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

[lynn cates]

cautious

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"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?"

Can't disagree with that. I'd like to think that Swanson--not to mention Abberline and the Leman lads--took the story at face value and pursued it. And rightly so. And, in my own humble opinion, I think they began to "feel" the minor discrepancies. For example, Abberline tried to verify to whom it was that "Lipsky" was shouted. Schwartz could not say. BSM was supposed to have thrown Liz down, but her clothing was not really consonant with that claim. She was supposed in a fracas, yet she held the cachous.

Inductively, these are the sorts of things that would weigh on an investigator's mind. Moreover, when "Lipsky" is correctly seen as a racial slur and that BSM was "a drunken Gentile bully," it takes no particular genius to wonder--perhaps aloud--whether this were not concocted merely to save problems for the club.

To put it another way. In one of my favourite Cadfael episodes, the under sheriff, Hugh Berengar, is asking a mother about her son. She claims she can vouch for him. Hugh smiles benignly and says, "What mother wouldn't?"

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Star

Hello Dusty.

"[T]here is nothing in the official documentation we have that specifically disputes the police belief in Schwartz's statement to them."

Quite. And I believe that Swanson makes specific reference to this phenomenon.

"Given that The Star's reporter would have approached the police with their version of the Schwartz 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."

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?

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

I find that highly unlikely. Substitute in what respect?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Im am really pleased to see the direction of the discussion here...we need more skeptics.

Dr Strange made a comment about Krantz at the Inquest in his review of who was asked to appear, I'll insert again that Mary Malcolm took a great deal of time to deal with her story which the police already knew had no connection with the deceased...she had been identified. Wess also was the first witness called....someone who had zero value as a witness in Strides murder...he didn't see her, he didn't see anyone, and he left at 12:15am, ...we have at least one witness that saw her alive after that, at 12:35, and one that found her dead...so, why lead with Wess?

Cheers

[lynn cates]

for the argument

Hello Chris. Thanks.

"Rather than reading things into Swanson's report on the basis of what the Star said. . ."

Am I doing that? Swanson begins with the subjunctive, "IF Schwartz is to be believed. . ." I see nothing analogous in the remainder of his report. So why does he put it this way?

". . .I'm inclined to doubt the accuracy of the Star's report on the basis of what Swanson said."

Not sure how this can be done?

But let's say, for the argument, that the report is erroneous. Which of the following are you suggesting:

1. Their reporter never bothered to go to Leman st and chat up a copper/s--he thought it easier to make up a story from whole cloth?

2. The person/s contacted claimed, "We haven't the slightest doubt about this story and shall pursue it until contrary evidence is found" and the reporter misheard it?

3. Something else?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

in league

Hello Ed.

"therefore the only sensible conclusion is that Schwartz was not regarded as a discredited witness."

Quite.

"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."

Again, we agree. There were doubts--but that certainly does NOT entail dismissal.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

options

Hello Harry.

""If Schwartz is to be believed? Believed about what? Well simply about being in Berner St about 12.45 AM,and seeing an incident between a man and a woman, because that is what he said."

Precisely.

"Who believed/believes him. Well I do for one. . ."

Very right and proper. Each must listen to testimony and weigh it for himself or herself.

". . .and it has to be believed. . ."

Why must it?

". . .because there is nothing else."

Nothing at all? What about bracketing the entire story and keeping it in suspension until further details emerge?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

knowledge

Hello Mike.

"[W]hy lead with Wess?"

Because he knew a great deal about the IWMEC?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

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.

Indeed, and this is the way we have traditionally chosen to interpret the meaning.

Swanson rarely provides his personal opinion in his reports, and as we read elsewhere when introducing the statement of a witness, any witness, even Schwartz several paragraphs earlier, Swanson does not begin with the cautionary "if".
Yet, for some reason when the subject comes down to determining whether PC Smith & Israel Schwartz have seen the same man, or two different men, Swanson introduces this enigmatic line.
"If Schwartz is to be believed"

What doubt is he being cautionary about?, and then, in the very next sentence, why try to allay any fears of doubt?

Let me try this another way.
If the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon his story, then what specifically is Swanson alluding to which has cast some doubt on his story, evidenced by the enigmatic line above?

I guess my point is whether Swanson is aware of doubts that have surfaced elsewhere.

[Wickerman]

Can't disagree with that. I'd like to think that Swanson--not to mention Abberline and the Leman lads--took the story at face value and pursued it. And rightly so. And, in my own humble opinion, I think they began to "feel" the minor discrepancies. For example, Abberline tried to verify to whom it was that "Lipsky" was shouted. Schwartz could not say. BSM was supposed to have thrown Liz down, but her clothing was not really consonant with that claim. She was supposed in a fracas, yet she held the cachous.

No firm conclusions here one way or the other - just fishing

What Swanson writes (in this particular line) is almost like he is saying..

I am aware of doubts about Schwartz, but nothing in his statement has proven false.

I'm intrigued as to why he chose the words he did, within the context of discussing whether there were two different men with Stride that night.

[Roy Corduroy]

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.

That's good, Lechmere.

Israel Schwartz was not discredited, but not corroborated either.

Roy

[Chris]

I'm intrigued as to why he chose the words he did, within the context of discussing whether there were two different men with Stride that night.

I think there is a danger of reading too much into a short phrase, which may signify nothing more than a police officer's natural distinction between things stated by witnesses and "definitely ascertained facts".

[lynn cates]

nub

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"What Swanson writes (in this particular line) is almost like he is saying..

I am aware of doubts about Schwartz, but nothing in his statement has proven false."

And this is pretty well the nub of what I have been contending.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

idiom

Hello Chris.

"I think there is a danger of reading too much into a short phrase, which may signify nothing more than a police officer's natural distinction between things stated by witnesses and "definitely ascertained facts"."

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?

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Dave,

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 ?

Bah... Lawende still testified though. Couldn't and shouldn't Schwartz have testified the same way by not describing the two men? Did he have nothing else of value?

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike.

"[W]hy lead with Wess?"

Because he knew a great deal about the IWMEC?

Cheers.
LC

Im sure he did Lynn, but the club itself wasnt the issue apparently, though the dead woman found in the passageway surely was. I also mentioned Mary Malcolm.....my thinking is that based on some comments by Stewart and others perhaps the Inquest was being prolonged until the story in question here could be assessed and investigated.

One would think that to open this Inquest it should have been Louis as the first witness, then Israel, then PC Smith, then perhaps Kidney. Wess's perspective wasnt at all of value in the murder investigation, and Malcolm being given the floor is a head scratcher indeed.

Unless of course they were "killing" time.

Cheers