Who do you credit as the most reliable witnesses?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Two entirely different reports with different aims.

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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

[Varqm]

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?

[Varqm]

Schwartz made one statement, and the police believed in it. The Star made a statement allegedly made by Schwartz, and no-one believes it - except perhaps you.

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.

[Varqm]

Hi Varqm,

Who do you mean by "he" in the first sentence? You switched from saying it was Baxter who rejected Schwartz to saying it was the police (so do you mean a specific police officer rejected Schwartz? If so, who, and how do you know that given every report I'm aware of by the police signals they thought Schwartz witnessed what he said happened, though they did doubt his interpretation of the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman, etc).

Also, as has been mentioned, an inquest is not a murder investigation, that's what the police are doing not the coroner. A coroner's inquest is solely about determining the cause of death, and to classify it as non-suspicious (i.e. natural causes), suicide, accidental, or homicide. They do not have anybody on trial, their goal is not to identify the murderer (in the case of homicide), and they do not even need to have a suspect, given the verdict for homicide can be "by person or persons unknown". It may be, of course, that in some cases the inquest attributes the death to a particular individual, but it is not a goal of the inquest to do so because it is not a murder inquiry : it is, effectively, to determine if a murder inquiry by the police is necessary.

In other words, while we see Schwartz as important to us because we know it was a murder, technically, it is only at the conclusion of the inquest when that becomes "official", at least with respect to the coroner's inquest. Although I think the police can still investigate a suspicious death even if the inquest returns something other than homicide.

As also mentioned by others, Schwartz can't really narrow down the time of death much more than it already has been determined, he can't identify by name the victim, and so forth. Moreover, it is not necessary (in this case) for the inquest to document her being assaulted because the other testimony rules out suicide (no knife was found in the alley, etc) and anyway, Schwartz did not see her being murdered (she was still alive when he left the scene, he never saw a knife in B.S. hands, etc). So while you are correct in that Schwartz is important for a murder inquiry, that is irrelevant because we're talking about a coroner's inquest, which is not a murder investigation but an inquiry to determine if murder has occurred (and to ID the victim, etc).

And there is no evidence the police discounted Schwartz, and there is no evidence that Baxter had any reason to either. We know Baxter allowed suspect testimony that he did not believe to get presented. We know that the police, at times, did ask for some information to be held back (i.e. Lawende's description of the man he saw at the end of Church Passage). Given how important Schwartz would be to the police in their murder investigation, and given everything we have points to the police believing Schwartz, then the idea that they asked that Schwartz not be called upon at the inquest has a lot more appeal to me than the idea that Schwartz was dismissed by the police (who believed him) or by Baxter (who had no way of judging him without questioning him himself - conflict between an official statement taken by the police and a story in a tabloid like The Star, is not going to result in pre-determining if Schwartz is reliable or not).

Of course, I don't know if the police requested Baxter not call him, but that's because we have absolutely no information as to why Schwartz was not there. We know he wasn't, and there are a lot of potential ways to explain that, some being more plausible than others (i.e. alien abduction might explain it, but that seems a tad far-fetched to me). In my view, given all the evidence points to the police having some faith in Schwartz, arguing that they didn't present him to Baxter because they disbelieved him seems unlikely to be the right line of explanation. Moreover, for all the reasons presented before, I cannot see Baxter rejecting him if the police had put him forward.

That leaves options like Schwartz was supposed to be there but doesn't show (or couldn't be served the summons, etc), or that the police withheld him from the inquest to keep the specific details Schwartz could offer out of the papers (with Baxter either in agreement with that decision or the police just didn't pass his name on to Baxter in the first place). There may be other ideas that don't fall into those I've tried to cover as well.

Anyway, there are far too many other explanations for his absence from the inquest, all of which in my opinion are more plausible than disbelief by either the police or Baxter. In fact, everything we know indicates the police believed him, so that idea can be relegated to very implausible. Baxter never says a word about him, so if Baxter had formed an opinion, which I doubt since he hadn't a chance to question Schwartz himself, we have no idea what it was. So again, I think that comes up on low end of the plausibility scale.

- Jeff

No,I said how did you know Baxter does not read the papers.In the Nichols case he mentioned statements in the press by two men.
I said the Coroner did not deem Schwartz trustworthy,not the police.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.But what we have are two very different story by Schwartz in what happened.
Yes the inquest was a murder inquiry,read the section on murder and manslaughter in the Coroners Act 1887.There is more by I do not care to elaborate How did PC robinson ,PC Hutt,PC long,wilkinson,Sarah lewis ,the many mentions of the apron answer the how,who where,when?
Anyways whatever.