Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who do you credit as the most reliable witnesses?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    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
    The main point against the ‘in camera’ suggestion in my opinion was that Schwartz simply wasn’t an important enough witness with regard to the strict aims of the inquest.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 01-08-2023, 10:03 AM.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

      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
      Hi Jeff
      The trouble is Baxter seems dismissive/unaware of Schwartz , in his summing up he specifically mentions three sightings of a possible suspect and goes into great detail about the discrepancies between the three descriptions [ Marshall, Smith, Brown ]. Surely Schwartz description is the most important. Why muddy the waters ?
      He see's a man roughing up a woman 15 min before she was found murdered at the very spot she is found killed. In his summing up Baxter could have mentioned that evidence was still being investigated which may mean Brown was out with his time and/or the woman he saw may not have been Liz . Brown's evidence is vitally important, more than any other witness at the inquest. He was the last person to see Liz alive, and not far from were she was murdered. If the police were so reliant on Schwartz that he was being with-held why wasn't Brown questioned more closely on the time of his sighting ? . Not one question " Are you sure of the time " or similar was asked by Baxter. He does ask questions regarding the suspects dress, more than likely to compare it with Smith.

      Also in Baxter's summing up - In this case, as in other similar cases which had occurred in this neighbourhood, no call for assistance was noticed. Although there might have been some noise in the club, it seemed very unlikely that any cry could have been raised without its being heard by some one of those near.
      That is in total contradiction of Schwartz

      Regards Darryl

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

        Hi Jeff
        The trouble is Baxter seems dismissive/unaware of Schwartz , in his summing up he specifically mentions three sightings of a possible suspect and goes into great detail about the discrepancies between the three descriptions [ Marshall, Smith, Brown ]. Surely Schwartz description is the most important. Why muddy the waters ?
        He see's a man roughing up a woman 15 min before she was found murdered at the very spot she is found killed. In his summing up Baxter could have mentioned that evidence was still being investigated which may mean Brown was out with his time and/or the woman he saw may not have been Liz . Brown's evidence is vitally important, more than any other witness at the inquest. He was the last person to see Liz alive, and not far from were she was murdered. If the police were so reliant on Schwartz that he was being with-held why wasn't Brown questioned more closely on the time of his sighting ? . Not one question " Are you sure of the time " or similar was asked by Baxter. He does ask questions regarding the suspects dress, more than likely to compare it with Smith.

        Also in Baxter's summing up - In this case, as in other similar cases which had occurred in this neighbourhood, no call for assistance was noticed. Although there might have been some noise in the club, it seemed very unlikely that any cry could have been raised without its being heard by some one of those near.
        That is in total contradiction of Schwartz

        Regards Darryl
        The coroner could not have mentioned Schwartz in his summing or his statement to the police because the jury had heard no evidence from him as a witness, and the jury could only have given a verdict on the evidence given by the witnesses who testified in court

        Another issue with Schwartz and his alleged statement to the police which may have only been a verbal one is that other witnesses were asked to view the body in the mortuary but we see no evidence of him ever doing that

        Even in today's policing, it is not uncommon for a witness to describe seeing an incident to the police and when asked to put pen to papers declines

        and we cannot be 100% certain that the couple seen by him were Stride and another!

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 01-08-2023, 11:06 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post


          Another issue with Schwartz and his alleged statement to the police which may have only been a verbal one is that other witnesses were asked to view the body in the mortuary but we see no evidence of him ever doing that


          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Swanson says that Schwartz did view the body and confirmed that it was the woman he saw.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

            Hi Jeff
            The trouble is Baxter seems dismissive/unaware of Schwartz , in his summing up he specifically mentions three sightings of a possible suspect and goes into great detail about the discrepancies between the three descriptions [ Marshall, Smith, Brown ]. Surely Schwartz description is the most important. Why muddy the waters ?
            He see's a man roughing up a woman 15 min before she was found murdered at the very spot she is found killed. In his summing up Baxter could have mentioned that evidence was still being investigated which may mean Brown was out with his time and/or the woman he saw may not have been Liz . Brown's evidence is vitally important, more than any other witness at the inquest. He was the last person to see Liz alive, and not far from were she was murdered. If the police were so reliant on Schwartz that he was being with-held why wasn't Brown questioned more closely on the time of his sighting ? . Not one question " Are you sure of the time " or similar was asked by Baxter. He does ask questions regarding the suspects dress, more than likely to compare it with Smith.

