Schwartz v. Lawende

[lynn cates]

acute

Hello John. You are as acute as even Mon Ami.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Other plausible explanations, John ?
You haven`t given any yet ;-)

Hi Jon,

I thought I had! As I noted in my earlier post, Schwartz may not initially have been certain that the woman he witnessed being assaulted was Stride. After all, it seemed to be just a causual observation in poor lighting conditions, and his evidence suggests that he was very stressed at the time.

Thus, the official police report doesn't mention any description Schwartz may have given of Stride when he first came forward or, indeed, at any time; we don't even know if he mentioned the flower which, of course, Brown and Marshall, who may have also misidentified the victim, failed to recognize. All we are told is that he identified Stride when shown her body in the mortuary.

Might it therefore be the case that he just assumed that the woman he saw must be Stride, i.e. on the basis that her body was found close to where he allegedly witnessed the altercation, and the estimated time of death was around the time he believed he witnessed the assault?

Of course, much as been said in other threads about possible translation problems. Well, on that basis, it's therefore possible that Schwartz wasn't absolutely certain that the woman he saw was Stride, and that he was simply mistranslated.

And, as I also previously noted, it's not as if we're lacking other possible candidates, i.e. the couple(s) seen by Mortimer, Marshall and Brown, as well as other possible candidates alluded to by the Star article: "If every man was arrested who was known to have been seen in the company of an abandoned woman in that locality last Saturday night, the police stations would not hold them"

And then, as I also noted, there is the issue of timing accuracy. If, say, Schwartz witnessed the incident at 12:15, and not 12:45 as he estimated, then his evidence becomes much less significant, particularly as PC Lamb's statement suggests that there were a number of common domestic incidents that night (and why should we have any more confidence in Schwartz's timing estimate than, say, Spooner, Heschberg or Mortimer?)

Finally, if Schwartz's evidence had been properly tested at the inquest, like, say, Marshall's, Brown's and PC Smith's, then many of the aforementioned issues would surely have been addressed, and we might have had a better idea as to why "the truth of the man's statement [was] not wholly accepted "

[John G]

Hello John. You are as acute as even Mon Ami.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Thanks Lynn!

[Jon Guy]

Hi John

I thought I had! As I noted in my earlier post, Schwartz may not initially have been certain that the woman he witnessed being assaulted was Stride.

He identified her at the mortuary.

After all, it seemed to be just a causual observation in poor lighting conditions, and his evidence suggests that he was very stressed at the time.

I think it was more than a casual observation. As you say, it resulted in him running a mini marathon through East London.

Thus, the official police report doesn't mention any description Schwartz may have given of Stride when he first came forward or, indeed, at any time; we don't even know if he mentioned the flower which, of course, Brown and Marshall, who may have also misidentified the victim, failed to recognize. All we are told is that he identified Stride when shown her body in the mortuary.

Have you seen his police statement ?

Might it therefore be the case that he just assumed that the woman he saw must be Stride, i.e. on the basis that her body was found close to where he allegedly witnessed the altercation, and the estimated time of death was around the time he believed he witnessed the assault?.

I think that was what initially compelled him to attend Leman Street Police, but he did identify her at the mortuary.

Of course, much as been said in other threads about possible translation problems. Well, on that basis, it's therefore possible that Schwartz wasn't absolutely certain that the woman he saw was Stride, and that he was simply mistranslated.?.

He identified the body at the mortuary.

And then, as I also noted, there is the issue of timing accuracy. If, say, Schwartz witnessed the incident at 12:15, and not 12:45 as he estimated,
.

I don`t think it would be safe to make this inference as we know Schwartz walked past the same shop with the clock in the window that Diemschutz referred to.

then his evidence becomes much less significant, particularly as PC Lamb's evidence suggests that there were a number of common domestic incidents that night.

Perhaps PC Lamb saw something earlier that would eventually lead to the incident that Schwartz witnessed.

[Jon Guy]

and we might have had a better idea as to why "the truth of the man's statement [was] not wholly accepted "

Sorry, John, you added the above after I`d replied.

I believe the above refers to the man the police had questioned (not Schwartz), but what about Swanson`s statement to the opposite affect ?

[Michael W Richards]

Something to consider about Israel as well...Fannys vigil at her door for the last 10 minutes of the hour did not include sightings of anyone coming or leaving the club via the gates.

