Who do you credit as the most reliable witnesses?

[Elamarna]

Yes, sorry Steve babysitting at the min so half an eye on that.

But it does seem likely to me that Schwartz was interviewed only once, that once by Abberline.
As you point out Baxter challenged many of the statements by witnesses, but not Schwartz because he couldn't. Pity
Why would the police withhold him ? Unless his evidence is so important and veracity unquestionable.
But there is no corroboration of Schwartz . That doesn't mean he wasn't telling the truth, but he has to be taken at face value .
And as Swanson himself pointed out, BS man may not have been the murderer.
And there is the discrepancy in the newspaper report . Even if we believe that the police didn't take too much stock in the Star's report , it is still there.
It is a discrepancy Baxter may have been able to clear up IE " Did the man who followed you have a knife in his hand ? "
In summary I don't think that Schwartz was withheld because his evidence was all consuming.

Regards Darryl

My suspicion is that the police believed it could be the key evidence for the murders Darryl.

Yes, the questions you ask are the VERY questions that should have been asked.

So why didn't he ask Schwartz, why not call him in?

I can see only three answers.

1. He actually did question him, either in camera at a private session of the inquest, or in complete privacy, not part of the inquest.

2. He had done a runner.

3. Baxter dismissed him completely.

Of those, 3 seems completely unrealistic and unreasonable.

2, while possible, is I suggest less likely than 1.

Update, I see you suggest this yourself, it is certainly possible.

If it was 1, or something like that, such would mean Baxter had the answers, but so no reason to go public, maybe at the request of the police.

And he had already done similar in the Nichols case, with Robert Paul.
Mizen had made a claim about another police officer requesting him. Lechmere denied such was said.
Paul, could have cleared that up, it was potentially important. And yet Strangly he is not asked about it at all, that seems odd.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have you read the section on murder and manslaughter in the Coroners Act,read it carefully..

Take your own advice Varqm and read the act carefully and don’t just focus on one paragraph. It’s you that has misinterpreted it as everyone on here can see.

[Elamarna]

I have to wonder about Swanson's statement about the police interview "Casting no doubt on Schwartz statement" . It really is a strange thing to add if Schwartz evidence was 100% cut and dried .

Regards Darryl

I see no problem with it, but its individual interpretation Darryl



Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, an inquest is NOT a murder inquiry , the two are very different and separate.

Why can you not understand that?

Steve

It’s baffling.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We know that Schwartz gave his address as 22 Ellen st . We know that the Star found him at Backchurch Lane. Only round the corner and he may have still be living at Ellen st but a different address nonetheless . We only have evidence of him being interviewed by the police once. And he wasn't at the inquest , which ran [ with the adjournment ], through most of October. Israel Schwartz has also been difficult to pin down by researchers of a much better calibre than me.
Perhaps the mystery of his non appearance at said inquest is down to the fact that he did a bunk [ if you like ], for whatever reason . So the police couldn't re-interview him at a later date as well regarding the shout of Lipski etc , and had to go on the one interview by Abberline and his thoughts on Schwartz as a potential witness .

Regards Darryl

PS This may explain why there was an adjournment of 18 days at the inquest . Reid himself said the investigation was ongoing , perhaps they were looking for Schwartz as well, and they may have even asked for said adjournment while they tried to locate him.

Id say that this has to have been a possibility Darryl. A summons can’t be issued to someone that can’t be found. Schwartz might have worried that the killer could identify him and therefore possibly seek him out.

[Elamarna]

First of all an inquest was also a murder inquiry,right?

It would be more a mistake by Baxter not to put Schwartz in the stand if he believed him or believed he had any sort of credibility.Also ,seems to me, the jury has to hear Schwartz's testimony,it is the jury who decides the verdict and may want to hear or call more witnesses.
The Coroner can decide and determine who he wanted in the inquest stand.The ripper murders had so many attention seekers it was not unusual,it seems,for outright dismissal of a witness,Packer comes to mind.Schwartz's two statements were too different,read it again.

Did the Coroner talked to Schwartz,we do not know.

The Coroner mentioned a newspaper report about statements by two men in the Nichols case,so the Coroner did read newspapers.

No, an inquest is NOT a murder inquiry , the two are very different and separate.

Why can you not understand that?

Your understanding of how this would proceed is I am sorry to say deeply flawed.

Few witnesses were completely dismissed, and one who claims to have seen an attack, which is believed by the police, would NOT be so dismissed by the Coroner without a full examination.

To suggest he would do such is fanciful, and unrealistic.


You completely ignore the possibilities 1 & 2 I mentioned above.

Who said he would not read the papers, I said he would not reach a conclusion based solely on the differences between a police statement and a sensational press story with out examining the witness, at the inquest.


Your continued insistence that an inquest was part of the murder inquiry is a great example of how you have entrenched yourself, you are not open to any view on this matter other than your own.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's two very inconsistent stories from the horse's mouth.Whatever.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Coroner decides who to call to the stand,not the police,the police just shares their investigation or info with the Coroner, or instructed to find info by the Coroner or jury.The Coroner did not believe in Schwartz but the police did,although a segment doubted it.Its not known how long the police believed in Schwartz, It seems like ,on record,until at least Nov 1888.The police had made mistakes like Packer or Violena, and it seems clear Hutchinson.

Attention seeking.

Anyways as long as people don't understand the inquest was also a legal murder inquiry,it's hard to argue..I have had enough.

Instead of just presenting your opinion as fact…..

Find us one person, apart from yourself, who believes that an inquest was also a murder inquiry.

Find us one piece of documented proof that the coroner disbelieved Schwartz.

Find us one piece of documented proof of a coroner refusing to examine a witness because he disbelieved him.

And while you’re at it you might want to explain why a coroner took evidence from witnesses like Malcolm and Maxwell as they clearly weren’t believed.

[Darryl Kenyon]

We know that Schwartz gave his address as 22 Ellen st . We know that the Star found him at Backchurch Lane. Only round the corner and he may have still be living at Ellen st but a different address nonetheless . We only have evidence of him being interviewed by the police once. And he wasn't at the inquest , which ran [ with the adjournment ], through most of October. Israel Schwartz has also been difficult to pin down by researchers of a much better calibre than me.
Perhaps the mystery of his non appearance at said inquest is down to the fact that he did a bunk [ if you like ], for whatever reason . So the police couldn't re-interview him at a later date as well regarding the shout of Lipski etc , and had to go on the one interview by Abberline and his thoughts on Schwartz as a potential witness .

Regards Darryl

PS This may explain why there was an adjournment of 18 days at the inquest . Reid himself said the investigation was ongoing , perhaps they were looking for Schwartz as well, and they may have even asked for said adjournment while they tried to locate him.

[Doctored Whatsit]

It's two very inconsistent stories from the horse's mouth.Whatever.

Please explain. I have no idea what you are talking about. You cannot possibly be saying that you consider an article in The Star to be the proven words of Schwartz. That is preposterous. So what are you saying?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Lost me Darryl,

I was talking about Baxter. How he questioned witnesses at inquests.

He clearly challenged many of the statements given, both official ones and ones in the press.

In Nichols alone he challenged, Spratling, Helson, both mortuary attendants, Mulshaw, Llewellyn. He challenged Lechmere over the other policeman story.

Oddly, Paul is not really challenged at all, but that's another debate.

In the Stride case the police statement would be available to him, that would allow him to challenge Schwartz. Unless the police withheld it.

IWhy would they do such, given that Abberline was present when Schwartz gave his statement. And Abberline believed the core of his account it seems.

Swanson, using that statement to write a report, mentions no reason not to believe Schwartz, indeed he actually says that.

The only reason to withhold in those circumstances is indeed to allow for further investigation, but not I suggest into the truthfulness of Schwartz.

Or they did not withhold, but explained there case to Baxter, and requested Schwartz was not called.


Steve

Yes, sorry Steve babysitting at the min so half an eye on that.

But it does seem likely to me that Schwartz was interviewed only once, that once by Abberline.
As you point out Baxter challenged many of the statements by witnesses, but not Schwartz because he couldn't. Pity
Why would the police withhold him ? Unless his evidence is so important and veracity unquestionable.
But there is no corroboration of Schwartz . That doesn't mean he wasn't telling the truth, but he has to be taken at face value .
And as Swanson himself pointed out, BS man may not have been the murderer.
And there is the discrepancy in the newspaper report . Even if we believe that the police didn't take too much stock in the Star's report , it is still there.
It is a discrepancy Baxter may have been able to clear up IE " Did the man who followed you have a knife in his hand ? "
In summary I don't think that Schwartz was withheld because his evidence was all consuming.

Regards Darryl

[Varqm]

If you are trying to say that people sometimes tell lies, and it isn't always possible for others to be certain if they are telling the truth or not, then obviously, everyone agrees. That is not disputed. But it is wholly irrelevant.

The police believed Schwartz for some time after the statement he made, and after the inquest, so we do not know why he did not attend. His failure to attend was not because the coroner read the article in The Star and believed it to be more accurate than the police statement. But even if he did, he would probably have called Schwartz as a witness to establish the truth. Several possibilities have been suggested, all of which are more likely than the idea that the coroner considered The Star more reliable than Abberline!

It's two very inconsistent stories from the horse's mouth.Whatever.

[Varqm]

In some posts you said Baxter, but in the one closest to what I was responding to gou had said that all the police would have was the contradicting statements in the official statement and in the Star.

I asked you why the police would care what Schwarz said to the press given how unreliable the press was. I asked a similar question with regards to Baxter. You have not yet provided any substantiated reply to either.

Anyway, when you used "he" in the next post, I wasnt sure who you meant, but ut appears you had switched back to Baxter.

And no, a coroners inquest is not a murder investigation. It is an inquiry to determine the cause of death, which may include homicide. It us held in the case of a suspicious death. It is not an objective if a coroners inquest to investigate a murder but rather to determine if a murder has occurred; these are not the same thing.

Given you misunderstanding of the coroners inquest I can understand why you think Schwartz's absence must point towards disbelief, but given the actual purpose of the inquest, coupled with éxamples of a similar nature (listed by others) disbelief is a remote possibility.

- Jeff

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.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.

If you are trying to say that people sometimes tell lies, and it isn't always possible for others to be certain if they are telling the truth or not, then obviously, everyone agrees. That is not disputed. But it is wholly irrelevant.

The police believed Schwartz for some time after the statement he made, and after the inquest, so we do not know why he did not attend. His failure to attend was not because the coroner read the article in The Star and believed it to be more accurate than the police statement. But even if he did, he would probably have called Schwartz as a witness to establish the truth. Several possibilities have been suggested, all of which are more likely than the idea that the coroner considered The Star more reliable than Abberline!

[Varqm]

Either Anderson was mistaken, which is certainly possible or the evidence was submitted.

If the later, then have a number of alternatives.

1. Schwartz was examined in person at the inquest by Baxter in camera.

While this is possible, the fact that the attack is not mentioned at all, suggests this is less likely than the next option.

2. After reading the evidence, Baxter agreed to a police request not to call Schwartz, to allow further investigation to continue.

This is similar to option 1, but it's not part of the formal inquest. Baxter would have to be sure that any evidence from Schwartz was NOT essential to the jury , reaching a conclusion of death between 12.30 and 1am, on Sunday , by person or persons unknown.

Such is I submit total realistic, reasonable and plausible.

3. Schwartz disappeared and was untraceable.

This must be considered as a possibility, however, there is nothing to support this option.

4. Baxter, without examining Schwartz, simply rejected him.

Such is not only unrealistic, it amounts to a dereliction of duty by Baxter.
He would place great value on the statement given to the police, especially as they clearly believed Schwartz.

With regards to the Star version, he would have to question Schwartz himself, to see if the differences in the reports, orare down to a translation issue, sensation press reporting or if there was a real discrepancy in Schwartz's account.

He clearly did so several times with witnesses in the Nichols and Chapman cases.
To suggest he would now simply take a press report, and use such to dismiss a police statement, without examination of the witness, is I am sorry to say fantasy.

Steve

First of all an inquest was also a murder inquiry,right?

It would be more a mistake by Baxter not to put Schwartz in the stand if he believed him or believed he had any sort of credibility.Also ,seems to me, the jury has to hear Schwartz's testimony,it is the jury who decides the verdict and may want to hear or call more witnesses.
The Coroner can decide and determine who he wanted in the inquest stand.The ripper murders had so many attention seekers it was not unusual,it seems,for outright dismissal of a witness,Packer comes to mind.Schwartz's two statements were too different,read it again.

Did the Coroner talked to Schwartz,we do not know.

The Coroner mentioned a newspaper report about statements by two men in the Nichols case,so the Coroner did read newspapers.