If Schwartz Lied ...

[GBinOz]

Hi Herlock,

Given Schwartz made a statement to the police, upon which they questioned him and felt his report was worthy of guiding their investigation (i.e. the search for Lipsky families in the area; the search for pipeman, who may have been identified and also questioned, etc) and given Schwartz was also taken to identify Stride as the women he saw (which he did), even if we assume Baxter saw the non-official report in The Star and felt the contradictions were noteworthy, then the inquest would be exactly the place for those differences in detail to be explored because Schwartz would have to testify under oath. To decide not to call him without actually questioning Schwartz under oath, would be a decision out of character for Baxter (note his refusal to allow the descriptions of the post-mortem injuries on Chapman to be left out, despite the fact they were injuries committed after death and therefore could not have contributed to death - Baxter's actions and decisions all reflect those of someone of the view that all information be officially recorded; even questionable information, like the initial misidentification of Stride, was presented for recording).

I have no idea why Schwartz does not testify at the inquest as there is every reason to expect him to, but it is apparent he did not. However, I can see no justification for adopting the view that it was Baxter who decided not to call him based upon a newspaper story in which details did not correspond to Schwartz's police statement. That speculation neither corresponds to Baxter's approach to how he ran his inquests, nor does it make any logical sense, and there have been far more plausible suggestions offered at various times. If we ever were to uncover information that reveals to us why Schwartz does not appear at the inquest, I rather suspect it will either be something mundane about Schwartz or will be related to procedural issues about how it was determined which statements were passed on to the coroner for him to call witnesses to the inquiry.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I have to agree with your logic, and would offer some speculation as to what information may have been discovered to pass on having Schwartz testify.

There were reports that the police had located and questioned Pipeman. Schwartz said in one interview that Pipeman shouted a warning to BSM. Schwartz's lack of English language proficiency would not have allowed him to know the content of that warning. Pipeman may have been shouting to BSM "hey you, leave that woman alone or I'll come down there and beat the s%$t out of you", or words to that effect. If Pipeman told the police that BSM then walked away and Stride got up and appeared unharmed, and that he had tried to turn to Schwartz to tell him things were OK but Schwartz had run away, the police would have probably determined that the whole incident was just a domestic and not relevant. Of course, had Pipeman been JtR he could have then proceeded to go and comfort Stride as her protecting hero and.....you know the story from here.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

Hi Frank,

Sorry, my mistake. I entirely agree with Dusty's suggestion, except second visits to Berner St has Smith passing the ears of Mortimer again. Neil replied to my post asking for clarification of Smith's beat saying he will check and get back to me if he finds anything. What is your opinion on Mortimer having heard someone other that Smith? I think that if she was hearing BSM, or anyone that had just murdered Stride, he would have been anything but slow plodding.

Frank, I live in Australia so my experience if of residential lots of 1/2 acre size. Looking at the map it is hard for me to get my head around Smith covering his beat in half and hour, let alone duplicating streets, or posters questioning why Smith didn't hear the whistle. I guess that is why I tend to attribute longer times to events that would a native born Londener.

Cheers, George

It can be difficult to imagine the movements, and times involved. I've had another go at trying to sketch out what could be PC Smith's beat. I've mapped out (I think) all the courts and so forth that he could potentially have had to duck into on his rounds. I've left two out in the North West (indicated by ?) as I think they may be associated with the Brass and Iron Foundry, so I would think they would be gated off? If not, they wouldn't add much to what I've done here, and it's quite possible I've included bits that might not have been part of his duties. For example, I've got him patrolling around Dutsfield yard, but I've never seen it explicitly stated he patrolled in there, but neither have I seen it indicated it wasn't part of his patrol either. If he's supposed to cover all the interior streets and yards, though, that means it might have been something he was supposed to check (I just feel a bit uncomfortable as I would have expected him to say something to the effect of "the last time I patrolled Dutsfield yard at <insert time here> it was clear", similar to PC Watkin's and PC Harvey's statements in relation to Mitre Square.

Anyway, that aside, the below patrol works out to 1.388 miles, and at regulation speed of 2.5 mph, that's 33 minutes a circuit. Given he indicates it takes him between 25 and 30 minutes, to do that in 25 would require him to patrol at 3.3 mph, which is faster than the average walking speed, and well above regulation. As such, I think what I've got here is too long. That would suggest some of the courts I've got him walking around were not part of his patrol (probably gated off, etc). Trying to find the limits of what his beat would be can help to focus in on more plausible ones, though, so putting this out there for that purpose.

