My theory on Kosminski

[c.d.]

Hello Dr. John,

I was simply pointing out that a strong argument for Schwartz being the witness (which you make) does not make it an established fact. That's it.

I can certainly see how a Jewish person would feel a sense of loyalty to a fellow Jew but would that loyalty extend to a fellow Jew who killed women and cut them up? That does not make sense to me.

c.d.

[Dr. John Watson]

Didn't see Kosminski kill anybody!

c.d.

I agree, it wouldn't make sense, but Swanson clarified that the witness's refusal wasn't because the suspect was a fellow Jew, but because his testimony would cause the suspect to be hanged and he didn't want that on his conscience. Why would identifying Kosminski as the man he saw commit simple assault and battery lead to his hanging? It shouldn't, which makes it obvious that Schwartz knew police had Kosminski tagged as the Ripper and would use his testimony to hang Kosminski for killing Stride and, by implication, for the other Ripper murders. That wouldn't have bothered police at all, but I can well understand why it would have weighed heavily on Mr. Schwartz's conscience since he didn't see Kosminski kill anybody!

Dr. John

[c.d.]

Hello Dr. John,

Not trying to be a jerk here but you keep referring to the unidentified witness as being Schwartz when we do not know that for a fact.

In 1910, Sir Robert Anderson published his memoirs, entitled "The Lighter Side of My Official Life," first as a series of articles in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, and soon after in a book of its own. Both versions were more or less verbatim, though slight differences in word-usage and connotation pop up from time to time.

From Blackwoods:

I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him; but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.

Are you citing some clarification that Anderson made at a later point?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello again, Dr. John,

Stewart Evans, with whom I am sure you are familiar and who is someone for whom I have the most respect, thinks the witness was Lawende.

Stewart does talk about your point that the witness realized the impact of his identification and refused to provide a positive identification but that it likely had to do with him not being sure as opposed to giving evidence against a fellow Jew.

c.d.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Police considered Schwartz an important witness, and there is some indication Schwartz actually testified at Stride's inquest, although no record of this has been found.
What indication is there that Schwartz appeared at Elizabeth Stride's inquest ? Sorry if i have missed something but i thought there was just conjecture that he might have done.

[Abby Normal]

there is no evidence Schwartz appeared at the inquest. the main speculation was why not? I think stewart evans has evidence of why not, but not sure if its been publically disclosed. IMHO I think it may have to do with Schwartz not being to speak English, or maybe simply didn't show up.

I think the witness at the koz ID was probably lawende. Sugden makes a good case for it in his book.

Lawende was at the inquest, and was used later possibly twice, with sadler and possibly granger. Police valued him a credible and dependable witness so it was probably him.

any other discrepencies can probably be chalked up to Andersons wishful thinking and or faulty memory.

[Wickerman]

Hello again, Dr. John,

Stewart Evans, with whom I am sure you are familiar and who is someone for whom I have the most respect, thinks the witness was Lawende.

Stewart does talk about your point that the witness realized the impact of his identification and refused to provide a positive identification but that it likely had to do with him not being sure as opposed to giving evidence against a fellow Jew.

c.d.

The last time the question of who was Anderson's Witness was pursued in any depth, if I recall correctly, as you say Stewart Evans proposed Lawende, but Paul Begg proposed Schwartz.
Both proposals have their respective strength's & weaknesses. I dont' think the question has moved towards any resolution since their exchanges on these boards.

[c.d.]

Hello Jon,

I personally think it is a moot point in that the witness (be it Schwartz or Lawende) could simply not make a positive identification and that the whole fellow Jew thing was greatly exaggerated by Anderson.

c.d.

[Joshua Rogan]

there is no evidence Schwartz appeared at the inquest....
...any other discrepencies can probably be chalked up to Andersons wishful thinking and or faulty memory.

There is actually one piece of evidence that I can think of, but it is usually put down to Anderson's faulty memory. In an exchange between the police and Home Office about the Lipski cry, he writes;

"I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case..."

Perhaps this is what Dr John is referring to?

[Trevor Marriott]

there is no evidence Schwartz appeared at the inquest. the main speculation was why not? I think stewart evans has evidence of why not, but not sure if its been publically disclosed. IMHO I think it may have to do with Schwartz not being to speak English, or maybe simply didn't show up.

I think the witness at the koz ID was probably lawende. Sugden makes a good case for it in his book.

Lawende was at the inquest, and was used later possibly twice, with sadler and possibly granger. Police valued him a credible and dependable witness so it was probably him.

any other discrepancies can probably be chalked up to Andersons wishful thinking and or faulty memory.

This whole seaside ID has more holes in it than a cullender and I dont think it ever took place as described, if at all.

Playing devils advocate here, If any ID parade was going to take place I would have expected all witnesses that had a possible sighting of the killer with any of the victims to have participated, but only one is mentioned.

If it were Lawende you have to remember he would have been a City witness and I would have expected there to have been some reference by someone recorded somewhere from the City Police about such an important ID issue as it is there is absolutely nothing, which goes to corroborate it didnt happen in the way suggested by Anderson and Swanson.

The parade it seems was initiated by the Met and I have to ask why would they have done all the organizing for a City witness, and not bother to take along Schwartz, there own witness, who again I dont believe ever saw the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Dr. John Watson]

Anderson meant Schwartz when he wrote "Schwartz."

Josh is correct in naming Anderson as the source I had in mind when I added that bit about Schwartz testifying at Stride's inquest. When Anderson wrote the letter, he may not have known police failed to offer Schwartz as a witness since his non-identification would not have helped their case (it seems two other key witnesses apparently were not called). It's also possible Schwartz testified in a secret session, although that seems doubtful. It's become acceptable to write Anderson off as unreliable when he says something you don't agree with, but here there's no question he named "Schwartz" and not "Lawende." Incidentally, if Anderson was in error, Swanson made no effort to correct it. There's also a section on Schwartz in "A to Z" which discusses this matter fully, and until new evidence is found, I'll rely on the experts who wrote that as the best source on Schwartz.

Dr. John

[Darryl Kenyon]

Wynne Baxter gave a very detailed summing up on the last day of the inquest.
The CORONER, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time.
Note something further being ascertained. So if Schwartz had gone missing or was difficult to find Wynne Baxter would certainly have adjourned the inquest again. Not only that but he goes into detail of the sightings of Marshall, Pc Smith and most tellingly James Brown. He then sums up whether they all saw the victim with the murderer or not,the time differences, and the differences in their descriptions, without debunking any of them. This is important with Brown because he allegedly saw Stride at the same time as Schwartz. Surely this would cast doubt on Brown seeing the victim but nowhere does he say or even hint at it. IE There is some evidence which is still being investigated which may suggest that the victim was seen in the company of another man the same time as the witness James Brown was alleged to have seen her. This would protect Schwartz whilst at the same time opening up the possibility that Brown was mistaken. Maybe just maybe the veracity of Schwartz was being investigated during the adjournment. But by the 23rd [Swanson's report is the 19th] he was considered to be too unreliable to take the stand, so the summing up went ahead.

[Trevor Marriott]

Wynne Baxter gave a very detailed summing up on the last day of the inquest.
The CORONER, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time.
Note something further being ascertained. So if Schwartz had gone missing or was difficult to find Wynne Baxter would certainly have adjourned the inquest again. Not only that but he goes into detail of the sightings of Marshall, Pc Smith and most tellingly James Brown. He then sums up whether they all saw the victim with the murderer or not,the time differences, and the differences in their descriptions, without debunking any of them. This is important with Brown because he allegedly saw Stride at the same time as Schwartz. Surely this would cast doubt on Brown seeing the victim but nowhere does he say or even hint at it. IE There is some evidence which is still being investigated which may suggest that the victim was seen in the company of another man the same time as the witness James Brown was alleged to have seen her. This would protect Schwartz whilst at the same time opening up the possibility that Brown was mistaken. Maybe just maybe the veracity of Schwartz was being investigated during the adjournment. But by the 23rd [Swanson's report is the 19th] he was considered to be too unreliable to take the stand, so the summing up went ahead.

The answer to all this is simple, if Stride was prostituting herself in and around Berner Street, she as likely as not in doing so might have accosted all men who crossed her path, some may have given her a verbal and physical no thanks and pushed her away as was described by Schwartz. There is no way a killer would have wanted to attract that much attention in an area where people were moving about in numbers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

Scott: I don't know if this is the slightest bit interesting, but regarding our old friend Daniel Kosminski:

"Robert Schroeder, a German, was again placed at the bar on a charge of stealing from his employer, D. Kozminski, hairdresser, of 8, Church-Street, Rotherhithe, a gold Albert chain and gold ring, having been several times remanded, and the property not having been found, Mr. Balguy discharged the prisoner." - Kentish Mercury, 24 May 1879.

South of the river; reasonably affluent.

[Scott Nelson]

Thanks RJ.

Looks like the following year, Daniel was living at 10 Bromehead Street in Stepney.