Who do you credit as the most reliable witnesses?

[Elamarna]

For the umpteenth time Schwartz would have been mentioned in the inquest.Lesser witnesses have been mentioned and searched.Schwartz would be also been searched to appear and also to be informed of a fine if he did not appear.
.If the police submitted Schwartz as a witness they knew or have an idea where he was .

Your thinking here is deeply flawed.
They had an address for him, when he gave his statement, but he may simply have left London, after that. If he did so pray tell me how they would locate him?

Now I don't personally go down that route.

I suggest either his evidence was given in camera, or a request was made by the police, to Baxter, to not call him.
It would of course then be down to Baxter to decide if the evidence would result in a material difference to the result..

That you dismiss such out of hand, is your choice. However, it is simply your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

Steve

[Varqm]

My friend, your entire post simply reinforces that it is you who does not understand.

Yes the report is very important, possibly the most important thing in the whole case.

That you seem to think the difference in the two accounts is enough for Baxter to simply dismiss Schwartz without questioning him, is the stuff of fiction I am sorry to say.

You appear to believe you KNOW what Baxter knew and to understand how he was thinking, that I once again again is unrealistic.

The inquest is NOT part of the murder inquiry, that is conducted by the police,NOT by the coroner.

You have convinced yourself that Schwartz is untrustworthy, and that is the reason he appears not to have been called.
To say other alternatives have no basis, places you in the same position as those who claim only X can be the killer.

It's confirmation basis.

Steve


Steve.

Wrong, inquests becomes a murder inquiry if it was murder,not a light inquiry or a medical inquiry. .
OK ,hypothetically,so you're report of a murder does not include an assault on the victim 15 minutes before where the victim's body was found and you are satisfied with your report as good. Ok.
The completeness of a murder inquiry,the two very different version of events by the witness and the law are my evidence.
OK. 100% trust that the police could not have made mistakes.

[Elamarna]

If anything,if Schwartz was trustworthy, he would put him in.
The evidence is in Schwartz's two very different version of what he saw , which you choose to ignore,this was from the horse's mouth,not an interpretation if whether the witness was truthful or not.

Is there any other evidence presented by Schwartz that the police possessed and not by Baxter?

If you still cant understand the importance of an assault 15 minutes where the victim's body was found in a murder inquiry than I'd do not know what you're understanding of a murder inquiry is,the inquest when there is a murder was not a medical inquiry .If not untrustworthy Schwartz was in,inquest-wise.

The other alternatives have no basis.Mine are the two above and the law.There are more points but I do not care to elaborate.

My friend, your entire post simply reinforces that it is you who does not understand.

Yes the report is very important, possibly the most important thing in the whole case.

That you seem to think the difference in the two accounts is enough for Baxter to simply dismiss Schwartz without questioning him, is the stuff of fiction I am sorry to say.

You appear to believe you KNOW what Baxter knew and to understand how he was thinking, that I once again again is unrealistic.

The inquest is NOT part of the murder inquiry, that is conducted by the police,NOT by the coroner.

You have convinced yourself that Schwartz is untrustworthy, and that is the reason he appears not to have been called.
To say other alternatives have no basis, places you in the same position as those who claim only X can be the killer.

It's confirmation basis.

Steve


Steve.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I can't hold this view . Baxter in his summing up mentions Browns account. Surely he could have added , something like - There is other evidence being investigated which may suggest Brown may not have seen Liz or/and he may have been out with the time.

Schwartz evidence is of specific value in that he places Liz at the very spot she was murdered 15 mins later. No other witness does this at so close a time.

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

The problem is that it’s not the aim of an inquest to come up with a TOD. They only have to record what day that she was killed. They knew that from the fact that she wasn’t there when Eagle was in the yard but she was there when Diemschitz arrived.

[Varqm]

We can’t make these kind of assumptions based on a perception of common sense. It’s like a layman making a medical diagnosis based on what they see as ‘common sense.’

Can you prove to us that Schwartz, worried about giving evidence after being seen by the man he believed was the ripper, didn’t simply vanish? For all that we know, he might have left London to stay with a friend or family until the inquest was over. If the police couldn’t find him they couldn’t have summoned him. What could they have done? Delayed the inquest indefinitely? Issued a vague description of him to random police stations at various locations? Done a London-wide house to house search for him? Come on. How can you prove that, in fear of reprisals, he asked the police if he could be left out of the inquest? And as his evidence was of no specific value to the inquest they agreed? I claim none of these, or other suggestions as a fact, so why do you consider your suggestion as a fact (when yours is the only suggestion that we have solid evidence against?)

