Stride.” Schwartz very obviously couldn’t do that because he didn’t know her. It’s why Mary Malcom was there, because she claimed (wrongly of course) to have known the victim. So, as we can eliminate that particular ‘contribution’ from Schwartz what remained? It appears to be you that is having difficulty in differentiating between what was important to an inquest and what was important to a police investigation. Schwartz was a vital witness to a police investigation but he was not vital to an inquest. This still doesn’t prove that he was or wasn’t called though and we certainly can’t assume that he wouldn’t have been called. We don’t know. You won’t admit the fact that we don’t know though and that’s a problem.

                        For some strange reason you have equated Schwartz with Packer which is hardly a reasonable comparison. Packer initially told the police that he’d seen nothing and then ‘mysteriously’ remembered Grapeman. He also spoke English. Schwartz Star interview just contained a couple of different details which you appear to believe were sufficient grounds for the police to have dismissed his evidence even though the police would have known that these ‘differences’ might have been down to translation errors. Or they might have been down to a Journalist adding a bit of juicy detail like the knife. Hardly sufficient grounds for eliminating such an important witness.

                        There’s nothing wrong with speculation Varqm, we all do it but we shouldn’t claim that our speculations are fact which I’m afraid is very obviously what you continue to do here. What we do know for a fact though is that fact that the police continued to act on Schwartz evidence during the inquest and after it ended. This is in black and white. It’s in written evidence from officers including information destined for the Home Office. It really can’t get more factual. And so, why I will certainly admit (unlike you) to speculating on why Schwartz wasn’t at the inquest I am on absolutely solid evidential ground to state as a fact....

                        that Schwartz was not left out of the inquest because the police didn’t believe him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                          But indications are it was not a decision by the police
                          Hi Jeff.

                          How so?

                          We don't really know that, do we?

                          Even if we agree that the internal reports in the MEPO and Home Office files show that the C.I.D.--or at least a faction of the C.I.D.--were willing to accept the truth and importance of Schwartz's account, how do you know it wasn't a conscious decision on someone's part to withhold him from the Coroner, if we are also conceding that he was technically a "non-essential witness" under the limited scope of an inquest?

                          It sounds to me as if people want it both ways. If someone--Reid, for instance--deemed that it wasn't absolutely necessary for Baxter's purposes to have Schwartz attend the inquest, then why couldn't he have held him back?

                          It's not like Scotland Yard was all starry-eyed about the wonders of publicity during an on-going investigation. They are going to cooperate with the Coroner if required to do so, but it doesn't follow that they are going to trip over themselves to cooperate if may be to their advantage to drag their feet, or hold back a 'non-essential' witness while they investigate further. That's not a conspiracy theory--it's common sense.

                          Even if I look at this from the angle of a world where police misconduct never happens, and the man in blue is never guilty of anything untoward, or doesn't make any errors, the police still have a crime to solve, and exposing their hand to the public is not always the wisest way to proceed.

                          The challenge I would suggest is this. Can anyone name a historical case where the police knowingly withheld a non-essential witness from the Coroner, even though he was considered of prime importance, and they were still investigating his account behind-the-scenes?

                          Or a trial at the Old Bailey where an important witness is called by the prosecution, even though he or she had not appeared at the inquest?

                          Comment


                          • Just a quick question. What would happen if someone could not, or didn't attend a coroners inquest ? Could someone not give the evidence for them? I am sure I have read that the police officer who took the witnesses original statement can read out said statement verbatim to the inquest, [ if they believed it to be truthful and sincere]. But I am not sure if this applied in 1888.
                            Regards Darryl

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                              Hi Jeff.

                              How so?

                              We don't really know that, do we?

                              Even if we agree that the internal reports in the MEPO and Home Office files show that the C.I.D.--or at least a faction of the C.I.D.--were willing to accept the truth and importance of Schwartz's account, how do you know it wasn't a conscious decision on someone's part to withhold him from the Coroner, if we are also conceding that he was technically a "non-essential witness" under the limited scope of an inquest?

                              It sounds to me as if people want it both ways. If someone--Reid, for instance--deemed that it wasn't absolutely necessary for Baxter's purposes to have Schwartz attend the inquest, then why couldn't he have held him back?

