Schwartz v. Lawende

[Michael W Richards]

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/816510-the-stride-murder?p=819354#post819354

The 28 includes people from outside the club, like Spooner. A number of club attendees seem to have left the premises after the discovery, and not returned prior to the closure of the gates.

Actually if you put together the number of people that Spooner says he saw there, with the other witnesses of that same timing, and the number Lamb saw there, the number he found inside on the ground floor when he went into the club,... the initial numbers of the men seen that we have witnesses comments on...it exceeds 30 men onsite. Then you can add in neighbours, and the like, and that number doesnt address whether any members elected to stay upstairs when the news first came.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Incorrect, yes, with respect to interpretation.
Swanson is writing as if there was a second 'if' in the sentence.
In other words the first 'if' is applicable to both halves of the sentence.
His meaning was this...

" If Schwartz is to be believed, and (if) the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it..."

We speak this way all the time, use one preposition to apply to more than one sentence. It's just that when you write down what you say, it can give an erroneous meaning.

If you asked me something about the ball game tomorrow, I could say..

"If I go to Toronto, and if I go to the ball game, I will find out for you..."

But, I could just as easy use one 'if'.

"If I go to Toronto, and go to the ball game, I will find out for you..."

Both statements mean exactly the same thing.

The problem with Swanson's note is when he left out the second 'if' his sentence lends itself to a different meaning.

At the time of writing there was no police report of their investigation into Schwartz's story - that is what Swanson was saying, in my view.

The bold sentences are not equivalent. Finding 'you' is dependent on going to the game, which in turn is dependent on going to Toronto, whereas if the police report on Schwartz is still pending (as you suppose), then belief in Schwartz is only dependent on the content of that report, and nothing else. To put it more technically, finding you at the ball game involves a conditional dependency, whereas belief in Schwartz only depends on the report. Compiling that report depends on things like finding and interviewing certain people, but Swanson is speaking from the point of view of readers of his report - people at the Home Office, for example, and not those doing the police work. Had the police report still been pending, Swanson need only have written ...

If the police report of Schwartz's statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows that if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw is the more probable of the two to be the murderer.

Speaking of those doing the police work ...

... the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Doubts about Schwartz long predate Swanson's report, and these are the doubts he was hinting at, in my view.

[Michael W Richards]

The coroner's schedule is independent to any police work, if an inquest must be held it must be within a reasonable time or the delay is punishable.

Secondly, the inquiry is not there to identify the killer, only to establish the when, where & by what means the victim met her death. Schwartz could not contribute to any of that, nor could he identify the victim, so his testimony was not necessary for the coroner.




The coroner's duties are to establish the identity of the victim, which Schwartz could not help, and discover when, where & how she died.
Schwartz's statement contributed nothing towards that end.

The part I highlighted above Wick is a misinterpretation, the very fact that the manner of her death was a primary question at the Inquest would necessitate the inclusion of a validated story of an violent altercation between victim and aggressor just before the estimated cut time. It would focus the findings towards a Wilful Murder verdict. Her Id is also an issue to resolve, so explain Mary Malcolms inclusion to me,...considering that Liz had been identified already. These early Inquests were anything but straight forward, but any evidence that suggests an answer to one of the principle questions that the Inquest is designed to answer would be included. Maybe thats why we see MM. Its not that Israel's story wouldnt have been relevant to the specifics being addressed, it would have certainly been, its that despite the potential importance of his alleged sighting, his story is absent in any format at the Inquest.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But Darryl, you failed to mention the bulk of those had left by 11:30 pm, and that only about 20-30 were left (other reports suggest 28), so does your point still apply?

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/816510-the-stride-murder?p=819354#post819354

The 28 includes people from outside the club, like Spooner. A number of club attendees seem to have left the premises after the discovery, and not returned prior to the closure of the gates.

[Darryl Kenyon]

But Darryl, you failed to mention the bulk of those had left by 11:30 pm, and that only about 20-30 were left (other reports suggest 28), so does your point still apply?

Wick do we know how many of those left knew each other ? What we do know is that Wess said that there up to 80 members of the club and up to a 100 members in the lecture room . The point you are trying to make is that A would know when B was leaving etc so it would be hard for Jack to be someone from the club that night . We simply do not know who knew who . It was obviously busy that evening with members and non members alike . If you are a member of a working men's club as I am on a busy evening of various people in the club would you know when everyone left ? For all A would know is B had left when in fact he was in another room and left 15 mins later. Besides we have evidence of people coming and going - Eagle, and people going in and out of the yard - Lave .
I am not saying Jack was a member of the club , Liz could have stood in the gateway and stopped a passer by who attacked her once in the yard .What I am saying however is there was an in and an out at Dutfield's , Jack could have come either way to kill Liz and we can't discount either. Also I bet Jack wasn't more than two or three mins with Liz before he killed her.

Off to work
Regards Darryl

[Abby Normal]

theres is absolutely zero evidence the killer came from the club and or there was a conspiracy by club members to cover it up. end of story.

there is however, evidence that stride was meandering about with a non club member, peaked cap man, and that he was her killer. its not rocket science, although some try to portray it that way.

[Wickerman]

So, belief in Schwartz by Scotland Yard was still 'up in the air' when Swanson wrote the relevant section of his report?

Swanson was compiling his report from police files, but although his report was dated, meaning completed, by 19th Oct. the content had to be written in stages, not the whole report in one day. Which means we do not know the date he copied the notes concerning Schwartz except that it would be earlier in the investigation.

Is the following interpretation therefore incorrect, in your view?

Incorrect, yes, with respect to interpretation.
Swanson is writing as if there was a second 'if' in the sentence.
In other words the first 'if' is applicable to both halves of the sentence.
His meaning was this...

" If Schwartz is to be believed, and (if) the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it..."

We speak this way all the time, use one preposition to apply to more than one sentence. It's just that when you write down what you say, it can give an erroneous meaning.

If you asked me something about the ball game tomorrow, I could say..

"If I go to Toronto, and if I go to the ball game, I will find out for you..."

But, I could just as easy use one 'if'.

"If I go to Toronto, and go to the ball game, I will find out for you..."

Both statements mean exactly the same thing.

The problem with Swanson's note is when he left out the second 'if' his sentence lends itself to a different meaning.

At the time of writing there was no police report of their investigation into Schwartz's story - that is what Swanson was saying, in my view.

[Wickerman]

To be fair Wick , William Wess in his testimony said the club had around 80 members , he also says there may have been 100 people attending a lecture in the lecture room. Perhaps there were more in other rooms , didn't I read somewhere that there may have been 200 people there that night ? .
Anyway the point I am trying to make is that not everybody who was there that fateful night could have been a member of the club. So it follows that some people may have been vouched by one or two people without anyone else knowing who they where, [ if at all ]. Suppose A was with B who was not a member, and A went off early and no one else knew B but he hung around. He could have left anytime without anyone taking much notice of the time when he left. Or as an alternative B could have left while A was still one of those left singing without telling him. Again with B not being a club member, and not well known who would take much notice of when he left ?

Regards Darryl

But Darryl, you failed to mention the bulk of those had left by 11:30 pm, and that only about 20-30 were left (other reports suggest 28), so does your point still apply?

[Darryl Kenyon]

The problem I see with the killer being a club member is that the police interviewed all the members, and as would be expected they not only have alibi's, but all their stories will confirm each other. The police will be looking for an inconsistency, an example being 'A' says he was with 'B', whereas 'B' makes no mention of seeing 'A'.
Unless you want to proposed a conspiracy among club members then we can rest assured their stories all confirmed each other.
Lets be honest, to think the killer may have been a member of the club is hardly an outstanding theory, it was likely their first thought - hence the individual interrogations & personal searches of the members.

To be fair Wick , William Wess in his testimony said the club had around 80 members , he also says there may have been 100 people attending a lecture in the lecture room. Perhaps there were more in other rooms , didn't I read somewhere that there may have been 200 people there that night ? .
Anyway the point I am trying to make is that not everybody who was there that fateful night could have been a member of the club. So it follows that some people may have been vouched by one or two people without anyone else knowing who they where, [ if at all ]. Suppose A was with B who was not a member, and A went off early and no one else knew B but he hung around. He could have left anytime without anyone taking much notice of the time when he left. Or as an alternative B could have left while A was still one of those left singing without telling him. Again with B not being a club member, and not well known who would take much notice of when he left ?

Regards Darryl

[Fiver]

The problem I see with the killer being a club member is that the police interviewed all the members, and as would be expected they not only have alibi's, but all their stories will confirm each other. The police will be looking for an inconsistency, an example being 'A' says he was with 'B', whereas 'B' makes no mention of seeing 'A'.
Unless you want to proposed a conspiracy among club members then we can rest assured their stories all confirmed each other.
Lets be honest, to think the killer may have been a member of the club is hardly an outstanding theory, it was likely their first thought - hence the individual interrogations & personal searches of the members.

Time estimates given by different club members favor the body being found at around 1am, but there are a few exceptions. Which argues against there being a conspiracy. Another point against there being a conspiracy is that none of the club members who went into the yard or street before the body was found said they saw anyone strange about, which would be a simple way of pointing suspicion away from the club.

[Fiver]

If Israels story is accurate and honest, and BSM isnt her eventual killer, then its almost a cert that the killer is already at the club.Or maybe just returning to it.....? Either way, in your scenario Jack,... who you believe committed this crime, is at that club.

