Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[c.d.]

"Schwartz would be a crucial witness at trial in establishing the identity of the killer but that is not the purpose of an inquest."

I agree with Bridewell's point. This was not a trial. Schwartz's testimony was not crucial as far as putting a rope around the neck of a guilty man nor was it crucial in exonerating an innocent man. No one was on trial for murder. It seems extremely unlikely that a verdict of accidental death or suicide would be returned. With or without Schwartz's testimony the result would still be death by person or persons unknown.

The simplest explanation for his absence is that he was simply not sure of what he saw coupled with all the problems inherent in translating. That would only seem to muddy the water for the jurors and ultimately have no bearing on their verdict.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

And why does Scotland Yard need to promote the Double-event scenario by subverting justice?

I'm not seeing the gain.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Abby,

It's my turn to be dim.

How, what?

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Read my last post again.

"Because his story gave the lie to the 1.00 am interrupted-Ripper double-event malarkey . . ."

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon
Sorry if im being daft but How?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Abby,

Read my last post again.

"Because his story gave the lie to the 1.00 am interrupted-Ripper double-event malarkey . . ."

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Michael is right.

The idea that Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest because he was ill, couldn't be bothered, was running an errand for his mum in Hartlepool or had to rub lard on the cat's boil doesn't fly.

Nor does the idea that court translators were unavailable or that his evidence was heard in camera.

These are all just handy constructs to maintain the status quo of the Ripper mystery.

Because his story gave the lie to the 1.00 am interrupted-Ripper double-event malarkey Schwartz's story was disavowed and he wasn't allowed anywhere near the inquest.

And being an East End Jew [not the easiest of gigs in 1888] he didn't complain.

Israel Schwartz did exactly what he was told by the cops.

Regards,

Simon

Thanks Simon and MR

So why wasn't he at the inquest? Why did the cops tell him not to attend?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Abby,

Michael is right.

The idea that Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest because he was ill, couldn't be bothered, was running an errand for his mum in Hartlepool or had to rub lard on the cat's boil doesn't fly.

Nor does the idea that court translators were unavailable or that his evidence was heard in camera.

These are all just handy constructs to maintain the status quo of the Ripper mystery.

Because his story gave the lie to the 1.00 am interrupted-Ripper double-event malarkey Schwartz's story was disavowed and he wasn't allowed anywhere near the inquest.

And being an East End Jew [not the easiest of gigs in 1888] he didn't complain.

Israel Schwartz did exactly what he was told by the cops.

Regards,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

uh no. he could have been absent for any number of reasons other than not being "germaine" to the preceedings.
Just off the top of my head:
1. the police kept him secret
2. he was sick
3. he was out of town
4. he didn't want to attend, so didn't
5. logistics/problems with language barrier

None of those reasons would preclude announcing those facts or entering them into the records.

1. The fact that his story has every bearing on whether Liz Stride may have died by person or persons unknown, hardly likely that his story would be unrecorded in the Inquest documents.
2. Then they would have entered his statement and advised the jury he was unable to attend personally.
3. Then they would have advised the jury that they have been unable to contact or reach the witness.
4. It wasn't a voluntary situation.
5. They had a translator when he gave his statement, so that seems to address your speculation. Translators were available.

To pretend that he was a part of the Inquest anyway, or that he waa so important and secret that no document anywhere confirms his involvement in any police investigation into the death of Stride isn't police work...its wishful thinking in order to facilitate a belief you have.

Cheers

[Abby Normal]

I don't cd, and I don't have to know to see that he didn't appear in any records of it. If you believe his story, then you must see his story is essential to the Inquest material, its an assault on the deceased feet from and minutes before her death...making Israels alleged assailant THE most likely suspect..not this phantom Jack.

But as we can all see, the Inquest spent ample time on someone who had nothing at all to do with the Inquest and after they already knew the woman was incorrect about the ID, and had a witness who recorded a 12:45 sighting on record....so, Israels absence must mean he wasn't considered germane to the proceedings. Something unthinkable if they really believed his story.

