If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who did not appear at the inquest either.

c.d.

Exactly c.d.

And I’m guessing that no one will be suggesting that the police didn’t believe her statement.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Exactly c.d.

Have you conveniently forgotten your own criteria...?

1. The identity of the deceased.

2. When and where she died.

3. The medical cause of death.

4. How she came by her death.


Was Mortimer a vital witness?

And I’m guessing that no one will be suggesting that the police didn’t believe her statement.

If the WVC had explained to the Met that Mortimer was what I call Witness X - that is, she had been witnessed witnessing something of great importance close to the time of the murder - then as she did not mention these details, there would be reason for the police to not believe her statement. So what you're guessing will not occur, more or less already has.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Herlock,

At last. Apart from a minor exception regarding Diemshitz and "exact", something on which we can agree. Coming back to the title of this thread:

IF SCHWARTZ LIED

If he lied, who do we have as suspects?
Parcelman, Schwartz, a Club Member or a person unknown?

If he didn't lie, who do we have as suspects?
Parcelman, BSman, Pipeman, a Club Member or a person unknown?

After 159 pages of circular arguments on times let's say enough on time and come up with some ideas on who may have killed Stride under each circumstance of the thread topic.

Cheers, George

What about the man who rushed at Schwartz while holding a knife? Surely he is a suspect? Or was he Pipeman - pipe in one hand, knife in the other?

[c.d.]

Was Mortimer a vital witness?

I guess that would depend on how you define "vital." Was every witness who appeared at the inquest vital? Certainly Mortimer would have been very helpful for establishing a timeline of events would she have not? Yet, she was not called. Go figure.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have you conveniently forgotten your own criteria...?

1. The identity of the deceased.

2. When and where she died.

3. The medical cause of death.

4. How she came by her death.


Was Mortimer a vital witness?

They aren’t ‘my’ criteria they are ‘the’ criteria. Others have suggested that he was a vital witness; which he obviously wasn’t. It’s also been suggested that he wasn’t called to the Inquest because the Coroner didn’t believe him which is just not even worth discussing as it’s patent nonsense.

Neither Mortimer or Schwartz were vital witnesses. There absence at the Inquest wasn’t due to the Coroner not believing them. There was another explanation but we just don’t know what it was (although DO suggested I think 8 possibilities, I even suggested one myself)

If the WVC had explained to the Met that Mortimer was what I call Witness X - that is, she had been witnessed witnessing something of great importance close to the time of the murder - then as she did not mention these details, there would be reason for the police to not believe her statement. So what you're guessing will not occur, more or less already has.

So basically you’re saying “if my piece of complete speculation is correct then it would mean that Mortimer lied.” Not exactly rock solid is it?

Schwartz had no reason to lie so reasons have to be invented.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Was Mortimer a vital witness?

I guess that would depend on how you define "vital." Was every witness who appeared at the inquest vital? Certainly Mortimer would have been very helpful for establishing a timeline of events would she have not? Yet, she was not called. Go figure.

c.d.

I agree, she would have been helpful. It's interesting that we ask questions about why certain people were not called to the inquest, yet the press at the time seem to have not done this at all. I wonder what the people at the Evening News thought about Fanny not being called, after having published 3 reports on her?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So basically you’re saying “if my piece of complete speculation is correct then it would mean that Mortimer lied.” Not exactly rock solid is it?

I'm not claiming that it is. I was responding to your guess that no one would suggest the police did not believe her statement. My point was that I had already provided a scenario for this.

Schwartz had no reason to lie so reasons have to be invented.

That is an arbitrary statement. You have no way of knowing that Schwartz had no reason to lie.

These sorts of statements are intriguing to me, given that to this day, we do not know who Israel Schwartz was, or if that was his real name. How can an unknown man be totally trusted? Yet that seems to be the case with many, many, people. It's plain weird.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is an arbitrary statement. You have no way of knowing that Schwartz had no reason to lie.

.

Accepted.

I withdraw it and replace it with ‘we have no reason to suspect that Schwartz had a motive for lying.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree, she would have been helpful. It's interesting that we ask questions about why certain people were not called to the inquest, yet the press at the time seem to have not done this at all. I wonder what the people at the Evening News thought about Fanny not being called, after having published 3 reports on her?

This is the point that I’ve been trying to make. If we can continually say “why wasn’t he/she there or why was he/she there?” then this means that it was pretty much impossible to have predicted who would have been called to testify and who wouldn’t. So why certain posters keep suggesting that Schwartz was an absolute certainty for the Inquest? And that, even worse, that they know why he wasn’t there. For me this is a very important point because it illustrates how some will argue black is white to try and make a point.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And that, even worse, that they know why he wasn’t there.

I'm not convinced he wasn't there - in person or on paper

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not convinced he wasn't there - in person or on paper

Why wasn’t he mentioned?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why wasn’t he mentioned?

They seem to be aware of him, unless it is from another source that they learn of Stride being thrown to the ground. In either case, I cannot understand how the witness came to be known to the people at the inquest, but not the press.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They seem to be aware of him, unless it is from another source that they learn of Stride being thrown to the ground. In either case, I cannot understand how the witness came to be known to the people at the inquest, but not the press.

Rumour originating with the interpreter perhaps?

[Michael W Richards]

This is the point that I’ve been trying to make. If we can continually say “why wasn’t he/she there or why was he/she there?” then this means that it was pretty much impossible to have predicted who would have been called to testify and who wouldn’t. So why certain posters keep suggesting that Schwartz was an absolute certainty for the Inquest? And that, even worse, that they know why he wasn’t there. For me this is a very important point because it illustrates how some will argue black is white to try and make a point.

Why Schwartz would have been called? Really? You really dont see how a witnessed assault just before her murder might affect the question.. the very question.. the Inquest is tasked to answer? And why we can say he wasnt there is pretty simple too....there is no record of him there. Or his story. None. People referring to him and mentioning the Inquest in the same breath were obviously in error...but that was in memos, not on a report, anyway. Perhaps something akin to mentioning a primary Suspect in a memo that it turns out was in jail the whole time.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Rumour originating with the interpreter perhaps?

I doubt Dr Phillips would have been privy to the latest rumors. My guess is that on the Thursday, when the inquest was in adjournment, there was some sort of meeting at which the evidence was discussed at length. It is owing to this meeting and it's timing - the inquest was ongoing - that we get this...

Anderson: I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself.

In other words, the opinion arrived at was owing to the discussion of Schwartz' evidence, at this meeting. It may not only be the original statement of Schwartz that was discussed, but new evidence from Schwartz as well. That would explain why the other man is now the supposed accomplice, whereas in the statement made to Abberline, Schwartz appears to have been unsure if the two men were together or known to each other.