Schwartz v. Lawende

[Wickerman]

Again you ignore the fact Wick that Issac was not in front of anyone official, just a reporter. It would be 100% natural to refer to yourself wwith another person as "we" under those circumstances....and he doesnt. He says "I" numerous times.

That underlined bit is to point out that your beliefs dont seem to be translated into accepted behaviours. Read a bunch of these interviews by the press....I dont have the time to copy some, but check for yourself...many if not all have witnesses that were in someones company said "we" to the press or to their friends.

Issac was interviewed that night, at the scene, I wouldnt be so quick to just assume he was an idiot and didnt know if he was 1 person running or 2.

Quite the contrary Michael, interviews with reporters are often published as first person, or third-person responses. It all depends on the editor and how he chooses to present the story. If I recall, some of us on Casebook looked for an actual verbatim interview with Koz, and we couldn't find one. That's an interview where Koz's replies are given in quotations. Do you see any?

[Michael W Richards]

You may think of it as opinion, but it is a fact. It's an uncomfortable fact for your theory, but you can talk with any solicitor, lawyer, judge, magistrate, or anyone connected with the courts, you are required to reply in the first person singular, unless instructed otherwise. Newspaper editors & even reporters often follow the same guidelines.

Again you ignore the fact Wick that Issac was not in front of anyone official, just a reporter. It would be 100% natural to refer to yourself wwith another person as "we" under those circumstances....and he doesnt. He says "I" numerous times.

That underlined bit is to point out that your beliefs dont seem to be translated into accepted behaviours. Read a bunch of these interviews by the press....I dont have the time to copy some, but check for yourself...many if not all have witnesses that were in someones company said "we" to the press or to their friends.

Issac was interviewed that night, at the scene, I wouldnt be so quick to just assume he was an idiot and didnt know if he was 1 person running or 2.

[Paddy Goose]

Good afternoon Michael,

... between Israel and Joseph only 1 had a possible witness. Not one supporting shred of evidence exists to back Israels claim that he was where he said he was, let alone that he saw and heard something critical to an investigation. ...

This was nine years ago. Do you still hold that belief today?

[Wickerman]

Actually Wick I believe your response above is just a self serving opinion, and certainly not based on any kind of statistical data or validation. We are talking about an individual who others believe went out searching for help with a companion. He would naturally.....since as youll note the party giving the statement is giving it to a reporter, not to a magistrate or a jury,...mention someone being with him if that were the case. Not only that, you have him saying... very clearly... "I was sent..."...

You may think of it as opinion, but it is a fact. It's an uncomfortable fact for your theory, but you can talk with any solicitor, lawyer, judge, magistrate, or anyone connected with the courts, you are required to reply in the first person singular, unless instructed otherwise. Newspaper editors & even reporters often follow the same guidelines.

What you seem to be overlooking is Diemshutz & Kozebrodski departed from the same yard, they ran in the same direction, they reached the same destination, they picked up the same witness (Spooner), it doesn't matter if they ran 6 feet apart, or 20 feet apart, they both ran for a policeman, and returned. The only difference being Koz. continued to search, he went up to Commercial Rd. to meet with Eagle, whereas Diem. & Spooner returned to the yard.

Wess is only relating a story 2nd or 3rd hand, he wasn't a witness, so he doesn't know the parties involved. The person who told Wess apparently recognised Diemshutz, but not Spooner, and that is what we read from Wess.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, an interviewer whats to know what 'you' did, not what a group of you did. He always wants first-person singular responses. If you've ever given evidence in court you will experience that first hand. All responses must be "I saw", "I said", "I did", not "we", in law two "i's" make one "we". Remember this

Actually Wick I believe your response above is just a self serving opinion, and certainly not based on any kind of statistical data or validation. We are talking about an individual who others believe went out searching for help with a companion. He would naturally.....since as youll note the party giving the statement is giving it to a reporter, not to a magistrate or a jury,...mention someone being with him if that were the case. Not only that, you have him saying... very clearly... "I was sent..."

Before you try and reinterpret what those three words really meant ...I think we both can recognize intention in peoples language. He also would have indicated that he left the company of Louis when he went on further and then saw Eagle, if Spooner is the man who returns with Louis.

Your hesitance in accepting the quote as it was given and taken is not uncommon, when something is repeated over and over again over the course of years it seems to gain some credibility or certainty. Whether its actually the truth, or not. The indicators have been right there all along before I started flogging this quote from Issac, Louis says he went with Issac[s]. Ive read the arguments that suggest Issac Kozebrodski was sometimes called Issac[s], though why they would pluralize a given name is odd to me, but anyway, ..and Ive read the arguments on the boards insisting that Louis was referencing Issac Kozebrodski in a manner that was known to be utilized...but who establishes this idea in the first place? Club members.

I find Issac Kozebrodski's own quote very compelling on how he learned of this, when he learned of it and what he did at the behest of Louis or "some other member". It does not in any way reconcile with a presumption that Louis was actually referring to him when he said Issac[s]. In fact it does not reconcile with Louis's stated arrival time either. All this should tell you is that it appears Louis did not speak to Issac about what he would say before Issac was interviewed. And that in at the very least his stated arrival time.....precisely indeed....is inaccurate. I refer to my many posts on why someone directly benifitting from the club and working for the club would try and present their story in as flattering a manner as possible towards the club and its response.

What I contend is that using Issac K, and Spooner, and Heschberg, and Lamb, and Johnson and Blackwell's times the cut time would be closer to 12:40 than 1am. There is a cohesive story and timeline if you set aside the statements of Louis, Morris, Joseph, Mrs D...all employees, 3 of which lived on the property. And one lone account by someone we cant locate an address for before his wife started the move that morning, someone who is reported to have known Wess..who also is the most probable translator for him, someone who is an immigrant Jew, standing outside a club at 12:45 whose membership is 98% Immigrant Jews, an hour after a meeting whose topic targeted that same population segment, who was not at the crime scene after the discovery, whose story re-imagines a deserted street as many accounts suggest it was and populates it with 2 unknown and unseen characters and the soon to be victim herself, alive...outside the entranceway. At a time when multiple witnesses and a cohesive timeline based on credible sources for time suggest Liz is in that alley already, likely being killed. Which is soon thereafter discovered.

You know what? What if Louis didnt actually discover her at all?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In fact Wick Issac Kozebrodski said this about that...."About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard"....and this...."I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers."

Here is a more complete quote:

A young Russian Pole, named M. Kozebrodski, born in Warsaw, and who spoke the English language imperfectly, gave the following information:- I was in the club last night. I came in about 6.30 in the evening and I have not been away from it since. About 20 minutes to 1 this morning Mr Diemshitz called me out into the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was. When we had got outside he struck a match, and when we looked down on the ground we could see a large pool of blood. It was running down the gutter, and in the direction of the gate, and reached about to the door of the club. I should think there was blood in the gutter for a distance of five or six yards. I went to look for a policeman at the direction of Diemshitz or some members of the club. I went in the direction of Grove street, and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial road, and there along with Eagle I found two officers. The officers did not touch the body, but sent for a doctor. A doctor came, and an inspector arrived just afterwards. While the doctor was examining the body I noticed that she had some grapes in her right hand and some sweets in her left. I think she wore a dark jacket and a black dress. I saw a little bunch of flowers stuck above her right bosom.

If you suppose Kozebrodski's ~12:40 estimate to be about right, then, considering the extent of the blood flow in the gutter just after the discovery, about what time would you place the murder?

The same issue should concern anyone who believes the "double assault" theory - that Stride was assaulted by the man described by Schwartz, and then by another man, her killer, soon after. It must have been very soon after to have resulted in all that blood flow by 1am.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But Spooner was not, and he was the one who returned to the yard beside Diemschutz.
The Secretary has assumed the two men who returned were the same two that departed - it's a reasonable assumption, but in this case an erroneous one.
Kozebrodski departed with Diemschutz, but it was Spooner who returned with Diemschutz, Koz, ran passed the club and joined Eagle in Commercial Rd.

Spooner: After talking for about 25 minutes I saw two Jews come running along and shouting out "Murder" and "Police." They then ran as far as Grove-street and turned back. I stopped them and asked what was the matter. They replied, "A woman has been murdered." I then went round with them to Berner-street, and into Dutfield's yard, adjoining No. 40, Berner-street.

Wess wasn't confused about anything, but I think he was trying to manage the situation.

Other than yourself and perhaps one or two others, I find the lack of interest in Wess's comments to the Echo reporter, slightly astonishing.

[Wickerman]

Michael, an interviewer whats to know what 'you' did, not what a group of you did. He always wants first-person singular responses. If you've ever given evidence in court you will experience that first hand. All responses must be "I saw", "I said", "I did", not "we", in law two "i's" make one "we". Remember this

[Michael W Richards]

But Spooner was not, and he was the one who returned to the yard beside Diemschutz.
The Secretary has assumed the two men who returned were the same two that departed - it's a reasonable assumption, but in this case an erroneous one.
Kozebrodski departed with Diemschutz, but it was Spooner who returned with Diemschutz, Koz, ran passed the club and joined Eagle in Commercial Rd.

In fact Wick Issac Kozebrodski said this about that...."About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard"....and this...."I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers."

Seems like you made a reasonable assumption too, but also erroneous in this instance based on Issacs own words. Issac left alone, a singular "I" went...., Eagle left alone, and as has been reported Louis went with a member named Issac[s], which everyone who hasnt read Kozebrodski's statement assumes was actually Issac Kozebrodski. It clearly wasnt. And "Koz" didnt run back past the club, he went to Grove Street, likely going East on Fairclough, then north on Grove to Commercial where he met up with Eagle whom Lamb had spotted. The three of them went to the gates together. Louis and Spooner were likely the 2 men returning, as you said, but its relatively important what Issac K said. And he said it that night, as people lingered around some reporters got some statements.

The official records indicate that Louis went with Issac[s], and Eagle went alone, but it seems pretty clear that Issac Kozebrodski being sent out alone means that there were actually 3 parties sent out, not just the 2 as claimed. And someone who likely has the surname of Issacs went with Louis. Yet we dont hear from him, or about him other than in Louis's remarks. And it seems he doesnt return with Louis. Interesting.

Almost like he was hussled off the property by Louis then went on home by himself. Not a very rare surname, but it does pop up again within the assumed Ripper murders list, in the Kelly investigation. He was questioned about his whereabouts for that murder and the police evidently cleared him of suspicion...but he was a Polish Jew, he was a cigar maker like many of the club property residents were or had been, and it wouldnt be all that surprising if he attended Socialist meetings.

[Wickerman]

What if those who believe this theory checked it against the evidence?

Echo: The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

Not a club member, right?

Morning Advertiser: A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, and the former struck a match while the latter lifted the body up.

Kozebrodski was a club member, and Diemschitz was club steward, and therefore a member.

But Spooner was not, and he was the one who returned to the yard beside Diemschutz.
The Secretary has assumed the two men who returned were the same two that departed - it's a reasonable assumption, but in this case an erroneous one.
Kozebrodski departed with Diemschutz, but it was Spooner who returned with Diemschutz, Koz, ran passed the club and joined Eagle in Commercial Rd.

[Michael W Richards]

bump up

Has anybody ever found another source for this story (that wasn't copied from the PMG)?

Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
Curiously, the Pall Mall Gazette dated 7 May 1895 reported that Grainger had been unhesitatingly identified by the one person whom the police believe saw the murderer with a woman a few moments before her mutilated body was found.

I think Scott that from the outset, due to the nature of the attack Frazer interrupted, that they believed that they may have finally caught Jack. The Port Philip Herald of Feb 12, 1895 starts off with...."The London police are of opinion that at last they have got safely under lock and key the long sought assassin known as Jack the Ripper, whose series of atrocious murders and mutilations, principally at Whitechapel, have extended over a period of years."

There is also a snippet that perhaps suggests that they might have called upon someone who they used as a key witness to try and ID this man.."...Mr. Avory said the crime bore a strange resemblance to the Jack the Ripper murders, and the police had turned their attention to the matter without result."

[Lewis C]

Maybe Lawende...if the story were true. I'm trying to figure out why the story wasn't written about elsewhere.

Hi Scott,

That is a good question, why the story wasn't written about elsewhere. But if the story is true, it would probably be Lawende, wouldn't it? It wouldn't be any witness for the Stride murder, since she wasn't mutilated. I suppose it could be Elizabeth Long.

[Scott Nelson]

which would be lawende then

Maybe Lawende...if the story were true. I'm trying to figure out why the story wasn't written about elsewhere.

[Abby Normal]

bump up

Has anybody ever found another source for this story (that wasn't copied from the PMG)?

Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
Curiously, the Pall Mall Gazette dated 7 May 1895 reported that Grainger had been unhesitatingly identified by the one person whom the police believe saw the murderer with a woman a few moments before her mutilated body was found.

which would be lawende then

[Scott Nelson]

bump up

Has anybody ever found another source for this story (that wasn't copied from the PMG)?

Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
Curiously, the Pall Mall Gazette dated 7 May 1895 reported that Grainger had been unhesitatingly identified by the one person whom the police believe saw the murderer with a woman a few moments before her mutilated body was found.