Schwartz v. Lawende

[Tom_Wescott]

There seems to be a need to assume that someone is lying in order to validate some of the other witnesses, a question that arises should be...whom among the various might have a need to fudge on their statements or modify their statements in order to preserve their income or reputation?

That was the point I was trying to make earlier. That some of the scenarios presented require one, two or more of the witnesses to be lying. Packer certainly was, so we'll set him aside. I agree it's possible that PC Smith was off in his timings, either accidentally or intentionally so. He would have a vested interest in putting himself at a certain point of his beat at a certain time. The other witnesses wouldn't necessarily have such a motive.

When it comes to Mortimer and any perceived contradictions in the two statements, we should extend her some benefit of doubt in that these seeming contradictions might have been the fault of a reporter and not her. In fact, what I think she may have been saying is that her front door had been open with her inside for 30 minutes, but that when she went to close the door she stood in the doorway for 10 of those minutes. She also would have been estimating the time, so it could have been longer or shorter.

James Brown strikes me as an honest witness who felt pretty sure the woman he'd seen had been Stride, and she probably was. He describes a man very similar to Pipeman standing in the same spot that Pipeman may have been standing per Schwartz (albeit not in the Star report which places him outside the Nelson and not the school).

Schwartz I'll never be certain of, but I err on the side of caution that he was telling the truth. I'm not surprised no one else heard him yell 'Lipski' since that would have blended in with the voices from the club. Mortimer's statement that the street was dead also jibes with Schwartz. If he was lying he hit paydirt with Brown and Mortimer because they essentially backed up his story.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[John G]

I think all of the descriptions were too vague or general to be at all sure that, say, Brown, Schwartz and Marshall were describing the same man. Moreover, Marshall's sighting was at 11:45, therefore if his suspect was intent on murder, would he really wait an hour before striking? If he was JtR, for instance, I think it would have been extremely unlikely.

As for Mortimer, her evidence doesn't necessarily support Schwartz, i.e. because of her failure to hear Stride screaming or other elements of the altercation. Moreover, the version of her account that suggests she was on her doorstep for virtually the whole time between 12:30 and 1:00am clearly contradicts his testimony.

If Schwartz was lying, he was probably aware that Stride's body was discovered around 1:00am, so suggesting he saw Stride with BS man at 12:45 would hardly be surprising.

And PC Smith may well have seen Stride around 12:45, not 12:35, which would also conflict with Schwartz's evidence.

Moreover, there is no reason to suppose that Schwartz's timing was anything other than an estimate, as Brown's clearly was. And, as I've noted before, based on other witnesses poor timing estimates, either of them could easily be out by, say, 15-30 minutes.

[Michael W Richards]

That was the point I was trying to make earlier. That some of the scenarios presented require one, two or more of the witnesses to be lying. Packer certainly was, so we'll set him aside. I agree it's possible that PC Smith was off in his timings, either accidentally or intentionally so. He would have a vested interest in putting himself at a certain point of his beat at a certain time. The other witnesses wouldn't necessarily have such a motive.
When it comes to Mortimer and any perceived contradictions in the two statements, we should extend her some benefit of doubt in that these seeming contradictions might have been the fault of a reporter and not her. In fact, what I think she may have been saying is that her front door had been open with her inside for 30 minutes, but that when she went to close the door she stood in the doorway for 10 of those minutes. She also would have been estimating the time, so it could have been longer or shorter.

James Brown strikes me as an honest witness who felt pretty sure the woman he'd seen had been Stride, and she probably was. He describes a man very similar to Pipeman standing in the same spot that Pipeman may have been standing per Schwartz (albeit not in the Star report which places him outside the Nelson and not the school).

Schwartz I'll never be certain of, but I err on the side of caution that he was telling the truth. I'm not surprised no one else heard him yell 'Lipski' since that would have blended in with the voices from the club. Mortimer's statement that the street was dead also jibes with Schwartz. If he was lying he hit paydirt with Brown and Mortimer because they essentially backed up his story.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

The part in bold above has been the crux of many of my proposed scenarios for this event.....there are people who stood to lose income and the potential for a confirmation of a less than positive opinion generally held in the neighbourhood. Louis and Morris.

[Abby Normal]

That was the point I was trying to make earlier. That some of the scenarios presented require one, two or more of the witnesses to be lying. Packer certainly was, so we'll set him aside. I agree it's possible that PC Smith was off in his timings, either accidentally or intentionally so. He would have a vested interest in putting himself at a certain point of his beat at a certain time. The other witnesses wouldn't necessarily have such a motive.

When it comes to Mortimer and any perceived contradictions in the two statements, we should extend her some benefit of doubt in that these seeming contradictions might have been the fault of a reporter and not her. In fact, what I think she may have been saying is that her front door had been open with her inside for 30 minutes, but that when she went to close the door she stood in the doorway for 10 of those minutes. She also would have been estimating the time, so it could have been longer or shorter.

James Brown strikes me as an honest witness who felt pretty sure the woman he'd seen had been Stride, and she probably was. He describes a man very similar to Pipeman standing in the same spot that Pipeman may have been standing per Schwartz (albeit not in the Star report which places him outside the Nelson and not the school).

Schwartz I'll never be certain of, but I err on the side of caution that he was telling the truth. I'm not surprised no one else heard him yell 'Lipski' since that would have blended in with the voices from the club. Mortimer's statement that the street was dead also jibes with Schwartz. If he was lying he hit paydirt with Brown and Mortimer because they essentially backed up his story.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom
I would add that Marshall and possibly PC Smith back up Schwartz in regard to BS man, as all describe the man wearing a peaked cap.

I would agree in terms of Strides murder, probably none of the witnesses were lying, except with the possible exception of Packer, who was embellishing and changing his story to fit what people wanted to hear. The rest were being as honest and accurate as they could, but some were probably off on their times, IMHO

I don't see why we need to invent reasons that people lied.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't see why we need to invent reasons that people lied.

I agree, but you dont need to invent a vested interest in an outcome. It was there. If the club was preceived as housing the killer, or being the source for the killer, ...(at the stage the investigation was at in September... with the assumptions that an immigrant jew was responsible for the killings of Polly then Annie), then it would have been closed, promptly. The club was already felt to be an anarchists club by the neighbors and local police. That would mean that Louis is out of work, and Mrs Diemshitz, and Eagle gets no more speaking fees from 40 Berner Street.

In a neighborhood as economically depressed as that was a lost job might mean homelessness.

Is it conceivable that the extremely fortuitous statement from Isreal Schwartz might be considered in that context?

[S.Brett]

@John:

Kelly's inquest

[Coroner] How many men live in the court who work in Spitalfields Market ? - One. At a quarter- past six I heard a man go down the court. That was too late for the market.

[Coroner] From what house did he go ? - I don't know.

[Coroner] Did you hear the door bang after him ? - No.

[Coroner] Then he must have walked up the court and back again? - Yes.

[Coroner] It might have been a policeman ? - It might have been.

It seems that Mrs. Cox was not quite sure whether there was a constable...

You wrote: so it would have been a sound that she (Mortimer) was very familiar with... (the sound of a policeman) Cox stated: It might have been (a policeman)...

Imagine Fanny Mortimer at the Stride inquest, [Coroner] It might have been a policeman at 12.45am ? - It might have been... and Mary Ann Cox interviewed by a reporter after the Kelly murder... she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat...

What I want to say (by turning the tables) is... it could make more sense to trust the police and the coroner than the press...

Regards, Karsten.

[Tom_Wescott]

Schwartz and Mortimer

I think all of the descriptions were too vague or general to be at all sure that, say, Brown, Schwartz and Marshall were describing the same man. Moreover, Marshall's sighting was at 11:45, therefore if his suspect was intent on murder, would he really wait an hour before striking? If he was JtR, for instance, I think it would have been extremely unlikely.

As for Mortimer, her evidence doesn't necessarily support Schwartz, i.e. because of her failure to hear Stride screaming or other elements of the altercation. Moreover, the version of her account that suggests she was on her doorstep for virtually the whole time between 12:30 and 1:00am clearly contradicts his testimony.

If Schwartz was lying, he was probably aware that Stride's body was discovered around 1:00am, so suggesting he saw Stride with BS man at 12:45 would hardly be surprising.

And PC Smith may well have seen Stride around 12:45, not 12:35, which would also conflict with Schwartz's evidence.

Moreover, there is no reason to suppose that Schwartz's timing was anything other than an estimate, as Brown's clearly was. And, as I've noted before, based on other witnesses poor timing estimates, either of them could easily be out by, say, 15-30 minutes.

Nobody screamed. Please read the Swanson report again. Any sound made would have blended in with the club noise. You can't pick one press report and say Mortimer contradicts Schwartz when her overall testimony clearly does not. Look at the Oct. 19th Swanson report where Swanson puts his stamp on Schwartz and also mentions Mortimer. If her information proved Schwartz a liar we'd likely see that mentioned.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom
I would add that Marshall and possibly PC Smith back up Schwartz in regard to BS man, as all describe the man wearing a peaked cap.

I would agree in terms of Strides murder, probably none of the witnesses were lying, except with the possible exception of Packer, who was embellishing and changing his story to fit what people wanted to hear. The rest were being as honest and accurate as they could, but some were probably off on their times, IMHO

I don't see why we need to invent reasons that people lied.

Marshall, Smith, and Schwartz seem to have witnessed different men. Packer was paid to lie by Le Grand, for who knows what reason but he claimed later to have seen the man 20 times prior, that he lived on Batty Street, and then twice later he saw the same man. It's all crap. But when one witness shows up lying for financial gain it makes me suspicious of other witnesses. We know Mortimer wasn't lying because Leon Goldstein confirmed her statement was true. James Brown was also an honest witness as was Marshall, and before that, Best Gardner, and their unnamed friend. But as we all know you can be honest and still be mistaken.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[S.Brett]

Packer was paid to lie by Le Grand, for who knows what reason but he claimed later to have seen the man 20 times prior, that he lived on Batty Street, and then twice later he saw the same man. It's all crap.

Hi Tom,

Echo, 20 October 1888

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881020.html

There is a clue upon which the authorities have been zealously working for some time. This is in Whitechapel, not far from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy, and the man is, indeed, himself aware that he is being watched; so much so, that, as far as observation has gone at present, he has scarcely ventured out of doors. The police called on Mr. Packer, of 44, Berner-street, yesterday morning; and later on an Echo reporter also saw him as to what had transpired. Mr. Packer was rather reticent; but, when asked his opinion as to where the murderer lodged - for he had seen him several times before the fatal night - remarked, "In the next street." It is considered he is not far wrong in his conjecture; but the police do not deem it prudent to say what steps are being taken in the matter.

If I understand correctly the police visited Packer on 19 October 1888 when a man is, indeed, himself aware that he is being watched; so much so, that, as far as observation has gone at present, he has scarcely ventured out of doors.

The police showed an interest in Packer on 19 October 1888?

What do you think of it?

Regards, Karsten.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

Echo, 20 October 1888

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881020.html

There is a clue upon which the authorities have been zealously working for some time. This is in Whitechapel, not far from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy, and the man is, indeed, himself aware that he is being watched; so much so, that, as far as observation has gone at present, he has scarcely ventured out of doors. The police called on Mr. Packer, of 44, Berner-street, yesterday morning; and later on an Echo reporter also saw him as to what had transpired. Mr. Packer was rather reticent; but, when asked his opinion as to where the murderer lodged - for he had seen him several times before the fatal night - remarked, "In the next street." It is considered he is not far wrong in his conjecture; but the police do not deem it prudent to say what steps are being taken in the matter.

If I understand correctly the police visited Packer on 19 October 1888 when a man is, indeed, himself aware that he is being watched; so much so, that, as far as observation has gone at present, he has scarcely ventured out of doors.

The police showed an interest in Packer on 19 October 1888?

What do you think of it?

Regards, Karsten.

The police were not interested in Packer but were obliged to take his statement and follow up whenever he made one regarding the murders. The Batty Street stuff is also the result of Charles Le Grand, so the two ruses are related, hence Packer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[S.Brett]

The police were not interested in Packer but were obliged to take his statement and follow up whenever he made one regarding the murders. The Batty Street stuff is also the result of Charles Le Grand, so the two ruses are related, hence Packer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thanks!

Off topic:

Your new book "Whitechapel Confidential" when will it be published?

[Paddy]

Originally Posted by S.Brett
There is a clue upon which the authorities have been zealously working for some time. This is in Whitechapel, not far from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy, and the man is, indeed, himself aware that he is being watched; so much so, that, as far as observation has gone at present, he has scarcely ventured out of doors.

I find this paragraph very similar to part of Henry Coxs' statement

"It is indeed very strange that as soon as this madman was put under observation, the mysterious crimes ceased, and that very soon he removed from his usual haunts and gave up his nightly prowls".

One could argue that as he said this was after the last murder, he meant Mary Kelly, but it cold equally have meant Catherine Eddowes or Annie Chapman.

He said
"While the Whitechapel murders were being perpetrated his place of business was in a certain street, and after the last murder I was on duty in this street for nearly three months".

Would you please point me to anything on Le Grands connection with Matthew Packer Mr Westcott? I cant find it...Many Thanks
Pat

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks!

Off topic:

Your new book "Whitechapel Confidential" when will it be published?

Thanks, Karsten. I'm not sure. I'm still working on it. I'd like to see it come out in April but there's no firm release date yet.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Originally Posted by S.Brett
There is a clue upon which the authorities have been zealously working for some time. This is in Whitechapel, not far from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy, and the man is, indeed, himself aware that he is being watched; so much so, that, as far as observation has gone at present, he has scarcely ventured out of doors.

I find this paragraph very similar to part of Henry Coxs' statement

"It is indeed very strange that as soon as this madman was put under observation, the mysterious crimes ceased, and that very soon he removed from his usual haunts and gave up his nightly prowls".

One could argue that as he said this was after the last murder, he meant Mary Kelly, but it cold equally have meant Catherine Eddowes or Annie Chapman.

He said
"While the Whitechapel murders were being perpetrated his place of business was in a certain street, and after the last murder I was on duty in this street for nearly three months".

Would you please point me to anything on Le Grands connection with Matthew Packer Mr Westcott? I cant find it...Many Thanks
Pat

Hi Paddy, I published a lengthy piece on Le Grand that includes the Packer stuff in a now defunct Ripper e-journal. If you PM me your e-mail address I'll send it to you. My third Ripper book will be all about Le Grand and will contain a lot of stuff not in the article. Also my upcoming book will have a chapter on Packer with all of his tall tales.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[drstrange169]

>>If the club was preceived as housing the killer, or being the source for the killer, ... then it would have been closed, promptly. <<

If riots in the street, anarchist interests, powerful Jewish opposition and local disenchantment didn't close down the club, I doubt one more thing added to the tally would have much difference.

Of course the club closed itself within a few years due to infighting. It moved to another location close by, so jobs were no more threatened than any at the time.

As for Eagle, there were no shortage of speaking opportunities across the UK (and America) for committed socialists. There are records of Diemshitz speaking to the faithful in Manchester.

Eagle, of course, was involved in the tailors strike the following year which would have kept him busy.