Favoured Suspects

[Garry Wroe]

Swanson's feeling (as of Oct. 19th) was that Lawende is the person most likely to have seen the Ripper, but did not get good enough a view of him.

Which flies in the face of Anderson’s contention (supported inferentially by Swanson) that the Seaside Home witness identified a suspect (Kosminski) without hesitation.

Schwartz got a much better view, but because of the lapse of time (15 minutes) it couldn't be assumed he'd seen her killer. Therefore, neither of these witnesses could have led to a conviction without other evidence or a confession.

Schwartz saw a soon to be murdered woman, Tom, being assaulted within feet of the spot on which her body was discovered fifteen minutes later. According to Dr Blackwell death occurred between 12-46 and 12-56am. This death, moreover, was relatively slow rather than instantaneous. This being the case, the possibility that Schwartz witnessed the initial stage of an attack that resulted in Stride’s death cannot have been lost on investigators.

In terms of the likelihood of a conviction on such evidence, Swanson was a vastly experienced policeman who stated that the identification would in itself have been sufficient to have hung Kosminski. Read up on some of the trials of the period, Tom, and you’ll discover that certain defendants were convicted on nothing more than bad character. As such, I wouldn’t readily dismiss Swanson’s words.

I agree there's no evidence (such as a statement) after Nov. 1st to the effect that Schwartz was no longer believed. I just think it's odd there's no statement to the effect that he was still believed. Plenty about Lawende, zero about Schwartz. It's perplexing.

Agreed, Tom. That said, Lawende cannot have been the witness who identified Kosminski on behalf of the Met. Had he done so Major Smith would have been aware of it and would almost certainly have questioned how Lawende was able to make an unequivocal identification at the Seaside Home having failed to identify the same man during the City’s earlier investigation. That would have made Lawende a dubious witness, and yet Smith clearly viewed him in the most positive of terms. With Lawende out of the equation we’re left with Schwartz as Anderson’s mystery Jewish witness. There really is no-one else. So whereas I share your frustration regarding the lack of official Schwartz-related documentation, I nonetheless incline to the view that he continued to be an important witness as far as investigators were concerned.

[drstrange169]

Hello Tom,

The it's a syndicated report, appearing word for word in various papers.
The one I clipped was from the Evening Stanard.

>>I believe Abberline would have mentioned it in his follow up report ...<<

D'accord!

(I’m currently watching a French zombie show)

[Tom_Wescott]

Dusty, you post good finds. Unfortunately, you rarely source them.

Schwartz probably was shown this man but he must have not recognized him. If either BS Man or Pipeman had been identified by Oct. 19th, Donald Swanson would have known about it and would have mentioned it in his report of that date. Had either been identified by Nov. 1st, I believe Abberline would have mentioned it in his follow up report or Swanson would have included it. This is unless the operative theory is that they intentionally withheld information from both Home Office and the coroner.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rosella]

Thanks for the report, Dusty. This man obviously because of the bloodstained clothing became 'a person of interest' as we would say, and the police could well have asked Schwartz to look him over, though whether he would have actually got bloodied from pushing the woman at Durfields Yard on to the ground is debatable.

[drstrange169]

Hello Rosella,

>>It may well have been then that the woman and man (BS man) having the quarrel at Dutfield's Yard were traced ...<<

Could have been this guy, arrested on 9th Oct ...

[Trevor Marriott]

So the credibility of potential witnesses re their lack of English and changing details was never considered a problem? It may well have been then that the woman and man (BS man) having the quarrel at Dutfield's Yard were traced or came forward, and it had nothing to do with Stride's murder at all.

Thats a very distinct possibility.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Rosella]

Well, it may have been the Star reporter changing things, who knows, but in the Star report of October 1st there are at least two fairly significant details that are changed in Schwartz's account.

For instance, Pipe man now has a knife in his hand, not a pipe (or in addition to a pipe.) As well, Schwartz states that the second man, not BS man, shouts out a warning. No mention of 'Lipski'. He also says in this interview that the second man had a red moustache. No mention of knives or red moustaches or of warnings from the second man in Schwartz's police statement.

Because of Schwartz's bad English he would have been accompanied by interpreters every time he spoke to Englishmen about the incident and different interpreters sometimes express what people are saying in different ways, though they don't usually change significant details.