            Also in Baxter's summing up - In this case, as in other similar cases which had occurred in this neighbourhood, no call for assistance was noticed. Although there might have been some noise in the club, it seemed very unlikely that any cry could have been raised without its being heard by some one of those near.
            That is in total contradiction of Schwartz

            Regards Darryl
            Such strongly suggests to me, a total avoidance of Schwartz's account, which fits with a request not to call him.
            However, I still suspect that Baxter would have to have had seen the evidence in order to reach a decision to exclude .

            I think it's highly possible that he would have spoken to Schwartz( if he was avaliable) in private, with only an interpreter present. Such would not be in camera , as it would NOT be part of the formal inquest.
            However, such would still mean that his evidence was submitted, as per Anderson.


            Steve
            Last edited by Elamarna; 01-08-2023, 01:51 PM. Reason: for some reason avoidance appeared as evidence

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

              Such strongly suggests to me, a total avoidance of Schwartz's account, which fits with a request not to call him.
              However, I still suspect that Baxter would have to have had seen the evidence in order to reach a decision to exclude .

              I think it's highly possible that he would have spoken to Schwartz( if he was avaliable) in private, with only an interpreter present. Such would not be in camera , as it would NOT be part of the formal inquest.
              However, such would still mean that his evidence was submitted, as per Anderson.


              Steve
              Hi Steve
              If that happened I don't understand why Baxter would say in his summing up - In this case, as in other similar cases which had occurred in this neighbourhood, no call for assistance was noticed. Although there might have been some noise in the club, it seemed very unlikely that any cry could have been raised without its being heard by some one of those near. The editor of a Socialist paper was quietly at work in a shed down the yard, which was used as a printing office. There were several families in the cottages in the court only a few yards distant, and there were 20 persons in the different rooms of the club. But if there was no cry, how did the deceased meet with her death?

              If Baxter had spoken to Schwatrz he would know there was a cry .
              And if he wanted to keep Schwartz evidence out of the public eye , why mention if a cry was heard or not ? This just undermines Schwartz ..
              With Baxter mentioning all the people milling nearby as well, yet no one seeing or hearing an assault/altercation , it is as if he is almost putting himself at odds with Schwartz statement.
              If Schwartz was called and with the inquest being in all the national papers it also may have encouraged the very important witness - Pipeman to come forward .
              If Baxter had spoken to Schwartz is this something Baxter would have picked up upon ?

              Just a few observations, Darryl

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                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
                Hi George,

                The problem, as I see it, with an in camera presentation by Schwartz is that it serves little purpose. It is the jury who returns the verdict, not the coroner, so Baxter being aware of Schwartz's testimony serves no purpose. Nothing in Baxter's summing up even hints at testimony given "and barred from public release", and nothing in the press points to them being told some information is "not for public consumption", etc.

                I would just expect to see something that points towards some sort of private testimony, which has to be presented to the jury as well as Baxter, in order for it to serve any function. I can't see anything that points to that, other than the letter about Schwartz's evidence at the inquest (which some have pointed out could be so phrased because the gathering of the statements, which we know Schwartz made, was referred to by the police as being part of the inquest process). I think something a bit more than just that letter is needed for me to go with the "in camera" explanation, which is why I favour a more "he was witheld". In part, his estimate of the time really doesn't narrow it down any more than it is, we would still be dealing with the same 12:45-1:00 interval given the error associated with such testimony, at least that's what I think.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                  Hi Jeff
                  The trouble is Baxter seems dismissive/unaware of Schwartz , in his summing up he specifically mentions three sightings of a possible suspect and goes into great detail about the discrepancies between the three descriptions [ Marshall, Smith, Brown ]. Surely Schwartz description is the most important. Why muddy the waters ?
                  He see's a man roughing up a woman 15 min before she was found murdered at the very spot she is found killed. In his summing up Baxter could have mentioned that evidence was still being investigated which may mean Brown was out with his time and/or the woman he saw may not have been Liz . Brown's evidence is vitally important, more than any other witness at the inquest. He was the last person to see Liz alive, and not far from were she was murdered. If the police were so reliant on Schwartz that he was being with-held why wasn't Brown questioned more closely on the time of his sighting ? . Not one question " Are you sure of the time " or similar was asked by Baxter. He does ask questions regarding the suspects dress, more than likely to compare it with Smith.

