Schwartz v. Lawende

[Michael W Richards]

I think Swanson recognized that despite Schwartz's statement that there is no evidence that suggests what he says happened actually did. So if there may not have been a BSM, that only leaves someone else...not seen by anyone with a street view.

Yeah, this is a tough one since we can't question Swanson to get a clearer understanding of why he wrote what he did. It could be that he was considering Schwartz's account to be more descriptive of a street hassle and thus there had to be an actual killer by default. So not based on actual evidence but more conjecture. If the killer was Jack I am sure he was keeping out of site if possible and not calling attention to himself. Plus it was dark and I don't think anyone was scanning the street with the intent of determining if anyone was about so I can't dismiss the possibility that the real killer Jack or someone else (not BS man) was not seen.

No real good answers to all this.

c.d.

I think its probable that he wasnt seen cd, because he wasnt on the street that last half hour. I think its highly likely that If Israels story is not representative of the actual events he witnessed, if there at all, then Strides killer is at the club when she is seen arriving in the area. Or, perhaps...he is returning to the club. There has to be a reason why no strangers are reported being seen on that street by several witnesses, but he has to be there, somewhere, at that time. Now, if Israel did actually see what he reported just as he reported it, then theres Strides killer. For me he is from the club grounds, or possibly, he is BSM. As you know I put little faith in Schwartz, and its because of what I just typed. If the authorities were thoroughly convinced that he was telling the truth, then BSM would have been their focus in that investigation. Based on Blackwells estimate of the earliest time he thought that the cut could have been made, that encounter with BSM need go on for just a few seconds more and Liz gets cut. The progression of the street encounter to the location just inside and slightly behind the right open gate seems a logic sequence,...IF BSM was actually there.

So in that context, its more than curious why Israels story doesnt factor prominently in the Inquest. Let alone appear at all.

[c.d.]

I don't think being seen equates with not being there at all. Again, it is dark, people wore dark clothes back then and they were not actively looking to see if anyone was on the street. And I don't think Jack would have been wearing a day glow orange hunting vest jumping up and down yelling hey look, I'm the Ripper. How far would they have been able to see? 100 yards, 200 yards? So Jack does not have to be in their immediate field of vision just a distance he could cover easily in a few minutes.

For me, believing Schwartz (which I do) does not mean he witnessed a murder and BS man was her killer. I think it was just a street hassle involving BS man. I think her killing has all the earmarks of having been done by the Ripper and no mutilation can be explained away.

As for Schwartz not appearing at the Inquest...well, you know.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

I think Swanson recognized that despite Schwartz's statement that there is no evidence that suggests what he says happened actually did. So if there may not have been a BSM, that only leaves someone else...not seen by anyone with a street view.

Youve added a beat to this mystery that really isnt neccesary..the beat is the time between BSM's departure and whomever Jack is, suddenly arriving. A few problems with that...the timing being 1 of course. And the witnesses to the street who saw no-one. Only Leon at around 12:55am. So if the story is accurate, the witnesses were accurate and BSM is not the eventual killer, the only place the new Jack fella could have been is on the club property. First you want to accept that 4 people are suddenly on the street at 12:45...when there are multiple accounts that state the street was empty up until, and after, that point, then you want to have another someone come from the deserted street after BSM leaves?

If Israels story is accurate and honest, and BSM isnt her eventual killer, then its almost a cert that the killer is already at the club.Or maybe just returning to it.....? Either way, in your scenario Jack,... who you believe committed this crime, is at that club.

The problem I see with the killer being a club member is that the police interviewed all the members, and as would be expected they not only have alibi's, but all their stories will confirm each other. The police will be looking for an inconsistency, an example being 'A' says he was with 'B', whereas 'B' makes no mention of seeing 'A'.
Unless you want to proposed a conspiracy among club members then we can rest assured their stories all confirmed each other.
Lets be honest, to think the killer may have been a member of the club is hardly an outstanding theory, it was likely their first thought - hence the individual interrogations & personal searches of the members.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

As for Schwartz not appearing at the Inquest...well, you know.

What are the chances that Baxter believed Schwartz's story, but decided not to call him?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The problem I see with the killer being a club member is that the police interviewed all the members, and as would be expected they not only have alibi's, but all their stories will confirm each other. The police will be looking for an inconsistency, an example being 'A' says he was with 'B', whereas 'B' makes no mention of seeing 'A'.
Unless you want to proposed a conspiracy among club members then we can rest assured their stories all confirmed each other.
Lets be honest, to think the killer may have been a member of the club is hardly an outstanding theory, it was likely their first thought - hence the individual interrogations & personal searches of the members.

Goldstein was a club member, who was not with B, C, or anyone else.

[c.d.]

What are the chances that Baxter believed Schwartz's story, but decided not to call him?

Certainly a possibility. Since we don't know why he was not called any explanation is pretty much up for grabs.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Certainly a possibility. Since we don't know why he was not called any explanation is pretty much up for grabs.

c.d.

The notion of Baxter being aware of Schwartz's story, believing it, yet not calling him to the inquest, is a possibility. A very small one.

[c.d.]

The notion of Baxter being aware of Schwartz's story, believing it, yet not calling him to the inquest, is a possibility. A very small one.

Keep in mind that this was an Inquest not a Trial. There was no named suspect. With or without Schwartz the jury in all likelihood was going to deliver a verdict of person or persons unknown. Because of the language barrier and because Schwartz could not be certain of what he saw Baxter might have thought he would add little value.

It is also possible (just a thought, no evidence) that Schwartz said something to the effect of look, I did my civic duty. I have a wife and young child. I don't want to be identified or get involved further. And Baxter accepted that.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Goldstein was a club member, who was not with B, C, or anyone else.

Would you have understood better if I had said "all the men inside the club"?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Keep in mind that this was an Inquest not a Trial. There was no named suspect. With or without Schwartz the jury in all likelihood was going to deliver a verdict of person or persons unknown. Because of the language barrier and because Schwartz could not be certain of what he saw Baxter might have thought he would add little value.

Based on what source have you determined that Schwartz could not be certain of what he saw? What does that even mean? Why would Baxter pre-emptively determine Schwartz's confidence as a witness?

It is also possible (just a thought, no evidence) that Schwartz said something to the effect of look, I did my civic duty. I have a wife and young child. I don't want to be identified or get involved further. And Baxter accepted that.

c.d.

Not likely, because had Schwartz tried that, Baxter would have replied "So why did you go to the press?"

[c.d.]

Based on what source have you determined that Schwartz could not be certain of what he saw? What does that even mean? Why would Baxter pre-emptively determine Schwartz's confidence as a witness?


Not likely, because had Schwartz tried that, Baxter would have replied "So why did you go to the press?"

Because Schwartz was not present at the start of the altercation and therefore didn't know its cause. He did not speak English and therefore could not determine what either Stride or the BS man was saying.

c.d.

[New Waterloo]

I think we do not take into account the speed in which Inquests took place during this period. We must remember there were no telephones. The murder took place on the Sunday morning and the Inquest on the Monday. In fact that Inquests took place so fast that the enquiries into the murder were hardly in full progress. We have to live with that but that is how it was. Today Inquests would be opened and adjourned. Schwartz or any other witnesses may have been difficult to find. Presumably an officer would call to request his presence. The potential witness could be out, at work, not interested, gave the wrong address, address taken incorrectly, all sorts of reasons. Because of this short period I think we will never know why a witness does not attend unless it is specifically mentioned as it was in say the case of the Pensioner (Chapman case)

NW

[Wickerman]

I think we do not take into account the speed in which Inquests took place during this period. We must remember there were no telephones. The murder took place on the Sunday morning and the Inquest on the Monday. In fact that Inquests took place so fast that the enquiries into the murder were hardly in full progress. We have to live with that but that is how it was. Today Inquests would be opened and adjourned. Schwartz or any other witnesses may have been difficult to find. Presumably an officer would call to request his presence. The potential witness could be out, at work, not interested, gave the wrong address, address taken incorrectly, all sorts of reasons. Because of this short period I think we will never know why a witness does not attend unless it is specifically mentioned as it was in say the case of the Pensioner (Chapman case)

NW

Agreed, specifically with the point you make about incomplete investigations. It has been my belief Schwartz's story was still under investigation and Scotland Yard had not determined the truth of what he said. This is how we should interpret Swanson's comment on Schwartz in his 19th Oct. notes.
That the police were still investigating the truth of his claim, which is why he was not made a witness for the coroner.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Because Schwartz was not present at the start of the altercation and therefore didn't know its cause. He did not speak English and therefore could not determine what either Stride or the BS man was saying.

c.d.

I don't think that would be a good enough reason for excluding Schwartz from the inquest. Willliam Marshall could only overhear a few words of a conversation lasting several minutes, which occurred much further from the murder spot, yet he was called to the inquest.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Agreed, specifically with the point you make about incomplete investigations. It has been my belief Schwartz's story was still under investigation and Scotland Yard had not determined the truth of what he said. This is how we should interpret Swanson's comment on Schwartz in his 19th Oct. notes.

I think we should interpret Swanson's comments literally - the existing police report gives us no reason to doubt Schwartz. Why he mentions the possibility of doubt if there is no reason to, is an interesting question, but I take it he refers to Abberline's report of his interview with Schwartz, not ongoing police investigations.

That the police were still investigating the truth of his claim, which is why he was not made a witness for the coroner.

Why would the coroner be impeded by ongoing police investigations?

As the police regarded the first man as a suspect, but not the second, investigating the truth of his claim really just means they are still looking for Pipeman. Correct? Would there come a point when the police would tell the coroner they have given up on the search, and he may proceed with questioning Schwartz?