Schwartz v. Lawende

[Qlder]

Do we even have as much as a supposed timing for the Seaside Home identification?
My favourite postulate about the Seaside Home story is that it involved taking a certain suspect to see a "relative" who was resident at the Seaside Home. Who might be residing for a while at a policemen's convalescent home? A policeman, of course. Why take a suspect to see a supposed relative? Not so much to get an identification (the premise of the visit assumes the person is known) as a ploy to get them to open up and talk a bit instead of keeping shtum. Charles Cutbush was a senior officer who ended up taking his own life, so not a big stretch to imagine a spell at the convalescent home. Macnaghten's 1894 memo was a response to accusations printed in The Sun (not the same paper as the extant Murdoch outlet) which pointed to Thomas Cutbush as the ripper. He was sent to Broadmoor for the rest of his days. The crime he was actually arrested for (a few backside stabbings of young women) wouldn't ordinarily result in a never-to-be-released from Broadmoor. I'm always puzzled why people start analysing Macnaghten's memo by comparing the relative merits of his three chosen suspects without giving careful thought to the suspect he was attempting to refute. And he provides zero evidence to refute Cutbush, only the senior policeman's wave of the pen.
With Executive Superintendent Cutbush at the Seaside Home, I can understand taking a sullen, silent Thomas Cutbush for a visit. The story or taking Kosminski to see some unknown witness being housed at a policeman's convalescent home (why?) is not readily explicable and never will be.

[Harry D]

The story or taking Kosminski to see some unknown witness being housed at a policeman's convalescent home (why?) is not readily explicable and never will be.

Macnaugthen said that the only person to get a good look at the killer was the "City PC near Mitre Square".

Could this be why Kosminski was taken to the Seaside home for identification?

[Michael W Richards]

Macnaugthen said that the only person to get a good look at the killer was the "City PC near Mitre Square".

Could this be why Kosminski was taken to the Seaside home for identification?

Isnt Macnaughten referring to the story that a city PC, or Sgt... White was it?.... saw someone leave Mitre Square? I think if I recall correctly he claimed that the city police were actively looking out that night for the killer...which might also explain Outram, Halse and Marriott.

[Harry D]

Macnaugthen said that the only person to get a good look at the killer was the "City PC near Mitre Square".

Could this be why Kosminski was taken to the Seaside home for identification?

Just bumping this for some feedback. I'm sure the idea has been mooted before.

We're still left with the "Jewish problem" however. As far as we know, there wasn't a Jewish PC among the City of London Police?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... i have been greatly influenced by the work of Rob House...

and also do not think either Schwartz or Lawende were the witness.

I note that you have since changed your mind:

I see you have missed Schwartz, in my view he is the prime candidate for the witness...
You will not that Lawende is not in my top candidates.

(# 187, Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”)


And again clearly prefer Schwartz's suspect to Lawende's:

You did not include Swansons views on Lawende and Schwartz to place it in context

‘I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer, although it is clearly the more probable of the two.’

(# 128, Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”)


You have misinterpreted what Swanson wrote.

He did not mean that the man seen by Schwartz was more likely than the man seen by Lawende to have been the Whitechapel Murderer.

He meant that the man seen by Schwartz was more likely than the man seen by Pc William Smith to have been the murderer of Elizabeth Stride.

I believe that is what you call a 'factual fault' (see # 22 of the same thread).

[Elamarna]

I note that you have since changed your mind:

I see you have missed Schwartz, in my view he is the prime candidate for the witness...
You will not that Lawende is not in my top candidates.

(# 187, Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”)


And again clearly prefer Schwartz's suspect to Lawende's:

You did not include Swansons views on Lawende and Schwartz to place it in context

‘I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer, although it is clearly the more probable of the two.’

(# 128, Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”)


You have misinterpreted what Swanson wrote.

He did not mean that the man seen by Schwartz was more likely than the man seen by Lawende to have been the Whitechapel Murderer.

He meant that the man seen by Schwartz was more likely than the man seen by Pc William Smith to have been the murderer of Elizabeth Stride.

I believe that is what you call a 'factual fault' (see # 22 of the same thread).

Glad to see you back.

Yes, my view since 2015 as changed several times on the issue of the reported witness.

