Israel Schwartz -- Witness or . . .

[Chris]

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 had a chance to check the Post Office Directories for London today. Kuschke & Co, Lawende's employers, were first listed at 99 Fenchurch Street in the 1886 directory (having been listed at 141 Fenchurch Street the previous year), and were still listed there in 1910.

Paul Begg argues that this may have been so, based on the wording of two newspaper reports (The Facts, pp. 157, 158), but the evidence is very tenuous. To my mind it seems inconceivable that Swanson would have summarised Schwartz's story in the way he did, if the police had also interviewed one of the two men he described.

Hi Chris,

The reports as I recall were lacking all crucial data, like who was involved in questioning him, whether he was shown to Schwartz for a firm ID, or what his version of events was.

But Im not so sure myself that means the story is false.

Something has to account for Schwartz's lack of presence in the investigation, his story includes an altercation with a soon to be victim of murder within 15 minutes and likely as many feet from where she is found. That cannot be irrelevant....well, only if he is.

Cheers Chris.

[Chris]

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?

Paul Begg argues that this may have been so, based on the wording of two newspaper reports (The Facts, pp. 157, 158), but the evidence is very tenuous. To my mind it seems inconceivable that Swanson would have summarised Schwartz's story in the way he did, if the police had also interviewed one of the two men he described.

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?

Pirate

Hi Pirate,

I wish I could remember the paper that mentions this, but in one account it is suggested that one of the men seen by Schwartz was tracked down, questioned, and released. The article did not specify which man, but it seemed they were talking about the other "witness", so I assume it was Pipeman.

I wonder if what they heard from him matched Schwartz's story...likley without the "knife" bit...but I was thinking if it was Pipeman, did he say something that made the police less interested in Schwartz's sighting?

The fact he is not even mentioned in the Inquest might be representative of something like that.

Best regards all.

[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

[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."

[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.

[Sam Flynn]

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

[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

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.