Who do you credit as the most reliable witnesses?

[Varqm]

In Schwartz,s case what's the basis it was an interpreter problem,they could not find him,nothing.
Schwartz held back by the police,well the letter said Schwartz gave his testimony to the inquest.
No basis,speculation only .
I have a basis,2 very different statements by Schwartz,a murder inquiry which requires Schwartz to be there as his testimony was "crucial",and the law.
By the way read the section on murder and manslaughter,in the Coroners Act 1787,and tell me it does not say the circumstances of the murder or manslaughter have to be found out,and therefore an inquiry into a murder and therefore a murder inquiry also.There are more reasons why.
Anyways whatever

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor,your a supervisor and a policeman file a report on a murder that does not include an assault on a victim 15 minutes before where the body was found and the policeman knew it and omitted it ,what would you think of the report?

But Trevor wasn’t a coroner. He was a police officer. You keep conflating the two. An inquest is not a murder inquiry. Everyone appears to accept what the purpose of an inquest is except for you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course we do .Lesser witnesses have been mentioned and some the police were asked to search.

Do you mean that officers were asked to search for Schwartz? When?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Wrong Two recorded statements by Schwartz.
The police could not have been accurate in determining if Schwartz was telling the truth or not,that's why they invented the polygraph test for this reason.

Someone who hasn't been following this debate might read the above and reach the conclusion that you are saying that Schwartz made two formal signed statements to the police that were completely different from each other. As a direct result the police were compelled to invent the polygraph test!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wrong Two recorded statements by Schwartz.
The police could not have been accurate in determining if Schwartz was telling the truth or not,that's why they invented the polygraph test for this reason.

The police don’t base their investigations on newspaper reports. They would have been well aware of how inaccurate and how sensationalist newspaper reports could be.

And even if the police had doubts about Schwartz, or that individual officers had such doubts, his appearance at the inquest would in absolutely no way have affected the outcome of the inquest. So there would be no point in keeping him away from the inquest on that basis.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In Schwartz,s case what's the basis it was an interpreter problem,they could not find him,nothing.

Schwartz held back by the police,well the letter said Schwartz gave his testimony to the inquest.
No basis,speculation only .

The letter doesn’t prove that Schwartz was held back for the reason that you claim. It was a simple error by Anderson. You ignore the fact that he mentions absolutely nothing about Schwartz being an unreliable witness though.

I have a basis,2 very different statements by Schwartz,

As I said in my other post, can you really think that the police were bounced around changing their opinions based on varied newspaper articles? If they had a problem after the article then they simply had to re-interview Schwartz to clear up any of the minor differences. Simple.

a murder inquiry which requires Schwartz to be there as his testimony was "crucial",and the law.
By the way read the section on murder and manslaughter,in the Coroners Act 1787,and tell me it does not say the circumstances of the murder or manslaughter have to be found out,and therefore an inquiry into a murder and therefore a murder inquiry also.There are more reasons why.
Anyways whatever

I certainly will tell you (as you have been told before) it does not say what you keep saying that it does. Read David’s article. No one can read that and think that your right.

You have read one part of the Corner’s Act but not in context (as you you quote part 4(2) without reference to part 4(1) which clarifies the point. Selective quoting gets you nowhere.

A coroner’s inquest is not a murder enquiry. We know the purpose of an inquest. It tells us in black and white in the Coroner’s Act that you keep misquoting.

[c.d.]

The requirements and intent of the Coroner's Act can be argued but the fact remains that Schwartz did not appear and we don't know why. So that argument seems kind of moot does it not?

c.d.

[Varqm]

But Trevor wasn’t a coroner. He was a police officer. You keep conflating the two. An inquest is not a murder inquiry. Everyone appears to accept what the purpose of an inquest is except for you.

It's a difference between an incompetent incomplete report or not

[Varqm]

Do you mean that officers were asked to search for Schwartz? When?

You're lost,the police submitted Schwartz testimony per letter and a crucial one at that.

[Varqm]

Someone who hasn't been following this debate might read the above and reach the conclusion that you are saying that Schwartz made two formal signed statements to the police that were completely different from each other. As a direct result the police were compelled to invent the polygraph test!

You're lost,for the reason that the police would not be sure just by talking to somebody.whether that somebody is telling the truth or not,and statements not under oath at that.

[Varqm]

I certainly will tell you (as you have been told before) it does not say what you keep saying that it does. Read David’s article. No one can read that and think that your right.

You have read one part of the Corner’s Act but not in context (as you you quote part 4(2) without reference to part 4(1) which clarifies the point. Selective quoting gets you nowhere.

A coroner’s inquest is not a murder enquiry. We know the purpose of an inquest. It tells us in black and white in the Coroner’s Act that you keep misquoting.

You're lost, its clear that it was also a murder inquiry, that's why the several police witnesses ,lewis, Connelly,etc..The section on murder and manslaughter is clear in the Act 1887,what happened during the evening and early morning of the murders,did the victim had enemies,maybe robbed,, domestic violence,etc.
You do not know what you are talking about.You cannot even answer how the witnesses I mentioned in another post answered the who where how when.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's a difference between an incompetent incomplete report or not

Two entirely different reports with different aims.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're lost,the police submitted Schwartz testimony per letter and a crucial one at that.

Too right I’m lost. Who did the police submit Schwartz testimony too? Can you provide evidence for this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're lost, its clear that it was also a murder inquiry, that's why the several police witnesses ,lewis, Connelly,etc..The section on murder and manslaughter is clear in the Act 1887,what happened during the evening and early morning of the murders,did the victim had enemies,maybe robbed,, domestic violence,etc.

That is not what it says. Get someone to read and explain David Orsam’s article to you. You clearly don’t understand the obvious.

You do not know what you are talking about.You cannot even answer how the witnesses I mentioned in another post answered the who where how when.

You really do need to learn to read and not just to take chunks that you like and consider them in isolation. You are now the only person in the world who believes that an inquest was also a murder inquiry. Get a grip Varqm, you are talking utter drivel.

The only reason that I struggle to understand some of your posts (and I can guarantee that I’m not alone in that) is because they are so garbled. I realise that English might not be your first language but please don’t blame others for not being able to understand when you sometimes write poorly worded posts.

[Sunny Delight]

I think this is a nice summing up of things. Indeed, we are ignorant of a lot of information on the entire series that was available to the police at the time.

- Jeff

Indeed Jeff. Trojan work has been done collating what we do have and the use of press reports to supplement that has been exemplary. However there is a lot we do not know and many of the blanks can and never will be filled in. My interest in the case is not on the 'whodunnit' type theories but rather the whole social aspect of the killings. People's lives at the time, brutal and cheap as they were. The victims and their movements the night they died and before- what were they doing, what kind of conversations did people have. 135 years ago before the advent of the radio or television, before the phone and long before the technological advances of today it gives the briefest of glimpses into a lost world. Fascinating.