Different Killers

[Hunter]

As has been stated many times here and elsewhere, if you want to include anything Israel Schwartz claimed as being of value to the investigation into the murder of Liz Stride, you first must provide proof that his statement was entered as evidence in said Inquest...

Yes, you've stated that many times and it's still not true.

...and that the authorities authenticated some stated belief in his story with verifiable actions, beyond the first 24 hours.

The official police documents verify that they acted on Schwartz's information well beyond the first 24 hours.

[Wickerman]

Maybe in 2015 but it is clear Crawford interjects in the matter in 1888.

Yes he did, which is what I wrote:
"....the request can be made in open court, as is what happened.".

Which was perfectly acceptable.

Maybe he made a mistake because he was used as a witness with Sadler.

Well, that is an assumption.
One of the Mitre Square witnesses was used, the name of the witness was not given. Yes, we "assume" it was Lawende, but if this press report is anything to go by...

"Mr. Henry Harris, of the two gentlemen our representative interviewed, is the more communicative. He is of opinion that neither Mr. Levander nor Mr. Levy saw anything more than he did, and that was only the back of the man. Mr. Joseph Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give us the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but that he is afraid to be called on the inquest. Hence he assumes a knowing air."
Evening News, 9 Oct. 1888.

Can we really be 'sure' it was Lawende?

Note: "only the back of the man" must surely be an error for, "back of the woman"?

[Scott Nelson]

Swanson identified Kozminski as the man seen by the witness.

Begg correctly noted that Swanson wasn't city police. He is Met.

Therefore it is unlikely they used a city police witness without their knowledge.

The deduced inference is Schwartz not Lawende.

Well thanks for setting us straight on this.

[Wickerman]

That debate, whether Lawende & Schwartz, was a contentious issue between Stewart & Paul in the early days of Casebook, when they were both on the boards.
The City Police did work hand-in-hand with the Met., as proven in the Eddowes case, so there is no obvious objection on those grounds.

[John G]

As this paragraph was released by the same paper, the Star, on the same day but in a later edition, it seems odd to me that they would provide a detail not included in their initial story about the Hungarian.

Initially, there was no mention that the Hungarian simply thought the attack was, "a man and his wife quarreling". The Hungarian also described the attacker as "about 30", whereas this later paragraph suggests, "aged between 35 and 40"

A different reason, plus the different age estimate does suggest a different source other than the Hungarian.

I notice at the end of the 'Hungarian' article the Star reports that, "The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes." If this man was either BS-man or Pipeman, then why would Swanson include the descriptions of both men in his 19th Oct. report?
So, either we have another unnamed witness, or the story is false.

Hi Jon,

But who could that witness be? Schwartz doesn't mention anyone, apart from Pipeman. I suppose in theory it could be a neighbour of Mortimer who claimed to have seen something whilst indoors. But again this runs into the same difficulties: why were they not apparently utilized subsequently in the investigation, why did they not sell their story to the press or appear at the inquest?

I suspect that the papers sometimes resorted to police sources who were, on occasion, very unreliable, i.e. by giving garbled, unreliable or even dishonest information for cash.

[Batman]

Swanson identified Kozminski as the man seen by the witness.

Begg correctly noted that Swanson wasn't city police. He is Met.

Therefore it is unlikely they used a city police witness without their knowledge.

The deduced inference is Schwartz not Lawende.

[Batman]

You must be joking!, that is a criminal offense.

If the police do not want a witness to give a description the police can approach the Coroner and explain why, and request that no questions be put to the witness that may result in him having to provide a description.
Or, alternately, the request can be made in open court, as is what happened.

In no way can the police coach a witness to say what they tell him to say.

Maybe in 2015 but it is clear Crawford interjects in the matter in 1888. The witness has been cut off by the police lawyer. Maybe he made a mistake because he was used as a witness with Sadler. Maybe coached too strong a term. How about not corrected to retain that detail which they used.

[John G]

http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/schwartz.html

He completely obliterates the idea Schwartz is lying here too...

Swanson -
If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered.o

A police report that concludes there is no reason to doubt Schwartz. That's Swanson referencing an official document on the matter of the investigation over Schwartz's testimony. Sorry but that's not conjecture or bad news journalism.

Hi Batman,

Well, they initially had faith in George Huchinson as well. And Joseph Lawende seems to have been their prime witness. Mind you, he's surely completely hopeless, as recognized by Begg (2004), who felt driven to theorizes that it must have been Scwartz who identified Kosminski!

Mind you, if I remember correctly that's now all been completely resolved by Dr Jari and Russell Edwards. I mean, who needs unreliable witnesses when proper forensic science can come to your rescue!

[Wickerman]

I suspect Lawende was coached by investigators to say he wouldn't recognize the man, but that they knew he could and hence why they used them throughout the investigation,...

You must be joking!, that is a criminal offense.

If the police do not want a witness to give a description the police can approach the Coroner and explain why, and request that no questions be put to the witness that may result in him having to provide a description.
Or, alternately, the request can be made in open court, as is what happened.

In no way can the police coach a witness to say what they tell him to say.

[John G]

Hello All. These arguments are all duplicated many times on other threads.

If Schwartz speaks truly, then BSM killed Liz and one may effectively kiss "JTR" goodbye as her killer.

As I see it, my jackster colleagues owe me a pint just about now for my Herculean efforts. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Yes, that's what's so ironic. Surely what Schwartz is describing is a common street crime, as referred to by Michael (post 912). However, as I discussed in post 871, I think Liz's murder was far from being that. Mind you, at the risk of being seriously provocative, I'm beginning to think that the scenario proposed in post 890 fits in quite nicely with Liz having been killed by JtR! Well, at least more so than the BS man theory. Anyway, I would welcome a discussion on my almost unbreakable theory. Well, apart from perhaps the odd discrepancy!

I agree that you're probably owed at least a pint, arguably several, for keeping the JtR theory alive. Not sure if everyone will appreciate the irony though!

[Batman]

Hello Batman.

"This also explains why Schwartz wasn't given status at the inquest, yet still remained used by investigators (Schwartz; A-Z)."

Ah! Now I get it. You are referring to that nonsense about Schwartz being the Seaside Home identifier. If I recall properly, Paul Begg and the other Kosminskiites dreamed that one up because Lawende did not fit.

There is ZERO evidence that Schwartz later figured in the investigation.

Cheers.
LC

http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/schwartz.html

He completely obliterates the idea Schwartz is lying here too...

Swanson -
If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered.o

A police report that concludes there is no reason to doubt Schwartz. That's Swanson referencing an official document on the matter of the investigation over Schwartz's testimony. Sorry but that's not conjecture or bad news journalism.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"I notice at the end of the 'Hungarian' article the Star reports that, "The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes"."

And what was the outcome of that arrest?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

The same as all the others, apparently.
The police may not have "wholly" believed him, but he doesn't appear to have been charged with anything.

[Wickerman]

You know it would be helpful while discussing these issues if personal opinions aren't paraded around as "facts".

Not just "these" issues Michael, and not just "these" posters.
No need to say anymore, I think.

[Batman]

Hello batman. Thanks.

"Obviously the first man is still suspected but not the second or he would have said it. So Schwartz was corroborated."

By Swanson only. Oh and perhaps someone from the Home office who still thought Lipski was a perpetrator. (heh-heh)

"Stride and Eddowes both had their key witnesses surpressed by the investigators at the time."

Suppressed? How was Lawende suppressed? He testified at inquest--unlike Schwartz.

"This is the only way to reconcile the fact the investigation files continue to use both in suspect identification, one by Met, one by City."

I have no idea what you mean? is it that Lawende later testified about Grainger?

"Lawrence's testimony was halted during the inquest."

Halted? You mean some parts were left out just in case the suspect should turn up? You are comparing chalk to cheese.

Cheers.
LC

Swanson said the police are not interested in the second man. In your version of events, the second man is imaginary, because Schwartz made up the story. Yet you now have to contend with the fact that Swanson believes in an imaginary person made up by Schwartz. This is highly unlikely. He was a senior investigator. The story was connected directly to a real crime. There is no way, prime witnesses, would just be glanced over. Sorry, but the facts speak for themselves. Pipeman is real. Swanson is not incompetent. The news papers support that arrests happened. Schwartz is corroborated and retained. There you have it.

Carpenter stopped Lawende from testifing any further to prevent details emerging. Consult the A-Z. They where believed. Accepted.

[lynn cates]

pint

Hello All. These arguments are all duplicated many times on other threads.

If Schwartz speaks truly, then BSM killed Liz and one may effectively kiss "JTR" goodbye as her killer.

As I see it, my jackster colleagues owe me a pint just about now for my Herculean efforts. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC