Schwartz, a fraud?

[lynn cates]

Brown

Hello Cris. Thanks. And, yes, it IS funny. Brown is practically a forgotten man.

And worse, if his testimony is correct, Schwartz is wrong and vice versa, since both claimed 12:45.

Cheers.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

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.

Agreed, Hunter. But Anderson described the Seaside Home witness as ‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’. Swanson stated that ‘his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged’. Thus the implications are unmistakable: of all the informants this particular witness got the clearest view of the killer; whatever he saw was sufficient to ensure a conviction; and his evidence would have stood up in a court of law.

The problem with Lawende is that his description of Eddowes’ companion was vague; he admitted the unlikelihood that he would recognize this man again; and he saw nothing that in itself could have ensured a conviction. As a consequence we are left with only two possibilities. Either Anderson and Swanson misremembered, misunderstood or misrepresented the situation with regard to the Seaside Home witness, or the witness was someone other than Lawende. It’s as simple as that.

The suspect was watched - according to Swanson - by City CID, which indicates that a City witness to a City murder was involved.

Not at all, Hunter. It indicates that a suspect in a City murder was the object of an undercover surveillance operation in and about his Whitechapel home. No inference whatever regarding witnesses may be drawn from such a statement.

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.

As I’ve said previously on other threads, Hunter, forensics were all but nonexistent during the period under scrutiny. Confessions were all important at the time. In the absence of a confession it was the sheer weight of evidence that secured a conviction. Hence investigators used all of the witnesses they had at their disposal. The failure by many to recognize this simple reality has led to the assumption that, because Lawende was used in the Sadler case, he was the only witness used. But this is a flawed assumption. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The reality, therefore, is that other witnesses were almost certainly used but escaped the attention of the press. If so, the importance that has been attributed to Lawende as a consequence of the Sadler case has been very much overstated.

Let me repeat: ‘The problem with Lawende is that his description of Eddowes’ companion was vague; he admitted the unlikelihood that he would recognize this man again; and he saw nothing that in itself could have ensured a conviction.’

Does this sound like a man whose evidence in its own right could have sent a man to the gallows?

[Garry Wroe]

I still don't see that the police placed too much importance on Mortimer. They figured they had time of death in the bag without her.

That may or may not be true, Tom, but the inquests fell under the jurisdiction of the Coroner, not the police, and it would have been an offence for investigators to have withheld witnesses or evidence from the Coroner. Carrie Maxwell wasn't exactly a stellar witness as far as investigators were concerned, but she appeared at the Kelly inquest hearing anyway.

[Michael W Richards]

However, the day after the murder, it was the description supplied by PC Smith that the police released to the press to be circulated. Funny thing... Brown's description was not circulated although the CID had interviewed everyone in the area on the day of the murder of Elizabeth Stride.

Hi Hunter,

Though it flies in the face of what Ive been espousing, the Police Gazette of Oct 88 had Schwartz's suspects descriptions. I think your point about Brown is interesting, perhaps they assumed that Brown did not see Liz Stride with someone but the young couple that had been lingering in the immediate area. Yet he appears at the Inquest. The flower that Liz had on at 12:45am was red with white maidenfern adorning it, Brown saw nothing light in either of their clothing.

Lynn, on Mrs Longs Chapman sighting,..

Her timing in conjunction with Davies times, Richardson's statements and the statements of Dr Phillips makes that highly unlikely in my opinion. Richardson notices nothing at around 4:50am. Davies finds her around 6am. Phillips arrives at 6:30am, and the victim is cold, the stiffness of the limbs was "commencing". I would imagine that her physical state dictates that she had been there for more than 1 hr. So,using Richardson's remarks as gospel, the murder and mutilations must have occurred shortly after 5am.

Mrs Long is quite certain about her time, which is 5:30am.

Cadoche stated that he heard the noise on the other side of the fence around 5:20am.

I think the murder time is all right there myself Lynn, I believe Annie was being "butchered" around 5:30am and Long must have been wrong about her ID in my opinion.

My best regards,

Mike R

[lynn cates]

tempus fugit

Hello Mike. Well, what about hearing the 5.15 striking? Then she may have seen Annie about 5.17 or so.

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

Agreed, Hunter. But Anderson described the Seaside Home witness as ‘[FONT=Verdana]the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’. Swanson stated that ‘his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged’.

Let's say Lawende had a good look at the man, as it is open to debate, would it have been enough to convict him?

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

I would have thought that evidence capable of convicting the suspect would have been something approaching caught redhanded.

Schwartz or another.

[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.

[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

[lynn cates]

dim

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

Cheers.
LC

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

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.