Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • [QUOTE=Michael W Richards;n754827][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.

    Schwartz didn’t see her die! He couldn’t contribute to the’ how.’ A child could see this.

    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.

    Nope. The Doctor told the Coroner how she died. Schwartz couldn’t have contributed.


    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.

    Thanks Michael. I always love to hear you’re classic ‘evidence of absence joke.” Of course, anyone that claims this as a fact can’t be taken seriously. It’s the stupidest statement in the entire history of Ripperology. Congratulations.



    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

    Dishonest manipulation of evidence.

    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.

    An infantile insistence that all timings, made by people without watches, have to be taken as exact. Please grow up Michael.

    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?.

    These points have been dismissed as has you're theory. Give it up.

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

    And at least you have others that agree that you’re joke theory is viable....OH, I FORGOT, YOU DON”T

    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

    Same old crap. Laughable, embarrassing bilge.

    .
    By the way, have you come up with proof that Gilleman backs up the earlier discovery time?

    No?

    Didn't think so. Another lie.

    No wonder David awarded you the Kristina Nordqvist Award For False Accusations To Deflect From One’s Own Failings.

    You’re a worthy winner.



    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

    Comment


    • Still do not understand. Tomkins,Mulshaw (Nichols),Clapp,Pierce (Eddowes),so called non-essential witnesses and the "4" Gardner,Best,Marshall,Brown (Stride) all did not know the how and who,when,and where,other witnesses were used for those.Even Lawende and co.,Long.So why were they in the inquests? How did they contribute?
      Schwartz,like Long Lawende and co.,and above witnesses belong to the facts and circumstances of the case portion Part (2). If the "4" Gardner,Best,Marshall,Brown ,who witnessed Stride with a man talking and "dating",were in the inquest,even more so with Schwartz whose sighting was closest to 1:00 am and Diemschutz's discovery of the dead body and an assault on Stride at that,on the same spot where the dead body lie.

      Coroners Act 1887.
      (2)
      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.
      Last edited by Varqm; 04-03-2021, 09:17 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
        Still do not understand. Tomkins,Mulshaw (Nichols),Clapp,Pierce (Eddowes),so called non-essential witnesses and the "4" Gardner,Best,Marshall,Brown (Stride) all did not know the how and who,when,and where,other witnesses were used for those.Even Lawende and co.,Long.So why were they in the inquests? How did they contribute?
        Schwartz,like Long Lawende and co.,and above witnesses belong to the facts and circumstances of the case portion Part (2). If the "4" Gardner,Best,Marshall,Brown ,who witnessed Stride with a man talking and "dating",were in the inquest,even more so with Schwartz whose sighting was closest to 1:00 am and Diemschutz's discovery of the dead body and an assault on Stride at that,on the same spot where the dead body lie.

        Coroners Act 1887.
        (2)
        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.
        Varqm, I’m not trying to present myself as an expert in Inquests (or an expert in anything for that matter.) I’m only basing any opinion that I might have on this particular topic on what David mentions in his article and whatever anyone’s ‘opinion’ he’s hardly someone that’s known for his skimpy research. Quite the opposite in fact, so yes I place great store on his opinion. You or anyone else is free to disagree of course. I also accept absolutely that there were witnesses at the inquests who contributed nothing of meaning in regard to the aims of the Inquest. My only suggestion is based on this part:

        .all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge of the facts whom he thinks itexpedient to examine
        Ive underlined ‘and’ because this appears to show that there were two types of witness. 1) Witnesses called by the Coroner, and 2) Those who ‘tendered’ their evidence (who just turned up voluntarily.) Perhaps those people assumed that would have been required to attend, or perhaps they felt that they were doing their civic duty or perhaps they just wanted to see their names in the paper? And so witnesses like Tomkins and Mulshaw to name just two might have fallen into the ‘type 2’ witness category.

        We could add of course, what did Smith or Lamb add?

        If I claim any point as a fact Varqm it’s that we just don’t know why Schwartz didn’t attend. Like everyone else I’ve always felt it strange that he didn’t attend but I was ignorant of the very specific aims of the Inquest. But know that I know those very specific aims I can see that Schwartz goes from someone I’d previously assumed to have been a vital witness to one who could actually contribute nothing to strict aims of the Inquest. There are still unknowns of course but we can’t state as anything approaching a fact that the Coroner didn’t call him because he had no faith in him. We can’t conclusively disprove that but we can’t state it as fact as there are other possible explanations.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment


        • .
          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
          Its rather strange that you are now talking about the ‘aims’ of the Inquest when all along you’ve been stating as a fact that Schwartz wasn’t called to the inquest because the police had lost faith in him. I wonder, if I looked back, I’d find you claiming that he could have added to more to the Inquest than just the ‘how?’ Either way, it’s baffling that you’re claiming that he could have added to the ‘how.’ Anyone would think that you desperately needed to discredit Schwartz to support a theory.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

          Comment


          • I remember now. From an earlier post:

            . The manner of death could be accidental, willfully committed, a result of suicide..there are variables. The HOW is the only question here, and Israel would have impacted what they perceived
            So regarding the ‘how,’ the Inquest would have needed Schwartz to help them decide a) if Stride had accidentally fallen onto a very sharp edge resulting in her throat being cut or b) if she had gone into Dutfield’s Yard to commit suicide then annoyingly got rid of the knife or c) was wilfully murdered by person or persons unknown.

            Difficult choices Michael. I can see why Schwartz attendance would have been imperative.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              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. Which 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.
              Well put!

              Sick of idiots claiming BSM was Jack.

              BSM was pulling Stride AWAY from the lane.

              Given she was found with cachous for her bottom lip ...... LIP,SEE!
              Why would he shout Lipski?

              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

              Comment


              • 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 fact that she’d had her throat cut was self-explanatory. Schwartz didn’t know her assailant’s name and so he was of no use no matter how much you ignore the fact. To state that BSM wasn’t the ripper (as a fact) is ludicrous of course as it’s a complete unknown. We can speculate either way which would be an honest approach. To claim to know as a fact is dishonest. But we all know this of course .
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Its rather strange that you are now talking about the ‘aims’ of the Inquest when all along you’ve been stating as a fact that Schwartz wasn’t called to the inquest because the police had lost faith in him. I wonder, if I looked back, I’d find you claiming that he could have added to more to the Inquest than just the ‘how?’ Either way, it’s baffling that you’re claiming that he could have added to the ‘how.’ Anyone would think that you desperately needed to discredit Schwartz to support a theory.
                  Pointing out for the last time after repeating it over and over,the Coroner deemed him unreliable and did not put him in the stand,it was the Coroners decision,irrespective of the belief on the witness by the police - who I've said many times believed him during the inquests.
                  I've said many times Schwartz,like a lot of witnesses,was not part of the who,how,where and when or any in particular. I've said many times ,if you read the inquests the Coroners presented the inquests - plus the relatives/partners of the victim, as a timeline,a glimpse into the life of the victim especially the months/weeks/hours/minutes leading to her death, as such all these so -called witnesses were there and essential.
                  I've said many times the inquest was also a murder inquiry ,Schwartz was important - that's why the Coroners Act contained "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."

                  Again making things up on Schwartz is essential to my theory.You do not understand the debates and do not pay attention,you just keep mumbling on.Whats the point.
                  Last edited by Varqm; 04-03-2021, 03:58 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

                    Pointing out for the last time after repeating it over and over,the Coroner deemed him unreliable and did not put him in the stand,it was the Coroners decision,irrespective of the belief on the witness by the police - who I've said many times believed him during the inquests.
                    I've said many times Schwartz,like a lot of witnesses,was not part of the who,how,where and when or any in particular. I've said many times ,if you read the inquests the Coroners presented the inquests - plus the relatives/partners of the victim, as a timeline,a glimpse into the life of the victim especially the months/weeks/hours/minutes leading to her death, as such all these so -called witnesses were there and essential.
                    I've said many times the inquest was also a murder inquiry ,Schwartz was important - that's why the Coroners Act contained "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."

                    Again making things up on Schwartz is essential to my theory.You do not understand the debates and do not pay attention,you just keep mumbling on.Whats the point.
                    Whats the point indeed! Why aren’t YOU getting this Varqm?

                    Pointing out for the last time after repeating it over and over,the Coroner deemed him unreliable and did not put him in the stand,it was the Coroners decision
                    You are stating that the Coroner left him out AS A FACT.