If Blackwells guesstimate of a cut time is approximately accurate, then the killer was either still in the passage when Diemshitz arrives after 1am, or he left before Fanny had her vigil. If he left before 12:50ish, then its likely he just cut and fled, or cut and went indoors. Does this scenario fit with Israels account at 12:45?

Supporting someone in a memo isn't powerful support, sequestering and suppressing is.

[Jon Guy]

Something to consider about Israel as well...Fannys vigil at her door for the last 10 minutes of the hour did not include sightings of anyone coming or leaving the club via the gates.

Hi Michael

That`s correct, Schwartz should have left the street, followed by Pipeman, by the time Mortimer was standing in her doorway.

Who should she have seen ?

[John G]

Hi John



He identified her at the mortuary.



I think it was more than a casual observation. As you say, it resulted in him running a mini marathon through East London.



Have you seen his police statement ?



I think that was what initially compelled him to attend Leman Street Police, but he did identify her at the mortuary.



He identified the body at the mortuary.



I don`t think it would be safe to make this inference as we know Schwartz walked past the same shop with the clock in the window that Diemschutz referred to.



Perhaps PC Lamb saw something earlier that would eventually lead to the incident that Schwartz witnessed.

Hi Jon,

The problem for me is that there are so many anomalies with Schwartz's account, that I think it reasonable to consider his evidence carefully and critically. As I've already noted, among other issues we have the cachous problem; lack of damage to Stride's clothing; lack of bruising or grazing to Stride's body; failure of other witnesses to hear Stride screaming. In my opinion, these issues require complex arguments just in order to allow for Schwartz's evidence to make any sort of sense, i e.on the assumption that he witnessed Stride being murdered.

Regarding Schwartz identification of Stride in the mortuary: as we have no description of Stride by Schwartz-such as before he was shown the body- we cannot objectively determine whether such a description would have accurately matched Stride's appearance that night. In fact, as I've noted, we don't even know if he noticed the flower.

Of course, both Brown and Marshall seemed confident that they'd seen Stride in the company of a man that night but, based upon their failure to notice the flower, the reliability of their identification has been questioned. Another difficulty is that the suspects they described don't closely resemble BS man.

Regarding the clock, we don't know if Schwartz looked at the clock and recorded the time, that's simply speculation. And frankly, I think most of the timings given by witnesses should be taken with a pinch of salt: even PC Lamb told the inquest, whilst under oath, that he was notified of the murder at "exactly 1:00am", and then the next moment he admitted he didn't even posses a watch!

However, perhaps the most serious issue for me is that Schwartz's police account differs from the account he subsequently gave the press. Most crucially, in the press version a man lighting a pipe is transformed into a knife-wielding accomplice of BS man, who rushes Schwartz with the weapon. In fact, we're even told that he "states positively that he saw a knife in the other man's hand". (the emphasis is mine) In fact, I wonder if this dramatical account reinforced the papers opinion that Schwartz was in the "theatrical line"!

Even allowing for translation issues, I cannot see how these accounts can possibly be reconciled. Moreover, even if it were to be argued that the police account is just a summary of Schwartz's evidence, I cannot remotely see how an event such as Schwartz being attacked with a knife, which clearly identifies Pipeman as an accomplice of BS Man would have been ommited. In fact, Abberline's report makes it clear that the police considered that Pipeman may have been an innocent bystander: "...he[Pipeman] might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.."

[John G]

Sorry, John, you added the above after I`d replied.

I believe the above refers to the man the police had questioned (not Schwartz), but what about Swanson`s statement to the opposite affect ?

Hello Jon,

Yes, there is no doubt that Schwartz was initially believed, at least by the higher echelons. However, so was Hutchinson's evidence. And, like Hutchinson, Schwartz rapidly disappears from history, playing no further part in the enquiry, i.e. suspect identifications. Thus suggests to me that, like Hutchinson, the police's confidence in Schwartz's testimony rapidly ebbed away.

[John G]

Something to consider about Israel as well...Fannys vigil at her door for the last 10 minutes of the hour did not include sightings of anyone coming or leaving the club via the gates.

If Blackwells guesstimate of a cut time is approximately accurate, then the killer was either still in the passage when Diemshitz arrives after 1am, or he left before Fanny had her vigil. If he left before 12:50ish, then its likely he just cut and fled, or cut and went indoors. Does this scenario fit with Israels account at 12:45?

Supporting someone in a memo isn't powerful support, sequestering and suppressing is.

Following Dr Biggs's comments, Dr Blackwell's estimate of time of death can clearly no longer be relied upon: see Marriott, 2015.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael

That`s correct, Schwartz should have left the street, followed by Pipeman, by the time Mortimer was standing in her doorway.

Who should she have seen ?

I know that youre not as troubled by the immaculate scenery changes that remained unseen by anyone, but if Fanny didn't see anyone after 12:50 until 1am, then Stride is likely already in the passageway by the time she comes to her door. Entrances and exits are all well and good, but when it requires split timing and assumptions of what witnesses missed....not clean.

[Jon Guy]

I know that youre not as troubled by the immaculate scenery changes that remained unseen by anyone, but if Fanny didn't see anyone after 12:50 until 1am, then Stride is likely already in the passageway by the time she comes to her door. Entrances and exits are all well and good, but when it requires split timing and assumptions of what witnesses missed....not clean.

I always maintain that in Ripperology the devil lies in the detail, and Mortimer did see Leon Goldstein.

[Jon Guy]

Hello Jon,

Yes, there is no doubt that Schwartz was initially believed, at least by the higher echelons. However, so was Hutchinson's evidence. And, like Hutchinson, Schwartz rapidly disappears from history, playing no further part in the enquiry, i.e. suspect identifications. Thus suggests to me that, like Hutchinson, the police's confidence in Schwartz's testimony rapidly ebbed away.

Off the top of my head, Swanson`s summary is dated 19th Oct, nearly 3 weeks after the murder.

I`m not sure what else you expect. He gave his statement, and the police acted, or not, upon it. End of story.
For example, was Elizabeth Long discredited ?

[Jon Guy]

Hi again John

As I've already noted, among other issues we have the cachous problem; .."

Yes, I know you have a problem with the cachous but the bottom line is that she was killed whilst holding them.

lack of damage to Stride's clothing; lack of bruising or grazing to Stride's body;.."

She wasn`t wearing a shell suit, John.
Her dress was made of a strong material

failure of other witnesses to hear Stride screaming.;.."

Perhaps she didn`t scream, and the one possible witness we have says she didn`t scream very loudly.

In my opinion, these issues require complex arguments just in order to allow for Schwartz's evidence to make any sort of sense, i e.on the assumption that he witnessed Stride being murdered..;.."

I don`t think Schwartz claimed he saw Stride been murdered.

Regarding Schwartz identification of Stride in the mortuary: as we have no description of Stride by Schwartz such as before he was shown the body- we cannot objectively determine whether such a description would have accurately matched Stride's appearance that night. In fact, as I've noted, we don't even know if he noticed the flower. .."

No, we may not but the police at Leman Street would and could have.

Of course, both Brown and Marshall seemed confident that they'd seen Stride in the company of a man that night but, based upon their failure to notice the flower, the reliability of their identification has been questioned.
.."

Yes, Brown especially.

Another difficulty is that the suspects they described don't closely resemble BS man.

You`re kidding aren`t you, John ?
Marshall`s man IS BS Man.
You should have a look at Marshall`s statement.

Regarding the clock, we don't know if Schwartz looked at the clock and recorded the time, that's simply speculation.

It is. But not as wild speculation as theorising that Schwartz was actually half and hour out on his timing

And frankly, I think most of the timings given by witnesses should be taken with a pinch of salt: even PC Lamb told the inquest, whilst under oath, that he was notified of the murder at "exactly 1:00am", and then the next moment he admitted he didn't even posses a watch!

Don`t you think that at that moment he was notified of a murder he may have made the effort to check what the time was ?

In fact, I wonder if this dramatical account reinforced the papers opinion that Schwartz was in the "theatrical line"!

Didn`t the report say that Schwartz was dressed or looked as if he was in the theatrical line ? Nothing to do with his story
My hunch is that the dramatical account had as much to do with the Star reporter as with Schwartz. Did he pay Schwartz, well, if so, he was going to get a story.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes, Brown especially.
.

Actually Brown could not have seen the flower even if Stride was wearing it, as the man he saw blocked his view of the flower

Yours Jeff