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

[DRoy]

Dave,

I think Lynn said it earlier, it isn't necessarily that Schwartz is lying but for some reason his story was found not to be worthy. Whether it was location, time, or a translation problem, etc, I don't think Lynn has suggested anything specific.

Cheers
DRoy

[Cogidubnus]

Schwartz was not there. So perhaps speculation is idle?

Hi Lynn

Agreed Schwartz wasn't a witness at the Inquest...or are you suggesting he wasn't at Berner Street? I'm sorry but nobody at this stage can prove that conclusively...we can all surmise, but the truth is, at present there is no hard evidence and we really don't know...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

speculation

Hello Cris. Thanks.

Agreed. And that seems to be what Stewart has been saying.

Schwartz was not there. So perhaps speculation is idle?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

assuming

Hello Roy. Thanks.

Quite. He never made it there.

So we may assume . . nothing, perhaps? Always a good policy.

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Hunter,

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
A little learning is a dangerous thing

Ripperology 101

Sometimes its better not to know anything.

Cheers
DRoy

[Hunter]

People talking without speaking.
People hearing without listening.

Ripperology 101

Sometimes the sounds of silence have more clarity.

[DRoy]

Lynn,

Yes of course you are correct. The point being he didn't testify so we can only assume that none of the questions you asked were even relevant.

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

new information

Hello Roy.

"what would Schwartz have said at the inquest or what evidence would he have given that he didn't already share with the police?"

1. He might have decided whether the other lad had a pipe or knife.

2. He might have made up his mind whether the other lad was chasing him, or, alike, running FROM BSM.

3. He might have decided at whom "Lipski" was shouted.

4. He might have been able to recall the decibel level of a non-loud scream.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

If the police had discounted Schwartz's story, why on 5th November did Robert Anderson write in a draft letter to the H.O.—

"With ref. to yr letter &c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case . . ."

Which led to Sir Charles Warren writing on 6th November to the Under Secretary of State, H.O.—

"With reference to your letter of the 29th ulto. I have to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case . . ."

I think this is where I came in. I'd better leave now.

[lynn cates]

H O

Hello Simon. Could that have been just to keep the chaps at the Home Office happy? They were being heavily criticised for not having apprehended the killer.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

the bottom line

Hello Stewart.

" It is undeniable that Schwartz did not give evidence at the Stride inquest, nor was his evidence taken into account at the hearing in any shape or form. That fact alone is enough to cast huge doubt upon what he had to say."

And that, it seems to me, is the bottom line.

Are you suggesting that Schwartz was describing an event from another location?

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Simon,

I have a better question for you...what would Schwartz have said at the inquest or what evidence would he have given that he didn't already share with the police? If he gave his initial statement to the police you'd assume that was fresh in his mind and he'd share as much as he could. What new info would he have given that he didn't already give? They could just as easily said that he gave a fantastic statement to the police and that should be satisfactory shouldn't it? No? If not, what would he have shared at the inquest that he hadn't already shared?

If I can steal Dave's word..."Bah!"

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Chris,

Swanson's comments are not easily explained and can be interpreted in different ways. If he was commenting on the initial statement given by Schwartz which it seems he was, then yes Schwartz's statement was believable. However, something happened after that initial statement which made his statement of little value, hence he didn't testify.

Cheers
DRoy

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

If the police had discounted Schwartz's story, why on 5th November did Robert Anderson write in a draft letter to the H.O.—

"With ref. to yr letter &c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case . . ."

Which led to Sir Charles Warren writing on 6th November to the Under Secretary of State, H.O.—

"With reference to your letter of the 29th ulto. I have to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case . . ."

Regards,

Simon

[DRoy]

Mr Evans,

Thank you for providing your expert opinion. I know you didn't necessarily want to provide your opinion but I thank you for doing so as I believe your opinions mean a lot to both students and seasoned vets.

Out of curiosity, do you believe it possible/probable that Schwartz identified the wrong victim? You said he could have witnessed an "unconnected incident" but by that do you suppose he witnessed someone else being assulted? That has always been my belief since he didn't describe the victim but did say it was Stride after seeing her body. Too much of a coincidence in my opinion.

Thanks

Cheers
DRoy