Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

    Read the big difference between Schwartz's police statement and his statement to the STAR the very next day.
    "Schwartz didn't show for his own reasons which are unknown" is a weak reason.The Coroner would announce Schwartz name in the inquest and ask the police to find him like Ted Stanley and Thomas Conway.But I understand now I am alone in the belief that a person - who saw an assault on the same spot minutes before the dead body was discovered - was TOO important to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated in the Coroners Act or in any murder case/inquiry.
    We have to agree to disagree.I'm off.
    Hi Varqm,

    Yes, the explanation is vague, but that's because we don't know why he didn't appear. It's not recorded after all. I'm only willing to speculate so far, and I'm speculating that Schwartz was the one who made the decision not to go to the inquest, but have nothing upon which to even base a speculation as to what his reason might be. I can offer examples of the types of explanations, illness, work, fear, etc, but there's nothing recorded upon which to justify choosing any one of those, hence I acknowlege that by saying "for reasons unknown".

    We have nothing to indicate that the Coroner did ask the police to go get Schwartz. We also have nothing that indicates the Coroner summoned Schwartz. A conflicting account in a newspaper would not result in the Coroner tossing a witness, at most it might prompt the Coroner to enquire about the discrepancy but in all likelihood the Coroner would be well aware that such stories in the paper are often exaggerated. The Star article is, after all, a secondary account of what Schwartz said to the reporter, it's not a verbatim account, so neither we, nor the coroner, would know if the conflicting stories came from Schwartz, or came from a less than accurate summarization by the reporter.

    We're left with either Schwartz not appearing for some reason personal to him or his situation, or with the possibility the coroner did not have his statement in the first place. If the former, those reasons are unknown, if the latter we have two options on the table, a clerical error that resulted in his statement not getting sent by accident, or a deliberate removal of his statement by a lower ranking police member who for their own reasons decided Schwartz's testimony would not be made available to the coroner. Of those two, I suggest the clerical error is the least complex.

    But you're correct, I think we have to agree to disagree.

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      The problem is that you state opinions as fact.



      Its not the only possible reason. As everyone but you can understand.
      Again you are not reading the posts and paying attention,I said the most reasonable reason,the others are weak.
      But I understand now I am alone in the belief that a person - who saw an assault on the same spot minutes before the dead body was discovered - was TOO important to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated in the Coroners Act or in any murder case/inquiry.
      I'm moving on..
      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

        Again you are not reading the posts and paying attention,I said the most reasonable reason,the others are weak.
        But I understand now I am alone in the belief that a person - who saw an assault on the same spot minutes before the dead body was discovered - was TOO important to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated in the Coroners Act or in any murder case/inquiry.
        I'm moving on..
        So I’m not reading your posts? Well, I read this one.

        .The only possible reason was he was not believed by the coroner,same as Packer
        Can anyone spot the difference between the two? The latter quote is the main reason for this part of the debate. As I said...stating opinion as fact.

        ......

        You’ve accused me of ‘not understanding’ and yet you say of Schwartz

        As long as he could identify the woman assaulted was the victim and describe the circumstances he did his job
        As LO explained, the ‘identification’ required by the Coroner was for someone to have said “the woman in the mortuary is called Elizabeth Stride and I know this because...” Schwartz clearly couldn’t have done this. Describing the ‘circumstances’ didn’t contribute to the aims of the inquest.

        .....

        Id also comment on one of your previous comments about why seemingly unimportant witness like Monk appeared at an inquest?

        all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge of the facts whom he thinks itexpedient to examine
        This indicates that there were two types of witness. Those that voluntarily ‘tendered’ their evidence and those that the Coroner himself chose to examine. So, as we have no record of how each witness came to be at any inquest, it’s reasonable to suggest that any of the least ‘useful’ witnesses might simply have just turned up to the inquest to ‘tender’ their evidence and the Coroner was obliged to hear them out.

        .......

        On the Coroner rejecting Schwartz because of his statement to The Star. I’m not stating anything as ‘fact’ here I’m just asking questions.

