Schwartz v. Lawende

[DJA]

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

[John G]

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

Thanks for this. In fact, as I noted earlier, in one account he intimated that he'd observed the couple for half an hour, commenting to his wife, "What fools these people are to be standing in the rain like that!" That's despite the fact he told Sergeant White, "I saw no one standing about..."

And, eventually, he complained about not being paid, despite being promised remuneration!

[Jeff Leahy]

The size of the parcel was reported as "eighteen" inches long in some reports, and "eight" inches long in others.

The London Daily Standard and The Western Daily Press are two I can recall who reported "eight", not "eighteen"..

Yes it always interests me that people are willing to believe this witness or that witness lied, even police officers. However when it comes to press reports they often over look that those reporters are in the business of selling news papers and a parcel that might conceal a knife makes much better copy than a bag of grapes... Check how the [pipe becomes a knife in the Star reporters version of Schwartz story..

Yours Jeff

[John G]

I think the confusion over the size of the parcel arises because, at the inquest, PC Smith refers to the size as "about 18in long and 6in to 8in broad."

[DJA]

OK...just for jolly! Wicky loves these

Stride and Eddowes hire a Royal Engineer named Frank Carter as muscle for a blackmail meeting with Jack.

The rain stops and the remaining two stop sheltering and purchase some grapes.

Jack is detained at an AGM and is late. Fairly normal.

No Jack or Kate and BS man is getting stroppy.

Hence "Not tonight" and a bit of a scuffle before leaving.

[Jeff Leahy]

I think the confusion over the size of the parcel arises because, at the inquest, PC Smith refers to the size as "about 18in long and 6in to 8in broad."

Hi John

I totally agree here... But perhaps its just a simple matter of error, I don't think it requires anything other than miss-communication and an over enthusiastic reporter...

I've seen this done to death on The Lechmere case, what one person said here contradicts the court hearing etc etc It must be a conspiracy, he must be guilty

We are dealing with human beings not 'robots'

I'm certainly not trying to argue there were grapes (Although it might make some sense if the killer bribed his victims), just that Jons observation is at least interesting and perhaps despite Packers changing story and lies there might be some kernals of truth in what he said...

Interestingly enough I'm chasing some leads on Kenith Archibalde and wonder if he might have known more than he let on?

Yours Jeff

[John G]

Hi John

I totally agree here... But perhaps its just a simple matter of error, I don't think it requires anything other than miss-communication and an over enthusiastic reporter...

I've seen this done to death on The Lechmere case, what one person said here contradicts the court hearing etc etc It must be a conspiracy, he must be guilty

We are dealing with human beings not 'robots'

I'm certainly not trying to argue there were grapes (Although it might make some sense if the killer bribed his victims), just that Jons observation is at least interesting and perhaps despite Packers changing story and lies there might be some kernals of truth in what he said...

Interestingly enough I'm chasing some leads on Kenith Archibalde and wonder if he might have known more than he let on?

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Yes, I agree that newspapers made errors, although sometimes that was no doubt due to witnesses giving varying accounts. In the case of Mortimer, for example, the second version of her evidence makes much more sense than the first version, which had her standing at her doorstep for almost the whole period between 12:30 and 1:00am.

Nonetheless, there are occasions when we have serious discrepancies, such as between Schwartz's press and police accounts, which are difficult to explain as mere translation issues or miss-communications. In fact, generally, I don't think there's much evidence that the press seriously exaggerated witness statements, as evidenced by Hutchinson's press account being almost identical to his police statement.

Of course, with Packer there are other reasons to doubt him as a witness, such as his subsequent claim that he'd seen the suspect again- he apparently escaped on a tram before Packer had time to alert the police-and his claim to have sold rabbits to a man who told him that his cousin was the person that had bought the grapes. And then we have his complaint about not receiving the expected remuneration, which provides an insight into his motives.

Regarding Archibald, I'd be really interested to learn the results of your new research. Wasn't he charged with the murder of Irene Lockwood? However, at 54 and overweight he seems a world away from the "Jock" suspect , seen leaving the pub with O'Hara.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi John, trusting you are well

Hi Jeff,
Yes, I agree that newspapers made errors, although sometimes that was no doubt due to witnesses giving varying accounts. In the case of Mortimer, for example, the second version of her evidence makes much more sense than the first version, which had her standing at her doorstep for almost the whole period between 12:30 and 1:00am.

Yes its often forgotten that people are interpretation machines. All kinds of factors, their view points, there angles, there opinions, can effect accounts even when describing the same set of events. Then as the tale is told details can get blurred but the basic story or narrative remains the same..

Nonetheless, there are occasions when we have serious discrepancies, such as between Schwartz's press and police accounts, which are difficult to explain as mere translation issues or miss-communications. In fact, generally, I don't think there's much evidence that the press seriously exaggerated witness statements, as evidenced by Hutchinson's press account being almost identical to his police statement.

I'm not sure there is anything other in Schwartz story that greatly differ from the Home Office report...its the same basic happening, simply a pipe becoming a knife...

Of course, with Packer there are other reasons to doubt him as a witness, such as his subsequent claim that he'd seen the suspect again- he apparently escaped on a tram before Packer had time to alert the police-and his claim to have sold rabbits to a man who told him that his cousin was the person that had bought the grapes. And then we have his complaint about not receiving the expected remuneration, which provides an insight into his motives.

Actaually its the reports of him seeing the man again I'm interested in, especially if the suspect 'occupied several premises' near to Dutfeild Yard

Regarding Archibald, I'd be really interested to learn the results of your new research. Wasn't he charged with the murder of Irene Lockwood? However, at 54 and overweight he seems a world away from the "Jock" suspect , seen leaving the pub with O'Hara.

Archibald was pulled in a questioned before his confession. A card had been discovered in Lockwoods room with his drinking club telephone number. The drinking clubs were run by gangsters and the heat put on them by police. In those days police were quite happy to fit a crime on a known criminal to get results.... Archibald was certainly under a lot of presure from both sides and way out of his depth...but did he know more about the prostitutes and villians that attended that club?

Yours jeff

[Abby Normal]

Yes it always interests me that people are willing to believe this witness or that witness lied, even police officers. However when it comes to press reports they often over look that those reporters are in the business of selling news papers and a parcel that might conceal a knife makes much better copy than a bag of grapes... Check how the [pipe becomes a knife in the Star reporters version of Schwartz story..

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff
In this case it seems to me that what probably happened here is that shwartz may have embellished the knife part to the newspaper to help explain his less than brave actions that night.

or there was a translation issue, or perhaps the reporter made it up to sound more exciting.

In any case I doubt pipeman brandished a knife.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Abby

In any case I doubt pipeman brandished a knife.

Pipeman may have been using a pocket knife to clean out the bowl of the pipe, just before he filled and lit it !!

[Michael W Richards]

Question for you folks who seem intent on framing a scenario that includes Israel Schwartz and his scary folks.....despite the fact of course that the Inquest is void of any contribution from him at all...where was Israel Schwartz going when he said he was checking to see if his wife had finished moving? You would think that if they interviewed him fully that his address at the beginning of the day would be recorded.

The point here is the potential veracity of his premise for being where no-one else says he was.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff
In this case it seems to me that what probably happened here is that shwartz may have embellished the knife part to the newspaper to help explain his less than brave actions that night.

or there was a translation issue, or perhaps the reporter made it up to sound more exciting.

In any case I doubt pipeman brandished a knife.

Yep I totally agree. I'm simply saying that the pressure is on the reporter to make his story more exciting...thats not to say he made it up but a good journalist, and I've worked with a few, know how to ask the right questions to get what they want...this can be miss leading in itself, especially if the person in question is working through a translator

Persoanlly i feel the basic story holds true in both versions

Schwartz saw a woman attacked he cross the road to avoid confrontation, the attacked shouted something, another man appeared, he got scared and ran

Thats what we have. He estimates 12.45 which is not contradicted by the other witnesses directly and he thought the woman was Stride

As I've said a number of times now over the last year I've come to the opinion he did not get a good look at the killer. I don't think any of the early witnesses did, and this is Supported by what Abberline and MacNaughten say... Macnaughten only speak of a City PC having a rough idea.

So if there was a witness he wasn't discovered or didn't come forward until after March 1889 when Cox lost the trail of the man he felt was the killer

Yours Jeff

[Jon Guy]

Question for you folks who seem intent on framing a scenario that includes Israel Schwartz and his scary folks.....despite the fact of course that the Inquest is void of any contribution from him at all...where was Israel Schwartz going when he said he was checking to see if his wife had finished moving? You would think that if they interviewed him fully that his address at the beginning of the day would be recorded.

The point here is the potential veracity of his premise for being where no-one else says he was.

Hi Michael

He was going to check his wife had moved to their new accommodation ?

His address would be on his statement to the police, but this has not survived.

[John G]

There are major differences between the evidence Schwartz provided for the official police report, and the press version, which I don't think can be easily explained.

Thus, in the police version we have a man lighting a pipe, and Schwartz is clearly unsure as to whether this man was an accomplice of BS man: "Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other." And Abberline further explains, "The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether the man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away..." And, importantly, Abberline tells us that, "I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say."

However, the press version leaves no room for such ambiguities. In fact, "Pipeman" is suddenly transformed into a knife-wielding accomplice of BS man, who rushes forward to attack Schwartz.

The police report describe how BS Man attempted to pull Stride into the street, and they seem to get involved in a kind of tug of war match, as he clearly fails to achieve is goal. However, the Star version states that he pushes Stride into the passage.

The Star account has the second man crying out a warning to the attacker (again leaving no doubt that he was an accomplice), whereas in the police version it's the attacker who cries out "Lipski".

The Star states that Schwartz looked back on hearing the sound of a quarrel, an event not mentioned in the police report.

In the police report Stride screams three times, an important event not referred to in the press report.

In the press report BS man was described as partially intoxicated-not referred to in the police version.

So how can these numerous differences be explained? Translation problems don't seem likely, particularly as Schwartz brought his own interpreter to the press interview, presumably someone he trusted. And if there were translation problems to this extent then how can we have faith in anything Schwartz is reported to have said. Moreover, although my Hungarian's a bit rusty, I don't see how "man lighting pipe" can be mistranslated into "man rushes Schwartz with knife!"

Was he trying to make himself seem more heroic in the press version? Well, that would mean that he lied, a fact that would clearly undermine him as a witness. And he must surely have realized that the police wouldn't be too happy once they read his very different alternative account.

Did the press dramatize his story? The problem with that theory is that no other witnesses accounts were distorted to anything like the same time extent: even the press version of George Hutchinson's highly dramatic evidence is virtually identical to the police version. And, considering the considerable differences, wouldn't Schwartz have demanded a correction?

No, I think that the numerous discrepancies serve to seriously undermine Schwartz as a witness as, of course, do a number of other factors.

[Jeff Leahy]

There are major differences between the evidence Schwartz provided for the official police report, and the press version, which I don't think can be easily explained.

Thus, in the police version we have a man lighting a pipe, and Schwartz is clearly unsure as to whether this man was an accomplice of BS man: "Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other." And Abberline further explains, "The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether the man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away..." And, importantly, Abberline tells us that, "I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say."

However, the press version leaves no room for such ambiguities. In fact, "Pipeman" is suddenly transformed into a knife-wielding accomplice of BS man, who rushes forward to attack Schwartz.

The police report describe how BS Man attempted to pull Stride into the street, and they seem to get involved in a kind of tug of war match, as he clearly fails to achieve is goal. However, the Star version states that he pushes Stride into the passage.

The Star account has the second man crying out a warning to the attacker (again leaving no doubt that he was an accomplice), whereas in the police version it's the attacker who cries out "Lipski".

The Star states that Schwartz looked back on hearing the sound of a quarrel, an event not mentioned in the police report.

In the police report Stride screams three times, an important event not referred to in the press report.

In the press report BS man was described as partially intoxicated-not referred to in the police version.

So how can these numerous differences be explained? Translation problems don't seem likely, particularly as Schwartz brought his own interpreter to the press interview, presumably someone he trusted. And if there were translation problems to this extent then how can we have faith in anything Schwartz is reported to have said. Moreover, although my Hungarian's a bit rusty, I don't see how "man lighting pipe" can be mistranslated into "man rushes Schwartz with knife!"

Was he trying to make himself seem more heroic in the press version? Well, that would mean that he lied, a fact that would clearly undermine him as a witness. And he must surely have realized that the police wouldn't be too happy once they read his very different alternative account.

Did the press dramatize his story? The problem with that theory is that no other witnesses accounts were distorted to anything like the same time extent: even the press version of George Hutchinson's highly dramatic evidence is virtually identical to the police version. And, considering the considerable differences, wouldn't Schwartz have demanded a correction?

No, I think that the numerous discrepancies serve to seriously undermine Schwartz as a witness as, of course, do a number of other factors.

Yeah but John , its the same basic story, with some differences that might easily be explained

Its not like he invented a fourth person or an alien spaceship

Schwartz is credible, as are most of the witnesses

You can't expect members of the public to be professionals they are what they are...you or me...and we get stuff wrong

Yours Jeff