If Schwartz Lied ...

[Varqm]

Yes, but in your interpretation of the clause in that second sentence, you did not include the all important point:

"....whom he thinks it expedient to examine."

No-one, has been able to get around that last caveat.

The only two questions that are pertinent on this issue for me are:
1) Did Coroner Baxter decide Schwartz's story was not believable, or not necessary, or
2) Did Baxter not receive Schwartz's statement from police because they had not finished investigating his story (by the 5th).

The implications of Schwartz's story were more important so needed a more thorough investigation than is normally required. This is not to say the police did not believe Schwartz, but every story requires a degree of investigation, some more than others.

Of course Schwartz,Pipeman and BS man were necessary.Look at the other witnesses called in the C5 inquests and the Coroner asked the
police to be found.Look at how the Coroners (C5) presented the murder inquiry.

It appeared it was all set,Schwartz's statement was given to the inquest.Post # 425,"upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case" meant Schwartz's statement was forwarded to the inquest,but it was up to the Coroner to decide to put him in the stand or not.The Stride inquest ended in Oct 23.

Schwartz's 2 conflicting statements was enough to distrust him,I do not know why this has to be said again and again.Read the 2 statements again,the police statement/report and the Star interview,do you see difference? Including Stride there were only 4 of them in Berner street as nobody else saw or heard the assault.

[Varqm]

In the Stride murder inquiry,as an ex..if the inquest was just about the who,where,when and how then only a few witnesses were needed.

who: A relative/partner who can identify the body - Kidney.Perhaps Constable Walter Stride who identified Liz's former husband.
where: the discoverer of the body - Diemschutz
when: the discoverer of the body- Diemschutz ,Doctors
how: Doctors

And that's it,that's all we'll know about the Stride murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course Schwartz,Pipeman and BS man were necessary.Look at the other witnesses called in the C5 inquests and the Coroner asked the
police to be found.Look at how the Coroners (C5) presented the murder inquiry.

It appeared it was all set,Schwartz's statement was given to the inquest.Post # 425,"upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case" meant Schwartz's statement was forwarded to the inquest,but it was up to the Coroner to decide to put him in the stand or not.The Stride inquest ended in Oct 23.

Schwartz's 2 conflicting statements was enough to distrust him,I do not know why this has to be said again and again.Read the 2 statements again,the police statement/report and the Star interview,do you see difference? Including Stride there were only 4 of them in Berner street as nobody else saw or heard the assault.

This doesn’t mean that Schwartz name was forwarded to the inquest at all. It means that a mistake was made in that it was assumed that Schwartz had attended the inquest. We can assume no more than this.

You are suggesting ‘as a fact’ that the police gave the Coroner Schwartz police statement, he then read The Star interview and decided not to call him. Why would an intelligent man like this dismiss a witness on the strength of a newspaper report (and one in The Star?) He would have been fully aware that the Press can make errors and even exaggerate to sell newspapers. Would he have been in the habit of trawling the papers looking for discrepancies or would he simply have accepted the Police’s judgment. It was their job after all to a evaluate witnesses and their statements. Would a Coroner have had the time or inclination to dispute the judgment of the police? This seems unlikely to me.

All through the case of course there are witnesses at Inquests who add nothing of value so it’s impossible to set down an exact ‘selection process,’ or to be certain of a Coroner’s thinking when selecting witnesses. What I mean is that it appears that witnesses weren’t just called because they could add to the specific aims of the inquest but David listed the actually very specific aims of the inquest and, according to that, Schwartz wasn’t a vital witness. Neither were others of course. David’s hardly known for his superficial research so I’m happy that he’s correct on these specific aims. Obviously you are free to present your evidence if you believe him to be mistaken.

When all is said and done we simply do not know (and probably never will know) why Schwartz didn’t attend the Inquest. We can speculate but, in the absence of further evidence, one suggestion is pretty much as good as the next one. The only thing that I really don’t understand Varqm is why, when every poster will admit to not knowing, you appear to be confident that you know why Schwartz didn’t attend?

[FrankO]

Why would an intelligent man like this dismiss a witness on the strength of a newspaper report (and one in The Star?)

Indeed Michael, that's the all important question. Or, perhaps better yet, why should a(ny) coroner need do such a thing? He got his statements from the police, not from the newspapers and it was not his job to check them outside of the inquest. As your post implies, the end would be lost if that would have been the case. And, of course, you're completely right when you say that the newspapers' goals is to sell papers, not necessarily to tell the true story - something that Baxter would have known.

But even though there are some differences between Schwartz's police statement & the Star version, they were the same with regards to the essence of the story. The only main differences were that Pipeman had become Knifeman in the Star report and that it was Knifeman who yelled something at Mr. Broad Shoulders. But in both accounts it was equally about 12:45 am, Stride was equally manhandled and she was equally alive when Schwartz left the scene.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed Michael, that's the all important question. Or, perhaps better yet, why should a(ny) coroner need do such a thing? He got his statements from the police, not from the newspapers and it was not his job to check them outside of the inquest. The end would be lost if that would have been the case. And, of course, you're completely right when you say that the newspapers' goals is to sell papers, not necessarily to tell the true story - something that Baxter would have known.

But even though there are some differences between Schwartz's police statement & the Star version, they were the same with regards to the essence of the story. The only main differences were that Pipeman had become Knifeman in the Star report and that it was Knifeman who yelled something at Mr. Broad Shoulders. But in both accounts it was equally about 12:45 am, Stride was equally manhandled and she was equally alive when Schwartz left the scene.

It’s hard to imagine on one hand a Coroner saying “this man’s obviously just a fantasist” as the Police are, at the same time, making investigations based on what he’s told them. I haven’t seen it written anywhere where the Coroner vetted the witnesses for reliability after the police had already done it. It just makes no sense.

[FrankO]

It’s hard to imagine on one hand a Coroner saying “this man’s obviously just a fantasist” as the Police are, at the same time, making investigations based on what he’s told them. I haven’t seen it written anywhere where the Coroner vetted the witnesses for reliability after the police had already done it. It just makes no sense.

Indeed it doesn't, Michael.

[Darryl Kenyon]

it seemed very unlikely that any cry could have been raised without its being heard by some one of those near - Baxter. I know the coroner is on the specific of murder here, but, "unlikely any cry " is interesting.

The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted - Star . Not accepted by whom ?

but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police. - Star. How did they know this ? Possibly the interpreter was the same and he told the reporter "that is what he told the police as well" but the interpreter would know differently.

It is but fair to say that the police have clutched eagerly at every straw that promised to help them out, but there is nothing left to work on. People have come forward by scores to furnish the description of a man they had seen with some woman near the scene, and not a great while before the commission of one or the other of - Star

