Schwartz v. Lawende

[Abby Normal]

Hi John



Astute, but not acute, mon ami ;-)



I did smile when I read that, John.






No, you`ve probably nailed it there, John.
Feel free to climb out of the trench and come and play footy in no-man`s land.

Im pretty much with Mr. Guy on this one.
Re-Strides body position-head towrd the street or up the yard or perpindicular-she could fallen, landed or been pushed/thrown down any way!

as for the cashoo, obviously she held on to them while getting her throat cut, killed, and fallen/forced to the ground so whats the big deal that she also held on to them during the initial assault?

[John G]

Hi John



Astute, but not acute, mon ami ;-)



I did smile when I read that, John.






No, you`ve probably nailed it there, John.
Feel free to climb out of the trench and come and play footy in no-man`s land.

Hello Jon,

Thanks. I'm now tentatively climbing out of the trench and I'm looking forward to playing a game of football in no-man's land. However, I think I'll keep my helmet on!

[John G]

Im pretty much with Mr. Guy on this one.
Re-Strides body position-head towrd the street or up the yard or perpindicular-she could fallen, landed or been pushed/thrown down any way!

as for the cashoo, obviously she held on to them while getting her throat cut, killed, and fallen/forced to the ground so whats the big deal that she also held on to them during the initial assault?

Hello Abby,

Nice to see you posting in this thread! The central issue as I see it is: how did she hold on to the cachous, whilst being thrown or pushed, when her every instinct would surely have been to break her fall? And, if she failed to break her fall, where's the evidence of impact injuries, i.e. to the head? That is not an issue if she's been caught from behind by her attacker, and eased to the floor. And then there's the argument that she grasped the cachous, as her throat was cut, as a consequence of a cadaveric spasm.

I'm also not convinced that she would have successfully held on to the cachous whilst resisting BS man's attempts to pull her into the street-might she have not used both hands for this?

Anyway, back to my game of football on no-man's land!

[S.Brett]

Karsten has aleady raised the interesting argument that if Kozminski came to police attention early in the investigation then its pretty unlikely that the police would not have attempted to use him....So however you figure the balance Schwartz must have been a failed witness. To our knowledge he isn't used again by police and it now seems likely that he was the witness referred to by Anderson and Swanson....

Hi Jeff!

Irish Times Dublin, Ireland, Tuesday, 2 October 1888:

“During last night and to-day no less than five men were arrested in the East End of London in connection with the murders. Three were at different times conveyed to Leman street Police Station... two men detained at Commercial street (Police Station)..."

(1/2) Two men: one was immediately liberated (Leman Street PS/ found in/near Commercial Road?), one was liberated soon after his arrest (Commercial Street PS)

(3) One man: Frank Raper (Commercial Street PS)

(4) Another was detained until noon to-day, when he was set at liberty after giving a statement of his movements. He was found to have been in straitened circumstances and o have passed much of his time in common lodginghouses in Whitechapel, but there was nothing to show that he had anything to do with the murders. (Leman Street PS/ found in/near Commercial Road?)

(5) The third man was detained until the afternoon when he, after due inquiry, was also liberated (Leman Street PS/ found not far from Mitre Street?)

The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, 2 October, 1888:

“Early yesterday morning a constable noticed a stranger in Commercial-road whose appearance and evident desire to avoid notice was suspicious. The constable spoke to him, and receiving what he deemed unsatisfactory answers, took the person to Leman-street Police-station, where he gave his name and address, and furnished ample particulars about himself. These were found to be accurate, and he was accordingly released.”

“It is stated that two men were arrested early yesterday near the Commercial-road, but their detention was only temporary, their explanations exonerating them from any suspicion of complicity in the crime..."

Schwartz: They arrested one man on the description thus obtained...

One of the "Commercial Road Men", near the Berner Street/Dutfield´s Yard crime scene could have been (the first man) "Pipeman". The question is: If this "Pipeman" looked like the man Schwartz had seen, did this Pipeman tell the same story as Schwartz did? About the same woman, the same BS Man and the same time...?

...and a second on that furnished from another source.

The "another source" could have been the PC near Mitre Square (and/or Lawende). And this second man (suspect) could have been:

(5) The third man was detained until the afternoon when he, after due inquiry, was also liberated (Leman Street PS/ found not far from Mitre Street?)

"...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..."

