Schwartz v. Lawende

[Jeff Leahy]

And I suppose that Stride adds her corsage after Brown sees her? The time needed from Stride to get from A(Brown) to B(BSM) isn't the issue, nor is Browns POV. The issue is whether there is any evidence beside anecdotal that the Police supported Israels story. There is no evidence of that aside from the anecdotal mention.

Swansons Home Office report suggests he believes Schwartz saw something and someone shouted Lipski at him. Of course its possible Brown saw another couple, but that doesn't change the fact that he would not have witnessed what Schwartz witnessed at the time schwartz claims. So Browns timing allows for Schwartz timing.

Brown did not see Stride wearing a flower. But then he could NOT have seen the flower as the man he saw would have stood between his POV of the flower.

Let me ask you this.....IF they believed Schwartz, and if he was used as a viable witness despite his absence from the Inquest, then why can no one answer where Israel was moving from on that day? You would think their support would be based on verification of him, and his story characters, yet no-one knows where Israel supposedly moved from that day. Since he was, according to him only, outside the gates that night, perhaps he lived in one of the cottages in the passageway, which would prejudice what information he was giving.

I think it advisable to believe everyone tells the truth unless there is firm evidence they lie. Schwartz went to police of his own accord. And we simply don't know much about him because it wasn't deemed relevant to what he witnessed.

If I'm a witness to an attack I don't assume the police are interested in my life story.

Israel knew Wess. Israel was the exact same profile as almost everyone that attended that meeting that night. Israel was claiming that he was checking to see if his wife had moved completely over the 12 hours he had been gone, when we can safely assume all she moved was clothing and perhaps a stick of furniture, which would take less than a few hours. Somethings which must cast doubt upon his veracity.

Its an interesting theory that has been mooted over the years that Schwartz was connected to the club. But I don't believe any firm evidence has ever been found to support that theory?

So i think it best to assume Schwartz told the truth.

If Israel was actually that important and trustworthy, why do we know so little about him?

He was simply a witness not a suspect. Surely we know very little about all the witnesses?

Personally I think Schwartz was used in an ID attempt and failed which is why police eventually lost interest in him.

Yours Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jeff,

To address your points;

Swansons Home Office report suggests he believes Schwartz saw something and someone shouted Lipski at him. Of course its possible Brown saw another couple, but that doesn't change the fact that he would not have witnessed what Schwartz witnessed at the time schwartz claims. So Browns timing allows for Schwartz timing.

Brown did not see Stride wearing a flower. But then he could NOT have seen the flower as the man he saw would have stood between his POV of the flower.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't address what I stated, that there is no action taken to support Schwartz, only written lip service support to his story.


I think it advisable to believe everyone tells the truth unless there is firm evidence they lie. Schwartz went to police of his own accord. And we simply don't know much about him because it wasn't deemed relevant to what he witnessed.

If I'm a witness to an attack I don't assume the police are interested in my life story.

Knowing whether one can trust an unknown source depends almost entirely about what you can actually verify about him or her, and his story. This witness is essentially unknown before he came forward, they would and should have verified where he lived, whether people at that address knew him and could verify his residence there, and if he had a job they would check with the employer to verify he did work there. So, what do you know about Israel Schwartz, what does anyone know....?


He was simply a witness not a suspect. Surely we know very little about all the witnesses?

Actually for most we know where they lived, and we know if they worked and where.

What is also a factor in his believability are the details of why he was there in the first place if not due to his attending the club that night. We cannot determine that he lived on Berner Street before moving that day to Brick lane, or whether his old accommodations were anywhere near Berner Street, its possible that he may have lived in the cottages, but we don't know. In addition, IF he had lived near there and left for the Market in the early afternoon leaving his wife to do the move, it would have been long over by 12:45am.

[Abby Normal]

Good grief

Exactly.

All the witnesses stated times and descriptions are gospel.
Except for the ones who MR has decided are lying. LOL.

[Jeff Leahy]

What is also a factor in his believability are the details of why he was there in the first place if not due to his attending the club that night. We cannot determine that he lived on Berner Street before moving that day to Brick lane, or whether his old accommodations were anywhere near Berner Street, its possible that he may have lived in the cottages, but we don't know. In addition, IF he had lived near there and left for the Market in the early afternoon leaving his wife to do the move, it would have been long over by 12:45am.

My understanding was that he was moving down Berner st towards Pinchin street.

I'm not certain where you are getting 'left for the market'?

I only recall that he was described as Theatrical in appearance, and somewhere in the back of my mind a Taylor?

So I'd always assumed he'd been working a sweat shop until late and was on his way home..

Yours Jeff

[Rosella]

I thought that Schwartz was described as being 'thespian' in appearance, (don't know why, bright coloured clothing, flashy tie pin, perhaps.) He might have been an actor in the local Yiddish theatre. I can't see him as a market porter/worker. His English was apparently pretty sparse.

[Michael W Richards]

My understanding was that he was moving down Berner st towards Pinchin street.

I'm not certain where you are getting 'left for the market'?

I only recall that he was described as Theatrical in appearance, and somewhere in the back of my mind a Taylor?

So I'd always assumed he'd been working a sweat shop until late and was on his way home..

Yours Jeff

There are reports that state he was at the market all afternoon, although the "theatrical" in appearance may be valuable in other respects. As for where he moved from....you see what I mean, This man was supposedly a key witness in this murder yet we dont even know where he lived the morning of the murder, something the police would surely have asked and checked on. Plus you have this club connection...its possible his translator was none other than Woolf Wess, and he also likely translated for Leon Goldstein on Tuesday night. Was he helping a club member communicate his statement,.and if so, why would we he be the translator Sunday night for Israel? Did he offer to translate for any non-English witnesses, or only club ones?

As for the move, he was a poor immigrant jew who rented accommodations that included sparse furniture, the suggestion that his wife would need over 10 hours to move clothing isn't believable.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think the most obvious explanation is that they all saw him.

Eh? Outside of him changing his clothes in telephone boxes, and putting on or taking off a few layers of clothes to advance his build, then it is nigh on certain that all three of them did not see the murderer.

The most obvious explanation, at least to me, is that Lawende and PC Smith may have done, and the law of probability suggests one of them did; and that Schwartz didn't see anything outside of an overactive imagination.

Lawende has always been a favoured horse and I understand why, but I still think PC Smith's sighting goes under-rated.

[Fleetwood Mac]

when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

Nice speech, mate, and I'm sure it made sense in an entirely different context; but can you tell me what on earth it has to do with your belief that 'it is almost certain that both men saw the killer'?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I thought that Schwartz was described as being 'thespian' in appearance, (don't know why, bright coloured clothing, flashy tie pin, perhaps.) He might have been an actor in the local Yiddish theatre. I can't see him as a market porter/worker. His English was apparently pretty sparse.

He was described as being: "well dressed and having the appearance of being in the theatrical line".

It is assumed that this means he was a flamboyant of some description: actor, poet, and so on; but perhaps it meant he was shifty and full of ****.

Even The Star, attempting to make money, could only goes as far as: "it may be important" with reference to Schwartz's claim as opposed to going to town on this being the murderer.

Maybe no one fancied him as being straight down the line, not even a newspaper business with the sole aim of making money. It seems they played down the story, rather than talked it up.

[Michael W Richards]

Exactly.

All the witnesses stated times and descriptions are gospel.
Except for the ones who MR has decided are lying. LOL.

The fact that I would have to argue that corroborated witnesses supersede stories without any corroboration is hilarious. The animal killer and the fan of Young Frankenstein see that approach as illogical do they? Ask ANY serious investigator about how witness statements are vetted. They are vetted by comparison.

But hey, since you both tend to just mouth off without any kind of useful contribution to any thread I shouldn't be surprised I would have to argue a completely obvious point.

[Robert St Devil]

I thought that Schwartz was described as being 'thespian' in appearance, (don't know why, bright coloured clothing, flashy tie pin, perhaps.) He might have been an actor in the local Yiddish theatre. I can't see him as a market porter/worker. His English was apparently pretty sparse.

Hi Ros, long time.

I havent uncovered all the details, but i know there was "something hateful" going on amongst the actors. One of the NY Herald reports conflict between foreign and american actors. I also saw a police news report somewhere that an actor was "jumped" by other actors, like gang violence.

Regarding the flashy appearance, it makes me recall Hutch's description since i have focused in on the horseshoe tie pin. Wondering if there was some kind of connection with Nichols ulstet buttons. Nothing serious, just curiousity.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Ros, long time.
Regarding the flashy appearance, it makes me recall Hutch's description since i have focused in on the horseshoe tie pin. Wondering if there was some kind of connection with Nichols ulstet buttons. Nothing serious, just curiousity.

Key you've goy a point there, if none can ratify Schwartz story how do we know Schwartz didn't kill Stride and simply made the story of the other two guys up?

Yjst would make him as good a suspect, given all the vitriol against him, as Lechmere

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Nice speech, mate, and I'm sure it made sense in an entirely different context; but can you tell me what on earth it has to do with your belief that 'it is almost certain that both men saw the killer'?

The quote is clearly of the period from Arthur Conan Doyles, Sherlock Holmes. I was recently listen to the woman who discovered Pulsars, Jocelyn Bell Burnell. She didn't have a clue what the signals were and even called them jokingly LGM's (Little Green Men) her observation was that scientists don't prove theories they simply eliminate stuff that can be disproved, leaving what remains as the answer.

I'm saying Schwartz story is credible because of what everyone doesn't see, rather than what they do see.

If Schwartz had for instance (AS has been suggested) gone into the police station to create a cover for the club...then it means he wasn't there...the story is an invention..

And if the story was an invention it was a damn lucky made up story. Because if he said almost any other time than 12.45 he almost certainly would have been exposed as a liar. Yet its unlikely he knew Blackwells estimate time of death... He wouldn't have known Mortimer was stood at her door from approx 12.50 to shortly before one. He wouldn't know that Eagle walked down the ally at 12.40, unless he was also part of the conspiracy, he wouldn't have known that Brown left the store at 12.45 am

In short the only time frame Schwartz story fits is if he enters Berner street at 12.45... and what are the odds of him plucking the correct solution out of thin air? Liars inevitably trip themselves up because they can't possibly know all the other witness timings or medical reports

So its simply more logical that Schwartz tells the truth.

Personally I have know problem with PC Smith seeing the same man as Schwartz....My opinion is that Stride was different to all the other victims, who i believe Jack met within a very short stretch of Whitechapel and Aldgate High street... So Geographically she's out of his kill zone... So perhaps it was personal?

And if it was the same man seen by PC Smith, and Stride turned down Jack... He had plenty of time to go home (Greenfield Street) open his parcel, check his Facebook, and be back in Berner street 15 minutes later to pay the bitch back.

I think it possible Stride did know her killer. Hence the argument, and her killer cutting her throat.

Oh...and if he was the killer, i don't think Schwartz got a very good veiw of his face, only his rear hence the description of the shoulders...It would make more sense that by the time he crossed the road, BSM and Stride had moved further into the Ally, which may not have been apparent from Schwatz then 180 degree POV down Dutfield yard.

Yours jeff

[Observer]

I'm saying Schwartz story is credible because of what everyone doesn't see, rather than what they do see.

If Schwartz had for instance (AS has been suggested) gone into the police station to create a cover for the club...then it means he wasn't there...the story is an invention..

And if the story was an invention it was a damn lucky made up story. Because if he said almost any other time than 12.45 he almost certainly would have been exposed as a liar.

Hi Jeff

The above is far and away the most sensible post regarding Shwartz's sighting. The incident witnessed by Schwartz was over in a flash. From approaching Stride and her assailant, to legging it down Berner Street, we are talking what, a minute ? Perhaps less. Of course, the Michael Richards of this World, with their strict adhesion to the timings given by various witnesses, have free reign to invent any kind of ludicrous scenario. As you say, it's entirely possible, given the miniscule time frame which involved the Schwartz incident, for every other witness to have missed this occurance.

Regards

Observer

[Abby Normal]

The fact that I would have to argue that corroborated witnesses supersede stories without any corroboration is hilarious. The animal killer and the fan of Young Frankenstein see that approach as illogical do they? Ask ANY serious investigator about how witness statements are vetted. They are vetted by comparison.

But hey, since you both tend to just mouth off without any kind of useful contribution to any thread I shouldn't be surprised I would have to argue a completely obvious point.

Witnes statements vetted by comparison? Wow. Then I guess 90 percent of witness statements are useless as they usually have no corroboration.

Your ignorance is the only thing that is obvious. Which is usually the case for morons who beleive in hair brained conspiracy theories.

And btw hunter contributes more in one post than you have in all your ad nauseums combined.