Who do you credit as the most reliable witnesses?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Whatever you think of the two statements by Schwartz they are very different and recorded and evidence as statements by Schwartz.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll indulge in another bit of speculation. What if…..

Schwartz gives his police interview and then speaks to The Star then his wife starts to bend his ear with “you and your big mouth! What if this madman comes looking for you now, or me or the children (if there were any)?” Then Schwartz, who perhaps wasn’t the bravest of men, told the police that he didn’t want to appear at the inquest. They might have sympathised with him and agreed not to call him or Schwartz himself, knowing that one day he might have been called on for an identification (if they knew where to find him) might have said “if you force me to appear then my memory ‘might’ get a bit fuzzy when it comes to an ID.” They could bring him to an identification but they couldn’t force him to identify anyone. The police were desperate to catch the killer and knowing that he wasn’t vital to the aims of the inquest they might have allowed him to duck out. He and his family might then have decided to lie low somewhere but he told the police where he would be staying if they needed him for an ID.

I can’t see why this isn’t at least a possibility.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The completeness of a murder inquiry,the two very different version of events by the witness and the law are my evidence.There are more but I don't care to elaborate.
Whatever you think of the two statements by Schwartz they are very different and recorded and evidence as statements by Schwartz.
OK. 100% trust that the police could not have made mistakes.

You appear to take a black and white view. No one is saying that they couldn’t make mistakes. What we are saying is that it’s an absolutely proven evidential fact that the police considered Schwartz an important witness after the inquest. Therefore we have no reason for saying that they disbelieved him before or during the inquest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He will be mentioned in the inquest,the police will be asked to find him,if he does not come he will be fined.They will search him,but the police knew where he could be found since his name would have been submitted by the police to the Coroner.

There is absolutely no reason why a witness who wasn’t called to the inquest would have been mentioned at that inquest. I genuinely can’t see where you’re going with that point.

You say that they knew where he would be found…….why do you ignore the very obvious possibility that he wasn’t at that place when they went to summons him? What if his wife said “he told me that he was going to stay with a friend but I don’t know where that friend lives?” Do you really think that the police would have searched London (and possibly outside London) just to find him? A man who couldn’t help them in the slightest toward the 4 aims of the inquest. They might have looked but for how long and over how wide an area. Disappearing in those days was simplicity itself. That he ‘laid low’ is just a possibility though. I’m not claiming it as a fact because there’s no evidence for it.

We have no idea why he didn’t testify…..but we do know that it wasn’t because the police disbelieved him. This is simply not possible. Evidence tells us this.

[Varqm]

An Argument from Ignorance is a Logical Fallacy.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.^[1] It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false.^[2] In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

c.d.

There are practical and common sense sides to the law, and murder inquiry.It did not happen in a chalkboard.

[Varqm]

Hello Varqm,

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Schwartz was a crucial witness and should have appeared at the inquest.

But what if he was sick and unable to attend or simply did not show up despite being called? Do you feel your conclusion would still be valid?

c.d.

He will be mentioned in the inquest,the police will be asked to find him,if he does not come he will be fined.They will search him,but the police knew where he could be found since his name would have been submitted by the police to the Coroner.

[c.d.]

Hello Varqm,

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Schwartz was a crucial witness and should have appeared at the inquest.

But what if he was sick and unable to attend or simply did not show up despite being called? Do you feel your conclusion would still be valid?

c.d.

[c.d.]

An Argument from Ignorance is a Logical Fallacy.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.^[1] It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false.^[2] In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

c.d.

[Varqm]

But similar to Baxter, why would the police care what he said to the Star and how do you know the police were even aware of that article? The police did not care about Paul's porkies in Lloyds. Again, you seem to think the police and/or coroner considered the news papers as some sort of legal record, so all one had to do to get out of having to testify is give an interview to a tabloid and spice things up enough. We may have to sift through the news to try and glean some new information, but the police if the day would go straight to the source and interview them directly, and get a sworn statement.

As Doctored Whatsit said, I don't know why Schwartz isn't at the inquest, but whatever the reason it is not because the Star's version differs from his police interview.

- Jeff

How did you know he did not.Schwartz was needed in the inquest and was crucial.
Let's say you are a police officer,would you say your report on a murder is complete without including an assault on the victim 15 minutes before where the victim's body was found even though you know that happened? Is that a big omission or wrong, or not?

[Varqm]

Coroner had to have compelling reasons not to have him there.Common sense,it had to be untrustworthiness.

No. Simply no. You don't know why he was not there. Nobody does. Change had to maybe or possibly. Why is this so damn hard?

It had to have been an alien spacecraft that landed at Roswell. What else could it have been?

Of course the mob killed Kennedy. Who else could have done it?

Of course those lights flickering have to be a ghost. What else could it be?

Do you not see the fallacy in your argument?

c.d.

The completeness of a murder inquiry,the two very different version of events by the witness and the law are my evidence.There are more but I don't care to elaborate.
Whatever you think of the two statements by Schwartz they are very different and recorded and evidence as statements by Schwartz.
OK. 100% trust that the police could not have made mistakes.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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.

That is true Herlock but Brown's description of the man he saw with, who he was almost certain was Liz and the time he saw him were used in Baxter's summing up .
And he goes into the differences between the descriptions of said man with Marshal's profile and Pc Smiths.
If Schwartz had have been called it would have cast doubt on the fact that Brown saw Liz were he said he saw her and the time [ if Schwartz was telling the absolute truth ], . Surely understanding were Liz was stood and at what time is of great importance. Browns depiction of the man would have been negated.

Regards Darryl

[Varqm]

How did PC Robinson,PC Hutt,PC Drage,Coram,PC Mizen,Pc Alfred Long,Sarah Lewis answer the who ,where ,when, how of the inquest?.
How about Moog Cheeks,Patrick Mulshaw,Emma Green,Walter Purkiss?How about the many discussions or mentions about the apron?

What's the answer?

[c.d.]

We spend so much time on here with this kind of thing c.d. Trevor is a master at it. Someone arrives at an interpretation then assumes that it must be true to the exclusion of all other possible explanations and to arrive at their position any inconvenient evidence is ignored. How simple could this be? Q: could the police have believed Schwartz was untrustworthy at the beginning of October? A: no, because the men in charge, Swanson and Abberline, put it in writing on the 19th Oct and the 1st November respectively that they were still treating him as a valuable witness. It would be like someone trying to claim that Druitt killed Alice Mackenzie. We have enough mystery in the case without turning what we actually know into a mystery too. Why are some reluctant to admit that there are some things that we just don’t know and probably never will?

Yes, and it is certainly possible that the police determined that he was simply not reliable at some point for whatever reason. As you say, that can't be excluded. But then again we can't exclude reasonable possibilities for his not being called. And there are reasonable possibilities. That is the whole point. We just don't know. Or should I make that at least most of us don't know?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Even if we had 100% metaphysical proof that Schwartz was not called because he was deemed "untrustworthy" what conclusion could we draw from that? Well it could mean the police thought he was lying through his teeth. But if could also mean they realized that this guy came late to the scene and because of the language barrier couldn't say for certain just what actually took place. Both scenarios fit the untrustworthy label.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Coroner had to have compelling reasons not to have him there.Common sense,it had to be untrustworthiness.

No. Simply no. You don't know why he was not there. Nobody does. Change had to maybe or possibly. Why is this so damn hard?

It had to have been an alien spacecraft that landed at Roswell. What else could it have been?

Of course the mob killed Kennedy. Who else could have done it?

Of course those lights flickering have to be a ghost. What else could it be?

Do you not see the fallacy in your argument?

c.d.

We spend so much time on here with this kind of thing c.d. Trevor is a master at it. Someone arrives at an interpretation then assumes that it must be true to the exclusion of all other possible explanations and to arrive at their position any inconvenient evidence is ignored. How simple could this be? Q: could the police have believed Schwartz was untrustworthy at the beginning of October? A: no, because the men in charge, Swanson and Abberline, put it in writing on the 19th Oct and the 1st November respectively that they were still treating him as a valuable witness. It would be like someone trying to claim that Druitt killed Alice Mackenzie. We have enough mystery in the case without turning what we actually know into a mystery too. Why are some reluctant to admit that there are some things that we just don’t know and probably never will?