Who Was Anderson’s Witness?

[c.d.]

Yep, thats the basic outline. Fanny wasnt important to the question of How Liz Dies which is the basic goal of the Inquest....she didnt see anyone or anything that might answer that question. Schwartz on the other hand claimed to see the victim being assaulted around the time of the earliest estimated cut time. Thats relevant to the main question....so....why isnt he recorded at all in the Inquest files? No in camera notation, no written submission, not being withheld as some of Lawendes statement was and announced as such. Not sequestered...as Lawende was.

So...what possible reason could there be to omit Schwartz? Now you have the basis for my remarks, he wasnt believed or his story didnt check out. Period. Its the only reasonable and logical conclusion, barring any evidence to the contrary.

Now Herlock thinks he know better, but has no proof at all of his belief, whereas I can cite his "obvious" absence as a valid basis for mine. Too bad logic isnt used more often, it would solve a lot of the squabbles and nonsensical statements.

So what you have shown is that there could be a reason why a witness might not appear at the inquest but still be believed by the police. Thanks for clearing that up. No further questions. You may step down.

c.d.

So since mentioned more than once what does 'appearance of a sailor' mean in the context of the late 19th century I wonder? When sailors where seen often because the UK was an empire.

Does it mean a likely lad with weathered features and a hearty swagger?
Or is relating to attire?

Would this description mean something more than maybe now and the context is lost?
Maybe the inspector gave a knowing nod, but we have lost the true meaning?

[Michael W Richards]

Just to add....this is one of the flaws with Ripperology, people spend oodles of time and effort trying to construct theories using illogical material for the baseline. Anyone who uses Schwartz's story in any way to try and solve this murder will fail.

Having said that I will say this....IF Schwartz's story contains some actual facts then it might be that they tossed his story because he fabricated part of it.

Example.....Israel Schwartz attended the meeting or arrived at the club after it, he went to leave after the front door was locked and while leaving through the side door he sees a man accosting a woman inside the gates. He slips by them and dashes to his new home. Its a reasonable idea...because he is an immigrant Jew outside and immigrant jew club after an Immigrant jew meeting, he was more likely to have been there for that reason than to check to see if his wife finished moving what was probably a few suitcases 12 hours earlier....(he perhaps lived in one of those cottages until the move that morning...we dont know where he moved from for sure)...we can connect Schwartz and Wess as friends down the road a few years and its suggested they knew each other prior to that night. When the staff learn he was there and saw the tussle when he left, Wess goes to him to suggest that he go to the police and that he say that he was on the street when he saw Liz assaulted by someone who then yells an anti-Semitic remark at him. Why? Because the truth...that he saw Liz assaulted by someone who based on the other statements made, must have come from the people in attendance at the club and on the property. He provides a viable suspect who isnt from the property and hates jews.

Now, why would anarchist Jews be afraid of being accused of this murder? Well, lets just say as per Anderson that by Oct1st it was apparently presumed by law enforcement that the killer at large was an immigrant jew, which might lead to them being suspected for all the unsolved murders to date. The club would close. Maybe all the socialist clubs in the city. Diemshutz would lose his job, so would Eagle as occasional speaker, so would Mrs D, and Lave might lose his cottage in the passageway. Wess would perhaps be harrassed because of the "radical" nature of The Arbeter Fraint. Immigrant Jews would be in danger on the streets.

[Michael W Richards]

I would have thought she would have been very important for establishing a time line for events.

But let me make sure I am clear on this -- Schwartz wasn't there which means his story was not believed by the police. Fanny wasn't there but her story was believed. Got it.

c.d.

Yep, thats the basic outline. Fanny wasnt important to the question of How Liz Dies which is the basic goal of the Inquest....she didnt see anyone or anything that might answer that question. Schwartz on the other hand claimed to see the victim being assaulted around the time of the earliest estimated cut time. Thats relevant to the main question....so....why isnt he recorded at all in the Inquest files? No in camera notation, no written submission, not being withheld as some of Lawendes statement was and announced as such. Not sequestered...as Lawende was.

So...what possible reason could there be to omit Schwartz? Now you have the basis for my remarks, he wasnt believed or his story didnt check out. Period. Its the only reasonable and logical conclusion, barring any evidence to the contrary.

Now Herlock thinks he know better, but has no proof at all of his belief, whereas I can cite his "obvious" absence as a valid basis for mine. Too bad logic isnt used more often, it would solve a lot of the squabbles and nonsensical statements.

[Astatine211]

But no witness ever saw the killer !!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ellen Callagher: We met a man dressed in a sailor suit, with a pea jacket and cheesecutter hat. He was a very short man, with a dark moustache, shiny boots, and blue trousers, and had the appearance of a sailor. It was not Sadler. This man was younger. (Sadler was 53 years old).

Sarah Lewis: He was short, pale faced, with a black moustache, about 40 years of age - the bag he had was about a foot or nine inches long - he had on a round high hat - a high one for a round one - he had a brownish long overcoat and a short black coat underneath and pepper & salt ["and" - deleted] trousers.

Joseph Lawende / HO Joseph Lawende: Age 30 to 35. Height 5ft. 7in., with brown hair and big moustache, dressed respectably. Wore a pea jacket, muffler and a cloth cap with a peak of the same material. Medium built, dress pepper & salt colour and appearance of a sailor.

IMO, the Broad Shouldered Man, Church Passage Man, the Bethnal Green Botherer and Cheesecutter Man were the same person seen multiple times. The pea jacket was an uncommon item of clothing only really worn by sailors.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have to correct you on this, Herlock. That might have been the reason but then again it might not have been the reason. The essential point is that no one knows for sure.

c.d.

No problem c.d. but I’d have to say that the police were still treating Schwartz as a valid witness into November so it’s difficult to see why a coroner would be over ruling the police on Schwatz?

[c.d.]

The suggestion that Schwartz was absent from the Inquest because the Coroner mistrusted his evidence is baseless nonsense of course. This is the kind of shoddy thinking that allows silly theories to germinate and fester.

I have to correct you on this, Herlock. That might have been the reason but then again it might not have been the reason. The essential point is that no one knows for sure.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A little additional point, Fanny Mortimer used the words "nearly the whole time", and still people use that to remove her from the view of the street for up to 10 minute intervals. Which would constitute a third of the time in question, and as such contrast greatly with an assertion that she was there nearly the whole time. Why not use an unaffiliated unbiased witness instead of presuming so much about her.

She may well have been at her door at 12:45. Why doesnt she dispute Schwartz then? Oh yeah, nobody asked him for his story at the Inquest, its not even mentioned or noted. And she wasnt there because all she actually saw was Goldsteins pass. When Liz Stride was being cut...as early as 12:46...she may well have been at the door. She said she was at her door around 12:50 when she went "back out", and we know she was there at 12:56 because she saw Goldstein. Who may well have been walking past looking into the passageway while the killer is there with Stride. Maybe thats why he waited until Tuesday to come forward, he wasnt sure he should tell the police what he actually saw when he looked in, and why he kept going with empty cigarettes cartons in his bag and cigarette makers awake at the time in the passageway cottages.

Fanny saw only Goldstein. And she said if anyone had come out from that passageway she would have seen them....and she said she was there until 1am. Which tells us A) Diemshutz did not arrive precisely at 1 as he claimed, B) the killer remained at that location after cutting Liz Stride once.

Since she didnt see anyone but Goldstein, she didnt see anyone arrive there either....cue Eagle. The killer almost certainly came from the premises.

Unless Stride was transported into Dutfield’s Yard by Mr Scott of the USS Enterprise then she had to get there by walking. As Doctored Whatsit pointed out earlier ‘why didn’t Mortimer see her arrive if she was on the doorstep for nearly the whole time? It’s another case of a biased assessment of the known facts. From the same theorist that has Diemschutz arriving earlier than 1.00.

So it’s a massive issue that Fanny didn’t see Schwartz (even though, as per the EN, she could have been back inside by then, but it’s unimportant that she didn’t see Stride arrive, or Eagle return or Diemschutz arrive earlier.

Never in the history of human discussion has such a disproved and thoroughly discredited theory been kept going for so long without the white flag being waved.

[Herlock Sholmes]

She was killed out of sight of Fanny, behind the gate in the passageway. And you can back Schwartz all you like, but his absence at the Inquest sort of deals with his overall value here.

The suggestion that Schwartz was absent from the Inquest because the Coroner mistrusted his evidence is baseless nonsense of course. This is the kind of shoddy thinking that allows silly theories to germinate and fester.

[c.d.]

I would have thought she would have been very important for establishing a time line for events.

But let me make sure I am clear on this -- Schwartz wasn't there which means his story was not believed by the police. Fanny wasn't there but her story was believed. Got it.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

But yet this incredibly important witness did not appear at the inquest. Hmmmm.

c.d.

I think you may have reading issues cd, Ive suggested in every related post that she isnt important to the Inquest because she didnt see anyone or anything other than Goldstein. Schwartz said he saw lots...and so...where is he again?

Arguing about Schwartz is such a waste of time, and likely what was intended in the first place by making his statement at all. Anything to put the focus on the likely killer outside the club attendees and out back onto the street.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

I have no dog in the fight regarding the marginalia. But if it is a forgery, can you provide a possible reason why someone would do so other than money?

c.d.

Money is a good enough reason !!!!!!!!

you should read up on the history of the marginalia and see who had it, and what that person did with it for finacial gain.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

A little additional point, Fanny Mortimer used the words "nearly the whole time", and still people use that to remove her from the view of the street for up to 10 minute intervals. Which would constitute a third of the time in question, and as such contrast greatly with an assertion that she was there nearly the whole time. Why not use an unaffiliated unbiased witness instead of presuming so much about her.

She may well have been at her door at 12:45. Why doesnt she dispute Schwartz then? Oh yeah, nobody asked him for his story at the Inquest, its not even mentioned or noted. And she wasnt there because all she actually saw was Goldsteins pass. When Liz Stride was being cut...as early as 12:46...she may well have been at the door. She said she was at her door around 12:50 when she went "back out", and we know she was there at 12:56 because she saw Goldstein. Who may well have been walking past looking into the passageway while the killer is there with Stride. Maybe thats why he waited until Tuesday to come forward, he wasnt sure he should tell the police what he actually saw when he looked in, and why he kept going with empty cigarettes cartons in his bag and cigarette makers awake at the time in the passageway cottages.

Fanny saw only Goldstein. And she said if anyone had come out from that passageway she would have seen them....and she said she was there until 1am. Which tells us A) Diemshutz did not arrive precisely at 1 as he claimed, B) the killer remained at that location after cutting Liz Stride once.

Since she didnt see anyone but Goldstein, she didnt see anyone arrive there either....cue Eagle. The killer almost certainly came from the premises.

But yet this incredibly important witness did not appear at the inquest. Hmmmm.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Trevor,

I have no dog in the fight regarding the marginalia. But if it is a forgery, can you provide a possible reason why someone would do so other than money?

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

not mythical at all. two cops mention it in detail and another alludes to it. two of the three name the suspect and we have the witness IDer who in all liklihood was lawende.
The ID took place, theres just some questions about exactly where.

But according to MM the suspect (Kosminski) was eliminated so where does that leave us?

and he makes no mention of any ID parade.

Where does the truth lie? ceratinly not in the marginalia if you believe that then you should start beliveing in Fairy tales

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk