Schwartz, a fraud?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

As far as I can tell only one of those quotes is in first person, maybe that's an indicator.

Cheers Jon,

Mike R

Indeed Mike, and if we do take that path we effectively destroy the accepted paradigm. Mrs Long arrives too late..

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

It doesn't help of course when we cannot be certain where Mrs Long was when the Brewers clock struck.

The Times:
"She was certain of the time, as the brewers' clock had just struck that time when she passed 29, Hanbury-street."

The Daily Telegraph:
"... I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street."

So where was she?

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

As far as I can tell only one of those quotes is in first person, maybe that's an indicator.

Cheers Jon,

Mike R

[Wickerman]

I admit it is refreshing when we have a witness claim a time that can be confirmed by a Brewers clock,, but she opens her remarks by stating she passed by 29 at "about half past 5". I dont know the exact geographical specs here, meaning I dont know the distance from where she heard the brewers clock not yet on Hanbury to the point where she sees the couple but in her own words it would seem perhaps 15 minutes had passed between clock bell and her arrival at #29.

It doesn't help of course when we cannot be certain where Mrs Long was when the Brewers clock struck.

The Times:
"She was certain of the time, as the brewers' clock had just struck that time when she passed 29, Hanbury-street."

The Daily Telegraph:
"... I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street."

So where was she?

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

Farewell to Annie.

Hello Mike. Thanks.

And I'd better be quiet about Annie and let the Schwartz people speak.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Sorry, Mike. I thought you were arguing for an earlier time.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell,

No problem at all, just wanted to make sure my mini-thesis gets defended.

Lynn,

Well, I know he said "The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body", and this answer to how long she had been dead.. "I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

His comments make me feel comfortable with a death close to an hour before he arrived on site. Which is what it would have been had Cadosche heard the killing begin. It would not be compatible with her being brought to the spot after 5:30am, in daylight I might add.

I just dont believe her "positive" ID is valid based on the cumulative data Lynn.

Best regards,

Mike R

[lynn cates]

Bagster

Hello Mike. Thanks.

"As you can see, if Mrs Long was correct the killer began the entire attack in daylight and there is no explanation for how the body would be cold in less than 1 hour."

Well, the body was ALMOST completely cold. But Dr. Phillips did make a suggestion about that.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Apologies

Hi Bridewell,

I didnt say Annie was dead by 5:20am, I said 5:30am, the time Long said she saw Annie on the street.

I think the odds are that Cadosche heard the murder beginning at 5:15-5:20, when he said he heard the voice and noise. That would allow the body to cool at least for 40 minutes and for the killer to be gone before 6am.

Cheers,

Mike R

Sorry, Mike. I thought you were arguing for an earlier time.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

Any thoughts on what it was that Cadosch heard falling against the fence around 5.20am, if Annie Chapman was already dead at that time?

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell,

I didnt say Annie was dead by 5:20am, I said 5:30am, the time Long said she saw Annie on the street.

I think the odds are that Cadosche heard the murder beginning at 5:15-5:20, when he said he heard the voice and noise. That would allow the body to cool at least for 40 minutes and for the killer to be gone before 6am.

Cheers,

Mike R

[Bridewell]

Again, my opinion, but I believe Annie Chapman was dead in that yard at 5:30am, not accepting some arrangement from a stranger on the street.

Hi Mike,

Any thoughts on what it was that Cadosch heard falling against the fence around 5.20am, if Annie Chapman was already dead at that time?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike. Yes, it was dim light. Of course, she claimed that she recognised her face.

Cheers.
LC

Hey Lynn,

Im reticent to take this much further on this thread as it is specific to the Chapman murder,, but I will address it briefly. The Sun rose that morning at 5:23am. As I suggested much of the evidence from Davis, Richardson and the medical evidence suggest that she was killed more than an hour before the medical expert arrived, but after approx 4:50am, based on Davis. She was cold when the doctor arrived.

So, Did the killer begin killing and mutilating the woman in the backyard of a house with some 17 people in it, some who were up very early for the market, at dawn,..... or, was he caught by the coming light as he worked?

As you can see, if Mrs Long was correct the killer began the entire attack in daylight and there is no explanation for how the body would be cold in less than 1 hour.

Again, my opinion, but I believe Annie Chapman was dead in that yard at 5:30am, not accepting some arrangement from a stranger on the street.

Cheers Lynn, all the best,

Mike R

[Garry Wroe]

Anderson's "good view of the murderer" could apply to both Schwartz & Lawende, but Swanson's "his evidence would convict the suspect", could only apply to Schwartz.

Agreed, Jon. It's a pity that we have so little of the kind of information on Swanson that might better enable us to judge his character and analytical skills.

[Garry Wroe]

I feel Schwartz is a stand out witness because he witnessed an attack on a victim.

He's certainly the only witness who accords with Swanson's version of events, FM.

[lynn cates]

dim

Hello Mike. Yes, it was dim light. Of course, she claimed that she recognised her face.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lynn,

I admit it is refreshing when we have a witness claim a time that can be confirmed by a Brewers clock,, but she opens her remarks by stating she passed by 29 at "about half past 5". I dont know the exact geographical specs here, meaning I dont know the distance from where she heard the brewers clock not yet on Hanbury to the point where she sees the couple but in her own words it would seem perhaps 15 minutes had passed between clock bell and her arrival at #29.

I find this exchange telling;

"[Coroner] Did they appear to be sober? - I saw nothing to indicate that either of them was the worse for drink.
Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.".

Although she swears it was Annie based on her mortuary viewing I am skeptical about her accuracy. That time of night, near dawn, is very tricky for the eyes.

Again, I think the timings and the medical findings upon arrival suggest that Annie was likely dead by 5:30.

My opinion of course.

Cheers Lynn,
Mike R

[Wickerman]

What Lawende saw should not have been enough to convict a man. The couple were not moving towards the square, there was no agravation evident between the two and the woman did not appear to be under his control.
Lawende had no reason to be suspicious.
Therefore, what Lawende saw surely, could not be enough to convict the man. Unless, Swanson was just exaggerating.

Schwartz witnessed an assault on the victim only minutes before her body was discovered. Equally then, surely, this would be enough to convict the man Schwartz saw, assuming he could identify him.

Personally, I don't think BS-man was the killer, but I do think this was the scenario that Swanson was referring to.

Anderson's "good view of the murderer" could apply to both Schwartz & Lawende, but Swanson's "his evidence would convict the suspect", could only apply to Schwartz.

Regards, Jon S.