If Schwartz Lied ...

[rjpalmer]

Hi Jeff -

Just to be clear, I am not theorizing that Baxter would have withheld Schwartz from the inquest. I agree completely that he was the sort of man who would have called Schwartz had he been available. The human angle is one worth considering. His inquests were elaborate affairs, with multiple sittings and multiple witnesses. It's not really in his DNA, as I see it. So I agree on that specific point.

But, personally, I don't think the police were all that keen on Baxter following the previous two inquests. Thus, I don't discount the possibility that Inspector Reid didn't even submit Schwartz's name for consideration. I don't know if you have read David B.'s article at Orsam Books, but he raises this possibility in passing. If--and yes, this is entirely theoretical---if the police (ie. Edmund Reid) decided Schwartz was untrustworthy or better kept back, he could have withheld his name from Baxter, who need not have been in the loop. Dishonest? Maybe, maybe not, considering Schwartz was a non-essential witness. I would prefer to use the word 'expedient,' rather than 'dishonest.'

Yes, Schwartz's name was already before the public---but only barely. He was nowhere mentioned in The Times, The Telegraph, The Daily News, etc., or other popular West End papers. One single solitary source mentioned him (The Star), and they alluded to the supposed fact that his story wasn't entirely believed at Leman Street. Which could mean Reid.

You are forced--as all of us are forced--to gauge "police opinion" solely from the existing statements in the MEPO/Home Office files. These do indeed show an interest in Schwartz, and are non-committal rather than dismissive. Again, I agree.

On the other hand, I don't think we can automatically assume that these opinions at the upper levels of Scotland Yard were necessarily shared by the local plod, ie., H-Division, who, presumably, would have been the ones working directly with Coroner Baxter.

I'm looking through the accounts of the Stride Inquest in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily News, and I am seeing no mention of the case being watched by any Scotland Yard man. The case is being watched by Inspector Edmund Reid. The local plod. Thus there is an angle in this discussion that has not been addressed: we cannot assume that the opinions at Scotland Yard and those of H & J Divisions were always in lock-step.

Anyway, I thought it might be worth mentioning. But yes, we are stuck in the realm of theory, arguing and speculating what may or may not be plausible.

Cheers, RP

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff -

Just to be clear, I am not theorizing that Baxter would have withheld Schwartz from the inquest. I agree completely that he was the sort of man who would have called Schwartz had he been available. The human angle is one worth considering. His inquests were elaborate affairs, with multiple sittings and multiple witnesses. It's not really in his DNA, as I see it. So I agree on that specific point.

But, personally, I don't think the police were all that keen on Baxter following the previous two inquests. Thus, I don't discount the possibility that Inspector Reid didn't even submit Schwartz's name for consideration. I don't know if you have read David B.'s article at Orsam Books, but he raises this possibility in passing. If--and yes, this is entirely theoretical---if the police (ie. Edmund Reid) decided Schwartz was untrustworthy or better kept back, he could have withheld his name from Baxter, who need not have been in the loop. Dishonest? Maybe, maybe not, considering Schwartz was a non-essential witness. I would prefer to use the word 'expedient,' rather than 'dishonest.'

Yes, Schwartz's name was already before the public---but only barely. He was nowhere mentioned in The Times, The Telegraph, The Daily News, etc., or other popular West End papers. One single solitary source mentioned him (The Star), and they alluded to the supposed fact that his story wasn't entirely believed at Leman Street. Which could mean Reid.

You are forced--as all of us are forced--to gauge "police opinion" solely from the existing statements in the MEPO/Home Office files. These do indeed show an interest in Schwartz, and are non-committal rather than dismissive. Again, I agree.

On the other hand, I don't think we can automatically assume that these opinions at the upper levels of Scotland Yard were necessarily shared by the local plod, ie., H-Division, who, presumably, would have been the ones working directly with Coroner Baxter.

