Who do you credit as the most reliable witnesses?

[Varqm]

You really do need to learn to read and not just to take chunks that you like and consider them in isolation. You are now the only person in the world who believes that an inquest was also a murder inquiry. Get a grip Varqm, you are talking utter drivel.

The only reason that I struggle to understand some of your posts (and I can guarantee that I’m not alone in that) is because they are so garbled. I realise that English might not be your first language but please don’t blame others for not being able to understand when you write poorly worded posts.

You're lost,you do not understand the section on murder and manslaughter in the 1887 Act.Answer the question why a lot of police witnesses and the witnesses I mentioned.

[c.d.]

Hello Varqm,

Do you believe Schwartz wasn't called to testify because the police believed his story to be a total fabrication or because he was uncertain of what he had seen due to the language barrier and his short time on the scene? Or was it some other reason?

And if his story was a complete lie can you offer any explanation of why he might have done so?

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're lost,you do not understand the section on murder and manslaughter in the 1887 Act.Answer the question why a lot of police witnesses and the witnesses I mentioned.

Clause 4 (1) of the act (which you repeatedly ignore)

The coroner and jury shall, at the first sitting of the inquest, view the body, and the coroner shall examine under oath touching the death all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge of the facts who he thinks it expedient to examine.

Then Clause 4 (2) which you always quote on its own.

It shall be the duty of the coroner in a case of murder or manslaughter to put into writing the statement on oath of those who know the facts and circumstances of the case, or so much of such statement as is material, and any such deposition shall be signed by the witness and the coroner


So what the act very clearly isn’t saying (to all but you that is) is that the coroner should examine anyone who knows anything about the case. What the act is saying is that the coroner should examine those that tender their evidence and those that the coroner feels it worthwhile to examine (toward the stated in law aims of the inquest) and that all depositions must be signed by the witness and the coroner.

…..

Ask Trevor if an inquest is a murder inquiry. Ask absolutely anyone the same question and you’ll get the same answer. You’ve simply misunderstood it and now you can’t bring yourself to admit it. The inquest aims again…

1. To give a name to the victim.
2. To state the date of the death.
3. To state where the victim died.
4. To state how the victim died.

That is it for an inquest apart from the fact that they can name a suspect to be investigated by the police (if BS man could have been named for example.) Failing this it’s ‘murder by person or persons unknown.’

And again, could Schwartz have contributed to the aims of the inquest?

1. Definitely not.
2. Definitely not.
3. Definitely not.
4. Definitely not.

Does that qualify him as the vital witness that you claim him to be?

Definitely not.

[Varqm]

Hello Varqm,

Do you believe Schwartz wasn't called to testify because the police believed his story to be a total fabrication or because he was uncertain of what he had seen due to the language barrier and his short time on the scene? Or was it some other reason?

And if his story was a complete lie can you offer any explanation of why he might have done so?

c.d.

The Coroner decides who to call to the stand,not the police,the police just shares their investigation or info with the Coroner, or instructed to find info by the Coroner or jury.The Coroner did not believe in Schwartz but the police did,although a segment doubted it.Its not known how long the police believed in Schwartz, It seems like ,on record,until at least Nov 1888.The police had made mistakes like Packer or Violena, and it seems clear Hutchinson.

Attention seeking.

Anyways as long as people don't understand the inquest was also a legal murder inquiry,it's hard to argue..I have had enough.

[Elamarna]

You're lost,the police submitted Schwartz testimony per letter and a crucial one at that.

Either Anderson was mistaken, which is certainly possible or the evidence was submitted.

If the later, then have a number of alternatives.

1. Schwartz was examined in person at the inquest by Baxter in camera.

While this is possible, the fact that the attack is not mentioned at all, suggests this is less likely than the next option.

2. After reading the evidence, Baxter agreed to a police request not to call Schwartz, to allow further investigation to continue.

This is similar to option 1, but it's not part of the formal inquest. Baxter would have to be sure that any evidence from Schwartz was NOT essential to the jury , reaching a conclusion of death between 12.30 and 1am, on Sunday , by person or persons unknown.

Such is I submit total realistic, reasonable and plausible.

3. Schwartz disappeared and was untraceable.

This must be considered as a possibility, however, there is nothing to support this option.

4. Baxter, without examining Schwartz, simply rejected him.

Such is not only unrealistic, it amounts to a dereliction of duty by Baxter.
He would place great value on the statement given to the police, especially as they clearly believed Schwartz.

With regards to the Star version, he would have to question Schwartz himself, to see if the differences in the reports, orare down to a translation issue, sensation press reporting or if there was a real discrepancy in Schwartz's account.

He clearly did so several times with witnesses in the Nichols and Chapman cases.
To suggest he would now simply take a press report, and use such to dismiss a police statement, without examination of the witness, is I am sorry to say fantasy.

Steve

[Darryl Kenyon]

I cannot agree that Schwartz not being at the inquest in anyway didn't affect the outcome. As far as murder by person or persons unknown that is true [ but that would be the same for Marshall , Brown etc ] . Prima facie the inquest expressly shows [ without Schwartz ], that Brown was the last person to see Liz alive , and not at the spot she was killed. That is extremely relevant.
The inquest was reported in all the national newspapers. Lets suppose pipeman read one of these papers. He may think that it isn't worth him coming forward [ Liz was after all talking to a man further down the street , so it couldn't have been her he saw being thrown to the ground ], He may also not know the time when he saw something on Berner st and perhaps thought it was earlier . But if Schwartz did come forward he would know his evidence would be important, even if he didn't see much.
Not only that but imprinted in the public's mind would be Brown's description of a man seen with Liz fifteen minutes before she was murdered and not Schwartz description.
Lets just suppose BS man was seen by another witness going along Fairclough st at quarter past one but he was just another face. That person is not going to come forward with what was said at the inquest , but if Schwartz had appeared. That witness could have come forward and been interviewed by the police and even Baxter after the adjournment.
Schwartz evidence is of more importance that Smith, Eagle, Brown etc Where she was murdered , better than Brown , when she was murdered better than Marshall etc

My own opinion of Schwartz is that he was not called because his evidence was being investigated and not completely taken at face value.


Regards Darryl

[Elamarna]

You're lost, its clear that it was also a murder inquiry, that's why the several police witnesses ,lewis, Connelly,etc..The section on murder and manslaughter is clear in the Act 1887,what happened during the evening and early morning of the murders,did the victim had enemies,maybe robbed,, domestic violence,etc.
You do not know what you are talking about.You cannot even answer how the witnesses I mentioned in another post answered the who where how when.

It is you who sadly are lost.

An inquest is NOT part of a murder inquiry.

A murder inquiry is carried out solely by the police force.

That you continue to fail to understand such is truly frustrating.

Steve

[Elamarna]

I cannot agree that Schwartz not being at the inquest in anyway didn't affect the outcome. As far as murder by person or persons unknown that is true [ but that would be the same for Marshall , Brown etc ] . Prima facie the inquest expressly shows [ without Schwartz ], that Brown was the last person to see Liz alive , and not at the spot she was killed. That is extremely relevant.
The inquest was reported in all the national newspapers. Lets suppose pipeman read one of these papers. He may think that it isn't worth him coming forward [ Liz was after all talking to a man further down the street , so it couldn't have been her he saw being thrown to the ground ], He may also not know the time when he saw something on Berner st and perhaps thought it was earlier . But if Schwartz did come forward he would know his evidence would be important, even if he didn't see much.
Not only that but imprinted in the public's mind would be Brown's description of a man seen with Liz fifteen minutes before she was murdered and not Schwartz description.
Lets just suppose BS man was seen by another witness going along Fairclough st at quarter past one but he was just another face. That person is not going to come forward with what was said at the inquest , but if Schwartz had appeared. That witness could have come forward and been interviewed by the police and even Baxter after the adjournment.
Schwartz evidence is of more importance that Smith, Eagle, Brown etc Where she was murdered , better than Brown , when she was murdered better than Marshall etc

My own opinion of Schwartz is that he was not called because his evidence was being investigated and not completely taken at face value.


Regards Darryl

The police clearly did accept the core of Schwartz's account.
The questions it seems were purely about who the cry of "lipski" or similar was made, and to a lesser extent if he was actually chased by Pipeman.

If Baxter had questions on any issues it was for him ask the witness, as he did with many in both the Nichols and Chapman cases .

All we know for sure is there is no RECORD of Schwartz appearing.

Steve

[Darryl Kenyon]

He clearly did so several times with witnesses in the Nichols and Chapman cases.
To suggest he would now simply take a press report, and use such to dismiss a police statement, without examination of the witness, is I am sorry to say fantasy.

Steve

But we have no evidence of this Steve. Swanson's report Oct 19 mentioned one interview with Schwartz and one only. Swanson almost certainly didn't interview him up until that point or he would have said so . And Abberline says in his letter dated Nov 1 " I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement "
He doesn't say I questioned Schwartz repeatedly or more than once etc

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

The police clearly did accept the core of Schwartz's account.
The questions it seems were purely about who the cry of "lipski" or similar was made, and to a lesser extent if he was actually chased by Pipeman.

If Baxter had questions on any issues it was for him ask the witness, as he did with many in both the Nichols and Chapman cases .

All we know for sure is there is no RECORD of Schwartz appearing.

Steve

I have to wonder about Swanson's statement about the police interview "Casting no doubt on Schwartz statement" . It really is a strange thing to add if Schwartz evidence was 100% cut and dried .

Regards Darryl

[Elamarna]

But we have no evidence of this Steve. Swanson's report Oct 19 mentioned one interview with Schwartz and one only. Swanson almost certainly didn't interview him up until that point or he would have said so . And Abberline says in his letter dated Nov 1 " I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement "
He doesn't say I questioned Schwartz repeatedly or more than once etc

Regards Darryl

Lost me Darryl,

I was talking about Baxter. How he questioned witnesses at inquests.

He clearly challenged many of the statements given, both official ones and ones in the press.

In Nichols alone he challenged, Spratling, Helson, both mortuary attendants, Mulshaw, Llewellyn. He challenged Lechmere over the other policeman story.

Oddly, Paul is not really challenged at all, but that's another debate.

In the Stride case the police statement would be available to him, that would allow him to challenge Schwartz. Unless the police withheld it.

IWhy would they do such, given that Abberline was present when Schwartz gave his statement. And Abberline believed the core of his account it seems.

Swanson, using that statement to write a report, mentions no reason not to believe Schwartz, indeed he actually says that.

The only reason to withhold in those circumstances is indeed to allow for further investigation, but not I suggest into the truthfulness of Schwartz.

Or they did not withhold, but explained there case to Baxter, and requested Schwartz was not called.


Steve

[JeffHamm]

No,I said how did you know Baxter does not read the papers.In the Nichols case he mentioned statements in the press by two men.
I said the Coroner did not deem Schwartz trustworthy,not the police.The police could not have been accurate in determining if Schwartz was telling the truth or not,that's why they invented the polygraph test for this reason.But what we have are two very different story by Schwartz in what happened.
Yes the inquest was a murder inquiry,read the section on murder and manslaughter in the Coroners Act 1887.There is more by I do not care to elaborate How did PC robinson ,PC Hutt,PC long,wilkinson,Sarah lewis ,the many mentions of the apron answer the how,who where,when?
Anyways whatever.

In some posts you said Baxter, but in the one closest to what I was responding to gou had said that all the police would have was the contradicting statements in the official statement and in the Star.

I asked you why the police would care what Schwarz said to the press given how unreliable the press was. I asked a similar question with regards to Baxter. You have not yet provided any substantiated reply to either.

Anyway, when you used "he" in the next post, I wasnt sure who you meant, but ut appears you had switched back to Baxter.

And no, a coroners inquest is not a murder investigation. It is an inquiry to determine the cause of death, which may include homicide. It us held in the case of a suspicious death. It is not an objective if a coroners inquest to investigate a murder but rather to determine if a murder has occurred; these are not the same thing.

Given you misunderstanding of the coroners inquest I can understand why you think Schwartz's absence must point towards disbelief, but given the actual purpose of the inquest, coupled with éxamples of a similar nature (listed by others) disbelief is a remote possibility.

- Jeff

[Varqm]

Either Anderson was mistaken, which is certainly possible or the evidence was submitted.

If the later, then have a number of alternatives.

1. Schwartz was examined in person at the inquest by Baxter in camera.

While this is possible, the fact that the attack is not mentioned at all, suggests this is less likely than the next option.

2. After reading the evidence, Baxter agreed to a police request not to call Schwartz, to allow further investigation to continue.

This is similar to option 1, but it's not part of the formal inquest. Baxter would have to be sure that any evidence from Schwartz was NOT essential to the jury , reaching a conclusion of death between 12.30 and 1am, on Sunday , by person or persons unknown.

Such is I submit total realistic, reasonable and plausible.

3. Schwartz disappeared and was untraceable.

This must be considered as a possibility, however, there is nothing to support this option.

4. Baxter, without examining Schwartz, simply rejected him.

Such is not only unrealistic, it amounts to a dereliction of duty by Baxter.
He would place great value on the statement given to the police, especially as they clearly believed Schwartz.

With regards to the Star version, he would have to question Schwartz himself, to see if the differences in the reports, orare down to a translation issue, sensation press reporting or if there was a real discrepancy in Schwartz's account.

He clearly did so several times with witnesses in the Nichols and Chapman cases.
To suggest he would now simply take a press report, and use such to dismiss a police statement, without examination of the witness, is I am sorry to say fantasy.

Steve

First of all an inquest was also a murder inquiry,right?

It would be more a mistake by Baxter not to put Schwartz in the stand if he believed him or believed he had any sort of credibility.Also ,seems to me, the jury has to hear Schwartz's testimony,it is the jury who decides the verdict and may want to hear or call more witnesses.
The Coroner can decide and determine who he wanted in the inquest stand.The ripper murders had so many attention seekers it was not unusual,it seems,for outright dismissal of a witness,Packer comes to mind.Schwartz's two statements were too different,read it again.

Did the Coroner talked to Schwartz,we do not know.

The Coroner mentioned a newspaper report about statements by two men in the Nichols case,so the Coroner did read newspapers.

[Doctored Whatsit]

You're lost,for the reason that the police would not be sure just by talking to somebody.whether that somebody is telling the truth or not,and statements not under oath at that.

If you are trying to say that people sometimes tell lies, and it isn't always possible for others to be certain if they are telling the truth or not, then obviously, everyone agrees. That is not disputed. But it is wholly irrelevant.

The police believed Schwartz for some time after the statement he made, and after the inquest, so we do not know why he did not attend. His failure to attend was not because the coroner read the article in The Star and believed it to be more accurate than the police statement. But even if he did, he would probably have called Schwartz as a witness to establish the truth. Several possibilities have been suggested, all of which are more likely than the idea that the coroner considered The Star more reliable than Abberline!

[Varqm]

In some posts you said Baxter, but in the one closest to what I was responding to gou had said that all the police would have was the contradicting statements in the official statement and in the Star.

I asked you why the police would care what Schwarz said to the press given how unreliable the press was. I asked a similar question with regards to Baxter. You have not yet provided any substantiated reply to either.

Anyway, when you used "he" in the next post, I wasnt sure who you meant, but ut appears you had switched back to Baxter.

And no, a coroners inquest is not a murder investigation. It is an inquiry to determine the cause of death, which may include homicide. It us held in the case of a suspicious death. It is not an objective if a coroners inquest to investigate a murder but rather to determine if a murder has occurred; these are not the same thing.

Given you misunderstanding of the coroners inquest I can understand why you think Schwartz's absence must point towards disbelief, but given the actual purpose of the inquest, coupled with éxamples of a similar nature (listed by others) disbelief is a remote possibility.

- Jeff

I always had this position even before this thread,you misunderstood,that it was the the Coroner who did not believe in Schwartz,he decides who goes in the inquest,not the police.
Have you read the section on murder and manslaughter in the Coroners Act,read it carefully.And how come there are lots of police witnesses,discussion about the apron,Sarah lewis,Mulshaw, pierce,Connelly,,etc.how did they help in determining the cause of death.How come there are timelines in the tabram and c5 inquests,with witnesses detailing what happened during the evening and early morning of the murders.
I'm done for now repeating over and over.