My current view, is that given in my Rippercast , podcast talk from autumn 2021, held on this site.

2nd and the more import point, yes that was clearly a mistake on my part. It's not a misinterpretation, it's simply wrong

Thank you for pointing that out. Always best to get it correct, if I could correct it I would, unfortunately the editing allowance does not allow corrections after 30 minutes

But I am happy to REPEAT, that was A MISTAKE, and as you say a FACTUAL FLAW.

I do wonder if I cut and pasted the wrong lines from the Report, and then just ran with what I had pasted?
However, that is no excuse.

Swanson did say in the same report dated 19th October, that the description of Lawende was limited as regards a description.

"In this case I understand from City Police that Mr. Lewin [sic – Lawende] one of the men identified the clothes only of the murdered woman Eddowes, which is a serious drawback to the value of the description of the man"

Swanson does however continue woth

"Ten minutes afterwards the body is found horribly mutilated & it is therefore reasonable to believe that the man he saw was the murderer, but for purposes of comparison, this description is much nearer to that given by Schwartz than to that given by the P.C."

I believe it's very possible they saw the same individual, although its not conclusive. I do however, for the reasons given in the podcast consider Schwartz more likely to be the witness.

Again thank you

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Glad to see you back.

Yes, my view since 2015 as changed several times on the issue of the reported witness.

My current view, is that given in my Rippercast , podcast talk from autumn 2021, held on this site.

2nd and the more import point, yes that was clearly a mistake on my part. It's not a misinterpretation, it's simply wrong

Thank you for pointing that out. Always best to get it correct, if I could correct it I would, unfortunately the editing allowance does not allow corrections after 30 minutes

But I am happy to REPEAT, that was A MISTAKE, and as you say a FACTUAL FLAW.

I do wonder if I cut and pasted the wrong lines from the Report, and then just ran with what I had pasted?
However, that is no excuse.

Swanson did say in the same report dated 19th October, that the description of Lawende was limited as regards a description.

"In this case I understand from City Police that Mr. Lewin [sic – Lawende] one of the men identified the clothes only of the murdered woman Eddowes, which is a serious drawback to the value of the description of the man"

Swanson does however continue woth

"Ten minutes afterwards the body is found horribly mutilated & it is therefore reasonable to believe that the man he saw was the murderer, but for purposes of comparison, this description is much nearer to that given by Schwartz than to that given by the P.C."

I believe it's very possible they saw the same individual, although its not conclusive. I do however, for the reasons given in the podcast consider Schwartz more likely to be the witness.

Again thank you

Steve

Thanks for your reply.

I agree with the first part of the last sentence you quoted from Swanson, but I cannot see why he thought it possible that the man seen by the two witnesses could have been the same person.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Trevor,

But if the witness was Schwartz, a defense attorney could simply point out that he did not see Stride being killed and that she was alive when he left the scene. If the witness was Lawende, a defense attorney could point out the substantial time that elapsed between the night when he saw Eddowes and his Seaside Home identification. He could also point out, that it was dark that night and Lawende only saw someone for a few moments from some distance away. Any attorney worth his salt should be able to get his client off in the absence of some other damning evidence.

c.d.

I think youve underestimated the value of the "Last Seen With" principle of investigating something like this, the person last seen in the company of a soon to be victim of a violent crime, particularly one who claims the person was seen assaulting the soon to be victim, is Suspect #1 until dismissed by virtue of some more compelling evidence. Liz Stride was allegedly seen with BSM feet from and minutes before she will have her throat slit, and she is being manhandled by BSM at the time. Lawende's sighting is as you say, he didnt get a good look at Kate herself, and they are outside the square she will be murdered in. This scenario leaves the possibility of someone other than Sailor Man being her killer, because no-one sees them together actually in the square near the murder scene. She could easily have left Sailor Man and just walked into her murder alone. He could have already been there.

With Stride, every witness to that passageway from Wess, to Lave, to Eagle, even Louis, say that passageway was empty at the time they saw it. The last one being just before Israel claims he sees the event on the street in front of the gates. There is no-one waiting to slide in and kill Liz after BSM's assault on her. Of course, if you believe Israel, people can just suddenly appear on deserted streets and disappear when others are looking.

