Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by harry View Post
    Does it need an appearance at the inquest to decide whether Schwartz lied? Regardless of any other source,what he said to the police,would in all probability,determine how the police reacted.
    Hi harry,

    Determining whether or not Schwartz lied, by which I mean deliberately mislead the police rather than accurately recounted what he believed to be true despite being mistaken, would require a lot more information than we have.

    However, if you are getting at the idea of whether or not the police believed that Schwartz did indeed witness the events he described, even if they doubted some aspects of his telling (who Lipski was shouted at, whether or not Pipeman really was chasing Schwartz rather than just leaving the scene in the same direction, etc), it might have been helpful to us if he had testified at the inquest as we would have his responses to examine.

    Given the police were investigating along lines that are derived from Schwartz's statement to them (they were looking for Lipski families in the area after all), it is clear that they at least believed Schwartz witnessed the events he described, and allowed for the possibility that his interpretation was correct even though they thought it more likely that Lipski was shouted at Schwartz himself.

    In that sense, no, I don't think we need Schwartz to have testified to evaluate the police view towards his statement. It is evident from their behaviour in response to his giving it to them.

    Some of the internal communications where they do express concerns over his value as a witness seem in my opinion to be looking down the road to as a potential witness in a court setting, rather than as an inquest witness or as a witness providing potentially useful lines of investigation. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I recall last time I went through some of those documents I got that impression. Obviously, I could be wrong.

    But running with that idea, while a witness may do the latter, their confidence or presentation of what they say may be such that they would not do well on the witness stand. The criterion for what constitutes a valuable witness will change depending upon the context, and a court case requires not only a witness that has useful information but also one who will be seen by the jury as being convincing. Any sign the witness may be unsure, or lacks confidence, gives the defense room to magnify that to reach "reasonable doubt".

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • Maybe I should have added to the list:

      8. That the Coroner assessed Schwartz value in achieving the aims of the Inquest against the expense and possible difficulty of obtaining the services of an interpreter?
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

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

      Comment


      • I believe Schwartz witnessed an incident involving a male and a female at the entrance to Duffield Yard,about 12.45.That the woman fell or was pushed to the ground at that time.That another male was present and attempted to stop or impede Schwartz,as Schwartz hurried off.I do not think a presence at the inquest would offer more than I have stated.What appears apparant,is that Schwartz needed an interpreter to speak for him,and perhaps there were no court appointed interpreters.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
          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.
          Hi RJ,

          You have to admit, you make it sound a little odder by isolating Anderson's "allegedly" [actually 'alleges'] from the context, which you had previously included.

          If you are suggesting Anderson was attempting to put his own spin on it, he does it so subtly that it could have had little or no effect on the reader at the time. He doesn't pour cold water on Schwartz's credibility as a witness, by having him 'allege' the whole incident, which he could have done if he didn't care for the opinion arrived at 'in this Dept.' that BS man - the likely murderer - was not addressing a supposed accomplice and fellow Jew, but was insulting Schwartz, because of his 'strong' Jewish appearance. Anderson only has Schwartz alleging that it was 'the name Lipski' which was used, which seems fair enough, as the man had no English. For everything else - his descriptions, the feeble screams [rough translation of 'cries', perhaps?], what appeared to be going on - Schwartz had his eyes, ears and instincts to inform him.

          Would you agree that the degree of oddness in the 'whole business' is likely to be in the eye of the beholder?

          Love,

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


          Comment


          • Interpreters were always available, it was a legal right.
            Regards, Jon S.

            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.
              This is just too weird. How was Schwartz remotely 'important' in the context of establishing that Stride came by her death by murder, let alone giving the Inquest jury any clues about the murderer's identity?

              Schwartz never claimed to know what happened to Stride after he left the scene. She was alive - and kicking - while he was there, and he didn't have second sight. He didn't see a man with a knife slitting her throat, and couldn't identify anyone he did see as a named individual.

              In short, Schwartz was as important to 'how' this woman died, and 'who' inflicted the fatal wound, as a chocolate teapot would be to my next cup of Twinings.

              Police enquiries, and their search for potential suspects, was a different matter in terms of Schwartz's importance. As his story couldn't help with the Inquest essentials, maybe it was thought preferable to keep him safe and secure from possible reprisals, so he'd be able and willing to appear as a prosecution witness at some future date if needed. No point in scaring him to death by insisting on his presence when it couldn't do a bit of good.
              Last edited by caz; 04-07-2021, 01:11 PM.
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Just one small point of trivia...

                Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                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."
                A coroner's court does not provide capabilities for the defense of an accused. If an accused is identified at an inquest, the proceedings must stop and the case is passed to a higher court.
                A coroner cannot pursue a murder inquiry, he is not legally qualified to conduct one.

                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post

                  Schwartz never claimed to know what happened to Stride after he left the scene. She was alive - and kicking - while he was there, and he didn't have second sight. He didn't see a man with a knife slitting her throat, and couldn't identify anyone he did see as a named individual.

                  In short, Schwartz was as important to 'how' this woman died, and 'who' inflicted the fatal wound, as a chocolate teapot would be to my next cup of Twinings.
                  Hi Caz, just playing devils advocate here.

                  I agree with your points about Schwartz, but using the same criteria, why would the coroner choose Brown to fit the 12:45 slot in the sequence, instead of Schwartz, in your view?

                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    Interpreters were always available, it was a legal right.
                    They have to be booked in advance, and are paid for their services by the court. They are not just sitting around, the court will have been notified in advance as to what witnesses needed an interpreter.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    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.
                      You may be confusing the 'facts and circumstance' of the death itself [the identity of the person who has died; the cause of their death; when and where the death occurred] with what may or may not have led to that death, in the minutes, hours or days before it happened.