He was found near the second crime scene (Mitre Square) and it is possible that a constable (at the Police Station) thought: "This could be the man I saw with Eddowes". And there were the woolen scarf of a violet colour round his throat and Lawende´s red neckerchief. Maybe Lawende failed as witness but it remained this eye-catching scarf round the suspect´s throat.

"Oh no! ... I only had a short look at him" (Major Smith/probably Lawende) and "Would you know him again? - I doubt it. The man and woman were about nine or ten feet away from me."...

...does not sound like "A good view of the murderer"...

If there was an ID with Schwartz and Red (Violet) Scarf Man in October 1888 then it would be possible that Schwartz said: "This is not BS Man!" Very possible that R(V)SMan and BS Man were different man or Schwartz failed... like Lawende...

But if the police had found out that Violet Scarf Man is identical with Packer´s man then they had a "strong suspect"... but no "suitable" witnesses...

Yours, Karsten.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jeff!

Irish Times Dublin, Ireland, Tuesday, 2 October 1888:

“During last night and to-day no less than five men were arrested in the East End of London in connection with the murders. Three were at different times conveyed to Leman street Police Station... two men detained at Commercial street (Police Station)..."

(1/2) Two men: one was immediately liberated (Leman Street PS/ found in/near Commercial Road?), one was liberated soon after his arrest (Commercial Street PS)

(3) One man: Frank Raper (Commercial Street PS)

(4) Another was detained until noon to-day, when he was set at liberty after giving a statement of his movements. He was found to have been in straitened circumstances and o have passed much of his time in common lodginghouses in Whitechapel, but there was nothing to show that he had anything to do with the murders. (Leman Street PS/ found in/near Commercial Road?)

(5) The third man was detained until the afternoon when he, after due inquiry, was also liberated (Leman Street PS/ found not far from Mitre Street?)

The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, 2 October, 1888:

“Early yesterday morning a constable noticed a stranger in Commercial-road whose appearance and evident desire to avoid notice was suspicious. The constable spoke to him, and receiving what he deemed unsatisfactory answers, took the person to Leman-street Police-station, where he gave his name and address, and furnished ample particulars about himself. These were found to be accurate, and he was accordingly released.”

“It is stated that two men were arrested early yesterday near the Commercial-road, but their detention was only temporary, their explanations exonerating them from any suspicion of complicity in the crime..."

Schwartz: They arrested one man on the description thus obtained...

One of the "Commercial Road Men", near the Berner Street/Dutfield´s Yard crime scene could have been (the first man) "Pipeman". The question is: If this "Pipeman" looked like the man Schwartz had seen, did this Pipeman tell the same story as Schwartz did? About the same woman, the same BS Man and the same time...?

...and a second on that furnished from another source.

The "another source" could have been the PC near Mitre Square (and/or Lawende). And this second man (suspect) could have been:

(5) The third man was detained until the afternoon when he, after due inquiry, was also liberated (Leman Street PS/ found not far from Mitre Street?)

"...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..."

He was found near the second crime scene (Mitre Square) and it is possible that a constable (at the Police Station) thought: "This could be the man I saw with Eddowes". And there were the woolen scarf of a violet colour round his throat and Lawende´s red neckerchief. Maybe Lawende failed as witness but it remained this eye-catching scarf round the suspect´s throat.

"Oh no! ... I only had a short look at him" (Major Smith/probably Lawende) and "Would you know him again? - I doubt it. The man and woman were about nine or ten feet away from me."...

...does not sound like "A good view of the murderer"...

If there was an ID with Schwartz and Red (Violet) Scarf Man in October 1888 then it would be possible that Schwartz said: "This is not BS Man!" Very possible that R(V)SMan and BS Man were different man or Schwartz failed... like Lawende...

But if the police had found out that Violet Scarf Man is identical with Packer´s man then they had a "strong suspect"... but no "suitable" witnesses...

Very interesting, Karsten.
It has got me thinking ..

[S.Brett]

Very interesting, Karsten.
It has got me thinking ..

Hi Jon! Of course I do not know whether it is right or not... only considerations...

Macnaghten stated:

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer"

It is possible he was concluding that Mrs. Long, Schwartz, Lawende, Schwartz and Hutchinson had failed to identify any suspect. In the case of "Kosminski" it seems that the PC near Mitre Square did recognize this man but could not see into the face of the man:

"One man only, a policeman, saw him leaving the place in which he had just accomplished a fiendish deed, but failed, owing to the darkness, to get a good view of him. A little later the policeman stumbled over the lifeless body of the victim."

“The policeman who got a glimpse of Jack the Ripper in Mitre Court 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.”

“This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square”.

Imagine that "Kosminski" had been a "strong suspect" and with "many circs" what could this mean for the Police Work?

The City Police would have a constable who did not see the face of "Kosminski" and a witness, Lawende, who said "Oh no...!" (and failed when identifying "Kosminski"). But he noticed a "red neckerchief" and if the "Violet Scarf Man" had been "Kosminski", then, this suspect wore a colored neckerchief... that´s all...

The MET Police would have Schwartz and perhaps Packer. The latter:

“He alleges that he had often seen the man before the murder, as well as the woman who was murdered in Berner-street..." and "he had seen him several times before the fatal night..."

And what if Schwartz said (when identifying "Kosminski"): This is not BS Man!?

And what if the bloody shirt in Batty Street belonged to the "Kosminski" family?

Maybe there was another witness in Church Lane when the Ripper fled from Berner Street towards Mitre Square. This witness saw a man who "tried to conceal his face. he is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailors hat." This witness did probably not see the face of "Kosminski", the same fate as the City constable...

So, the City Police had found "Kosminski" via the PC near Mitre Square and Lawende (the neckerchief), and the MET Police had found "Kosminski" via Packer and the bloody shirt in Batty Street. The City constable saw Eddowes with "Kosminski" and Packer saw Stride with "Kosminski" but the constable did not see the man´s face and Packer this couple 1,5 hours before Stride was found dead. The same suspect at two crime scenes at the same night. I think, this is a "strong suspect" and there were "many circs" but worthless if Schwartz and Lawende failed...

The police would have known the Ripper in October 1888 but were unable to catch him.

A disastrous situation for the police.

Swanson wrote:

"And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London"

An identification which the suspect knew... I can well imagine that Swanson believed that "Kosminski" stopped his "work" when he was seen by a witness in Miller´s Court... a witness not known to the police before the second half of 1890...

"after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified"

This time in the presence of the police...

Karsten.

[Elamarna]

Karsten

I really like this line of thinking, if only we had some hard evidence.
I have come round to thinking there must have been a witness at Millers Court, having until recently assumed the witness could only have been a Police Officer.


regards

Steve

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

But, after being thrown to the ground, at which point does Stride move "further into the dark"?

The problem is that Swanson's Home Office report is systematic

But as we know the actuality of events would have happened 'together'

As Stride was thrown to the floor Schwartz was crossing the street?

So the exact timing of Stride being thrown to the ground, as Schwartz crosses the road? Is not known...

Frankly in the very short space of time 30 seconds there are a number of possibilities....

Moving inside the yard by 4 feet may only have taken 1 or 2 seconds in the out come of events....

So we just don't know?

Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Very interesting, Karsten.
It has got me thinking ..

Yes exactly Annoying isn't it jx

[Wickerman]

It makes logical sense, but the position of Stride's body and hand make it extremely unlikely that he could have positioned a tissue paper with cachous in a dead and closed hand without spilling any. She really must have been holding them at the time she died and her hands closed up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Blackwell stated her left hand was "partially closed", so perhaps her fingers were curled but not closed.
The packet was lodged between her thumb and forefinger, so not directly in her hand, as in the palm.

[Tom_Wescott]

Blackwell stated her left hand was "partially closed", so perhaps her fingers were curled but not closed.
The packet was lodged between her thumb and forefinger, so not directly in her hand, as in the palm.

His assistant, Edward Johnston, had already opened her hands.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

There's too much going on and it's hard to keep up with. I'm also confused by John G and John Guy.

Jeff Leahy - Swartz got a look at BS Man's face. 'Broad-shouldered' was a term Abberline (and not Schwartz) used to describe a man of square or big (but not fat) build.

John G - Why do you think Stride's body was facing the street? Or did I read you wrong? She was facing the wall of the club.

She was attacked suddenly, but not with a knife. She was rendered unconscious, laid on the ground, and then murdered.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Frank Raper

Regarding Frank Raper. He was just a loud mouth drunk shooting off his mouth in a pub about being the Ripper. The police were called and took him in. When he sobered up he was cleared and let go. Not a serious suspect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

His assistant, Edward Johnston, had already opened her hands.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Can you think of a reason why Johnston didn't say that?

[Tom_Wescott]

Can you think of a reason why Johnston didn't say that?

Yes, because he wasn't supposed to have moved Stride. He wasn't a doctor. I'd wager it was he and not Blackwell who spilled the cachous, but Blackwell couldn't very well say that at the inquest.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott