Schwartz v. Lawende

[John G]

Hi again John



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



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



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



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



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





Yes, Brown especially.



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



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



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 ?




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.

Hi Jon,

Stride did retain hold of the cachous, which would have been difficult to say the least whilst being thrown or pushed to the ground , i e. by BS man, for the obvious reason that her instinct would have been to throw out her hands, and spread her fingers, to break the fall.

Anyway, let's move on. Firstly, Schwartz's description is in no way identical to Marshall's, apart from the peaked cap, which I would have thought were common place, and differs significantly from that of the most reliable witness, PC Smith. And if they both saw the same woman, that woman may not have been Stride, particularly as Marshall failed to notice the flower. And there is no evidence Schwartz correctly noticed the flower.

Yes, I accept she was wearing a dress, but it was hardly a suit of armour! I mean, it sustained virtually no damage, at least not not the extent of being torn or frayed.

Whether she screamed or not is incidental: according to Schwartz's evidence she vocalized loud enough for him to interpret the sound as a scream, or three screams to be exact. Screams that no one else heard, including Fanny Mortimer, whose hearing was so acute she could hear the passing of a police officer, and the approach of Louis' pony and cart. Or for that matter Mrs D, who was most likely just feet away in the club kitchen.

Spooner was out by around 30 minutes with his timing, so I see no reason why Schwartz couldn't have been. It should be remembered that only Dr Blackwell appears to have possessed a watch, so we clearly cannot rely on time estimates; and, as I noted previously, Heschberg appears to have been out by around 15 minutes, believing it be 12:45 when he was notified of the murder.

I very much doubt that the Star would have "dramatized" Schwartz's account to the extent that they would have substituted "man lighting pipe", for "man who came at him with a knife." I mean, Schwartz is the one who was supposed to be in the "theatrical line"!

Anyway, the Star emphasizes that "the Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife". And where's the evidence that other witness accounts were embellished to the same extent? Hutchinson's press account, for example, is virtually identical to his police account. And why didn't Schwartz demand a correction if this was the case?

[John G]

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

Thanks Jeff. Personally, I see no reason why James Brown's evidence should be considered less reliable than Schwartz's. Quite the reverse in fact!

[Jon Guy]

Hi John

Stride did retain hold of the cachous, which would have been difficult to say the least whilst being thrown or pushed to the ground , i e. by BS man, for the obvious reason that her instinct would have been to throw out her hands, and spread her fingers, to break the fall.?

Maybe the stronger instinct was to hang onto whatever was in her hand.

Firstly, Schwartz's description is in no way identical to Marshall's, apart from the peaked cap which I would have thought were common place, and differs significantly from that of the most reliable witness, PC Smith. ?

Were PC Smith and Marshall describing the same man ?
I thought PC Smith saw his man at about 12.30pm and the man Marshall described was seen at 11.45pm.
Have you got mixed up here, John?

And if they both saw the same woman, that woman may not have been Stride, particularly as Marshall failed to notice the flower.?

Marshall didn`t fail to notice the flower, he stated positively she was not wearing one at that time, and Brown said he didn`t notice one either.

And there is no evidence Schwartz correctly noticed the flower..?

Well understandably, Stride was been thrown around, and he was being threatened.

Yes, I accept she was wearing a dress, but it was hardly a suit of armour! I mean, it sustained virtually no damage, at least not not the extent of being torn or frayed...?

She was only thrown to the ground.
She wasn`t dragged by horses up and down Berner Street, but yes, Victorian clothing would have been thick material.

Screams that no one else heard, including Fanny Mortimer, whose hearing was so acute she could hear the passing of a police officer, ?

Yes, but passing her doorway.

and the approach of Louis' pony and cart?

Did she hear Diemschutz and his cart ?

Or for that matter Mrs D, who was most likely just feet away in the club kitchen.?

In her hot kitchen with open window ;-)

I very much doubt that the Star would have "dramatized" Schwartz's account to the extent that they would have substituted "man lighting pipe", for "man who came at him with a knife." I mean, Schwartz is the one who was supposed to be in the "theatrical line"!.?

Have you not seen the Star reporter in the Michael Caine mini series !!!

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

There are clearly many red flags regarding Schwartz. For instance, in addition to the aforementioned there's the hotly debated cachous issue; the lack of bruising or grazing to Stride's body; the fact that her dress wasn't frayed; conflicting press and police report; the failure of anyone else to be aware of the altercation, including Mrs D, who was sat in the kitchen, just feet away from the alleged incident, with the window open; the conflict with James Brown's evidence.

In fact, as I've argued before, remove clumsy BS man from the equation and Stride's murder seems much more like a Ripper attack, i.e. a victim overpowered quickly and efficiently, oblivious of the danger she was in, and given no opportunity to resist or cry out for help.