If I take out the court off Commercial road, and the court beside the 2nd H in Church of Back Church Lane, and the 3 courts on Berner Street, that means at regulation speed it would take about 29 minutes, and a bit faster would just mean being a bit quick on the round but not so fast as to be a problem, type thing.

- Jeff

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Herlock,

Given Schwartz made a statement to the police, upon which they questioned him and felt his report was worthy of guiding their investigation (i.e. the search for Lipsky families in the area; the search for pipeman, who may have been identified and also questioned, etc) and given Schwartz was also taken to identify Stride as the women he saw (which he did), even if we assume Baxter saw the non-official report in The Star and felt the contradictions were noteworthy, then the inquest would be exactly the place for those differences in detail to be explored because Schwartz would have to testify under oath. To decide not to call him without actually questioning Schwartz under oath, would be a decision out of character for Baxter (note his refusal to allow the descriptions of the post-mortem injuries on Chapman to be left out, despite the fact they were injuries committed after death and therefore could not have contributed to death - Baxter's actions and decisions all reflect those of someone of the view that all information be officially recorded; even questionable information, like the initial misidentification of Stride, was presented for recording).

I have no idea why Schwartz does not testify at the inquest as there is every reason to expect him to, but it is apparent he did not. However, I can see no justification for adopting the view that it was Baxter who decided not to call him based upon a newspaper story in which details did not correspond to Schwartz's police statement. That speculation neither corresponds to Baxter's approach to how he ran his inquests, nor does it make any logical sense, and there have been far more plausible suggestions offered at various times. If we ever were to uncover information that reveals to us why Schwartz does not appear at the inquest, I rather suspect it will either be something mundane about Schwartz or will be related to procedural issues about how it was determined which statements were passed on to the coroner for him to call witnesses to the inquiry.

- Jeff

Spot on Jeff,

I think it's important for people to understand that this view doesn't automatically equate to meaning Schwartz was reliable, credible, accurate etc, he could have been mistaken on several counts, he could have been talking total Billy, but he was taken seriously, that's indisputable.

Baxter certainly gives the impression of someone who was willing to hear anyone's testimony, much of the Stride inquest being given over to Mrs Malcolm and her sister, despite the ID having been made. Add in the numerous other witnesses who's information was superfluous to the core responsibilities of a coroner's inquest, and it seems ever more unlikely that Baxter read a paper and then actively chose to exclude Schwartz based on that alone. The Star no less. Also, the Coroner's Act does state that a coroner can be held accountable for not calling someone deemed to be relevant. Deemed relevant by who? Not he and and he alone evidently.

The conclusion can only be that we don't now, and likely will never know why Schwartz wasn't at the inquest, but the idea the Baxter read a paper and refused to include him is low on the list of probabilities.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Given Schwartz made a statement to the police, upon which they questioned him and felt his report was worthy of guiding their investigation (i.e. the search for Lipsky families in the area; the search for pipeman, who may have been identified and also questioned, etc) and given Schwartz was also taken to identify Stride as the women he saw (which he did), even if we assume Baxter saw the non-official report in The Star and felt the contradictions were noteworthy, then the inquest would be exactly the place for those differences in detail to be explored because Schwartz would have to testify under oath. To decide not to call him without actually questioning Schwartz under oath, would be a decision out of character for Baxter (note his refusal to allow the descriptions of the post-mortem injuries on Chapman to be left out, despite the fact they were injuries committed after death and therefore could not have contributed to death - Baxter's actions and decisions all reflect those of someone of the view that all information be officially recorded; even questionable information, like the initial misidentification of Stride, was presented for recording).

