Schwartz v. Lawende

[Robert St Devil]

Welcome aboard Syrius. Just a forewarning - the sport here is rugby.

Lately i have been considering the idea that Jack the Ripper may have been accompliced. In 4 of the murders, a man and a woman are witnessed talking near the murder site:
1. [AC] the shabby genteel is first spotted talking with a woman 7 minutes after a body is heard against the backyard fence.
2. [ES] james brown overhears the "not tonite" woman talking with a man around the same time Schwartz see Elizabeth being attacked. There is some confusion surrounding the women on berner st that nite since some ppl see a woman wearing flowers on her dark-colored dress while others dont.
3. [CE] Lawende and crew see woman talking with the "will you?" man. She is not positively identified, but they do mention her wearing a dark dress.
4. [MJK] sara lewis sees the man who accosted her talking with a woman at the corner of Dorset around 2:45a.

In 2 of the reports, there is a man, 'lamping' across the street:
1. [ES] the pipe man
2. [MJK] george hutchinson


I only opened the aspect of accomplices because of the variation of descriptions. Most times i either read about a 5'5" stout man or a 5'8" slender(?) man.

[Syrius]

Thanks for the welcomes everyone - and Joshua, many thanks for clarifying about Schwartz actually following the BSM.

I'm not convinced about an accomplice largely because, as discussed on other threads, more people involved means more chance of a leak somewhere. But I'd not rule it out - especially as keeping an eye out for interruptions would presumably rule out someone engaging in mutilation at the same time - and also possibly rule in a rational and sane person, which probably isn't entirely in keeping with the Ripper's mental state (discuss...?) Against that, assuming that Stride was a Ripper victim, the fact that the killer was disturbed would suggest that the accomplice obviously wasn't particularly good. A horse and cart is a hard thing to miss.

I suppose one thing that may help decide whether Schwartz and Lawende are describing the same person is at what stage their descriptions became public - could one have read/heard one description before offering their own?

I'm still very much an amateur at this - but my strategy here is to try to examine it a bit at a time. At the moment, I'm leaning towards them both describing the same man...but I'm not certain if they're describing the killer or not...could be just some ridiculously coincidental thing where the same punter approaches Stride and Eddowes separately...

[SirJohnFalstaff]

We don't even know if the woman Schwartz saw was Stride. He could have been witnessing 'a domestic'.

Didn't he recognized her at the morgue?

[SirJohnFalstaff]

For me, the big issue with Schwartz as a witness is this "Lipski" incident; it could indicate that whoever was attacking Stride had an accomplice, which kind of goes against most perceived Ripper theories...

Or does it? Is there the suggestion that the Ripper could have worked as part of a team?

Let's not forget that we are talking about a man who spoke no English at all.

I'm not sure at all Lipski is what was said, but it sure was a word he knew.

[Rosella]

^ Yes, Schwartz identified her, Marshall too was 'almost certain' that Stride was the woman he had seen.

The one huge question mark over Schwartz's statements is that he wasn't called to give testimony at Stride's Inquest. Why not is one of the big mysteries of the Whitechapel killings. If the police did some further investigating and the man or the woman involved in the scuffle in Berner St were traced or came forward that would negate Schwartz's statements about what he saw completely.

[Syrius]

If the police did some further investigating and the man or the woman involved in the scuffle in Berner St were traced or came forward that would negate Schwartz's statements about what he saw completely.

Or it might totally substantiate it, depending on what they said when they did come forward. I suppose that if it was a domestic squabble, there's not a great deal of wonder that no-one came forward.

I recognise I should know this kind of thing, but is there the chance that whilst BSM, Pipe dude (I know that's not his real name or usual moniker!), Schwartz and the woman were all doing their things, Stride actually already lay dead, or was already in the yard? I assume not because I seem to remember something about her basically dying when she'd been found...?

[Hunter]

The one huge question mark over Schwartz's statements is that he wasn't called to give testimony at Stride's Inquest. Why not is one of the big mysteries of the Whitechapel killings. If the police did some further investigating and the man or the woman involved in the scuffle in Berner St were traced or came forward that would negate Schwartz's statements about what he saw completely.

Abberline gave no indication that Schwartz's testimony was negated in any way in his Nov. 1 report - well over a month after the incident. In fact, he indicated that he found no one to either dismiss or corroborate Schwartz's story to police.

That Abberline stated that he was "of opinion" that the "insult" was directed at Schwartz indicates Abberline still held some belief in this witness.

[Damaso Marte]

I am one of those who accepts the Lawende sighting, but not the Schwartz sighting. And my rejection of Schwartz has nothing with the person he claims to have seen, but rather the overall scene that he claims to have seen, which I simply find implausible and hard to reconcile with other evidence.

Also, keep in mind that there are many here who believe the Stride and Eddowes murders were so different that they could not have been committed by the same person. There is even one (perhaps two) who believe that neither Stride nor Eddowes were a Ripper victim.

[Rosella]

Or it might totally substantiate it, depending on what they said when they did come forward. I suppose that if it was a domestic squabble, there's not a great deal of wonder that no-one came forward.

I recognise I should know this kind of thing, but is there the chance that whilst BSM, Pipe dude (I know that's not his real name or usual moniker!), Schwartz and the woman were all doing their things, Stride actually already lay dead, or was already in the yard? I assume not because I seem to remember something about her basically dying when she'd been found...?

^ It would be a tempting thought that Liz might be lying there dead in the passageway as BSM was attacking the woman, wouldn't it? Unfortunately Morris Eagle groped his way past where the body was later found at about 12:40am and saw nothing.

It's really unfortunate that no-one seemed to have a pocket watch so we could narrow it down, as the times estimated by many witnesses are just approximate with this series of murders.

I sometimes think that Jack had an black sense of humour and seeing a domestic row going on, it may have appealed to him to lure Liz into the yard a couple of minutes after the quarrelsome pair had departed. I've always had a feeling that PC Smith's witness was probably Jack, getting Liz comfortable with his company.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

I too have been looking at this for a very long time, and agree I think it is the same man, i have been greatly influenced by the work of Rob House.

I just want to check, do you think someone else was the "seaside home" witness or do you think it didn't happen.

I think it did, and also do not think either Schwartz or Lawende were the witness.

Elamarna

Hi Elamana

Yes your correct Rob House first speculated that kozminski may have come to the attention of the police early on, raising the interesting geographic co-incidence between his families homes (At the time Greenfield Street but now also known Provenance street)

Karsten Geise took this a stage further connecting the attack on Matilda in Brick lane 22n Nov, may have been Kozminski's sister

I've speculated the logical conclusion that Cox suspect and Anderson suspect are one and the same and we are actually looking at two completely separate events connected to the same suspect which explains why MacNAughten and Anderson apparently appear to differ.

Cox describes a suspect who he follows after the MJK murder for several months and this fits with MacNAughtens date March 1889 for Kozminski to enter the asylum....Both Cox and Sagar are clear A PRIVATE ASYLUM IN SURREY not Colney Hatch..

So i'm suggesting that if Kozminski came to light early in the investigation (Police were searching Private asylums in Dec 1888) then for some reason they must have suspected Kozminski and let him go having him followed....

As they already had two witnesses Schwartz and Lawende, clearly they must have failed to ID Kozminski or he would have been sent to prison.

We know Lawende said he didn't have a good look... We simply don't know how good a look schwartz got... But why was the suspect released and followed if he did have a decent look at the suspect, after all his description is largely from the rear, his shoulders...

So i think Schwartz failed to ID Kozminski (MacNaughten 'There were many circumstances'). That Kozminski was released and followed by Cox...Kozminski entering a Private Asylum around March 1888

We know however he was back on the street walking his dog by December 1889... I think Matilda approach Anderson sometime between Jan and June 1890.. and agreed to testify (Attacked with a knife) and at some point a new witness was discovered (Possibly connected to Millers Court)

My personal opinion is the Seaside home was connected to a Private asylum conversant home. (Anderson says in an Asylum) And the ID did take place as Swanson describes....but an as yet unknown witness

Trust that clarifies

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Elamana

Yes your correct Rob House first speculated that kozminski may have come to the attention of the police early on, raising the interesting geographic co-incidence between his families homes (At the time Greenfield Street but now also known Provenance street)

I've just noticed I completely left out the line......his families homes....to the batty street lodger affair/incident

My apologies

Jef

[Michael W Richards]

What Abberline did or didn't say, or what Swanson wrote, isn't germane when we can see for ourselves that Israels story, in partial or complete form, written or provided orally, submitted in camera or announced as suppressed appeared in any shape or form at the Inquest created to address how Liz Stride died. As anyone can plainly tell by the story, it would be unthinkable to omit a story that was believed if it includes the victim being assaulted within 5-10 minutes of her murder.

