Schwartz, a fraud?

[Garry Wroe]

There was NO necessity whatsoever for Mortimer to have appeared at the inquest, as she wasn't a relevant witness.

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

[Garry Wroe]

If the Marginalia are private, to whom is Swanson making his claim that the case was solved?

Precisely.

[Michael W Richards]

2 points for Maria

Hi Maria,

I have a rebuttal to your post # 390....

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.

On the timing of the three witnesses, were you aware that Kozebrodski had left the club for a period that night then returned at 12:30? He stated in one interview that it was 10 minutes later he was summoned to the yard. The implication here is that he would have had access to a clock in the club, and known when he arrived back at it.

Many cite the lack of watches in order to explain how some witnesses were off 15-20 minutes on their estimates, while Diemshutz, Eagle, Schwartz and Wess are given the benefit of the doubt on their times.

You've read Spooner's explanation on how he arrived at the Beehive and how long he was there before seeing club men running, Isaac's explanation on when he was notified and what transpired next, and Fanny's statements about her activities, Browns account of what he saw,... its clear that all of the authority figures at the club suggested a discovery after 1am, and the regular members and outsiders saw nothing of a Schwartz, Pipeman or BSM when they saw the woman in the alley near 12:45am. Near the earliest cut time that Blackwell suggested. Might they have been off a few minutes....sure, but most of them 15-20minutes early? Could Isaac have just forgotten that he left the yard with Louis around 1:03am when he said that he left the yard alone at Louis's insistence around 12:45am? When questioned less than an hour after the fact?

Hmm. I wonder whom among these witnesses has the most to lose if Police suspected that a club member killed her on their own property. Better if he was a Gentile and from off premises by far for all of those men. And surprisingly thats just what their stories offer.

All the best Maria,

Mike R

[Garry Wroe]

Of course, there was no reason to sequester Hutchinson because that inquest had concluded and the body never made it into Baxter's jurisdiction.

True, Hunter. But Lawende was sequestered primarily to keep the press at arm’s length. For some reason, that never appeared to be a consideration where the Met was concerned. Perhaps it was simply a case of the City learning from the Met’s mistakes.

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.

I seriously doubt it, Hunter. The indications are that Hutchinson had already undergone an investigative fall from grace before the press got anywhere near him.

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.

Agreed. But as I stated in a previous post to Jonathan, Anderson and the Seaside Home incident are irrelevant with reference to any evaluation of Schwartz. The pivotal issue is Swanson’s belief that the evidence of one of the emergent witnesses was such that it would in itself have secured a conviction. Since only the sighting of an actual attack could have resulted in such an outcome, the task is to identify any witness who fits the bill. There is only one. Israel Schwartz.

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.

Again, though, Hunter, the crucial issue is that which relates to the semantics of Swanson’s marginalia jottings. 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 meaning is unambiguous. But was it applicable to Lawende?

In short, no. Even if Lawende had not freely admitted that his recollection of the Church Passage episode was vague, what exactly did he see? A man and woman standing together engaged in quiet and nonaggressive conversation. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I cannot for the life of me see how this sighting could have resulted in a murder conviction.

Compare this to the fracas witnessed by Schwartz and Swanson’s words begin to make sense. Schwartz saw Stride being manhandled by an aggressive individual just a few feet from the spot on which her body would be found fifteen minutes later. More to the point, the medical evidence opens up the possibility that Stride was killed within a minute of Schwartz departing the scene.

So whilst I do take on board your observation regarding corroboration, independent confirmation of very little is still very little. And as honest and decent as Lawende undoubtedly was, no amount of corroboration could have secured a conviction on his evidence alone.

[Garry Wroe]

We do not have hard evidence that Aaron Kosminski was ever the subject of a witness confrontation …

No, Jonathan, we don’t.

… Swanson may be only repeating a tale he was told by Anderson.

The Seaside Home episode is immaterial for our purposes, Jonathan. Swanson had an intimate knowledge of both the Ripper case and the strengths and weaknesses of the various witnesses it threw up. 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.

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

‘Knifeman’ doesn’t, I’m afraid, Jonathan. Not even remotely so. Besides which, the comparison is only relevant if Stride was a Ripper victim, and I’m more than a little doubtful on that score.

[Wickerman]

The Lipski issue would not have been the only obstruction to Schwartz being called.