For the umpteenth time Schwartz would have been mentioned in the inquest.Lesser witnesses have been mentioned and searched.Schwartz would be also been searched to appear and also to be informed of a fine if he did not appear.
.If the police submitted Schwartz as a witness they knew or have an idea where he was .

[Darryl Kenyon]

Except Pipeman.

But Pipeman wasn't at the inquest either. Nor is there any evidence he was found and eliminated.

Regards Darryl

[Varqm]

You appear to be suggesting that Baxter, who apparently never spoke to Schwartz, or examined him on his evidence, had a greater and more insightful understanding than the police who did.
How was that achieved?

I would go so far as to suggest such arrogance would be a dereliction of duty on the part of Baxter.

It does say alot, sadly alot more than you appear to realise.
That you reject all alternatives, but that he was untrustworthy ( a suggestion not backed by a since source, or reference) simply demonstrates how closed you are.

Steve

If anything,if Schwartz was trustworthy, he would put him in.
The evidence is in Schwartz's two very different version of what he saw , which you choose to ignore,this was from the horse's mouth,not an interpretation if whether the witness was truthful or not.

Is there any other evidence presented by Schwartz that the police possessed and not by Baxter?

If you still cant understand the importance of an assault 15 minutes where the victim's body was found in a murder inquiry than I'd do not know what you're understanding of a murder inquiry is,the inquest when there is a murder was not a medical inquiry .If not untrustworthy Schwartz was in,inquest-wise.

The other alternatives have no basis.Mine are the two above and the law.There are more points but I do not care to elaborate.

[Elamarna]

The fact Schwartz was not in the inquest said a lot, irrespective of the police views,the police could make mistakes too,Packer,Violena,Hutchinson.

You appear to be suggesting that Baxter, who apparently never spoke to Schwartz, or examined him on his evidence, had a greater and more insightful understanding than the police who did.
How was that achieved?

I would go so far as to suggest such arrogance would be a dereliction of duty on the part of Baxter.

It does say alot, sadly alot more than you appear to realise.
That you reject all alternatives, but that he was untrustworthy ( a suggestion not backed by a since source, or reference) simply demonstrates how closed you are.

Steve

[DJA]

Except Pipeman.

[Darryl Kenyon]

We can’t make these kind of assumptions based on a perception of common sense. It’s like a layman making a medical diagnosis based on what they see as ‘common sense.’

And as his evidence was of no specific value to the inquest they agreed?

Hi Herlock

I can't hold this view . Baxter in his summing up mentions Browns account. Surely he could have added , something like - There is other evidence being investigated which may suggest Brown may not have seen Liz or/and he may have been out with the time.

Schwartz evidence is of specific value in that he places Liz at the very spot she was murdered 15 mins later. No other witness does this at so close a time.

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

There is, I think, nothing in any police record to indicate who these two persons might have been, nor is there anything in the record to suggest that the police ever rejected Schwartz's statement. Indeed, they seem to have still been accepting his story and descriptions weeks later.

The argument I was trying to make in post 111 is that the police accepted Schwartz interview taken by Abberline ,[ Schwartz one and only statement, as far as I can tell ] . And perhaps Abberline's view on him as a potential witness. We know Schwartz had an interpreter , some key points of the interview may have been lost in translation.
Now that's not to say Abberline was wrong on his view of Schwartz but consider this. Abberline accepted Hutch as a witness saying he believed his account to be true.
Yet Hutch as a witness splits opinion with less people believing his account prima facie than Schwartz.
That's not to say Abberline was gullible, but was he slightly credulous when he thought there may have been a breakthrough in the case.

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

The police most likely had nothing else but the two vastly different statements by Schwartz to the police and Star,both from the horse's mouth so to speak.
Schwartz was too important to a murder inquiry,any inquiry into a murder not including an assault 15 minutes before where the body is found is very very wrong.The Coroner had to have compelling reasons not to have him there.Common sense,it had to be untrustworthiness.

We can’t make these kind of assumptions based on a perception of common sense. It’s like a layman making a medical diagnosis based on what they see as ‘common sense.’

Can you prove to us that Schwartz, worried about giving evidence after being seen by the man he believed was the ripper, didn’t simply vanish? For all that we know, he might have left London to stay with a friend or family until the inquest was over. If the police couldn’t find him they couldn’t have summoned him. What could they have done? Delayed the inquest indefinitely? Issued a vague description of him to random police stations at various locations? Done a London-wide house to house search for him? Come on. How can you prove that, in fear of reprisals, he asked the police if he could be left out of the inquest? And as his evidence was of no specific value to the inquest they agreed? I claim none of these, or other suggestions as a fact, so why do you consider your suggestion as a fact (when yours is the only suggestion that we have solid evidence against?)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Read the Coroner's Act 1887 and look at the witnesses in all the five inquest.Its clear it was not only about the who,where, how ,when,just for one the police'witnesses.
Schwartz was too important to a murder inquiry,any inquiry into a murder not including an assault 15 minutes before where the victim's body was found is very very wrong.
I don't rely on Schwartz's truthfulness or not for anything.

Ive read the act and I’ve read David Orsam’s article where he explains how you’ve misunderstood it. No matter what you say Israel Schwartz wasn’t a vital witness at the inquest. Important to the police yes but inquest no. We can all quote the names of people that weren’t called to inquests who could have been, or people who were called and could add nothing of value. It tells us nothing about who should or shouldn’t get called. So….

1. Why were witnesses like Malcolm and Maxwell called when they were very clearly doubted?

2. If Schwartz was disbelieved why wasn’t Fanny Mortimer called because her evidence was the main cause of doubts? Did the police disbelieve her too?

3. Would the outcome of the inquest have altered in any way had Schwartz testified? (No, it would still have been murder by person or person’s unknown)

4. Even if the police had their doubts about Schwartz, would his appearance at the inquest have caused issues for either the inquest itself or the police’ suspect investigation? (Absolutely not)

5. Do we have any evidence of witnesses being omitted because there might have been doubts? (I know of none)

6. Do we have solid, written evidence that after the inquest the police still considered Schwartz an important witness? (Absolutely yes)

You might have doubts about Schwartz (others do too) but the police clearly regarded him as important to their own investigation.

We don’t know why Schwartz wasn’t at the inquest. We can speculate and produce a list of ‘possibles,’ but even then we might be missing the true reason. In the absence of proof it makes no sense to express confidence in claiming to know something which can’t possibly be known. What we do know for a fact though is that the evidence is categorically against the suggestion the he was left out because the police disbelieved him. We can state with confidence that this couldn’t have been, and wasn’t, the case.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doctored Whatsit,

Yes, those are the articles. And I agree, The Star is not the most reliable of sources

I think it's the 2nd one that people have suggested implies that Pipeman may have been the 2nd person (2nd arrest "funished from another source") who could perhaps be the person arrested in the first story (as I say, it's only an inference, and could very well be wrong).

I agree the first story points doubts on the arrested man's story, while the 2nd seems to cast doubts on Schwartz. Given we know the police did doubt some aspects of Schwartz's statement (in particular to whom Broad Shoulders - B.S. - shouted Lipski, and therefore the relationship between Pipeman and B.S.) I've tended to think the Star may have got some hints towards that aspect and we see it in the 2nd story.

Running a bit with this, those doubts could also have been increased if indeed Pipeman was located (first story), and while he wasn't fully believed that day he was able to clear himself eventually, leading to increased doubts concerning Schwartz's interpretation of Lipski and Pipeman's involvement. And if neither Schwartz nor Pipeman could provide more details about B.S., then there's no further action they could take.

Something like that sort of ties a bunch of things together and makes some sense of things, but as I say, these are just ideas not facts and I'm sure there are other ways to arrange things.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I have fairly similar thoughts, but think that Kidney might have been the first arrest, and Pipeman was the second. Kidney had a bit of "form" being previously accused of violence against Stride, and the relationship having ended recently, with an allegation of an argument. He was at the police station on the relevant day. Maybe Pipeman partially confirmed Schwartz's story about BS man etc, but had some different or fresh information, and didn't identify Kidney as BS man.

[Doctored Whatsit]

The police most likely had nothing else but the two vastly different statements by Schwartz to the police and Star,both from the horse's mouth so to speak.
Schwartz was too important to a murder inquiry,any inquiry into a murder not including an assault 15 minutes before where the body is found is very very wrong.The Coroner had to have compelling reasons not to have him there.Common sense,it had to be untrustworthiness.

The police had their statement made by Schwartz, and the limited records we have support the notion that they believed him at the time, and for some time later. There is no evidence that they did not. The Star was a newspaper with a reputation for the sensational. It was not reliable, and there is no reason to say that anyone should believe every word written in it. Therefore neither the police nor the coroner would regard The Star as a credible source of factual information.

I don't know why Schwartz didn't attend the inquest, but it wasn't because The Star published a story that differed from his statement to the police.