If Schwartz Lied ...

[Varqm]

How do you have the nerve to say that it’s me that’s making things up. It’s in black and white Varqm. In this post you’re saying it’s the most reasonable reason but previously you said this:



At least you could attempt to be truthful before accusing me of making things up.

........

I’m not going to keep repeating the aims of the Inquest to you Varqm. Could he have identified Elizabeth Stride - no. Could he name a possible murderer - no. Could he say how she died - no.

And please don’t keep selectively quoting the Coroners Act.

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.

[Wickerman]

...... I was thinking that there were 2 types of witnesses - those that ‘tendered’ there evidence (ie they just turned up) and those called by the coroner and that the less important witnesses fell into the former category but, after discussing it, it looks like there’s no real evidence for this being the case.

Hi Michael.
All the witnesses were called by a summons delivered to them from the coroner's office. Each witness must produce that summons after the inquest has run its course in order to get paid for their time.
There are no 'walk-ins', this is not a clinic

[JeffHamm]

Hi Michael.
All the witnesses were called by a summons delivered to them from the coroner's office. Each witness must produce that summons after the inquest has run its course in order to get paid for their time.
There are no 'walk-ins', this is not a clinic

Hi Wickerman,

If someone appeared at an inquest, claiming to have pertinent information that they have not to date disclosed to the police, would it be possible for them to do something like "make a statement in private to the police/coroner, which is then ruled upon at that time"? Effectively, could a summons be issued on the spot, technically meeting the summons requirement but practically meeting the intention of a "walk in", as you describe it. I'm not familiar with the details of the protocol here, so genuinely asking. If a summons was required before the inquest started for the day, I would think this would require a highly unusual exception being made, if it ever occurred at all.

Also, with regards to a summons, did this have to be delivered after the police took someone's statement (could the police issue it themselves is what I'm getting at). If not, did it have to be seen as delivered into the hands of the person summoned in order for it to be legally binding? Meaning, if Schwartz, either by design or circumstances, simply was not located when attempts were made to deliver the summons, would he be off the hook with regards to any fines for not showing? In a previous post, Varqm cites the Coroner's Act as also indicating a fine is only imposed if the person ignores the 3rd summons. If Schwartz, for whatever reason, did not wish to attend, so made himself scarce after receiving the first one, would he have avoided such a fine because the next 2 issues of the summons could not be seen to have been put in his hand?

It seems to me Baxter might instruct the police to find him, but not during the open session, since his status as a witness is not established by any other testimony. Things like the mention of "the pensioner" in the Chapman case does prompt some testimony as to how the search for that potential witness is underway making its way onto the record, but that cannot occur with respect to Schwartz because nobody else can testify to him. But if Baxter was aware of Schwartz's interview and statement, and was wondering where this witness is after having summoned him, I could see that conversation being held "off the record".

We're looking in a void when it comes to Schwartz's noninvolvement in the inquest, and we all want to fill in the blanks to cross that gap in our knowledge. It's just very difficult to know how to build a bridge without knowing where at least some solid ground might be found on which to support the weight of that bridge.

- Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Did Israel Schwartz actually exist?

[JeffHamm]

Did Israel Schwartz actually exist?

Well, he is reported to have been interviewed by Abberline, and in a report by Chief Inspector Swanson (dated 19 Oct, 1888), it is mentioned that Schwartz was taken to the mortuary where he identified Stride as the woman he saw. So, unless both Abberline and Swanson are sharing a delusion, or are engaged in some elaborate ruse, I think it is safe to say that someone who gave their name as Schwartz existed. Now, whether that was his real name or an alias he used to avoid being called upon, or just to avoid his name being reported in the press perhaps, is a different question. To my knowledge he's not been identified in a census record, but I could very well just be ignorant of that if he has been.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Whoosh!

[DJA]

Did Israel Schwartz actually exist?

Does the Prayer Book Rebellion book exist?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

This is very simple Varqm.

I have never, at any point, claimed to know why Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest but my issue (and it’s the crux of our ‘dispute’) is the claiming of an opinion as a fact. That’s it. You’ve said more than once that you believed that the Coroner disbelieved his evidence. Recently you’ve said that this was “....the most reasonable reason.” But before that you stated that it was “the only possible reason.” Which ignores the fact that there were other ‘possible’ reasons.

By saying that it was “the only possible reason” you were stating it as a fact. Something that is only your opinion. And you’ve spent ages arguing with me about this fact.

.....

As I said, I don’t know why he wasn’t called, but your explanation (that the Coroner disbelieved or distrusted him) isn’t a very satisfying one in my opinion. Would a Coroner really have analysed his potential witnesses like that? Would he have just dismissed him on the basis of a coupe of small discrepancies between his police interview and The Star article? Would the coroner have read The Star? That said, the Coroner would have learned of the available witnesses from the police of course, and so the officer that liaised with him (I’m guessing Reid?) might have expressed some doubt. I don’t know.

The point is that there are a few possible ‘explanations’ for Schwartz non-attendance but we have no way of weighing them up against each other. So none of us can state as a fact why he didn’t attend.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Michael.
All the witnesses were called by a summons delivered to them from the coroner's office. Each witness must produce that summons after the inquest has run its course in order to get paid for their time.
There are no 'walk-ins', this is not a clinic

Hi Wick,

I did get there in the end but thanks for clarifying. The wording appeared to allow for witnesses coming forward.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A few of the suggested reasons for Schwartz non-attendance:

1) The Coroner saw no value in Schwartz evidence in regard to the limited aims of an inquest.
2) The Coroner decided that Schwartz evidence wasn’t believable (after reading The Star or after taking the opinion of an officer who mistrusted Schwartz, possibly Reid?)
3) That Reid didn’t pass Schwartz name to the Coroner because he didn’t believe his evidence. (Maybe due to a ‘spat’ with Abberline?)
4) That Schwartz was omitted due to a clerical error.
5) That Schwartz feigned an illness to avoid attending.
6) That Schwartz asked to be excused as he felt threatened by BS Man (and the Coroner, considered this alongside of the fact that Schwartz could have added nothing of real value, agreed)
7) That Schwartz went into hiding (perhaps anticipating his summons to appear?)

There might be others of course. There might have been a reason that we haven’t mentioned as a possible.

Can we categorically eliminate any of the above? Are there any that posters here feel are simply so unlikely as to have been close to impossible?

[Ms Diddles]

A few of the suggested reasons for Schwartz non-attendance:

1) The Coroner saw no value in Schwartz evidence in regard to the limited aims of an inquest.
2) The Coroner decided that Schwartz evidence wasn’t believable (after reading The Star or after taking the opinion of an officer who mistrusted Schwartz, possibly Reid?)
3) That Reid didn’t pass Schwartz name to the Coroner because he didn’t believe his evidence. (Maybe due to a ‘spat’ with Abberline?)
4) That Schwartz was omitted due to a clerical error.
5) That Schwartz feigned an illness to avoid attending.
6) That Schwartz asked to be excused as he felt threatened by BS Man (and the Coroner, considered this alongside of the fact that Schwartz could have added nothing of real value, agreed)
7) That Schwartz went into hiding (perhaps anticipating his summons to appear?)

There might be others of course. There might have been a reason that we haven’t mentioned as a possible.

Can we categorically eliminate any of the above? Are there any that posters here feel are simply so unlikely as to have been close to impossible?

Hey Herlock!

Number 5??

If Schwartz presence was indeed deemed to be required at the inquest, I doubt feigning illness would have held much water.

Short of a hospital admission or something really extreme that could be evidenced, I'd imagine that attendance would have been mandatory and a dim view taken (and thumb screws employed!) if it was felt that attempts were being made to wriggle out of it.

Merely idle speculation on my part though...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hey Herlock!

Number 5??

If Schwartz presence was indeed deemed to be required at the inquest, I doubt feigning illness would have held much water.

Short of a hospital admission or something really extreme that could be evidenced, I'd imagine that attendance would have been mandatory and a dim view taken (and thumb screws employed!) if it was felt that attempts were being made to wriggle out of it.

Merely idle speculation on my part though...

Fair point Ms D. To be honest I can’t recall who mentioned that one but I seem to recall that someone did.

Or did I dream it?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

If someone appeared at an inquest, claiming to have pertinent information that they have not to date disclosed to the police, would it be possible for them to do something like "make a statement in private to the police/coroner, which is then ruled upon at that time"? Effectively, could a summons be issued on the spot, technically meeting the summons requirement but practically meeting the intention of a "walk in", as you describe it. I'm not familiar with the details of the protocol here, so genuinely asking. If a summons was required before the inquest started for the day, I would think this would require a highly unusual exception being made, if it ever occurred at all.

Hi Jeff.
We're in the speculation zone now.
How would a potential witness get in to the chambers to interrupt an inquest?

Security, if we can call it that, was not in the hands of the coroner, he had no budget to pay for security, I'm sure that would have been the responsibility of the police.
So, anyone attempting to enter the inquest, who had no paperwork (authorization) to be there would be stopped by the police.
Insp. Reid was on duty at the Stride inquest, so him being the senior officer present, the constables on duty would answer to him. Any potential witness insisting he has relevant information would be taken aside by Insp. Reid and interviewed in a suitable room by an assigned officer, of himself if none were available.

I guess, if the new witness did have important information the details taken down on the spot might be handed to an officer of the court, who will bring it to the coroner for him to read personally.
That is when the decision will be made.
The coroner could reject the witness, he could admit him on the spot, or possibly write a summons after the inquest for him to appear at the next adjournment.

There doesn't appear to be anything in writing to deal with this type of scenario.
It would boil down to whether time is of the essence, and who has the authority to admit a last minute witness.

Also, with regards to a summons, did this have to be delivered after the police took someone's statement (could the police issue it themselves is what I'm getting at).

The police do not issue a summons to appear at the inquest, only the coroner will do that.

If not, did it have to be seen as delivered into the hands of the person summoned in order for it to be legally binding?

The Coroner's Act in some places deals with the Jury & Witness together, and in other places separate rules are given. On that point, when serving a summons to a Juror preference is to serve it personally, failing that to leave it at their dwelling with a member of their family. It just is not clear if the same rule is applicable to the witness.

If Schwartz, for whatever reason, did not wish to attend, so made himself scarce after receiving the first one, would he have avoided such a fine because the next 2 issues of the summons could not be seen to have been put in his hand?

There is also a requirement to summons a witness who has made a statement to police but tries to avoid appearing at the inquest.

Any witness avoiding making an appearance would be news for the news-hounds who love to speculate. I can't imagine we wouldn't have read about it.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff.
We're in the speculation zone now.
How would a potential witness get in to the chambers to interrupt an inquest?

Security, if we can call it that, was not in the hands of the coroner, he had no budget to pay for security, I'm sure that would have been the responsibility of the police.
So, anyone attempting to enter the inquest, who had no paperwork (authorization) to be there would be stopped by the police.
Insp. Reid was on duty at the Stride inquest, so him being the senior officer present, the constables on duty would answer to him. Any potential witness insisting he has relevant information would be taken aside by Insp. Reid and interviewed in a suitable room by an assigned officer, of himself if none were available.

I guess, if the new witness did have important information the details taken down on the spot might be handed to an officer of the court, who will bring it to the coroner for him to read personally.
That is when the decision will be made.
The coroner could reject the witness, he could admit him on the spot, or possibly write a summons after the inquest for him to appear at the next adjournment.

There doesn't appear to be anything in writing to deal with this type of scenario.
It would boil down to whether time is of the essence, and who has the authority to admit a last minute witness.



The police do not issue a summons to appear at the inquest, only the coroner will do that.



The Coroner's Act in some places deals with the Jury & Witness together, and in other places separate rules are given. On that point, when serving a summons to a Juror preference is to serve it personally, failing that to leave it at their dwelling with a member of their family. It just is not clear if the same rule is applicable to the witness.



There is also a requirement to summons a witness who has made a statement to police but tries to avoid appearing at the inquest.

Any witness avoiding making an appearance would be news for the news-hounds who love to speculate. I can't imagine we wouldn't have read about it.

Thanks for that, much appreciated.

It is very strange that the news also seems to have forgotten about Schwartz. His lack of appearance seems like there would be a paper trail, either indicating why he was dropped or questioning why he didn't show. That trail could appear in either police or newspaper sources. And yet, nothing.

While I could see potential explanations for the police to not detail in writing a mistake on their part, that would not explain the press losing interest in him. The H.O. would have mentioned as well, if wind got to them. Even if he were I'll, the inquest didn't close for almost month.

With the dear boss letter and post card new to the scene, and the more spectacular murder in miter square, it seems the press just lost interest through distraction. I would think if they got wind of Schwartz's absence being due to him being discredited, or by a police mistake, or as you say by him avoiding appearing, that would be a story.

But despite that we have nothing. Either the explanation is something mundane enough that nobody bats an eye or the evidence has gone missing, perhaps Schwartz's lack of English just put him in the " too hard" basket and other witnesses were deemed sufficient to narrow the time sufficiently. After all, Lawende was with 2 other men, but only 2 of the 3 appear to give testimony. The third may, of course, not have remembered anything (I think there is one news story where he says he doesn't, and questions Lawende and Leve's ability too, so perhaps that's not a great example).

Anyway, no matter how I think of it, I keep thinking "but that would get a mention somewhere". Clearly that's not correct.

Anyway, thanks again.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

If it wasn't for what Swanson wrote, would you think there is a mystery there with Schwartz?