Schwartz v. Lawende

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But Darryl, you failed to mention the bulk of those had left by 11:30 pm, and that only about 20-30 were left (other reports suggest 28), so does your point still apply?

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/816510-the-stride-murder?p=819354#post819354

The 28 includes people from outside the club, like Spooner. A number of club attendees seem to have left the premises after the discovery, and not returned prior to the closure of the gates.

[Michael W Richards]

The coroner's schedule is independent to any police work, if an inquest must be held it must be within a reasonable time or the delay is punishable.

Secondly, the inquiry is not there to identify the killer, only to establish the when, where & by what means the victim met her death. Schwartz could not contribute to any of that, nor could he identify the victim, so his testimony was not necessary for the coroner.




The coroner's duties are to establish the identity of the victim, which Schwartz could not help, and discover when, where & how she died.
Schwartz's statement contributed nothing towards that end.

The part I highlighted above Wick is a misinterpretation, the very fact that the manner of her death was a primary question at the Inquest would necessitate the inclusion of a validated story of an violent altercation between victim and aggressor just before the estimated cut time. It would focus the findings towards a Wilful Murder verdict. Her Id is also an issue to resolve, so explain Mary Malcolms inclusion to me,...considering that Liz had been identified already. These early Inquests were anything but straight forward, but any evidence that suggests an answer to one of the principle questions that the Inquest is designed to answer would be included. Maybe thats why we see MM. Its not that Israel's story wouldnt have been relevant to the specifics being addressed, it would have certainly been, its that despite the potential importance of his alleged sighting, his story is absent in any format at the Inquest.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Incorrect, yes, with respect to interpretation.
Swanson is writing as if there was a second 'if' in the sentence.
In other words the first 'if' is applicable to both halves of the sentence.
His meaning was this...

" If Schwartz is to be believed, and (if) the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it..."

We speak this way all the time, use one preposition to apply to more than one sentence. It's just that when you write down what you say, it can give an erroneous meaning.

If you asked me something about the ball game tomorrow, I could say..

"If I go to Toronto, and if I go to the ball game, I will find out for you..."

But, I could just as easy use one 'if'.

"If I go to Toronto, and go to the ball game, I will find out for you..."

Both statements mean exactly the same thing.

The problem with Swanson's note is when he left out the second 'if' his sentence lends itself to a different meaning.

At the time of writing there was no police report of their investigation into Schwartz's story - that is what Swanson was saying, in my view.

The bold sentences are not equivalent. Finding 'you' is dependent on going to the game, which in turn is dependent on going to Toronto, whereas if the police report on Schwartz is still pending (as you suppose), then belief in Schwartz is only dependent on the content of that report, and nothing else. To put it more technically, finding you at the ball game involves a conditional dependency, whereas belief in Schwartz only depends on the report. Compiling that report depends on things like finding and interviewing certain people, but Swanson is speaking from the point of view of readers of his report - people at the Home Office, for example, and not those doing the police work. Had the police report still been pending, Swanson need only have written ...

If the police report of Schwartz's statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows that if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw is the more probable of the two to be the murderer.

Speaking of those doing the police work ...

... the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Doubts about Schwartz long predate Swanson's report, and these are the doubts he was hinting at, in my view.

[Michael W Richards]

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/816510-the-stride-murder?p=819354#post819354

The 28 includes people from outside the club, like Spooner. A number of club attendees seem to have left the premises after the discovery, and not returned prior to the closure of the gates.

Actually if you put together the number of people that Spooner says he saw there, with the other witnesses of that same timing, and the number Lamb saw there, the number he found inside on the ground floor when he went into the club,... the initial numbers of the men seen that we have witnesses comments on...it exceeds 30 men onsite. Then you can add in neighbours, and the like, and that number doesnt address whether any members elected to stay upstairs when the news first came.

[Fiver]

What are the chances that Baxter believed Schwartz's story, but decided not to call him?

Baxter didn't call Fanny Mortimer, either. What can we conclude from that?

[c.d.]

Baxter didn't call Fanny Mortimer, either. What can we conclude from that?

I am anticipating The No True Scotsman Fallacy as a response.

c.d.

[Lewis C]

Baxter didn't call Fanny Mortimer, either. What can we conclude from that?

I don't necessarily agree with Andrew on this, but to be fair, Schwartz said that he saw the murder victim be assaulted at about the time that she was murdered, while Fanny saw a man walk past who had been identified, so those are 2 rather different cases.

[c.d.]

I don't necessarily agree with Andrew on this, but to be fair, Schwartz said that he saw the murder victim be assaulted at about the time that she was murdered, while Fanny saw a man walk past who had been identified, so those are 2 rather different cases.

But even if we all agree that Schwartz should have been the most important witness in this case or even the most important witness in the entire history of witnesses it still doesn't tell us why he did not appear at the inquest.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Wick do we know how many of those left knew each other ? What we do know is that Wess said that there up to 80 members of the club and up to a 100 members in the lecture room . The point you are trying to make is that A would know when B was leaving etc so it would be hard for Jack to be someone from the club that night . We simply do not know who knew who ....