                              It's not like Scotland Yard was all starry-eyed about the wonders of publicity during an on-going investigation. They are going to cooperate with the Coroner if required to do so, but it doesn't follow that they are going to trip over themselves to cooperate if may be to their advantage to drag their feet, or hold back a 'non-essential' witness while they investigate further. That's not a conspiracy theory--it's common sense.

                              Even if I look at this from the angle of a world where police misconduct never happens, and the man in blue is never guilty of anything untoward, or doesn't make any errors, the police still have a crime to solve, and exposing their hand to the public is not always the wisest way to proceed.

                              The challenge I would suggest is this. Can anyone name a historical case where the police knowingly withheld a non-essential witness from the Coroner, even though he was considered of prime importance, and they were still investigating his account behind-the-scenes?

                              Or a trial at the Old Bailey where an important witness is called by the prosecution, even though he or she had not appeared at the inquest?
                              Hi rjpalmer,

                              Well, I fully agree we don't know why Schwartz doesn't appear so any explanation offered must be viewed as a hypothesis. I thought by phrasing it as "indications" carried a sense of that, that I wasn't stating it was a confirmed fact and no other explanation need be offered.

                              Regardless, the idea that the police withheld Schwartz's testimony from the inquest doesn't seem to be something Baxter would stand for. He wasn't exactly sympathetic to the withholding of the details of injuries that occurred after death in the case of Annie Chapman, for example, so I would want to see something a bit more concrete that indicated not only did the police actively work to withhold Schwartz from the inquest, but that Baxter allowed this as well.

                              But let's say in this case we assume they were able to convince Baxter not to call on Schwartz. They didn't seem to do that with Mary Malcolm, who ended up causing them to have to go hunt down her sister and get her to show up later to clear up that confusion of identification, it seems dragging their feet there would have saved them a lot of footsteps later. Basically, we have to go with "they did it for Schwartz, but not others of a similar gist", which again I think would require something more solid than just "the possibility remains" before we stack too much on top of that foundation.

                              However, it seems to me the point under debate is whether or not the police/coroner did not have Schwartz testify specifically because they did not have any faith in his testimony, rather than the police may have had some reason to have his testimony withheld. Because the latter part of that would include reasons where they believe him, but don't want the information public, if we consider options along those lines, we're already rejecting the notion he was withheld for reasons of disbelief.

                              Those types of explanations become a bit difficult because Schwartz's statement, a bit mangled, is out in the public already, so it's hard to see why he would be withheld. Moreover, if they believe him, it makes it harder to accept that Baxter would allow for his testimony to be withheld because it becomes more relevant to the case (again, injuries after death he wasn't recorded even though those cannot indicate how she died, etc). It's not that such explanations are possible, I just think they require more evidence or pointers of some sort before the very simple explanation of "Schwartz just didn't show up for his own reasons". That explanation would leave little in the way of the document trail.

                              As I say, I don't know why Schwartz isn't there. As I say, I tend to believe it more likely he just didn't show up rather than the police or the coroner prevented him from testifying. All of the actions of the police at the time, and their communications, show signs of them acting upon Schwartz's information and no indications that they thought his testimony complete fantasy. And, we do have some witnesses we know they didn't believe, and they do not prevent them despite the extra work their testimony is going to cause them. We can't be sure of the strength of their belief in Schwartz, other than it does not appear to have shifted into what would better be described as disbelief, because they were still following up leads from his statement and letters to H.O. also only make sense if they have belief in him.

                              But if the police had some direct role in holding Schwartz back from the inquest, I would expect there to be something that indicates that. So far, nothing in the documentation points in that direction, so while it's not impossible it's also not supported by evidence either. And the far simpler explanation, if we feel the need to offer one, is that Schwartz just didn't attend for reasons unknown. That's also not supported, so we can only compare the two explanations based upon their simplicity.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Oh my, this was mangled: "(again, injuries after death he wasn't recorded even though those cannot indicate how she died, etc)."

                                that should have read something more like "(again, injuries after death he didn't allow to avoid recording in the Chapman case even though those cannot indicate how she died, etc)" His reasoning there was that other medical opinion could differ, so it should be on record. The same reasoning would, I think, have been applied for Schwartz ("You may not think it pertinent to when she died, but other opinions may differ" - just to presume one possible argument the police may have tried to keep Schwartz's testimony under wraps).

                                Anyway, no, I can't prove any of that, but the explanation looks inconsistent with behaviours in similar, though admittedly not identicle, situations.

                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X