Israel Schwartz -- Witness or . . .

[Jeff Leahy]

And just to back Cel up here, if Schwartz was Anderson/Swanson's witness then he wasn't a great witness as he refused to testify.

Perhaps the police always new he was a problem but thought him a key to the Ripper case?

Pirate

[Chris]

The quote: "If Schwartz was regarded as a good witness and was still available, there can be no reason why he would not have been called upon, even if he had been used in a previous unrecorded and unsuccessful identification attempt. And, as we have seen, Swanson clearly dismissed both witnesses, Schwartz and Lawende, believing them unable to make a positive identification of the ripper because their sightings did not contain proof that it was the killer they saw. In any event an identification by either of them would have amounted merely to supporting circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence of the fact to be proved."

[my emphasis added]

Just one more thought on that, which refers to the possibility of using Israel Schwartz as a witness in February 1891.

If the witness was the same Israel Schwartz who was living at 22 Samuel Street in 1891 - which I think is likely but not certain - then we do know that he moved house pretty frequently.

We know this Israel was at 16 Brunswick Street in December 1890, at 19 Brunswick Street in March 1891, at 22 Samuel Street in April and May 1891, at 13 Queen Street in November 1894-August 1895, at 143 Back Church Lane in August 1896-April 1898, at 21 Jubilee Street in May 1901, at 1 John Street later the same month.

So this Israel had moved at least twice between October 1888 and March 1891, and there may well have been other moves before that, as we have no "sightings" of the family in the two years after the murders. Unless the police went to some lengths to keep in contact with him, they may well not have known where he was by the time of Coles's murder.

Admittedly Lawende had also moved house at least once between the murders and early 1891. But on the other hand in 1889 he stated that he had been employed by Messrs Gustav Kuschke & Co for more than six years, so it's quite likely he was still working for them in 1891 (and perhaps also in 1895, when he may have identified William Grant), and could have been contacted by the police through them.

[Stephen Thomas]

I'm open to new ideas though.

Hi Celesta

How about Schwartz was really Jack the Ripper and he went to the police with a made up story because he thought someone just might have seen him walking down Berner Street around the time of the murder ?

[Jeff Leahy]

[my emphasis added]

Just one more thought on that, which refers to the possibility of using Israel Schwartz as a witness in February 1891.

If the witness was the same Israel Schwartz who was living at 22 Samuel Street in 1891 - which I think is likely but not certain - then we do know that he moved house pretty frequently.

We know this Israel was at 16 Brunswick Street in December 1890, at 19 Brunswick Street in March 1891, at 22 Samuel Street in April and May 1891, at 13 Queen Street in November 1894-August 1895, at 143 Back Church Lane in August 1896-April 1898, at 21 Jubilee Street in May 1901, at 1 John Street later the same month.

So this Israel had moved at least twice between October 1888 and March 1891, and there may well have been other moves before that, as we have no "sightings" of the family in the two years after the murders. Unless the police went to some lengths to keep in contact with him, they may well not have known where he was by the time of Coles's murder.

Admittedly Lawende had also moved house at least once between the murders and early 1891. But on the other hand in 1889 he stated that he had been employed by Messrs Gustav Kuschke & Co for more than six years, so it's quite likely he was still working for them in 1891 (and perhaps also in 1895, when he may have identified William Grant), and could have been contacted by the police through them.

While your point is undoubtedly fair here Chris. Surely this would have been the problem of every police case of the time. People moving address frequently is common today in London. Even more common at the time.

Surely policeman were aware of this, took account and new how to find people if required. In the old fashioned way of ‘asking around’. ?

National computers simply didn’t exist at the time. and Schwartz never went that far.

Pirate

[Chris]

While your point is undoubtedly fair here Chris. Surely this would have been the problem of every police case of the time.

I think you're missing my point. I'm suggesting that Schwartz may not have been easy to find nearly two and a half years after the event, whereas Lawende probably wouldn't have been hard to trace.

So that it's not safe to conclude that Schwartz was viewed as an unreliable witness, simply from the fact that Lawende, rather than Schwartz, attempted to identify Sadler.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

You're right: Lawende wouldn't have been too hard to trace.

Gustav Kuschke & Co., tobacco merchants, were at 141 Fenchurch Street in 1882 and 1884. By 1895 they had moved to 99 Fenchurch Street, and in 1888 Inspector McWilliam reported Lawende's address as 79 Fenchurch Street.

Regards,

Simon

[Celesta]

Hi Jeff,

Thank you. Yes. people were constantly moving around, esp. in Schwartz's side of town. It could have been hard for them to keep up with where every witnesses was, although this one was probably kept up with for a long while. One would hope. Chris has a point about his employer though. It's possible that he might still be there.

I think they weren't confident in his testimony after the Oct. 1 Star report, which described him as the Hungarian. I know I keep banging on that same old drum, but apparently the dichotomy in the information he supposedly gave was enough to raise eyebrows.

Hi Stephen,

Open-minded, remember? As I said before, maybe Israel (the two-timer) was already with Liz. If he was JtR, why would he need Pipe Man? Why would he need to come forward at all, unless someone saw him, and he needed to explain his presence. In that case, where's the witness who saw him? As Mort pointed out, why would he need Pipe Man? It would only be necessary if he thought he'd been seen. Even if Pipe was real, to bring attention to a real witness would have been foolish.

Actually, I've wondered if JtR was already on the spot. I mean how do we know how long Liz was standing in that gateway, where Schwartz saw her? It could have been only a matter of a minute or so. JtR could've been waiting for her just inside, if he'd spotted her earlier, sauntering his way. That's another topic though.

Hi Chris,

Have you seen other explanations as to why Schwartz wouldn't be available. I confess I was thinking more of why he wasn't used.

Hi Simon, Thank you.

[Chris]

You're right: Lawende wouldn't have been too hard to trace.

Gustav Kuschke & Co., tobacco merchants, were at 141 Fenchurch Street in 1882 and 1884. By 1895 they had moved to 99 Fenchurch Street, and in 1888 Inspector McWilliam reported Lawende's address as 79 Fenchurch Street.

To be honest I can't really see what you're driving at here.

If you're suggesting that Kuschke & Co may have moved their premises between October 1888 and 1895, I think that is unlikely. Their address was given as 99 Fenchurch Street in Lawende's application for naturalisation, which was dated April 1889.

I'd guess the address of 79 Fenchurch Street that you quote is probably the result of a transcription error somewhere.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Chris

But if Schwartz were Anderson’s witness why would they think of using him at all in the Sadler case? It would not make sense if he had indeed identified Kosminski.

And as you correctly point out they managed to find Lawende, I don’t think it that much more difficult to find Schwartz. Without appearing flippant you managed to discover his where abouts.

Pirate

PS. Finished your book last night ‘JtR Ramsgate’. One of the freshest and most interesting reads I’ve had for some time. I can recommend it to anyone considering the latest info on a number of suspects. A Must.

[Chris]

But if Schwartz were Anderson’s witness why would they think of using him at all in the Sadler case? It would not make sense if he had indeed identified Kosminski.

The trouble is, of course, we don't know who Anderson's witness was, when he attempted to identify Anderson's suspect, or what exactly Anderson and Swanson interpreted as an "identification".

So I'm not sure what you're arguing. That if Schwartz had been Anderson's witness and had earlier identified Anderson's suspect, then that might be the reason he wasn't asked to identify Sadler? That might be the case - but of course there are arguments against that supposition, which have been discussed many times.

And as you correctly point out they managed to find Lawende, I don’t think it that much more difficult to find Schwartz. Without appearing flippant you managed to discover his where abouts.

But I've suggested how they might have been able to trace Lawende easily.

Apart from some kind of general door-to-door enquiry in the area, it's not clear how they could have traced Schwartz, if he hadn't kept the police informed of his movements. No doubt he could have been found, but it would have taken a lot more effort than finding Lawende.

And I'm afraid your final point really is a bit silly. There was no London Metropolitan Archives and no Internet in 1891. And even with those advantages, the information that's been found about Schwartz has been found gradually over the course of several years.

Finished your book last night ‘JtR Ramsgate’. One of the freshest and most interesting reads I’ve had for some time. I can recommend it to anyone considering the latest info on a number of suspects. A Must.

I'm glad you liked the book, but it was written by a different Chris!

[Jeff Leahy]

I'm glad you liked the book, but it was written by a different Chris!

I'm sorry Chris, of course the book was Chris Scott. As you both have similar Handles you are easy to confuse. I do Apologise and I hope no offence has been taken. It was genuine confusion on my part between Philips and Scott. Both of you being researchers of renown.

Am I now digging a hole?

My apology Pirate

[Sam Flynn]

Jeff - you got your Chrisses crossed. It happens to us all

[Celesta]

Why did Swanson name the suspect, who was supposedly dead at the time of the "marginalia," but not the witness? Who's to say they really used Lawende? If Schwartz was available, why was he not used? He must have seen BS closer than Lawende saw the man with the woman near Mitre Square. Schwartz saw someone but was that really JTR?


Sam, A case of being double-chrissed.

[Mort Belfry]

Without the invention of pipeman he has no explanation for why he was seen running away from the crime scene.

If we're supposing Schwartz killed Stride and his witness statement was a fabrication, why didn't he just say Broad Shoulders ran after him? If he was the killer and he was worried about being seen running away then to say the actual killer chased him would give the killing at correct time of death.

If he knew about the whole murder then he have used it more to his advantage.

If it was me and I was the "killing Schwartz" then I would have said, "I was walking along the side of the street where the murder was committed and looked into the dimly lit Dutfield's yard. I couldn't see very well but I saw some movement. Suddenly a man with traces of blood on him came out of the darkness holding a knife. Petrified, I ran away not know whether or not the man was chasing me."

[Jeff Leahy]

Just to add to that point. Do we actually know for certain that the police did not trace pipeman? Isn't there some suggestion that they may have done so?

Is it possible that he collaborate Schwartz testimony?

Pirate

PS Either that Sam or I am finally going senile...it's been a long couple of weeks...cheer's for the gag