"On the left side of the yard is a house, which is divided into three tenements, and occupied, I believe, by that number of families. At the end is a store or workshop belonging to Messrs. Hindley and Co., sack manufacturers." - Stride Inquest

[NotBlamedForNothing]

For Israel Schwartz to give a relatively detailed account of him being a first hand witness to a woman being assaulted in public just yards away from where she was found murdered around 15 minutes later... and for him to not even be at the inquest to give said evidence...that tells you all you need to know about Schwartz and his validity as a witness.

If Schwartz was there in Berner St, he's more likely to have been the killer himself and his account of being followed by Pipeman may have been him evading capture after being caught slashing Stride's throat.

What if Schwartz and BS man are the same person?

So Pipeman chased Bs Man/Schwartz and the alleged anti Semitic slur is false rhetoric from the killer to push the idea the Ripper was Jewish.

That would mean that it was Pipeman who disturbed Schwartz/BS man and that would coincide with press reports that the killer was seen being chased and that the person chasing wasn't connected to the club.

As I've posted before; the name Israel has direct biblical links to the name Jack.

Was it in fact Schwartz who was seen talking to Stride? Bearing in mind that Schwartz was the killer disguised as someone else; playing a character as it were.

Did the killer deliberately dress up to portray being a Jew, when he wasn't? All in an attempt to push the false claim of the killer being Jewish.

Of all the people present in Berner Street, Schwartz has remained a ghost.
But why is that?
Well, perhaps the stereotypical looking Jew was the killer in disguise.

It would also explain the Goulston Street graffiti.


Lots to ponder

RD

The man pursued report does indeed portray Schwartz as the killer being chased. Is it a coincidence that when Schwartz got his chance to give the public his side of the story, the ambiguously behaving Pipeman becomes the aggressively behaving Knifeman?

Perhaps timing is the key issue here, if Schwartz's account in the Star is arguably a response to the Echo report. The Echo was, I believe, a morning newspaper. The Star was an evening newspaper. If the Star interview occurred on the Monday, in time for the evening edition, but after the morning edition of the Echo had been published, then the theory might work.

Even if the theory does work in regard to timing, it doesn't make Schwartz the killer. He may have just been a man on his way home from the markets, who was chased for his gladstone bag. If so, we probably know the real name of the ghost.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The coroner selects his witnesses from the list provided by police.
The witnesses story must be verified to some degree before they can tell the coroner the witness is to be believed.
You must remember the police interview hundreds of witnesses in the course of their investigations, but only a few are able to offer direct testimony relating to the victim at the time of the murder.

A coroner cannot use a witness who turned out to be mistaken about what they saw, or intentionally lying for some reason. The police are expected to question the witness and investigate the truth - in other words test the witness against all the other statements given to them.
The proof of this can be seen with the statement of Maxwell who's claim directly conflicted with medical evidence, but the police could not break her claim, so they had to put her name on the coroners list.

The coroner (or his secretary) then receives the list of names coupled with copies of their statements, and the coroners office then reads all the statements and will select which witnesses they will choose to attend the public inquiry.

What I am saying is the police were still investigating Schwartz's story, as Swanson says, there is no police report at the time, which means they were still investigating his story.
This, in my view, is why he did not appear as a witness.

So, belief in Schwartz by Scotland Yard was still 'up in the air' when Swanson wrote the relevant section of his report?

Is the following interpretation therefore incorrect, in your view?

" If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it..." Swanson, 19th October. We don't know why Schwartz was not at the inquest, but it clearly was not because the police didn't believe him. Swanson makes it clear that they did believe him. This was after the last evidence given at the inquest. Fact, not supposition.

[Wickerman]

...
What you suggest isnt feasible anyway, with a Monday start they didnt have enough time to vet most of the witnesses that appeared at the Inquest,..... but they didnt withhold them...
Mary Malcolm? Really? They knew she was wrong before they let her speak. So why do it?

On the contrary, Malcolm was just the same as Maxwell, both witnesses were convinced they were correct, the police could not shake their confidence.
The inquest did begin before the victim had been truly identified, so Malcolm's inclusion is understandable in the circumstances.

[Wickerman]

If they were still investigating his statement, which placed an assailant with Stride minutes just before she is cut, why would the Inquest proceed right away?

The coroner's schedule is independent to any police work, if an inquest must be held it must be within a reasonable time or the delay is punishable.

Secondly, the inquiry is not there to identify the killer, only to establish the when, where & by what means the victim met her death. Schwartz could not contribute to any of that, nor could he identify the victim, so his testimony was not necessary for the coroner.

Wouldnt his statement be the most germane if true? It would suggest Wilfull Murder as the likely cause and set up BSM as the likely culprit.

The coroner's duties are to establish the identity of the victim, which Schwartz could not help, and discover when, where & how she died.
Schwartz's statement contributed nothing towards that end.