Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by caz View Post

    Perhaps you need to start a new thread, RJ: If [or should that be why/how/when] Anderson Lied...
    No thanks, but out of curiosity, do you believe Anderson? Do you believe one man had 'undoubtedly' seen the murderer?

    And if this one man was Lawende, as many argue, does this not indicate that Anderson either rejected or minimalized Schwartz, despite having allegedly witnessed a victim being assaulted, in favor of a man who saw the back of a woman that may or may not have been Kate Eddowes and who admitted he most likely could never identify the man again?

    It's too messy to be credible.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

      Another clueless response,read again.

      "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."

      So to me it is the only possible reason.Is that stating it as fact.
      I won't quote the Coroners Act again because you would not understand it because you pretend you are a Coroner and have your own Act.
      I know this was addressed to Herlock, but if the law had compelled Baxter to call Schwartz, and compelled Schwartz to attend, could you please quote the clause which stated that this law ceased to apply if the Coroner decided, for whatever reason, that the witness's account sounded like a pile of poo.

      I don't see why Schwartz would have been compelled by law to attend an Inquest, where he could add precisely nothing to the essential questions to be answered. But even if he was called, and even if he broke the law by failing to show up, he'd have faced a fine - assuming they could find him. They couldn't hang him for it. So I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. There is no evidence that tells us why he wasn't at the Inquest, beyond the fact that he could not have provided answers to any of the essential questions anyway. So you might ask yourself what would have been the point of compelling him, or the point of him being there - unless he was desperate to show off his acting skills?
      Last edited by caz; 04-07-2021, 04:00 PM.
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

        No thanks, but out of curiosity, do you believe Anderson? Do you believe one man had 'undoubtedly' seen the murderer?

        And if this one man was Lawende, as many argue, does this not indicate that Anderson either rejected or minimalized Schwartz, despite having allegedly witnessed a victim being assaulted, in favor of a man who saw the back of a woman that may or may not have been Kate Eddowes and who admitted he most likely could never identify the man again?

        It's too messy to be credible.
        Wrong thread, RJ. If I was asking you something 'out of curiosity', it would probably be whether you truly believe Mike Barrett's claims to have had a hand in the creation of the Maybrick hoax, or whether you could bring yourself to admit that they were too messy to be credible. But I'll give you a clue. I believe Anderson probably believed he was on the right track, and if he was fooling anyone, it was himself. I do suspect his 'facts' were more desired than definitely ascertained. He wouldn't be alone.

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


        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          There is no evidence that tells us why he wasn't at the Inquest, beyond the fact that he could not have provided answers to any of the essential questions anyway. So you might ask yourself what would have been the point of compelling him, or the point of him being there -
          So a man who witnesses an assault right next to the point were the murder victim is found 15 min before her body is discovered cannot provide answers to essential questions . Well you may have no one appear who saw Liz or who was in Dutfields yard before her body was discovered appear. Please tell me what questions they answered which couldn't be better answered by Schwartz ? Because I am at a loss to see any.
          Regards Darryl

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post

            Wrong thread, RJ.
            How is Sir Robert Anderson's acceptance/dismissal of Israel Schwartz as a witness irrelevant to the topic of this thread?



            Comment


            • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

              So a man who witnesses an assault right next to the point were the murder victim is found 15 min before her body is discovered cannot provide answers to essential questions . Well you may have no one appear who saw Liz or who was in Dutfields yard before her body was discovered appear. Please tell me what questions they answered which couldn't be better answered by Schwartz ? Because I am at a loss to see any.
              Regards Darryl
              There also appears to be considerable confusion between what was legally 'essential,' and what Wynn Baxter would have done, judging from his behavior at other inquests. He was calling the shots, so his own belief in what was desirable outweighs any consideration about what was 'essential,' at least as I see it.

              He was hardly your average coroner!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                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
                Trevor, when you reply in the present tense it only serves to confuse the issue. Your response appears to suggest that TODAY the interpreter must be booked, but once again, I feel the need to remind you we are talking of the situation over a century ago.

                You can't possibly know what the situation was in 1888, so I am not saying you are wrong, but equally you cannot pretend you are right.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  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?
                  Plus the fact that the name "Lipski" might only have served to fan the flames, in the wake of Leather Apron? It's all very well to say that the word was already out there, but repeating it in an official context might not have been deemed the responsible thing to do, given that Schwartz wasn't sure to whom it was addressed or why, and couldn't provide any answers to the basic questions.

                  Love,

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


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    ... why would the coroner choose Brown to fit the 12:45 slot in the sequence, instead of Schwartz, in your view?
                    Because Brown's sighting fit the timeline for PC Smith's sighting (and Smith's evidence would have been preferred)???

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                      Because Brown's sighting fit the timeline for PC Smith's sighting (and Smith's evidence would have been preferred)???
                      I thought the only time mentioned by either Brown or Schwartz was 12:45am.
                      How is it that one fits Smith's evidence better than the other?
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        Trevor, when you reply in the present tense it only serves to confuse the issue. Your response appears to suggest that TODAY the interpreter must be booked, but once again, I feel the need to remind you we are talking of the situation over a century ago.

                        You can't possibly know what the situation was in 1888, so I am not saying you are wrong, but equally you cannot pretend you are right.
                        Lets apply some common sense to this by saying that if a witness needed an interpreter then one had to be present. If none of the witnesses needed one then there would be no need for one to be in attendance. The court would know in advance who if any needed one, because if a witness didn't speak English sufficiently then an interpreter would have to have been used to take down his initial police statement.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post

                          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.
                          Hi caz,

                          I see how Schwartz can't put a name to Stride directly, nor to B.S or pipeman. He did, however, identify Stride's body as the woman he saw, and Stride's identity is eventually established (after a bit of confusion caused by Mary Malcolm). I agree, he didn't see Stride murdered, nor in his police statement does he mention a knife, etc. He can, however, provide a bit of a description of B.S.

                          While his description is fairly generic, his identification of Stride is more sound than Lawende's or Leve's of Eddowes, and his identification of B.S. is on par with that offered by Lawende yet better than that offered by Long at Chapman's inquest.

                          In a way, Schwartz combines the better parts of Lawende's, Leve's and Long's input to those inquests, and he also sees a confrontation while the others just see conversations.

                          So it strikes me as odd that Schwartz, who arguably is the witness with the most information, would not be called given how Lawende, Leve, and Long were? Pearly Poll doesn't add anything more (and quite a bit less) in the Tabram's inquest either. I'm not sure the "doesn't provide information directly as to how or who" really works once we look at other witnesses and what they provide. Whatever the bar is for the information to be considered sufficient, if those witnesses cleared it then surely Schwartz does as well?

                          I believe in Swanson's summary of police activities around the Stride case has a section where he outlines the conflict between Schwartz's description of B.S. and the earlier PC sighting, but notes how B.S. is more similar to the description given by Lawende. While one might think that's a good thing, as I recall, the surrounding context suggests some level of disappointment over that conflict between Schwartz's description and the PC's. It's almost as if the police had a strong confidence in the PC's description and this conflict was disturbing, to at least some, this might be a pointer to the police doubt that gets mentioned (doubt because they put a higher level of confidence in the PC's description and because Schwartz's doesn't tally well with that, they figure Schwartz is the one in error; that would be a mistake, but that sort of thing does happen). Hmmmm, now that think about it, I believe there's a note written on it at that point where someone indicates that surely Schwartz's description should be preferred, which does point to others suggesting confidence in Schwartz. Sigh, I think I just refuted my own idea within the same paragraph!

                          But there must have been a reason why Schwartz doesn't appear, but we have so little information I don't think it's even possible to work out if that reason primarily lies with the police, the coroner, or Schwartz himself. If it does primarily involve either the police or Baxter, I suspect it will something completely different from our current guesses, and any record that might hint to the reason has been lost through time, if it even existed.

                          - Jeff


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post

                            Oh, blimey, can't you ask me something easier, Jon?
                            ........

                            Caz
                            X
                            Just a genuine 'brain-picker', it's not like I have an answer myself.
                            We all know it was the coroner's responsibility to select the witnesses, and I'm not at all convinced that Brown had more to offer than Schwartz.
                            So, I'm inclined to think the only scenario that is left is that the police never provided Baxter with the statement from Schwartz.
                            But, not because they didn't believe him. I suspect because they had not finished investigating his story.
                            When we look at the depth of detail across the 4 reports (Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride), and the fact the Tabram report was written on a Sept. form - when he began his research, the date of 19th Oct. must be the date of completion. Not that he wrote all four reports on the one day. That would be well nigh impossible.
                            Which for this issue - the comment on Schwartz, we cannot say with any certainty when that was written.
                            Which means it is possible it was written earlier in October.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Lets apply some common sense to this by saying that if a witness needed an interpreter then one had to be present.
                              Yes, obviously.

                              The court would know in advance who if any needed one, because if a witness didn't speak English sufficiently then an interpreter would have to have been used to take down his initial police statement.
                              Again, yes, obviously.

                              So, what was the point of your reply?

                              Couldn't you have just wrote - "Yes, I agree"?

                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                I thought the only time mentioned by either Brown or Schwartz was 12:45am.
                                How is it that one fits Smith's evidence better than the other?
                                Smith passed Stride and a man standing opposite Dutfield's Yard about 12:30am. Brown saw them 15 minutes later in virtually the same spot, standing next to the Board School. Their descriptions of the man were reasonably similar. Brown didn't see Schwartz.

                                I'm not trying to justify the selection of the witness who testified, just suggesting what police may have considered more likely after extended analysis.

                                Last edited by Scott Nelson; 04-07-2021, 10:25 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X