Schwartz v. Lawende

[Jon Guy]

Yes, that was the story...which in and of itself is implausible because she had 12 hours to move what would amount to a suitcase or 2. .

She expected to move whilst he was away.

What is more natural than him walking past his old address on his way to the new address ?

My guess is that he might have resided in one of the four cottages in the passageway, it would explain why he was headed in the direction ofthe club, and he obviously didnt reside anywhere else on Berner..

If that was the case Schwartz would have said that he needed to get past the man and woman in the gateway, instead he just says that he crossed the street to avoid them, and Berner Street continues south past the Nelson.

[

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Abby,

Yes, that of course is a possibility. However, I tend to agree with Paul Begg's view, based on Levy's inquest testimony, that, "it is difficult to escape the impression that he was being evasive." (Begg, 2004).

Thus, after observing the couple he said to Harry Harris, 'I don't like going home by myself when I see these sorts of characters. I'm off." However, at the inquest, when asked if there was anything terrible about their appearance, he replied, "I did not say that." And, when asked if he felt frightened by the couple he gave a somewhat equivocal response, "Not exactly."

So what has caused him to become so alarmed? After all, on the face of it they were only a couple minding their own business, having a conversation on the opposite pavement.

Harry Harris' interview with the Evening News is interesting as well:

"He [Harris] is of the opinion that neither Mr Levander nor Mr Levy saw anything more than he did, and that was only the back of the man." (The emphasis is mine).

However, Lawende clearly saw the face of the suspect, so why did Harris suggest otherwise? I mean, it's clearly inconceivable that he wouldn't have discussed the matter with his two friends during the intervening period of more than a week-the newspaper article was published on the 9th October.

It suggests to me that both Harris and Levy were being somewhat cagey with their responses- or in the case of Levy's newspaper interview, lack of responses. Very curious.

yes I think this is a very good observation...

The simple answer to this is Levy might have recognised the man...

Of course no direct connection between Martin Kozminski or Aaron Kozminski has so far been discovered, but it would be interesting if it where

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

We need to stop taking what the upper eschelons of the police, specifically, Anderson, MM and swanson say as gospel. Their recollections are so riddled with errors I don't see how anyone can.

This goes to the heart of where i disagree with most ripperologists

For one what you are suggesting is its OK to simply ignore the sources and make-up anything we like...and that philosophy has created most of the bad suspect ripperology that has existed over the last 50 years.

Secondly what your saying isn't actually true. We simply don't know that what they say is riddled with errors, and clearly I've suggested a theory that suggests actually its modern ripperologists who are riddled with errors not the other way around...

The only error I can see is MacNaughten on Druit, he clearly was a Barrister not a Doctor, but I believe this is easily explained in that Macnaughten largely worked on Druit from memory, a fairly powerful memory of a close family member believing him to be JtR.

The other often quoted error is Anderson and Swanson believing Aaron Kozminski dead. Again I don't believe this was an error but a deliberate attempt by Anderson to draw attention away from the family.

So the whole police error MYTH has been created by modern ripperologists to allow them to peddle some other half baked theory about their nearly related relative or some famous artisan or Doctor being the real killer.

It is of course a distraction. I'm not of course arguing Macnuaghten or Anderon were correct, indeed they can't both be correct, but certainly believe that they believed what they did for good reason, and there is certainly no evidence that either man lied or made many errors...the facts simply don't support that argument.

Cant we simply accept that Andersons ID didn't go in such the positive way he recalled it?

To do that you would need to ignore what Swanson says in the Marginalia, and again this is poor ripperology.

The kosminski ID happened once he came to the attention of the police-long after the murders ceased.

Clearly that doesn't fit what COX says about the man he follows, he gets on the trail shortly after the murder of MJK. The police at this time were checking Private Asylums and of course Macnaughten tells us he enters the asylum in March 1889

So if Schwartz and Lawende were used early in the investigation it seems they failed to make an ID.... A failed ID.. This fits with what almost every policeman account tells us..Abberline Reid.... They didn't have a clue

It also fits what Anderson is saying in August 1889

Up until this point no one has a clue (accept possibly Macnaughten)...only suspicions and beliefs..Macnaughten 'There were many circumstances' 'A strong hatred of woman'

But no one has a clue.... So Macnaughten having studies the file on Kozminski in 1894 comes to the conclusion that his private info (Proably gather when he investigated before joining the MET) was the correct solution...and of course could be correct we just don't know...

Anderson on the other hand is describing completely different events to MacNaughten not unto March 1889 but events almost two years later following Kozminski's release from a Private Asylum.

The apparent contradictions therefore DONT exist, Anderson (Via Swanson) and Macnaughten (Via Cox) are simply discussing different events almost two years apart. Anderson 'Seaside Home ID' taking place at the end of 1890 early 1891

Kozminski only being followed for a few days not three months as in the earlier surveillance.

Lawende was a "respectable" witness the police trusted and were able to track down (probably because he had a stable working and living condition).

Indeed but Lawende himself said he didn't have a good look at the man and probably wouldn't recognise him... Its possible one of the others did recognise the man and suspected who he was...but that for another day

They were probably being overly optimistic something positive would come about-but it didn't. It was probably along the lines of "i think it might be him but I cant swear to it."

We'll never know for sure...but Martin Fido who probably knows more about Anderson than any other ripperologist who ever existed was fairly clear of Andersons character not being given to idol boasting...

I think it more probable that Andersons motivation was genuine belief that he could have got a conviction if the law was changed on police procedure...

In that I think he was incorrect

with the passage of time, wishful thinking, memories fading and a bit of arse covering, it became more positive in Andrsons mind. His faithful servent backed him up.

Ya di yarda... The same old ripperolgist mantra dealt out by non thinking researchers with their own wheres to peddle...There is simply NO evidence for this and is largely a fairly modern invention.

MM knew of the ID but wasn't convinced, heard rumors about Druitt about same time, perhaps a little after, and opted for him.

NO NO NO...Mcnaughten's beliefs are clearly stated 'From private INFO'

Macnughten investigated the ripper crimes before joining the MET, and i suggest spoke directly to a member of Druits family who held this suspicion

Thus Anderson and Macnaughtens beliefs, i believe are the same, they both spoke to members of the family who believed their relative to be Jack the Ripper. But neither Macnaughten or anderson knew of the other private info

Hence their differing view points

Its really what happened here isn't it?

No what has happened hear is years of brain washing by a clique of ripperologist with their own books to sell

Yours Jeff

[John G]

sounds like the grasping of a jilted reporter to me.

Hello Abby,

Yes, that of course is a possibility. However, I tend to agree with Paul Begg's view, based on Levy's inquest testimony, that, "it is difficult to escape the impression that he was being evasive." (Begg, 2004).

Thus, after observing the couple he said to Harry Harris, 'I don't like going home by myself when I see these sorts of characters. I'm off." However, at the inquest, when asked if there was anything terrible about their appearance, he replied, "I did not say that." And, when asked if he felt frightened by the couple he gave a somewhat equivocal response, "Not exactly."

So what has caused him to become so alarmed? After all, on the face of it they were only a couple minding their own business, having a conversation on the opposite pavement.

Harry Harris' interview with the Evening News is interesting as well:

"He [Harris] is of the opinion that neither Mr Levander nor Mr Levy saw anything more than he did, and that was only the back of the man." (The emphasis is mine).

However, Lawende clearly saw the face of the suspect, so why did Harris suggest otherwise? I mean, it's clearly inconceivable that he wouldn't have discussed the matter with his two friends during the intervening period of more than a week-the newspaper article was published on the 9th October.

It suggests to me that both Harris and Levy were being somewhat cagey with their responses- or in the case of Levy's newspaper interview, lack of responses. Very curious.

[John G]

Hello John.
We have another point to consider, on Saturday nights the public houses must close at midnight, Packer stated:

It was then ten or fifteen minutes past twelve o'clock, Packer, who was about to close his shop, noting the time by the fact that the public houses had been closed.

Every other night closing time was 12:30.

Hello Jon,

I think this causes further problems for Packer's evidence. Thus, he told Sergeant White that he closed his shop, "in consequence of the rain. It was no good for me to keep open".

However, if it stopped raining just after 11:00am, and no later than 11:30, then he must have closed up when the pubs were still open, a fact which directly contradicts his account.

[John G]

According to PC Smith it had not rained since 11 pm.

He saw a couple he thought to be Stride and a man at 12.30am over the road

Schwartz saw the altercation at 12.45 am.

Stride was dead within 15 minutes.

What is the problem,apart from possibly a clock being a bit fast!

Well, what PC Smith actually said was that it rained very little after 11:00an, suggesting that it stopped entirely sometime between 11:00 and 11:30.

[DJA]

Diemshutz adds some flavour to his story, after the Inquest,by adding grapes to the sweetmeats Stride was holding.

[drstrange169]

>> ... he (Packer) even remarked to his wife ...<<

Of course this was the same wife who told Sgt. White she couldn't "give the slightest information respecting the matter.In fact the whole household said they saw nothing until the Grand Enterprise showed up;-)

[DJA]

According to PC Smith it had not rained since 11 pm.

He saw a couple he thought to be Stride and a man at 12.30am over the road

Schwartz saw the altercation at 12.45 am.

Stride was dead within 15 minutes.

What is the problem,apart from possibly a clock being a bit fast!

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

But aren't there also problems with Packer selling the grapes at 11:45? Thus, at the inquest William Marshall stated:

"While I was standing at my door, from half-past eleven to twelve, there was no rain at all."

Now, Packer stated that, after selling the grapes, he observed the couple for more than half an hour, during which time it was raining. In fact, he even remarked to his wife:

"What fools those people are to be standing in the rain like that?"

All of this suggests that it stopped raining prior to 11:30, which means Packer must have sold the grapes before 11:00am, i.e. on account of the thirty plus minutes he observed the couple for.

Hello John.
We have another point to consider, on Saturday nights the public houses must close at midnight, Packer stated:

It was then ten or fifteen minutes past twelve o'clock, Packer, who was about to close his shop, noting the time by the fact that the public houses had been closed.

Every other night closing time was 12:30.

[John G]

Original ACB statement had Packer selling the grapes at 11pm and no mention of any rain.

But that's also problematic because John Best stated that it was raining heavily at that time.

[John G]

Hi John.
The newspaper which provided the first account was the Evening News, 4th Oct. Packer here stated he sold the grapes at 11:45...

On the 29th ult., about 11.45 p.m., a man and woman came to his shop window, and asked for some fruit.

The couple then crossed the road opposite Dutfields Yard...

They then crossed the road and stood on the pavement almost directly opposite to the shop for a long time more than half an hour.

The couple then came over to the club...

It was then ten or fifteen minutes past twelve o'clock, Packer, who was about to close his shop, noting the time by the fact that the public houses had been closed

His press account does not give the time he shut up shop, that is given to Sgt. White...

I asked him what time he closed his shop on the previous night. He replied Half past twelve (Half past 11)

"Half past 11" is added as an alternate, likely taken from the summary by A.C.B., though where it came from is unknown. It was not stated in the press and was not part of the original statement.

We know Stride was not buying grapes at 11:00 because she was at the Bricklayers Arms at 11:00.



Indeed, and James Brown said he thought it had stopped raining by 12:00, and Phillip Krantz replied to a Juror that... "the weather was quite dry at the time".

Hi Jon,

But aren't there also problems with Packer selling the grapes at 11:45? Thus, at the inquest William Marshall stated:

"While I was standing at my door, from half-past eleven to twelve, there was no rain at all."

Now, Packer stated that, after selling the grapes, he observed the couple for more than half an hour, during which time it was raining. In fact, he even remarked to his wife:

"What fools those people are to be standing in the rain like that?"

All of this suggests that it stopped raining prior to 11:30, which means Packer must have sold the grapes before 11:00am, i.e. on account of the thirty plus minutes he observed the couple for.

But this creates further problems because Best and Gardner should then have noted Stride carrying the grapes, but they failed to do so.

[Wickerman]

Original ACB statement had Packer selling the grapes at 11pm and no mention of any rain.

I compared the letter by A.C.B. with what was given in the press on the same day. I thought it necessary to demonstrate that A.C.B. had not taken those details from the press, so where did he get them?

Evidence taken from the Evening News Oct. 4 = {RED}

4th October, 1888.
Matthew Packer
keeps a shop in Berner St. has a few grapes in window, black & white.
On Sat night about 11 pm {11:45} a young man from 25-30 {middle aged about 35} about 5.7. {5ft 7in} with long black coat buttoned up {dark clothes} – soft felt hat, kind of Yankee hat {wideawake hat} rather {stout, square built} broad shoulders – rather quick in speaking, rough voice {rough voice and a quick sharp way of talking}. I sold him ½ pound black grapes 3d. A woman came up with him from Back Church end (the lower end of street) She was dressed in black frock & jacket {dark dress and jacket}, fur round bottom of jacket a black crape bonnet, she was playing with a flower like a geranium white outside & red inside {white flower in her bosom}. I identify the woman at the St. George's mortuary as the one I saw that night -
They passed by as though they were going up Com- Road, but – instead of going up they crossed to the other side of the road to the Board School, & were there for about ½ an hour till I shd. Say 11.30, talking to one another.
{They then crossed the road and stood on the pavement almost directly opposite to the shop for a long time more than half an hour.}
I then shut up my shutters.
Before they passed over opposite to my shop, they wait near to the club for a few minutes apparently listening to the music.
{the couple moved from their position, and Packer saw them cross the road again and come over to the club, standing for a moment in front of it as though listening to the music inside.}
I saw no more of them after I shut up my shutters.{Then he lost sight of them.}
I put the man down as a young clerk. {appearance of a clerk}
He had a frock coat on – no gloves.
He was about 1 ½ inch or 2 or 3 inches – a little higher than she was.
A.C.B.
4.10.88.

{Some time between half past eleven and twelve a man and woman came up Berner street from the direction of Ellen street, and stopped outside my window looking at the fruit. The man was about thirty to thirty five years of age, medium height, and with rather a dark complexion. He wore a black coat and a black, soft felt hat. He looked to me like a clerk or something of that sort. I am certain he wasn't what I should call a working man or anything like us folks that live around here.}

{ I saw that she was dressed in dark clothes, looked a middle aged woman, and carried a white flower in her hand.}

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Ah, but what about the possibility that the witness was Joseph Hyam Levy, as some have suggested? Of course, there is a possibility that he'd seen, or knew, more than he claimed, but for some reason he didn't want to get involved in the inquiry.

The Evening News opined:

" Mr Joseph Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give us the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but that he is afraid to be called on the inquest. Hence, he assumes a knowing air." (Evening News, 9 October, 1888).

sounds like the grasping of a jilted reporter to me.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

But didn't most newspapers report that Packer sold the grapes at 11:00am, well before PC Smith's sighting?

Hi John.
The newspaper which provided the first account was the Evening News, 4th Oct. Packer here stated he sold the grapes at 11:45...

On the 29th ult., about 11.45 p.m., a man and woman came to his shop window, and asked for some fruit.

The couple then crossed the road opposite Dutfields Yard...

They then crossed the road and stood on the pavement almost directly opposite to the shop for a long time more than half an hour.

The couple then came over to the club...

It was then ten or fifteen minutes past twelve o'clock, Packer, who was about to close his shop, noting the time by the fact that the public houses had been closed

His press account does not give the time he shut up shop, that is given to Sgt. White...

I asked him what time he closed his shop on the previous night. He replied Half past twelve (Half past 11)

"Half past 11" is added as an alternate, likely taken from the summary by A.C.B., though where it came from is unknown. It was not stated in the press and was not part of the original statement.

We know Stride was not buying grapes at 11:00 because she was at the Bricklayers Arms at 11:00.

Of course, the fact that Stride's clothes were not found to be wet, when her body was discovered, also creates problems.

Indeed, and James Brown said he thought it had stopped raining by 12:00, and Phillip Krantz replied to a Juror that... "the weather was quite dry at the time".