Schwartz v. Lawende

[Michael W Richards]

If you're going to insist that Wess translated for Schwartz, the question becomes why doesn't the Echo report and Schwartz's account (as we have it), match in the crucial detail of the man pursued being an innocent passerby versus being believed to be the murderer? Wess the translator for Schwartz means he threw Schwartz under a hansom cab, then took to him to a hospital.

Im not insisting anything really, I believe its more commonly accepted than you think. And I dont think there is any enforceable mandate on how any paper reports any story. How people interpret what they see or saw is not science, its people creating the story, not reporting it as it happened. Using Fannys belief that she heard boots that sounded like policeboots or she heard a cart and horse that she supposes Louis was on is not in and of itself proof of either of those conclusions.

I might be a bit slow off the mark today, but how does the police not suspecting the second man lead you to believe that the two men were working together? I agree that the 'Lipski' call could be a way of informing his buddy that a Jewish 'intruder' is one the scene, but what does "working together" refer to? What is the intention of this work?

Its a loose interpretation of what an interaction between them might suggest...if One was alerting the other to Schwartz's appearance, then surely "working together" would be appropriate.

Are you suggesting that this quote from Swanson was some sort of politically motivated lie? To what possible end?

Lets leave that side for the moment, because the only one of them that I think really had a grasp on what went on didnt openly discuss his ideas.


Wikipedia says: Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.

What is the difference between this and your approach?

I read, interpret what Ive read, and evaluate how the information best aligns with other known proven data, then postulate on possible influences and outcomes.

Hope that addresses your questions.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That last sentence omits the possibility that the story was told by the translator, but perhaps not given by the witness. We are told Schwartz spoke little if any English, could Wess during his translations have embellished or modified any details if he chose to? Make this clearly an off site killer.

If you're going to insist that Wess translated for Schwartz, the question becomes why doesn't the Echo report and Schwartz's account (as we have it), match in the crucial detail of the man pursued being an innocent passerby versus being believed to be the murderer? Wess the translator for Schwartz means he threw Schwartz under a hansom cab, then took to him to a hospital.

I will say that if that were the truth then BSM and Pipeman are almost certainly working together. Which might make the "Lipski" slur intended to inform his partner that they were dealing with a jewish intruder on the street. But that would be odd...surely anyone standing there at that time of night under the known circumstances would expect to see Jewish men nearby.

I might be a bit slow off the mark today, but how does the police not suspecting the second man lead you to believe that the two men were working together? I agree that the 'Lipski' call could be a way of informing his buddy that a Jewish 'intruder' is one the scene, but what does "working together" refer to? What is the intention of this work?

I find myself reluctant to accept in broad strokes any quote from any intimately connected investigator in these cases, there are all sorts of factors at play here, careers to be made or ruined, and many have the Parnell Commission dealings to tackle as well. There may even have been some connection of one or more of the alleged Ripper victims with some tangential connection to those hearings.

I believe that some things said were said to misdirect, and some hints were given, but that they had some idea what they were dealing with but didnt have the political will to face it publicly.

Are you suggesting that this quote from Swanson was some sort of politically motivated lie? To what possible end?

Tricky business this stuff. Some are true, and some are false. Its like untying a very complicated knot, you have to see the construction clearly in your mind before you can even approach untying it. And we have only untied a very small bit of what the full truth really is I suspect.

Wikipedia says: Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.

What is the difference between this and your approach?

[Michael W Richards]

Michael,
I do of course understand why you appreciate this theory - it helps you place the discovery well back from 1am. Problem is, the man pursued escaped (according to Wess), whereas Kozebrodski and Diemschitz doubled-back and picked up Spooner on their way back to the yard. That's plus one, not minus one - a fundamental difference. Wess's story occurs at about 12:45, just when Schwartz claimed to escape from the possibly pursuing Pipeman. Wess apparently knew of this incident before Schwartz told the police his side of the story.

That last sentence omits the possibility that the story was told by the translator, but perhaps not given by the witness. We are told Schwartz spoke little if any English, could Wess during his translations have embellished or modified any details if he chose to? Make this clearly an off site killer.

Give me your opinion on this, please. Swanson's report states:

The Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street and who followed Schwartz.

I will say that if that were the truth then BSM and Pipeman are almost certainly working together. Which might make the "Lipski" slur intended to inform his partner that they were dealing with a jewish intruder on the street. But that would be odd...surely anyone standing there at that time of night under the known circumstances would expect to see Jewish men nearby.

Does Swanson's use of the word 'apparently' suggest he was not intimately aware of all matters related to Schwartz?

I find myself reluctant to accept in broad strokes any quote from any intimately connected investigator in these cases, there are all sorts of factors at play here, careers to be made or ruined, and many have the Parnell Commission dealings to tackle as well. There may even have been some connection of one or more of the alleged Ripper victims with some tangential connection to those hearings.

I believe that some things said were said to misdirect, and some hints were given, but that they had some idea what they were dealing with but didnt have the political will to face it publicly.

Tricky business this stuff. Some are true, and some are false. Its like untying a very complicated knot, you have to see the construction clearly in your mind before you can even approach untying it. And we have only untied a very small bit of what the full truth really is I suspect.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Well, technically they are hearsay arent they? Secondhand account? Wess heard....we have a lot of people that "heard" things here, some that heard nothing, and some who had selective sight and hearing apparently.

Michael,
I do of course understand why you appreciate this theory - it helps you place the discovery well back from 1am. Problem is, the man pursued escaped (according to Wess), whereas Kozebrodski and Diemschitz doubled-back and picked up Spooner on their way back to the yard. That's plus one, not minus one - a fundamental difference. Wess's story occurs at about 12:45, just when Schwartz claimed to escape from the possibly pursuing Pipeman. Wess apparently knew of this incident before Schwartz told the police his side of the story.

Give me your opinion on this, please. Swanson's report states:

The Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street and who followed Schwartz.

Does Swanson's use of the word 'apparently' suggest he was not intimately aware of all matters related to Schwartz?

[Michael W Richards]

If this is what you believe, then why try to explain away Wess's comments as mere hearsay? We somehow go from the man pursued being the murderer according to witnesses, with a pursuer of known identity, to the man pursued going to the police and claiming to be an innocent passerby, and his pursuer never being identified. How could anyone have observed what Schwartz described and conclude he was the murderer? So, who lied?

Well, technically they are hearsay arent they? Secondhand account? Wess heard....we have a lot of people that "heard" things here, some that heard nothing, and some who had selective sight and hearing apparently.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

I quite agree - hearsay at best. According to Kozebrodski he was sent out by Diemshitz, and the latter followed soon after. Eagle reported that Diemshitz left with Jacobs, so there were plenty of running men in that area that night.

Cheers, George

Ive wondered if, in that instance when Eagle mentions a Jacobs...cant recall the source,...and other quotes say Issac[s],... if we dont have the full first and surname of Diemshitz's partner right there. I find the statement from Issac Kozebrodski, apparently taken within an hour or so of the discovery, very compelling evidence that he did not go searching with Louis. And I find that allowing that misconception to remain anyway is compelling evidence about the statement integrity of Louis. He allows for the misunderstanding, Issac is not there to speak up, and a Mr Jacob Issac[s] perhaps is not even mentioned. We know that Louis did summon Issac to the passageway, and we know by virtue of Issac's statement that Louis or some other member sent him out to get help, we know that Spooner sees 2 men 1 of which is Louis and that Eagle is about to see PC Lamb as Issac sees them and joins them. Thats 3 search parties...and how many are mentioned at the Inquest?

And we know one other thing......all these activities could not have started at, or just after 1am. The alleged discovery time. We are looking at 10-15 minutes of activities that took place upon the discovery, and we have a PC and a medical professionals times to bracket the allowable length of time,...its just the math really. It seems odd to be able to discern some facts by using math and science yet still have the mythical-lore type elements remain so strong. They dont always co-exist.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I believe that one must be hesitant to broadly accept what is said by club staff on this particular occasion. There are some very real story conflicts with them and almost everyone else there. Issac Kozebrodski is basically a teenager, and many of them are young men...one thing they all have in common is their belief that anarchy, not just principled debate, can further their Socialist ideals. What does that sound similar to? Terrorists? These are not what we can assume were god fearing law abiding citizens, they were discontents. Characterize them as they behaved, and youll see that there are reasons to question their motives, and therefore their truthfulness.

If this is what you believe, then why try to explain away Wess's comments as mere hearsay? We somehow go from the man pursued being the murderer according to witnesses, with a pursuer of known identity, to the man pursued going to the police and claiming to be an innocent passerby, and his pursuer never being identified. How could anyone have observed what Schwartz described and conclude he was the murderer? So, who lied?

[Michael W Richards]

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.

