Schwartz v. Lawende

[Elamarna]

You are of course referring to CID officer Harry Cox, who claimed to have passed himself off as a factory inspector in the East End of London.

He described his alleged suspect as having short, black, curly hair.

That could have been Kosminski, but it could hardly have been the man with the fair moustache, seen in the City of London.

Cox also stated that his suspect occupied several shops in the East End.

That certainly could not have been Kosminski.

Again, I mention this because it was Swanson who claimed that the suspect was watched by CID and that his name was Kosminski.

You are again implying that the witness was Lawende and his description was the one that was being used.
While such is of course possible, it is not an issue on which there is a consensus.
It is just one view, there are several others.
As we discussed the above the police, in the person of Swanson, questioned the value of Lawende's description.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Of course in relation to #1, we should, I think allow for the city police watching someone on Met ground, at request of the Met.

That is City CID may be less well know in Met territory than local Met CID.

It is reported that they passed themselves off to the locals as Factor inspectors.
If it was on City ground, that is less likely to have worked I suggest.

Steve

You are of course referring to CID officer Harry Cox, who claimed to have passed himself off as a factory inspector in the East End of London.

He described his alleged suspect as having short, black, curly hair.

That could have been Kosminski, but it could hardly have been the man with the fair moustache, seen in the City of London.

Cox also stated that his suspect occupied several shops in the East End.

That certainly could not have been Kosminski.

Again, I mention this because it was Swanson who claimed that the suspect was watched by CID and that his name was Kosminski.

[Elamarna]

I can only think of two reasons why the city police would keep watch over a suspect.
1- The suspect was wanted for a crime committed in their territory
2- The suspect lived in their territory.

If the answer is Num 1 . The suspect must have evidence against him for the crime which took place in the City zone, otherwise why else would the Met police not take charge of a covert operation on a suspect who committed at least four and possibly six murders up until that point in their district, rather than just the one in the City's district. And the evidence was probably a possible sighting [ even if the ID failed ].

Apologies if I have missed something, Darryl

Of course in relation to #1, we should, I think allow for the city police watching someone on Met ground, at request of the Met.

That is City CID may be less well know in Met territory than local Met CID.

It is reported that they passed themselves off to the locals as Factor inspectors.
If it was on City ground, that is less likely to have worked I suggest.

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Did I mention Kosminski ?

No, but Swanson did mention him, and furthermore the alleged CID surveillance of him.

[Elamarna]

The 'evidence against him' would have to include his matching the description of the man seen by the witness - i.e. a man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor.

Everything we know about Aaron Kosminski suggests that he could not have matched that description.

That's only if you accept that description as being of value, and as I mentioned above, this issue was questioned.
And of course that assumes that Lawende is the key witness, which is far from certain.

[Elamarna]

hi El!

didnt sugden pretty much clear this up when he found a newspaper story that said the id witness was the man who saw the victim, whose body was later found dissected in the street? stride wasnt dissected, eddowes was, hence the id witness was lawende, no?

No, sadly it's not cleared up Abby, and I doubt it ever will be.
I would not take a press report as being definitive .

If you have not listen to the podcast I did here on Rippercast, about the witness, here's the link.

https://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=311

[Darryl Kenyon]

The 'evidence against him' would have to include his matching the description of the man seen by the witness - i.e. a man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor.

Everything we know about Aaron Kosminski suggests that he could not have matched that description.

Did I mention Kosminski ?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The suspect must have evidence against him for the crime which took place in the City zone ...

The 'evidence against him' would have to include his matching the description of the man seen by the witness - i.e. a man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor.

Everything we know about Aaron Kosminski suggests that he could not have matched that description.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I can only think of two reasons why the city police would keep watch over a suspect.
1- The suspect was wanted for a crime committed in their territory
2- The suspect lived in their territory.

If the answer is Num 1 . The suspect must have evidence against him for the crime which took place in the City zone, otherwise why else would the Met police not take charge of a covert operation on a suspect who committed at least four and possibly six murders up until that point in their district, rather than just the one in the City's district. And the evidence was probably a possible sighting [ even if the ID failed ].

Apologies if I have missed something, Darryl

[Abby Normal]

Glad to see you back.

Yes, my view since 2015 as changed several times on the issue of the reported witness.

My current view, is that given in my Rippercast , podcast talk from autumn 2021, held on this site.

2nd and the more import point, yes that was clearly a mistake on my part. It's not a misinterpretation, it's simply wrong

Thank you for pointing that out. Always best to get it correct, if I could correct it I would, unfortunately the editing allowance does not allow corrections after 30 minutes

But I am happy to REPEAT, that was A MISTAKE, and as you say a FACTUAL FLAW.

I do wonder if I cut and pasted the wrong lines from the Report, and then just ran with what I had pasted?
However, that is no excuse.

Swanson did say in the same report dated 19th October, that the description of Lawende was limited as regards a description.

"In this case I understand from City Police that Mr. Lewin [sic – Lawende] one of the men identified the clothes only of the murdered woman Eddowes, which is a serious drawback to the value of the description of the man"

Swanson does however continue woth

"Ten minutes afterwards the body is found horribly mutilated & it is therefore reasonable to believe that the man he saw was the murderer, but for purposes of comparison, this description is much nearer to that given by Schwartz than to that given by the P.C."

I believe it's very possible they saw the same individual, although its not conclusive. I do however, for the reasons given in the podcast consider Schwartz more likely to be the witness.

Again thank you

Steve

hi El!

didnt sugden pretty much clear this up when he found a newspaper story that said the id witness was the man who saw the victim, whose body was later found dissected in the street? stride wasnt dissected, eddowes was, hence the id witness was lawende, no?

[c.d.]

I think youve underestimated the value of the "Last Seen With" principle of investigating something like this, the person last seen in the company of a soon to be victim of a violent crime, particularly one who claims the person was seen assaulting the soon to be victim, is Suspect #1 until dismissed by virtue of some more compelling evidence.

No, I don't underestimate it. My response to Trevor was referring to a courtroom with the qualifier of no other evidence being presented. Quite different from an investigation as you seem to be stating.

There is no-one waiting to slide in and kill Liz after BSM's assault on her.

Are you certain of that? Not being seen does not equate with not being nearby. And if the idea of another killer is so far fetched why did Swanson allow for it in his report?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Trevor,

But if the witness was Schwartz, a defense attorney could simply point out that he did not see Stride being killed and that she was alive when he left the scene. If the witness was Lawende, a defense attorney could point out the substantial time that elapsed between the night when he saw Eddowes and his Seaside Home identification. He could also point out, that it was dark that night and Lawende only saw someone for a few moments from some distance away. Any attorney worth his salt should be able to get his client off in the absence of some other damning evidence.

c.d.

I think youve underestimated the value of the "Last Seen With" principle of investigating something like this, the person last seen in the company of a soon to be victim of a violent crime, particularly one who claims the person was seen assaulting the soon to be victim, is Suspect #1 until dismissed by virtue of some more compelling evidence. Liz Stride was allegedly seen with BSM feet from and minutes before she will have her throat slit, and she is being manhandled by BSM at the time. Lawende's sighting is as you say, he didnt get a good look at Kate herself, and they are outside the square she will be murdered in. This scenario leaves the possibility of someone other than Sailor Man being her killer, because no-one sees them together actually in the square near the murder scene. She could easily have left Sailor Man and just walked into her murder alone. He could have already been there.

With Stride, every witness to that passageway from Wess, to Lave, to Eagle, even Louis, say that passageway was empty at the time they saw it. The last one being just before Israel claims he sees the event on the street in front of the gates. There is no-one waiting to slide in and kill Liz after BSM's assault on her. Of course, if you believe Israel, people can just suddenly appear on deserted streets and disappear when others are looking.

If you are willing to suspend your belief in Israel and in Louis's timing of events, and Eagle and Laves claims they saw no-one, then there could have been people in that passageway as early as 12:40...which, leaves a few men who could have done this.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Glad to see you back.

Yes, my view since 2015 as changed several times on the issue of the reported witness.

My current view, is that given in my Rippercast , podcast talk from autumn 2021, held on this site.

2nd and the more import point, yes that was clearly a mistake on my part. It's not a misinterpretation, it's simply wrong

Thank you for pointing that out. Always best to get it correct, if I could correct it I would, unfortunately the editing allowance does not allow corrections after 30 minutes

But I am happy to REPEAT, that was A MISTAKE, and as you say a FACTUAL FLAW.

I do wonder if I cut and pasted the wrong lines from the Report, and then just ran with what I had pasted?
However, that is no excuse.

Swanson did say in the same report dated 19th October, that the description of Lawende was limited as regards a description.

"In this case I understand from City Police that Mr. Lewin [sic – Lawende] one of the men identified the clothes only of the murdered woman Eddowes, which is a serious drawback to the value of the description of the man"

Swanson does however continue woth

"Ten minutes afterwards the body is found horribly mutilated & it is therefore reasonable to believe that the man he saw was the murderer, but for purposes of comparison, this description is much nearer to that given by Schwartz than to that given by the P.C."

I believe it's very possible they saw the same individual, although its not conclusive. I do however, for the reasons given in the podcast consider Schwartz more likely to be the witness.

Again thank you

Steve

Thanks for your reply.

I agree with the first part of the last sentence you quoted from Swanson, but I cannot see why he thought it possible that the man seen by the two witnesses could have been the same person.

[Elamarna]

I note that you have since changed your mind:

I see you have missed Schwartz, in my view he is the prime candidate for the witness...
You will not that Lawende is not in my top candidates.

(# 187, Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”)


And again clearly prefer Schwartz's suspect to Lawende's:

You did not include Swansons views on Lawende and Schwartz to place it in context

‘I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer, although it is clearly the more probable of the two.’

(# 128, Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”)


You have misinterpreted what Swanson wrote.

He did not mean that the man seen by Schwartz was more likely than the man seen by Lawende to have been the Whitechapel Murderer.

He meant that the man seen by Schwartz was more likely than the man seen by Pc William Smith to have been the murderer of Elizabeth Stride.

I believe that is what you call a 'factual fault' (see # 22 of the same thread).

Glad to see you back.

Yes, my view since 2015 as changed several times on the issue of the reported witness.

My current view, is that given in my Rippercast , podcast talk from autumn 2021, held on this site.

2nd and the more import point, yes that was clearly a mistake on my part. It's not a misinterpretation, it's simply wrong

Thank you for pointing that out. Always best to get it correct, if I could correct it I would, unfortunately the editing allowance does not allow corrections after 30 minutes

But I am happy to REPEAT, that was A MISTAKE, and as you say a FACTUAL FLAW.

I do wonder if I cut and pasted the wrong lines from the Report, and then just ran with what I had pasted?
However, that is no excuse.

Swanson did say in the same report dated 19th October, that the description of Lawende was limited as regards a description.

"In this case I understand from City Police that Mr. Lewin [sic – Lawende] one of the men identified the clothes only of the murdered woman Eddowes, which is a serious drawback to the value of the description of the man"

Swanson does however continue woth

"Ten minutes afterwards the body is found horribly mutilated & it is therefore reasonable to believe that the man he saw was the murderer, but for purposes of comparison, this description is much nearer to that given by Schwartz than to that given by the P.C."

I believe it's very possible they saw the same individual, although its not conclusive. I do however, for the reasons given in the podcast consider Schwartz more likely to be the witness.

Again thank you

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... i have been greatly influenced by the work of Rob House...

and also do not think either Schwartz or Lawende were the witness.

I note that you have since changed your mind:

I see you have missed Schwartz, in my view he is the prime candidate for the witness...
You will not that Lawende is not in my top candidates.

(# 187, Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”)


And again clearly prefer Schwartz's suspect to Lawende's:

You did not include Swansons views on Lawende and Schwartz to place it in context

‘I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer, although it is clearly the more probable of the two.’

(# 128, Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”)


You have misinterpreted what Swanson wrote.

He did not mean that the man seen by Schwartz was more likely than the man seen by Lawende to have been the Whitechapel Murderer.

He meant that the man seen by Schwartz was more likely than the man seen by Pc William Smith to have been the murderer of Elizabeth Stride.

I believe that is what you call a 'factual fault' (see # 22 of the same thread).