                    That is the point I’m making Varqm.

                    It isn’t a FACT.

                    Its one potential explanation (based on no real evidence) There are other POSSIBLE explanations.

                    Will this finally sink in Varqm? You are stating your OPINION as if it’s a proven FACT.

                    How hard can this be?



                    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

                      Hi,

                      If Schwartz's sighting can't be seen to be relevant to the questions you raise above, as you say, then I fail to see why any witnesses were asked to give statements given none of them even saw a dispute, let alone a man throwing the victim to the ground. Nobody, apart from someone actually witnessing the murder itself, appears able to get a yes to your questions so it's odd we have any witnesses at all.

                      - Jeff
                      People who knew Stride identified her. The time of death could be determined by the evidence of the police surgeon - of what he noted at the scene. Ditto the place, with corroboration by Diemschutz and others. The cause of death could be determined by the initial examination and subsequent post mortem. That explains why Schwartz's evidence wasn't needed by the coroner - not because he lied or didn't lie but because it was superfluous for the purposes of an inquest. Schwartz not being called to give evidence at the inquest is not evidence that he was lying, nor is it evidence that he was telling the truth. It's evidence of the fact that the coroner chose not to hear from him. I have explained why that is likely to have been the case. None of the relevant questions can be answered with a 'yes' (or a 'no' for that matter) so it's not in the least bit odd that some witnesses were called. I've noted that you disagree with me over this and that's fine.
                      "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Whats the point indeed! Why aren’t YOU getting this Varqm?



                        You are stating that the Coroner left him out AS A FACT.

                        That is the point I’m making Varqm.

                        It isn’t a FACT.

                        Its one potential explanation (based on no real evidence) There are other POSSIBLE explanations.

                        Will this finally sink in Varqm? You are stating your OPINION as if it’s a proven FACT.

                        How hard can this be?


                        The coroner decides which witnesses to call so, if the coroner had knowledge of what Schwartz's evidence was, it follows that it was indeed the coroner who left him out. Only the reasons for that decision are a matter for debate. I see nothing remarkable in his not being called but clearly others do.
                        "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post

                          People who knew Stride identified her. The time of death could be determined by the evidence of the police surgeon - of what he noted at the scene. Ditto the place, with corroboration by Diemschutz and others. The cause of death could be determined by the initial examination and subsequent post mortem. That explains why Schwartz's evidence wasn't needed by the coroner - not because he lied or didn't lie but because it was superfluous for the purposes of an inquest. Schwartz not being called to give evidence at the inquest is not evidence that he was lying, nor is it evidence that he was telling the truth. It's evidence of the fact that the coroner chose not to hear from him. I have explained why that is likely to have been the case. None of the relevant questions can be answered with a 'yes' (or a 'no' for that matter) so it's not in the least bit odd that some witnesses were called. I've noted that you disagree with me over this and that's fine.
                          Hi Bridewell,

                          I don't know, I mean, time of death estimation is really bad even today, and reporting of a time of death estimation today would be presented as a range, covering hours, and not a single point in time. It's just not possible to get that precise even today. So, while Diemschutz provides a point at which she's found dead (around 1:00), Schwartz's testimony suggests she was still alive around 12:45, narrowing the ToD to a 15 minute window. I would think that highly relevant to the inquiry.

                          Also, his non-appearance is not evidence the coroner chose not to hear from him, although it would be consistent with that explanation. The difference is that his non-appearance is also consistent with a number of competing explanations which are no less supported by the evidence we have (which is pretty much none, other than he didn't appear, but that's what we're trying to explain). Some examples of what I mean are things like Schwartz was ill - Schwartz didn't know where the inquest was being held - Schwartz chose not to go as he wasn't issued a summons, etc, all being examples of the cause of Schwartz's non-attendance arising from Schwartz and not connected to the coroner's opinion of Schwartz in any way. We have no more evidence for any of those than we do with respect to what Baxter's opinion of Schwartz's testimony was.

                          On the other hand, we have no indication that Baxter was at all inclined to prevent anybody from presenting information connected to a case in even the remotest sense. This is unlike the coroner for the Kelly inquest, who was quite willing to omit the coverage of the injuries inflicted after death (something Baxter would not allow when this request was made in the Chapman case, for instance). In fact, we have events that point to quite the opposite. Baxter allows the testimony of Mary Malcolm, which led to complications over the identification of Stride, and his questioning of M.M. indicates he had doubts about M.M.'s testimony. However, Baxter's view of his responsibilities appear to be that all testimony offered was to be presented, and any complications were for the police to sort out. I find it difficult to see him reversing what appears to be quite consistent patterns of choices for Schwartz, given what he testimony insists be included and that he appears to allow the presentation of testimony that he has doubts about.

                          Anyway, yes, we have come to different conclusions and the above is just outlining my thinking on the matter.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post

                            The coroner decides which witnesses to call so, if the coroner had knowledge of what Schwartz's evidence was, it follows that it was indeed the coroner who left him out. Only the reasons for that decision are a matter for debate. I see nothing remarkable in his not being called but clearly others do.
                            Hi Colin,

                            There do appear to be grey areas though. I totally agree with you when you point out that Schwartz was a non-essential witness but it’s also the case that other non-essential witnesses were called to this and other inquests so it’s difficult to get a handle on the coroner’s thinking in the absence of actual information. I was thinking that there were 2 types of witnesses - those that ‘tendered’ there evidence (ie they just turned up) and those called by the coroner and that the less important witnesses fell into the former category but, after discussing it, it looks like there’s no real evidence for this being the case.

                            The only other issue that I have is that we can suggest other ‘possible’ reasons for his non-attendance (without any evidence for them of course)

                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Whats the point indeed! Why aren’t YOU getting this Varqm?



                              You are stating that the Coroner left him out AS A FACT.

                              That is the point I’m making Varqm.

                              It isn’t a FACT.

                              Its one potential explanation (based on no real evidence) There are other POSSIBLE explanations.

                              Will this finally sink in Varqm? You are stating your OPINION as if it’s a proven FACT.

                              How hard can this be?


                              Again you are making things up and not paying attention.I said many time it's the most reasonable reason.The interpreter problem,he did not want to come-not his decision as there were laws to compel him,something wrong with the paper work,are not believable.That he was deemed untrustworthy is a simple reason as any,he had 2 very conflicting statements.
                              Read the past posts again.It's like talking to a wall.

                              The police submitted Schwartz's testimony to the inquests/coroner and murder inquiry,which it was as well as the who where how and when, as he was witness to an assault on the victim,the Coroner had to decide.Read the inquests again and the witnesses present,the types of witnesses present, and how the Coroner run inquests and interpret the Coroner's Act 1887,anybody who believe that Schwartz was not essential,if truthful,is clueless.
                              How do you present and establish the "facts and circumstance of the case" and "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" without putting the witness who saw an assault on the victim on the same spot minutes before where the dead body was found is beyond me.

                              Last edited by Varqm; 04-04-2021, 10:45 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

                                Again you are making things up and not paying attention.I said many time it's the most reasonable reason.The interpreter problem,he did not want to come-not his decision as there were laws to compel him,something wrong with the paper work,are not believable.That he was deemed untrustworthy is a simple reason as any,he had 2 very conflicting statements.
                                Read the past posts again.It's like talking to a wall.

                                The police submitted Schwartz's testimony to the inquests/coroner and murder inquiry,which it was as well as the who where how and when, as he was witness to an assault on the victim,the Coroner had to decide.Read the inquests again and the witnesses present,the types of witnesses present, and how the Coroner run inquests and interpret the Coroner's Act 1887,anybody who believe that Schwartz was not essential,if truthful,is clueless.
                                How do you present and establish the "facts and circumstance of the case" and "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" without putting the witness who saw an assault on the victim on the same spot minutes before where the dead body was found is beyond me.
                                How do you have the nerve to say that it’s me that’s making things up. It’s in black and white Varqm. In this post you’re saying it’s the most reasonable reason but previously you said this:

                                . .The only possible reason was he was not believed by the coroner,same as Packer
                                At least you could attempt to be truthful before accusing me of making things up.

                                ........

                                I’m not going to keep repeating the aims of the Inquest to you Varqm. Could he have identified Elizabeth Stride - no. Could he name a possible murderer - no. Could he say how she died - no.

                                And please don’t keep selectively quoting the Coroners Act.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X