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

[DVV]

I share the view that the two descriptions might be of the same individual.

And Schwartz couldn't have heard of Sailor Man when he came forward.
Unless Lawende and his friends were involved in the Berner Street conspiracy.

[Bridewell]

Contrary to some casebookers, the police (Met & City) might have understood that BSM and Sailor Man were one and the same.

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.

[lynn cates]

mothballs

Hello Chris. Thanks.

"As I keep saying, I think if he knew of significant doubts about Schwartz's veracity (or accuracy), he'd have said so."

Very well. Then I must join Jon in being puzzled by his locution.

"But what he is talking about is Schwartz being nearer to the time when the body was discovered than Smith, so I think that's the respect in which Schwartz needs to be believed for Swanson's conclusion to hold."

He does say that. He also notes that even Schwartz could have witnessed an event which was not the fatal one.

So, as always, the Schwartz story must be placed in mothballs (at least, that is what I must do) until his veracity is proven/disproven.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

"it seems to me that the aspect of Schwartz's statement that needed to be believed was the timing of the event he witnessed, and not the description he gave"

Do you think that he may have doubted the 12.45 estimate?

As I keep saying, I think if he knew of significant doubts about Schwartz's veracity (or accuracy), he'd have said so.

But what he is talking about is Schwartz being nearer to the time when the body was discovered than Smith, so I think that's the respect in which Schwartz needs to be believed for Swanson's conclusion to hold.

[DRoy]

It could have been as simple as he was mistaken when he identified Stride as the person he saw being assulted.

It would answer why he didn't testify and why he was not brought up again and forgotten about so soon. He gave descriptions of Pipeman and BSM but nothing of Stride. He didn't describe Stride at all until he viewed the body. Red flag.

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

doubt

Hello Chris. Thanks.

"it seems to me that the aspect of Schwartz's statement that needed to be believed was the timing of the event he witnessed, and not the description he gave"

Do you think that he may have doubted the 12.45 estimate?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Go Wess, young man.

Hello Mike. Thanks.

Certainly possible. But it looks like they are trying to get a layout, understand their politics, etc.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Very possibly so. I am accustomed to speak in this manner myself. However, if this were his usual idiom and way of thinking, surely there must be many extant examples of this in his other reports/writings?

I think the problem is that there aren't very many discursive passages like this one in Swanson's reports - mostly they consist of fairly terse factual summaries. The closest parallel I can see is in the passage discussing the time of Chapman's death (already referred to by Wickerman), where he wrote "If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct ... if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct ..." But obviously that's not the same form of words he used in reference to Schwartz.

Of course, the passage about Schwartz is also discussing chronology. In fact, it seems to me that the aspect of Schwartz's statement that needed to be believed was the timing of the event he witnessed, and not the description he gave, because "If Schwartz is to be believed" is followed by a further "if" relating to the descriptions - "if they are describing different men".

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike.

"[W]hy lead with Wess?"

Because he knew a great deal about the IWMEC?

Cheers.
LC

Im sure he did Lynn, but the club itself wasnt the issue apparently, though the dead woman found in the passageway surely was. I also mentioned Mary Malcolm.....my thinking is that based on some comments by Stewart and others perhaps the Inquest was being prolonged until the story in question here could be assessed and investigated.

One would think that to open this Inquest it should have been Louis as the first witness, then Israel, then PC Smith, then perhaps Kidney. Wess's perspective wasnt at all of value in the murder investigation, and Malcolm being given the floor is a head scratcher indeed.

Unless of course they were "killing" time.

Cheers

[DRoy]

Dave,

Bah... at the Eddowes inquest, Crawford wouldn't let Lawende describe Sailor Man. Why not trying to keep the Hungarian for themselves in the Stride case ?

Bah... Lawende still testified though. Couldn't and shouldn't Schwartz have testified the same way by not describing the two men? Did he have nothing else of value?

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

idiom

Hello Chris.

"I think there is a danger of reading too much into a short phrase, which may signify nothing more than a police officer's natural distinction between things stated by witnesses and "definitely ascertained facts"."

Very possibly so. I am accustomed to speak in this manner myself. However, if this were his usual idiom and way of thinking, surely there must be many extant examples of this in his other reports/writings?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

nub

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"What Swanson writes (in this particular line) is almost like he is saying..

I am aware of doubts about Schwartz, but nothing in his statement has proven false."

And this is pretty well the nub of what I have been contending.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

I'm intrigued as to why he chose the words he did, within the context of discussing whether there were two different men with Stride that night.

I think there is a danger of reading too much into a short phrase, which may signify nothing more than a police officer's natural distinction between things stated by witnesses and "definitely ascertained facts".

[Roy Corduroy]

Swanson's report was sent to the Home Office.
The Home Office picked up on the Schwartz aspect and asked for details.
Abberline provided the details and Warren replied.
There was opportunity to tell the Home Office that Schwartz was a false lead.
This was not happen, therefore the only sensible conclusion is that Schwartz was not regarded as a discredited witness.
However it would have been sensible to view with a degree of scepticism any witness statement that is not corroborated, and this can be seen in the manner Swanson discusses the matter.
This does not explain why Schwartz wasn’t called at the inquest, but that will remain a minor mystery.
My preferred answer is that he was held back from the initial sittings to keep his testimony secret at that stage, and then was maybe lost sight of by the time the inquest reconvened and so could not be called.
Usually things that look sinister or having some nefarious reasoning behind them are actually caused by cockups.
I think that may explain why Warren said Schwartz was called at the inquest when he wasn’t. I think he was dissembling and didn’t want to be accused of more negligence in the shadow of the graffiti issue.
It wouldn’t be because of the Jewish Sabbath as the inquest only sat on one Friday (from memory) and he could have appeared in the morning anyway.

That's good, Lechmere.

Israel Schwartz was not discredited, but not corroborated either.

Roy

[Wickerman]

Can't disagree with that. I'd like to think that Swanson--not to mention Abberline and the Leman lads--took the story at face value and pursued it. And rightly so. And, in my own humble opinion, I think they began to "feel" the minor discrepancies. For example, Abberline tried to verify to whom it was that "Lipsky" was shouted. Schwartz could not say. BSM was supposed to have thrown Liz down, but her clothing was not really consonant with that claim. She was supposed in a fracas, yet she held the cachous.

No firm conclusions here one way or the other - just fishing

What Swanson writes (in this particular line) is almost like he is saying..

I am aware of doubts about Schwartz, but nothing in his statement has proven false.

I'm intrigued as to why he chose the words he did, within the context of discussing whether there were two different men with Stride that night.