Who do you credit as the most reliable witnesses?

[Elamarna]

The letter said Schwartz gave testimony but not actually.This could be interpreted simply as Schwartz's statement was submitted to the Coroner by the police,but the Coroner rejected it.
How far does the record show,as far as police's belief in Schwartz,Nov 1888? No police memoirs of an assault on a victim before her murder.

There you are again, the coroner would simply NOT reject out of hand, something the police believed was important. He would want to test it himself.

Anderson and Swanson clearly say the suspect their witness identified would be convicted and hung.
It's hard to think of anything other than an actual assault that would ensure that.
Just being seen with a victim before or close to a murder site just after a murder seems unlikely to be so certain.

Your continuing question as to how long the police considered him an important witness is impossible to answer. However, there is NO record, public or private that they ever reached that point, it's simply a question you have decided to use to allow you to reject Schwartz, a rejection against the evidence .

My friend, you seem so certain that Schwartz was rejected, you are not prepared to even consider other possibilities. Why is this I ask?

Steve

[Varqm]

And as has been repeatedly stated by numerous people, the inquest had 4 specific aims and Israel Schwartz couldn’t add to any of them. He couldn’t identify Stride by name because he didn’t know her and they already knew the date and location of the murder and the cause of death. Schwartz would have been a vital witness if he’d said “I saw Fred Smith attacking her at 12.45’ but he couldn’t.

Schwartz was important to the police investigation but not to the inquest. If Schwartz wasn’t believed why do we have written evidence from the police that he was? And after the inquest. This alone dismisses the suggestion that Schwartz wasn’t believed. The black and white evidence is irrefutable. And can you really believe that before an inquest a coroner would spend time wading through police statements or reading various newspaper versions to evaluate witness reliability? That was the job of the police not the coroner. Yes we see witnesses called for background info but sometimes witnesses gave testimony with nothing of value to add and at the same time we could name people who would have known more but who weren’t called. The selection process is vague to us.

When we don’t know something because we have no written evidence we can only speculate at the answer of course and in this we have numerous possibilities. The only suggestion that we can definitively dismiss with proper evidence is the suggestion that the Coroner disbelieved him. We only have to look at Maxwell’s presence at the Kelly inquest and Malcolm’s presence at the Stride inquest. Conflicting evidence was simply presented for the jury to arrive at their conclusion. And Schwartz wasn’t even conflicting…..apart from a clash of times with Fanny Mortimer.

Murder changed the inquest, it then became not only about the who where when how.Wherever you learned that,it's wrong.

[Varqm]

Pardon, the letter actually says he GAVE evidence, that is contrary to the public record.
So either that is mistaken, or it was given in camera, the suggetition that the police may have requested he was not called is very possible
Whichever it was, we cannot know, to suggest we can pretend to know why he was not apparently called is unrealistic.

Your statement the the coroner DID NOT believe him, is purely speculation on your part.

There are several reasons why a witness might not be called, not simply because the coroner DID NOT believe the account.

A few examples which argue such did not happen.

It's clear that in the Kelly case Maxwell was not believed but was called.

In Nichols it's very clear Baxter had issues of reliability and usefulness with Mann and Hatfield.

He clearly question Spratlings account of the undressing, which did not concur with that are the attendants, or if one is strict with Helson.

With Tomkins, Baxter had serious issues, and again it could be argued did not believe everything he was told.

My point is The coroner in the above had serious issues on belief , but all were called.

To suggest that the coroner simply ignored the police opinion and rejected Schwartz outright is somewhat unrealistic.

How long after did the police believe Schwartz?

So far as we know, they NEVER, disbelived his account.

Steve

The letter said Schwartz gave testimony but not actually.This could be interpreted simply as Schwartz's statement was submitted to the Coroner by the police,but the Coroner rejected it.
How far does the record show,as far as police's belief in Schwartz,Nov 1888? No police memoirs of an assault on a victim before her murder.

[Varqm]

Hi Varqm,

Schwartz's statement to the police doesn't have any conflicting statements either. The press version is different, but that is irrelevant to the inquest. Schwartz does appear to concede he may have been wrong about the association between BS and Pipeman, and about who Lipski was shouted at, but that too is irrelevant to the inquest and could come out in questioning.

If you mean his testimony conflicts with respect to the stated time given by other witnesses, that too would not preclude him (who us to say which witness has the time wrong? And given most witnesses describe events that would only last a couple minutes at most, both estimating 12:45 is hardly worth considering as being a conflict.

Mary Malcolm, however, presents an identification other than what the police believed ( note the juror's question where they say something like "I thought this was the inquest for Elizabeth Stride?" when it was described as the inquest for a person unknown, or something like that). Basically, the police and the coroner knew she was wrong but let her testify anyway - and id of the deceased is one of the main objectives of the inquest.

Mistrust of a witness does not result in the witness being "discarded", at least not in Baxter's case.

- Jeff

Schwartz's statement to the police and Star was vastly different interns of the action taking place. Attention seeker cones to mind.As I posted before although her statement conflicted with the doctors TOD, Caroline's Maxwell did not change her story to the inquest and press so she was in.
Malcolm did not have any conflicting statements to be assessed. If Malcolm's conflicting statements were fine,then so would Schwartz's by your logic.
This was a murder inquiry not just the who where when and how.Murder and manslaughter changed it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There's an article in one of the papers that talks about some (2?) arrests made based upon descriptions given by two different people, one of whom is probably Schwartz and the other is generally thought to be pipeman, although it does not specifically say this. But if it is not, then it would imply there was another witness to the Schwartz event for which we have no other information. As such, the view is that pipeman appears to have been identified. Given the lack of any indication of any of this in the police records, it could mean it is a press fabrication but also could just reflect how much less we know than the police did at the time.

- Jeff

I recall the article being posted Jeff but I can’t remember the exact content. Was it specific to the Berner Street incident or could it have been connected to Best and Gardner for example?

At this point someone like Joshua usually comes up with the relevant quote…..

[JeffHamm]

Pipeman?

There's an article in one of the papers that talks about some (2?) arrests made based upon descriptions given by two different people, one of whom is probably Schwartz and the other is generally thought to be pipeman, although it does not specifically say this. But if it is not, then it would imply there was another witness to the Schwartz event for which we have no other information. As such, the view is that pipeman appears to have been identified. Given the lack of any indication of any of this in the police records, it could mean it is a press fabrication but also could just reflect how much less we know than the police did at the time.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Pipeman?

One of Jane Coram's masterpieces.

[FISHY1118]

His account certainly was not in line with others saw. Brown, Mortimer, Packer etc - yet when you take it away there is a fair bit of corroborating between witness accounts.

Police probably did believe him has his statement offers them some great clues. If it was true.

Schwartz was most likely summoned to attend the inquest in my view but never got the summons because he provided a dodgy address.

No Israel Schwartz has ever been found that matches the information we have of him in any available records. He exists only in the one statement and possibly in a fabricated interview by the outrageous Star newspaper.

So I chose to believe Schwartz is a non-relevant witness based on these facts. He is a red herring of his own making.

You can choose to interpret the facts any way you wish.

His account doesnt have to be in line with others as you put it , Brown ,Mortimer ,Packer never saw what Schwartz saw, at best they gave conflicting times on the events of that night. But what makes their time any more accurate/reliable that Schwartz ? he has just as much right to be believed as every other witness who claimed a ''Time'' in there statement .

Aa i said those who would dismiss Schwartz do so simple because it doesnt fit their narrative or theory, so he has to removed without any real evidence to disprove what he saw when he saw it . Thats just a fact, whether you choose to believe it or not .

[Herlock Sholmes]

And as has been repeatedly stated by numerous people, the inquest had 4 specific aims and Israel Schwartz couldn’t add to any of them. He couldn’t identify Stride by name because he didn’t know her and they already knew the date and location of the murder and the cause of death. Schwartz would have been a vital witness if he’d said “I saw Fred Smith attacking her at 12.45’ but he couldn’t.

Schwartz was important to the police investigation but not to the inquest. If Schwartz wasn’t believed why do we have written evidence from the police that he was? And after the inquest. This alone dismisses the suggestion that Schwartz wasn’t believed. The black and white evidence is irrefutable. And can you really believe that before an inquest a coroner would spend time wading through police statements or reading various newspaper versions to evaluate witness reliability? That was the job of the police not the coroner. Yes we see witnesses called for background info but sometimes witnesses gave testimony with nothing of value to add and at the same time we could name people who would have known more but who weren’t called. The selection process is vague to us.

When we don’t know something because we have no written evidence we can only speculate at the answer of course and in this we have numerous possibilities. The only suggestion that we can definitively dismiss with proper evidence is the suggestion that the Coroner disbelieved him. We only have to look at Maxwell’s presence at the Kelly inquest and Malcolm’s presence at the Stride inquest. Conflicting evidence was simply presented for the jury to arrive at their conclusion. And Schwartz wasn’t even conflicting…..apart from a clash of times with Fanny Mortimer.

Apologies for this lapse of memory. We have discussed this before and Varqm suggests that it was the police and not the coroner who disbelieved Schwartz.

[erobitha]

Hang on a minute, Were not talking about whether Schwartz eyewitness account needs corroborating or not tho are we ? Either he is to be believed or he isnt, and the police at the time especially Abberline thought so .

The point was made that somehow Schwartz statement was ''Conflicting'' , as i posted already its impossible for that to be the case as no one else claimed to see what Schwartz saw. He is in conflict with no one .

Just because no one can corroborate what he saw doesnt mean he didnt see it, after all he gave a detailed statement to police [Swansons report] and if one chooses not to believe him then their argument leans to same as other witnesses who posters ignore ,which is he lied or made it all up .

If thats the case we might as well all stop posting . Pretty Straight Forward
.

His account certainly was not in line with others saw. Brown, Mortimer, Packer etc - yet when you take it away there is a fair bit of corroborating between witness accounts.

Police probably did believe him has his statement offers them some great clues. If it was true.

Schwartz was most likely summoned to attend the inquest in my view but never got the summons because he provided a dodgy address.

No Israel Schwartz has ever been found that matches the information we have of him in any available records. He exists only in the one statement and possibly in a fabricated interview by the outrageous Star newspaper.

So I chose to believe Schwartz is a non-relevant witness based on these facts. He is a red herring of his own making.

You can choose to interpret the facts any way you wish.

[FISHY1118]

Police found both Schwartz and Pipeman.

Pipeman?

[DJA]

Police found both Schwartz and Pipeman.

[FISHY1118]

Also has nothing anyone else can corroborate. That's how straight forward that is.

Hang on a minute, Were not talking about whether Schwartz eyewitness account needs corroborating or not tho are we ? Either he is to be believed or he isnt, and the police at the time especially Abberline thought so .

The point was made that somehow Schwartz statement was ''Conflicting'' , as i posted already its impossible for that to be the case as no one else claimed to see what Schwartz saw. He is in conflict with no one .

Just because no one can corroborate what he saw doesnt mean he didnt see it, after all he gave a detailed statement to police [Swansons report] and if one chooses not to believe him then their argument leans to same as other witnesses who posters ignore ,which is he lied or made it all up .

If thats the case we might as well all stop posting . Pretty Straight Forward
.

[Elamarna]

I've read the letter.f the the police believed in Schwartz,his name would have been submitted to the Coroner right? From the letter it seemed like they did.The Coroner then did not put him in the stand,not believe him.

How long after the inquest did they believe in Schwartz? Or they went the Coroner's way.

Pardon, the letter actually says he GAVE evidence, that is contrary to the public record.
So either that is mistaken, or it was given in camera, the suggetition that the police may have requested he was not called is very possible
Whichever it was, we cannot know, to suggest we can pretend to know why he was not apparently called is unrealistic.

Your statement the the coroner DID NOT believe him, is purely speculation on your part.

There are several reasons why a witness might not be called, not simply because the coroner DID NOT believe the account.

A few examples which argue such did not happen.

It's clear that in the Kelly case Maxwell was not believed but was called.

In Nichols it's very clear Baxter had issues of reliability and usefulness with Mann and Hatfield.

He clearly question Spratlings account of the undressing, which did not concur with that are the attendants, or if one is strict with Helson.

With Tomkins, Baxter had serious issues, and again it could be argued did not believe everything he was told.

My point is The coroner in the above had serious issues on belief , but all were called.

To suggest that the coroner simply ignored the police opinion and rejected Schwartz outright is somewhat unrealistic.

How long after did the police believe Schwartz?

So far as we know, they NEVER, disbelived his account.

Steve

[erobitha]

There is nothing confliction with Schwartz statement ,as nobody came forward to claim what Schwartz saw happen any differently .

That how simple and straight forward that is .

Also has nothing anyone else can corroborate. That's how straight forward that is.