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

[Chris]

"So I think the phrase should be taken at face value. . ."

As do I. It looks very cautious. We should be as well, I think.

When I say its face value, I mean its literal meaning. Just what it actually says and no more.

The whole point I'm making is that we shouldn't read things into it by saying "it looks very cautious to me" or "it sounds as though Swanson was hinting at something he didn't want to say explicitly for some reason" or any speculation along those lines.

[lynn cates]

more

Hello Garry.

"'If Schwartz is to be believed' seems to my mind to be another way of saying 'Assuming Schwartz's story to be true'.'

Quite.

"If so, Swanson wasn't casting doubt on Schwartz's narrative, he was merely exercising caution with regard to a story that was probably true but not provably so."

But why, then, not advert more frequently to these same words in analogous contexts?

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

"Anderson wrote, four days later (on the day the Stride inquest concluded), that the police did not have 'the slightest clue of any kind."

Which seems to say a good bit about how Anderson perceived the Schwartz story.

But can you explain why you think it relates to Schwartz's statement rather than any other statement that had been made during the course of the investigation up to that point?

Or are you suggesting that Anderson didn't believe any of the witnesses who had given statements?

[lynn cates]

disregard

Hello Chris. Thanks.

"When I say its face value, I mean its literal meaning. Just what it actually says and no more."

I favour that as well. What he SAYS is literally an if-then statement. In logic, it is called a hypothetical. Proposition asserted seems to be: "If Schwartz is telling the truth, then . . ."

But I, as a few others, find it odd that he should choose this phrasing.

"The whole point I'm making is that we shouldn't read things into it by saying "it looks very cautious to me" or "it sounds as though Swanson was hinting at something he didn't want to say explicitly for some reason" or any speculation along those lines."

Very well. I am not in favour of "reading things" into the writings of another. So best to disregard this phrase?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Haven't a clue.

Hello (again) Chris. Thanks.

"But can you explain why you think it relates to Schwartz's statement rather than any other statement that had been made during the course of the investigation up to that point?'

But I don't. I think it refers to there being no clue about the perpetrator/s of the murders.

"Or are you suggesting that Anderson didn't believe any of the witnesses who had given statements?"

Believe the witnesses? Depends. I think he believed Wess when he stated that it was 18 ft from side door to gates, for example.

The problem is that this gives no clue about whom done the deed.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Lynn

OK. To be specific, what about Lawende's statement?

[lynn cates]

clues

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Very well. What about Lawende's statement? Are you asking me whether Anderson accepted it? Or did it provide a clue?

I think it obvious that his statement left much to be desired.

1. He THOUGHT the clothes were the same as those worn by Kate.

2. He doubted he could identify the man.

Clues?

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Very well. What about Lawende's statement? Are you asking me whether Anderson accepted it? Or did it provide a clue?

Whether Anderson's comment implies that he didn't accept it.

[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

[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]

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

[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

[Chris]

Lynn

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

[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

[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