Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A question regarding Israel Schwartz

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A question regarding Israel Schwartz

    Hello I'm new to these forums and I was wondering since Israel Schwartz refused to testify on the grounds that he didn't want to send another Jew to the gallows then why didn't the police charge him with perverting the course of justice?

  • #2
    Didn't Know

    Originally posted by Grim View Post
    Hello I'm new to these forums and I was wondering since Israel Schwartz refused to testify on the grounds that he didn't want to send another Jew to the gallows then why didn't the police charge him with perverting the course of justice?
    I didn't know that 'Israel Schwartz refused to testify on the grounds that he didn't want to send another Jew to the gallows', you obviously know something that I don't.
    SPE

    Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Stewart P Evans View Post
      I didn't know that 'Israel Schwartz refused to testify on the grounds that he didn't want to send another Jew to the gallows', you obviously know something that I don't.

      If you click on suspects and David Cohen it says this >>>

      The annotations, in Swanson's own hand-writing, begins at the bottom of page 138 (the passage about the witness who refused to give evidence against the suspect): "because the suspect was also a Polish Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.

      <<<

      Also I recently saw a documentary on youtube where it said that Shwartz refused to testify in court.



      That is part 1 of the 6 part documentary.

      It was very interesting.

      Comment


      • #4
        More Reading

        Originally posted by Grim View Post
        If you click on suspects and David Cohen it says this >>>
        The annotations, in Swanson's own hand-writing, begins at the bottom of page 138 (the passage about the witness who refused to give evidence against the suspect): "because the suspect was also a Polish Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.
        <<<
        Also I recently saw a documentary on youtube where it said that Shwartz refused to testify in court.

        That is part 1 of the 6 part documentary.
        It was very interesting.
        More reading to do then Grim?
        SPE

        Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Stewart P Evans View Post
          More reading to do then Grim?
          Huh? Are you poking fun at me?

          I'm just asking peoples opinions here, so there is no need to be like that.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Stewart P Evans View Post
            More reading to do then Grim?
            Hahaha.

            All the best

            P.S. Seriously, Grim, you remind me of myself when I started. The Kosminski-Cohen connection was what drew me to the case in the first place. But that was a long time ago. Most people here - and certainly Stewart - have heard all the arguments and what initially may seem compelling may not be so convincing after a further study. But don't let that destroy your enthusiasm.
            Last edited by Glenn Lauritz Andersson; 03-01-2009, 04:35 PM.
            The Swedes are the Men that Will not Be Blamed for Nothing

            Comment


            • #7
              Grim,

              according to Anderson and Swanson, a Jewish witness refused to testify against the suspect. The witness is not named, though it has been suggested (by noting contemporary testimonies and interviews) that this witness is possibly Schwartz or Lawende. I think another of the Mitre Square guys has also been suggested.

              Exactly WHO it was, cannot be ascertained.

              Comment


              • #8
                Fact

                Originally posted by Grim View Post
                Huh? Are you poking fun at me?
                I'm just asking peoples opinions here, so there is no need to be like that.
                No, more a point of fact. But I guess that it is a matter of personal preference in this computer age as to whether to ask others about a point or bone up on the point yourself before asking questions. You did no more or less than many others have done, and I gave my stock answer. But certainly there was no intention to 'poke fun' at you.
                SPE

                Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Another fact!......

                  Hi Grim,


                  Welcome to Casebook.


                  Look forward to posting with you soon!


                  Regards,


                  ANNA.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    God I love the internet.

                    People answering with semantically-correct answers, others people getting their feelings hurt whilst no one has actually tried to answer what is the crux of Grim's question:

                    Why, whoever Anderson's witness was, did he not get charged with perverting the cause of justice?


                    Now I'm not trying to pose the question for my own interest, just trying to help Grim steer the thread back to his intended topic.


                    No thanks needed.

                    My work here is done.
                    "Damn it, Doc! Why did you have to tear up that letter? If only I had more time... Wait a minute, I got all the time I want! I got a time machine!"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mort Belfry View Post
                      Why, whoever Anderson's witness was, did he not get charged with perverting the cause of justice?
                      haha, cheers.

                      Seriously though when I first read that I imagined what would happen today if I told a police officer that I didn't want to testify against a fellow Australian because I am also Australian.

                      I would imagine that (especially in the case of a murder) I would be thrown in jail for a very long time.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Grim View Post
                        Seriously though when I first read that I imagined what would happen today if I told a police officer that I didn't want to testify against a fellow Australian because I am also Australian.

                        I would imagine that (especially in the case of a murder) I would be thrown in jail for a very long time.
                        The trouble is that all we have is a much later claim that there was an identification and a refusal to testify. This has been debated at length in the past, and I think it's fair to say that most people don't accept Anderson's claim at face value.

                        The other thing is that - subject to correction by legal experts - I assume that there would be no question of punishing the person unless the case actually came to trial and he refused to go into the witness box. At least we do know for sure that no such trial took place.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X