[Tom_Wescott]

So the credibility of potential witnesses re their lack of English and changing details was never considered a problem? It may well have been then that the woman and man (BS man) having the quarrel at Dutfield's Yard were traced or came forward, and it had nothing to do with Stride's murder at all.

There's no evidence that Schwartz had changed his story. And no, his inability to speak English would not prevent him from identifying a suspect. In fact, at least two people were put in front of Schwartz in the days following the murder, according to the press. If a couple came forward it must have been at least a month after the murder occurred because there are reports from Abberline regarding Schwartz up to Nov. 1st.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rosella]

So the credibility of potential witnesses re their lack of English and changing details was never considered a problem? It may well have been then that the woman and man (BS man) having the quarrel at Dutfield's Yard were traced or came forward, and it had nothing to do with Stride's murder at all.

[Tom_Wescott]

At the time of Stride's murder though, Schwartz apparently had very little English. Interpreters (like Schwartz's friend) were used, even in the newspaper interview. Could it be that different interpreters for Schwartz changed details in the account so much that the police came to the conclusion that his testimony in court, even at the inquest, would be virtually useless, so he was dropped? Lawende by contrast ran a business and spoke perfect English, a much more credible potential witness, if Jack was ever brought to trial.

No, that wouldn't have been a problem.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rosella]

At the time of Stride's murder though, Schwartz apparently had very little English. Interpreters (like Schwartz's friend) were used, even in the newspaper interview. Could it be that different interpreters for Schwartz changed details in the account so much that the police came to the conclusion that his testimony in court, even at the inquest, would be virtually useless, so he was dropped? Lawende by contrast ran a business and spoke perfect English, a much more credible potential witness, if Jack was ever brought to trial.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom
If the police wanted to trace a person of importance to them especially in such a high profile case as this then they would have pulled out all the stops to find him. After all these were persons that were very territorial, so hardly likely to move to far away.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Many, if not most, of the Jews immigrating into London had the aim of going to America. Many of them did, others settled in London. I agree that if it were terribly important to the police to have Schwartz come in to ID a man years later, they could have done it. I'm not sure it was terribly important to them, though. They must have known the evidence would be useless.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

I've thought the same thing, Wick. If the Israel Schwartz of Berner Street fame is the same one in the 1891 census, then he was living at 22 Samuel Street. But that doesn't mean the cops knew that. Lawende was used at least once in 1891 (for Sadler and then possibly Kozminski), and then allegedly used again in 1895 for William Grant (I'm not sold on that one happening, but that's what was reported). Obviously, all of these IDs were just for vanity purposes as they could not have had any legal value. But what throws me isn't that Schwartz wasn't used for IDs, because as you said, there's other explanations for that. it's that he wasn't referenced as having been a good witness, even by the Met Policemen who knew him or would have known about him, i.e. Macnaghten, Anderson, and especially Abberline.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom
If the police wanted to trace a person of importance to them especially in such a high profile case as this then they would have pulled out all the stops to find him. After all these were persons that were very territorial, so hardly likely to move to far away.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Tom_Wescott]

Lawende may have been used in that "after-the-murders" identification (I can't remember the date) due to the fact he ran a business and was therefore easy to locate.
Other witnesses like Mrs. Long, Mrs Cox and Hutchinson were possibly transient, perhaps even Schwartz had moved again?

Lawende was right there, at his business, to pick up.

Path of least resistance...

I've thought the same thing, Wick. If the Israel Schwartz of Berner Street fame is the same one in the 1891 census, then he was living at 22 Samuel Street. But that doesn't mean the cops knew that. Lawende was used at least once in 1891 (for Sadler and then possibly Kozminski), and then allegedly used again in 1895 for William Grant (I'm not sold on that one happening, but that's what was reported). Obviously, all of these IDs were just for vanity purposes as they could not have had any legal value. But what throws me isn't that Schwartz wasn't used for IDs, because as you said, there's other explanations for that. it's that he wasn't referenced as having been a good witness, even by the Met Policemen who knew him or would have known about him, i.e. Macnaghten, Anderson, and especially Abberline.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Lawende may have been used in that "after-the-murders" identification (I can't remember the date) due to the fact he ran a business and was therefore easy to locate.
Other witnesses like Mrs. Long, Mrs Cox and Hutchinson were possibly transient, perhaps even Schwartz had moved again?

Lawende was right there, at his business, to pick up.

Path of least resistance...