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

[Stewart P Evans]

Clue

Stewart
I think perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "objection". I meant your observation that the police statements were contradictory (on the assumption that Anderson would have viewed Schwartz's information as a "clue").
I wasn't referring to later identification attempts - just asking why the same observation wouldn't have applied equally to Lawende's description.

I have given the reason why I feel that Anderson did not regard Lawende's evidence as a clue. Schwartz's evidence appears to have certainly been a clue, a view to which Anderson appeared not to subscribe. Swanson, in the report, appears to offer it as a clue. An offer which Matthews accepted.

[Chris]

I have given the reason why I feel that Anderson did not regard Lawende's evidence as a clue. Schwartz's evidence appears to have certainly been a clue, a view to which Anderson appeared not to subscribe. Swanson, in the report, appears to offer it as a clue. An offer which Matthews accepted.

I'm afraid I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that Lawende's description couldn't be viewed as a "clue" because he doubted whether he would know the man again. It really does depend on what Anderson meant by the word. Perhaps the phrase "any clue being supplied by the criminal" indicates that he was thinking of something other than a witness description?

What Matthews is described as having referred to as a "clue" appears to be specifically "Lipski". There's an obvious reason why the police might not have viewed that as a "clue". And I can't see why Matthews should have attached precisely the same meaning to the word as Anderson anyway.

[Wickerman]

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.

Are you suggesting a word of caution is never, or should never, be expressed in a report to one's superiors?

[Chris]

Are you suggesting a word of caution is never, or should never, be expressed in a report to one's superiors?

Not at all. Whatever gives you that impression?

[Wickerman]

Not at all. Whatever gives you that impression?

What I am getting at Chris is, that if we are prepared to allow for an Inspector to include a cautionary phrase, where necessary, in a report to his superior, then why the reluctance to allow for this, in our present example?

We are still looking for some rationale to help us understand why such a seemingly important witness was not allowed to speak.

Somewhere, within the rigid structure of police procedure, there must be a crack in the armor.

[Chris]

What I am getting at Chris is, that if we are prepared to allow for an Inspector to include a cautionary phrase, where necessary, in a report to his superior, then why the reluctance to allow for this, in our present example?

For the reasons I've already set out above.

[Stewart P Evans]

Lipski

Indeed the part of Schwartz's story that included the cry of 'Lipski' is what particularly impressed Matthews as he thought it could lead to an identification, or even that both men may have known each other (the context in which this was described appears to indicate that both men were of Gentile, not Jewish, appearance, as Sugden concluded).

However, a good witness description is still a clue, so it is very strange that Anderson states, categorically, that the police did not have 'the slightest clue of any kind.' The fact that the police concluded that the shout of 'Lipski' was directed at Schwartz because of his obvious Jewish appearance and the fact that it was a known term of abuse used against Jews does not obviate the fact that the police had to look at both interpretations; that of a term of abuse, or a call addressed to a person named Lipski. But Schwartz's identification evidence was still crucial, for if a man named Lipski was traced (and the police did look for one) then he would have undoubtedly denied being there and Schwartz would be required to prove that he was.

If we accept Schwartz's statement as true and accurate I cannot imagine how Anderson could say they didn't have the slightest clue of any kind. The phrase 'that a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal' is subject to interpretation, for allowing a witness to get a good view of him when committing a crime amounts to the criminal supplying a clue. But I don't wish to become embroiled in semantics.

The phrase 'that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind' relates to the whole series thus far and if the police had in Schwartz (or Lawende if he was a strong enough witness and his description was good enough) a witness who could possibly identify the murderer, then they certainly had a clue.

This has, as you seem to feel also, become rather tedious and is something that a consensus of opinion will never be reached upon. It must be obvious now why I am reluctant to go into my own interpretations and opinion to any depth. It is undeniable that Schwartz did not give evidence at the Stride inquest, nor was his evidence taken into account at the hearing in any shape or form. That fact alone is enough to cast huge doubt upon what he had to say. My conclusion is that his story was found to be about an unconnected incident and thus discounted by the police, or he made a wrong identification of a suspect held at Leman Street Police Station the following day.

You are perfectly entitled to throw my opinion and conclusions into the bin and pursue Schwartz as 'Anderson's witness' and 'the identifier of Kosminski.'

[Chris]

You are perfectly entitled to throw my opinion and conclusions into the bin and pursue Schwartz as 'Anderson's witness' and 'the identifier of Kosminski.'

Actually, I don't think Schwartz was Anderson's witness. I think Lawende is much more likely to have been.

It's just that I don't see how the idea that Schwartz's evidence had been discredited can be reconciled with the later police records, and Swanson's report in particular.

[DRoy]

Mr Evans,

Thank you for providing your expert opinion. I know you didn't necessarily want to provide your opinion but I thank you for doing so as I believe your opinions mean a lot to both students and seasoned vets.

Out of curiosity, do you believe it possible/probable that Schwartz identified the wrong victim? You said he could have witnessed an "unconnected incident" but by that do you suppose he witnessed someone else being assulted? That has always been my belief since he didn't describe the victim but did say it was Stride after seeing her body. Too much of a coincidence in my opinion.

Thanks

Cheers
DRoy

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

If the police had discounted Schwartz's story, why on 5th November did Robert Anderson write in a draft letter to the H.O.—

"With ref. to yr letter &c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case . . ."

Which led to Sir Charles Warren writing on 6th November to the Under Secretary of State, H.O.—

"With reference to your letter of the 29th ulto. I have to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case . . ."

Regards,

Simon

[DRoy]

Chris,

Swanson's comments are not easily explained and can be interpreted in different ways. If he was commenting on the initial statement given by Schwartz which it seems he was, then yes Schwartz's statement was believable. However, something happened after that initial statement which made his statement of little value, hence he didn't testify.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Simon,

I have a better question for you...what would Schwartz have said at the inquest or what evidence would he have given that he didn't already share with the police? If he gave his initial statement to the police you'd assume that was fresh in his mind and he'd share as much as he could. What new info would he have given that he didn't already give? They could just as easily said that he gave a fantastic statement to the police and that should be satisfactory shouldn't it? No? If not, what would he have shared at the inquest that he hadn't already shared?

If I can steal Dave's word..."Bah!"

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

the bottom line

Hello Stewart.

" It is undeniable that Schwartz did not give evidence at the Stride inquest, nor was his evidence taken into account at the hearing in any shape or form. That fact alone is enough to cast huge doubt upon what he had to say."

And that, it seems to me, is the bottom line.

Are you suggesting that Schwartz was describing an event from another location?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

H O

Hello Simon. Could that have been just to keep the chaps at the Home Office happy? They were being heavily criticised for not having apprehended the killer.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

If the police had discounted Schwartz's story, why on 5th November did Robert Anderson write in a draft letter to the H.O.—

"With ref. to yr letter &c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case . . ."

Which led to Sir Charles Warren writing on 6th November to the Under Secretary of State, H.O.—

"With reference to your letter of the 29th ulto. I have to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case . . ."

I think this is where I came in. I'd better leave now.