I believe that one must be hesitant to broadly accept what is said by club staff on this particular occasion. There are some very real story conflicts with them and almost everyone else there. Issac Kozebrodski is basically a teenager, and many of them are young men...one thing they all have in common is their belief that anarchy, not just principled debate, can further their Socialist ideals. What does that sound similar to? Terrorists? These are not what we can assume were god fearing law abiding citizens, they were discontents. Characterize them as they behaved, and youll see that there are reasons to question their motives, and therefore their truthfulness.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Thanks George, thats the one I saw and it seems to be a second hand account of chasing the subject, someone who saw the chaser.. as it were. Heres something....what if he actually sees Louis and Issac[s] and one isnt chasing the other, maybe just slower than him. The quarter to 1 timeframe for activities is found in the Arbeter Fraint coverage of that night, above in the press, its suggested by Issac K and Heschberg, and Spooner is around that time as well. If that was really the case, then the statements that should be reviewed are from Louis, Morris, Joseph, Mrs D, Israel. That is basically the roster of the onsite management on that night at that time. I dont find it odd that we should see some subjective statements about what was seen, or when,... potentially losing a job...maybe a room, maybe a club,...sobering thoughts for these men.

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.

[GBinOz]

Thanks George, thats the one I saw and it seems to be a second hand account of chasing the subject, someone who saw the chaser.. as it were. Heres something....what if he actually sees Louis and Issac[s] and one isnt chasing the other, maybe just slower than him. The quarter to 1 timeframe for activities is found in the Arbeter Fraint coverage of that night, above in the press, its suggested by Issac K and Heschberg, and Spooner is around that time as well. If that was really the case, then the statements that should be reviewed are from Louis, Morris, Joseph, Mrs D, Israel. That is basically the roster of the onsite management on that night at that time. I dont find it odd that we should see some subjective statements about what was seen, or when,... potentially losing a job...maybe a room, maybe a club,...sobering thoughts for these men.

Hi Michael,

I quite agree - hearsay at best. According to Kozebrodski he was sent out by Diemshitz, and the latter followed soon after. Eagle reported that Diemshitz left with Jacobs, so there were plenty of running men in that area that night.

Cheers, George

[Michael W Richards]

I just wanted to add that youll note that I suggest what was on their minds was self preservation due to an unforseen event, and not how they could conceal a murder. I dont see these men as the likely killer, I do however believe he came from that club property. And at 12:45, Israel Schwartz said he saw the woman and a man tussling with the woman falling to the ground. If this really happened in the passageway, as Israel left the club via the side door, all those sources got it right. He almost saw her actual murder...or maybe he did see.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

I was referring to the report in the Echo 1 Oct:

A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. 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.

Cheers, George

Thanks George, thats the one I saw and it seems to be a second hand account of chasing the subject, someone who saw the chaser.. as it were. Heres something....what if he actually sees Louis and Issac[s] and one isnt chasing the other, maybe just slower than him. The quarter to 1 timeframe for activities is found in the Arbeter Fraint coverage of that night, above in the press, its suggested by Issac K and Heschberg, and Spooner is around that time as well. If that was really the case, then the statements that should be reviewed are from Louis, Morris, Joseph, Mrs D, Israel. That is basically the roster of the onsite management on that night at that time. I dont find it odd that we should see some subjective statements about what was seen, or when,... potentially losing a job...maybe a room, maybe a club,...sobering thoughts for these men.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Israel Schwartz ... on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street ...

Just as important as why she would have been standing in the gateway, is why the man tried to pull her into the street. A man seeking the services of a prostitute would not be pulling her in that direction, right? Was he trying to evict her from the yard? If it were true that she was standing at the gates, that is, at the threshold to Dutfield's Yard, why would the man go berserk and throw her to the ground? Wess said he had once found an unknown man and woman talking at the gates, and he responded by closing the gates. Alternatively, had the man been the Ripper, is he really going to commence his 'work' by throwing the intended victim, in full view of a witness?

The man tried to pull the woman into the street - perhaps in this phrase we get a glimpse of the real truth - Stride was 'sprung' well inside Dutfield's Yard, up to no good. Failing that theory, perhaps the truth was that Stride was at the gates, but no throwing onto the footway occurred. Where are the corresponding injuries?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In this particular theory, the man who threw her down isn't the same man that she went into the darkness with.

In this particular theory, yes, but at that point I was referring to the police account, as is. Sorry for not being clearer.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

As a pipe smoker, I can comment that your body, the door and the return would provide adequate shelter from the wind.

Oh dear, George! Are you telling us you're in the habit of walking the streets at night, smoking your pipe?

I don't have a pipe, but I too walk the streets at night ... half-tipsy.