Is Mr Schwartz the equivalent of a Hasidic Hutchinson?

[Chris]

Then if Lawende had of positively identified Kosminski, why bring him in to identify Saddler? It wouldn't make sense?

That's exactly what I mean. It's a difficulty if we take at face value what Anderson said. But if something less than a positive identification occurred, there would be no problem in the same witness being used again later.

[Jeff Leahy]

That's exactly what I mean. It's a difficulty if we take at face value what Anderson said. But if something less than a positive identification occurred, there would be no problem in the same witness being used again later.

OK, I see your logic. But isn't Swanson fairly clear that the witness instantly recognized the fellow, and the suspect new he had been identified...

It all sounds rather open and shut. Not much room for 'doubt' in either persons mind?

Pirate

[Chris]

It all sounds rather open and shut.

As I keep saying, many people don't think so. Opinions differ.

[Jeff Leahy]

Clearly, even amongst scholars of the subject. It would be a dull subject indeed if everyone where in total agreement.

However the elephant in the room has been broached. Schwartz credibility is clearly enhanced if one chooses to believe that Swanson and Andersons suspect was indeed, Schwartz.

It simply stands to reason they must have believed his story if this was the case. And lets face it, if his story was true, then of all the witnesses he probably had the best look at JtR, and the best chance of identifying him.

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Schwartz credibility is clearly enhanced if one chooses to believe that Swanson and Andersons suspect was indeed, Schwartz.

I would agree with that. As of right now, it looks to me like Schwartz was dismissed for some reason as a credible witness not long after the double event. But if it's shown that he was still considered a credible witness by the police years later, then his credibility would be significantly increased, at least in my eyes. However, from what evidence we have (and granted, it's not a whole lot), it seems Lawende was the preferred witness and Schwartz disappeared ala Hutchinson in October of 1888.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Fair comment.

Perhaps a thread entitled Schwartz v Lawende: Which was the most likely Swanson witness? Might bare some interesting fruit.

Clearly it is an important point worth serious consideration.

Pirate

[perrymason]

Hi all,

What we do have is the knowledge that Lawende was sequestered by the Police pending his Inquest appearance, put up in a hotel, and that he is the most probable bet for the Jewish witness re-called even years later to identify suspects. Despite his own protestations regarding the quality of his view of the man, or Kate.

So that does leave a door open for speculating whether this much better sighting of a man with a victim actually interacting physically is really their "Ace in the Hole".

A few things seem to me to make that unlikely. The confused reference of a PC near Mitre Square as being the best sighting of the man called "Jack".....something which to me would make sense if he meant the witness near Mitre Square, as based on the time alone, he is surely the man that kills Kate. And she is far more likely to have been an actual Ripper victim than Liz.

And the fact that Schwartz spoke no English. That would have been a factor at the Seaside Home, yet no mention of translators there.

I think the real core is.......do honorable mentions in memorandums really mean anything when compared with the glaring absence of anything related to Schwartz being presented to a jury?

Best regards

[caz]

I'm baaaaack.

(Just for a quickie.)

A further possibility is that he could have been a knifeman (experience immaterial) who had no intention of plunging his hands into a "fresh" abdominal cavity, and hence had no need to effect a significant and rapid loss of blood.

Hi Sam,

Well of course, that could well have applied to Jack, if he had no intention of sticking around in such a risky location, plunging his hands into anyone's abdominal cavity, and chose instead to kill Liz swiftly and leg it, because maybe she refused to go with him somewhere more 'plunge' friendly and he was mightily offended - or took it to mean she had rumbled him. Such a scenario would not hinge on whether Schwartz was credible or not. The location was arguably no more or less risky than where other victims were when their killer first set eyes on them and assumed they were up for it.

When Blackwell says "within 20 minutes of my arrival, not more than half an hour," that cannot possibly mean he felt it was probably less than 20 minutes. Not in English anyway. Unless English is your second language, you would know that immediately. In case that is an issue for you, his quote translates to times of 12:56am and 12:46am respectively.....meaning her throat was probably cut between 12:56 and 12:46am,....in his estimation...not mine.

Look, Perry, I can see you were getting very frustrated with me here, so I can only suggest you find out for yourself from some reputable English language source what "within 20 minutes of my arrival" actually means, if you seriously think that Blackwell's qualifier somehow turned it magically into "more than 20 minutes before my arrival".

His whole sentence may have been awkward (though not as misleading as those hair conditioner commercials that claim to mend up to 75% or more split ends. That would actually mean anything from 0% upwards, making the 75% figure completely meaningless).

But it's clear to me what he meant, and I'm not the only poster who has said the same thing. In his professional opinion Liz had died within 20 minutes of his arrival, ie sometime between 12.56 and 01.16, but in any case she was still alive half an hour before.

Love,

Caz
X