Schwartz, a fraud?

[Hunter]

Swanson put considerable weight into Lawende's sighting, despite the caveats he mentioned in his Oct. 19 report. As far as he was concerned, Lawende & company probably did see the victim with her killer just minutes before she was found mutilated. He stated that it was possible (considering Stride's trade) that Stride could have met her murderer after the incident witnessed by Schwartz. Whether such a witness would have garnered a conviction may be in doubt to us now, but may not have been to Swanson. He was used to dealing with reluctant witnesses who played down their sightings.

The suspect was watched - according to Swanson - by City CID, which indicates that a City witness to a City murder was involved. In the two times that it was reported that an ID attempt was made (Sadler and Granger) it was the Mitre Square witness who was mentioned, so someone certainly thought Lawende or one of his companions were considerable enough witnesses to use in such manner. We know Lawende was still living in London at the time; we don't know where Schwartz was or even if he was available at such a late date. Lawende was a well planted citizen of the community. Schwartz could have been one of the many transient immigrants who eventually moved on.

[Garry Wroe]

I'm inclined to think Garry that either one of two reasons may be entertained:

1) Swanson, making such mental notes among the writings of others maybe an indication that he was anticipating writing his own memoirs, or …

Possibly, Jon. But then I would expect Swanson to have constructed a solid set of notes in preparation for such a project. As far as I’m aware no member of the Swanson family has made any mention of such. Perhaps Paul Begg could throw some light on this issue.

2) Because of his high respect for his department and "keeping quiet" (not telling tales out of class) making such mental notes was his own way of correcting certain facts without compromising his own ethics.

This seems the likelier of your two scenarios, Jon. If so, I cannot think of any reason why Swanson would have exaggerated the importance of Anderson’s witness. Since he therefore stated that this man’s testimony could have secured a conviction in its own right, he must surely have believed it.

Because he never did apparently compile any memoirs for publication we will never know how he would have handled sensitive material.

But we do have his supplementary annotations in Anderson’s book which provide both a valuable insight into his thinking and a clear indication as to the identity of Anderson’s witness. I’m willing to bet, however, that most will simply disregard this information and stick dogmatically with the traditional interpretation of events.

[Hunter]

Hi Mike,
I realize you're post was directed at Maria, so I hope you don't mind the intrusion since you and I started this discussion on this topic.

Fanny Mortimer stated to the police that she had been off and on at her door between 12:30 and 1am, the last 10 minutes of that period almost continuously. If true, and that is somewhat supported by her validated 12:55-56am sighting of Leon Goldstein, then she should have been a part of the proceedings. As Israel should have been, if believed.

I believe you and I are in agreement about Mrs. Mortimer. What she didn't see during her vigil is important in establishing time-lines. The problem is... it contradicts your hypothesis about an earlier discovery of the body. If Kozebrodski and the others went out to raise the alarm at 12:40, or even 12:45, she would have seen or heard the commotion when she arrived at her door during those 10 or so minutes she was there shortly before 1 a.m. She heard Diemshitz's cart and the commotion that followed after she went back inside, shortly before 1.

Then there's Goldstein himself (and he does corroborate Mortimer's timing)... He walks past the club near 1 o'clock and sees nothing. If Spooner and the others were already gathered around the body (and you can bet there was a crowd) Goldstein and Mortimer would have seen it.

Regardless of who had watches or not, a 15 or twenty minute earlier timeline just doesn't fall into place or fit the evidence. Kozebrodski, himself, (who spoke very little English) helped find PC Lamb and Lamb stated that this was around 1 a.m. Even Brown, who claimed to have seen the victim with a man at 12:45 stated that he had been indoors for 15 minutes when he heard the shouting.

Even Heshburg... If he actually heard a police whistle around 12:45, then everyone who followed, Lamb, Smith, Johnston and Blackwell were off their timings considerably.

Nice try, though.

[Wickerman]

I can certainly see why some might think along those lines, Jon, but as Bridewell has intimated, who exactly was Swanson intending to impress by applying a few notes to a book that might never have been seen by another living soul?

I'm inclined to think Garry that either one of two reasons may be entertained:

1) Swanson, making such mental notes among the writings of others maybe an indication that he was anticipating writing his own memoirs, or

2) Because of his high respect for his department and "keeping quiet" (not telling tales out of class) making such mental notes was his own way of correcting certain facts without compromising his own ethics.

Because he never did apparently compile any memoirs for publication we will never know how he would have handled sensitive material.

Regards, Jon S.

[Garry Wroe]

I understand perfectly where you're going with regard to the inquests, Tom. My suspicion has long been that there was official connivance in order to sanitize the Kelly hearing, despite the illegality of such.

I do disgree with respect to Fanny Mortimer, though. Given that one of the primary responsibilities of the hearing was to establish a time of death, what Mrs Mortimer didn't see was as important to the investigative timeline as those things which were seen by others.

[Tom_Wescott]

That's a pertinent point, Tom. The problem , however, is that the Coroner held legal sway over the inquests, not the police. Indeed it was (and still is) a contravention of the law for the police to withhold material witnesses or information from the Coroner. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm thoroughly confused.

Hi Garry. I'm not suggesting the police held anything back from the Coroner. On the contrary, written statements would have been provided to the coroner's office. I'm merely suggesting that the police spoke with the coroner and it was agreed that certain non-medical evidence would be with held. In the case of Tabram, Wynne Baxter was off on vacation in Scandinavia, so the much more reserved and prudish deputy coroner, George Collier, presided in his place, and not only allowed Dr. Killeen to with hold quite a bit of evidence (though nothing that would have led to her death), he even thanked him for the careful way in which he presented his evidence. In fact, from reading the evidence of John Reeves and PC Barrett, I'm inclined to think they were all instructed in this regard prior to giving their evidence. Considering this was the first such gruesome murder of the series, and Baxter was not there, this isn't too surprising.

Regarding Fanny Mortimer, she had no evidence to offer regarding time of death, and it had already been determined that the man she saw was Leon Goldstein, so her evidence would have been considered irrelevant.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Mrs Mortimer would have been instrumental in establishing the precise time of death.

Not quite, since she hasn't witnessed anything of relevance.

[Garry Wroe]

The feature about Swanson's emphatic assurance is that he writes from the point of view of a Chief Inspector, but he is now retired ... This is where Swanson now becomes another retired police official reminicing as one "who nearly collared Jack". We nearly had him, if it wasn't for....

I can certainly see why some might think along those lines, Jon, but as Bridewell has intimated, who exactly was Swanson intending to impress by applying a few notes to a book that might never have been seen by another living soul?

[Jonathan H]

All marginalia from Anderson?

To Bridewell

The Marginalia is for Swanson himself and I agree that he does not have to impress anyone about this scoop except himself not even, apparently, his own family.

This has to be weighted against the limitation of a primary source like this; that you can write what you like to yourself, eg. to make yourself feel better.

For you know that you do not have to justify it to anybody else.

Especially if Evans and Rumbelow are right that Swanson is correcting a tale he has told Anderson and the latter has made a mess of it between two versions (eg. in the first having the suspect being confronted with a witness while already sectioned, the give-away detail that these are events being falsely recalled from the year 1891, not 1888/9)).

Those words are not as strong and as valuable, historically speaking, compared to either Anderson's or Macnaghten's memoirs because they were putting their competing and opposing Ripper opinions into the public domain-- and under their own knighted names.

Even Jack Littlechild was writing to somebody -- in fact a still famous journalist.

Personally, I think that Evans and Rumbelow are correct.

That the 'Seaside Home' is the misremembering of Tom Sadler and the Sailor's Home.

Where I disagree is that the memory failure is by Anderson, and not Swanson. who is recording his ex-chief's opinion not his own (eg. Anderson in 1908 misremembered the Home Sec. who put him under pressure, self-servingly altering a Tory into a loathed Liberal -- sound familiar? Anderson sincerely misremembered the issue of the pipes; mixing up the Kelly and McKenzie crimes -- sound familiar?)

You see, Bridewell, that idea that he does not have to write to anyone but himself cuts both ways.

Swanson added bits and pieces he had heard from Anderson but since it was just to himself he did not have to write: hey, this is Sir Robert's words not mine, because he already knew that.

Consider that Swanson also wrote the name of Macnaghten beneath Anderson's lines about a policeman who 'vexed' him about a threatening letter.

Wow! That's quite a slight against Mac, the self-styled, fearless 'action man', now denounced as turning to jelly over a mere letter.

No wonder Mac, in his 1914 memoirs, mentioned so many significant policemen by name and with great affection -- including Swanson -- but airbrushed Anderson totally out of existence, and pointedly dedicated the book to the latter's successor.

My theory is that Swanson knew nothing about that story about the letter, because it did not happen like that (Mac may have simply been investigating a lead, and so on, not turning into a terrified noodle). Therefore, in 1910 the identification came from Anderson, verbally, in the form of a put-down about his confidential assistant -- and Swanson, who had no idea to whom it referred, duly recorded it.

I think the same is true of the 'Dear Boss' letter.

In that instance Anderson told Swanson that other senior police thought that it was a hoax and they all knew the reporter who had faked it. Whereas in Mac's memoirs he claims it was himself who tracked down the hoaxer after a year.

In that instance Anderson is admitting to an error, eg. being fooled, yet he still does no such thing as admit a mistake, which in his own memoir he admits he would never do. So he takes safety in numbers by making it seem as if there was a phalanx of agreement -- and, of course, this also mean-spiritedly denies Mac his individual achievement in debunking the letter.

Every annotation, arguably, can be traced back to Anderson.

That is why Swanson put them in Anderson's book: to compliment and clarify his ex-chief's opinions.

Swanson did not have to write that he was doing this as it was marginalia only for his own eyes (in the public domain nobody backed Anderson in 1910, or thereafter -- nobody -- certainly not Swanson, not Abberline or Reid, or Smith, and in 1913 and 1914 Macnaghten set about tearing down his despised ex-boss' Ripper prognostications with what he claimed was the real story.)

To Garry Wroe

Just saying something is not true is not an argument, pal.

This is Lawende on the man he saw:

'The Times' on 2 October - "of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak".

And:

The description of the man seen by "two men coming out of a club" is given in a report by Donald Swanson, dated 19 October 1888, as "age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair fair moustache, medium built, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor."

This is Schwartz from 'The Star' Oct 1st 1888:

'A SECOND MAN CAME OUT
of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings ... The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society.'

What is similar and what is different?

Both men are of medium build, as opposed to stout (and Lawende did not describe a short man), both men are wearing proletarian attire, both men have moustaches but no beard, and both men are fair/red, eg. of Gentile appearance rather than Jewish (the 'sailor' has a red kerchief and Schwartz in his rush away from the scene, remembered the colour 'red').

The differences are that Lawende described a man with a peaked, sailor's cap and Schwartz did not, but nor did he say, specifically, that he was bare-headed.

Let us not forget that Schwartz claimed this man was armed with a knife and police believed that the man seen chatting, very amiably with Eddowes a short while later, secretly concealed a knife on his person -- if he was the murderer.

Plus 'Knifeman' has the perfect cover: seemingly coming to an Unfortunate's protection in a drunken street brawl when actually he is cruelly going to turn on her once the other men have scattered.

To Jon S.

The reason I agree with you except about Macnaghten (and Littlechild, though to a lesser extent) is his memoirs, the de-factothird version of his Report, which essentially matches the primary sources between 1888 and 1891. Also because his Ripper -- unlike Anderson's -- begins in the extant record prior to sources by this chief, and he was just as certain as Anderson.

They cannot both be right, and both could be wrong, but only one, Mac, deals directly with the other's suspect; in fact shows greater accurate knowledge of the other's suspect (eg. not deceased, no super-witness, and harmlessly out and about for a long time after Kelly).

[Garry Wroe]

That's a pertinent point, Tom. The problem , however, is that the Coroner held legal sway over the inquests, not the police. Indeed it was (and still is) a contravention of the law for the police to withhold material witnesses or information from the Coroner. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm thoroughly confused.

[Tom_Wescott]

A quick point about witnesses at the inquest

In the Tabram case, there were two witnesses the police considered important and potentially relevant, and they were PC Thomas Barrett and Pearly Poll. Although Barrett was called as a witness at the inquest, it was only in his role as first constable on the scene. He was not asked to discuss the soldier with whom he spoke at 2am, nor give a description of him, even though doing so might have 'shaken something loose' in the press since his attempts at identification at the Tower had failed. In short, although no one questioned Barrett's honesty, had he not also been first cop to the scene, he would not have been called to the inquest at all. This was a Metropolitan Police thing, and might make for a more fitting comparison with Schwartz then how the City Police handled their witnesses.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

According to Swanson the witness’s evidence ‘would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.’ (My emphasis.)

The feature about Swanson's emphatic assurance is that he writes from the point of view of a Chief Inspector, but he is now retired.
This is where Swanson now becomes another retired police official reminicing as one "who nearly collared Jack". We nearly had him, if it wasn't for....

If Swanson had wrote so emphatic at the time of the murders we might be able to put more weight behind his conviction in his recollections, but as we know, at the time of the murders the conviction was "we had no clue".

To a man we know the police from Anderson down to Reid, all had no clue. So it matters little how much emphasis he puts into his recollections around 1910, we should resist being misguided by such afterthoughts.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Waddell

Those were different times, Bridewell. No fingerprinting, DNA, CCTV and so forth - hence a far greater emphasis on eyewitness evidence. A clever barrister would have presented Schwartz as having witnessed not just an assault, but a preamble to the actual murder. It wouldn't hold water today, but defendants were convicted on far less during the late-Victorian era.

Hi Garry,

You have a point. William Waddell was convicted on nothing more than circumstantial evidence - it was strong circumstantial evidence admittedly, but it was no more than that.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Garry Wroe]

The problem I have is that, for that to be true, the witness concerned would have to have seen, not just an attack but, quite unambiguously, a murder.

Those were different times, Bridewell. No fingerprinting, DNA, CCTV and so forth - hence a far greater emphasis on eyewitness evidence. A clever barrister would have presented Schwartz as having witnessed not just an assault, but a preamble to the actual murder. It wouldn't hold water today, but defendants were convicted on far less during the late-Victorian era.

[Bridewell]

The real issue, therefore, is not if or how the Seaside Home identification took place, but rather the fact that Swanson believed that the evidence of one of these witnesses was sufficient to have secured a conviction in its own right.

Hi Garry,

That is indeed the crux of the matter in my view. The problem I have is that, for that to be true, the witness concerned would have to have seen, not just an attack but, quite unambiguously, a murder. Lawende doesn't fit, and Schwartz only does so if he saw more than the surviving records suggest that he did.

Regards, Bridewell.