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

[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]

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]

Lynn

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

[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

[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

[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]

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]

"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]

Anderson

Hello (yet again) Stewart.

"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.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

goes for me

Hello (again) Stewart.

""I find it rather significant that the parts of Swanson's report concerning Schwartz were the ones chiefly queried by the Home Office."

So do I.

"It is obvious that the Home Office regarded Schwartz's evidence as a major clue and that 'it might lead to something of importance'. There are so many factors to consider when trying to establish the final status of Schwartz."

Yes.

"The only clues we have with regard to this dilemma is the fact that Schwartz did not appear at the inquest, nor was his evidence heard, and this should be impossible if he was still regarded as a credible witness at the time the inquest was being heard."

Precisely.

"The problem is exacerbated by Swanson's 19 October comment, 'If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it...', which comment resulted in the Home Office marginal query."

Quite.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

well put

Hello Stewart.

"Lengthy summary reports, such as this one about the Stride enquiry by Swanson, were written for the information of the hierarchy. In this case specifically the Home Office. Ergo, one of the aims would be to provide a positive picture, as far as was possible, of the police investigation thus far and to deflect any possible criticism.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that a direct and provable falsehood would be included. However it certainly could be tendentious and, perhaps, slightly misleading. It would not be pure 'black and white'. After all we see that it did cause the H.O. Officials to start guessing..."

Exceptionally well put.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

cautious

Hello 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.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

more, then

Hello Harry. Thanks.

"Substitute Schwartz for I, and Swanson's statement can be seen for what it is. Purely a statement which neither doubts, nor questions, nor confirms the information given."

Very well. But, given so many statements fall under that rubric, why not attach that subjunctive to all?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Newton et al

Hello Dusty. Thanks.

Very well. But I find it a bit less than credible that they are self-referring here.

"No particular theory on my part just noted the odd set up and made a wild guess."

I recall the words of Sir Isaac Newton--"Hypothesis non fingo." (I do not make guesses.)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

might be

Hello Colin.

"I share the view that the two descriptions might be of the same individual; I wouldn't like to state it as a certainty though."

I appreciate the qualifying word here, as well as your judiciousness.

Cheers.
LC