But three witnesses spoke to having seen a woman that they identified as the deceased with more or less certainty, and at times within an hour and a-quarter of the period when, and at places within 100 yards of the spot where she was ultimately found. William Marshall, who lived at 64, Berner-street, was standing at his doorway from half-past 11 till midnight. About a quarter to 12 o'clock he saw the deceased talking to a man between Fairclough-street and Boyd-street. There was every demonstration of affection by the man during the ten minutes they stood together, and when last seen, strolling down the road towards Ellen- street, his arms were round her neck. At 12 30 p.m. the constable on the beat (William Smith) saw the deceased in Berner-street standing on the pavement a few yards from Commercial-street, and he observed she was wearing a flower in her dress. A quarter of an hour afterwards James Brown, of Fairclough-street, passed the deceased close to the Board school. A man was at her side leaning against the wall, and the deceased was heard to say, "Not to-night, but some other night." Now, if this evidence was to be relied on, it would appear that the deceased was in the company of a man for upwards of an hour immediately before her death, and that within a quarter of an hour of her being found a corpse she was refusing her companion something in the immediate neighbourhood of where she met her death. But was this the deceased? And even if it were, was it one and the same man who was seen in her company on three different occasions? With regard to the identity of the woman, Marshall had the opportunity of watching her for ten minutes while standing talking in the street at a short distance from him, and she afterwards passed close to him. The constable feels certain that the woman he observed was the deceased, and when he afterwards was called to the scene of the crime he at once recognized her and made a statement; while Brown was almost certain that the deceased was the woman to whom his attention was attracted. It might be thought that the frequency of the occurrence of men and women being seen together under similar circumstances might have led to mistaken identity; but the police stated, and several of the witnesses corroborated the statement, that although many couples are to be seen at night in the Commercial-road, it was exceptional to meet them in Berner-street. With regard to the man seen, there were many points of similarity, but some of dissimilarity, in the descriptions of the three witnesses; but these discrepancies did not conclusively prove that there was more than one man in the company of the deceased, for every day's experience showed how facts were differently observed and differently described by honest and intelligent witnesses. Brown, who saw least in consequence of the darkness of the spot at which the two were standing, agreed with Smith that his clothes were dark and that his height was about 5ft. 7in., but he appeared to him to be wearing an overcoat nearly down to his heels; while the description of Marshall accorded with that of Smith in every respect but two. They agreed that he was respectably dressed in a black cut away coat and dark trousers, and that he was of middle age and without whiskers. On the other hand, they differed with regard to what he was wearing on his head. Smith stated he wore a hard felt deer stalker of dark colour; Marshall that he was wearing a round cap with a small peak, like a sailor's. They also differed as to whether he had anything in his hand. Marshall stated that he observed nothing. Smith was very precise, and stated that he was carrying a parcel, done up in a newspaper, about 18in. in length and 6in. to 8in. in width. These differences suggested either that the woman was, during the evening, in the company of more than one man - a not very improbable supposition - or that the witness had been mistaken in detail. If they were correct in assuming that the man seen in the company of deceased by the three was one and the same person it followed that he must have spent much time and trouble to induce her to place herself in his diabolical clutches. They last saw her alive at the corner of Fairclough-street and Berner-street, saying "Not to-night, but some other night." Within a quarter of an hour her lifeless body was found at a spot only a few yards from where she was last seen alive. - Baxter .

The coroner seems to be making a big deal of descriptions considering it was not on his remit, so to speak. And this is on Oct 23 after the two week adjournment. Yet still no mention of Schwartz or his description. I wonder why ?

Regards Darryl

[Wickerman]

.....

It appeared it was all set,Schwartz's statement was given to the inquest.Post # 425,"upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case" meant Schwartz's statement was forwarded to the inquest,but it was up to the Coroner to decide to put him in the stand or not.The Stride inquest ended in Oct 23.

Anderson is known to have maid false claims on other topics, Warren only repeats what Anderson told him.
There is no scenario where the appearance of a witness at a public inquiry could be edited out from dozens of newspapers.
It's an impossibility, the only alternative would be to have his statement given in an in-camera session, though again, there is no way of editing out the fact the coroner leaves the courtroom to sit with a witness to take down his testimony in a side room, in-camera.

Schwartz's 2 conflicting statements was enough to distrust him,I do not know why this has to be said again and again.Read the 2 statements again,the police statement/report and the Star interview,do you see difference? Including Stride there were only 4 of them in Berner street as nobody else saw or heard the assault.

I'm well aware of the two statements, you are not in possession of anything we do not already know.
The police do caution a witness to not say anything to the press or public concerning the details of their statement, this is a fact. And, as a consequence of this the police do have the authority to dismiss the witness if they break that confidence.
Is that what really happened?

[erobitha]

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?

Yet The Star seemed to find one living with him.

[Michael W Richards]

Question.

Here's The Star reporter, Oct 1st, referring to Schwartz.

"He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police station accompanied by a friend...

"He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed it...

"A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch Lane."

If the police were not talking, how could the Star man have traced Schwartz to Back Church lane, unless someone else knew Schwartz had been seen running through the street the previous night?

Who was he, Sherlock Bloody Holmes? Someone must have given him the hint. The most obvious answer being someone associated with the Club. This could support the idea that Wess knew about the incident.

