Who do you credit as the most reliable witnesses?

[DJA]

Police found both Schwartz and Pipeman.

[FISHY1118]

Police found both Schwartz and Pipeman.

Pipeman?

[erobitha]

Hang on a minute, Were not talking about whether Schwartz eyewitness account needs corroborating or not tho are we ? Either he is to be believed or he isnt, and the police at the time especially Abberline thought so .

The point was made that somehow Schwartz statement was ''Conflicting'' , as i posted already its impossible for that to be the case as no one else claimed to see what Schwartz saw. He is in conflict with no one .

Just because no one can corroborate what he saw doesnt mean he didnt see it, after all he gave a detailed statement to police [Swansons report] and if one chooses not to believe him then their argument leans to same as other witnesses who posters ignore ,which is he lied or made it all up .

If thats the case we might as well all stop posting . Pretty Straight Forward
.

His account certainly was not in line with others saw. Brown, Mortimer, Packer etc - yet when you take it away there is a fair bit of corroborating between witness accounts.

Police probably did believe him has his statement offers them some great clues. If it was true.

Schwartz was most likely summoned to attend the inquest in my view but never got the summons because he provided a dodgy address.

No Israel Schwartz has ever been found that matches the information we have of him in any available records. He exists only in the one statement and possibly in a fabricated interview by the outrageous Star newspaper.

So I chose to believe Schwartz is a non-relevant witness based on these facts. He is a red herring of his own making.

You can choose to interpret the facts any way you wish.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And as has been repeatedly stated by numerous people, the inquest had 4 specific aims and Israel Schwartz couldn’t add to any of them. He couldn’t identify Stride by name because he didn’t know her and they already knew the date and location of the murder and the cause of death. Schwartz would have been a vital witness if he’d said “I saw Fred Smith attacking her at 12.45’ but he couldn’t.

Schwartz was important to the police investigation but not to the inquest. If Schwartz wasn’t believed why do we have written evidence from the police that he was? And after the inquest. This alone dismisses the suggestion that Schwartz wasn’t believed. The black and white evidence is irrefutable. And can you really believe that before an inquest a coroner would spend time wading through police statements or reading various newspaper versions to evaluate witness reliability? That was the job of the police not the coroner. Yes we see witnesses called for background info but sometimes witnesses gave testimony with nothing of value to add and at the same time we could name people who would have known more but who weren’t called. The selection process is vague to us.

When we don’t know something because we have no written evidence we can only speculate at the answer of course and in this we have numerous possibilities. The only suggestion that we can definitively dismiss with proper evidence is the suggestion that the Coroner disbelieved him. We only have to look at Maxwell’s presence at the Kelly inquest and Malcolm’s presence at the Stride inquest. Conflicting evidence was simply presented for the jury to arrive at their conclusion. And Schwartz wasn’t even conflicting…..apart from a clash of times with Fanny Mortimer.

Apologies for this lapse of memory. We have discussed this before and Varqm suggests that it was the police and not the coroner who disbelieved Schwartz.

[FISHY1118]

His account certainly was not in line with others saw. Brown, Mortimer, Packer etc - yet when you take it away there is a fair bit of corroborating between witness accounts.

Police probably did believe him has his statement offers them some great clues. If it was true.

Schwartz was most likely summoned to attend the inquest in my view but never got the summons because he provided a dodgy address.

No Israel Schwartz has ever been found that matches the information we have of him in any available records. He exists only in the one statement and possibly in a fabricated interview by the outrageous Star newspaper.

So I chose to believe Schwartz is a non-relevant witness based on these facts. He is a red herring of his own making.

You can choose to interpret the facts any way you wish.

His account doesnt have to be in line with others as you put it , Brown ,Mortimer ,Packer never saw what Schwartz saw, at best they gave conflicting times on the events of that night. But what makes their time any more accurate/reliable that Schwartz ? he has just as much right to be believed as every other witness who claimed a ''Time'' in there statement .

Aa i said those who would dismiss Schwartz do so simple because it doesnt fit their narrative or theory, so he has to removed without any real evidence to disprove what he saw when he saw it . Thats just a fact, whether you choose to believe it or not .

[DJA]

Pipeman?

One of Jane Coram's masterpieces.

[JeffHamm]

Pipeman?

There's an article in one of the papers that talks about some (2?) arrests made based upon descriptions given by two different people, one of whom is probably Schwartz and the other is generally thought to be pipeman, although it does not specifically say this. But if it is not, then it would imply there was another witness to the Schwartz event for which we have no other information. As such, the view is that pipeman appears to have been identified. Given the lack of any indication of any of this in the police records, it could mean it is a press fabrication but also could just reflect how much less we know than the police did at the time.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

There's an article in one of the papers that talks about some (2?) arrests made based upon descriptions given by two different people, one of whom is probably Schwartz and the other is generally thought to be pipeman, although it does not specifically say this. But if it is not, then it would imply there was another witness to the Schwartz event for which we have no other information. As such, the view is that pipeman appears to have been identified. Given the lack of any indication of any of this in the police records, it could mean it is a press fabrication but also could just reflect how much less we know than the police did at the time.

- Jeff

I recall the article being posted Jeff but I can’t remember the exact content. Was it specific to the Berner Street incident or could it have been connected to Best and Gardner for example?

At this point someone like Joshua usually comes up with the relevant quote…..

[Varqm]

Hi Varqm,

Schwartz's statement to the police doesn't have any conflicting statements either. The press version is different, but that is irrelevant to the inquest. Schwartz does appear to concede he may have been wrong about the association between BS and Pipeman, and about who Lipski was shouted at, but that too is irrelevant to the inquest and could come out in questioning.

If you mean his testimony conflicts with respect to the stated time given by other witnesses, that too would not preclude him (who us to say which witness has the time wrong? And given most witnesses describe events that would only last a couple minutes at most, both estimating 12:45 is hardly worth considering as being a conflict.

Mary Malcolm, however, presents an identification other than what the police believed ( note the juror's question where they say something like "I thought this was the inquest for Elizabeth Stride?" when it was described as the inquest for a person unknown, or something like that). Basically, the police and the coroner knew she was wrong but let her testify anyway - and id of the deceased is one of the main objectives of the inquest.

Mistrust of a witness does not result in the witness being "discarded", at least not in Baxter's case.

- Jeff

Schwartz's statement to the police and Star was vastly different interns of the action taking place. Attention seeker cones to mind.As I posted before although her statement conflicted with the doctors TOD, Caroline's Maxwell did not change her story to the inquest and press so she was in.
Malcolm did not have any conflicting statements to be assessed. If Malcolm's conflicting statements were fine,then so would Schwartz's by your logic.
This was a murder inquiry not just the who where when and how.Murder and manslaughter changed it.

[Varqm]

Pardon, the letter actually says he GAVE evidence, that is contrary to the public record.
So either that is mistaken, or it was given in camera, the suggetition that the police may have requested he was not called is very possible
Whichever it was, we cannot know, to suggest we can pretend to know why he was not apparently called is unrealistic.

Your statement the the coroner DID NOT believe him, is purely speculation on your part.

There are several reasons why a witness might not be called, not simply because the coroner DID NOT believe the account.

A few examples which argue such did not happen.

It's clear that in the Kelly case Maxwell was not believed but was called.

In Nichols it's very clear Baxter had issues of reliability and usefulness with Mann and Hatfield.

He clearly question Spratlings account of the undressing, which did not concur with that are the attendants, or if one is strict with Helson.

With Tomkins, Baxter had serious issues, and again it could be argued did not believe everything he was told.

My point is The coroner in the above had serious issues on belief , but all were called.

To suggest that the coroner simply ignored the police opinion and rejected Schwartz outright is somewhat unrealistic.

How long after did the police believe Schwartz?

So far as we know, they NEVER, disbelived his account.

Steve

The letter said Schwartz gave testimony but not actually.This could be interpreted simply as Schwartz's statement was submitted to the Coroner by the police,but the Coroner rejected it.
How far does the record show,as far as police's belief in Schwartz,Nov 1888? No police memoirs of an assault on a victim before her murder.

[Varqm]

And as has been repeatedly stated by numerous people, the inquest had 4 specific aims and Israel Schwartz couldn’t add to any of them. He couldn’t identify Stride by name because he didn’t know her and they already knew the date and location of the murder and the cause of death. Schwartz would have been a vital witness if he’d said “I saw Fred Smith attacking her at 12.45’ but he couldn’t.

Schwartz was important to the police investigation but not to the inquest. If Schwartz wasn’t believed why do we have written evidence from the police that he was? And after the inquest. This alone dismisses the suggestion that Schwartz wasn’t believed. The black and white evidence is irrefutable. And can you really believe that before an inquest a coroner would spend time wading through police statements or reading various newspaper versions to evaluate witness reliability? That was the job of the police not the coroner. Yes we see witnesses called for background info but sometimes witnesses gave testimony with nothing of value to add and at the same time we could name people who would have known more but who weren’t called. The selection process is vague to us.

When we don’t know something because we have no written evidence we can only speculate at the answer of course and in this we have numerous possibilities. The only suggestion that we can definitively dismiss with proper evidence is the suggestion that the Coroner disbelieved him. We only have to look at Maxwell’s presence at the Kelly inquest and Malcolm’s presence at the Stride inquest. Conflicting evidence was simply presented for the jury to arrive at their conclusion. And Schwartz wasn’t even conflicting…..apart from a clash of times with Fanny Mortimer.

Murder changed the inquest, it then became not only about the who where when how.Wherever you learned that,it's wrong.

[Elamarna]

The letter said Schwartz gave testimony but not actually.This could be interpreted simply as Schwartz's statement was submitted to the Coroner by the police,but the Coroner rejected it.
How far does the record show,as far as police's belief in Schwartz,Nov 1888? No police memoirs of an assault on a victim before her murder.

There you are again, the coroner would simply NOT reject out of hand, something the police believed was important. He would want to test it himself.

Anderson and Swanson clearly say the suspect their witness identified would be convicted and hung.
It's hard to think of anything other than an actual assault that would ensure that.
Just being seen with a victim before or close to a murder site just after a murder seems unlikely to be so certain.

Your continuing question as to how long the police considered him an important witness is impossible to answer. However, there is NO record, public or private that they ever reached that point, it's simply a question you have decided to use to allow you to reject Schwartz, a rejection against the evidence .

My friend, you seem so certain that Schwartz was rejected, you are not prepared to even consider other possibilities. Why is this I ask?

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Murder changed the inquest, it then became not only about the who where when how.Wherever you learned that,it's wrong.

So this inquest was different to every other inquest? I really don’t know where you get this idea from either. Inquests are to establish 4 things. This is simply a fact. Of all the possible reasons for Schwartz non-attendance the one that we can definitively dismiss with solid, black and white evidence is the suggestion that he wasn’t believed. The record proves this not to have been the case. I really can’t understand why you dispute something that’s in black and white? The ‘he wasn’t believed’ suggestion can be categorically dismissed. Only you appear to support it.

Do you have a theory that requires this suggestion to be true? To quote Steve:

“My friend, you seem so certain that Schwartz was rejected, you are not prepared to even consider other possibilities. Why is this I ask?”

You do appear rigid on this subject when the evidence is completely against you.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Schwartz's statement to the police and Star was vastly different interns of the action taking place. Attention seeker cones to mind.As I posted before although her statement conflicted with the doctors TOD, Caroline's Maxwell did not change her story to the inquest and press so she was in.

I think you mean that Schwartz's statement to the police, and the somewhat sensational version published in the Star - for example, "he saw the whole thing!" - were vastly different. If you wish to insist that the Star only published hard facts, and never "sexed up" a story, I think you are on your own.

[JeffHamm]

Schwartz's statement to the police and Star was vastly different interns of the action taking place. Attention seeker cones to mind.As I posted before although her statement conflicted with the doctors TOD, Caroline's Maxwell did not change her story to the inquest and press so she was in.
Malcolm did not have any conflicting statements to be assessed. If Malcolm's conflicting statements were fine,then so would Schwartz's by your logic.
This was a murder inquiry not just the who where when and how.Murder and manslaughter changed it.

?? Why would Baxter care what Schwartz said when not under oath and to the press and not to a court and/or police officer? At most, the differences between a story in the news and an official statement could be cleared up by questioning at the inquest. We see this with "the Pensioner" in the Chapman case, who wasn't a pensioner despite creating that impression with Annie and others. He told all sorts of stories to others, and yet, he's called to testify - and his status as a pensioner (or non-status) is cleared up by questioning him on it. There's certainly no dismissing of Paul in the Nichols case, and his statements to the press conflict with his statements to the police and yet, the inquest don't even mention the conflict with the press. They just go over the events and get Paul to recount things while he's under oath and suddenly he's not off on his own to find PC Mizen, and he's not the one who primarily talks to PC Mizen, rather he's more just sort of there, making one comment to PC Mizen to support statements made by Cross/Lechmere. Conflict with embellished news reports (Paul), or even a history of falsehoods (Pensioner), doesn't result in witnesses being discarded.

And anyway, how do you know that the bits that differ between the police statement and what appears in the Star even came from Schwartz and were not simply embellishments by the reporter or confusion during the translation (my personal thoughts are the "knife" comes from a leading question by the reporter, and the confusion over who shouts Lipski is probably poor translation)? More importantly, how would Baxter know which was the source of the changed details without actually questioning Schwartz? Baxter, if he even knew of the Star's article, would clear those up by asking Schwartz when he's under oath rather than sit down at breakfast, open his copy of the Star and cry out "Hey now, what's all this then, here's it's a pipe, but here it's a knife? I don't want to talk to this confusing chap, he's said two things already. It will be a cricket bat next, what what?" Seriously, Baxter and the police would be well aware that the press can embellish a story, and all they care about is what is said under oath (i.e. the police reports, the inquest testimonies). At most, they might want to clarify things found in the press if they thought it was for the public good (i.e. Pizer and Leather Apron), but in all probability, what was printed in a newspaper would be irrelevant to them as it was not given under oath and lying to the press isn't an offence. Also, I doubt Baxter read the Star, so we can't even be sure Baxter was even aware of that article in the first place.

- Jeff