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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.).

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.