                      Whatever Schwartz witnessed, he wasn't in any position to say whether or not it had anything to do with the actual death. Nobody could have established this one way or another, so it would have been speculation and personal opinion, based on no actual evidence.

                      Michael doesn't believe BS man even existed, so he leaves himself with an empty slate concerning the minutes immediately preceding the moment of death. The irony of this is that he tirelessly argues that BS man was no ripper. Well clearly not, if he is supposed to have been a figment of Schwartz's imagination. Doubly ironic, because with no BS man, the field is left free for a stealthy, unheard and unseen killer, who could have been absolutely anyone - including a ripper, who'd have had to abandon all hope of filling his boots on hearing pony hooves fast approaching.

                      Others believe Schwartz witnessed the obvious prelude to Stride's murder, with BS man going on to do the deed himself.

                      Some admit that it's all speculation, when we attempt to fill the gap between the last reported sighting of Stride alive, and the official pronouncement of her death. There is simply no evidence to inform our opinions.
                      Last edited by caz; 04-07-2021, 02:09 PM.
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Hi Caz - I’m just dropping by, so I can give you an immediate answer.

                        Yes, I admit that Anderson’s use of ‘alleges’ can be interpreted in different ways, depending on the interpreter, but isn’t this what we do? Interpret?

                        If the name allegedly screamed had been ‘Meiklejohn’ or “Johnstone” I would have interpreted Anderson’s use of the word ‘alleges' differently. But the name was the racially charged ‘Lipsky,’ and this, to my mind, puts a different complexion on it. The context matters.

                        Question: don’t you think an immigrant Jew living in East London in September 1888, fast on the heels of the Leather Apron scare and the threats of random violence against Jews, would know and be sensitive to the word ‘Lispki,’ far better than you or I or Sir Robert Anderson? If a black man hears the N-word being yelled at him, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he heard it correctly. If an Asian hears the G-word, ditto. If I’m an affluent white dude sitting over in Whitehall, my use of the word ‘allegedly’ in describing these racial slurs has an ever-so slight barb to it, does it not?
                        Currently, we are seeing in the U.S., a spate of street violence against Asians, inspired, in my opinion, by the pandemic. There is considerable political debate about it. Now imagine an Asian woman who witnessed an assault had told the police that one of the men had shouted “G---k!’

                        If, in my example, the police chief said of the Asian witness that she “alleges she heard the word ‘G--k’, one could argue that he was being as objective as possible, as all good detectives should be, but I can guarantee it would raise more than one eyebrow, considering the current political/racial climate. And, of course, my eyebrow would be raising in response to a police chief who years later commented that certain low-class Asians/Jews/Black (take your pick) couldn’t be trusted to cooperate with Gentile justice. I fancy I hear Israel saying “Allegedly, hell! I heard what I heard!”

                        Yes, this is merely my interpretation, but that’s what I do. I look for insights into people’s thinking.


                        P.S. to Herlock. What I mean is this. Look at Wynne Baxter’s personality and the witnesses he called to his other inquests. Is this really someone who wouldn’t have called Schwartz, had he been available? If we were taking about a different London coroner, I might entertain the idea. But Wynne Baxter?
                        Last edited by rjpalmer; 04-07-2021, 02:44 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post
                          Whatever Schwartz witnessed, he wasn't in any position to say whether or not it had anything to do with the actual death. Nobody could have established this one way or another, so it would have been speculation and personal opinion, based on no actual evidence.
                          Agreed. No one was certain who saw what. And yet, years later, Sir Robert Anderson creates the myth of the one super witness who supposedly saw the Ripper, and people have spilled gallons of ink searching for him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                            Agreed. No one was certain who saw what. And yet, years later, Sir Robert Anderson creates the myth of the one super witness who supposedly saw the Ripper, and people have spilled gallons of ink searching for him.
                            Mixed metaphor, but you know what I mean!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              Hi Caz, just playing devils advocate here.

                              I agree with your points about Schwartz, but using the same criteria, why would the coroner choose Brown to fit the 12:45 slot in the sequence, instead of Schwartz, in your view?
                              Oh, blimey, can't you ask me something easier, Jon?

                              Maybe because Brown was willing, and more sure of his ground, while Schwartz was uneasy, and his story was like a hovercraft full of eels? He had admitted to Abberline that he couldn't say who was being addressed by BS man [and by implication what was really going on]. I don't know if the Coroner actively chose Brown over Schwartz, or whether it was more a case of the latter being a reluctant witness, and the Coroner not pushing it. What makes no sense to me is that Schwartz was deliberately left out of the proceedings because the Coroner had reason to doubt he had witnessed any such assault. What possible reason could there be? And if he did suspect Schwartz had made it up, he'd have wanted to know why. Even more reason to have him there at the Inquest, to be questioned more closely, and warned about giving false testimony.

                              I can't help thinking of that ripper missive - probably a hoax - which threatened revenge on a witness and his wife, claiming to know where they lived. I don't suppose Schwartz ever knew about it, or whether he was the intended target, but I can well imagine how something like that could have spooked a witness into hiding.

                              Love,

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


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                                Agreed. No one was certain who saw what. And yet, years later, Sir Robert Anderson creates the myth of the one super witness who supposedly saw the Ripper, and people have spilled gallons of ink searching for him.
                                Perhaps you need to start a new thread, RJ: If [or should that be why/how/when] Anderson Lied...
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X