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

[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.

[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

[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

[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).

[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]

..... 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]

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.

[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?

[lynn cates]

accuracy

Hello Jon. Thanks.

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

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]

main actors

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

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]

agreed

Hello Chris. Thanks.

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

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]

purported doubts

Hello Chris. Thanks.

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

Cheers.
LC