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

[Wickerman]

Just going back to this suggestion, the key sentence is:
"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows ..."

Grammatically speaking, doesn't "it" have to refer to "his statement"? Strictly speaking (and I think educated Victorians tended to be fairly strict about grammar) I'm not sure there's anything else in the sentence it could refer to.

Indeed, and this is the way we have traditionally chosen to interpret the meaning.

Swanson rarely provides his personal opinion in his reports, and as we read elsewhere when introducing the statement of a witness, any witness, even Schwartz several paragraphs earlier, Swanson does not begin with the cautionary "if".
Yet, for some reason when the subject comes down to determining whether PC Smith & Israel Schwartz have seen the same man, or two different men, Swanson introduces this enigmatic line.
"If Schwartz is to be believed"

What doubt is he being cautionary about?, and then, in the very next sentence, why try to allay any fears of doubt?

Let me try this another way.
If the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon his story, then what specifically is Swanson alluding to which has cast some doubt on his story, evidenced by the enigmatic line above?

I guess my point is whether Swanson is aware of doubts that have surfaced elsewhere.

[lynn cates]

knowledge

Hello Mike.

"[W]hy lead with Wess?"

Because he knew a great deal about the IWMEC?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

options

Hello Harry.

""If Schwartz is to be believed? Believed about what? Well simply about being in Berner St about 12.45 AM,and seeing an incident between a man and a woman, because that is what he said."

Precisely.

"Who believed/believes him. Well I do for one. . ."

Very right and proper. Each must listen to testimony and weigh it for himself or herself.

". . .and it has to be believed. . ."

Why must it?

". . .because there is nothing else."

Nothing at all? What about bracketing the entire story and keeping it in suspension until further details emerge?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

in league

Hello Ed.

"therefore the only sensible conclusion is that Schwartz was not regarded as a discredited witness."

Quite.

"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."

Again, we agree. There were doubts--but that certainly does NOT entail dismissal.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

for the argument

Hello Chris. Thanks.

"Rather than reading things into Swanson's report on the basis of what the Star said. . ."

Am I doing that? Swanson begins with the subjunctive, "IF Schwartz is to be believed. . ." I see nothing analogous in the remainder of his report. So why does he put it this way?

". . .I'm inclined to doubt the accuracy of the Star's report on the basis of what Swanson said."

Not sure how this can be done?

But let's say, for the argument, that the report is erroneous. Which of the following are you suggesting:

1. Their reporter never bothered to go to Leman st and chat up a copper/s--he thought it easier to make up a story from whole cloth?

2. The person/s contacted claimed, "We haven't the slightest doubt about this story and shall pursue it until contrary evidence is found" and the reporter misheard it?

3. Something else?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Im am really pleased to see the direction of the discussion here...we need more skeptics.

Dr Strange made a comment about Krantz at the Inquest in his review of who was asked to appear, I'll insert again that Mary Malcolm took a great deal of time to deal with her story which the police already knew had no connection with the deceased...she had been identified. Wess also was the first witness called....someone who had zero value as a witness in Strides murder...he didn't see her, he didn't see anyone, and he left at 12:15am, ...we have at least one witness that saw her alive after that, at 12:35, and one that found her dead...so, why lead with Wess?

Cheers

[lynn cates]

Star

Hello Dusty.

"[T]here is nothing in the official documentation we have that specifically disputes the police belief in Schwartz's statement to them."

Quite. And I believe that Swanson makes specific reference to this phenomenon.

"Given that The Star's reporter would have approached the police with their version of the Schwartz story, it should be of no surprise to anybody that the police would have reason to doubt the truth of The Star's version of the story, as it differed from theirs and we know they were not releasing their version to the press."

Are you seriously suggesting that the Leman doubts were of "The Star"--not Schwartz--and yet "the Star" published the story which, in the end, was deleterious to themselves?

"Was [Krants] a last minute substitute for Schwartz?"

I find that highly unlikely. Substitute in what respect?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

cautious

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"I'm thinking Swanson is being cautious about believing Schwartz as a whole.
For what other reason would he use the qualifier "if" to begin the line?"

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.

Inductively, these are the sorts of things that would weigh on an investigator's mind. Moreover, when "Lipsky" is correctly seen as a racial slur and that BSM was "a drunken Gentile bully," it takes no particular genius to wonder--perhaps aloud--whether this were not concocted merely to save problems for the club.

To put it another way. In one of my favourite Cadfael episodes, the under sheriff, Hugh Berengar, is asking a mother about her son. She claims she can vouch for him. Hugh smiles benignly and says, "What mother wouldn't?"

Cheers.
LC

[harry]

If Schwartz is to be believed?Believed about what?Well simply about being in Berner St about 12.45AM,and seeing an incident between a man and a woman,because that is what he said.Who believed/believes him.Well I do for one,and it has to be belief, because there is nothing else.

[Chris]

Might I suggest you read the whole context beginning at the previous paragraph with:

The description of the man seen by the P.C......

If you begin here, I think you may observe a slightly different interpretation of Swanson's subsequent phrase "...no doubt about it.."

My understanding (on re-reading this) is that Swanson is referring to the dilemma of whether Schwartz & P.C. Smith are referring to the same suspect.
Swanson concludes that the police report casts no doubt about the fact that the two descriptions are not the same man.

Swanson is not saying the whole statement by Schwartz is beyond doubt, but it is beyond doubt that two different men are being described. However, the caveat is, "if Schwartz is to be believed", which might reflect some recent reservations?

Just going back to this suggestion, the key sentence is:
"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows ..."

Grammatically speaking, doesn't "it" have to refer to "his statement"? Strictly speaking (and I think educated Victorians tended to be fairly strict about grammar) I'm not sure there's anything else in the sentence it could refer to.

[Lechmere]

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.
.

[Chris]

Let me try a different tack. If we look closely at Swanson's report (and a few others) we see most coverage given to Packer and Schwartz.

Was Packer's story discredited? No. But he was easily led about. So he was not taken seriously.

Now, by parity of reasoning, perhaps--in light of the doubts entertained by Leman st--the police have the same attitude towards Schwartz?

I'd draw the opposite conclusion from what's said about Packer in Swanson's report. Swanson makes it clear that Packer had contradicted himself and that his statements would therefore be "almost valueless as evidence".

Rather than reading things into Swanson's report on the basis of what the Star said, I'm inclined to doubt the accuracy of the Star's report on the basis of what Swanson said.

[drstrange169]

Re the official files.

Semantics aside,there is nothing in the official documentation we have that specifically disputes the police belief in Schwartz's statement to them.

The Daily Telegraph published an article on the 12th November stating it had the official internal police descriptions and, as it points out, the ONLY two descriptions the police were circulating amongst themselves for Elizabeth Stride's murder were P.C. Smith's and Israel Schwartz's.

Re the Leman Street police denial.

Our only source is The Star quote,

"...the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.."

Given that The Star's reporter would have approached the police with their version of the Schwartz's story, it should be of no surprise to anybody that the police would have reason to doubt the truth of The Star's version of the story, as it differed from theirs and we know they were not releasing their version to the press.

The mystery is Schwartz's non appearance at the Inquest.

What do we know of the witnesses that did appear?

Oct 1: Club members only
Oct 2: Lamb, Spooner and Blackwell, witnesses to the body in situ and Mary Malcolm, a witness to the body's identity.
Oct 3: More body identifying witnesses, Tanner, Lane, Preston and Kidney,
medical witnesses, Johnson and Phillips and finally the "knife" discoverers Coram and Drage.
Oct 5: Medics re-called Blackwell and Phillips, Olsson an identity witness, police witnesses Reid and P.C. 12 HR, pre-murder witnesses Brown and Marshall and Krantz.

The obvious day for Schwartz to appear was October 5th along side Brown and Marshall. So why was Krantz there? He had nothing of value to say, he should have appeared with the other club members on the 1st October if he was actually needed. Was he a last minute substitute for Schwartz?

If so why?

Well of course we don't know, but I could hazard a reasonable guess, if Schwartz was a religious Jew.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Are you saying his doubts were only about the accuracy of Israel's description?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
The toils of the day interupteth the debate

I'm thinking Swanson is being cautious about believing Schwartz as a whole.
For what other reason would he use the qualifier "if" to begin the line?

"If Schwartz is to be believed"

The problem I see is that the subsequent lines are a little ambiguous, they could be read different ways. The line which follows this could be a query or a definite statement.

Swanson could have began the line with, "The statement by Schwartz makes it clear, ..etc.", but instead he begins the line with a qualifier, "If".

I'm thinking he is being cautious about accepting his statement fully, not because he (himself) has doubts, but that he is aware doubts exist. In other words he is making a report at arms length, so to speak.
Swanson appears to avoid giving his own opinion in his reports, where possible.

What we do not know is whether the police did indeed bring Schwartz in for another interview after he gave that colourful story to the press introducing a weapon to the scene.

We have similar ambiguities of phrase also by Swanson when he is reporting on the contention between the evidence given by Dr Phillips, Richardson and Mrs Long in the Chapman case (Ultimate, p.68, 1st Ed.).

[DVV]

Glasnost : niet

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