I'm looking through the accounts of the Stride Inquest in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily News, and I am seeing no mention of the case being watched by any Scotland Yard man. The case is being watched by Inspector Edmund Reid. The local plod. Thus there is an angle in this discussion that has not been addressed: we cannot assume that the opinions at Scotland Yard and those of H & J Divisions were always in lock-step.

Anyway, I thought it might be worth mentioning. But yes, we are stuck in the realm of theory, arguing and speculating what may or may not be plausible.

Cheers, RP

Hi RP,

Ah, I see what you're getting at now (re: effectively someone at the level of Reid withholding Schwartz's existence from the inquest type thing). Well, I don't know enough about the details of how, or by whom, the transfer of information between the police and the inquest was done to know if the procedures were open to that, but let's assume that was possible. I do agree with your assessment that there are signs of tension between Baxter and the police concerning how he conducted the inquests, though.

Anyway, so we're considering the possibility that someone lower down effectively overrode the higher ups in the police. It does look like those in charge, such as Warren, had not dismissed Schwartz after all. It would boil down to whether or not such an action would be viewed by the higher ups as a good idea or as undermining their authority in some way, creating another question we cannot answer but that would be necessary to know in order to try and consider all of the ramifications.

So, I don't think I have anything to build even a tentative counter argument with, so it's given me something to think about. It might be the one line of possibility that navigates the surviving evidence; that the police "doubt" was at the level of a local officer who was in turn able to cull Schwartz from the list of witnesses before Baxter had a chance to see it.

We have nothing in the surviving documents where there's any mention of concern that Schwartz didn't appear, so if the above did happen, there doesn't appear to have been any repercussions; but such a lack of surprise may also indicate that Schwartz just didn't choose to show up and the police were familiar enough with that sort of thing too.

Thanks for that. It's given me something to think about.

- Jeff

[Varqm]

It’s impossible not to notice that you haven’t provided the proof that Schwartz wasn’t called because he wasn’t believed and no amount of cutting and pasting will alter this fact Varqm. This section of debate is very specifically about the fact that you (and Michael) state as a fact that you know the reason why Schwartz wasn’t called to the inquest despite the very obvious fact that his absence doesn’t prove that he want called.

I and others have suggested possible alternative reasons but we have been very clear in admitting that we are simply speculating and have at no time claimed to know the reason for Schwartz absence and this is the big difference between our two positions Varqm. You are claiming to know something as a fact that you cannot possibly know because there is simply no evidence for it. Evidenced by the fact that you haven’t produced any. And won’t.

You are piling up the untruths here Varqm.

Ive never claimed, asserted or even hinted that the Coroner wasn’t independent of the police so I really can’t see why you bring up this piece of straw man reasoning? This for example:



So this alone was justification for Schwartz attendance despite the fact that David explained this very clearly and I echoed it in a previous post? Identification didn’t mean saying “yes, the deceased was the woman that I saw.” The identifying requirement at the Inquest would have been a witness who could say “I can confirm that the deceased was called Elizabeth Stride.” Schwartz very obviously couldn’t do that because he didn’t know her. It’s why Mary Malcom was there, because she claimed (wrongly of course) to have known the victim. So, as we can eliminate that particular ‘contribution’ from Schwartz what remained? It appears to be you that is having difficulty in differentiating between what was important to an inquest and what was important to a police investigation. Schwartz was a vital witness to a police investigation but he was not vital to an inquest. This still doesn’t prove that he was or wasn’t called though and we certainly can’t assume that he wouldn’t have been called. We don’t know. You won’t admit the fact that we don’t know though and that’s a problem.

For some strange reason you have equated Schwartz with Packer which is hardly a reasonable comparison. Packer initially told the police that he’d seen nothing and then ‘mysteriously’ remembered Grapeman. He also spoke English. Schwartz Star interview just contained a couple of different details which you appear to believe were sufficient grounds for the police to have dismissed his evidence even though the police would have known that these ‘differences’ might have been down to translation errors. Or they might have been down to a Journalist adding a bit of juicy detail like the knife. Hardly sufficient grounds for eliminating such an important witness.

There’s nothing wrong with speculation Varqm, we all do it but we shouldn’t claim that our speculations are fact which I’m afraid is very obviously what you continue to do here. What we do know for a fact though is that fact that the police continued to act on Schwartz evidence during the inquest and after it ended. This is in black and white. It’s in written evidence from officers including information destined for the Home Office. It really can’t get more factual. And so, why I will certainly admit (unlike you) to speculating on why Schwartz wasn’t at the inquest I am on absolutely solid evidential ground to state as a fact....

that Schwartz was not left out of the inquest because the police didn’t believe him.

It is like talking to the wall.I repeated again and again the police believe in him during the inquests,but who speaks at the stand in the inquests is not based on what the police believed and has nothing to do with this but the Coroner's decision - this you do not understand.
Do not escape,you did not know the coroner was independent from the police.
And you keep harping about Schwartz and did not know that Schwartz was not part of the provision of the Coroners Act 1887 -the who,where when and how of the case, but in the another provision about the facts and circumstances of the case.

It is clear you are clueless.

[Varqm]

Hi Varqm,

Do we actually know that Schwartz was summoned though? The police may have requested him to come to the inquest during his interview, and he may have agreed, and then for some reason we don't know didn't show. I don't think we have a surviving list of people issued summons. Then again, I don't know the details of how the inquests normally functioned, and whether or not it was rare or common for witnesses to be summoned. I could see a summons being used primarily to obtain experts to come testify, as they might otherwise not want to bother as they would have their work to do. Those who came may have done so at the request of the police during interviews, but that may not have been legally binding.

As I say, I don't know the legal ins and outs of how the witnesses end up at the inquest, whether most, if not all, by summons or if most, if not all, by their own choice? If it's the latter, then the Coroners Act doesn't apply. You can't fine someone if they don't show when they've not been summoned.

Do we know that Schwartz was summoned or do we assume that he was? I'm not aware of any surviving document showing he was, hence my asking.

Hmmm, if he was, and didn't show, then there might be a recording of a fine he was issued. I wonder if anyone has looked for such a thing?

- Jeff

This part of Warrens letter to me says Schwartz's statement was forwarded to the Coroner.

"I have to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the
evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case".

But again the police can send witness statements to the Coroner or the Coroner can ask for them,but the police does not choose who appears at the stand.The Coroners had to follow the Coroners Act 1887 and if he needed a witness he can summon them or call them to appear.Read the inquests again,Nichols,Chapman,Stride and see him asking the police to find witnesses,etc. and also how he satisfied or used the provisions below or parts of it.

(1) 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.
(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.

and then he could do this:

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.

Not you,but any person who do not believe that a person - who saw an assault on the same spot minutes before the dead body was discovered - is not important to the facts and circumstances of the case is lost.
I'll take a break.

[JeffHamm]

This part of Warrens letter to me says Schwartz's statement was forwarded to the Coroner.

"I have to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the
evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case".

But again the police can send witness statements to the Coroner or the Coroner can ask for them,but the police does not choose who appears at the stand.The Coroners had to follow the Coroners Act 1887 and if he needed a witness he can summon them or call them to appear.

(1) 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 haing knowledge of the facts whom he thinks it
expedient to examine.
(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.

and then he could do this:

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.

Hi Varqm,

I can see what you mean by that statement in Warren's letter. However, we know Schwartz didn't testify at the inquest, so we know the description "... the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest ..." is factually incorrect - Schwartz gave no evidence at the inquest.

I think it's also the case that the opinion was arrived at following the interview the police had with Schwartz, not following the inquest itself. Combined, it appears to me that the letter's wording is erroneous. It would make more sense if it read "... the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the interview ...", noting that inquest and interview begin similarly, and could easily result in such a mistake.

Obviously, I can't prove the word inquest was a mistake, and it may be that they really did mean to say inquest (raising a mystery given Schwartz didn't testify at the inquest), but for the sake of one word that suddenly makes the entire thing align with what facts we do know, I think it offers a rather mundane explanation.