Cheers

uh no. he could have been absent for any number of reasons other than not being "germaine" to the preceedings.
Just off the top of my head:
the police kept him secret
he was sick
he was out of town
he didn't want to attend, so didn't
logistics/problems with language barrier

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

If you KNOW FOR A FACT why Schwartz did not testify at the inquest please let the rest of us know. I see no point in keeping it to yourself.

c.d.

I don't cd, and I don't have to know to see that he didn't appear in any records of it. If you believe his story, then you must see his story is essential to the Inquest material, its an assault on the deceased feet from and minutes before her death...making Israels alleged assailant THE most likely suspect..not this phantom Jack.

But as we can all see, the Inquest spent ample time on someone who had nothing at all to do with the Inquest and after they already knew the woman was incorrect about the ID, and had a witness who recorded a 12:45 sighting on record....so, Israels absence must mean he wasn't considered germane to the proceedings. Something unthinkable if they really believed his story.

Cheers

[David Orsam]

The function of an inquest is:

(i) to identify the deceased in a sudden death
(ii) to establish when she died
(iii) where she died and
(iv) how.

This may be true of a modern inquest but does not apply to an inquest in the time period under discussion, in the sense that the list is incomplete. I refer to Jervis on Coroners, Fifth Edition, (1888) which says, firstly:

"It shall be the duty of the coroner in a case of murder or manslaughter to put into writing the statement on oath of those who know the facts and circumstances of the case."

And secondly:

"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".

Consequently, as commented in Jervis, "It is obvious, although the inquiry of the coroner is preliminary only, that it may, and frequently does, lead to accusation."

This is an important aspect of inquests relating to murders in 1888 which I get the feeling is often overlooked.

[GUT]

What Schwartz described was a woman being attacked on Berner Street at the entrance to Dutfields Yard for which there is incontrovertible evidence. Okay, so nobody else saw what Schwartz claims to have done but somebody killed Stride at or about the time that Schwartz describes a woman being attacked. The police arrested a man based on Schwartz's description - presumably not chosen at random. If the man arrested was based on Pipeman's description there must have been such a man close enough to the scene for someone to have made a connection. The same goes for BS Man.

In my view the reason that Schwartz was not called to the inquest is quite simple. The function of an inquest is:

(i) to identify the deceased in a sudden death
(ii) to establish when she died
(iii) where she died and
(iv) how.

Schwartz can say nothing with regard to (i) and (ii), (iii) and (iv) are clear from the medical evidence. Other witnesses were called but they didn't necessitate the cost of an interpreter.

Schwartz would be a crucial witness at trial in establishing the identity of the killer but that is not the purpose of an inquest.

But to be fair they appear to have arrested a LOT of people, releasing them very soon thereafter.

Your point about inquests is well made and often forgotten [sometimes I suspect by the coroner himself].

[Bridewell]

There is however no evidence that what Israel described ever occurred.

What Schwartz described was a woman being attacked on Berner Street, at the entrance to Dutfields Yard, for which there is incontrovertible evidence. Okay, so nobody else saw what Schwartz claims to have done but somebody killed Stride at or about the time that Schwartz describes a woman being attacked. The police arrested a man based on Schwartz's description - presumably not chosen at random. If the man arrested was based on Pipeman's description there must have been a man answering that description close enough to the scene for someone to have made a connection. The same goes for BS Man.

In my view the reason that Schwartz was not called to the inquest is quite simple. The function of an inquest is:

(i) to identify the deceased in a sudden death
(ii) to establish when she died
(iii) where she died and
(iv) how.

Schwartz can say nothing with regard to (i) and (ii), (iii) and (iv) are clear from the medical evidence. Other witnesses were called but they didn't necessitate the cost of an interpreter.

Schwartz would be a crucial witness at trial in establishing the identity of the killer but that is not the purpose of an inquest.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

If you KNOW FOR A FACT why Schwartz did not testify at the inquest please let the rest of us know. I see no point in keeping it to yourself.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

The most successful conspiracies are those about which nobody knows anything and suspect even less.

It strikes me that those are just the easiest to invent.