The time window that concerns the police investigation begins from the time of the discovery, or when PC Lamb ordered the gates closed.
The overall attendance that night is irrelevant, press reports concerning those detained by police numbered between 20-30. These are the ones who's activity must be corroborated or thoroughly investigated. This is where the police will take note of instances where 'A' was with, or seen by 'B', in order to confirm 'B's story, and likewise for all the members.
Any member who's story cannot be corroborated will be the subject of special interest.
The stories given by all the members would be the subject of meticulous scrutiny, so any casual suggestion by modern theorists concerning the involvement of a club member should be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Wickerman]

The part I highlighted above Wick is a misinterpretation, the very fact that the manner of her death was a primary question at the Inquest would necessitate the inclusion of a validated story of an violent altercation between victim and aggressor just before the estimated cut time....

One of the common 'lost causes' in various discussions about the Stride murder, is the view that Schwartz's statement had to be of primary importance - yet he was not called to give evidence.
The proverbial 'rug' is pulled out from under your argument before you start. which means, it makes no difference what you as an interested citizen 'thinks', the facts of the case argue otherwise.
Schwartz's testimony was not required.

It would focus the findings towards a Wilful Murder verdict. ...

The Jury did reach their verdict without the contribution from Schwartz.

...Her Id is also an issue to resolve, so explain Mary Malcolms inclusion to me,...considering that Liz had been identified already....

Actually, no she had not. If you read the introductory sentence in the Casebook press report - her identity had not been confirmed at the time the inquest opened.

[Wickerman]

The bold sentences are not equivalent. Finding 'you' is dependent on going to the game, which in turn is dependent on going to Toronto, whereas if the police report on Schwartz is still pending (as you suppose), then belief in Schwartz is only dependent on the content of that report, and nothing else. To put it more technically, finding you at the ball game involves a conditional dependency, whereas belief in Schwartz only depends on the report. Compiling that report depends on things like finding and interviewing certain people, but Swanson is speaking from the point of view of readers of his report - people at the Home Office, for example, and not those doing the police work. Had the police report still been pending, Swanson need only have written ...

If the police report of Schwartz's statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows that if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw is the more probable of the two to be the murderer.

Speaking of those doing the police work ...

... the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Doubts about Schwartz long predate Swanson's report, and these are the doubts he was hinting at, in my view.

The problem with what you are trying to explain is, that you create conflict. Your interpretation (the conventional one) argues against the press report, which is the source of all our concern. Also, if you are correct about Swanson's meaning, then Schwartz would have been at the inquest.

Both scenario's demonstrate your view to be wrong.
My view places all opinions in agreement, and justifies the non-appearance of Schwartz.
How can it be otherwise?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Baxter didn't call Fanny Mortimer, either. What can we conclude from that?

Strictly speaking, we can't conclude anything, just as we can't conclude anything from you answering the question with a question.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But even if we all agree that Schwartz should have been the most important witness in this case or even the most important witness in the entire history of witnesses it still doesn't tell us why he did not appear at the inquest.

c.d.

The CORONER, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time.

Would it be reasonable to suppose that the reason Schwartz never attended the inquest - as opposed to never being called - was because he went missing? Why else would the chance of something further being ascertained require the inquest to once again be adjourned? Had Israel Schwartz not been who he said he was, him going missing is to be expected.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The time window that concerns the police investigation begins from the time of the discovery, or when PC Lamb ordered the gates closed.
The overall attendance that night is irrelevant, press reports concerning those detained by police numbered between 20-30. These are the ones who's activity must be corroborated or thoroughly investigated. This is where the police will take note of instances where 'A' was with, or seen by 'B', in order to confirm 'B's story, and likewise for all the members.
Any member who's story cannot be corroborated will be the subject of special interest.
The stories given by all the members would be the subject of meticulous scrutiny, so any casual suggestion by modern theorists concerning the involvement of a club member should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Detective-inspector Edmund Reid: The door of the loft was found locked on the inside, and it was forced. The loft was searched, but no trace of the murderer could be found.

Presumably the dude who locked the loft door was never the subject of special interest, because he was never identified.

[Darryl Kenyon]

The time window that concerns the police investigation begins from the time of the discovery, or when PC Lamb ordered the gates closed.
The overall attendance that night is irrelevant, press reports concerning those detained by police numbered between 20-30. These are the ones who's activity must be corroborated or thoroughly investigated. This is where the police will take note of instances where 'A' was with, or seen by 'B', in order to confirm 'B's story, and likewise for all the members.
Any member who's story cannot be corroborated will be the subject of special interest.
The stories given by all the members would be the subject of meticulous scrutiny, so any casual suggestion by modern theorists concerning the involvement of a club member should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Wick , Sorry, but it is not a casual suggestion. Liz's body was found in the pitch black side yard of a club where you would have to pass her body to go in and out of the said club.
That doesn't mean she was murdered by someone who was in the club that night of course but it has to be a possibility.
Yes the police did detain 20/30 members but they were the ones who were still there . Jack surely would have scarpered as is proved with the murder of Kate.
If we follow the medical evidence it , to me looks very likely that Liz was killed suddenly and swiftly. She was also not seen by Eagle when he went up the yard a few mins earlier . So those two combined suggests to me that the time Liz was in Dutfield's was no more than a minute or two before she was murdered.
Her legs were pointing to the gateway, and her scarf was pulled very tight with the cachous in her hand, plus she was definitely killed on the spot
Those pointers certainly leaves the option that someone in the yard came up behind her and killed poor Liz so fleetingly that it was over in seconds . Or perhaps Liz stood in the gateway , stopped someone passing and when she turned around to lead him into the yard as above happened , only this time Jack pulled her around so Liz's legs faced the gateway.
I very much doubt anyone spotted that night with , or around Liz [ if it was indeed Liz they saw ], was her killer.

Regards Darryl