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

[Lechmere]

I think guessing is the wrong word. The Home Office were acting as back seat drivers – asking whether attempts had been made to trace a man called Lipski (based on Swanson’s report regarding Schwartz) and for further information about a suspicious medical student.
The Home Office wanted to know whether a possible Lipski search was one of the ‘searching enquires’ (quoting Warren, with I suspect a little sarcasm) that had been made.

[Stewart P Evans]

As we know...

As we know the Home Office did think that part of Swanson's report (apropos of Schwartz) was 'rather confused'.

They analysed what Swanson said about Schwartz and constructed a timeline in an unusually long marginal annotation. There was another annotation with regard to the cry of 'Lipski'.

I find it rather significant that the parts of Swanson's report concerning Schwartz were the ones chiefly queried by the Home Office.

The Home Office queries were, of course, followed by a letter to the police. That Matthews was very concerned about the alleged cry of 'Lipski' would seem natural when seen in light of the controversy over the condemned Jew of the previous year.

It is obvious that the Home Office regarded Schwartz's evidence as a major clue and that 'it might lead to something of importance'. There are so many factors to consider when trying to establish the final status of Schwartz.

The only clues we have with regard to this dilemma is the fact that Schwartz did not appear at the inquest, nor was his evidence heard, and this should be impossible if he was still regarded as a credible witness at the time the inquest was being heard.

The problem is exacerbated by Swanson's 19 October comment, 'If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it...', which comment resulted in the Home Office marginal query.

[Stewart P Evans]

I expect better...

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

I expect better than such a remark from you Chris.

I have already explained that I am not prepared to launch into a lengthy, and necessarily speculative, explanation of what I feel was going on here. In that sense perhaps I shouldn't have even contributed to this thread.

Far from being a 'poor mortal' (such sarcasm from someone I hold, and have always held, in high esteem) I am as fallible as the next man.

Perhaps you (and I) have been around these boards for too long and with that I shall exit this thread.

[Chris]

The problem is exacerbated by Swanson's 19 October comment, 'If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it...', which comment resulted in the Home Office marginal query.

I don't think it is a query. I think it's a note to clarify what Swanson was saying, because one of his sentences is difficult to follow:
"At the same time account must be taken of the fact that the throat only of the victim was cut in this instance which measured by time, considering meeting (if with a man other than Schwartz saw) the time for the agreement and the murderous action would I think be a question of so many minutes, five at least, ten at most, so I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer, although it is clearly the more probable of the two."

[Chris]

I have already explained that I am not prepared to launch into a lengthy, and necessarily speculative, explanation of what I feel was going on here. In that sense perhaps I shouldn't have even contributed to this thread.

Even a brief explanation would have been interesting. But if you're not willing to provide more than hints that people can't understand, then people are bound to find that frustrating.

[Stewart P Evans]

Querying

As far as I can see it was a query as to the exact meaning or accuracy of Swanson's words (they felt they were confusing). But call it a note if you wish. It certainly led to further questions.

Matthews certainly regarded it as a clue, and said so, and his pointed observation that he 'presumed' it was 'one of the suggestions' with regard to which the police had made 'searching enquiries' but with 'no tangible results' being obtained 'as regards the detection of the murderer...'

Anderson, as I previously pointed out, had written on 23 October 1888, for the information of the Home Office, 'That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal, is unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.'

Surely the police statements to the Home Office, given what Swanson and Anderson wrote, were rather contradictory. Swanson described the clue supplied by Schwartz, whilst Anderson wrote, four days later (on the day the Stride inquest concluded), that the police did not have 'the slightest clue of any kind.'

[Chris]

As far as I can see it was a query as to the exact meaning or accuracy of Swanson's words (they felt they were confusing). But call it a note if you wish. It certainly led to further questions.

Matthews certainly regarded it as a clue, and said so, and his pointed observation that he 'presumed' it was 'one of the suggestions' with regard to which the police had made 'searching enquiries' but with 'no tangible results' being obtained 'as regards the detection of the murderer...'

Anderson, as I previously pointed out, had written on 23 October 1888, for the information of the Home Office, 'That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal, is unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.'

Surely the police statements to the Home Office, given what Swanson and Anderson wrote, were rather contradictory. Swanson described the clue supplied by Schwartz, whilst Anderson wrote, four days later (on the day the Stride inquest concluded), that the police did not have 'the slightest clue of any kind.'

I suppose it depends what Anderson would have regarded as a "clue". Why wouldn't your objection also apply to the description given by Lawende, for example?

[Garry Wroe]

'If Schwartz is to be believed' seems to my mind to be another way of saying 'Assuming Schwartz's story to be true'. If so, Swanson wasn't casting doubt on Schwartz's narrative, he was merely exercising caution with regard to a story that was probably true but not provably so.

[lynn cates]

might be

Hello Colin.

"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."

I appreciate the qualifying word here, as well as your judiciousness.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Newton et al

Hello Dusty. Thanks.

Very well. But I find it a bit less than credible that they are self-referring here.

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

I recall the words of Sir Isaac Newton--"Hypothesis non fingo." (I do not make guesses.)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

more, then

Hello Harry. Thanks.

"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."

Very well. But, given so many statements fall under that rubric, why not attach that subjunctive to all?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

cautious

Hello Chris.

"So I think the phrase should be taken at face value. . ."

As do I. It looks very cautious. We should be as well, I think.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

well put

Hello Stewart.

"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..."

Exceptionally well put.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

goes for me

Hello (again) Stewart.

""I find it rather significant that the parts of Swanson's report concerning Schwartz were the ones chiefly queried by the Home Office."

So do I.

"It is obvious that the Home Office regarded Schwartz's evidence as a major clue and that 'it might lead to something of importance'. There are so many factors to consider when trying to establish the final status of Schwartz."

Yes.

"The only clues we have with regard to this dilemma is the fact that Schwartz did not appear at the inquest, nor was his evidence heard, and this should be impossible if he was still regarded as a credible witness at the time the inquest was being heard."

Precisely.

"The problem is exacerbated by Swanson's 19 October comment, 'If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it...', which comment resulted in the Home Office marginal query."

Quite.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Anderson

Hello (yet again) Stewart.

"Anderson wrote, four days later (on the day the Stride inquest concluded), that the police did not have 'the slightest clue of any kind."

Which seems to say a good bit about how Anderson perceived the Schwartz story.

Cheers.
LC