A question regarding Israel Schwartz

[Grim]

Hello I'm new to these forums and I was wondering since Israel Schwartz refused to testify on the grounds that he didn't want to send another Jew to the gallows then why didn't the police charge him with perverting the course of justice?

[Stewart P Evans]

Didn't Know

Hello I'm new to these forums and I was wondering since Israel Schwartz refused to testify on the grounds that he didn't want to send another Jew to the gallows then why didn't the police charge him with perverting the course of justice?

I didn't know that 'Israel Schwartz refused to testify on the grounds that he didn't want to send another Jew to the gallows', you obviously know something that I don't.

[Grim]

I didn't know that 'Israel Schwartz refused to testify on the grounds that he didn't want to send another Jew to the gallows', you obviously know something that I don't.

If you click on suspects and David Cohen it says this >>>

The annotations, in Swanson's own hand-writing, begins at the bottom of page 138 (the passage about the witness who refused to give evidence against the suspect): "because the suspect was also a Polish Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.

<<<

Also I recently saw a documentary on youtube where it said that Shwartz refused to testify in court.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=Jack+The+Ripper+documentary+%28part+1+of+6%29&aq=f

That is part 1 of the 6 part documentary.

It was very interesting.

[Stewart P Evans]

More Reading

If you click on suspects and David Cohen it says this >>>
The annotations, in Swanson's own hand-writing, begins at the bottom of page 138 (the passage about the witness who refused to give evidence against the suspect): "because the suspect was also a Polish Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.
<<<
Also I recently saw a documentary on youtube where it said that Shwartz refused to testify in court.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=Jack+The+Ripper+documentary+%28part+1+of+6%29&aq=f

That is part 1 of the 6 part documentary.
It was very interesting.

More reading to do then Grim?

[Grim]

More reading to do then Grim?

Huh? Are you poking fun at me?

I'm just asking peoples opinions here, so there is no need to be like that.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

More reading to do then Grim?

Hahaha.

All the best

P.S. Seriously, Grim, you remind me of myself when I started. The Kosminski-Cohen connection was what drew me to the case in the first place. But that was a long time ago. Most people here - and certainly Stewart - have heard all the arguments and what initially may seem compelling may not be so convincing after a further study. But don't let that destroy your enthusiasm.

[John Bennett]

Grim,

according to Anderson and Swanson, a Jewish witness refused to testify against the suspect. The witness is not named, though it has been suggested (by noting contemporary testimonies and interviews) that this witness is possibly Schwartz or Lawende. I think another of the Mitre Square guys has also been suggested.

Exactly WHO it was, cannot be ascertained.

[Stewart P Evans]

Fact

Huh? Are you poking fun at me?
I'm just asking peoples opinions here, so there is no need to be like that.

No, more a point of fact. But I guess that it is a matter of personal preference in this computer age as to whether to ask others about a point or bone up on the point yourself before asking questions. You did no more or less than many others have done, and I gave my stock answer. But certainly there was no intention to 'poke fun' at you.

[anna]

Another fact!......

Hi Grim,


Welcome to Casebook.


Look forward to posting with you soon!


Regards,


ANNA.

[Mort Belfry]

God I love the internet.

People answering with semantically-correct answers, others people getting their feelings hurt whilst no one has actually tried to answer what is the crux of Grim's question:

Why, whoever Anderson's witness was, did he not get charged with perverting the cause of justice?


Now I'm not trying to pose the question for my own interest, just trying to help Grim steer the thread back to his intended topic.


No thanks needed.

My work here is done.

[Grim]

Why, whoever Anderson's witness was, did he not get charged with perverting the cause of justice?

haha, cheers.

Seriously though when I first read that I imagined what would happen today if I told a police officer that I didn't want to testify against a fellow Australian because I am also Australian.

I would imagine that (especially in the case of a murder) I would be thrown in jail for a very long time.

[Chris]

Seriously though when I first read that I imagined what would happen today if I told a police officer that I didn't want to testify against a fellow Australian because I am also Australian.

I would imagine that (especially in the case of a murder) I would be thrown in jail for a very long time.

The trouble is that all we have is a much later claim that there was an identification and a refusal to testify. This has been debated at length in the past, and I think it's fair to say that most people don't accept Anderson's claim at face value.

The other thing is that - subject to correction by legal experts - I assume that there would be no question of punishing the person unless the case actually came to trial and he refused to go into the witness box. At least we do know for sure that no such trial took place.