People suggest that his story doesn't address the key points to deal with at an Inquest, but since the attack by BSM would have made him the last person to have been seen with Liz while alive, it would be vital to the investigation.

As it is the most trustworthy witness in this whole episode saw Liz last at 12:35. Brown certainly didn't see her, she had a white flower and maidenfern that was seen by other witnesses and not Brown, and it seems Israels story didn't merit consideration in the official review of the facts.

[Jeff Leahy]

What Abberline did or didn't say, or what Swanson wrote, isn't germane when we can see for ourselves that Israels story, in partial or complete form, written or provided orally, submitted in camera or announced as suppressed appeared in any shape or form at the Inquest created to address how Liz Stride died. As anyone can plainly tell by the story, it would be unthinkable to omit a story that was believed if it includes the victim being assaulted within 5-10 minutes of her murder.

People suggest that his story doesn't address the key points to deal with at an Inquest, but since the attack by BSM would have made him the last person to have been seen with Liz while alive, it would be vital to the investigation.

As it is the most trustworthy witness in this whole episode saw Liz last at 12:35. Brown certainly didn't see her, she had a white flower and maidenfern that was seen by other witnesses and not Brown, and it seems Israels story didn't merit consideration in the official review of the facts.

Yeah but the police did have people in custody and being questioned following the double event...

What if Schwartz was bought in and asked to identify the person they thought was the killer and he FAILED to ID the suspect?

The police would be forced to let the suspect go and they might have been sceptical of the witness?

Yours Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello everyone. As my first post will indicate, I'm not an expert in the Ripper killings so please forgive (but do point out!) any schoolboy errors...

From browsing through the message boards, it seems that many people give credence to Joseph Lawende's description of the man speaking to Eddowes, yet many people do not trust Israel Schwartz's testimony regarding the man talking to Elizabeth Stride. Being really blunt about it, Lawende is believed by the majority and Schwartz is not.

Yet the person being described is similar - fair complexion, small moustache, and in some cases the differences (e.g., 5'5" according to Schwartz, 5'9" according to Lawende) could be chalked up to nothing more than observational difficulties (especially because the person Schwartz described was presumably moving about and thus unlikely to be standing straight up) - this could also be true of the "broad shoulders" - if Lawende passed the man side-by-side, the shoulders may not have been noticed (or Schwartz may have seen the man's arms extended and thus thought the shoulders were broader than they were, with the clothes gathering at them.)

Granted, Lawende saw a red neckerchief that Schwartz didn't, but that may have been because either Schwartz simply didn't notice, or because the man put the neckerchief on between sightings.

Or, of course, they may be describing different people...or they may both be describing the same person and made a few errors in recall.

I stress I'm not certain, myself, as to whether they saw the same person, but I'm of the opinion that it can't be ruled out. And if you say it's possible that Schwartz is describing Lawende's man, then you can move on to see if Packer was doing so too, for example.

I would very much like to hear from anyone who feels that Schwartz and Lawende were describing different people, and their reasons for thinking this.

Thanks in advance!

Syrius

There's always the option of PC Smith's man being the killer, seen 10 minutes prior to the estimated time of death.

The thing with the neckerchief: why would he have it in his pocket first time 'round? Because he anticipated having to kill again? That to me is pure fantasy. The idea that you're planning your attire just in case you need to kill again.

I personally don't think Schwartz's event happened at all, and as for Lawende: felt it was the same person based upon height and clothes so decent enough but not conclusive. The fact no one else saw this couple would lend a small amount of weight to them being Jack and Eddowes.

My hunch is that neither Lawende nor Schwartz saw the killer, but PC Smith did.

[Jeff Leahy]

My hunch is that neither Lawende nor Schwartz saw the killer, but PC Smith did.

Its interesting but in the realms of fantasy

But so is Star Trek and we all enjoy that also?

But perhaps staying closer to the FACTS might be more illuminating?

Yours Jeff