No sour grapes
Hi (belatedly) Tom
As you know I was initially very sceptical of Schwartz, but have lately developed a distinctly soft spot for him. This is, therefore, manna to my ears. It doesn't mean I believe totally in his testimony, but I do have time for him...he COULD be the real thing...there is nothing, as far as I can see, in the evidence from other sources (both medical and witness-based) which conclusively and definitively excludes him...something discussed ad infinitum on a recent thread.
If he really saw what he said he saw, then I believe it's possible the police would have regarded him as their best witness...but of course it's equally possible that Lawende & Co, maybe on police advice, deliberately understated the extent of their own evidence...
Frustrating isn't it?
All the best
Dave
Hi (belatedly) Tom
P.S. Regarding Schwartz, I believe he was briefly a suspect himself, so that might be why he wasn't at the inquest. In any event, the police clearly wanted to keep him 'under wraps' so that might be reason enough.
If he really saw what he said he saw, then I believe it's possible the police would have regarded him as their best witness...but of course it's equally possible that Lawende & Co, maybe on police advice, deliberately understated the extent of their own evidence...
Frustrating isn't it?
All the best
Dave
Comment