        Would the Coroner have read every police statement before calling his witnesses? Or would he have just taken advice from the police before making his decision? I don’t know. Would the police have wanted to have been without the statements as reference for any period of time? After all there were no photocopies. I’ll repeat, I’m not making an assertion here because I don’t know, but would the Coroner have read all of the statements or would he have been advised by the police? Would the coroner really have looked into each witness in depth looking for errors and inconsistencies or would he have asked the people who had interviewed the witnesses face to face and who’s job it was to assess their validity?

        Next I’d ask, would the Coroner have made a decision on who to call to an inquest based on newspaper reports? It seems more than a little hard to believe that an intelligent man wouldn’t have realised how much newspaper articles can vary and contain error and even intentional exaggeration. Would he have bothered reading the papers? And if he had might he not have simply sought the opinion of the police on the matter? I’m really struggling to accept that the coroner would reject a potential witness purely on this basis?
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
          We have nothing in the surviving documents where there's any mention of concern that Schwartz didn't appear, so if the above did happen, there doesn't appear to have been any repercussions; but such a lack of surprise may also indicate that Schwartz just didn't choose to show up and the police were familiar enough with that sort of thing too.

          Thanks for that. It's given me something to think about.

          - Jeff
          Hi Jeff - I am not certain that I can entirely agree that there was no 'concern' that Schwartz did not appear at the inquest. It seems to me that there IS concern implicit in the Home Office's communications to the Met. And let's bear in mind that both Anderson and Warren state, inaccurately, that Schwartz WAS at the inquest, so they would hardly be voicing any 'surprise' or demand for 'repercussions.'

          The weirdest thing about Schwartz in the Home Office/MEPO files is that the discussion about him coincides almost perfectly with the closing of the inquest.

          Oct 1/2: Schwartz is mentioned in The Star.

          Oct 3-18: Nothing more is heard about Schwartz from any source.

          Oct 19: Swanson submits a report to the Home Office, which discusses Schwartz. This is after nearly 3 weeks.

          Oct 23: The Stride inquest closes. Schwartz did not appear.

          Oct 24: Warren writes a report to the Home Office about the Stride murder.

          Oct 25: The Home Office starts asking about Schwartz, and begins a series of letters, which culminates in Abberline weighing in on Nov 1st.


          Isn't this timing a little strange? Carefully considered, the star witness to come out of the Stride inquest, and the man who is at the center of all the discussion, is the man who did not appear.

          It is only after the inquest closes that the Home Office is asking questions: What about the men seen by Schwartz? Can 'Lipski' be relevant? Did you try to trace Lipski? What measures have you taken? All of this is happening after Oct 24th.

          It's almost as if an astute person at the Home Office, having read Swanson's report of Oct 19th, noticed that Schwartz did not appear at the inquest, and is wondering about it, just as modern commentators wonder. 'What about this man Schwartz? Have you forgot about him? Has he fallen through the cracks?

          So, to me, concern is being voiced, though not explicitly, by the Home Office.

          We get no answer to this question, and oddly, it doesn't seem like there could have been one offered up by Anderson or Warren, since both men wrongly state that Schwartz HAD appeared at the inquest.

          It's a strange business, and I don't fault people like Simon and Varqm for wondering about it. There could be an innocent explanation, but there does appear to be some sort of disconnect somewhere along the lines.

          Cheers
          Last edited by rjpalmer; 04-01-2021, 02:30 PM.

          Comment


          • I can’t recall but do we know if there was any personal animosity between Abberline and Reid? Could they have disagreed on Schwartz and Reid expressed his disapproval by not handing over his name to the Coroner?
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

              Ok, that's a fair interpretation too.

              I think RJ's suggestion is that the step of passing on Schwartz's statement to the coroner is what may not have happened, but that decision may have been made by a lower ranking officer (Reid has been suggested, but it could have been someone else) because they themselves did not believe Schwartz, not that there was a consensus amongst the police, particularly the higher ups like Warren.

              That's got me wondering if something even less devious (for lack of a better word) could have happened, and Schwartz's statement was simply not included in the pile of statements when it was sent over by accident. It was, say, misplaced, or not filed with the others for some innocent reason. These types of explanations are getting at the idea that there was some sort of failure in the process of getting Schwartz's statement to the coroner to consider. If so, the coroner had no opportunity to even make a call about their belief in Schwartz (and again, other witnesses where there's clearly disbelief from the coroner are allowed time on the stand nonetheless). One of those ideas involves a deliberate deviation from protocol, the other I've suggested here, involves only a failure in the system of paper transfer.

              Something like that, I think, deserves more consideration at this point.

              - Jeff
              That seems to be like a fair possibility, Jeff. If the statement was believed to have been among those sent to the Coroner, but for whatever reason didn't reach his eyes, might that also explain why it was later assumed that Schwartz was called to attend and did in fact attend?

              I did also wonder if the Coroner would have distinguished between essential and non-essential witnesses, when it came to their legal obligation to attend? Since Schwartz's evidence was of the non-essential kind, and he didn't witness an actual murder, or even know if what he claimed to see and hear directly led to one, then might his attendance have been more in the form of an invitation than a summons, with no threat of a fine if he failed to show up - especially if it turned out he was ill, or had been attacked by his wife with a rolling pin for not helping her move house?

              I generally prefer the simple explanations to sinister ones, unless there is clear evidence for the latter.

              Happy Easter all.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                That seems to be like a fair possibility, Jeff. If the statement was believed to have been among those sent to the Coroner, but for whatever reason didn't reach his eyes, might that also explain why it was later assumed that Schwartz was called to attend and did in fact attend?

                I did also wonder if the Coroner would have distinguished between essential and non-essential witnesses, when it came to their legal obligation to attend? Since Schwartz's evidence was of the non-essential kind, and he didn't witness an actual murder, or even know if what he claimed to see and hear directly led to one, then might his attendance have been more in the form of an invitation than a summons, with no threat of a fine if he failed to show up - especially if it turned out he was ill, or had been attacked by his wife with a rolling pin for not helping her move house?

                I generally prefer the simple explanations to sinister ones, unless there is clear evidence for the latter.

                Happy Easter all.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                Happy Easter to you Caz,

                I’ve previously speculated that Schwartz may have felt in fear of reprisals from BS Man and now that I know more about the actual aims of an inquest I’m tending to think that the idea might have more going for it than I’d originally thought. If he’d have expressed his fears to the police they might either have taken it upon themselves not to have passed his name onto the coroner or they might have passed his request onto the Coroner who, taking into consideration how little of value Schwartz could have added to the aims of the inquest, decided not to call him.
                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 Jeff - I am not certain that I can entirely agree that there was no 'concern' that Schwartz did not appear at the inquest. It seems to me that there IS concern implicit in the Home Office's communications to the Met. And let's bear in mind that both Anderson and Warren state, inaccurately, that Schwartz WAS at the inquest, so they would hardly be voicing any 'surprise' or demand for 'repercussions.'

                  The weirdest thing about Schwartz in the Home Office/MEPO files is that the discussion about him coincides almost perfectly with the closing of the inquest.

                  Oct 1/2: Schwartz is mentioned in The Star.

                  Oct 3-18: Nothing more is heard about Schwartz from any source.

                  Oct 19: Swanson submits a report to the Home Office, which discusses Schwartz. This is after nearly 3 weeks.

                  Oct 23: The Stride inquest closes. Schwartz did not appear.

                  Oct 24: Warren writes a report to the Home Office about the Stride murder.

                  Oct 25: The Home Office starts asking about Schwartz, and begins a series of letters, which culminates in Abberline weighing in on Nov 1st.


                  Isn't this timing a little strange? Carefully considered, the star witness to come out of the Stride inquest, and the man who is at the center of all the discussion, is the man who did not appear.

                  It is only after the inquest closes that the Home Office is asking questions: What about the men seen by Schwartz? Can 'Lipski' be relevant? Did you try to trace Lipski? What measures have you taken? All of this is happening after Oct 24th.

                  It's almost as if an astute person at the Home Office, having read Swanson's report of Oct 19th, noticed that Schwartz did not appear at the inquest, and is wondering about it, just as modern commentators wonder. 'What about this man Schwartz? Have you forgot about him? Has he fallen through the cracks?

                  So, to me, concern is being voiced, though not explicitly, by the Home Office.

                  We get no answer to this question, and oddly, it doesn't seem like there could have been one offered up by Anderson or Warren, since both men wrongly state that Schwartz HAD appeared at the inquest.

                  It's a strange business, and I don't fault people like Simon and Varqm for wondering about it. There could be an innocent explanation, but there does appear to be some sort of disconnect somewhere along the lines.

                  Cheers
                  Hi rj,

                  True, both Anderson and Warren state Schwartz was at the inquest, however, Warren appears to have simply added in, almost verbatim, Anderson's letter on that point. I think that only goes to show that Warren, at least, either did not know Schwartz had not attended, or at the time of writing the letter overlooked that fact. It does, however, suggest he had no strong reason to question why Schwartz was at the inquest, which he would if he was of the opinion Schwartz had been discredited.

                  I think H.O., if their questions were sparked by someone noting Schwartz had not attended the inquest, then that would indicate H.O. did not hold the view Schwartz was discredited. But they would be less connected to such details, so that might hardly be surprising.

                  I'm not sure I would read too much into the similarity of the time lines. The H.O. interest in Schwartz starts when they receive the Swanson report of the 19th. That occurs before the inquest, and it rises from there, coincidently overlapping the end of the inquest. I don't think H.O. was following the inquest, and so I doubt there was someone noting that Schwartz didn't appear. H.O. was looking to divert blame for the outrage that was occurring in response to the double event and the other murders. Tensions were rising, I believe , between Warren and H.O. around that time (I can never recall the time line of the various internal conflicts that were going on).

                  But again, if either Anderson or Warren had knowledge, or held the belief, that Schwartz's testimony was invalid (not just about Lipski, but thought Schwartz was lying type thing) and that they did not think Schwartz was supposed to attend and give his statement to the coroner, then Warren would have simply told H.O. that Schwartz has been determined to have no relevant information to the case, rather than go into the details of how Lipski is being used, which simply casts doubt on Schwartz's interpretation of the events, but not the events themselves.

                  What I'm getting at is that if there was concern amongst the police about Schwartz not attending, that would go to further the suggestion that the police saw him as a useful witness, not as a discredited one. And I think that is the current division of discussion "Did or did not the police believe Schwartz was a witness with useful information". The notion he was discredited and pulled from the inquest, is based on the idea that the police did not think anything Schwartz testified to was real, while the alternative explains Schwartz's absence from the inquest despite the police still viewing his statement as being of an actual event as situational (I've been suggesting that situation lies with Schwartz but we don't know them, though it's possible the situation was through his statement not making it to the coroner, by accident or design).

                  As I say, signs of concern within the police, and to a much lower degree within the H.O., over Schwartz's non-appearance point towards a belief that Schwartz is still a useful suspect. H.O. would not be in on the details of day-to-day things, and so their interest in Schwartz could remain for a much longer period even if the police had discredited him. I strongly believe that the Anderson/Warren letter, written after the inquest, would be of a very different nature had Schwartz been discredited, as would the lines of investigation they were actively pursuing. I think that rules out disbelief in Schwartz at the top levels of the police.

                  It does not, however, rule our your suggestion of possible disbelief in the lower ranks with Schwartz being culled by an enterprising lower rank Police Officer inserting their opinion into the witness selection process for the inquest, nor does it rule out more mundane explanations like a clerical error. While the absence of evidence is not a good thing to argue from, I could see a clerical error being something Warren might not want to mention to H.O. as there was already tension building between Warren and H.O. at that time if I recall correctly? Having an important witness's statement not sent to the coroner by accident would fall upon his shoulders, and I could see him not wanting to bring that to light if it could be avoided. Anyway, it's a hypothesis arguing from the invalid stance of the absence of evidence, so I can't object to anyone ignoring that idea - I'm hardly comfortable even presenting it. On the other hand, the culling by a lower ranked police officer would be something that would raise his ire, and an internal investigation would be held to find out who was responsible. That could also be embarrassing, but I would expect that to generate a paper trail of some sort, but I suppose there are ways to explain why there isn't (making it another argument of the "absence of evidence" sort).

