Favoured Suspects

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Tom.
Do you think there may have been an under-current of politics vetween City and Metro at play here?

From the way i understand ,,the story,,, murdering Catherine in Mitre Square opened the case up to City Police. Could Lawende have been City,s entry and opportunity into apprehending the murderer instead of Metro, and possibly treated as their star witness?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom.
Do you think there may have been an under-current of politics vetween City and Metro at play here?

From the way i understand ,,the story,,, murdering Catherine in Mitre Square opened the case up to City Police. Could Lawende have been City,s entry and opportunity into apprehending the murderer instead of Metro, and possibly treated as their star witness?

Hi Robert. There is no question that politics were involved and some egos bruised. For instance, the press loved the City Police, who were more accommodating, and were terribly critical of the Met Police. Had the City Police captured Jack the Ripper it would have been a huge embarrassment to the Met Police. Men would have lost their jobs and reputations would have been ruined. No question about it. That's a purely academic point since the Ripper was never captured. However, the officials on the Met side seemed to have ended up favoring Lawende as a witness in any respect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[drstrange169]

hello Tom,

A Daily Telegraph reporter claimed to have seen a police notice being circulated to police stations of suspect descriptions, including Schwartz's BS man.

"A correspondent forwards copies of descriptions of certain men who were last seen in the company of the woman who was murdered in Berner-street and of the woman who was mutilated in Mitre-square. These authentic descriptions, we have reason to know, have been secretly circulated by the authorities of Scotland-yard since Oct. 26, but the complete details have never been made public. This reticence is one of the mysteries of police administration, and it is difficult to find an explanation to account for the fact that this important information has been "confidentially communicated" to police-officers throughout the kingdom, but has been withheld from the people who have had the best opportunities of seeing and of, therefore, recognising the assassin."
...
"At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.
Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland-yard London, S.W."

[Tom_Wescott]

hello Tom,

A Daily Telegraph reporter claimed to have seen a police notice being circulated to police stations of suspect descriptions, including Schwartz's BS man.

"A correspondent forwards copies of descriptions of certain men who were last seen in the company of the woman who was murdered in Berner-street and of the woman who was mutilated in Mitre-square. These authentic descriptions, we have reason to know, have been secretly circulated by the authorities of Scotland-yard since Oct. 26, but the complete details have never been made public. This reticence is one of the mysteries of police administration, and it is difficult to find an explanation to account for the fact that this important information has been "confidentially communicated" to police-officers throughout the kingdom, but has been withheld from the people who have had the best opportunities of seeing and of, therefore, recognising the assassin."
...
"At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.
Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland-yard London, S.W."

Hi Dusty, thanks for that. Yes, that was the wire transmitted early October and then published in the Police Gazette of Oct. 19th. What was the date of the Daily Telegraph edition you're quoting?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[drstrange169]

12th November.

Presumably, some reporter saw the police notice in a cop shop somewhere the day before.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks, Dusty. I still have not been able to find any mention of Schwartz being viewed as a serious witness by police after November 1st, when Abberline wrote his last response to questions from Home Office. If you happen across anything, please let me know.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

However, the officials on the Met side seemed to have ended up favoring Lawende as a witness in any respect.

I see no evidence for the Met having mistrusted Schwartz, Tom. Indeed, as I have argued on other threads, Schwartz is the only witness who saw a victim being assaulted immediately prior to her murder, in which respect he is the only witness whose sighting could, as Swanson stated, have resulted in a conviction based upon the sighting alone.

As GUT said, our understanding of such issues would be greatly enhanced were we to have access to all of the files available to investigators at the time of the murders.

[Tom_Wescott]

I see no evidence for the Met having mistrusted Schwartz, Tom. Indeed, as I have argued on other threads, Schwartz is the only witness who saw a victim being assaulted immediately prior to her murder, in which respect he is the only witness whose sighting could, as Swanson stated, have resulted in a conviction based upon the sighting alone.

As GUT said, our understanding of such issues would be greatly enhanced were we to have access to all of the files available to investigators at the time of the murders.

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. 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.

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.

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...

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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]

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.