Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Schwartz v. Lawende

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Schwartz v. Lawende

    Hello everyone. As my first post will indicate, I'm not an expert in the Ripper killings so please forgive (but do point out!) any schoolboy errors...

    From browsing through the message boards, it seems that many people give credence to Joseph Lawende's description of the man speaking to Eddowes, yet many people do not trust Israel Schwartz's testimony regarding the man talking to Elizabeth Stride. Being really blunt about it, Lawende is believed by the majority and Schwartz is not.

    Yet the person being described is similar - fair complexion, small moustache, and in some cases the differences (e.g., 5'5" according to Schwartz, 5'9" according to Lawende) could be chalked up to nothing more than observational difficulties (especially because the person Schwartz described was presumably moving about and thus unlikely to be standing straight up) - this could also be true of the "broad shoulders" - if Lawende passed the man side-by-side, the shoulders may not have been noticed (or Schwartz may have seen the man's arms extended and thus thought the shoulders were broader than they were, with the clothes gathering at them.)

    Granted, Lawende saw a red neckerchief that Schwartz didn't, but that may have been because either Schwartz simply didn't notice, or because the man put the neckerchief on between sightings.

    Or, of course, they may be describing different people...or they may both be describing the same person and made a few errors in recall.

    I stress I'm not certain, myself, as to whether they saw the same person, but I'm of the opinion that it can't be ruled out. And if you say it's possible that Schwartz is describing Lawende's man, then you can move on to see if Packer was doing so too, for example.

    I would very much like to hear from anyone who feels that Schwartz and Lawende were describing different people, and their reasons for thinking this.

    Thanks in advance!

    Syrius

  • #2
    Originally posted by Syrius View Post
    Hello everyone. As my first post will indicate, I'm not an expert in the Ripper killings so please forgive (but do point out!) any schoolboy errors...

    From browsing through the message boards, it seems that many people give credence to Joseph Lawende's description of the man speaking to Eddowes, yet many people do not trust Israel Schwartz's testimony regarding the man talking to Elizabeth Stride. Being really blunt about it, Lawende is believed by the majority and Schwartz is not.

    Yet the person being described is similar - fair complexion, small moustache, and in some cases the differences (e.g., 5'5" according to Schwartz, 5'9" according to Lawende) could be chalked up to nothing more than observational difficulties (especially because the person Schwartz described was presumably moving about and thus unlikely to be standing straight up) - this could also be true of the "broad shoulders" - if Lawende passed the man side-by-side, the shoulders may not have been noticed (or Schwartz may have seen the man's arms extended and thus thought the shoulders were broader than they were, with the clothes gathering at them.)

    Granted, Lawende saw a red neckerchief that Schwartz didn't, but that may have been because either Schwartz simply didn't notice, or because the man put the neckerchief on between sightings.

    Or, of course, they may be describing different people...or they may both be describing the same person and made a few errors in recall.

    I stress I'm not certain, myself, as to whether they saw the same person, but I'm of the opinion that it can't be ruled out. And if you say it's possible that Schwartz is describing Lawende's man, then you can move on to see if Packer was doing so too, for example.

    I would very much like to hear from anyone who feels that Schwartz and Lawende were describing different people, and their reasons for thinking this.

    Thanks in advance!

    Syrius
    Hi Syrius
    and welcome.

    IMHO they are describing the same man. the clincher for me is that they both describe a man wearing a peaked cap. as did marshal, possibly PC smith and the anon description in the press of a sighting in Church st. at approx. the time inbetween the Berner street and Mitre square murders.

    I believe they all are probably describing the same man.

    The peaked cap also made an impression on Abberline. see my sig below.
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • #3
      Lawendes suspect, from Swansons report:

      "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."

      Schwartz's suspect, from Swanson:

      "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."

      The height is off, the general shape is off, the clothing close and of course the scarf is only with Lawende, but they are close.

      But the height and "full face, broadshouldered" differences to me are important, as is the idea that to be the same person he would have had to add the scarf in the half hour after Strides murder. There is also the issue of geography....to head into the city is uncharacteristic of the killer who seems to be working in the lowest class districts. The city wasn't, and isn't, highly populated at night either. Not the best choice for trawling.

      Cheers
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank you to each for these, and for the welcome.

        The problem is, as I'm sure everyone finds, that there are so many questions to which the answer is, "well, maybe...". Could the killer have had a red scarf in his pocket and put it on after the first murder of the double event? Well, maybe...Could he have just ran, having been almost discovered murdering Stride - and that randomly took him into the city? Well, maybe...

        One interesting thing I noticed is that there's a short run of witnesses who describe reasonably similar people - maybe William Marshall, then Matthew Packer, William Smith and James Brown all describe people of a reasonably similar make-out. But these were all prior to Schwartz's sighting, which IF we believe it probably just means that Stride was talking to a potential customer, and had moved onto another by the time Schwartz saw her.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm a bit of the opposite. I consider Schwartz but dismiss Lawende.

          While there are a lot of domestic issues in the area, Schwartz was directly involved in the situation. That leaves a more precise print in the mind.

          Lawende admit himself he couldn't recognize the man, and I also chose to decide that the couple he saw wasn't Eddowes and JtR.

          Voilą.
          Is it progress when a cannibal uses a fork?
          - Stanislaw Jerzy Lee

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SirJohnFalstaff View Post
            I'm a bit of the opposite. I consider Schwartz but dismiss Lawende.

            While there are a lot of domestic issues in the area, Schwartz was directly involved in the situation. That leaves a more precise print in the mind.

            Lawende admit himself he couldn't recognize the man, and I also chose to decide that the couple he saw wasn't Eddowes and JtR.

            Voilą.

            Nice summary, but between Israel and Joseph only 1 had a possible witness. Not one supporting shred of evidence exists to back Israels claim that he was where he said he was, let alone that he saw and heard something critical to an investigation. He didnt attend the Inquest, although his storys contents would compel at least a summons, his story was never mentioned, his characters were seen or heard by no-one, and his story was not part of the written records of the Inquest.

            Before we back anyone, we have to see evidence they should be backed. There is no such evidence here with Israel....a mention by an officer that he believed the story is worth nothing to this investigation.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • #7
              I just want to clarify, that I don't think Schwartz saw Jack. He saw Stride, with a man, on Berner Street, and the argument is believable.

              But this wasn't the ripper.

              Apart from a few exceptions, I give all the witness a 30 minutes margin of error.
              Not everyone had watches, not every one had a good sense of timing, and I won't believe all the clocks in London were in unison.
              Is it progress when a cannibal uses a fork?
              - Stanislaw Jerzy Lee

              Comment


              • #8
                We don't even know if the woman Schwartz saw was Stride. He could have been witnessing 'a domestic'.

                Comment


                • #9
                  For me, the big issue with Schwartz as a witness is this "Lipski" incident; it could indicate that whoever was attacking Stride had an accomplice, which kind of goes against most perceived Ripper theories...

                  Or does it? Is there the suggestion that the Ripper could have worked as part of a team?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Abberline suggested that "Lipski" may have been directed at Schwartz because of his "Jewish appearance", which would not necessarily indicate an accomplice.
                    Best Wishes,
                    Hunter
                    ____________________________________________

                    When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Hunter View Post
                      Abberline suggested that "Lipski" may have been directed at Schwartz because of his "Jewish appearance", which would not necessarily indicate an accomplice.
                      Agreed. And as schwartz followed the attacker down Berner Street, it seems very unlikely he had an accomplice lurking conveniently in a nearby doorway further on.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        That's true, but as I understand it, Schwartz said that on the shout of "Lipski", the dude with the pipe started following him.

                        If Schwartz is telling the truth (and I'm not sure; I think it's possible, but I've not yet decided), then I think we only have a small number of scenarios...

                        1. Pipe dude is a random guy who, on being alerted to the presence of a Jewish person, goes after the Jewish person because he doesn't like them. It's certainly possible, given some of the views of the time. And this is backed up by the idea that if pipe dude is random, he's obviously weird/screwed up enough to watch a domestic incident/attempted murder without interfering, so - to generalise hugely - he'd presumably be the type of guy who'd be up for a fight with a Jewish person.

                        2. Pipe dude is not a random guy but in some way assisting the person fighting with Stride, which is why he "obeys" the fighter when he shouts "Lipski".

                        3. As (2), but pipe dude's name is actually Lipski...?

                        4. Pipe dude actually hadn't been seen by fighting man but assumed "Lipski" had identified him, so he walked off in the same direction as (hence "following") Schwartz.

                        Actually, now I'm typing all this up, none of it seems very likely. Which in turn casts doubt on Schwartz.

                        Joshua, when you say that Schwartz "followed the attacker down Berner Street", this is prior to the attacker fighting with Stride, right? If so, perhaps pipe dude could actually be the Ripper, about to get involved with Stride when interrupted by the person who randomly gets into a fight with her - so he goes after Schwartz, who gets away, so he returns, and there's Stride on the ground...?

                        However, I may well have totally misunderstood that last bit, so any clarification is welcomed!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Syrius View Post
                          I would very much like to hear from anyone who feels that Schwartz and Lawende were describing different people, and their reasons for thinking this.

                          Thanks in advance!

                          Syrius
                          Hi Syrius

                          Its a subject I've given a lot of consideration to over some years..

                          I think they were describing the same man, and timing would suggest to me the same man seen in Whitchurch Lane at around 1.25 am.

                          Of course Lawende doesn't think he will recognise the man again but describes the red scarf. Schwartz enters Berner street and BSM is walking infront of him, so the majority of the time he doesn't see the mans face only his back, hence broad shouldered man, thats his view.

                          But as Schwartz crosses the road and BSM turns and shouts Lipski its possible Schwartz gets a good view of his face. The fact is we will never know for sure as the lighting is tight depending how close to the gate boundary BSM is stood.

                          So for what its worth I think they describe the same man from different perspectives. However I now think neither were Anderson/Swansons Seaside Home witness.

                          Yours Jeff
                          Last edited by Jeff Leahy; 12-11-2015, 10:52 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hi Jeff,

                            I too have been looking at this for a very long time, and agree I think it is the same man, i have been greatly influenced by the work of Rob House.

                            I just want to check, do you think someone else was the "seaside home" witness or do you think it didn't happen.

                            I think it did, and also do not think either Schwartz or Lawende were the witness.

                            Elamarna

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yes, that's right Sirius. According to the Star 1st Oct report, the attacker was already walking South down Berner Street when Schwartz entered it from Commercial Road.

                              There's always option 5, of course....Pipeman was just a random dude about his own business who happened to go in the same direction as Schwartz for a short distance. Whether he walked off for the same reason - to avoid getting involved with the incident - or he was oblivious to the whole thing, who can say.

                              Personally, I've always thought there was a chance that this was James Brown, out getting his supper.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X