However, even if it is a mistake, if the higher ups in the police had indeed concluded Schwartz was unreliable and did not trust him, the letter of explanation to H.O. would not bother going into subtle details about his statement's interpretation, they would have just pointed out why Schwartz's statement, regardless of it's meaning, was not to be trusted.

RJ has offered an idea that it was a lower ranked police officer who may have taken it upon themself to cull Schwartz from the list of witnesses sent to the coroner, removing him from the coroner's consideration to even call up. It's an interesting possibility that I think may just slide through what we do know, though I need to really think that all through to see if I can suggest any counters to it. I'll leave it to RJ to expand upon that if you have any comments, though, as it's not my idea and is a new one to me to boot.

- Jeff

[Varqm]

Hi Varqm,

I can see what you mean by that statement in Warren's letter. However, we know Schwartz didn't testify at the inquest, so we know the description "... the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest ..." is factually incorrect - Schwartz gave no evidence at the inquest.

I think it's also the case that the opinion was arrived at following the interview the police had with Schwartz, not following the inquest itself. Combined, it appears to me that the letter's wording is erroneous. It would make more sense if it read "... the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the interview ...", noting that inquest and interview begin similarly, and could easily result in such a mistake.

Obviously, I can't prove the word inquest was a mistake, and it may be that they really did mean to say inquest (raising a mystery given Schwartz didn't testify at the inquest), but for the sake of one word that suddenly makes the entire thing align with what facts we do know, I think it offers a rather mundane explanation.

However, even if it is a mistake, if the higher ups in the police had indeed concluded Schwartz was unreliable and did not trust him, the letter of explanation to H.O. would not bother going into subtle details about his statement's interpretation, they would have just pointed out why Schwartz's statement, regardless of it's meaning, was not to be trusted.

RJ has offered an idea that it was a lower ranked police officer who may have taken it upon themself to cull Schwartz from the list of witnesses sent to the coroner, removing him from the coroner's consideration to even call up. It's an interesting possibility that I think may just slide through what we do know, though I need to really think that all through to see if I can suggest any counters to it. I'll leave it to RJ to expand upon that if you have any comments, though, as it's not my idea and is a new one to me to boot.

- Jeff

"evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest" covered giving Schwartz's statement to the Coroner for him to assess.Once the Coroner receives the statement he decides if he want to put him in the stand.The Coroners had the Coroners Act 1887 to follow.
The higher ups believe in Schwartz anda lower ranked officer pulled the rug under them.And after the inquest,and with all the news, when it would have been known to the higher ups Schwarz was not in the inquests,they did not do anything.Impossible to believe.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is like talking to the wall.I repeated again and again the police believe in him during the inquests,but who speaks at the stand in the inquests is not based on what the police believed and has nothing to do with this but the Coroner's decision - this you do not understand.
Do not escape,you did not know the coroner was independent from the police.
And you keep harping about Schwartz and did not know that Schwartz was not part of the provision of the Coroners Act 1887 -the who,where when and how of the case, but in the another provision about the facts and circumstances of the case.

It is clear you are clueless.

It’s difficult to respond to something as meaningless as this post.

Please don’t try to tell me what I know or don’t know. Of course I knew that the Coroner was independent of the police. I even stated it myself somewhere on here quite recently. Do you need to stoop so low Varqm?

So you are now admitting that the police believed Schwartz??? After all you’ve been saying???

So now your point appears to be that the Coroner didn’t believe him?? Is that what you’re saying?


What the hell are you talking about Varqm?? You’re making zero sense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest" covered giving Schwartz statement to the Coroner for him to assess.Once the Coroner receives the statement he decides if he want to put him in the stand.The Coroners had the Coroners Act 1887 to follow.

So are you saying

a) The Coroner decided that Schwartz evidence wasn’t relevant and so didn’t call him?

or

b) The Coroner didn’t trust his evidence and didn’t call him?

[Varqm]

It’s difficult to respond to something as meaningless as this post.

Please don’t try to tell me what I know or don’t know. Of course I knew that the Coroner was independent of the police. I even stated it myself somewhere on here quite recently. Do you need to stoop so low Varqm?

So you are now admitting that the police believed Schwartz??? After all you’ve been saying???

So now your point appears to be that the Coroner didn’t believe him?? Is that what you’re saying?


What the hell are you talking about Varqm?? You’re making zero sense.

Do not escape several times I talked about the Oct 19 and November 1 Abberline's letter to Mathews and Nov 6 Warrens letter to the home office as proofs that during the Stride inquest the police believed in Schwartz but the Coroner did not.But you keep harping on,not paying any attention.There is no point debating with you.

[JeffHamm]

"evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest" covered giving Schwartz statement to the Coroner for him to assess.Once the Coroner receives the statement he decides if he want to put him in the stand.The Coroners had the Coroners Act 1887 to follow.

Ok, that's a fair interpretation too.

I think RJ's suggestion is that the step of passing on Schwartz's statement to the coroner is what may not have happened, but that decision may have been made by a lower ranking officer (Reid has been suggested, but it could have been someone else) because they themselves did not believe Schwartz, not that there was a consensus amongst the police, particularly the higher ups like Warren.

That's got me wondering if something even less devious (for lack of a better word) could have happened, and Schwartz's statement was simply not included in the pile of statements when it was sent over by accident. It was, say, misplaced, or not filed with the others for some innocent reason. These types of explanations are getting at the idea that there was some sort of failure in the process of getting Schwartz's statement to the coroner to consider. If so, the coroner had no opportunity to even make a call about their belief in Schwartz (and again, other witnesses where there's clearly disbelief from the coroner are allowed time on the stand nonetheless). One of those ideas involves a deliberate deviation from protocol, the other I've suggested here, involves only a failure in the system of paper transfer.

Something like that, I think, deserves more consideration at this point.

- Jeff

[Varqm]

So are you saying

a) The Coroner decided that Schwartz evidence wasn’t relevant and so didn’t call him?

or

b) The Coroner didn’t trust his evidence and didn’t call him?

Read Baxter's difference/dispute with Andersson on the Rose Mylett case.

B ,as I said from previous posts the Coroner had a difference of opinion with the police and the police eventually the police went the Coroners way later on or much later on,as I have been saying since day one but you do not pay attention.There is no point debating with you.

[Varqm]

Ok, that's a fair interpretation too.

I think RJ's suggestion is that the step of passing on Schwartz's statement to the coroner is what may not have happened, but that decision may have been made by a lower ranking officer (Reid has been suggested, but it could have been someone else) because they themselves did not believe Schwartz, not that there was a consensus amongst the police, particularly the higher ups like Warren.

That's got me wondering if something even less devious (for lack of a better word) could have happened, and Schwartz's statement was simply not included in the pile of statements when it was sent over by accident. It was, say, misplaced, or not filed with the others for some innocent reason. These types of explanations are getting at the idea that there was some sort of failure in the process of getting Schwartz's statement to the coroner to consider. If so, the coroner had no opportunity to even make a call about their belief in Schwartz (and again, other witnesses where there's clearly disbelief from the coroner are allowed time on the stand nonetheless). One of those ideas involves a deliberate deviation from protocol, the other I've suggested here, involves only a failure in the system of paper transfer.

Something like that, I think, deserves more consideration at this point.

- Jeff

These were professionals in a big case,this would have been complained or talked about.And besides Schwartz was in the newspaper.
Watts was not important there were other relatives, and besides it was a family affair.Schwartz was a different witness,unique and vital to the facts and circumstances of the case and to a description of the murderer .

[JeffHamm]

These were professionals in a big case,this would have been complained or talked about.And besides Schwartz was in the newspaper.
Watts was not important there were other relatives and besides it was a family affair.Schwartz was a different witness,unique and vital and could lead them to the murderer.

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Baxter was a professional as well, and for a witness with information like Schwartz, it would be a failure of duty to put that on record, whether he believed Schwartz or not. That's why he put Mary M. on the stand, he didn't believe her, but her testimony went towards the point of identification of the body, so even though he didn't believe her, up she goes and it then becomes up to the police to sort the mess out (which, of course, they do by finding Mary M's sister alive and well, and she comes to give testimony, etc).

With Schwartz, his testimony would go towards establishing the time window of the murder. If Schwartz is able to place Stride in that location, and alive, at 12:45, then she was murdered between 12:45 and 1:00 o'clock, when she's found dead. He can't establish the time of death exactly, of course, but his testimony further narrows that time window down. So again, I cannot see the coroner failing to call him even if Baxter had, for some reason, independantly decided the police were wrong in their belief in Schwartz. In fact, I can't imagine how he could come to such a conclusion, given all he would have is Schwartz's testimony sent over from the police.

Shuffling paper work does result in the occasional page or bit of information getting misfiled occasionally. I'm not a big fan of the "it was just a mistake" type explanations because they are hard to show support for as mistakes like I'm suggesting leave no indication in the evidence trail beyond Schwartz's non-appearance, and that's what we're trying to explain so we can't use it as the evidence of a mistake or it all becomes circular.

That being said and acknowledged, the other explanations seem overly complicated. I still tend to favour the "Schwartz didn't show for his own reasons which are unknown", but the idea of a simple clerical error has some appeal to it as well. Obviously, nobody has to agree with me on that.

- Jeff

[Varqm]

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Baxter was a professional as well, and for a witness with information like Schwartz, it would be a failure of duty to put that on record, whether he believed Schwartz or not. That's why he put Mary M. on the stand, he didn't believe her, but her testimony went towards the point of identification of the body, so even though he didn't believe her, up she goes and it then becomes up to the police to sort the mess out (which, of course, they do by finding Mary M's sister alive and well, and she comes to give testimony, etc).

With Schwartz, his testimony would go towards establishing the time window of the murder. If Schwartz is able to place Stride in that location, and alive, at 12:45, then she was murdered between 12:45 and 1:00 o'clock, when she's found dead. He can't establish the time of death exactly, of course, but his testimony further narrows that time window down. So again, I cannot see the coroner failing to call him even if Baxter had, for some reason, independantly decided the police were wrong in their belief in Schwartz. In fact, I can't imagine how he could come to such a conclusion, given all he would have is Schwartz's testimony sent over from the police.

Shuffling paper work does result in the occasional page or bit of information getting misfiled occasionally. I'm not a big fan of the "it was just a mistake" type explanations because they are hard to show support for as mistakes like I'm suggesting leave no indication in the evidence trail beyond Schwartz's non-appearance, and that's what we're trying to explain so we can't use it as the evidence of a mistake or it all becomes circular.

That being said and acknowledged, the other explanations seem overly complicated. I still tend to favour the "Schwartz didn't show for his own reasons which are unknown", but the idea of a simple clerical error has some appeal to it as well. Obviously, nobody has to agree with me on that.

- Jeff

Read the big difference between Schwartz's police statement and his statement to the STAR the very next day.
"Schwartz didn't show for his own reasons which are unknown" is a weak reason.The Coroner would announce Schwartz name in the inquest and ask the police to find him like Ted Stanley and Thomas Conway.But I understand now I am alone in the belief that a person - who saw an assault on the same spot minutes before the dead body was discovered - was TOO important to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated in the Coroners Act or in any murder case/inquiry.
We have to agree to disagree.I'm off.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Read Baxter's difference/dispute with Andersson on the Rose Mylett case.

B ,as I said from previous posts the Coroner had a difference of opinion with the police and the police eventually the police went the Coroners way later on or much later on,as I have been saying since day one but you do not pay attention.There is no point debating with you.

The problem is that you state opinions as fact.

.The only possible reason was he was not believed by the coroner,same as Packer.

Its not the only possible reason. As everyone but you can understand.