Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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 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.

[lynn cates]

disconnect

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"I suspect you allude to the suggested doubts by the Leman-street police as published in the press?"

Yup.

"Whether this was an accurate reflection or not, any doubts held at that level are not likely to impact the opinions of the Coroner, if Scotland Yard were of a different opinion."

Entirely agree. And that is my main point with Swanson. He was aware of their doubts but preferred his own opinion.

I need not point out the "disconnect" between those of us who work in the trenches, as it were, and those who grace carpeted offices. (To be fair, DSS was usually one of the former.)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi All,

If Israel Schwartz's statement had been amenable to the police he would have appeared at the inquest.

But had he appeared at the inquest the 1.00 am mutilandum interruptus story upon which the idea of a double-event so heavily depended would have been blown out of the water.

Ergo! Exit Schwartz.

Regards,

Simon

Schwartz's story was apparently still acceptable well into mid October, though Swanson himself wrote that he was not convinced the man seen by Schwartz had to be the murderer.

As he points out, there was still time for Stride to approach, or be approached by, another man.
Diemschitz could still be the interrupting agent, or rather the approach of his horse and cart down Berner St.

[Batman]

Schwartz non-appearance absolutely can't be because his testimony was invalid as the investigation notes make it abundantly clear they believed Schwartz after the inquest and for quite some time to come.

It is generally accepted that Schwartz is Swanson's witness because he is a Met witness while Lawende is the city police witness.

[Chris]

I realise conspiracy theories can be fun, but I think people are cheating if they don't say who's meant to be "in" and who's meant to be "out". Specifically, if Schwartz was prevented from giving evidence at the inquest because his appearance would give the lie to a misrepresentation about the murders, who knew that? Was Swanson "in" or "out"? What about his superiors?

[Batman]

Surely the statement which is "not wholly accepted" is that of the man in custody who has not been charged "but is held for inquiries to be made". Had he admitted guilt he would have been charged. Clearly he did not do so and gave an account claiming his innocence. Had this been verified he would have been immediately released - yet he wasn't. I contend that it was his statement which was "not wholly accepted" and the investigation of which necessitated his continued detention.

Have you read the thread on Pipeman being cleared?

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8520

Paul Begg suggests with reason an explanation for the above in his book 'The Facts'. It was the first time I read about the possibility of Pipeman being found by the police and questioned. This explains some of the odd statements in the papers about this incident and its 'witnesses'.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon, Cris.

"I can't imagine Swanson including the details of Schwartz's statement (which he does, beginning with the time, date, name & address of witness, etc.) in his report to the Home Office if the police had any doubts about it."

No doubt, the upper echelon chaps, and perhaps HO chaps, were convinced. That much cannot be doubted.

May not be helpful to think of "police" monolithically?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
Surely, the opinions of these "upper echelon types" are derived from the reports passed up the line from Swanson, Abberline & Co.

I suspect you allude to the suggested doubts by the Leman-street police as published in the press? Whether this was an accurate reflection or not, any doubts held at that level are not likely to impact the opinions of the Coroner, if Scotland Yard were of a different opinion.

Swanson doesn't strike me as the type to dabble in speculation, he will report what the witness said and what the investigation unearthed. Though as I mentioned earlier, his ability to form coherent sentences where contention exists leaves a little to be desired.

[lynn cates]

some

Hello Jon, Cris.

"I can't imagine Swanson including the details of Schwartz's statement (which he does, beginning with the time, date, name & address of witness, etc.) in his report to the Home Office if the police had any doubts about it."

No doubt, the upper echelon chaps, and perhaps HO chaps, were convinced. That much cannot be doubted.

May not be helpful to think of "police" monolithically?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Rime of the Ancient Ripperologist

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Of course, that is altogether possible. But the line should have been, "If Schwartz's description is correct." Also, going with context, as in your wise dictum, IF that were Swanson's meaning, perhaps he would have added, "I see no reason to believe otherwise"? If Abberline were focused on Israel and his testimony, surely the overall purpose would be to see if deception were being practised?

"You're on your own with that one Lynn."

Not a rare occurrence. As Coleridge put it, "Ah! wedding guest, this soul hath been alone on a wide, wide sea. So lonely 'twas that God, himself, scarce seem-ed' there to be." (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC