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

[Hunter]

Has anyone noticed that James Brown's statement is not included in Swanson's HO report, even though Brown has already appeared at the inquest?

[Chris]

Is it possible that you are merging two distinct responsibilities?

Regardless of Swanson's professional opinion, it is Coroner Baxter who must decide whether to include him in the Inquest or not.
These two gentlemen may not have been in agreement.

I don't think I said anything about responsibilities or implied anything about whether the coroner and the police were in agreement.

[Wickerman]

..... I can't believe that Swanson would have written what he did if there were doubts about Schwartz's credibility that were sufficiently strong to exclude him from the inquest.

Hi Chris.

Is it possible that you are merging two distinct responsibilities?

Regardless of Swanson's professional opinion, it is Coroner Baxter who must decide whether to include him in the Inquest or not.
These two gentlemen may not have been in agreement.

***

Because the first session of the Stride Inquest was to be on the Monday, the reading of the police statements by the Coroner and the compilation of the Jury list & Witness list may have been a hurried affair on Sunday evening?

Schwartz's name may indeed have been entered on the Witness list initially. When the news story broke on Monday evening (Star & Echo) the Coroner, on being informed, may have approached the police concerning any reservations about this witness?

On the Tuesday the Star reports, that the police:
"...are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts."

Does this reflect a rumor that the authorities have developed concerns about Schwartz?
And, was it after this that Baxter removed him from the list?

[Chris]

I don't really see how the report of Schwartz's statement could have been expected to cast doubt on the credibility of the description he gave in particular, as opposed to the credibility of his story as a whole.

But I think I'd better leave this discussion to those with more time - and stamina - than I have.

[Wickerman]

And with this, we are pretty well agreed. And really, that is my problem with Schwartz. I have reservations about it.

Hi Lynn.

I must admit I have consciously chosen not to question the believability of Schwartz, based entirely on the apparent fact that, if it was good enough for Swanson then it should be good enough for me.

It is only when I take a step back and read the preceding paragraph where the correct(?) context emerges. I think there is another view available that has been overlooked due to all of us only quoting a snippet from the middle of an issue, instead of absorbing the whole.

It strikes me Swanson is indeed expressing doubts about Schwartz, but within the context of the possibility that two different men were seen at that hour.
"If we can believe what Schwartz is saying, then without doubt two different men were seen." (paraphrase).

[lynn cates]

nearly agreed

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Swanson then begins to discuss the issue of whether P.C. Smith & Schwartz describe the same man. It is within this context that Swanson warns "if Schwartz is to be believed", then there can be no doubt about the fact two different men are being described."

Completely agree.

"I'm suggesting the "no doubt" comment is purely with respect to these two descriptions being different."

Very precise. Thanks. And I would offer not "purely" but "inter alia." But at least now we know where our disagreement lies.

"But apparently, Swanson is aware of either his own reservations, or reservations voiced by other officers about Schwartz being believable, as a whole."

And with this, we are pretty well agreed. And really, that is my problem with Schwartz. I have reservations about it.

The tale, itself, is simple enough. A gentile (make no mistake there) bully--perhaps a bit the worse for drink, accosts a woman and begins a scuffle. IS flees (he HAD to--another man MAY have been in league with him) and cannot see how it comes off. Later, Liz is dead only a few feet from that spot.

Of course, the minor discrepancies (above all, the cachous) keep niggling.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

degrees of phrasing

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Again, "sufficiently strong" is a bit much. As also "exclude." (Not to split hairs, but how about "not include"?)

But I agree that we are accomplishing little here.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Yes, I agree that Swanson's conclusion about different men is being referred to specifically. However, he is asking about Schwartz's story. And it is the story--and one presumes ALL its particulars--which needs to be true, in order to establish, among other things, the difference of alleged suspects.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Swanson does begin that section by detailing the account given by Schwartz, yes. Then the account is broken by the introduction of a paragraph concerning Goldstein.

Swanson then begins to discuss the issue of whether P.C. Smith & Schwartz describe the same man. It is within this context that Swanson warns "if Schwartz is to be believed", then there can be no doubt about the fact two different men are being discribed.

I'm suggesting the "no doubt" comment is purely with respect to these two descriptions being different.
But apparently, Swanson is aware of either his own reservations, or reservations voiced by other officers about Schwartz being believable, as a whole.

[Chris]

Personally, it does not seem that the story was discredited. If one stays with "The Star's" language, it looks only like a good many questions had been raised--enough to cause his story to be placed "in brackets."

I might suggest, then, that this could explain part of the reason for his not being called to inquest.

I think we're starting to go round in circles here.

Whatever precise language you use to describe the situation, I can't believe that Swanson would have written what he did if there were doubts about Schwartz's credibility that were sufficiently strong to exclude him from the inquest.

[lynn cates]

compromise

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Yes, I agree that Swanson's conclusion about different men is being referred to specifically. However, he is asking about Schwartz's story. And it is the story--and one presumes ALL its particulars--which needs to be true, in order to establish, among other things, the difference of alleged suspects.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

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.

Sorry, but I don't see that at all. Maybe you could quote the full passage from the report and explain in more detail how your interpretation works.

[Wickerman]

Yes, but I can't believe Swanson would write "the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it" if he was aware that doubts had later been cast upon it. That would be positively misleading.

Chris & Lynn.

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?

Tell me what you think...

[lynn cates]

suggestion

Hello Chris. Thanks.

I think I see what you mean.

Personally, it does not seem that the story was discredited. If one stays with "The Star's" language, it looks only like a good many questions had been raised--enough to cause his story to be placed "in brackets."

I might suggest, then, that this could explain part of the reason for his not being called to inquest. It might further explain why the story never made it into "The Arbeter Fraint" piece--given the status of the tale as "questionable," they may have wished to provide some distance between themselves and the story.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

"It amuses me when I read 'stick with the known facts' followed by a newspaper report."

Yes, perhaps a poor choice of heading on my part. Mea culpa.

My main point being, rather than a century-plus later speculation, the Telegraph claimed at the time to be in possession of police documents specifically referring to the holding back of witness information.

The contention between the press and police is readily apparent throughout the series of murders. The press consistently complain that the police are withholding information, and rightly so from their perspective.
To inform the press about details of the investigation is to also inform the murderer which they obviously are not willing to risk.

The Telegraph article is not suggesting that the police withheld info from the Courts, or the Coroner, only the press.

When viewed with a modern critical eye it is apparent the police at the time did not appreciate how they could utilize the press to assist them in their enquiries, as is the normal procedure today.
That said, even today certain details are still withheld when necessary.

[Chris]

Well, initially, they would have constituted little more than rumours. And, if you look at "The Star" report, there was nothing tangible.

But I wasn't talking about intangible rumours; I was talking about the possibility that Schwartz didn't give evidence at the inquest because his story had been discredited:
The question is why Schwartz wasn't called during that initial period of 1-5 October. When he wrote his report on 19 October, one would hope Swanson was aware that Schwartz hadn't been called, and if so he would presumably have known why. Yet he gives no indication in that report that any doubt had been cast on Schwartz's reliability.

That's what I can't believe - that Swanson could have been aware that Schwartz's story had been definitely discredited, while making that statement in his report that no doubt had been cast on it initially, and giving no hint that any doubt had been cast on it subsequently.