Schwartz v. Lawende

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[

[John G]

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

Thanks Jeff. The journalist for the Evening News was certainly of the impression that Levy knew more than he was prepared to reveal, and that might be explained if he recognized the man. And some of his comments certainly seem a little strange, i.e. he told Lawende that he thought the "court ought to be watched."

Regarding Martin Kozminski, I believe Levy supported his naturalization application, acting as surety. And hasn't it been suggested that Martin was the "suspect", rather than Aaron, and that Levy was therefore the "witness"?

[Jeff Leahy]

Thanks Jeff. The journalist for the Evening News was certainly of the impression that Levy knew more than he was prepared to reveal, and that might be explained if he recognized the man. And some of his comments certainly seem a little strange, i.e. he told Lawende that he thought the "court ought to be watched."

Regarding Martin Kozminski, I believe Levy supported his naturalization application, acting as surety. And hasn't it been suggested that Martin was the "suspect", rather than Aaron, and that Levy was therefore the "witness"?

Yes thats as i understand it...

Anderson of course talks about him being protected by 'his people'

and Cox 'He occupied several premisses in the area'

Although as yet the various family connections have not been put together its my belief that Aaron Kozminski was an odd job man of some sort working for this community and protected by this community. While this may not fit the hair dresser image given by Jacob Cohen it certainly fits the description of the man followed by Cox.

I believe Anderson comments to be very specific and relate to a problem bought to him directly (via the Crawford letter) and that he struck a deal with this community to prevent potential riots in the area i.e. Moroes 'Hot Potatoe'

Yours Jeff

[Abby Normal]

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.

Thanks JohnG
maybe he just didn't feel like blabbing to the press?
or the police asked him not too?

[Abby Normal]

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.



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



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.



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



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



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.



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



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

Yours Jeff

OK Jeff
Other than your rude, incoherent, erroneous, self-contradicting and speculation upon speculation responses, you lose all credibility with this:

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.

LOL."bad ripperology" indeed.

Have fun in LaLa land.

[Michael W Richards]

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 ?

[

Which brings us back to my original question, again...just where was that?

[Jon Guy]

Which brings us back to my original question, again...just where was that?

Somewhere on Berner Street

[Jeff Leahy]

OK Jeff
Other than your rude, incoherent, erroneous, self-contradicting and speculation upon speculation responses, you lose all credibility with this:

Stating the facts is Not being rude

As for 'incoherent' I've not an idea what you are talking about..

There is nothing that is self-condradicting in my post, perhaps you could support that statement?

Obviously the nature of any suspect theory is 'speculation'. There is a world of difference using sources and facts to support that 'speculation' than simply making wilde unsupported statements

If you believe I'm wrong perhaps you could list the 'riddling of errors' you claim to exist in various police statements?

Until then I'll stand by my statement that they are largely an 'invention' rather than fact..

LOL."bad ripperology" indeed.

Have fun in LaLa land.

Put up or apologise.

Yours Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Somewhere on Berner Street

Ah...and thats supported by....? Surely you know the question cannot be answered, although I am certain it was when he came in for his statement. Its inconceivable that it wouldnt have been asked. And its not there in his statement....which does survive in some form...is it?

Is the "old" address related to his being absent from the Inquest....could having an address on that street put his credibility on the stand...and if so, what address(es) specifically?

[curious4]

>> ... 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;-)

Packer was asked by the police whether he'd seen anything suspicious. He said no, which was true. Nothing suspicious in a couple buying grapes. Le Grande asked the right questions, probably along the lines of "what did they look like?".

Best wishes
C4

[John G]

Thanks JohnG
maybe he just didn't feel like blabbing to the press?
or the police asked him not too?

Hi Abby,

Yes, that's a possibility. It's also been argued that he assumed the couple were a prostitute and her client, something he might have found too distasteful to discuss. Of course, this might also be the reason why he appeared distressed at the time.

In fact, I believe he wasn't usually out later than 11:00am, so another argument is that he wasn't used to witnessing such scenes. However, this was Whitechapel, not Mayfair, so surely there must have been prostitutes plying their trade much earlier in the day, which Levy presumably would have noticed. In other words, coming accross such activities was hardly likely to be totally unexpected, thereby coming as a complete shock to him.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Yes, that's a possibility. It's also been argued that he assumed the couple were a prostitute and her client, something he might have found too distasteful to discuss. Of course, this might also be the reason why he appeared distressed at the time.

In fact, I believe he wasn't usually out later than 11:00am, so another argument is that he wasn't used to witnessing such scenes. However, this was Whitechapel, not Mayfair, so surely there must have been prostitutes plying their trade much earlier in the day, which Levy presumably would have noticed. In other words, coming accross such activities was hardly likely to be totally unexpected, thereby coming as a complete shock to him.

Thanks JohnG
Wasn't Levy also possibly related to Jacob Levy (another of the crazy jew suspects) and has been posited that he recognized him, another possible reason for his reticence in talking about it?

Any further developments in this area?