In the case of Schwartz I'm inclined to believe that there is nothing available in the surviving police records or press reports to justify Schwartz not appearing at the inquest.
Which to my mind suggests that there is still something about Schwartz himself, or about his statement, that we do not know.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

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

There was NO necessity whatsoever for Mortimer to have appeared at the inquest, as she wasn't a relevant witness. The man she saw walking by was identified as Leon Goldstein.

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.

Yes and yes on both counts.

Hi Mike,
If Schwartz was a shill for the club, then toss his story. He's a fraud. As the thread proposes. It's simple. Or beat a dead horse. Great way to spend a Saturday.

+1.
Hoshberg in The Evening News:
It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter. In the gateway two or three people had collected, and when I got there I saw a short, dark young woman lying on the ground with a gash between four and five inches long in her throat.
We know that there was NO policeman whistle and that Kozebrodski, Hoshberg, and Spooner didn't spot watches.
But why let the evidence get in the way of a good conspiracy theory? ;-)

[Hunter]

The Lipski issue would not have been the only obstruction to Schwartz being called.

[Wickerman]

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

I'm inclined to agree with Stewart, Schwartz should have been summoned regardless of what his testimony contained. We must remember Lawende was asked not to divulge certain details during his testimony so we do have an example of how this type of scenario is dealt with in the courts.
Likewise then, Schwartz (or his interpreter) would have been instructed to not mention the words he heard shouted, assuming it truely was a concern.
So, I don't see the Lipski issue as being an obstruction to Schwartz being called.

Regards, Jon S.

[Roy Corduroy]

Shill

Bridewell, a shill is a poser. Usually used in a street con game. Someone who doesn't appear connected to the scam but is.

In this case, someone who doesn't appear connected to the club, but is. Who came forward with a bogus story.

I'm not saying that.

Roy

[Bridewell]

Shill

Hi Mike,

If Schwartz was a shill for the club, then toss his story. He's a fraud. As the thread proposes.

It's simple.

Or beat a dead horse. Great way to spend a Saturday.

Roy

Okay, Roy. You've got me. What's a shill?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Roy Corduroy]

If the Police suspected as I do that he had club affiliations that may have been a reason for not using his story at the Inquest, ...

Hi Mike,

If Schwartz was a shill for the club, then toss his story. He's a fraud. As the thread proposes.

It's simple.

Or beat a dead horse. Great way to spend a Saturday.

Roy

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

To address the comments on my post concerning Spooner, it would seem that the fact that Spooner's story suggests he saw the men running out from Berner Street around 12:40-12:45 is of concern since it is in conflict with other witnesses. Most assume he must have been in error on the time.

In fact 2 other witnesses corroberated that same time in their 1st press interviews.

Issac Kozebrodski: "I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening. About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was. When we had got outside he struck a match, and when we looked down on the ground we could see a long stream of blood. It was running down the gutter from the direction of the gate, and reached to the back door of the club. I should think there was blood in the gutter for a distance of five or six yards. I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one."

Note that Isaac says Louis sent him out alone for help, which raises the possibility that Diemshitz either lied or was referring to aother member with the surname Isaacs" as his companion when seeking help.

Abraham Ho(e)shberg:"Yes; I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter."

He states he heard the policemans whistle. Hard to reconcile when we are told that no police were onsite until after 1am, I agree. But thats hardly a reason to assume anyone of those 3 above were incorrect or lying. Its an element that needs an explanation, thats all.

For the record what I have been suggesting is not necessarily that Israel Schwartz's story was pure fiction, just that he may have had a reason to modify certain parts of the story, like every member of that club, to deflect any suspicion that they were responsible for the murder. For example, if the altercation he saw took place in the passageway, on club property, he might be persuaded to say it took place outside the gates. He might also add elements that suggest a Gentile assailant.

If the Police suspected as I do that he had club affiliations that may have been a reason for not using his story at the Inquest, while at the same time... confirmed by internal memos, they still investigated his suspects.

Best regards all,

Mike R

[Bridewell]

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).

Hi Jonathan,

I don't follow.

If the Marginalia are private, to whom is Swanson making his claim that the case was solved? Nobody?
If nobody else was meant to see them, there was no point in making the claim. If somebody was meant to see them they were not really private.

Regards, Bridewell

[c.d.]

I have a question...was there any serious public outcry against the club as a result of Stride's murder?

c.d.