Its within the realm of possibilities that Wess provided Schwartz's translations, if so that last line would be a moot point. It has been said that Wess translated for Goldstein also. We know for a fact that within a few years Schwartz is more obviously linked with that Club and Wess...did that association exist at the time of the murder? Did Israel possibly live in one of the cottages in the passageway,..where Lave lived. And some cigarette makers....worth noting that Golsteins bag contained empty cigarette cartons as he passed that gate, and that there were in fact cigarette makers awake at that time.

Is there reason to wonder whether these 2 men...Schwartz and Goldstein....had a more tangible link to the club than seems obvious at first glance?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Its within the realm of possibilities that Wess provided Schwartz's translations, if so that last line would be a moot point. It has been said that Wess translated for Goldstein also. We know for a fact that within a few years Schwartz is more obviously linked with that Club and Wess...did that association exist at the time of the murder? Did Israel possibly live in one of the cottages in the passageway,..where Lave lived. And some cigarette makers....worth noting that Golsteins bag contained empty cigarette cartons as he passed that gate, and that there were in fact cigarette makers awake at that time.

Is there reason to wonder whether these 2 men...Schwartz and Goldstein....had a more tangible link to the club than seems obvious at first glance?

If Wess knew Schwartz at the time of the murder, and perhaps Schwartz had been living in one of the yard tenements, then it would seem Wess had not made full disclosure of his association with and knowledge of Schwartz' happenings, on the night.
Yet to suppose these things were true, but accept Wess told nothing but the truth in relation to clearing Goldstein of any suspicion, seems a little inconsistent.
Why not reverse the doubts, and suppose Wess really only had second hand news re Schwartz, but knew Goldstein was a bit of a loose cannon? It would be no more or less arbitrary, would it not? Perhaps you could explain why Goldstein marched speedily past the yard entrance, with his cargo of cigarette boxes? As you said, that is where the cigarette makers lived.

Yet all the above is too speculative on it's own, and therefore easily ignored or dismissed. We all have theories.
If you want to change minds, you have to shift perceptions.

[Michael W Richards]

We all have theories.
If you want to change minds, you have to shift perceptions.

I pretty much agree with that, and I believe its the perceptions of who these club men were that impedes reasonable scenarios,.... what sort of reputation they had before and after these crimes with the neighbors and the local police, and how they would likely respond when a threat to their privacy, and in some cases income, is apparent. The perception of that club and its attendees was that they were anarchists. Then privacy(secrecy) would be paramount, yes?

Its not just odd that so many witnesses whose statements match each other in timing and details directly contradict the clubs management. The ones tasked with maintaining the clubs operations. And paid by the club for doing so.

[Wickerman]

Yet The Star seemed to find one living with him.

It wasn't the responsibility of the defense to provide an interpreter, a court will appoint one if necessary.

[c.d.]

I pretty much agree with that, and I believe its the perceptions of who these club men were that impedes reasonable scenarios,.... what sort of reputation they had before and after these crimes with the neighbors and the local police, and how they would likely respond when a threat to their privacy, and in some cases income, is apparent. The perception of that club and its attendees was that they were anarchists. Then privacy(secrecy) would be paramount, yes?

Its not just odd that so many witnesses whose statements match each other in timing and details directly contradict the clubs management. The ones tasked with maintaining the clubs operations. And paid by the club for doing so.

Given their reputation wouldn't it have occurred to the police that they might have been attempting some sort of cover up? If so, wouldn't the police have responded accordingly?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Given their reputation wouldn't it have occurred to the police that they might have been attempting some sort of cover up? If so, wouldn't the police have responded accordingly?

c.d.

I think we see evidence they did cd. They closed the gate, locked all the people onsite in..they questioned each one, likely checked them physically too..they checked inside the club, upstairs and downstairs....since Liz is found outside in the alleyway, and since we have statements claiming that no-one was in the passageway and the only people there were in the cottages or upstairs singing, it seems the police still wanted to rule out that it was someone from that site before looking elsewhere. Israel kindly gave them that later that night in the form of an offsite gentile.