If Schwartz Lied ...

[Trevor Marriott]

I was thinking more of your assessment of Hutt and Robinson to be honest. You claim that they are ‘unsafe’ and yet you have no specific reason to doubt them apart from the fact that you think it somehow strange that they remembered seeing Eddowes wearing a shawl. That’s something that’s not based in a fact. As far as I know (and there might be a different version for all that I know; I haven’t checked) Lave’s statement has to be taken as it is. Therefore we know for a fact that he couldn’t have been correct about being in that yard from 12.40 for 20 minutes. And so we have a solid reason for doubting him.

One step at a time. I was referring specifically to a newspaper report being in dircect conflict to official signed inquest testimony, do you think that newspaper report would be unsafe to rely on? Lets not go into whether or not something was taken down in error, we can only work with what has been left to us.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

One step at a time. I was referring specifically to a newspaper report being in dircect conflict to official signed inquest testimony, do you think that newspaper report would be unsafe to rely on? Lets not go into whether or not something was taken down in error, we can only work with what has been left to us.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’d say that mistakes can occur and a weighing up would have to be done. Not everything is black and white. However we know that Lave was wrong and not slightly so. So at the very least his testimony is unsafe.

[c.d.]

There would be some physical evidence warranting that conclusion regardless of what you personally believe. You do understand the word, right? It implies something begun was unfinished as a result of interruption.

The problem here, Michael is that you are assuming that something was "begun." That might not have been the case. Something might have prevented his beginning mutilation. That something could simply have been paranoia. So if the mutilation was never begun there would be no physical evidence of his intent.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There would be some physical evidence warranting that conclusion regardless of what you personally believe. You do understand the word, right? It implies something begun was unfinished as a result of interruption.

The problem here, Michael is that you are assuming that something was "begun." That might not have been the case. Something might have prevented his beginning mutilation. That something could simply have been paranoia. So if the mutilation was never begun there would be no physical evidence of his intent.

c.d.

Exactly c.d.

If someone intends doing something but then doesn’t there can be no evidence of it if he hasn’t begun doing it.

Can anyone on here explain why Michael doesn’t appear to understand this?

[Joshua Rogan]

I’d say that mistakes can occur and a weighing up would have to be done. Not everything is black and white. However we know that Lave was wrong and not slightly so. So at the very least his testimony is unsafe.

Don't forget that it's only one report that says Lave was out for half an hour. All the others say five to ten minutes from about half past twelve until twenty to one. So most likely it is only that one abberant report which is unreliable.

[c.d.]

Can anyone on here explain why Michael doesn’t appear to understand this?

No.

c.d.

[FrankO]

Is that the sound of tumbleweeds that I hear?

I have the distinct feeling that it is, Michael.

[c.d.]

If someone intends doing something but then doesn’t there can be no evidence of it if he hasn’t begun doing it.

Can anyone on here explain why Michael doesn’t appear to understand this?

Actually I think it is the slippery slope argument coming into play. Michael is so adamant that Stride was not killed by the Ripper that even acknowledging the possibility of an interruption without evidence of it is a non-starter. He doesn't want that foot in the door.

c.d.

[FrankO]

So most likely it is only that one abberant report which is unreliable.

I agree, Joshua.

All the others say five to ten minutes from about half past twelve until twenty to one.

Unfortunately, it isn't as clear as this, although I agree it's the interpretation that makes the most sense, since it goes very well with Eagle's statement.

The Daily News, Evening Standard and The Scotsman agree with this: he first went down into the yard at about 12:30 to get a breath of fresh air; he strolled about for 5 minutes or somewhat more, during which time he also walked some distance out into the street and he remained outside until 12:40.

The Irish Times and Morning Advertiser, however, have him go down into the yard at about 12:40 and then have him walk about for 5 minutes or more, going as far as the street or even strolling into the street and give no approximate time when he returned to the concert room. Just as the Times has him go down into the yard at about 12:40 and then stroll into the street.

And then there's the Woodford Times, which is somewhere in the middle. It has him in the yard at about 12:40 and has him walk about for 5 minutes or more, also strolling into the street, but it's not clear whether the 5 minutes or more were passed before 12:40 or after.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If someone intends doing something but then doesn’t there can be no evidence of it if he hasn’t begun doing it.

Can anyone on here explain why Michael doesn’t appear to understand this?

Actually I think it is the slippery slope argument coming into play. Michael is so adamant that Stride was not killed by the Ripper that even acknowledging the possibility of an interruption without evidence of it is a non-starter. He doesn't want that foot in the door.

c.d.

Correct c.d.

It’s impossible that he’s simply misunderstanding. There’s no other explanation for the refusal to accept something that absolutely everyone can see is so obvious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Don't forget that it's only one report that says Lave was out for half an hour. All the others say five to ten minutes from about half past twelve until twenty to one. So most likely it is only that one abberant report which is unreliable.

Cheers Joshua,

You’ve reminded me of this before I think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree, Joshua.

Unfortunately, it isn't as clear as this, although I agree it's the interpretation that makes the most sense, since it goes very well with Eagle's statement.

The Daily News, Evening Standard and The Scotsman agree with this: he first went down into the yard at about 12:30 to get a breath of fresh air; he strolled about for 5 minutes or somewhat more, during which time he also walked some distance out into the street and he remained outside until 12:40.

The Irish Times and Morning Advertiser, however, have him go down into the yard at about 12:40 and then have him walk about for 5 minutes or more, going as far as the street or even strolling into the street and give no approximate time when he returned to the concert room. Just as the Times has him go down into the yard at about 12:40 and then stroll into the street.

And then there's the Woodford Times, which is somewhere in the middle. It has him in the yard at about 12:40 and has him walk about for 5 minutes or more, also strolling into the street, but it's not clear whether the 5 minutes or more were passed before 12:40 or after.

So with all of the vagueness surrounding Lave Frank I’d suggest that he might have gone into the yard at 12.40 ish. He walked into the street and while he was doing so Eagle entered the yard explaining why they missed each other. He goes back inside at approx 12.45 then Schwartz passes?

[JeffHamm]

If someone intends doing something but then doesn’t there can be no evidence of it if he hasn’t begun doing it.

Can anyone on here explain why Michael doesn’t appear to understand this?

Actually I think it is the slippery slope argument coming into play. Michael is so adamant that Stride was not killed by the Ripper that even acknowledging the possibility of an interruption without evidence of it is a non-starter. He doesn't want that foot in the door.

c.d.

Yes, there's a pattern developing, as the same would explain why his theory continues to include Schwartz as being sent to the police with a cover story to divert attention away from the Jewish club members. However, while that could just make sense when we consider Abblerline's re-interpretation of Schwartz's story (that Lipski was directed as an anti-Semitic slur towards Schwartz), what Schwartz's "cover story" was as told by Schwartz was that Lipski was the name of B.S. accomplice, Pipeman - and so the story as told by him actually implicates, rather than exonerates, a Jewish offender. Moreover, the entire goal of the proposed conspiracy seems to be to simply shift the time of the crime, rather than the place. How moving the murder earlier in time by 15-20 minutes could do anything to divert attention from the club members has yet to be adequately explained. These points have also been pointed out many times, but appear to get lost in the silence that swamps this issue, and the Gilleman saga as well.

- Jeff

[Varqm]

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?

I have posted the excerpt many times in this thread.What did Purkiss,Mulshaw,George Clapp,Richard Pierce,Mary Ann Monk add to the to the essential questions of the Inquest? As well as Lawende and Co.,Long,Best,Gardner.Marshall and Brown?

And what do you believe was the essential questions of the inquests,was it only the Who Where,When and How?

And what do you think on how the Coroners (c5) interpreted the Coroners Act 1887 based on the witnesses and inquests they run?

If someone is doing a formal inquiry about a murder, would the last man - who saw the victim with a man and the man was assaulting the victim in same spot where the victim was found dead 15 minutes prior, important/integral to the inquiry or not?

If Ted Stanley ,Thomas Conway.Mary Watts and the man below * was talked about in the inquests as witnesses to be searched,the Coroner asking the police to do so why not Schwartz who's testimony was submitted to the inquest by the police?

The Coroner: We cannot do more. (To the police): There was a man who passed down Buck's-row when the doctor was
examining the body. Have you heard anything of him?
Inspector Abberline: We have not been able to find him. Inspector Spratley, J Division, stated he had made
inquiries in Buck's-row, but not at all of the houses.
The Coroner: Then that will have to be done.
---------------------------

The Coroner and jury shall,at the first sitting of the inquest,view the body,and the coroner shall examine on
oath touching the death all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge
of the facts whom he thinks it expedient to examine.

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.


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.

Where a person duly summoned to give evidence at an inquest does not,after being openly called three times,appear
to such summons,or,appearing,refuses without lawful excuse to answer a question put to him,the coroner may impose
on such person a fine not exceeding forty shillings.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
If someone is doing a formal inquiry about a murder, would the last man - who saw the victim with a man and the man was assaulting the victim in same spot where the victim was found dead 15 minutes prior, important/integral to the inquiry or not

To ‘how’ she died - no.

To ‘when’ she died - no.

To her identity as Elizabeth Stride - no.

We might all say that we would have expected Schwartz to have been called. It’s a fair point but it still doesn’t change the fact that he couldn’t have helped with those specific questions.