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

[lynn cates]

enterprising soul

Hello CD. I think you are right. All it would take is for someone to bring up the cachous and their role (as was done at inquest) and some enterprising soul might begin to wonder how they remained unspilled.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

parity

Hello Chris. Thanks.

"Which can hardly be weighed against the documentary evidence that the police were still taking his story seriously weeks later."

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?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello CD.

"But you would think that would result in a take it with a grain (or two) of salt rather than an outright dismissal."

From my point of view, that is precisely what happened. No dismissal, just a bit of puzzlement.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

We are reading a report that says the B.S. man threw her to the ground. Did Schwartz really mean to say pushed or shoved or she tripped etc.? Did they try to get an idea of how hard he threw her? It might have been like pulling teeth to get his story out of him seeing how a translator was being used. Coupled with the whole Lipski thing, on second thought the police might have said "you know, we don't know just what the hell this guy saw."

Kind of like Abberline and GH. Maybe at first blush they thought they had a legitimate lead but when the excitement died down and they looked at it in the cold, hard light of day they had a change of heart.

c.d.

[Chris]

"But you would think that would result in a take it with a grain (or two) of salt rather than an outright dismissal."

From my point of view, that is precisely what happened. No dismissal, just a bit of puzzlement.

But "a bit of puzzlement" wouldn't be an explanation of why Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest. And apart from Schwartz's non-appearance, the only indication that there was any problem at all with his story is a couple of sentences in one newspaper report. Which can hardly be weighed against the documentary evidence that the police were still taking his story seriously weeks later.

[lynn cates]

cum grano salis

Hello CD.

"But you would think that would result in a take it with a grain (or two) of salt rather than an outright dismissal."

From my point of view, that is precisely what happened. No dismissal, just a bit of puzzlement.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

muted

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Well, what impresses me is that the story is so muted. No wild charges; no definitive discrediting. Just a note that more was needed before proceeding.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

What exactly does "discredited" mean and how would his story become "discredited?" Who or what could discredit it? I doubt very much if he would confess that he made the whole thing up. The story might become suspect if the police had doubts as to his interpretation of what he thought he saw coupled with the difficulty of the translation. But you would think that would result in a take it with a grain (or two) of salt rather than an outright dismissal.

c.d.

[Chris]

Do you think he was aware of the purported doubts at Leman st?

I'd certainly hope so, if they were real doubts on the part of the police. But was the report in the Star accurate?

[lynn cates]

purported doubts

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Do you think he was aware of the purported doubts at Leman st?

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Agreed, but we need to add the words, ". . .in the report."

Oh, yes. Though I still think it would have been misleading to write what he did if he had been aware of significant doubts in other quarters.

[lynn cates]

agreed

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Agreed, but we need to add the words, ". . .in the report."

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

I mean if one doubts the entire story, one will thereby doubt the description of a made up person IN the story.

Yes. So, logically, whichever interpretation one adopts, Swanson must be saying that no doubt was cast on Schwartz's credibility in general. Because if it had been, that would also imply doubt about the credibility of the particular details of his statement, such as the description of the man he had seen.

[lynn cates]

main actors

Hello Cris. I have. Brown gets little play in the reports. The main actors are Schwartz and Packer.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

doubts

Hello Chris. Thanks.

I mean if one doubts the entire story, one will thereby doubt the description of a made up person IN the story.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

accuracy

Hello Jon. Thanks.

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

Cheers.
LC