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

[Chris]

Very possibly so. I am accustomed to speak in this manner myself. However, if this were his usual idiom and way of thinking, surely there must be many extant examples of this in his other reports/writings?

I think the problem is that there aren't very many discursive passages like this one in Swanson's reports - mostly they consist of fairly terse factual summaries. The closest parallel I can see is in the passage discussing the time of Chapman's death (already referred to by Wickerman), where he wrote "If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct ... if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct ..." But obviously that's not the same form of words he used in reference to Schwartz.

Of course, the passage about Schwartz is also discussing chronology. In fact, it seems to me that the aspect of Schwartz's statement that needed to be believed was the timing of the event he witnessed, and not the description he gave, because "If Schwartz is to be believed" is followed by a further "if" relating to the descriptions - "if they are describing different men".

[lynn cates]

Go Wess, young man.

Hello Mike. Thanks.

Certainly possible. But it looks like they are trying to get a layout, understand their politics, etc.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

doubt

Hello Chris. Thanks.

"it seems to me that the aspect of Schwartz's statement that needed to be believed was the timing of the event he witnessed, and not the description he gave"

Do you think that he may have doubted the 12.45 estimate?

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

It could have been as simple as he was mistaken when he identified Stride as the person he saw being assulted.

It would answer why he didn't testify and why he was not brought up again and forgotten about so soon. He gave descriptions of Pipeman and BSM but nothing of Stride. He didn't describe Stride at all until he viewed the body. Red flag.

Cheers
DRoy

[Chris]

"it seems to me that the aspect of Schwartz's statement that needed to be believed was the timing of the event he witnessed, and not the description he gave"

Do you think that he may have doubted the 12.45 estimate?

As I keep saying, I think if he knew of significant doubts about Schwartz's veracity (or accuracy), he'd have said so.

But what he is talking about is Schwartz being nearer to the time when the body was discovered than Smith, so I think that's the respect in which Schwartz needs to be believed for Swanson's conclusion to hold.

[lynn cates]

mothballs

Hello Chris. Thanks.

"As I keep saying, I think if he knew of significant doubts about Schwartz's veracity (or accuracy), he'd have said so."

Very well. Then I must join Jon in being puzzled by his locution.

"But what he is talking about is Schwartz being nearer to the time when the body was discovered than Smith, so I think that's the respect in which Schwartz needs to be believed for Swanson's conclusion to hold."

He does say that. He also notes that even Schwartz could have witnessed an event which was not the fatal one.

So, as always, the Schwartz story must be placed in mothballs (at least, that is what I must do) until his veracity is proven/disproven.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Contrary to some casebookers, the police (Met & City) might have understood that BSM and Sailor Man were one and the same.

I share the view that the two descriptions might be of the same individual; I wouldn't like to state it as a certainty though.

[DVV]

I share the view that the two descriptions might be of the same individual.

And Schwartz couldn't have heard of Sailor Man when he came forward.
Unless Lawende and his friends were involved in the Berner Street conspiracy.

[drstrange169]

Hello Lynn,

"...Are you seriously suggesting that the Leman doubts were of "The Star"--not Schwartz--and yet "the Star" published the story which, in the end, was deleterious to themselves?.."

Er.. yes!
As I understand the timeline:
Star reporter tracks down Schwartz late Sunday afternoon or evening, (as per the Star article).
Star publishes the interview close to the first edtions deadline.
Star thinks it's onto a great lead, sends a reporter to Leman Street for a follow up.
Leman Street discredits the Star's story about drunks, red moustaches and knives.
Star distances itself from the story in the next edition.

Nothing deleterious for the Star, just another story that didn't pan out for them with the scoop they hoped for. Matthew Packer anyone?
The Star may not have even contacted the police, the police themselves may have pulled a Star man aside and said, "that story you published about Schwartz's being chased by a knife wielding maniac is a crock of detritus!"


"...Was [Krants] a last minute substitute for Schwartz?"

I find that highly unlikely. Substitute in what respect?..."

No particular theory on my part just noted the odd set up and made a wild guess.

Krantz added nothing that hadn't already been covered better by more qualified witnesses and was out of sequence. All this on the very day that you would expect Schwartz to appear.

[harry]

belief

If I am to be believed Why would I say that?.Because in any situation on which I wish to give information,and I realise I am the only source,it is my word only that matters.There is nothing to prove my word.Substitute Schwartz for I,and Swanson's statement can be seen for what it is.Purely a statement which neither doubts ,nor questions,nor confirms the information given.

[Chris]

If I am to be believed Why would I say that?.Because in any situation on which I wish to give information,and I realise I am the only source,it is my word only that matters.There is nothing to prove my word.Substitute Schwartz for I,and Swanson's statement can be seen for what it is.Purely a statement which neither doubts ,nor questions,nor confirms the information given.

I do think that the job of police officers writing reports was to state the relevant facts explicitly and clearly, and not to indulge themselves in subtle hints and innuendo that could be unravelled only after elaborate guessing games like the one that's been going on here.

So I think the phrase should be taken at face value, without reading into it anything more than is there in black and white on the page.

[Stewart P Evans]

Summary Reports

Oh that it were so simple.

Lengthy summary reports, such as this one about the Stride enquiry by Swanson, were written for the information of the hierarchy. In this case specifically the Home Office. Ergo, one of the aims would be to provide a positive picture, as far as was possible, of the police investigation thus far and to deflect any possible criticism.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that a direct and provable falsehood would be included. However it certainly could be tendentious and, perhaps, slightly misleading. It would not be pure 'black and white'. After all we see that it did cause the H.O. Officials to start guessing...

I do not intend to go any deeper into arguing, or countering points that might be raised. I state this merely to provide my, I hope informed, opinion on this vexed subject.

[Chris]

However it certainly could be tendentious and, perhaps, slightly misleading. It would not be pure 'black and white'. After all we see that it did cause the H.O. Officials to start guessing...

Guessing about Schwartz's credibility? I must be missing those comments.

[Stewart P Evans]

Who?

Who said anything about 'guessing about Schwartz's credibility'?

It is more complex than that and, without getting into my own speculation, I don't intend to explain any further what I believe the true situation was.

[Chris]

Who said anything about 'guessing about Schwartz's credibility'?

It is more complex than that and, without getting into my own speculation, I don't intend to explain any further what I believe the true situation was.

Well in that case you'll have to make allowance for us poor mortals if we find it difficult to understand your cryptic hints.