I have no idea why Schwartz does not testify at the inquest as there is every reason to expect him to, but it is apparent he did not. However, I can see no justification for adopting the view that it was Baxter who decided not to call him based upon a newspaper story in which details did not correspond to Schwartz's police statement. That speculation neither corresponds to Baxter's approach to how he ran his inquests, nor does it make any logical sense, and there have been far more plausible suggestions offered at various times. If we ever were to uncover information that reveals to us why Schwartz does not appear at the inquest, I rather suspect it will either be something mundane about Schwartz or will be related to procedural issues about how it was determined which statements were passed on to the coroner for him to call witnesses to the inquiry.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

100% agreed. Baxter was no idiot. Even if he’d seen The Star interview he’d have wanted those discrepancies sorted out. He’d also have known that Schwartz was speaking via an interpreter with the potential for errors to be made. And do we really believe that he’d have been so naive to have thought it impossible that the Press might have indulged in a bit of exaggeration. If he’d have decided not to have called Schwartz on that basis I can think of no better example of the saying “throwing the baby out with the bath water.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Spot on Jeff,

I think it's important for people to understand that this view doesn't automatically equate to meaning Schwartz was reliable, credible, accurate etc, he could have been mistaken on several counts, he could have been talking total Billy, but he was taken seriously, that's indisputable.

Baxter certainly gives the impression of someone who was willing to hear anyone's testimony, much of the Stride inquest being given over to Mrs Malcolm and her sister, despite the ID having been made. Add in the numerous other witnesses who's information was superfluous to the core responsibilities of a coroner's inquest, and it seems ever more unlikely that Baxter read a paper and then actively chose to exclude Schwartz based on that alone. The Star no less. Also, the Coroner's Act does state that a coroner can be held accountable for not calling someone deemed to be relevant. Deemed relevant by who? Not he and and he alone evidently.

The conclusion can only be that we don't now, and likely will never know why Schwartz wasn't at the inquest, but the idea the Baxter read a paper and refused to include him is low on the list of probabilities.

[Joshua Rogan]

I agree with everything that's just been said.

However, there are indications that after the Chapman inquest Baxter came under some criticism for the thorough (some might say overly thorough) nature of his inquiries. So it's possible that - notwithstanding the fact that the Stride inquest was even more exhaustive - he may have felt some pressure to rein in the public purse-strings where he thought he could.

[GBinOz]

I agree with everything that's just been said.

However, there are indications that after the Chapman inquest Baxter came under some criticism for the thorough (some might say overly thorough) nature of his inquiries. So it's possible that - notwithstanding the fact that the Stride inquest was even more exhaustive - he may have felt some pressure to rein in the public purse-strings where he thought he could.

Suppose that, as was reported, the police located Pipeman and he said that he had warned BSM in terms such as "Leave that woman be, or I'll come down there and kick the s%#t out of you", and told the police that BSM had walked away, Stride had gotten up and appeared to be OK. Would the Coroner have looked at this as a domestic, as Schwartz had thought, and decided it wasn't sufficiently relevant to be included at the inquest??

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Suppose that, as was reported, the police located Pipeman and he said that he had warned BSM in terms such as "Leave that woman be, or I'll come down there and kick the s%#t out of you", and told the police that BSM had walked away, Stride had gotten up and appeared to be OK. Would the Coroner have looked at this as a domestic, as Schwartz had thought, and decided it wasn't sufficiently relevant to be included at the inquest??

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I think that would have to be considered highly relevant. Pipeman had to leave before Stride was killed in your hypothetic situation, or pipeman becomes the killer. So, they need to get him to clarify which, at the very least. And if pipeman left then BSM could return without pipeman knowing, so that needs clarification. At the very least, pipeman needs to be called in as between pipeman and Schwartz we would have enough information to start looking at her partner, etc. I can't see them dismissing Schwartz if they had some one who cooroberated his tale, even if they provide a different spin on the events.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I think that would have to be considered highly relevant. Pipeman had to leave before Stride was killed in your hypothetic situation, or pipeman becomes the killer. So, they need to get him to clarify which, at the very least. And if pipeman left then BSM could return without pipeman knowing, so that needs clarification. At the very least, pipeman needs to be called in as between pipeman and Schwartz we would have enough information to start looking at her partner, etc. I can't see them dismissing Schwartz if they had some one who cooroberated his tale, even if they provide a different spin on the events.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

You raise some very good points. But the whole point of Schwartz's story was that he thought it was a domestic and crossed the road to avoid it. I'm not sure that, given the difference in height between Pipeman and BSM, that the later would have cared to try his luck by returning, and that is probably what the police would have concluded. Maybe he told police that he had tried to tell Schwartz that all was OK but that Schwartz had run away. That leaves Pipeman as Stride's shining knight rescuer or as her manipulating killer. But since police apparently interviewed Pipeman and concluded that there was no reason to proceed in that line of questioning, the Coroner may have agreed.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree with everything that's just been said.

