Schwartz, a fraud?

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[c.d.]

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

c.d.

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[Hunter]

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

[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? ;-)