Schwartz v. Lawende

[Jeff Leahy]

Israel Schwartz is not a perfect witness. That much is obvious because he's still hotly debated. The truth is that there's valid reasons to believe he was completely sincere with the police, those being Abberline's comments as well as Swanson's comments when reading from Abberline's report. Likewise, there are valid reasons to doubt the veracity of his statement, namely the reports in the Star that his information was wholly accepted, the fact that - like Packer, a thoroughly discredited witness - he was not invited to give evidence at the inquest, and how months and years later Joseph Lawende was being hailed as the only man to have ever seen the Ripper. Swanson's abbreviated summary of Schwartz's statement doesn't even make it clear which side of the street Pipeman was on. It's very frustrating. The way I see it is that any interpretation of the Stride event must take on Schwartz's evidence and incorporate it, but no finality should be applied to Schwartz's evidence, i.e. deciding Stride was not a Ripper victim because you think the Ripper wouldn't have acted the way BS Man did. That's putting too much weight on Schwartz and also on the assumption that BS Man was her killer. As Swanson pointed out, he very well might not have been.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

I think thats a fair accessment.

Its quiet possible that Schwartz had a good view of BSM when he turned and shouted 'Lipski'. Its a finally balanced POV. The Ally is dark, it it depends how far on the pavement BSM was at the time he turned.

Having given this considerable thought over the last year, on balance I don't believe that Schwartz could have had a good view as his description is of the rear (Broad shoulders). But thats linked largely to my belief that Kozminski came to the attention early in the investigation and was released because police failed to get a positive ID.

While I accept your breakdown of Stride being different from the other attacks I'd also add that she is Geographically different. Its my opinion that Jack met all his victims on a short stretch of Whitechapel and Aldgate High Street (Possibly the adjoining stretch of Commercial Rd) but all these pick-ups were on the North side of the High street divide, so Stride is the only victim off his usual collection zone further south down in Berner Street.

Many thanks for your comments

Yours Jeff

[John G]

Israel Schwartz is not a perfect witness. That much is obvious because he's still hotly debated. The truth is that there's valid reasons to believe he was completely sincere with the police, those being Abberline's comments as well as Swanson's comments when reading from Abberline's report. Likewise, there are valid reasons to doubt the veracity of his statement, namely the reports in the Star that his information was wholly accepted, the fact that - like Packer, a thoroughly discredited witness - he was not invited to give evidence at the inquest, and how months and years later Joseph Lawende was being hailed as the only man to have ever seen the Ripper. Swanson's abbreviated summary of Schwartz's statement doesn't even make it clear which side of the street Pipeman was on. It's very frustrating. The way I see it is that any interpretation of the Stride event must take on Schwartz's evidence and incorporate it, but no finality should be applied to Schwartz's evidence, i.e. deciding Stride was not a Ripper victim because you think the Ripper wouldn't have acted the way BS Man did. That's putting too much weight on Schwartz and also on the assumption that BS Man was her killer. As Swanson pointed out, he very well might not have been.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

There are clearly many red flags regarding Schwartz. For instance, in addition to the aforementioned there's the hotly debated cachous issue; the lack of bruising or grazing to Stride's body; the fact that her dress wasn't frayed; conflicting press and police report; the failure of anyone else to be aware of the altercation, including Mrs D, who was sat in the kitchen, just feet away from the alleged incident, with the window open; the conflict with James Brown's evidence.

In fact, as I've argued before, remove clumsy BS man from the equation and Stride's murder seems much more like a Ripper attack, i.e. a victim overpowered quickly and efficiently, oblivious of the danger she was in, and given no opportunity to resist or cry out for help.

Of course, you probably could construct a convoluted argument to make Schwartz's evidence work, although this would probably mean rejecting the press and police reports-on the basis of meaning and detail being lost in translation.

So what are the alternatives? Well, firstly Schwartz may have lied, i.e. because he was an attention seeker or he was hoping to make money by selling his story to the press. It's also possible that he was part of a cover-up involving the club, i e.to divert police attention away from club members, such as Lave or Eagle, who might otherwise be regarded as viable suspects.

However, another possibility is that he was simply wrong with his time estimate of 12:45. It is, of course, convenient to argue that this timing fits in perfectly with others witnesses, but this approach is seriously undermined by the fact that just about everybody was relying on rough estimates.

And there is plenty of evidence that some witnesses were not particularly accurate when estimating the time. Thus, Spooner was probably out by around half an hour, Heschberg by 15 minutes, and Fanny's timings are frankly all over the place. Even PC Smith's timings have been questioned: Gavin's dissertation argues that he probably passed at 12:45, not 12:35.

Moreover, Schwartz doesn't seem to get a very good view of Stride-his description of her is non-existent, she's simply referred to as "the woman"-and there's therefore no indication that he noticed the flower. So he might have witnessed an ordinary street brawl, and just assumed the woman was Stride because the incident occurred close to where her body was found.

However, these types of incidents seemed to be quite common for the locality. Barnett Kentorrich, a local resident, stated, "I do not think the yard bears a very good character at night." And PC Lamb observed, "There were squabbles and rows in the street, but nothing more."

So if, say, Schwartz witnessed the incident around 12:15 and not 12:45, it could have been an ordinary domestic squabble, possibly involving the couple referred to by Mortimer, or the couple seen by Brown.

Of course, regarding Schwartz's evidence, I say nothing of the fact that he was said by the press to be in the "theatrical line"!

[Joshua Rogan]

Mrs D, who was sat in the kitchen, just feet away from the alleged incident, with the window open

Is there any evidence that the window was open? I've only seen reports that say it opened onto the yard, not that it was actually open at the time.
It's a small point but it annoys me, so if there's a press report or quote that confirms this it would set my mind at rest.

[John G]

Is there any evidence that the window was open? I've only seen reports that say it opened onto the yard, not that it was actually open at the time.
It's a small point but it annoys me, so if there's a press report or quote that confirms this it would set my mind at rest.

Hi,

I've been looking at the evidence again and I think it can be reasonably inferred. Thus, at the inquest Wiliam West stated, "In the kitchen there is a window which faces the door opening into the yard." He also remarked that some of the lecture room windows were partially open, so it would seem strange if, say, the window of a hot kitchen was closed.

Fanny Mortimer is also quoted as saying, "It was almost incredible to me that the thing could be done without the steward's wife hearing the noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found."

And the Pall Mall Gazette noted, "The Windows of the club were partly open." (1 October, 1888).

It's also worth noting that the side door was also partially ajar. Thus, Mrs Diemshutz stated, "The door had been, and still was, half open, and through the aperture the light from the gas jet in the kitchen was streaming out into the yard." (Morning Advertiser, 2nd October, 1888.).

[Wickerman]

Of course, regarding Schwartz's evidence, I say nothing of the fact that he was said by the press to be in the "theatrical line"!

Doesn't that last line imply you think he was an actor, yet how many theatrical actors would there be that couldn't speak English?

[John G]

Doesn't that last line imply you think he was an actor, yet how many theatrical actors would there be that couldn't speak English?

Possibly. Mind you, if he was an actor he would be an ideal candidate for deceiving the police! Of course, it could also mean that he worked behind the scenes, such as a stagehand. Or maybe he only acted in Hungary!

[Wickerman]

Possibly. Mind you, if he was an actor he would be an ideal candidate for deceiving the police! Of course, it could also mean that he worked behind the scenes, such as a stagehand. Or maybe he only acted in Hungary!

Had Schwartz been an actor, I cannot imagine the police not bearing that in mind as they took his statement.

That said, how would anyone distinguish an actor from anyone else, do they dress differently?
Maybe he had traces of makeup on his face?
Perhaps the observation referred to him looking like he only worked at a theatre?, a manager, producer, director, dresser, someone who is required to 'dress well' at least.

Some have queried if Schwartz was Astrakan, yet others claim no-one would go out at night dressed like that. The role played by Schwartz doesn't seem to equate with Astrakan to me.

[John G]

Had Schwartz been an actor, I cannot imagine the police not bearing that in mind as they took his statement.

That said, how would anyone distinguish an actor from anyone else, do they dress differently?
Maybe he had traces of makeup on his face?
Perhaps the observation referred to him looking like he only worked at a theatre?, a manager, producer, director, dresser, someone who is required to 'dress well' at least.

Some have queried if Schwartz was Astrakan, yet others claim no-one would go out at night dressed like that. The role played by Schwartz doesn't seem to equate with Astrakan to me.

Yes, I seriously doubt that Schwartz was Astrakan. And I would agree that if there was a theatrical connection, it is most likely that he had a behind the scenes role. However, might "in the theatrical line" also suggests that he had an affected demeanour? And, if so, does that mean that the paper doubted his veracity?

[Michael W Richards]

You mean Michael's theories that he derived from my original research some years ago regarding Schwartz being a member of the club? I don't know. I haven't read the thread. It's too long and there's a lot of nonsense. What I do know is that the club was in damage control. However, I do not believe any serious time lapsed between the discovery of the body and the police being notified. Maybe enough time for them to hide weapons and such, but that's it. What exactly is being alleged against the club? I also think it's possible Morris Eagle was BS Man but not Stride's murderer. And yes, I think Israel Schwartz was familiar to the club, but also that he was telling the truth about what he claimed to see. I'm not convinced of any of it though.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I see nothing has changed. Ok. Your research...like you own the activity as well as anything you can glean from others. My position on this murder is consistent and goes back to 2005 here, so anyone is welcome to see what is what with any egg vs chicken statements.

And I also see you still support some kind of Ripper where no-one is ripped...now the absence is because the scarf muddled him up?

Fascinating what real research reveals. You should say hi to Pierre.

[S.Brett]

Hi Tom

I think thats a fair accessment.

Its quiet possible that Schwartz had a good view of BSM when he turned and shouted 'Lipski'. Its a finally balanced POV. The Ally is dark, it it depends how far on the pavement BSM was at the time he turned.

Having given this considerable thought over the last year, on balance I don't believe that Schwartz could have had a good view as his description is of the rear (Broad shoulders). But thats linked largely to my belief that Kozminski came to the attention early in the investigation and was released because police failed to get a positive ID.

While I accept your breakdown of Stride being different from the other attacks I'd also add that she is Geographically different. Its my opinion that Jack met all his victims on a short stretch of Whitechapel and Aldgate High Street (Possibly the adjoining stretch of Commercial Rd) but all these pick-ups were on the North side of the High street divide, so Stride is the only victim off his usual collection zone further south down in Berner Street.

Many thanks for your comments

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff, Tom, Hi all!

I am not sure whether Israel Schwartz had seen the Stride killer (and perhaps Jack the Ripper). It is interesting what Joseph Lawende (Duke Street) stated:

"red neckerchief, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, appearance of a sailor, dressed in something like navy serge"

... and what William Marshall (11.45pm/ Berner Street) said:

"something like a sailor would wear"; "He had the appearance of a clerk"

One hour later (after Marshall), Schwartz watched Stride and BS Man. Shortly before Marshall saw this couple, Matthew Packer ("I put the man down as a young clerk"; "going up they crossed to the other side of the road to the Board School") watched Stride with a man (11.00-11.30pm).

PC Smith:

"At 12.30am, 30th September 1888, PC Smith saw a man and a woman (who he later felt certain was Elizabeth Stride) standing on the pavement a few yards up Berner Street, on the opposite side to Dutfield's Yard".

11.30pm Stride with a man opposite Dutfield´s Yard (Berner Street)-Packer-
11.45pm Stride with a man in Berner Street near of Marshall´s home
12.30/12.35 am Stride with a man opposite Dutfield´s Yard (Berner Street) again -PC Smith-
12.45am Stride was seen standing alone (?) by Schwartz when BS Man approached her.
(01.30am Eddowes with a man in Duke Street –Lawende-)

The same man with Stride at 11.30pm/11.45pm/12.30pm, is it possible?
1,5 hours (11.00pm/Packer-12.30am/PC Smith) the same man with Stride?
If this is the case where has he been at 12.45am?
Could it be possible that this couple were waiting for a “quiet” Dutfield's Yard all the time?

