First time caller on JTR forums.
Hello to those who don't know me. Apologies to those that do.
I have been espousing some thoughts over on the other place, and was directed to this thread in particular by another poster.
I pose the same question here as I did there.
If Schwartz did not have the endorsement of Swanson from the 19th October onwards, who here would regard him to be a reliable witness?
There are so many questions not only about his statement, by even how he came to be. (Cue: RJ with some kind of irony reference).
If you remove his statement from the collection of witness statements, there seems to be more conistency and pattern around the sightings in my view.
We have an article from The Star on 1st October which announces the witness and some details, but no name. 18 days later Swanson endorses his statement and names him. He never featured in the inquest (would imagine this testimony would be worth hearing), no-one can seem to locate him at those addresses and we even question whether he is Hungarian.
Nobody finds it strange that a Jewish girl from Hungary (by the name of Schwartz) who was living at 22 Back Church Lane three years prior, was assualted by a group of men. It would have been a case the police were familiar with.
So many are happy to go along with Swanson on this, who ultimately went on to name a Jewish suspect in his marginalia.
All very odd.
Hello to those who don't know me. Apologies to those that do.
I have been espousing some thoughts over on the other place, and was directed to this thread in particular by another poster.
I pose the same question here as I did there.
If Schwartz did not have the endorsement of Swanson from the 19th October onwards, who here would regard him to be a reliable witness?
There are so many questions not only about his statement, by even how he came to be. (Cue: RJ with some kind of irony reference).
If you remove his statement from the collection of witness statements, there seems to be more conistency and pattern around the sightings in my view.
We have an article from The Star on 1st October which announces the witness and some details, but no name. 18 days later Swanson endorses his statement and names him. He never featured in the inquest (would imagine this testimony would be worth hearing), no-one can seem to locate him at those addresses and we even question whether he is Hungarian.
Nobody finds it strange that a Jewish girl from Hungary (by the name of Schwartz) who was living at 22 Back Church Lane three years prior, was assualted by a group of men. It would have been a case the police were familiar with.
So many are happy to go along with Swanson on this, who ultimately went on to name a Jewish suspect in his marginalia.
All very odd.
Comment