Who do you credit as the most reliable witnesses?

[JeffHamm]

I always had this position even before this thread,you misunderstood,that it was the the Coroner who did not believe in Schwartz,he decides who goes in the inquest,not the police.
Have you read the section on murder and manslaughter in the Coroners Act,read it carefully.And how come there are lots of police witnesses,discussion about the apron,Sarah lewis,Mulshaw, pierce,Connelly,,etc.how did they help in determining the cause of death.How come there are timelines in the tabram and c5 inquests,with witnesses detailing what happened during the evening and early morning of the murders.
I'm done for now repeating over and over.

Hi Varqm,

They covered the apron in part because ut establishes not suicide, though of course that is also self evident from the nature of the injuries But it is just more evidence of the involvement of another person.

What you have not established ir explained is how Baxter could conclude Schwartz was unreliable based upon the Star's reporting without him questioning Schwartz Moreover, you have not shown that Baxter was even aware of the Star article (it is not a paper one would naturally expect him to have read).
Baxter with other questionable witnessness seems to want to question them, so why not Scheartz?

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

Since this baffling 10-page digression about the purpose of an inquest was sparked by a post I made 7 years ago about Schwartz being "contradicted" I feel compelled to chime in and say that, in my view, Fanny Mortimer contradicts Schwartz.

I don't think that Fanny M's evidence was helpful or contradictory. At some time between 12. 30 and 1 am Stride entered Dutfield's Yard, either alone or accompanied. Fanny didn't see it. So all of the relevant action, which may or may not have included Schwartz, happened while Fanny was indoors. She is therefore no help.

I also think that Schwartz, whose evidence demonstrated that he was nervous or maybe even cowardly, did a "runner", probably inspired by fear of JtR, when The Star reported that "he saw the whole thing".(A typical Star exaggeration, which is why I take little notice of its reports!)

[Herlock Sholmes]

I find this to be an entirely reasonable possibility. If Schwartz had fears for his safety, and that of his family, he may have predicated his giving evidence upon it being in secret. The inquest initially ran from Monday to Friday, but with Thursday being missed, and then adjourned for several weeks. There was plenty of time for and "in camera" appearance. There are two Home Office records where Anderson and Warren refer to the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest. On what basis is this evidence being disregarded? I find it inconceivable that the evidence of Marshall and Brown should be considered to be more relevant that that of Schwartz. The latter thought he was witnessing a "domestic" (so do I) but in after sight could not be sure that he had not seen the face of the Ripper. I feel he had every right to fear repercussions.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

That he might have given evidence in secret appears a reasonable suggestion but the issue against that seems to be a lack of precedent (as Trevor has pointed out) If we could find evidence of this being done on another occasion it would certainly strengthen the possibility. I certainly understand your point about Marshall and Brown but I think that we could perhaps look at all inquests and ask “why did he give evidence?” Or “why didn’t she appear?” Might this, at least in part, be explained by this part of the Coroner’s Act?:

“….and the coroner shall examine under oath touching the death all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge of the facts who he thinks it expedient to examine.“

This appears, to me at least, to suggest that the Coroner could take evidence from 2 categories of witness (the use of the word ‘and’ seems to point towards it.) Those the Coroner specifically calls on to give evidence and those that simply turned up and asked to give evidence (either for genuine reasons or perhaps so that they could see their names in the newspapers?) the ones that the Act names as “…persons who tender their evidence…”?

I certainly don’t know why Schwartz didn’t attend and I think it’s unlikely (or impossible) that we will ever know. If I had to drop a guess into the hat it would be either that Schwartz felt threatened and asked the police to arrange that he wasn’t called (and considering that he couldn’t contribute toward the 4 stated aims they agreed.) Or that he simply went into hiding until the inquest was over so he couldn’t be located to receive his summons. The police might have looked for him but how much time and effort would they have committed too? He might even have left London. Pure speculation of course.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello George,

That he might have given evidence in secret appears a reasonable suggestion but the issue against that seems to be a lack of precedent (as Trevor has pointed out) If we could find evidence of this being done on another occasion it would certainly strengthen the possibility. I certainly understand your point about Marshall and Brown but I think that we could perhaps look at all inquests and ask “why did he give evidence?” Or “why didn’t she appear?” Might this, at least in part, be explained by this part of the Coroner’s Act?:

“….and the coroner shall examine under oath touching the death all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge of the facts who he thinks it expedient to examine.“

This appears, to me at least, to suggest that the Coroner could take evidence from 2 categories of witness (the use of the word ‘and’ seems to point towards it.) Those the Coroner specifically calls on to give evidence and those that simply turned up and asked to give evidence (either for genuine reasons or perhaps so that they could see their names in the newspapers?) the ones that the Act names as “…persons who tender their evidence…”?

I certainly don’t know why Schwartz didn’t attend and I think it’s unlikely (or impossible) that we will ever know. If I had to drop a guess into the hat it would be either that Schwartz felt threatened and asked the police to arrange that he wasn’t called (and considering that he couldn’t contribute toward the 4 stated aims they agreed.) Or that he simply went into hiding until the inquest was over so he couldn’t be located to receive his summons. The police might have looked for him but how much time and effort would they have committed too? He might even have left London. Pure speculation of course.

It would not be for the police to decide whether or not he was called the police role is to simply provide the statements to the coroner. It seems that the corner decided to call all of the witnesses provided to him by the police many of which as can be seen are not so important in the grand scheme of things

But if the police didn't believe that Schwartz would attend voluntarily surely he could have been issued with a witness summons in the first instance for him to attend, and if he failed to attend thereafter he could have been arrested and brought before the inquest.

It would have been the responsibility of the police to ensure all witnesses were told when to attend after all the inquest lasted 3 days so if his evidence was that important I think the police would have made a concerted effort to find him within that 3 days after all if we are to believe that he did make a police statement, or did the police simply dismiss his statement?

As his testimony on paper is crucial to the inquest the coroner had the option to adjourn the inquest pending the police trying to locate him

Due to the passage of time and the lack of any other documentation we are left to simply wonder and we can speculate forever without coming to a definite answer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Hello George,

I certainly don’t know why Schwartz didn’t attend and I think it’s unlikely (or impossible) that we will ever know. If I had to drop a guess into the hat it would be either that Schwartz felt threatened and asked the police to arrange that he wasn’t called (and considering that he couldn’t contribute toward the 4 stated aims they agreed.) Or that he simply went into hiding until the inquest was over so he couldn’t be located to receive his summons. The police might have looked for him but how much time and effort would they have committed too? He might even have left London. Pure speculation of course.

Hi Herlock,

It is rare that we have official documents as evidence, usually being relegated to relying on newspaper reports. The mentions by Anderson and Warren of Schwartz's evidence given at the inquest were contained in official Home Office correspondence. Can you explain your reasons for dismissing this evidence please? If official documentation is to be ignored, what price newspaper reports?

Cheers, George

[Elamarna]

There is nothing I can see in the Coroners Act that would allow for the corner to take evidence from a witness in camera so I think that option can be dismissed. The guidelines are specific.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I fully understand why you say that, but I see nothing that actually precludes it Trevor.

However, I prefer, the variation on tgat shall we say, the evidence was presented to Baxter, outside of formal hearings, he was then requested not to call .
Such of course is entirely his call, however, if such did occur, I cannot see him doing it, unless he spoke to Schwartz first.

Sadly, we will never know, unless Baxters papers turn up, I suspect they are long gone.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Since this baffling 10-page digression about the purpose of an inquest was sparked by a post I made 7 years ago about Schwartz being "contradicted" I feel compelled to chime in and say that, in my view, Fanny Mortimer contradicts Schwartz.

Only if you accept the timings given as being reliable. My own research on timings, strongly suggests they are anything but.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

It is rare that we have official documents as evidence, usually being relegated to relying on newspaper reports. The mentions by Anderson and Warren of Schwartz's evidence given at the inquest were contained in official Home Office correspondence. Can you explain your reasons for dismissing this evidence please? If official documentation is to be ignored, what price newspaper reports?

Cheers, George

I’m not suggesting that I can dismiss them only that it could simply have been a result of an error from Anderson who was writing weeks after the inquest had taken place. When writing about Schwartz’s evidence he could have just confused evidence given to the police with evidence given at an inquest. One question we have to ask is why was there no mention of evidence being given in secret in any writings by the police? After all these reports/memo’s weren’t for public consumption and so they would have been free to mention it had it occurred. Also, as Schwartz evidence wasn’t important in terms of the 4 inquest aims I can’t really see a reason for him to have given evidence in secret? They could simply have not summons him to attend without any repercussions.

Its opinion only George but I tend to favour other explanations but I certainly can’t dismiss the suggestion of evidence given in secret.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Varqm,

They covered the apron in part because ut establishes not suicide, though of course that is also self evident from the nature of the injuries But it is just more evidence of the involvement of another person.

What you have not established ir explained is how Baxter could conclude Schwartz was unreliable based upon the Star's reporting without him questioning Schwartz Moreover, you have not shown that Baxter was even aware of the Star article (it is not a paper one would naturally expect him to have read).
Baxter with other questionable witnessness seems to want to question them, so why not Scheartz?

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
Star 2 Oct - the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. Perhaps Baxter was aware, and swayed by one or more policemen who weren't entirely convinced of Schwartz [ if the Star is correct].

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

Two versions with a couple of minor differences. Neither relevant at an inquest. And yet again I’ll ask, if the police had issues with The Star interview do you think that it was beyond their capability or understanding to question Schwartz again to clear those differences up? Especially when considering that 2 different interpreters were used which might have accounted for those differences.

Hi Herlock
If Schwartz had disappeared the police wouldn't have been able to interview him again and that may be a reason why only one police interview is alluded to in the official reports [ as we have left ], regarding Liz's murder.

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock
If Schwartz had disappeared the police wouldn't have been able to interview him again and that may be a reason why only one police interview is alluded to in the official reports [ as we have left ], regarding Liz's murder.

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

I’d have thought that at least has to be a possibility. I know that we can’t assume that they would have wanted a second interview but if Schwartz went awol it might explain why there’s no record of one.

[Elamarna]

Hi Jeff
Star 2 Oct - the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. Perhaps Baxter was aware, and swayed by one or more policemen who weren't entirely convinced of Schwartz [ if the Star is correct].

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl

Who exactly at Leman Street would have said this. evidently not Abberline who was involved in the interview and clearly believed Schwartz.
So maybe its simply a single PC, or maybe just invention by the Star.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff
Star 2 Oct - the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. Perhaps Baxter was aware, and swayed by one or more policemen who weren't entirely convinced of Schwartz [ if the Star is correct].

Regards Darryl

It would be very unkeeping with all of Baxter's other choices though. He allows Paul in, despite Paul's conflicting Lloyd's article. He allows Mary Malcolm's identification of Stride as being her sister, despite being very sceptical of her (and the police didn't believe her either and it then required them to track down her sister, who was alive and well). He allows statements from the mortuary attendants who clearly are muddled, and so forth. In the end, the only person that seems to get dismissed without Baxter himself questioning them would be Schwartz, and that just makes it improbable as an explanation for Schwartz's non-appearance.

There is simply no information available as to why Schwartz does not testify. However, we do at times see the police requesting details about men seen with victims to be held back (as in the case of Lawende's description of Church Passage Man). As such, given Schwartz sighted a confrontation, I think the best argument (but by no means do I say this is the only one) is that the police requested he not testify at the inquest and Baxter may have agreed to that request. Given Baxter's general attitude of being the one in charge of his inquest proceedings, it would not surprise me if he did agree with the condition that if he felt Schwartz would be needed to clarify some point that he reserved the right to call him at some point. Presumably Baxter was satisfied that the other witnesses sufficiently narrowed the time of death, and that it was homicide, and so Schwartz was not called as the main additional information he would add would be a description of B.S., and Baxter recognized this could jeopardize the subsequent murder investigation.

No, I don't think that is the only possible explanation, but it makes sense given previous police requests, and other decisions made by Baxter, and so forth. On the other hand, Baxter also doesn't appear to be one to readily grant such requests (he doesn't allow the withholding of the post-mortem injuries in the Chapman case, for example), so I could see arguments against that suggestion.

In the end, we know Schwartz did not testify, but we don't know why.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

There is simply no information available as to why Schwartz does not testify. However, we do at times see the police requesting details about men seen with victims to be held back (as in the case of Lawende's description of Church Passage Man). As such, given Schwartz sighted a confrontation, I think the best argument (but by no means do I say this is the only one) is that the police requested he not testify at the inquest and Baxter may have agreed to that request. Given Baxter's general attitude of being the one in charge of his inquest proceedings, it would not surprise me if he did agree with the condition that if he felt Schwartz would be needed to clarify some point that he reserved the right to call him at some point. Presumably Baxter was satisfied that the other witnesses sufficiently narrowed the time of death, and that it was homicide, and so Schwartz was not called as the main additional information he would add would be a description of B.S., and Baxter recognized this could jeopardize the subsequent murder investigation.

In the end, we know Schwartz did not testify, but we don't know why.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I am not persuaded that Schwartz did not appear. I do not acknowledge that the Home Office correspondence from Anderson and Warren can be discarded on the supposition that they were confused or mistaken. I agree that the police may well have requested that he not appear publicly at the inquest but i suggest that Baxter took his evidence "in camera". Schwartz could contribute not only a description of BSman. More importantly he was the last known witness to see Stride alive so could narrow the TOD, and had information about a corroborating witness (Pipeman). I suspect that the police and Baxter would have been sympathetic to Schwartz's concerns for his safety, and may even have fed the press with doubts about his evidence while keeping him in reserve. If he did make an "in camera" appearance it was successfully kept a secret as the Home Office record would not have been in the public arena at the time.

Best regards, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jeff,

I am not persuaded that Schwartz did not appear. I do not acknowledge that the Home Office correspondence from Anderson and Warren can be discarded on the supposition that they were confused or mistaken. I agree that the police may well have requested that he not appear publicly at the inquest but i suggest that Baxter took his evidence "in camera". Schwartz could contribute not only a description of BSman. More importantly he was the last known witness to see Stride alive so could narrow the TOD, and had information about a corroborating witness (Pipeman). I suspect that the police and Baxter would have been sympathetic to Schwartz's concerns for his safety, and may even have fed the press with doubts about his evidence while keeping him in reserve. If he did make an "in camera" appearance it was successfully kept a secret as the Home Office record would not have been in the public arena at the time.

Best regards, George

If Schwartz had given his evidence in camera which I personally don't believe he did, surely in the years that followed and all the memoirs that were published, and all the interviews those directly involved in the investigation gave it would have been mentioned, after all giving evidence in camera was almost unheard of in 1888 in fact I don't believe there was any legislation for that in the coroners act and for that matter in any criminal trials, but I stand to be corrected on that.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk