Who do you credit as the most reliable witnesses?

[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?

[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]

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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[c.d.]

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.

Hello Herlock,

No, we don't know that with 100% certainty. You are committing the same logical fallacy as Varqm. Why not say we have no idea why he didn't testify but there is strong evidence it was not because the police disbelieved him?

The belief of the police is not the point. We don't know one way or another. That should be what we take away from this. Stack the evidence one way or another. That is fine but ultimately we simply don't know why Schwartz did not appear.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Hello Herlock,

No, we don't know that with 100% certainty. You are committing the same logical fallacy as Varqm. Why not say we have no idea why he didn't testify but there is strong evidence it was not because the police disbelieved him?

The belief of the police is not the point. We don't know one way or another. That should be what we take away from this. Stack the evidence one way or another. That is fine but ultimately we simply don't know why Schwartz did not appear.

c.d.

Fair point c.d.

[JeffHamm]

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?

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