Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[lynn cates]

poorly done

Hello CD. Thanks.

Hand it to them? No. He/they made a rum job of it. Had they planned a good story for Israel, he would have BSM going up the passage with Liz, followed by a scream and sound of scuffle. I think it was hastily--and poorly!--concocted.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

If this is all that Swanson was meaning then there is no implied approval of his overall statement in that line, however, 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.

Bingo!
Someone said something rational and in keeping with the information at hand.

Amazing in this place!

[Simon Wood]

Hi CD,

Wow!

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

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

But with regard to Phillips, Swanson explicitly sets out the conflicts with the other evidence. That's what I think he would have done if the police had had reason to doubt Schwartz's veracity.

To some degree Swanson follows that procedure in this instance, he does make comparisons between the description given by PC Smith, and that offered by Schwartz.
So, continuing on from what I wrote to Lynn, Swanson essentially writes:

"If the description given by Schwartz is accurate, and there is nothing in his statement to contest it, then it follows that Schwartz and PC Smith are describing different men....". (Paraphrase)

If this is all that Swanson was meaning then there is no implied approval of his overall statement in that line, however, 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.

[Wickerman]

"It is because of this that I wonder if his remarks on Schwartz's "reliable statement" was not the actual last word."

I think (for what little it's worth) that Abberline's interrogation left no reason to doubt Schwartz. It was only AFTER the investigation was pursued that suspicions arose.

I believe Swanson was aware of the "Leman position" and it was this that precipitated his "If his statement is to be believed . . .".

I do have to wonder if we have been pursuing a red herring with Swanson's comment. I think everyone assumes Swanson is referring to Schwartz's honesty, meaning, he appears to be telling the truth.

The context in which this "If Schwartz is to be believed..." is used is in a paragraph concerning the physical description of the man he saw. It is the second paragraph of three successive paragraphs, the first paragraph begins with, "The description of the man seen by the P.C.....", and the third and last paragraph ends with, "...to that given by Schwartz than to that given by the P.C."
The line we are concerned with is buried right in the middle, so context may be the clue.

I think it is possible that the line, "If Schwartz is to be believed...", may have only meant, "If the description offered by Schwartz is accurate...".
So nothing pertaining to 'honesty' per-se.
The line continues to discuss the possibility different men are being described by both Schwartz & the P.C.

But one of the most telling factors--at least in my mind--is that the club, in their very next "Arbeter Fraint," never even hinted at Schwartz's story. An excellent strategy GIVEN they were the ones who concocted it and who now were timid about being involved.

You're on your own with that one Lynn.

[c.d.]

Hi CD,

Of which possibly possible and reasonably probable possibilities are you thinking?

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

I can think of a few -- sickness on Schwartz's part, inability to obtain a translator, possibly a deal cut with Schwartz when he initially gave his story to the police that he wouldn't have to appear at the inquest. Possibly, as Tom suggests, the police held his testimony back for some reason. Or it simply could be because given the apparent problem in getting his story straight in the first place (since it appears he was never completely clear on what was going on exacerbated by the language hurdle) that the police felt it would just confuse the jurors.

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.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi CD,

Of which possibly possible and reasonably probable possibilities are you thinking?

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

But one of the most telling factors--at least in my mind--is that the club, in their very next "Arbeter Fraint," never even hinted at Schwartz's story. An excellent strategy GIVEN they were the ones who concocted it and who now were timid about being involved.

You've got to hand it to the club members. Those boys knew how to put a conspiracy together in no time flat with no messing around. Damn near textbook.

c.d.

[c.d.]

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

Well I guess that settles it then. No need to consider other possibilities that were both possible and reasonably probable.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

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

[Michael W Richards]

Considering that Israel is completely absent from all remaining records pertaining to the Inquest into Liz Strides murder, and considering that his story, IF true, would be by far the most compelling account of any witness in any Ripper murder due to the approximated time of her cut and the location of the alleged altercation, one might wonder what that last sentence really referred to. In context, it seems the prisoner...but lets be clear here, Israels story was given officially Sunday night. Which means the arrest and interrogation of anyone would have taken place after the police caught up with the "suspects". Liz Strides Inquest opened Monday morning.

Any see or hear of any ongoing investigation into alleged thugs on that day?

How about on Tuesday,...when a woman claiming that the deceased, who had already been identified, was someone else? They gave Malcom a long time to deal with a story the police already knew was inaccurate. Stalling while they investigated the story Israel gave? Yet no mention...hmm.

Israels story is believed by a few policemen, one of which who also believes Hutchinson later on...a later discredited witness. There is however no evidence that what Israel described ever occurred.

[lynn cates]

suspicions

Hello Jon.

"This to me reads like Swanson has compiled his 19th Oct. report from notes taken at varying times throughout the investigation, he does not provide a reliable summary of what the police believe. Swanson's contradictory references to Richardson, Phillips & Long leave something to be desired."

Bingo.

"It is because of this that I wonder if his remarks on Schwartz's "reliable statement" was not the actual last word."

I think (for what little it's worth) that Abberline's interrogation left no reason to doubt Schwartz. It was only AFTER the investigation was pursued that suspicions arose.

I believe Swanson was aware of the "Leman position" and it was this that precipitated his "If his statement is to be believed . . .".

But one of the most telling factors--at least in my mind--is that the club, in their very next "Arbeter Fraint," never even hinted at Schwartz's story. An excellent strategy GIVEN they were the ones who concocted it and who now were timid about being involved.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

But with regard to Phillips, Swanson explicitly sets out the conflicts with the other evidence. That's what I think he would have done if the police had had reason to doubt Schwartz's veracity.

As for how Swanson's superiors received his report, if there was no reason to doubt Schwartz's veracity, it really doesn't tell us anything. (Nor does it tell us anything if there was reason to doubt it, and they didn't know about it.)

[Wickerman]

But if he had been aware - as he surely would have been - of further investigation that did cast doubt on Schwartz's credibility, would he have written what he did?

If he'd been reporting to me, and had said what he did, in the knowledge that there was reason to doubt Schwartz's word, I would have made sure that was the last report he made.

I would hazard a guess Chris, that if Swanson had written this report for yourself, you would have received it in much the same way as his superiors did.

We have a somewhat similar example in Swanson's report of the Chapman case where he writes:

"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4.45 am. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him.."

Here Swanson also expressed no doubt about Richardson's statement, and leaves the reader to believe Dr. Phillips must be in error.

Yet a few lines later we read:

"Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5.30 am then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect. He was called and saw the body at 6.20 am and he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz 4.20 am. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted".

See how Swanson shifts, from suggesting Richardson's statement must be viable and therefore Dr. Phillips in error, to Mrs Long's statement must be in error as Dr Phillips opinion is preferred.

This to me reads like Swanson has compiled his 19th Oct. report from notes taken at varying times throughout the investigation, he does not provide a reliable summary of what the police believe. Swanson's contradictory references to Richardson, Phillips & Long leave something to be desired.

It is because of this that I wonder if his remarks on Schwartz's "reliable statement" was not the actual last word.

[Robert]

Perhaps there was a mix-up, and the Star October 2nd article is still shackled by their article of the previous day - if the Star thought that Schwarz was saying that a man ran out of the pub with a knife, and the police said that they doubted that this happened, then maybe, as far as the Star was concerned, the police doubted Schwarz's story.

Maybe the man who thought the quarrel was a domestic dispute, was Pipeman ('the prisoner')?