I wonder whether it might be possible that this man had been already inside the Dutfield's Yard when BS Man and Schwartz entered the Berner Street.

I think it is quite possible that Jack the Ripper decided to leave the area north of the Whitechapel Road after some murders (E. Smith, Tabram, Nichols and Chapman). Maybe he lived (and worked?) north of the Whitechapel Road.

Imagine that he was inside the Dutfield´s Yard when at 12.45am Stride was attacked by BS Man. After the attack he was waiting to see whether one of these men ("Pipeman", BS Man and Schwartz) will return but no one of them did it and he killed Stride shortly before Diemschitz arrived the yard.

In this scenario Schwartz did not see Jack the Ripper red-handed, this man was not Jack the Ripper, not the Stride killer... more likely is that Packer, Marshall and PC Smith saw Stride with the Whitechapel murderer... in that night Lawende saw Jack the Ripper with a victim (Eddowes), a few moments before the Ripper killed Eddowes.

Star, 2 October 1888:

“In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, 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. If every man should be arrested who was known to have been seen in company with an abandoned woman in that locality on last Saturday night, the police-stations would not hold them.”

They arrested one man on the description thus obtained

"Pipeman"?

and a second on that furnished from another source?

The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, 2 October, 1888:

"a man was, later in the day, brought to the Leman-street Police-station by a constable who found him prowling about not far from Mitre-street. His face was haggard, and he seemed unable to give any account of himself. Upon him were found 1s 4½d in money and a razor, and round his throat was a woollen scarf of a violet colour, upon which were several long hairs, supposed to be those of a woman." (1 October 1888)

Is the PC near Mitre Square the "another source"?

The "constable who found him prowling about not far from Mitre-street" does not have to be necessarily the same constable who saw this suspect with Eddowes shortly before she was murdered. Maybe the “right” PC “recognized” him on the Leman Street Police Station.

and round his throat was a woollen scarf of a violet colour reminds me of Lawende´s red neckerchief, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot

One could think that...

"appearance of a sailor, dressed in something like navy serge" (Lawende), "something like a sailor would wear" (Marshall)

"He had the appearance of a clerk" (Marshall), "I put the man down as a young clerk" (Packer)

... Packer, Marshall (PC Smith?) and Lawende had seen the same man in Berner Street and Duke Street. At first sight it seems that the descriptions given by Schwartz and Lawende are more similar to each other than the other descriptions but we could of course be mistaken... and Schwartz and Lawende saw different men...

It seems that Packer did recognize the man he saw with Stride (some time afterwards and maybe he knew this man by sight). In that night he saw Stride and this man 1,5 hours before Stride had been killed. But this is not a proof of being the murderer of Stride (the same goes for Marshall´s observation).

If Schwartz did not see Jack the Ripper, and Lawende and PC Smith failed to identify this suspect, so only remained the PC near Mitre Square who said:

"when some time afterwards he saw the Pole, that he was the height and build of the man he had seen on the night of the murder.”

And if this suspect was the man ( "the Pole", with "woollen scarf of a violet colour" + Lawende´s red neckerchief) seen by Packer... and by the PC near Mitre Square... at two crime scenes at the same night, then, this (prime) suspect had a problem...

If this suspect had been "Kosminski" his family would have been alerted after the Double Event. There was the first crime scene (Stride) nearby the home of brother Woolf Abrahams (Providence Street/Berner Street) and where this brother lived early 1880s (next to Dutfield´s Yard) and possibly the second crime scene (Mitre Square) not far from the place where "Kosminski" occupied a shop (at times) on Aldgate High Street (Butchers Row). At the same time they might also have noticed that the previous murders took place nearby the "home" of "Kosminski", another shop where he lived and worked.

There was a bloody shirt found in Batty Street. If these clothes belonged to this family everything got worse...

In this scenario, both police forces, MET and City Police, would have found the same suspect at the same time.

But if all of these witnesses failed who was the Seaside Home witness? After the Miller´s Court murder, with this Prime Suspect, the police would have visited him immediately but did they find him? I have my doubts about this...

What if he was seen by a witness when leaving the Miller´s Court? Back home again? Waiting for the police, for identification? He knew he is a prime suspect...

Maybe he "came back" on the morning of the 22 November 1888, the Brick Lane incident, approximately two weeks after the Kelly murder... too late to find some traces on him...

What he did not know: The police did not know this witness and the witness did not know what he had seen. Not yet...

Perhaps the witness made his observation at 5.30am and thought that Kelly was murdered shortly before she was found (mid-morning).

Pure speculation, of course... and not provable... probably never...

Yours Karsten.

[c.d.]

I have been thinking lately of the difference between giving someone a thank you wave as to a car driver who motions for you to go ahead when you are a pedestrian versus a middle finger directed towards that same driver who nearly hits you when you are in the crosswalk.

In the first instance it is usually just a quick wave in the general direction of the driver. In the latter instance it involves looking directly at the driver with your middle finger clearly raised and an accompanying curse word.

The point being that if it was in fact Lipski which the B.S. man yelled, I have to assume that he was looking clearly at Schwartz and hence Schwartz back at him.

c.d.

[John G]

Hi Karsten,

As noted in my earlier post, there are numerous red flags concerning Schwartz's evidence. It's therefore possible he may have been an attention seeker, intent on selling his story to the newspapers; and, of course, it's been suggested that he was part of a club conspiracy, with his objective being to divert attention away from club suspects towards a wholly fictitious one.

Of course, there are other plausible explanations. For instance, how certain was he initially that the woman was Stride? We're told that he subsequently identified Stride at the mortuary, but we know nothing of his original description to the police. Did he notice the flower she was wearing, for example?

And it does seem that there was another couple wandering around the neighbourhood that night, and the woman may have resembled Stride, at least from a casual observation in poor light. Thus, Marshall and Brown believe they saw Stride with a man, but neither noticed the flower. And Mrs Mortimer also mentioned a young couple who were in the vicinity [Of course, the Star article also makes it clear that there was no shortage of other possible candidates: "If every man was arrested who was known to have been seen in company with an abandoned woman in that locality on last Saturday night, the police-stations would not hold them."] Is it therefore possible that what Schwartz witnessed was nothing more than a common domestic argument involving this alternative couple? After all, as PC Lamb noted, there were a number of "squabbles and rows" in the street that night.

And what of PC Smith's evidence? He was the only witness to notice the flower pinned to Stride's jacket, and as a police officer you would expect him to be more observant and his evidence generally more reliable. However, the description of the man he saw with Stride bears no real resemblance with BS man.

And then, as I noted before, there's the issue of timing accuracy. There's no indication that Schwartz referred to a watch, so like other witnesses he could easily have been out by, say, 15 minutes, or even half an hour, just as Edward Spoooner undoubtedly was. Therefore, if the incident he witnessed was at, say, 12:15 and not 12:45-or even some time prior to PC Smith's sighting -then his evidence has far less significance. And it would be understandable why a couple involved in a simple domestic incident might be reluctant to come forward for elimination purposes.

And then we have major discrepancies between Schwartz's police and press accounts. For instance, in the police version we have a man lighting a pipe, who apparently subsequently follows Schwartz. However, in the press version this individual doesn't have a pipe, but instead rushes Schwartz with a knife! Even allowing for problems with translation, it's difficult to see how the two different accounts can be reconciled.

And could this be the reason why we are told that "the truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted"? Is it possible that, when interviewed by the police, Schwartz was inconsistent with his evidence, maybe altering important details and blaming it on "translation problems"?

[S.Brett]

Hi John!

And then we have major discrepancies between Schwartz's police and press accounts. For instance, in the police version we have a man lighting a pipe, who apparently subsequently follows Schwartz. However, in the press version this individual doesn't have a pipe, but instead rushes Schwartz with a knife! Even allowing for problems with translation, it's difficult to see how the two different accounts can be reconciled.

And could this be the reason why we are told that "the truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted"? Is it possible that, when interviewed by the police, Schwartz was inconsistent with his evidence, maybe altering important details and blaming it on "translation problems"?

Yes, this could be the reason. Another reason:

"The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. The prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted"

and

“In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, 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."

could mean that the "prisoners" were telling other versions of this Berner Street incident.

The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted is for Schwartz or for "The prisoner"? I guess the police did mean Schwartz (reason to doubt the truth of the story).

It's therefore possible he may have been an attention seeker, intent on selling his story to the newspapers... And then, as I noted before, there's the issue of timing accuracy. There's no indication that Schwartz referred to a watch, so like other witnesses he could easily have been out by, say, 15 minutes, or even half an hour, just as Edward Spoooner undoubtedly was. Therefore, if the incident he witnessed was at, say, 12:15 and not 12:45-or even some time prior to PC Smith's sighting -then his evidence has far less significance. And it would be understandable why a couple involved in a simple domestic incident might be reluctant to come forward for elimination purposes.

Yes, I agree... this is an option...

And it does seem that there was another couple wandering around the neighbourhood that night, and the woman may have resembled Stride, at least from a casual observation in poor light. Thus, Marshall and Brown believe they saw Stride with a man, but neither noticed the flower. And Mrs Mortimer also mentioned a young couple who were in the vicinity [Of course, the Star article also makes it clear that there was no shortage of other possible candidates: "If every man was arrested who was known to have been seen in company with an abandoned woman in that locality on last Saturday night, the police-stations would not hold them."] Is it therefore possible that what Schwartz witnessed was nothing more than a common domestic argument involving this alternative couple? After all, as PC Lamb noted, there were a number of "squabbles and rows" in the street that night.

and the woman may have resembled Stride, at least from a casual observation in poor light

Yes, why not...

And what of PC Smith's evidence? He was the only witness to notice the flower pinned to Stride's jacket, and as a police officer you would expect him to be more observant and his evidence generally more reliable. However, the description of the man he saw with Stride bears no real resemblance with BS man.

I agree...

PC Smith (12.30/12.35am):

the couple appeared sober and were not acting in a suspicious manner

10-15 minutes later, Schwartz:

a man walking as if partially intoxicated and "The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her"

appeared sober... within 15 minutes the man is half-tipsy and partially intoxicated. The same man? Okay, nothing is impossible...

Karsten.

[John G]

Hi John!



Yes, this could be the reason. Another reason:

"The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. The prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted"

and

“In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, 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."

could mean that the "prisoners" were telling other versions of this Berner Street incident.

The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted is for Schwartz or for "The prisoner"? I guess the police did mean Schwartz (reason to doubt the truth of the story).



Yes, I agree... this is an option...



and the woman may have resembled Stride, at least from a casual observation in poor light

Yes, why not...



I agree...

PC Smith (12.30/12.35am):

the couple appeared sober and were not acting in a suspicious manner

10-15 minutes later, Schwartz:

a man walking as if partially intoxicated and "The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her"

appeared sober... within 15 minutes the man is half-tipsy and partially intoxicated. The same man? Okay, nothing is impossible...

Karsten.

Hi Karsten,

Yes, he does seem to have had a problem holding his liquor!

[Jon Guy]

As noted in my earlier post, there are numerous red flags concerning Schwartz's evidence. It's therefore possible he may have been an attention seeker, intent on selling his story to the newspapers; and, of course, it's been suggested that he was part of a club conspiracy, with his objective being to divert attention away from club suspects towards a wholly fictitious one.

Of course, there are other plausible explanations.

Other plausible explanations, John ?
You haven`t given any yet ;-)