Did Schwartz and Lawende Describe the Same Man?

[c.d.]

I was looking at the witness descriptions here on the boards and was struck by the descriptions of Schwartz and Lawende. They both seem to be describing the same man. Both give his age as 30. They differ on heighth, 5'5" versus 5"7", but I don't consider the difference to be significant. They both describe the man as having a fair complexion and a brown mustache. They both say that he was wearing a peaked hat. Schwartz describes the man as having broad shoulders and Lawende uses the term sailor-like. That could mean that they were describing a man who was phyically strong in appearance. Nothing in their descriptions contradicts each other.

Did they see the same man?

c.d.

[DVV]

Hello cd,
the problem here is that the suspects described by PC Smith and William Marshall were also similar to Schwartz and Lawende's men.
Marshall's suspect is given as 5'6, rather stout, wearing a round cap with a small peak, and middle-aged.
PC Smith's suspect is a little bit taller, 5'7 or 8, wears a deerstalker hat, but is said to be around 28 years old...

A difficult problem, so, often discussed (including by the contemporary police officials) and never solved.

However I see a major discrepancy between PC Smith and Marshall, on one hand, and Schwartz/Lawende on the other.
Smith describes the man having a "respectable appearance" and Marshall "a clerk" (Marshall explicitely states that the man did not look like a sailor).

But both Schwartz and Lawende's suspect appear to be somehow rough, and this may be significant.

Amitiés,
DVV

[Ben]

Hi CD,

On balence, I tend to think they were. It was discussed in some depth here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=745&page=13&highlight=commonplace

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=745&page=17&highlight=statistical

[FrankO]

Did they see the same man?

Hi c.d.,

Your suggestion is based on the notion that both descriptions were quite accurate and you seem to see them as somewhat outstanding. Unfortunately, there’s no reason to think that they were particularly accurate, and they weren’t especially outstanding either. In fact, I would say that, except for perhaps the reddish neckerchief mentioned in Lawende’s case, the descriptions are rather general. Fair complexion, dark moustache and peaked cap were all very common features, just like I imagine a height of about 5’6” was.

If they both would have been describing an old man of about 6’, wearing glasses, carrying a walking stick and dressed in a white suit, I would be inclined to think they were very likely describing the same man.

So, you get it, I don't think the similarity between those descriptions is of much use, if any. But that's just me.

All the best,
Frank

[Ben]

Hi Frank,

For what it's worth, I made the following observation over on the Stride thread:

I'll try it this way: If you examine the points of similiarity (general though they may be) between the Lawende and Schwartz descriptions and come up with a generic suspect that encompasses only the similarities (i.e. at the exclusion of red neckerchief, pepper and salt etc which Schwartz didn't mention), and extract from Tower Hamlets anyone fitting that description who was on the streets when the double event was being perpetrated, you'd have extracted a minority group.

While the vast majority of the population will meet some of the criteria, only a minority will meet all of it, even though "all" in this case didn't amount to very much at all.

Best regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi c.d.,

Your suggestion is based on the notion that both descriptions were quite accurate and you seem to see them as somewhat outstanding. Unfortunately, there’s no reason to think that they were particularly accurate, and they weren’t especially outstanding either. In fact, I would say that, except for perhaps the reddish neckerchief mentioned in Lawende’s case, the descriptions are rather general. Fair complexion, dark moustache and peaked cap were all very common features, just like I imagine a height of about 5’6” was.

If they both would have been describing an old man of about 6’, wearing glasses, carrying a walking stick and dressed in a white suit, I would be inclined to think they were very likely describing the same man.

So, you get it, I don't think the similarity between those descriptions is of much use, if any. But that's just me.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I see your point. Still, both witnesses agreed on five characterstics (I am including their description of heighth since it is so close). You are right that these characteristics would have been fairly commonplace. Still five out five ain't bad. What makes you believe that the descriptions were not accurate?

Also, would broad shoulders and sailor like describe the same characteristic?

c.d.

[FrankO]

Hi Ben,

Although your observation may very well be true, it doesn’t address the point of accuracy. And, obviously, what you wrote is of no use to us anyway, since we can’t make the extraction from the Tower Hamlets you suggest. But at least it’s an observation that is well and clearly put!

BTW, I’ve been fine, thanks! And yourself?

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi c.d.,

I didn't mean to imply the descriptions were necessarily inaccurate. It's just that we have no way of knowing if they were accurate or not, so, we shouldn't forget that they needn't have been. From experience we do know, however, that witness descriptions are generally unreliable. One witness may describe a person entirely differently than the next one, and inaccurately, too. One time, a couple of years ago, I experienced it myself. I managed to give a rather inaccurate description of a man I had only seen about 15 minutes before. Another thing, obviously, is that people tend to notice and remember striking features far easier than general ones. Furthermore, the conditions under which the sightings took place were far from ideal. Therefore, I tend to think the descriptions are of no use, really. But again, that's just my take.

