A Case of Misattribution?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Garry,

I enjoy thinking about your theory, because it DOES make sense. It is perfectly logical and may very well be the truth. So I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just saying that what evidence remains to us, and there's more than one source, point to Lawende being the police's prime witness, and Schwartz falls off the radar early on. Therefore, your theory is working on the assumption that Schwartz was still in London come that time, when in reality, many, many Jewish immigrants of that time used London as a stop over on their way to America. Some of the IWEC members, for instance, moved on to New York and New Jersey. So while your logic is sound in that the police would have wanted to use all the reliable witnesses at their disposal, the simple fact might be that Lawende was the only one left...and this conclusion is supported by the evidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

To Mike

Thanks. I would argue that Sir Robert is a vital primary source but in terms of values and limitations the scales, arguably, fall on the latter side.

He thought that his Ripper was deceased, presumbale 'like' Swanson, 'soon after' he was sectioned -- which was supposedly in early 1889.

Whereas his confidential assistant knew that both those aspects of the Polish Jew suspect were not true. The same source which, by implication, dismissed his former boss' opinion as worthless, and off-track.

[Cogidubnus]

I enjoy thinking about your theory, because it DOES make sense. It is perfectly logical and may very well be the truth. So I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just saying that what evidence remains to us, and there's more than one source, point to Lawende being the police's prime witness, and Schwartz falls off the radar early on. Therefore, your theory is working on the assumption that Schwartz was still in London come that time, when in reality, many, many Jewish immigrants of that time used London as a stop over on their way to America. Some of the IWEC members, for instance, moved on to New York and New Jersey. So while your logic is sound in that the police would have wanted to use all the reliable witnesses at their disposal, the simple fact might be that Lawende was the only one left...and this conclusion is supported by the evidence.

Hi Tom

I too enjoy Garry's theorising, and, therefore, found your post interesting...but your last sentence seems to be suggesting there is evidence that Schwartz was no longer around at (for want of a better term) ID time...not being funny, is there? Maybe I'm missing something...or am I misunderstanding your meaning perhaps?

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

Schwartz

Hi Tom

I too enjoy Garry's theorising, and, therefore, found your post interesting...but your last sentence seems to be suggesting there is evidence that Schwartz was no longer around at (for want of a better term) ID time...not being funny, is there? Maybe I'm missing something...or am I misunderstanding your meaning perhaps?

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,

I can confirm that, according to Ancestry, there were a great many men called Israel Schwartz who emigrated to the USA, so I guess any one of them could be the man in question - or not!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

I can confirm that, according to Ancestry, there were a great many men called Israel Schwartz who emigrated to the USA, so I guess any one of them could be the man in question - or not!

Hi Colin

I'd have guessed at that (after all it's what Tom quite rightly suggests)...but did none of them, at all, stay right pond (possibly anglicising their names in doing so) ?

Again, I emphasise, I'm not being funny...simply asking...

Best wishes

Dave

[Bridewell]

I Know

Hi Colin

I'd have guessed at that (after all it's what Tom quite rightly suggests)...but did none of them, at all, stay right pond (possibly anglicising their names in doing so) ?

Again, I emphasise, I'm not being funny...simply asking...

Best wishes

Dave

Hi Dave,

I know you're not being funny. The obvious anglicisation would be a straight translation of Schwartz to Black, but there are even more of them!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Garry Wroe]

I enjoy thinking about your theory, because it DOES make sense. It is perfectly logical and may very well be the truth. So I'm not trying to be difficult.

I didn’t think you were being difficult, Tom. Not for a moment.

I'm just saying that what evidence remains to us, and there's more than one source, point to Lawende being the police's prime witness, and Schwartz falls off the radar early on.

As I said in a previous post, Tom, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Granted, we know that Lawende was used as an identificational witness in the Sadler case, but is it realistic to assume that investigators would have abandoned firmly established procedure in using Lawende and Lawende alone during the Ripper manhunt? It makes no sense, especially since Lawende by his own admission was unlikely to have identified Eddowes’ companion if presented with him once again.

Therefore, your theory is working on the assumption that Schwartz was still in London come that time, when in reality, many, many Jewish immigrants of that time used London as a stop over on their way to America. Some of the IWEC members, for instance, moved on to New York and New Jersey.

That’s a point I myself made on this very thread, Tom. But then, as Tracy indicated in an earlier post, we do have an Israel Schwartz who maintained strong links with Berner Street for many years after the murders.

So while your logic is sound in that the police would have wanted to use all the reliable witnesses at their disposal, the simple fact might be that Lawende was the only one left...and this conclusion is supported by the evidence.

Assumption, Tom, not evidence. Schwartz might have remained in the East End long after the Ripper killings, as might Mrs Long. But it is Swanson who throws a spanner into the works as far as Lawende is concerned. In short, there is no way that the evidence of a witness as flimsy as Lawende could have convicted Kosminski in its own right. Thus the Seaside Home witness must have seen something that could have been directly connected to a murder. The only witness who conforms to such is Schwartz. This leaves one of only two possibilities: either Swanson was wrong, or Lawende wasn’t the Seaside Home witness. The problem here, of course, is that if Lawende really was the Seaside Home witness, why did he not identify Kosminski during the earlier undercover City investigation?

[Garry Wroe]

Kosminski's own - Jewish - family Dobbed him in. Maybe they didn't read the Torah or maybe the claim that a Jew wouldn't testify to a gentile about a fellow Jew is something of a myth.

According to Anderson, Lechmere, the murderer was being protected by his family. If they were unprepared to give him up to 'Gentile justice' they clearly didn't alert investigators as to any suspicions they may have harboured.

[Garry Wroe]

Thanks Rob

You and Garry have provided two of the best reads I ever had since becoming interested in JtR...

Thanks, Dave. Much appreciated.