Schwartz, a fraud?

[c.d.]

Hello Herlock,

Even if Schwartz was "disbelieved" by the police it doesn't necessarily mean that they felt that he was lying. It could have simply been because of the language problem and his short time on the scene that they couldn't be certain just what the hell he did see. And as you say since Stride was alive according to Schwartz when he ran off the police might have simply concluded that he just saw a street hassle.

Again, we simply don' know.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Go ahead keep believing in witnesses with 2 conflicting statements and that an assault minutes before a murder is not important.And Schwartz was hiding against imaginary threats.That Baxter had until Oct. 22 to include Schwartz,while the whole of London was listening, and did not.Good luck as a Keystone cop.

Was he an star witness or not? Was he vital or just an afterthought who could have been dropped in as a witness at anytime? If he was so important then he should have been on the list of witnesses called straight away. If that’s the case then how could they have dismissed his evidence so quickly? You can’t have it both ways.

[c.d.]

Hello Varqm,

Then why wasn't Fanny Mortimer called? Surely she was an important witness and could have helped set the time.

Be careful how you answer because yes that is a trick question. Because if you give ANY reason other than the police did not believe her statement then you are acknowledging that is was possible for a witness to be believed but not be called.

You keep arguing how important Schwartz would have been to the inquest and I agree completely. But we simply DON'T KNOW why he was not there.

c.d.

[Varqm]

Hello Varqm,

Then why wasn't Fanny Mortimer called? Surely she was an important witness and could have helped set the time.

Be careful how you answer because yes that is a trick question. Because if you give ANY reason other than the police did not believe her statement then you are acknowledging that is was possible for a witness to be believed but not be called.

You keep arguing how important Schwartz would have been to the inquest and I agree completely. But we simply DON'T KNOW why he was not there.

c.d.

The events told.

[Varqm]

Was he an star witness or not? Was he vital or just an afterthought who could have been dropped in as a witness at anytime? If he was so important then he should have been on the list of witnesses called straight away. If that’s the case then how could they have dismissed his evidence so quickly? You can’t have it both ways.

He should have been.

Schwartz police statement was Sep. 30,the conflicting Star statement was Oct.1 so shortly after he was dismissed by Baxter is the only explanation I can think of.
The police report by Swanson was Oct. 19,the Gazette,Oct. 20 I think,so the police still believed in him.The inquest ended in Oct. 23.Baxter had time to put him in and the police surely would have submitted him as a witness.The only explanation was that in the end Schwartz was dismissed by Baxter and after possibly by the police too.
As far as I'm concerned the fact that Henry Smith did not mention him but instead Lawende only also speaks volumes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could Schwartz have lied? Of course he could. Every witness might have lied but we have to ask why would he have lied? To get his 15 minutes of fame is usually the reason given but think of the circumstances.

A time when this killer is the talk of the city. A time of anti-Jewish sentiment. A time when people preferred to suspect the killer of being a foreigner. We have a man who isn't compelled to give a statement to the police if he wasn't there places himself; a foreigner and a Jew right at the scene of a murder. And if he was that naive wouldn't his interpreter friend have pointed this out to him? Was he so desperate to get his name in the paper that he'd he'd give false evidence to place him at the scene of the crime? Or did he come forward because he felt that Pipe man might have described him?

....

And on the differences between his police statement and his interview with The Star. Yes there are some differences but does this prove that he lied or might there have been a reason for these? Well he couldn't speak English for s start so misunderstandings in translation can occur. Can we say that he used the same interpreter on both occasions? As far as I know we can't, so what if the man who interpreted for The Star didn't speak as good English as the man who interpreted for the police? Or that the interpreter for the Star spoke Hungarian but imperfectly? Have we ever known the Press to exaggerate to sell papers? Maybe the reporter added the knife part? Or maybe after having time to think things over Schwartz had a better recall of events?

The answer is that we can't know. Therefore we certainly can't be certain that Schwartz lied. Again, it's stating opinion as fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He should have been.Paste from previous post.

The police report by Swanson was Oct. 19,the Gazette,Oct. 20 I think,so the police believed in him.The inquest ended in Oct. 23.He had time to put him in and the police surely would have submitted him as a witness.The only explanation was that in the end Schwartz was dismissed,by Baxter at least and possibly the police too.
As far as I'm concerned the fact that Henry Smith did not mention him but instead Lawende only also speaks volumes.

It's not the only explanation Varqm. It's the only explanation that you are willing to accept. There's a big difference.

If he was such an important witness surely he'd have been informed straight away that he would be being called to give evidence? He wouldn't have been called as an afterthought. So according to your reasoning he must have been dismissed as a witness right at the beginning of the Inquest? So how does that square up with the police searching for a Lipski? How does that square with the police questioning a man who they thought matched a description? How does that square up with the description being used in the Gazette? How does this square up with senior police officers still mentioning him as a witness in November? It doesn't add up.

[c.d.]

Varqm,

If you acknowledge that there could have been other explanations but don't accept them then we are good and could all go get a pint.

Is that your position?

c.d.

[Varqm]

It's not the only explanation Varqm. It's the only explanation that you are willing to accept. There's a big difference.

If he was such an important witness surely he'd have been informed straight away that he would be being called to give evidence? He wouldn't have been called as an afterthought. So according to your reasoning he must have been dismissed as a witness right at the beginning of the Inquest? So how does that square up with the police searching for a Lipski? How does that square with the police questioning a man who they thought matched a description? How does that square up with the description being used in the Gazette? How does this square up with senior police officers still mentioning him as a witness in November? It doesn't add up.

He was not called because immediately the next day he made a conflicting statement.
Schwartz police statement was Sep. 30,the conflicting Star statement was Oct.1.
Same as Hutchinson,the next day after his police statement,if I remember right,or two,he said he saw no one else aside from the couple and a policeman a bit far away,immediately failing because based on timeline Sarah Lewis passed right in front of him at 2:30-2 am.

We have to disagree.The other possibilities are too unlikely to believe in.If Schwartz was an honest witness,it was straightforward and simple enough he would have been in the inquest;add to that he was believed by police in Oct 19/20.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. He was not called because immediately the next day he made a conflicting statement

Again Varqm you are stating your opinion as if it’s a proven fact and it simply isn’t.

Schwartz police statement was Sep. 30,the conflicting Star statement was Oct.1

And the police were acting on Schwartz information after those dates. Very senior Police Officers were quoting Schwartz after those dates. How could this be if they had dismissed his evidence due to the differences in the 2 statements? Can you not see that this doesn’t make sense Varqm?

We have to disagree.The other possibilities are too unlikely to believe in.If Schwartz was an honest witness,it was straightforward and simple enough he would have been in the inquest

Can you honestly believe this? Really? Is it impossible that a witness who had been shouted at by a possible murderer might not be in fear? Even if he was in no actual danger he still might have felt that he was. How can you know his temperament Varqm? He might have been a very nervous person by nature. The kind that panics easily. People hide from the police every minute of every hour of every day in the week. Why is it so unbelievable that Schwartz might have gone into hiding? I genuinly don’t see how you can categorically rule out this possibility as if you know for a fact that it’s not true? In fact it’s more plausible than the police acting on evidence from a witness that they’d already dismissed. Now that’s implausible.

add to that he was believed by police in Oct 19/20.

?? If you accept that why do you keep suggesting that he didn’t appear at the Inquest because the police didn’t believe him ??

[Herlock Sholmes]

Varqm,

If you acknowledge that there could have been other explanations but don't accept them then we are good and could all go get a pint.

Is that your position?

c.d.

I need something stronger than beer c.d.

I can hear Jack Daniels calling to me

[c.d.]

I need something stronger than beer c.d.

I can hear Jack Daniels calling to me

Yeah, I hear you. Schwartz was an important witness and you would expect him to have appeared at the inquest. But since absolutely no one knows why he did not appear to give a reason why he did not with absolute certainly is as you say stating opinion as fact. I don't know why this has to be so complicated. It is certainly permissible to say I feel strongly that the police did not believe him and then use his non-appearance to bolster that argument. Just don't state it as fact.

c.d.

[FrankO]

Have we ever known the Press to exaggerate to sell papers?

I think this point can't be stressed enough, Michael. The police's goal was to get to the truth; the newspapers had a very different goal: sell papers. The headline "SAW THE WHOLE THING" should tell a thing or two in that sense.

Not that this means Schwartz's police account was truthfull, just that it explains why the police account & the Star account are different in some aspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah, I hear you. Schwartz was an important witness and you would expect him to have appeared at the inquest. But since absolutely no one knows why he did not appear to give a reason why he did not with absolute certainly is as you say stating opinion as fact. I don't know why this has to be so complicated. It is certainly permissible to say I feel strongly that the police did not believe him and then use his non-appearance to bolster that argument. Just don't state it as fact.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think this point can't be stressed enough, Michael. The police's goal was to get to the truth; the newspapers had a very different goal: sell papers. The headline "SAW THE WHOLE THING" should tell a thing or two in that sense.

Not that this means Schwartz's police account was truthfull, just that it explains why the police account & the Star account are different in some aspects.

Exactly Frank. The Press had the temptation of hearing what they wanted to hear or adding bits to spice things up. Could we 100% exonerate them from the possibility that maybe Schwartz told The Star that he got the impression that Pipeman had something in his other hand? The reporter asks “could it have been a knife?’ Schwartz: ‘I’m not sure.’ Reporter: ‘but it could have been?’ Schwartz: ‘well yes it could have been.’ And before you know it Pipeman has a knife.