Schwartz v. Lawende

[c.d.]

You have to remember that the rules of evidence were far more relaxed then than today. What about if this ID did take place, what was to stop a police witness who was present and witnessed the positive ID giving evidence of the positive ID, the original witness could have been treated as what is known now as a hostile witness. There was nothing to stop the police using this tactic on such an important case.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Israel Schwartz's statement does not seem to have had the same clout as Lawendes...the latter is actually sequestered while being used as a witness, and Israels statement isn't even entered into the formal records. That should narrow the possibilities a bit...assuming of course that ANY Seaside ID actually took place.

And I dont belive it did in the way we have been asked to believe. When there appears to be such an important witness in the case but that witness is never named, or is there any record of such a witness having ever existed other than what Swanson and Anderson wrote, and furthermore no mention of any statement, because before any such ID would have taken place the police must have taken a written statement.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Israel Schwartz's statement does not seem to have had the same clout as Lawendes...the latter is actually sequestered while being used as a witness, and Israels statement isn't even entered into the formal records. That should narrow the possibilities a bit...assuming of course that ANY Seaside ID actually took place.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have to wonder about the purpose of the Seaside Home identification. Whether the witness was Schwartz or Lawende and even if it was a positive identification, I can't see that sufficient enough to charge the suspect and bring him to trial unless there was also a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence against him as well. Could Anderson's main purpose simply have been to confirm his belief that the suspect was most likely the Ripper?

c.d.

You have to remember that the rules of evidence were far more relaxed then than today. What about if this ID did take place, what was to stop a police witness who was present and witnessed the positive ID giving evidence of the positive ID, the original witness could have been treated as what is known now as a hostile witness. There was nothing to stop the police using this tactic on such an important case.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

In my opinion, Schwartz was the witness, and Kosminski was the suspect he saw manhandling Stride minutes before she was murdered by the Ripper. He identified Kosminski alright, and it was only when he learned police intended to charge him with being the Ripper that Schwartz refused to cooperate. A proper decision, I believe, since he did not witness Kosminski kill Stride or anyone else. I think Swanson invented the "fellow jew" business to hide the real reason for Schwartz's refusal, simply that he would not allow himself to be used by police to hang a possibly innocent man.

Accepting that we do not know what this 23 year old Kozminski looked like, I have great difficulty in imagining the following suspect description of the man who assaulted Stride in the gateway as describing Kozminski.

At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.

[Dr. John Watson]

In my opinion, Schwartz was the witness, and Kosminski was the suspect he saw manhandling Stride minutes before she was murdered by the Ripper. He identified Kosminski alright, and it was only when he learned police intended to charge him with being the Ripper that Schwartz refused to cooperate. A proper decision, I believe, since he did not witness Kosminski kill Stride or anyone else. I think Swanson invented the "fellow jew" business to hide the real reason for Schwartz's refusal, simply that he would not allow himself to be used by police to hang a possibly innocent man.

[c.d.]

I have to wonder about the purpose of the Seaside Home identification. Whether the witness was Schwartz or Lawende and even if it was a positive identification, I can't see that sufficient enough to charge the suspect and bring him to trial unless there was also a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence against him as well. Could Anderson's main purpose simply have been to confirm his belief that the suspect was most likely the Ripper?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

The verb "to learn" can be used in many ways. A woman can "learn" that she's pregnant, or she can "learn" that a friend of hers got married - neither of which implies that she's got to "study" anything or pick up a language. All it means is that she's just heard or found out those facts.

[The Baron]

Thank you Sam.

I think after positively identifying him, they had a talk with the witness asking him to swear to the suspect in a court, if he was Schwarz, this conversation will be a little difficult because of Schwarz poor English, and here came the word Learned as a perfect choice.

I don't see these difficulties if he was Lawende, and I don't see Lawende as a man who would refuse to swear to a fellow-jew.

The Baron

[Sam Flynn]

Interesting suggestion, Baron, but that just means "when he discovered [or heard] that the suspect was a fellow-Jew", which doesn't tell us anything about the witness's fluency in English.

[The Baron]

"but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him."

When he learned, this phrase tells me that the witness was Schwarz, because he couldn't speak english.

Thats how I see it. I wanted to add this because I don't remember it being mentioned beofore.

The Baron

[Jeff Leahy]

Thanks. Everything I hear about Kosminski in terms of behaviour and appearance makes him sound like someone unlikely to a) be deceptive/clever enough to get the women where he wanted them b) able to get away without being caught or seen and c) fit any of the witness descriptions..

Surely that depends how you see Kozminski in 1891 and then in 1888?

If Cox and Sagar are indeed describing Kozminski then the man they follow is clearly functional enough to have committed the crimes

Schizophrenia is a progressive illness that develops in waves or psychotic episodes....We know that when taken to the infirmary in July 1889 that he was soon released and thus must have been considered sane enough to do so...

Yours Jeff

[Rosella]

I'm not saying that any of Jack's clients used lemon juice in that way. They were certainly impoverished. However, this lemon juice theory was produced when discussing the death of a prostitute in the 1870's, that I was posting about earlier, one of the prostitutes whose deaths appear in Jan Bondeson's 'Rivals of the Ripper'. She was poor but not that poor! I made a passing remark about her death in a post way back, that started more remarks about fruit.

[curious4]

Lemons were quite common in England. Neighbours of mine grew them. The Royal Navy had used lemons to prevent scurvy in earlier times and supplies were still being sent on naval expeditions to the Arctic in the 19th century. I'm sure lemons were sold at places like the Spitalfields Market. They've been imported into Britain since the Middle Ages.

I'm sure they would have been available but would they have been available to an empoverished prostitute?

Best wishes
C4

[Rosella]

Lemons were quite common in England. Neighbours of mine grew them. The Royal Navy had used lemons to prevent scurvy in earlier times and supplies were still being sent on naval expeditions to the Arctic in the 19th century. I'm sure lemons were sold at places like the Spitalfields Market. They've been imported into Britain since the Middle Ages.