Who do you credit as the most reliable witnesses?

[Varqm]

You can’t mould the criteria of an inquest simply to suit yourself. An inquest transparently isn’t a murder inquiry. 4 aims, that is all. Schwartz could contribute to none of them. Fact.

Have you read the Coroner's Act?

[Varqm]

And for the umpteenth time “no he wouldn’t.” You are so wrong on this it’s difficult to understand it without thinking that you have some agenda for discrediting Schwartz. Of all the ‘options’ you go for the one that we have concrete evidence against!

Swanson - October 19th:

“If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it,”

Abberine - November 1st:

“and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.”

Please point out where it’s said that Schwartz was submitted as a witness. And please don’t try using this minor error by Anderson (in which also he also confirms that the police believed Schwartz by the way:

“With ref. to yr letter &c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St.”

Everything tells us that the police were treating Schwartz as a valuable witness well after the inquest. I fail to see how you can ignore this. It’s obvious stuff.


I only made a suggestion that he might a fled. He would have needed a summons to appear at the inquest. How could he have received a summons if he wasn’t at the address that he gave? Straightforward stuff I’d have thought.

That Schwartz didn’t appear at the inquest because he wasn’t believed by the police is an absolute non-starter. I don’t know why w waste time discussing it. It can and should be ignored. The answer lies elsewhere.

The Coroner did not believe in Schwartz to put him in the inquest for good reasons,the police were wrong .From the horse's mouth rather than gauging whether the witness was telling the truth or not.

[Elamarna]

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.

Sorry, the inquest is entirely separate from the murder inquiry. That you think it is part of a murder inquiry is the problem.

Other witnesses give a window for the TOD, Schwartz is NOT essential to the decision of the inquest jury, it does not add to where the murder occurred, or who committed the crime. It may I agree refine the time, but only by a few minutes, and given the vagaries of timing that adds little.
Such in NO WAY, would alter the inquest verdict.

He certainly would be essential for a criminal trial, but this is an Inquest, not a criminal trial , do you really not see the difference.

Steve

[Varqm]

Sorry, the inquest is entirely separate from the murder inquiry. That you think it is part of a murder inquiry is the problem.

Other witnesses give a window for the TOD, Schwartz is NOT essential to the decision of the inquest jury, it does not add to where the murder occurred, or who committed the crime. It may I agree refine the time, but only by a few minutes, and given the vagaries of timing that adds little.
Such in NO WAY, would alter the inquest verdict.

He certainly would be essential for a criminal trial, but this is an Inquest, not a criminal trial , do you really not see the difference.

Steve

Have you read the Coroner's Act? Sure PC Robinson,PC Hutt,PC Coram,PC mizen they could answer the who ,where ,when, how.Sure.How about Mogue Cheeks,Patrick Mulshaw,Emma Green,Walter Purkiss.

[Elamarna]

The Coroner did not believe in Schwartz to put him in the inquest for good reasons,the police were wrong .From the horse's mouth rather than gauging whether the witness was telling the truth or not.

That's simply YOUR opinion.
It is I respectfully suggest flawed by your confirmation bias.

That you believe Baxter could reach a conclusion simply by reading a police statement and a sensational press story, which allowed him to dismiss Schwartz, without questioning him is simply a fiction you have convinced yourself of.
And yes I have read the coroner's act.

It's very possible I submit, that Schwarz was not called, at least in public, because the police requested it, to assist in the actual Murder inquiry.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Have you read the Coroner's Act? Sure PC Robinson,PC Hutt,PC Coram,PC mizen they could answer the who ,where ,when, how.Sure.How about Mogue Cheeks,Mulshaw,

It's clear my friend that your interpretation of the coroner's act is different to that of many others.

None of those you mention are similar to Schwartz, none have information that could in theory identify the attacker/murderer.

There is no reason for any coroner to be asked, NOT to call any of them.
Schwartz is very different, he is potentially THE key witness. His evidence in court could potentially convict the perpetrator of the crime.
In such cases, the key witness is often protected/excluded from the public gaze before the criminal trial, and such often continues after the criminal Trial.

Say you think that's improbable, that's fair enough. But, you say such is impossible. That such as no basis, or that the hearing of evidence in camera, also as no basis is simply you attempting to present you view as fact, when it's simply your opinion.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have you read the Coroner's Act?

Yes thank you. Please stop using it. You misinterpreted it as DO showed conclusively.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Coroner did not believe in Schwartz to put him in the inquest for good reasons,the police were wrong .From the horse's mouth rather than gauging whether the witness was telling the truth or not.

What ‘horses mouth?’

Produce one statement where the coroner or a police officer says that they left him out of the inquest because he wasn’t believed.

You won’t because there isn’t one….as we all know.

You’re simply making things up. You must have some kind of theory. It’s the only explanation for this kind of nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have you read the Coroner's Act? Sure PC Robinson,PC Hutt,PC Coram,PC mizen they could answer the who ,where ,when, how.Sure.How about Mogue Cheeks,Patrick Mulshaw,Emma Green,Walter Purkiss.

Its also the case that a coroner was supposed to take evidence from anyone who tendered their evidence. How do you know that the 4 that you mentioned didn’t just turn up without being requested and ask to give evidence?

[JeffHamm]

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.

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

[c.d.]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If any witness cast ‘doubt’ on Schwartz statement it was Fanny Mortimer who claimed that the street was empty at 12.45 when Schwartz said that he witnessed the incident. So if the police didn’t trust Schwartz why didn’t they call Mortimer to the inquest…..or did they think that she was untrustworthy too? It makes no sense.

Also, even if the coroner had taken evidence from a supposedly untrustworthy witness (Schwartz) how would that in any way have affected either the inquest outcome or their own investigation? It wouldn’t have….so they had no reason to withhold him because he might have been ‘untrustworthy.’ And why didn’t they withhold Malcolm or Maxwell from the Kelly inquest?

Also, why would the police bother withholding a witness when it was the case that anyone could show up at the inquest and ask to give evidence? They could have been ‘unreliable’ too. It’s why they have a jury.

[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?

[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.

[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.