If you are willing to suspend your belief in Israel and in Louis's timing of events, and Eagle and Laves claims they saw no-one, then there could have been people in that passageway as early as 12:40...which, leaves a few men who could have done this.

[c.d.]

I think youve underestimated the value of the "Last Seen With" principle of investigating something like this, the person last seen in the company of a soon to be victim of a violent crime, particularly one who claims the person was seen assaulting the soon to be victim, is Suspect #1 until dismissed by virtue of some more compelling evidence.

No, I don't underestimate it. My response to Trevor was referring to a courtroom with the qualifier of no other evidence being presented. Quite different from an investigation as you seem to be stating.

There is no-one waiting to slide in and kill Liz after BSM's assault on her.

Are you certain of that? Not being seen does not equate with not being nearby. And if the idea of another killer is so far fetched why did Swanson allow for it in his report?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Glad to see you back.

Yes, my view since 2015 as changed several times on the issue of the reported witness.

My current view, is that given in my Rippercast , podcast talk from autumn 2021, held on this site.

2nd and the more import point, yes that was clearly a mistake on my part. It's not a misinterpretation, it's simply wrong

Thank you for pointing that out. Always best to get it correct, if I could correct it I would, unfortunately the editing allowance does not allow corrections after 30 minutes

But I am happy to REPEAT, that was A MISTAKE, and as you say a FACTUAL FLAW.

I do wonder if I cut and pasted the wrong lines from the Report, and then just ran with what I had pasted?
However, that is no excuse.

Swanson did say in the same report dated 19th October, that the description of Lawende was limited as regards a description.

"In this case I understand from City Police that Mr. Lewin [sic – Lawende] one of the men identified the clothes only of the murdered woman Eddowes, which is a serious drawback to the value of the description of the man"

Swanson does however continue woth

"Ten minutes afterwards the body is found horribly mutilated & it is therefore reasonable to believe that the man he saw was the murderer, but for purposes of comparison, this description is much nearer to that given by Schwartz than to that given by the P.C."

I believe it's very possible they saw the same individual, although its not conclusive. I do however, for the reasons given in the podcast consider Schwartz more likely to be the witness.

Again thank you

Steve

hi El!

didnt sugden pretty much clear this up when he found a newspaper story that said the id witness was the man who saw the victim, whose body was later found dissected in the street? stride wasnt dissected, eddowes was, hence the id witness was lawende, no?

[Darryl Kenyon]

I can only think of two reasons why the city police would keep watch over a suspect.
1- The suspect was wanted for a crime committed in their territory
2- The suspect lived in their territory.

If the answer is Num 1 . The suspect must have evidence against him for the crime which took place in the City zone, otherwise why else would the Met police not take charge of a covert operation on a suspect who committed at least four and possibly six murders up until that point in their district, rather than just the one in the City's district. And the evidence was probably a possible sighting [ even if the ID failed ].

Apologies if I have missed something, Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The suspect must have evidence against him for the crime which took place in the City zone ...

The 'evidence against him' would have to include his matching the description of the man seen by the witness - i.e. a man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor.

Everything we know about Aaron Kosminski suggests that he could not have matched that description.

[Darryl Kenyon]

The 'evidence against him' would have to include his matching the description of the man seen by the witness - i.e. a man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor.

Everything we know about Aaron Kosminski suggests that he could not have matched that description.

Did I mention Kosminski ?

[Elamarna]

hi El!

didnt sugden pretty much clear this up when he found a newspaper story that said the id witness was the man who saw the victim, whose body was later found dissected in the street? stride wasnt dissected, eddowes was, hence the id witness was lawende, no?

No, sadly it's not cleared up Abby, and I doubt it ever will be.
I would not take a press report as being definitive .

If you have not listen to the podcast I did here on Rippercast, about the witness, here's the link.

https://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=311

[Elamarna]

The 'evidence against him' would have to include his matching the description of the man seen by the witness - i.e. a man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor.

Everything we know about Aaron Kosminski suggests that he could not have matched that description.

That's only if you accept that description as being of value, and as I mentioned above, this issue was questioned.
And of course that assumes that Lawende is the key witness, which is far from certain.