Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[c.d.]

Hi CD,

Wow!

The excuses which are invented to maintain the status quo never cease to amaze.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

And yet you yourself stated a conclusion that allowed for no contradiction or alternative explanations. That is hardly a monument to open mindedness.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi c.d.,

I merely took a leaf out of Occam's book.

My contention is simple, straightforward and logical.

Not always welcome qualities in Ripperology.

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

Hi c.d.,

I merely took a leaf out of Occam's book.

My contention is simple, straightforward and logical.

Not always welcome qualities in Ripperology.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Neither is condescension.

c.d.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Simon,

Seems to me that in my opinion this whole business was conducted on a need to know basis far beyond what we today accept as a normal boundary. Chris astutely asked who is in and who is out.

I merely point out that the Met Police had been and was in the process of being criticised for being poorly run which had a cause and effect problem sown to the lowest of ranks at the time.

Combine the above and the situation is too many Indians over presuming their authority to being in or out. It also explains one "conspiracy" nicely...why all the so called bigwigs all came out apparently contradicting each other with their ideas and theories.

If Anderson was playing secret squirrel there is no way every chief of the uniformed branch would be made privy to his knowledge. And as Anderson was a dab hand at self promoting his own name..It would be a case of either playing his game by keeping quiet and grovelling to him or oppose his opinions vociferously. Some did. Abberline included. Anderson was playing smoke and mirrors in his every day work life. In my opinion it rubbed off on Swanson.

And deflection then has been shown to be the name of the game..It carries on to this very day. Accepting simple explanation is what we, like those involved then, are told to accept. Do so and one is "in". Happened then and happens today. Dare to question and watch the response. Abberline clearly criticised the Polish Jewish theory.in print. So did Reid. Response? TLSOMOL comments.

Some of us question in print the stuff we are told to believe to be a truism. When we don't then the responses come..first the labellist banner "conspiratorial" followed by derogatory comment.

If we the "conspiratorial" suggest that Isreal Schwartz had merely twisted his ankle and couldn't make it that morning to the inquest...We would be accused of making up an excuse for his absence. If the same reason is suggested from the other side, we are told that it is the "simplest explanation".

Change from the sets of "what you are told to believe" at your peril. Deflection will be set in motion.

You are in my opinion correct Simon. Schwartz giving testimony would have caused problems..just like the witnesses seeing "Mary Kelly" the morning after the murder did. Better for him not to appear at the inquest.


A simple explanation. A valid explanation. It's all about control.
Damage control. A police tactic used then and now. A tactic used in Ripperological circles today against the nay sayers.



Phil

[Batman]

Schwartz giving testimony would have caused problems..just like the witnesses seeing "Mary Kelly" the morning after the murder did. Better for him not to appear at the inquest.

Just a point, that problem witnesses did attend the inquest in the end.

You are right in terms of things not been run optimally. Several of the lead investigators where on holiday for a few of the murders.

[Wickerman]

You are in my opinion correct Simon. Schwartz giving testimony would have caused problems..just like the witnesses seeing "Mary Kelly" the morning after the murder did. Better for him not to appear at the inquest.

Hey Phil, hope you are well.

Where I see a significant problem is, that the police were not the ones who decide which witness is called to the inquest, that was the Coroner's decision. And, the Coroner's office and Scotland Yard are completely separate entities.

Where the police could have foiled this dilemma is for them to withhold from the Coroner the statement given to them by Schwartz. Seemingly, if the Coroner was not aware of his statement then Schwartz will not be called.
However, the Coroner, and his officer(s) would have to be blind to miss the press coverage of the Hungarian who gave a statement to police after witnessing the assault at Dutfield's Yard.

Scotland Yard could place themselves in an extremely embarrassing position with some serious explaining to do if they were caught out.

How else could you see this working?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

The Coroner and his officers would also have seen the follow-up newspaper report that "the Leman Street police have reason to doubt the truth of the [Hungarian's] story."

This would have neatly ruled out Schwartz as a reliable inquest witness.

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

So which was it Simon, (a) they doubted his story, or (b) did it not fit the humongous interuptuz thing you said?

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

Both.

Because [a] it did not fit the humongous interuptuz, they [b] doubted his story.

Regards,

Simon

[Hunter]

Simply incredible.

[Simon Wood]

Incredibly simple.

[Wickerman]

The litmus test of any good theory is to incorporate all the known evidence.

So if I am reading this right, at some point on 2nd Oct. Scotland Yard chose not to accept Schwartz's story, which would account for the "Leman-st. doubters" referred to in the press of the same evening. Hence, they withhold his statement from Coroner Baxter.

How then to account for Swanson's undeniable support for the evidence given by Schwartz to the Home Office by the 19th Oct?, and exchanges between Matthews & Lushington dated 25th, 27th, & 29th Oct.

Not forgetting the official murder file compiled on 19th Oct listing both PC Smith & Schwartz alone, under the heading, "Men seen with deceased".

Then we have the continued belief in Schwartz as expressed by Abberline in his reply to Anderson dated 1st Nov. Also, Anderson's apparent belief that Schwartz did appear at the Inquest, dated 5th Nov., and finally Charles Warren mentioning Schwartz in his report to the Home Office dated 6th Nov.

That represents about 6 weeks of continued interest between Scotland Yard and the Home Office, referring in a positive context about the viability of Schwartz as a witness.

Incredibly complex.

[Wickerman]

Finally, since no one was actually on trial, the jurors were going to return a verdict of the old person or persons unknown with or without Schwartz's testimony.

Correct, this theory suffers from a confusion between what an Inquest is intended to do, and the quite separate police inquiry leading to a murder trial.

Schwartz's testimony at an inquest has no bearing on the interruptus theory.
The Coroner merely needs to determine the Who, When, Where, and by What means, the victim met her death.
As Schwartz only witnesses an assault (push & pull?), with no visible weapon held by BS-man, then his sighting has no impact on the interruptus theory.

[Garry Wroe]

In addition to which, Carrie Maxwell appeared before the Kelly inquest despite police scepticism regarding her story. In short, the decision as to who did and who did not appear before the coroner was made by the coroner himself, and it would have been an offence for investigators to have withheld witness statements from him.

[Hunter]

Incredibly simple.

No conspiracy is simple.