Who Was Anderson’s Witness?

[Guest]

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?

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

More silly stuff that has been dealt with fully by David Orsam elsewhere. Perhaps you should try reading something by someone that knows what he’s talking about.

What possible reason? How many did DO suggest? Around 8 I think. None of which can be dismissed. We don’t know why Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest but it wasn’t because the Coroner decided not to call him because of something that he read in The Star newspaper. The suggestion is ludicrous but sadly par for the course.

The duty of the Inquest was to establish the identity of the victim (Schwartz could play no part in that) When she was killed but not the actual TOD as this wasn’t something that an Inquest was required to state and how she met her death (again something that Schwartz couldn’t help with) This doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have been called but, in regard to the actual aims of the Inquest he was a non-vital witness. There’s no point playing ‘why was he called’ or ‘why wasn’t she called’ card because it’s pointless. It certainly looks like some Inquests went beyond their remit.

Also of course it wasn’t the Coroner’s job to assess how good witnesses were. He obviously didn’t believe Mary Malcolm but there she was.

If you could just let these facts sink in you’d see that your entire silly suggestion as to why Schwartz was called, like your theory, crumbles easily.

[Abby Normal]

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?

Hi wiggy
Lawende-he wore a peaked cap. like something a sailor would wear.

[c.d.]

Was everyone on the same page back then as to what constituted a "peaked cap?" I don't know the answer which is why I am asking.

c.d.

[Guest]

Yes please can someone upload some 19 c peaked cap images. Not taking away from the original post at all, in fact it may well be the crux of the matter

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Conspiracist nonsense. I’ve never know such deliberate distortion to shoehorn in a theory in my entire life than you’ve done on this theory. And why bring up Schwartz on here when you have a ready made Schwartz thread or as I like to call it Casebook’s very own Grassy Knoll.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I think it may have been the red neckerchief which gave him the appearance of a sailor [ the man Lawende saw ]
Regards Darryl

[Scott Nelson]

The alternative outside these two options is that there never was an identification and Anderson is getting confused with the Sadler identification by Lawende.

So there are three options:
1. Either Lawende or Schwartz identify Kosminski as the man they saw. (If Stride was a Ripper victim).
2. Lawende identifies Kosminski as the man he saw (If Stride wasn't a Ripper Victim).
3. The Kosminski identification never happened.

Realistically, none of the options change anything as even if the ID didn't happen, Kosminski still remains a frontrunner on merit of being Anderson's and other senior officers prime suspect.

With regard to option 3, you have to ask yourself, if you believe Swanson wrote the marginal notes in Anderson's book, why would he (Swanson) lie to himself?

[Varqm]

More silly stuff that has been dealt with fully by David Orsam elsewhere. Perhaps you should try reading something by someone that knows what he’s talking about.

What possible reason? How many did DO suggest? Around 8 I think. None of which can be dismissed. We don’t know why Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest but it wasn’t because the Coroner decided not to call him because of something that he read in The Star newspaper. The suggestion is ludicrous but sadly par for the course.

The duty of the Inquest was to establish the identity of the victim (Schwartz could play no part in that) When she was killed but not the actual TOD as this wasn’t something that an Inquest was required to state and how she met her death (again something that Schwartz couldn’t help with) This doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have been called but, in regard to the actual aims of the Inquest he was a non-vital witness. There’s no point playing ‘why was he called’ or ‘why wasn’t she called’ card because it’s pointless. It certainly looks like some Inquests went beyond their remit.

Also of course it wasn’t the Coroner’s job to assess how good witnesses were. He obviously didn’t believe Mary Malcolm but there she was.

If you could just let these facts sink in you’d see that your entire silly suggestion as to why Schwartz was called, like your theory, crumbles easily.

Clueless response.
The "who, where, how,when " was just one aim of the inquest.
Another is "the facts and circumstances of the case " . Lawende/co, Mary Ann Cox,Long.Lechmere Paul.etc. belongs here.
Another is "and if he came by his death by murder or manslaughter,the persons,if any,whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter,or of being accessories before the fact to such murder."

Read the Coroners Act 1887 instead of spouting things you do not know about.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Clueless response.
The "who, where, how,when " was just one aim of the inquest.
Another is "the facts and circumstances of the case " . Lawende/co, Mary Ann Cox,Long.Lechmere Paul.etc. belongs here.
Another is "and if he came by his death by murder or manslaughter,the persons,if any,whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter,or of being accessories before the fact to such murder."

Read the Coroners Act 1887 instead of spouting things you do not know about.

You’ve already had you’re shortcomings on this subject pointed out to you by DO so it’s a wonder that you have the nerve to still consider yourself some kind of expert. Unlike you I make no such claim but we can see from Inquests that there are witness called who add nothing of value and yet some who would add to a general picture who aren’t called. No reasons are given for these individual decisions of selection therefore we simply cannot know why Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest. You make a claim that you know why he didn’t attend. This is a false claim of course and it’s surprising that you repeatedly put yourself in this position. I know that you have an issue with DO but if there’s choice to be made about the accuracy of his research and your own then there really is no contest I’m afraid. You come third. He gave 8 potential reasons that Schwartz might not have been called. None of these are claimed as a fact of course but they are all possibles which by definition proves that your ‘fact’ can in no way be considered as such. The idea that the Coroner read The Star (in itself unlikely) and then made a decision contrary to police opinion is utterly ludicrous. We don’t know why Schwartz didn’t attend but it wasn’t because The Coroner to an action that wasn’t part of his duties, You should stop stating your opinions as fact.

(I don’t know why points about Stride/Schwartz are being made on this thread? Although, yes, I’m guilty of responding to them. I’ll copy and paste this response onto the Schwartz Lied thread)

[Fogelpa]

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.

I like your posts Astatine. And in response to an earlier post of yours,i also do believe that pipeman was identified,but can't remember where i read it.

[Abby Normal]

Was everyone on the same page back then as to what constituted a "peaked cap?" I don't know the answer which is why I am asking.

c.d.

hi cd
i beleive it was lawende who described tje suspect with eddowes that he was "wearing a peaked cap. like something a sailor would wear" .so whatever the different types, it was a sailors cap.

[Trevor Marriott]

hi cd
i beleive it was lawende who described tje suspect with eddowes that he was "wearing a peaked cap. like something a sailor would wear" .so whatever the different types, it was a sailors cap.

so he could have been a sailor do you accept that fact ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

so he could have been a sailor do you accept that fact ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

absolutely