Schwartz, a fraud?

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks for the responses Bridewell and Maria.

As to Stephen's questioning Maria, It would seem most police were comfortable with Israel from the outset, where do you get the impression some questioned his veracity? Aside from myself of course...

My questions stem from the belief that any witness would have their address and general story particulars checked out before they would back a statement. Since it was his moving day I would think his address at the days beginning would be as relevant as his new address. I think they also should have learned how long he was in London. Can we say that we have any idea, based on existing documentation, that Israel himself was checked out? Do we know if Mrs Schwartz verified his story? "Of theatrical appearance" is all well and good for a physical description, but was he employed or unemployed? Was he used by the Police as a pseudo "carrot" for the killer?

And again, why would he come forward willingly when he portrays himself as being intimidated and frightened by the men he says he saw? There is no indication as I recall that he was offered or accepted any protection.

Best regards all,
Mike R

[Cogidubnus]

Shrewd questions Michael...and I ask myself the same...

To me it's odd there's all this activity going on with broad shouldered man throwing Lizzie about (and her screaming three times - but quietly???), and pipeman appearing, and Lipski being shouted, and Schwartz being chased off down the street...and yet no other witness down the whole street can properly confirm it...

Then there's the differences between his statement to the police and his statements to the press (though to be fair the press may've "sexed up" his testimony)...and Schwartz's non-appearance at the inquest...

I don't know Michael, but to me he's suspiciously over-willing to come forward (ok difficult balance...'cos not being too willing to come forward can be viewed the same!)...to me, although there's no proof, the above plus the possible connection with the club say his testimony should be treated, at least, with some reserve

Dave

[Hunter]

Just a question to throw out.

What is to be made of the reports by both Anderson and Warren that impled that Schwartz did give testimony at the inquest?

[mariab]

Cris, when we've discussed this in the past we sorta concluded that Warren and Anderson might have been misinformed/forgetful. Or that Schwartz's (translated) testimony was subpoenaed at the inquest and kept away from the press.

Cris, was September 30, 1888 a Friday or a Saturday?

[lynn cates]

Never on a Sunday, well . . .

Hello Maria. Try Sunday.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Wow, thanks Lynn. (And the title of your post cracked me up.)

[Jonathan H]

Hunter,

Regarding the validity of the police using both Schwartz and Lawende,I dont recall seeing anything internal, written after Annie Chapman, that suggested more than one murderer for these crimes. Other than some questions based on the 2 man element in Israels story or Marys possible accomplice "after the fact" I think the bulk of the official evidence favors my opinion.

Interesting to me that Schwartz came in on his own but Lawende was discovered the during door to door inquires.

The suspects:

Schwartz's:
"He thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down:- age, about 30; ht, 5 ft 5 in; comp., fair; hair dark; small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak, and nothing in his hands.

Second man: age, 35; ht., 5 ft 11in; comp., fresh; hair, light brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat, wide brim; had a clay pipe in his hand."

Lawende's:
In a report by Donald Swanson, dated 19 October 1888," 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." Also in the Police Gazette on 19 October 1888.

The first publication of the description of the man seen by Lawende was in 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".

Lawendes descriptions show us a man at least 2 inches taller, without Dark Hair, and with fair colored moustaches, not Brown. Add the clothing discrepancies and its hard to imagine the 2 suspects seen by Lawende and Schwartz could be considered a "good match".

I for one think it highly unlikely the Berner Street murder changed clothes, put lifts in his shoes and lightened some facial hair before heading to Mitre Square, I hope you do too.

Best regards Hunter, all.
Mike R


What is not being considered is Schwarz's second account, from 'The Star', in which of course the focus is not on the so-called 'Broad-Shouldered Man', but on 'Pipeman' -- now the more likely 'Knifeman' who bears a resemblance to Lawende's sailorish figure.

' ... 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.'

Why is this notion so controversial?

Lawende was felt by police to have likely seen 'Jack': a Gentile proletarian.

DSure enough dffering accounts of the Stride murder do include just such a figure who is, at the very least, more of a generic match, eg. Knifeman, than the chubbier figure in a drunken and very public rage with the soon-to-be victim.

[Debra A]

Hi Debs and Colin,

You might try comparing the Yiddish to Hungarian for knife and pipe, since the Star reporter's translator and Schwartz's friend was apparently speaking in Hungarian, and Abberline's might have worked in Yiddish.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Why can't it just be as simple as the words dagger and pipe sound very very similar in Hungarian (despite what Maria says, 3 others of us who've listened agree they do) so, the Star's translator translated the word as knife and the translator who helped with the police statement translated it as pipe?

[Jonathan H]

Hi, Debra

Yep, that could be it.

It's just that ... a key element of his story to the police is that he fled some kind of anti-Semitic incident. Moreover, he was chased by a strange, unarmed man.

That's an unlikely tale, but the bottom line is that he is claiming that did not realise that a Gentile woman was in danger -- in fact, the story asserts that the teller, eg. he Schwartz was in danger [too].

The second version is a different kind of confusion: he thought that two Gentile men were about to engage in a fight, one armed with a knife, over a woman.

As is turned out it was the woman who ended up the fatal victim, maybe by the very figure brandishing a weapon, and who was seemingly coming to her rescue.

This is certainly a more plausible story, historically speaking, because it is less self-serving on Schwartz's part and he knew it was to be broadcast to the public at large.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Debs, Dave, and all

Sure, Debs, misinterpretation is certainly plausible, and it sounds like two different interpreters are involved. I personally think it's wrong to assume that Schwartz himself is behind any press discrepancies. Dr. Blackwell was quoted in the press as saying that Stride's head had almost been cut off, but thankfully, no one today seems to be suggesting he actually said it!

What is to be made of the reports by both Anderson and Warren that impled that Schwartz did give testimony at the inquest?

Only Anderson said it, and Warren quoted from his report, so it's not two separate sources. Anderson was working from Swanson's Oct. 19th report and logically assumed the witness Swanson was lending so much weight to had appeared at the inquest. In short, Anderson just made a wrong assumption.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Only Anderson said it, and Warren quoted from his report, so it's not two separate sources. Anderson was working from Swanson's Oct. 19th report and logically assumed the witness Swanson was lending so much weight to had appeared at the inquest. In short, Anderson just made a wrong assumption.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thats roughly what I would have said in rebuttal as well Tom.

We also have a senior official's quote that states "the only person who saw the killer was the PC near Mitre Square", suggesting that the witness sighting near Mitre, erroneously referred to as a PC sighting, was the only account that night that was considered "valid".

There are 2 witnesses in particular regarding Canonical murders that had very important stories if true and we know 1 was discarded, although not by police press release. Is Schwartz in that same category?

We know, without any particulars being revealed publicly, that the Eddowes Inquest had a witness that likely saw the victim talking with someone 10 or 11 minutes before she was found murdered. We understand that a witness in the Stride case allegedly saw the victim roughly 15 minutes before her murder, being accosted by someone just feet from where she is found.

To my eye the most important witness should have been the one from the Stride case, as that story involved an altercation with the deceased, despite the fact there was slightly more time available in Berner for someone else to have met with the victim.

So why is the ONLY person who saw the killer the Mitre Square witness...he didnt get a good look at either person in his own words.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Garry Wroe]

There are 2 witnesses in particular regarding Canonical murders that had very important stories if true and we know 1 was discarded, although not by police press release. Is Schwartz in that same category?

A number of witnesses were discarded, Mike, some overtly, others less so: Violenia, Maxwell, Packer, Hutchinson, and possibly even Mrs Long given the absolute faith senior investigators placed in Phillips’ postulated time of death with reference to the Hanbury Street crime. I’ve never seen any indication to suggest that Schwartz suffered a similar fate, however.

We know, without any particulars being revealed publicly, that the Eddowes Inquest had a witness that likely saw the victim talking with someone 10 or 11 minutes before she was found murdered. We understand that a witness in the Stride case allegedly saw the victim roughly 15 minutes before her murder, being accosted by someone just feet from where she is found.

The time of death estimated by Dr Blackwell was effectively 12:51am, plus or minus five minutes, Mike. Whereas most people assume that Stride was a Ripper victim and therefore accept Blackwell’s upper estimate as proof that the killer was interrupted by the arrival of Diemschutz, it is more than possible that Stride was killed in accordance with Blackwell’s lower estimate. If so, the murder occurred at 12:46am, or one minute after the Berner Street fracas witnessed by Schwartz.

To my eye the most important witness should have been the one from the Stride case, as that story involved an altercation with the deceased, despite the fact there was slightly more time available in Berner for someone else to have met with the victim.

Which makes a proper appreciation of Blackwell’s actual time of death estimation all the more important, Mike.

So why is the ONLY person who saw the killer the Mitre Square witness...he didnt get a good look at either person in his own words.

Absolutely. More importantly still, the acceptance of Lawende as Anderson’s witness overlooks Swanson’s contention that 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.’

In other words, the identification in itself would have been sufficient to have secured a conviction. This could not have been true of Lawende, who saw very little and recalled even less. Of all of the witnesses, only Schwartz observed an actual attack being perpetrated on a victim, an assault that took place just feet from the spot on which the victim’s body would be found a few minutes later. Uniquely, therefore, only Schwartz’s evidence could have resulted in a conviction in its own right. Thus Anderson’s witness must have been Schwartz. It could have been no-one else.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Gary,

Thanks for the feedback. The 2 witnesses I spoke of are Israel and George Hutchinson, neither Violenia, Maxwell, Packer or Long were as relevant sightings. Because Israel saw the woman accosted just before her murder almost on the spot where it occurs and because George stated he saw the woman enter her room with someone early that morning, a room she never leaves again.

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. Which would then make Spooner's Inquest times and "blood flow" comments realistic and it also would meet much closer the statements given by many members that very morning about when they were alerted to the woman in the alley. Nearer to 12:40am. Which would of course make Eagle and Diemshitz boldfaced liars.

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?

Best regards,

Mike R

[Cogidubnus]

Now we're cooking...now this thread is going interesting ways!

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike [PM],

Good to see you back.

I trust that absence has not made your heart grow fonder and that you will continue to challenge the high levels of BS which continue to permeate these boards.

Be of stout heart

Regards,

Simon