However, there are indications that after the Chapman inquest Baxter came under some criticism for the thorough (some might say overly thorough) nature of his inquiries. So it's possible that - notwithstanding the fact that the Stride inquest was even more exhaustive - he may have felt some pressure to rein in the public purse-strings where he thought he could.

Maybe he was reluctant to pay for an interpreter for a non-vital witness Joshua?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

You raise some very good points. But the whole point of Schwartz's story was that he thought it was a domestic and crossed the road to avoid it. I'm not sure that, given the difference in height between Pipeman and BSM, that the later would have cared to try his luck by returning, and that is probably what the police would have concluded. Maybe he told police that he had tried to tell Schwartz that all was OK but that Schwartz had run away. That leaves Pipeman as Stride's shining knight rescuer or as her manipulating killer. But since police apparently interviewed Pipeman and concluded that there was no reason to proceed in that line of questioning, the Coroner may have agreed.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Well, we don't actually know if pipeman was interviewed, and certainly don't know what he said, so we're getting deep into speculations.

But if we look at Baxter's inquests it is pretty clear he doesn't dismiss witnesses bases on his belief in them. And he's not one to hold back information. Again, we don't know why Schwartz isn't there, and so we should not read into his nonapperance any decision by Baxter or the police.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

Hi George,

Neil replied to my post asking for clarification of Smith's beat saying he will check and get back to me if he finds anything.

Then let's hope Monty will be able to find what we're looking for!

What is your opinion on Mortimer having heard someone other that Smith? I think that if she was hearing BSM, or anyone that had just murdered Stride, he would have been anything but slow plodding.

I agree with you, George, and prefer to stick to what she appears to have said to a Daily News reporter. Anything else would be swampy speculation and wouldn't lead us not very far.

Frank, I live in Australia so my experience if of residential lots of 1/2 acre size. Looking at the map it is hard for me to get my head around Smith covering his beat in half and hour, let alone duplicating streets, or posters questioning why Smith didn't hear the whistle. I guess that is why I tend to attribute longer times to events that would a native born Londener.

I'm no Londoner either, born or otherwise (in fact, I'm Dutch but live in Italy since last October), but the sort of square Smith had to walk around was something like 250 by 150 yards and the length of his beat was - as Jeff measured on this map - around 1.3 or 1.4 miles. The beat officer had to walk his beat at a pace of about 2.5 mph, so perhaps all this gives you more of a feeling with the distances involved.

Cheers,
Frank

[Michael W Richards]

Its interesting that people put so much stock in Schwartz's details based upon a belief that Pipeman was found and corroberated Schwartz's story. And that when they read his story was not wholly believed, that they were referring to Pipemans account.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Posted as a response to a post by Varqm on the Kosminski thread (#325)

.
You’ve already had you’re shortcomings on this subject pointed out to you by DO so it’s a wonder that you have the nerve to still consider yourself some kind of expert. Unlike you I make no such claim but we can see from Inquests that there are witness called who add nothing of value and yet some who would add to a general picture who aren’t called. No reasons are given for these individual decisions of selection therefore we simply cannot know why Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest. You make a claim that you know why he didn’t attend. This is a false claim of course and it’s surprising that you repeatedly put yourself in this position. I know that you have an issue with DO but if there’s choice to be made about the accuracy of his research and your own then there really is no contest I’m afraid. You come third. He gave 8 potential reasons that Schwartz might not have been called. None of these are claimed as a fact of course but they are all possibles which by definition proves that your ‘fact’ can in no way be considered as such. The idea that the Coroner read The Star (in itself unlikely) and then made a decision contrary to police opinion is utterly ludicrous. We don’t know why Schwartz didn’t attend but it wasn’t because The Coroner to an action that wasn’t part of his duties, You should stop stating your opinions as fact.

[Varqm]

Posted as a response to a post by Varqm on the Kosminski thread (#325)

Yes the Star report was a statement by Schwartz and could be a basis for a decision.

Schwartz not appearing is based on reasoning,you however has no reasoning and basis.You're reason simply is just because.We'll why don't you read the Coroners act, why dont you study the inquests and give me reasons why I am wrong, you have none. Just because is not enough.
I see what's going on, if you read the Coroners Act you won't understand it. I see. Reply when you have read it, I don't want to spend time on "just because".
Then perhaps you would be able to answer what did Halse,Collard,Alfred Long,Patrick mulshaw,Henry Tomkins, had to do with the when, how, who, where of the inquest.