Schwartz, a fraud?

[Jonathan H]

To Garry Wroe

Another way of approaching such a primary source, that is the Swasnon Marginalia, is to consider the following -- all of which takes the gloss of treating it as either definitive or reliable, both a helluva stretch:

1.) The Marginalia is not an official source; it's private -- as private an act as masturbation -- and so you can write what you like to please yourself in retirement.

2) It is inherently self-serving because it claims that the case was solved, yet this opinion -- and the details of this opinion -- were not tested by Swanson in a public forum, assuming of course it is his opinion (yes, Anderson's was debated, but he did not mention the Seaside Home or that the man was dead).

3) It is written many years after the events concerned and therefore the potential for error and exaggeration are inevitable.

4) It contains errors about Aaron Kosminski, if that is whom Swanson means by 'Kosminski', as the latter was not dead, the Ripper murders -- as initially understood -- did not end with Kelly, and what is more this suspect was out and about for years after Kelly, and apparently harmless. If he was the fiend he, well, got better?

5) We do not know that this is Swanson's opinion and not Anderson's; that the former is recording the latter's to clarify the differences between the magazine version and the book. It's over-reach and tone certainly sound like Anderson. And it's a desperately melodramatic tale: we had him by the balls, and he knew we had him, but a treacherous Jew let us down! Oh well, at least the swine was caged and then, hooray, safely dead.

6) Anderson and/or Swanson thought that Kosminski was deceased and yet Macnaghten knew that he wasn't. Funny how Mac never told him, or them? If both senior policemen both believed this (And Swanson may not have known either way) then both were wrong.

[Roy Corduroy]

I believe there is a plausible explanation for Schwartz's apparent nonappearance.

Good morning Hunter,

As you've posted, your explanation is that because of the shout of 'Lipski' contained in Schwartz's account, the authorities were reluctant to have that repeated in public at an inquest. Because of the connotations, an ethnic slur. Coming just a year after the Lipski affair. So it was tamped down. Schwartz was kept out of the inquest proceedings.

I used to argue the exact same thing here on Casebook and at Forums. Repeatedly. Some people noticed that and Stewart Evans posted a direct reply and told me flat no that wasn't the reason.

We don't know the reason.

Roy

[Bridewell]

And, as we have seen, Swanson clearly dismssed both witnesses, Schwartz and Lawende, believing them unable to make a positive identification of the Ripper because their sightings did not contain proof that it was the killer they saw ...'

Does this mean that there was a third witness with a better claim than either Lawende or Schwartz? If so, who was it?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Garry Wroe]

For me, Evans and Rumbelow put the argument against Schwartz as Anderson's witness very persuasively in 'Scotland Yard Investigates' (2006)

Stewart and Don may have presented a plausible case, Jonathan, but their interpretation fails to account for Swanson’s contention that the evidence of Anderson’s witness would in itself have been sufficient to have secured a conviction. Since only a witness who had seen an actual attack would have met this requirement, Schwartz must have been the witness – unless, of course, there emerged a crucial Jewish male witness who somehow managed to escape the combined attention of the press, coroners and virtually every police officer from two forces engaged on the Ripper manhunt.

‘And, as we have seen, Swanson clearly dismssed both witnesses, Schwartz and Lawende, believing them unable to make a positive identification of the Ripper because their sightings did not contain proof that it was the killer they saw ...'

That statement, I’m afraid, Jonathan, is lost on me. Swanson clearly hadn’t ‘dismissed’ both Schwartz and Lawende given that one of them must have been the witness whose evidence Swanson believed was sufficient in its own right to have convicted the killer.

[Hunter]

Hi Garry,

I apologize for breaking you're paragraph up like this, as I usually consider it rude to do so. But you made some interesting points concisely.

Lawende was a City witness. None of the Met witnesses appear to have been sequestered. Not even Hutchinson, who for a brief period was believed by Abberline to have been a stellar informant.

The relationship between the City Police and their coroner was of a more cooperative nature than that which existed between the Met and Mr. Baxter. At the Eddowes inquest, Langham even let Mr. Crawford, who was representing the City Police as solicitor, conduct the line of questioning of the witnesses to a large degree. Of course, there was no reason to sequester Hutchinson because that inquest had concluded and the body never made it into Baxter's jurisdiction. Abberline was probably not happy that Hutchinson talked to the press because that, alone, would have negated much of Hutchinson's value as a witness.

... Schwartz’s apparent nonappearance at the Stride inquest (along with Fanny Mortimer) is a mystery in need of an explanation

I believe there is a plausible explanation for Schwartz's apparent nonappearance.

...particularly as Schwartz was almost certainly Anderson’s witness and thus crucially important as far as investigators were concerned. It’s beyond me, I’m afraid.

Schwartz was crucially important as far as the police was concerned, but I am cautious about Anderson and his witness. His statement was made many years later in a document that is inconsistent and strewn with errors.

Contemporaneously, the witnesses would have been the focus of the man heading the investigation, Donald Swanson. His witness chart, compiled after the 'double event' bears that out. In a couple of Swanson's reports at about the same time, he explains the strengths and weaknesses of both Schwartz and Lawende as witnesses, but discounts neither. One aspect that he didn't mention, but would have been significant to a policeman, was the fact that Lawende had corroboration to his sighting; none of the other witnesses did.

[Jonathan H]

To Garry Wroe

Well, I have thought about it and read about it.

How could any positive identification have led to the arrest, let alone conviction of the said suspect if he was already 'safely caged' in a madhouse as Anderson claimed in the first, magazine version of his memoirs in 1910 -- as details subsequently dropped.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

We do not have hard evidence that Aaron Kosminski was ever the subject of a witness confrontation. Swanson may be only repeating a tale he was told by Anderson. If not then he makes several errors which bring his memory into question: 'Kosminski' was not deceased soon after, and the Ripper murders did not stop at his incarceration for Coles was murdered only days later -- and Swanson sure acted like that was a murder by the same hand back in 1891.

Macnaghten makes no reference to such a witness confrontation re: this suspect, and 'Kosminski' begins with him in the extant record (and he knew 'Kosminski' was still alive and that he was at large long after the Kelly murder).

For myself, Evans and Rumbelow argue this theory very persuasively:

'It may benefit the reader to pause and consider the implications of this coincidence. Over two years after the last generally accepted Ripper killing (Kelly) we have a Polish Jew maniac named Kosminski locked up and within a week a Ripper suspect is subjected to a failed identification as the Ripper by a Jewish witness.' (p. 251)

(Plus BS man does not match Lawende's Jack the Sailor, though 'Knifeman' does)

[Jonathan H]

For me, Evans and Rumbelow put the argument against Schwartz as Anderson's witness very persuasively in 'Scotland Yard Investigates' (2006):

'It should also be noted that theorists have suggested 'Anderson's Witness' was not Joseph Lawende at all but was in fact Israel Schwartz, the non-English speaking Hungarian Jew who witnessed an attack on Elizabeth Stride at the murder site in Berner St. Appealing as this idea may seem, it is apparently negated by the fact that, according to the 'Daily Telegraph', it was Lawende who was used in the attempt to identify Sadler as the Ripper in February 1891. If Schwartz was regarded as a good witness and was still available, there can be no reason why he would not have been called upon, even if he had been used in a previous unrecorded and unsuccessful identification attempt. And, as we have seen, Swanson clearly dismssed both witnesses, Schwartz and Lawende, believing them unable to make a positive identification of the Ripper because their sightings did not contain proof that it was the killer they saw ...' (p. 253)

[Garry Wroe]

The theory of Schwartz as Anderson's witness is not strong.

It is when the evidence is duly considered, Jonathan. According to Swanson the Seaside Home witness refused to testify because his evidence would have been instrumental in the conviction and execution of a fellow Jew. You don't seriously propose that Lawende's sighting would have resulted in such an outcome, do you? Any even semi-competent defence barrister would have demolished Lawende's evidence in a heartbeat. Only the testimony of a witness who observed an actual attack would have stood an earthly of convicting a suspect, and Schwartz was the only witness who saw a supposed Ripper victim undergoing a physical assault shortly before her body was discovered. Think about it.

[Garry Wroe]

That's fair enough Garry, and believe me, I have no hidden agenda here...

I didn't for a moment assume that to be the case, Dave.

[Jonathan H]

The theory of Schwartz as Anderson's witness is not strong.

[Cogidubnus]

That's fair enough Garry, and believe me, I have no hidden agenda here...

Dave

[Garry Wroe]

I'm not dealing in absolutes in context of the time of death, Dave. I'm merely questioning the assumption that Stride died as Diemschutz approached the yard, and doing so on the evidence of the attending medical professional.

[Cogidubnus]

So now we seem to be veering towards Schwartz being a 100% genuine witness, and most likely the critical JtR witness (as opposed to Lawende), with a murder timing close to 1245 rather than 10 minutes or more later - interesting...

Dave

[Garry Wroe]

Im actually in agreement with you on the probable TOD, I also believe he intended it to be much closer to 12:45am than 1am.

The evidence has been there all along, Mike, but has been largely neglected because of the tendency to accept that Diemschutz disturbed the murderer. Taken purely on the basis of Blackwell’s estimated time of death, it is more than possible that Stride was killed within seconds of the Schwartz sighting.

In response to your defense of Israels sighting vs Lawendes, thats the problem here isnt it? If Israels was the more important from an investigation point of view then why do we know Lawende was sequestered and his statement suppressed and we have no records that state Israels story was even alluded to at that Inquest?

It has to be remembered though, Mike, that Lawende was a City witness. None of the Met witnesses appear to have been sequestered. Not even Hutchinson, who for a brief period was believed by Abberline to have been a stellar informant. But you are absolutely correct that Schwartz’s apparent nonappearance at the Stride inquest (along with Fanny Mortimer) is a mystery in need of an explanation, particularly as Schwartz was almost certainly Anderson’s witness and thus crucially important as far as investigators were concerned. It’s beyond me, I’m afraid.

[lynn cates]

electrolysis

Hello Colin, Dave. Should I try electrolysis?

Cheers.
LC