                  Anyway, the short version is that any signs of concern over Schwartz's non-attendance would reflect belief in, rather than disbelief in, Schwartz as a valid witness.

                  - Jeff
                  Last edited by JeffHamm; 04-01-2021, 07:42 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post

                    That seems to be like a fair possibility, Jeff. If the statement was believed to have been among those sent to the Coroner, but for whatever reason didn't reach his eyes, might that also explain why it was later assumed that Schwartz was called to attend and did in fact attend?

                    I did also wonder if the Coroner would have distinguished between essential and non-essential witnesses, when it came to their legal obligation to attend? Since Schwartz's evidence was of the non-essential kind, and he didn't witness an actual murder, or even know if what he claimed to see and hear directly led to one, then might his attendance have been more in the form of an invitation than a summons, with no threat of a fine if he failed to show up - especially if it turned out he was ill, or had been attacked by his wife with a rolling pin for not helping her move house?

                    I generally prefer the simple explanations to sinister ones, unless there is clear evidence for the latter.

                    Happy Easter all.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    Hi Caz,

                    I could see how the higher ups, like Andersen and Warren, would have maintained the impression that Schwartz would have been at the inquest if for some reason Schwartz's statement never made it to the Coroner (either by design or by accident). Obviously, I do not know if either of those happened, it's just a line of thinking being tossed about. I would think that once they did become aware of such a thing, there would be an internal investigation to find out why Schwartz's statement did not get to the coroner. We have no evidence for such a thing. But we also have no internal evidence showing "dismay" at Schwartz's non-appearance, nor do we have any indication at the inquest that the police wanted to call an "important witness", which could fit with the "didn't believe Schwartz anymore" idea. What we have is the absence of evidence, and that allows speculation to fill in that gap anyway and any how, which in turn is why that's the point we cannot make an advance and should really just say "for some reason Schwartz's testimony was not given", and try and see if there is anything else that weighs in. I see the police actions, and the internal communications, as looking like there was still some level of belief in Schwartz's statement, which goes against the latter idea. But it doesn't give us any insight as to why Schwartz wasn't there, it only points against an explanation based upon a complete collapse in faith in him as a witness.

                    And yes, I prefer mundane explanations, like accidental clerical errors, because they do not require filling in more complex issues. No system is error proof, so mistakes will happen without causes being required. A "failure of the system" just requires we speculate that the error was his report was not sent. A "culling by an individual Police Officer" requires the "mistake" to still happen (we still have to speculate the report didn't make it to the coroner) but now we also have to include "and someone had the intention to remove him". That requires us to insert 2 important unknown ideas, while the former only requires 1, making it the explanation with the lower amount of speculation. To me, that's the better explanation until proven otherwise. To prove otherwise, we need to have something that provides evidence of the "intention" that is required for the 2nd explanation.

                    Enjoy the long weekend.

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                      I'm not sure I would read too much into the similarity of the time lines. The H.O. interest in Schwartz starts when they receive the Swanson report of the 19th. That occurs before the inquest, and it rises from there
                      Hi Jeff,

                      Before the inquest? Do you mean after?

                      The Stride Inquest was held in 5 sessions. Oct 1, 2, 3, and 5th were the first four sessions, which comprises almost the entirety of it, so I think it would be more accurate to state that Swanson's report of Oct 19th occurred after inquest--two weeks after.

                      There was a short, final session held four days later, Oct 23rd, but this involved only Inspector Reid and two brief witnesses, whose depositions confirmed Elizabeth Stride's identity.

                      As I wrote earlier, Swanson's report may have piqued the Home Office's interest in Schwartz, but they did not begin to ask any questions about him until Oct 25th, which is directly after they received Sir Charles Warren's report on the Stride murder, submitted after the inquest was finalized. It was something in that report that seems to have set their brains wondering. The obvious implication of their questions is that they believed Schwartz testimony was potentially vital and they wanted reassurance that it had been investigated. These aren't the type of questions wants to be asked by one's "boss."

                      Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                      Anyway, the short version is that any signs of concern over Schwartz's non-attendance would reflect belief in, rather than disbelief in, Schwartz as a valid witness.
                      Agreed, but this doesn't really tell us anything about the Met's belief/non-belief in Schwartz.

                      Question: is 'valid' the appropriate word? What do you mean by 'belief in the validity' of the witness? Belief that he was telling the truth?

                      This is a gray area.

                      It's seems more accurate to state that the HO/Met believed Schwartz was a potentially important witness, as far as the investigation went, rather than a 'valid' witness. A good detective is always going to keep in mind the possibility that a witness is lying or is badly mistaken. Investigating his story, in itself, doesn't necessarily indicate belief.

                      Abberline and Swanson are entirely objective in their remarks about Schwartz. They give no hint as to whether he was believed or not believed. They give no indication he was discredited, either. They show that his account was studied and investigated. But the police frequently investigate the accounts of witnesses they doubt or disbelieve, so I don't think this alone proves that he was 'valid,' only that they didn't dismiss him out-of-hand.

                      On the other hand, the only three contemporary statements we have--such as they are--seem to voice doubt about Schwartz. The Star of Oct 1st claims his story was not entirely believed by the police, and the issue of Oct 2nd, repeats this allegation. These are uncomfortable sources, perhaps, but they are the only sources we have that attach a value judgement to Schwartz's account.

                      The only other indication of what the police may or may not have believed comes from Sir Robert Anderson. He does not write that Schwartz's man 'cried Lipski,' he writes that Schwartz's man "allegedly cried Lispki," which, at best means that Anderson was trying to remain as non-committal as possible, and at worse means that he was exposing his doubt about the witness's reliability. Considering what Anderson would later write about Jews and "Gentile Justice," I tend to favor the latter interpretation.

                      I maintain that the whole business is a little odd.

                      To Herlock: I've read an account of a case in Holborn in the early 1880s where a criminal gang committed a throat-cutting in the street. The only witness was intimidated by the gang into not attending the inquest. Eventually, however, the police learned of this intimidation and escorted the witness to the inquest under police protection. I do not think Schwartz's personal fear would necessarily have stopped the police, had they believed his attendance necessary, but I suppose one could theorize they weren't aware that Schwartz was being intimidated, and he fobbed them off with a plausible excuse. Unfortunately, nowhere do the police explicitly discuss Schwartz's attendance/non-attendance, so we are all merely speculating. To me, a clerical error is no more simple or plausible an explanation than a deliberate decision not to have him attend. It could have been either, or neither.


                      Last edited by rjpalmer; 04-02-2021, 04:20 PM.

                      Comment


                      • .
                        To Herlock: I've read an account of a case in Holborn in the early 1880s where a criminal gang committed a throat-cutting in the street. The only witness was intimidated into not attending the inquest. Eventually, however, the police learned of this intimidation and escorted the witness to the inquest under police protection. I do not think Schwartz's personal fear would necessarily have stopped the police, had they believed his attendance necessary, but I suppose one could theorize they weren't aware that Schwartz was being intimidated, and he fobbed them off with a plausible excuse. Unfortunately, nowhere do the police explicitly discuss Schwartz's attendance/non-attendance, so we are all merely speculating. To me, a clerical error is no more simple or plausible an explanation than a deliberate decision not to have him attend. It could have been either, or neither.
                        Hello Roger,

                        But if we take into account, as a Coroner surely would have, what Schwartz could have brought of value to the inquest then he might have felt that he was no loss. There’s nothing that Schwartz could have added that was so vital to the aims of an inquest that it simply couldn’t have been left out. Might the coroner simply have weighed things up? Alternatively mightn’t Schwartz have just ‘done a runner?’ Especially if he felt that he might be in real danger.

                        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 Jeff,

                          Before the inquest? Do you mean after?

                          yes, before it ended but after it started, looked at the wrong date
                          The Stride Inquest was held in 5 sessions. Oct 1, 2, 3, and 5th were the first four sessions, which comprises almost the entirety of it, so I think it would be more accurate to state that Swanson's report of Oct 19th occurred after inquest--two weeks after.

                          There was a short, final session held four days later, Oct 23rd, but this involved only Inspector Reid and two brief witnesses, whose depositions confirmed Elizabeth Stride's identity.

                          As I wrote earlier, Swanson's report may have piqued the Home Office's interest in Schwartz, but they did not begin to ask any questions about him until Oct 25th, which is directly after they received Sir Charles Warren's report on the Stride murder, submitted after the inquest was finalized. It was something in that report that seems to have set their brains wondering. The obvious implication of their questions is that they believed Schwartz testimony was potentially vital and they wanted reassurance that it had been investigated. These aren't the type of questions wants to be asked by one's "boss."



                          Agreed, but this doesn't really tell us anything about the Met's belief/non-belief in Schwartz.

                          Question: is 'valid' the appropriate word? What do you mean by 'belief in the validity' of the witness? Belief that he was telling the truth?

                          valid, as in he's not making it up for publicity, etc. As long as the police believe he's genuine if you prefer, they would want his testimony. They then work to determine if what the witness recalls is accurate and if it leads to new information.

                          This is a gray area.

                          It's seems more accurate to state that the HO/Met believed Schwartz was a potentially important witness, as far as the investigation went, rather than a 'valid' witness. A good detective is always going to keep in mind the possibility that a witness is lying or is badly mistaken. Investigating his story, in itself, doesn't necessarily indicate belief.

                          Abberline and Swanson are entirely objective in their remarks about Schwartz. They give no hint as to whether he was believed or not believed. They give no indication he was discredited, either. They show that his account was studied and investigated. But the police frequently investigate the accounts of witnesses they doubt or disbelieve, so I don't think this alone proves that he was 'valid,' only that they didn't dismiss him out-of-hand.

                          Agreed, they doubted Schwartz's interpretation of Lipski, but they followed up on it because they believed he was a genuine witness. If they doubted he was a genuine witness ( a plant, publicity seeker, etc) they would not.

                          On the other hand, the only three contemporary statements we have--such as they are--seem to voice doubt about Schwartz. The Star of Oct 1st claims his story was not entirely believed by the police, and the issue of Oct 2nd, repeats this allegation. These are uncomfortable sources, perhaps, but they are the only sources we have that attach a value judgement to Schwartz's account.

                          but as we know the police doubted schwartz was correct about pipeman being an accomplice, etc then need we anything more to explain those?

                          The only other indication of what the police may or may not have believed comes from Sir Robert Anderson. He does not write that Schwartz's man 'cried Lipski,' he writes that Schwartz's man "allegedly cried Lispki," which, at best means that Anderson was trying to remain as non-committal as possible, and at worse means that he was exposing his doubt about the witness's reliability. Considering what Anderson would later write about Jews and "Gentile Justice," I tend to favor the latter interpretation.

                          Does he say he allegedly cried Lipski to/at pipeman type thing? We know he doubted the target after all.

                          I maintain that the whole business is a little odd.

                          To Herlock: I've read an account of a case in Holborn in the early 1880s where a criminal gang committed a throat-cutting in the street. The only witness was intimidated by the gang into not attending the inquest. Eventually, however, the police learned of this intimidation and escorted the witness to the inquest under police protection. I do not think Schwartz's personal fear would necessarily have stopped the police, had they believed his attendance necessary, but I suppose one could theorize they weren't aware that Schwartz was being intimidated, and he fobbed them off with a plausible excuse. Unfortunately, nowhere do the police explicitly discuss Schwartz's attendance/non-attendance, so we are all merely speculating. To me, a clerical error is no more simple or plausible an explanation than a deliberate decision not to have him attend. It could have been either, or neither.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post

                            I did also wonder if the Coroner would have distinguished between essential and non-essential witnesses, when it came to their legal obligation to attend? Since Schwartz's evidence was of the non-essential kind, and he didn't witness an actual murder, or even know if what he claimed to see and hear directly led to one, then might his attendance have been more in the form of an invitation than a summons, with no threat of a fine if he failed to show up - especially if it turned out he was ill, or had been attacked by his wife with a rolling pin for not helping her move house?

                            I generally prefer the simple explanations to sinister ones, unless there is clear evidence for the latter.

                            Happy Easter all.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            That seems to be a conscious effort to ignore the fact that Israels story would place the victim off the premises, being assaulted, and within 1 minute of the earliest cut time. Whi ch would greatly influence answers to "HOW did Liz Stride die? Not by Whom, or when or why, just how. A witnessed assault would surely point the figure at the assailant for Wilful Murder..but because BSM clearly is no Ripper, you ignore that bit too.

                            The ability to accept data is not to be influenced by a projected and speculated outcome. The fact is, Israels story is directly relevant in the context of the Inquest mission. And he isnt there. At all.

                            The main obstacle is your belief that working backwards from a premise about the outcome is still valid investigative analysis.
                            Last edited by Michael W Richards; 04-02-2021, 06:23 PM.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • That seems to be a conscious effort to ignore the fact that Israels story would place the victim off the premises, being assaulted, and within 1 minute of the earliest cut time
                              It’s not a ‘conscious effort.’ It’s simply a matter of looking at the actual aims of the inquest and not assuming that the aims were what you want them to be.

                              The ‘how’ Stride died was determined by Doctors. Schwartz was irrelevant to this. He didn’t see Stride getting killed. It’s simple stuff.

                              BSM clearly is no Ripper
                              Opinion stated as fact.....again.

                              The fact is, Israels story is directly relevant in the context of the Inquest mission
                              Clearly not....except to you of course.

                              The ability to accept data is not to be influenced by a projected and speculated outcome
                              An absolute Mount Everest of irony.

                              It looks like we now have even more inconvenient evidence for you to ignore..
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                              Comment


                              • [QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n754825]

                                It’s not a ‘conscious effort.’ It’s simply a matter of looking at the actual aims of the inquest and not assuming that the aims were what you want them to be.

                                Had you done your research youll see that the ONLY mandate for the Inquest is to determine HOW Liz Stride dies. By accident, her own hand, wilful murder, etc. So you see, I am using the "actual" claims as a basis for my comments.

                                The ‘how’ Stride died was determined by Doctors. Schwartz was irrelevant to this. He didn’t see Stride getting killed. It’s simple stuff.

                                Wrong again , see above. Its now how as in what weapon adn what kind of wound, its HOW. Again. If you really imagine that an assault on a soon to be murder victim within minutes of her death isnt relevant to HOW she dies, I cant help you. Had he been believed or validated, his story would have been there. It would be germane to the question at hand. The ONLY question the Inquest was tasked with.


                                Opinion stated as fact.....again.

                                Your confusing using evidence and fact with you own form of problem solving...presume a ripper without any ripping evidence...presume an interruption to explain lack of ripping evidence, without having interruption evidence...and of course insult the people who choose to use evidence and the majority of witness accounts that are corroborative over all the unsubstantiated ones. You have that down now though, you dont need me to advise you on that.


                                [QUOTE]

                                You seem to have this obnoxious habit of making conclusions about some victory on your part when you are provably incorrect with any rebuttal you use.

                                You are provably incorrect when you assume I chose the Inquest rules, or that 4 witnesses with the same events and timings are less believable than people who have no-one that verifies any of their remarks. You accept a witness saying he arrives at 1 and "discovers" the body, when other witnesses say they brought a policeman into the yard to help with the dying woman at the same time. Including the policeman. So the cop validates them for that statement. Is it then correct to assume that these same men that who were corroberated by PC Lamb at just after 1am couldnt tell time, had no clocks or watches to refer to, or that the fact that a group of them stated activities at 12:40-12:-45 are all somehow incorrect by 20 minutes? Herlock. Please. Im not relishing having to repeat this over and over again, and you are doing yourself no credibility favours by requiring it to be done. If you have a learning disability, I will explain things in detail for you...if not, dont be an a** anymore, ok?.

                                At least your consistent. So youve got that going for ya too.

                                To summarize....not one person validates Eagles remarks, Laves remarks, Israels statement details or Louis' stated arival time. A group of people makes statements that directly refute them as well. But you take Schwartz by 10 lengths and a close second with Louis. People no-one saw arriving at the race.
                                Last edited by Michael W Richards; 04-02-2021, 08:32 PM.
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X