As to broad shoulders and sailor-like, they may describe the same characteristic, but certainly not necessarily. A sailor just doesn't always have broad shoulders.

All the best,
Frank

[kensei]

Just thought I'd chime in here- It surely must be significant that Schwartz was describing a man he was hurrying away from in a "don't want to get involved" kind of way, and then seconds later he was seriously fleeing from someone he thought was an accomplice. His observations would have been extremely brief and distracted. I do happen to think that he and Lawende described the same man, and that the "peaked cap" and "deerstalker cap" were the same. I'm just curious as to whether anyone thinks a "salt and pepper" coat could be described as being "dark" if glimpsed in fast and shadowy circumstances.

[Fisherman]

Kensei asks:

" I'm just curious as to whether anyone thinks a "salt and pepper" coat could be described as being "dark" if glimpsed in fast and shadowy circumstances."

Absolutely, Kensei - "salt and pepper" can describe a variety of colours, and certainly a very darkish one too.

BUT! I think that Schwartz´s and Lawendes guys were not the same at all. One of my main reasons for this is that the press variety (and I realize that the press has it´s faults, being a newspaper journalist myself ...) has Schwartz describing his man as respectably dressed.

To my mind, Schwartz´s man could well be exactly the same man that Marshall described as looking like a clerk. What seems to differ inbetween the two is that Marshall talks of a black cutaway jacket, wheras Schwartz mentions, I believe, a short, black jacket. And going through the subject some time back, I discovered that a popular new garment in USA back in the 1880:s was a short cutaway jacket, apparently with no tails and looking more or less exactly what Schwartz - who spoke no English, and would not have been aquainted with the term "cutaway" - described: a short jacket.

Moreover, the fashion of the 1880:s stated that the clothes should be very tight-fitting! This means that if Schwartz´s man WAS wearing the type of cutaway I described, it would NOT be comparable with the markedly loose-fitting jacket worn by Lawendes man!

Add to this the fact that no report, police- or press, speaks of the latter as a man with a respectable appearance, and I think there is every reason to tell Schwartz´s man apart from Lawendes!

The best,

Fisherman

[Ben]

Oh my goodness, do you really want to go here again?

Schwartz' police account, as detailed by Donald Swanson, said nothing about the broad-shouldered man having a respectable appearance. That appeared in The Star, which made other claims that were in direct contrast to the statement. We have absolutely no reason for heeding one newspaper on this point whilst ignoring the police statement. He said nothing about the man wearing a cutaway anywhere, and he said nothing about the man's coat being close-fitting, anywhere.

And going through the subject some time back, I discovered that a popular new garment in USA back in the 1880:s was a short cutaway jacket, apparently with no tails and looking more or less exactly what Schwartz

If a cutaway doesn't have tails, then a Victorian man observing it at a distance in darkended conditions will not refer to it as a cutaway. A cutaway observed in those conditions could only have been very conspicuously a cutaway. If you're claiming that the "cutaway" in the photograph looked anything like the jacket worn by Schwartz's man, then you can't use it to argue against a comparison with the Mitre Square sighting, since it resembled the loose-fitting jacket worn by Lawende's man. That's essentially another one of your "outs" gone, for if the experts chime in and say that the sort of jacket featured in that photograph counts as a cutaway (and one that would be readily distinguished as such), it will be apparent immediately that Lawende's man could have worn such a garment. The garment you were referening was not "tight-fitting" either.

Add to this the fact that no report, police- or press, speaks of the latter as a man with a respectable appearance, and I think there is every reason to tell Schwartz´s man apart from Lawendes!

I think that's absolute nonsense, and I'm shocked that you'd consider dredging up such an acrimonious argument again.

Stop following me around.

[Suzi]

Hi all-
Just jumping in to clarify 'salt and pepper' tweed/cloth pattern and overall effect.The initial impression would be mid to light rather than dark.




Suzi

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Oh my goodness, do you really want to go here again?"

Yes, it is kind of strange that I fail to give up my convictions at your will, Ben, is it not? But there you are.
Incidentally, maybe I should remind you that the last time over we had this discussion, you set out claiming that all cutaway jackets had tails, but ended up admitting that I was right when I stated that they need not have any tails at all in them days.

"Stop following me around."

Ben, this is not me answering a post of yours - it is you answering a post of mine.

The best,

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Suzi!

Some time back, Sam Flynn published a picture of a very dark "salt and pepper" jacket. The variety it stretches over is very big, I believe - once you have mingling spots in different shades of white, black or grey, it seems you are entitled to the term "salt and pepper".

The best,

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Here is a link to an internet page with a "salt and pepper" blazer that is very dark:

http://sharongallagher.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/SaltPepperBlazerBlack.291210951_std.jpg

The best,

Fisherman