Would It Be The Job of the Police Or the Grand Jury to Discredit Schwartz's Testimony

[Stewart P Evans]

An Important Point

An important point in my reasoning is that in Schwartz the Home Office, especially Matthews, felt that at last the police had found an important witness with an important story to tell that may well lead to the identification of the murderer. This at a time when the baying hounds of the press were calling for the resignation of both Warren and Matthews.

[lynn cates]

compare

Hello Stewart. Thanks for sticking around.

"it would appear that he had a better sighting than Lawende."

Not to mention a purported fracas rather than a woman placing her hand upon a man's chest.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Well, if Anderson accepted the story at face value, would it not have been accurate to have remarked, "Other than what the witness Schwartz had to say, we have no clues about the killer"?

You keep coming up with more questions. I'm asking you what you think the comment says about how Anderson perceived the Schwartz story.

(Of course, you don't have to answer if you don't want to.)

[Stewart P Evans]

Anticipated

I suppose it depends what Anderson would have regarded as a "clue". Why wouldn't your objection also apply to the description given by Lawende, for example?

The anticipated next question. I really shouldn't still be here. I feel that some of the problems in these debates is the failure to see the full context of various issues.

One would assume that Anderson (Swanson's 'boss'), would regard the same things as clues as Swanson and the Home Secretary regarded as clues. A good witness description of a suspect (possibly the murderer) would always be a clue. The argument that Anderson would not see it as a clue is one raised in the past by Paul Begg (strongly favouring Anderson and the Polish Jew theory). It is an argument that in my view does not pass muster. Re-read, carefully, what Anderson says.

I didn't realize that I had raised an objection. In this context you should not compare Lawende to Schwartz. For a start, in the case of Schwartz we are looking at a statement and description being considered in October 1888, immediately following the incident. In the case of Lawende you are looking at a description being considered, again, in February 1891, over two years later (desperation on the part of the police?).

Like Schwartz's description of a suspect, the description given by Lawende was also circulated at the time. In fact it is rather significant (to me anyway) that we see evidence of Lawende being used later as a potential witness to identify a Ripper suspect whereas there is no evidence whatsoever that Schwartz was ever used.

We do not know if Schwartz, in his statement, said that he thought he would be able to recognize the suspect if he saw him again but, given the detail of the statement he made, it would appear that he had a better sighting than Lawende. In Lawende's case he stated, under oath, 'I doubt whether I should know him again.' As a qualified barrister Anderson would know that Lawende's doubt would be sufficient to render him virtually worthless as a witness at criminal proceedings, therefore worthless as a 'clue'.

Moving back to 1891, when the failed attempt to identify Sadler as the Ripper was made (using Lawende as the witness) further points arise. First it is obvious that the police were struggling to identify someone as the murderer and, if you like, 'clutching at straws'. A defence lawyer would immediately say of Lawende, 'If he doubted he would recognize the suspect if he saw him again at the time, then how could he recognize him over two years later?' Had Schwartz been used then an initial question would be, 'If he is such a good witness, why didn't he appear at the inquest and why wasn't his evidence considered by the coroner?'

It must be obvious that neither Schwartz nor Lawende would have been up to much as a witness over two years later based on a brief sighting, in the dark, and I have argued that the whole identification was carried out in the hope that the suspect would make an admission when confronted by someone who supposedly recognized him.

[lynn cates]

Shooting from the hip?

Hello Chris. Thanks.

And thanks for making that more precise.

Well, if Anderson accepted the story at face value, would it not have been accurate to have remarked, "Other than what the witness Schwartz had to say, we have no clues about the killer"?

Of course, it is possible that Anderson meant not a word of it and his denial of clues was merely shooting from the hip--which occasionally leads to shooting yourself in the foot.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

"It's been such a Long time. . ."

Hello Cris. Thanks for that.

"He certainly did this with Mrs. Long and Wynne Baxter had still called her in to testify at the Chapman inquest, even apparently putting more credence into her statement than the police did."

Indeed so. Of course, her timing provide a moment's pause.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Lynn

My question is what you meant when you wrote "Which seems to say a good bit about how Anderson perceived the Schwartz story."

What exactly do you think it does say about how Anderson perceived the Schwartz story?

[Hunter]

Chief Inspector Swanson spelled out the caveats involved with all of the civilian witnesses mentioned in his Home Office reports. He certainly did this with Mrs. Long and Wynne Baxter had still called her in to testify at the Chapman inquest, even apparently putting more credence into her statement than the police did.

[lynn cates]

remark

Hello Chris.

"So what are you actually saying that Anderson's comment indicates about his view of Schwartz's story?"

If I understand your question (and my report casts no doubt upon it--heh-heh), my remark was that Anderson claimed they had no clues. Perhaps I misread his remark?

But if they had no clues about the killer, then one wonders how highly Anderson regarded the story?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

caution

Hello David. Thanks.

I entirely agree--except, a (perhaps) better line would be, "Well, he looks very like the one I saw."

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Lynn

So what are you actually saying that Anderson's comment indicates about his view of Schwartz's story?

[DVV]

.

2. He doubted he could identify the man.

LC

Hi Lynn

and that just shows he was a reasonable man.
Actually, when you have briefly seen a man's face, it would be very presomptuous to swear that you can identify him.
You may even be unable to describe him.
But if you meet the man again, then chances are that you would say : yes, that's the guy I saw last time.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

veracity

Hello Chris. Thanks.

No, I don't think his veracity was ever doubted. If he were lying he would:

1. Need a motive.

2. Need actually to state something definitive.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Well, if Anderson were a good investigator, I think he may have had doubts.

Doubts about whether Lawende was to be believed?

[lynn cates]

doubts

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Well, if Anderson were a good investigator, I think he may have had doubts. And those accepting the reasons I laid out above.

Cheers.
LC