                  Also in Baxter's summing up - In this case, as in other similar cases which had occurred in this neighbourhood, no call for assistance was noticed. Although there might have been some noise in the club, it seemed very unlikely that any cry could have been raised without its being heard by some one of those near.
                  That is in total contradiction of Schwartz

                  Regards Darryl
                  Hi Darryl,

                  He can only sum up what was presented to the jury, and it seems clear Schwartz didn't present in front of the jury. Schwartz talking with Baxter in private would serve no purpose because it is the jury who returns the verdict. So if Schwartz doesn't present in front of the jury, even if Baxter has agreed to a request by the police not to call him, Baxter has to sum up the evidence that the jury did hear. I would think if Baxter was fully aware of Schwartz's testimony (for example, had an in camera session with him type thing), and he felt that information would substantially change his summing up, then he probably wouldn't have agreed to exclude him. The last sentence, about it being unlikely that any cry would go unnoticed, does seem to point away from Schwartz's statement, except Schwartz really just says she called out but not loudly; so she didn't "cry out". But that may be an indication that Baxter simply agreed with the police to exclude him and only read his statement rather than interview him, and probably would have done so before the day of the inquest. As such, given the request from the police would emphasize the fact that Schwartz may have seen the person they are looking for, then it would not be improbable for him to forget the other details (like Schwartz saying she called out but not loudly).

                  Again, I have no idea if the police actually even made such a request, so I could be barking up the wrong tree here. It's just a possibility that I'm exploring.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                    Hi Steve
                    If that happened I don't understand why Baxter would say in his summing up - In this case, as in other similar cases which had occurred in this neighbourhood, no call for assistance was noticed. Although there might have been some noise in the club, it seemed very unlikely that any cry could have been raised without its being heard by some one of those near. The editor of a Socialist paper was quietly at work in a shed down the yard, which was used as a printing office. There were several families in the cottages in the court only a few yards distant, and there were 20 persons in the different rooms of the club. But if there was no cry, how did the deceased meet with her death?

                    If Baxter had spoken to Schwatrz he would know there was a cry .
                    And if he wanted to keep Schwartz evidence out of the public eye , why mention if a cry was heard or not ? This just undermines Schwartz ..
                    With Baxter mentioning all the people milling nearby as well, yet no one seeing or hearing an assault/altercation , it is as if he is almost putting himself at odds with Schwartz statement.
                    If Schwartz was called and with the inquest being in all the national papers it also may have encouraged the very important witness - Pipeman to come forward .
                    If Baxter had spoken to Schwartz is this something Baxter would have picked up upon ?

                    Just a few observations, Darryl
                    Good questions.

                    As for not mentioning the cry, to do so without it being referenced in the evidence, would ask the question, what cry, heard by whom?

                    If you are excluding evidence, for the reason suggested, you exclude it all.
                    Including it adds nothing to allow the jury to reach a conclusion different from the one they reached.

                    If he had absconded as some have suggested, then how could Baxter mention it, given it was not in evidence that a cry was heard.

                    Pipeman, well I strongly suspect he was in fact located and questioned, either he said nothing, he saw nothing, or police and Baxter decided to leave him, one speculates because they were excluding the whole event for the reason already discussed.

                    There is of course the other alternative, that Pipeman was actually the Key Witness, not Schwartz.

                    On face value, he is the only other person accept Schwartz to witness an assault.

                    In all of these sceneros the aim is to prevent further disclosures, other than the Star account , to the public.

                    Yes it's all speculation Darryl, and presented as such.

                    Steve

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                      Hi George,

                      The problem, as I see it, with an in camera presentation by Schwartz is that it serves little purpose. It is the jury who returns the verdict, not the coroner, so Baxter being aware of Schwartz's testimony serves no purpose. Nothing in Baxter's summing up even hints at testimony given "and barred from public release", and nothing in the press points to them being told some information is "not for public consumption", etc.

                      I would just expect to see something that points towards some sort of private testimony, which has to be presented to the jury as well as Baxter, in order for it to serve any function. I can't see anything that points to that, other than the letter about Schwartz's evidence at the inquest (which some have pointed out could be so phrased because the gathering of the statements, which we know Schwartz made, was referred to by the police as being part of the inquest process). I think something a bit more than just that letter is needed for me to go with the "in camera" explanation, which is why I favour a more "he was witheld". In part, his estimate of the time really doesn't narrow it down any more than it is, we would still be dealing with the same 12:45-1:00 interval given the error associated with such testimony, at least that's what I think.

                      - Jeff
                      Much in line with my thinking Jeff.

                      Steve

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                        Much in line with my thinking Jeff.

                        Steve
                        Well, sewer lines run together! ha ha
                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                          So were Marshall,Brown,Smith,,Collins,Krantz ,Spooner,Coram,Drage able to answer one of
                          the four questions?
                          Fair point.
                          "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X