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

[lynn cates]

flower

Hello Pat.

"So where did the flower come from anyway?"

Excellent question. Seems likely that:

1. She bought it.

or

2. A gentleman friend gave it her at the beginning of the evening.

What do you think?

Cheers.
LC

[Paddy]

The Flower

Hi Michael,

"Browns woman did not have a flower pinned to her....did the killer do that, or did PC Smith see someone else with a flower at 12:35am?"

Oviously one possible lead for the police to follow
So where did the flower come from anyway?

Pat.............................

[lynn cates]

police

Hello Dave.

"still, apparently believed in by the police"

Perhaps. Better, still believed by at least SOME of them.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Going with the evidence

And yet Schwartz still, according to all the remaining correspondence, still, apparently believed in by the police, a fortnight after the inquest is done and dusted...puzzling isn't it...

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lynn,

Well, the obvious answer would be that Swanson didn't consider Brown's statement useful enough to include in his report to the HO-- maybe even confusing.

He concentrated on descriptions circulated by the police and offered comparisons and options to display some pattern as to how the investigation was being conducted, while being as concise as possible.

Thats so illogical it hurts Hunter......How would that be the obvious answer when Brown does appear at the Inquest and Schwartz does not?

Browns woman did not have a flower pinned to her....did the killer do that, or did PC Smith see someone else with a flower at 12:35am?

Follow the evidence amigo...not your beliefs. Scwartz...not at Inquest...Brown, at Inquest.....so...what did they believe about the events of 12:45 as described by Israel, if they were not presented, noted, referenced or even mentioned?

Cheers

[Wickerman]

My point wasn't who originated the idea, but that it wasn't exclusive to Anderson on the 23rd October.

Hi, I had not realized this was what you were thinking.

Anderson's comment had nothing to do with the previous observation by Warren (as you call it, The Wider Picture), Warren was referring to the ongoing state of affairs from the first murder.

What Anderson wrote on the 23rd (ie; not having a clue) was his summary of the report written by Swanson on 19th Oct. which had been requested by the Home Office.

***

On the subject of Schwartz.

I may be mistaken but I was under the impression that the later sentence by Anderson where he wrote:

"...the activity of the police has been to a considerable extent wasted through the exigencies of sensational journalism, and the action of unprincipled persons, who, from various motives, have endeavoured to mislead us."

Had been suggested to 'possibly' refer to Schwartz, but I think the real meaning is:

Sensational journalism = The letter signed Jack the Ripper.
action of unprincipled persons = The subsequent avalanche of Ripper coorespondence.

Nothing alluding to Schwartz at all.

[lynn cates]

testimony

Hello Cris. Thanks.

Makes sense. I have never been overjoyed with his testimony either.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Hi Lynn,

Well, the obvious answer would be that Swanson didn't consider Brown's statement useful enough to include in his report to the HO-- maybe even confusing.

He concentrated on descriptions circulated by the police and offered comparisons and options to display some pattern as to how the investigation was being conducted, while being as concise as possible.

[lynn cates]

Brown

Hello Cris.

"And there's not even a hint of a possibly conflicting witness, James Brown, in Swanson's report."

Quite true. How do you account for this?

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Anderson simply meant that after all of these murders there was nothing of significance to go on, which was unusual. The murderer or murderers had left no clues. There were witnesses, but to date no apprehension of a solid suspect had resulted.

He did not mean the witnesses were valueless or discredited -- just no results.

Anderson was probably mistaken in his statement claiming Schwartz was at the inquest. He had not been in London during the first critical week after the Sept. 30th murders. If you carefully read Anderson's report, you see little real detail or substance. He forwards Swanson's report instead for that, and likely assumed this witness had appeared at the Stride inquest. He apparently didn't follow the inquest proceedings as most were conducted while he was abroad, with a long delay before the final session on Oct. 23.

In the end, it was the coroner's call anyway. And it wouldn't have mattered if Schwartz was believed or not. Baxter loved to trip witnesses up. He was a lawyer. It would have been to his benefit either way. Instead, there's not even a hint of this witness in all of Baxter's summary. And there's not even a hint of a possibly conflicting witness, James Brown, in Swanson's report.

[drstrange169]

Whoops!
That should read.
... decreases the odds ...

[drstrange169]

Ah ... I see want you mean, yes, the info was coming from the troops on the front-line so to speak.

My point wasn't who originated the idea, but that it wasn't exclusive to Anderson on the 23rd October. And therefore decrees the odds in the notion that Anderson was specifically referring to Schwartz.

[Wickerman]

"...Any conclusions which arrive at the Commissioners Office about the state of the investigation must first come from Insp. Swanson. That procedure was set up by Warren himself..."

That certainly sounds plausible except for the timing. When Warren wrote on the 19th, Swanson had only just been appointed to his role and had not issued any reports that we know.
In fact, I'd suggest that Warren's opinion about the total lack of usable clues to date was the very reason Swanson was given the job of coordinating all the evidence.

Indeed, but where did Warren get his information? - from the team of investigators. The direction of the flow of information was the same.

[drstrange169]

"...Any conclusions which arrive at the Commissioners Office about the state of the investigation must first come from Insp. Swanson. That procedure was set up by Warren himself..."

That certainly sounds plausible except for the timing. When Warren wrote on the 19th, Swanson had only just been appointed to his role and had not issued any reports that we know.
In fact, I'd suggest that Warren's opinion about the total lack of usable clues to date was the very reason Swanson was given the job of coordinating all the evidence.

[Wickerman]

I don't think that admission was an 'official line', especially not one originating from Warren.
That sad fact emanated from Swanson's office as a result of his assessment of all the police reports concerning the Whitechapel murders and was passed up the chain of command, rather than come down from the top.

Any conclusions which arrive at the Commissioners Office about the state of the investigation must first come from Insp. Swanson. That procedure was set up by Warren himself.