Of course, you probably could construct a convoluted argument to make Schwartz's evidence work, although this would probably mean rejecting the press and police reports-on the basis of meaning and detail being lost in translation.

So what are the alternatives? Well, firstly Schwartz may have lied, i.e. because he was an attention seeker or he was hoping to make money by selling his story to the press. It's also possible that he was part of a cover-up involving the club, i e.to divert police attention away from club members, such as Lave or Eagle, who might otherwise be regarded as viable suspects.

However, another possibility is that he was simply wrong with his time estimate of 12:45. It is, of course, convenient to argue that this timing fits in perfectly with others witnesses, but this approach is seriously undermined by the fact that just about everybody was relying on rough estimates.

And there is plenty of evidence that some witnesses were not particularly accurate when estimating the time. Thus, Spooner was probably out by around half an hour, Heschberg by 15 minutes, and Fanny's timings are frankly all over the place. Even PC Smith's timings have been questioned: Gavin's dissertation argues that he probably passed at 12:45, not 12:35.

Moreover, Schwartz doesn't seem to get a very good view of Stride-his description of her is non-existent, she's simply referred to as "the woman"-and there's therefore no indication that he noticed the flower. So he might have witnessed an ordinary street brawl, and just assumed the woman was Stride because the incident occurred close to where her body was found.

However, these types of incidents seemed to be quite common for the locality. Barnett Kentorrich, a local resident, stated, "I do not think the yard bears a very good character at night." And PC Lamb observed, "There were squabbles and rows in the street, but nothing more."

So if, say, Schwartz witnessed the incident around 12:15 and not 12:45, it could have been an ordinary domestic squabble, possibly involving the couple referred to by Mortimer, or the couple seen by Brown.

Of course, regarding Schwartz's evidence, I say nothing of the fact that he was said by the press to be in the "theatrical line"!

I'm afraid I can't agree with any of this. These things you say are 'hotly debated' or that contradict each other are only so confusing if we want to be confused by them. Brown's couple was likely Stride and Pipeman and fits quite snugly with Schwartz's version of events in timing. Mortimer's couple were long gone from the scene. The cachous are explained the same way as Nichols' rings, Chapman's rings, and Eddowes' thimble, and I'm not at all sure what you mean about why Stride's dress should have been frayed. You say Mortimer's timings were 'all over the place' but in actuality hers are the only ones confirmed by an independent witness, Leon Goldstein. Any discrepancies probably arise from the reporters taking her statement. But if the articles are read in concert it describes time spent in the house with the door open and a separate 10 minutes spent in the doorway of her home. What's mysterious is where the killer was during those 10 minutes. One thing to consider is that 'in her doorway' means just that, and not out on the pavement, so she did not have a good view of the Dutfield's Yard gateway or the pavement that led from there to Fairclough Street.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

I'm afraid I can't agree with any of this. These things you say are 'hotly debated' or that contradict each other are only so confusing if we want to be confused by them. Brown's couple was likely Stride and Pipeman and fits quite snugly with Schwartz's version of events in timing. Mortimer's couple were long gone from the scene. The cachous are explained the same way as Nichols' rings, Chapman's rings, and Eddowes' thimble, and I'm not at all sure what you mean about why Stride's dress should have been frayed. You say Mortimer's timings were 'all over the place' but in actuality hers are the only ones confirmed by an independent witness, Leon Goldstein. Any discrepancies probably arise from the reporters taking her statement. But if the articles are read in concert it describes time spent in the house with the door open and a separate 10 minutes spent in the doorway of her home. What's mysterious is where the killer was during those 10 minutes. One thing to consider is that 'in her doorway' means just that, and not out on the pavement, so she did not have a good view of the Dutfield's Yard gateway or the pavement that led from there to Fairclough Street.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

"If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him".

[John G]

"If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him".

Excellent point, Michael.

[John G]

I'm afraid I can't agree with any of this. These things you say are 'hotly debated' or that contradict each other are only so confusing if we want to be confused by them. Brown's couple was likely Stride and Pipeman and fits quite snugly with Schwartz's version of events in timing. Mortimer's couple were long gone from the scene. The cachous are explained the same way as Nichols' rings, Chapman's rings, and Eddowes' thimble, and I'm not at all sure what you mean about why Stride's dress should have been frayed. You say Mortimer's timings were 'all over the place' but in actuality hers are the only ones confirmed by an independent witness, Leon Goldstein. Any discrepancies probably arise from the reporters taking her statement. But if the articles are read in concert it describes time spent in the house with the door open and a separate 10 minutes spent in the doorway of her home. What's mysterious is where the killer was during those 10 minutes. One thing to consider is that 'in her doorway' means just that, and not out on the pavement, so she did not have a good view of the Dutfield's Yard gateway or the pavement that led from there to Fairclough Street.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

If Brown's and Schwartz's couple were the same, which is possible, we're not entitled to assume that the woman was Stride, particularly as Brown didn't notice the flower and there's no evidence Schwartz did either.

There's no evidence that Mortimer's couple were "long gone", that's mere speculation, unless you have undisclosed source material.

The cachous are not so easily explained away. Schwartz describes Stride being thrown on to the footway, and in such circumstances her natural instinct would have been to throw out her hands and spread her fingers to break her fall, thus dropping the cachous and possibly breaking her wrist. That didn't happen.

Michael has explained the issue of the doorway.

What's also problematic is that, if Schwartz is to be believed, where did Stride and her killer go between PC Smith's sighting at 12:35 and Schwartz's sighting at 12:45? Unless, of course, they were different men, but given the time frame that doesn't seem very likely to me. This becomes an even bigger problem if it is argued that Stride's killer intended to murder her in Dutfield's Yard.

[John G]

Hi John


Maybe the stronger instinct was to hang onto whatever was in her hand.



Were PC Smith and Marshall describing the same man ?
I thought PC Smith saw his man at about 12.30pm and the man Marshall described was seen at 11.45pm.
Have you got mixed up here, John?



Marshall didn`t fail to notice the flower, he stated positively she was not wearing one at that time, and Brown said he didn`t notice one either.



Well understandably, Stride was been thrown around, and he was being threatened.



She was only thrown to the ground.
She wasn`t dragged by horses up and down Berner Street, but yes, Victorian clothing would have been thick material.




Yes, but passing her doorway.



Did she hear Diemschutz and his cart ?



In her hot kitchen with open window ;-)



Have you not seen the Star reporter in the Michael Caine mini series !!!

Hello Jon,

It's possible that her stronger instinct was to hold on to the cachous, but that seems highly unlikely to me, particularly as they had little value-well, at least compared to her head! And, if she failed to break her fall, wouldn't there be signs of injuries, i.e. head injuries?

I was suggesting that Schwartz's description of BS man wasn't identical to Marshall's description of his suspect, and differed significantly from PC Smith's description of the man he saw with Stride.

I agree that Schwartz may have missed detail, such as the flower, because he was being threatened and had just witnessed an assault but, as I noted earlier, that line of reasoning also casts doubt on whether he correctly identified Stride.

Thanks for correcting me about Marshall. Much appreciated!

Regarding Stride's clothing. I think the real issue here is: how did Stride get into Dutfield's Yard after being thrown to the pavement? I very much doubt that she would have gone into the pitch black darkness of the Yard, with a man who had just assaulted her, voluntarily, particularly as she would have been aware of the Ripper-scare . If he dragged her, surely her dress would have been torn/frayed. If she was carried in why didn't she scream for help, as she did earlier, according to Schwartz? And if she screamed, why did no one hear anything?

Mortimer said that she heard the pony and cart pass by about 4 minutes after going inside, and remarked on it to her husband. If this was just after seeing Goldstein then it would have been around 1:00am, which accords with the time Louis said he arrived.

I agree that if the reporter who took Schwartz's statement was anything like the reporer in the Michael Caine series then he may very well have written a highly dramatized account!

[Wickerman]

I very much doubt that the Star would have "dramatized" Schwartz's account to the extent that they would have substituted "man lighting pipe", for "man who came at him with a knife." I mean, Schwartz is the one who was supposed to be in the "theatrical line"!

Hi John.
So the alternate is what, to believe Swanson downplayed the role of Pipeman in a report to his superior?

Anyway, the Star emphasizes that "the Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife". And where's the evidence that other witness accounts were embellished to the same extent? Hutchinson's press account, for example, is virtually identical to his police account. And why didn't Schwartz demand a correction if this was the case?

Well, Hutchinson was not interviewed by the Star, if I recall correctly, the reporter was from the Central News Agency, not that they are beyond "dabbling" in deception....

[Tom_Wescott]

"If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him".

Yes, had come out and gone her way or crossed the street, she would have. Up until about 12:55 or so, that is.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

If Brown's and Schwartz's couple were the same, which is possible, we're not entitled to assume that the woman was Stride, particularly as Brown didn't notice the flower and there's no evidence Schwartz did either.

Men don't typically notice things like flowers, just as women are bad at noticing things like make/models of cars. Likewise, in 1888 a man was more apt to notice jacket and hat as those were status symbols. There's also the matter that in Brown's case the man was blocking a good portion of Stride's body, but evidently not her face.

There's no evidence that Mortimer's couple were "long gone", that's mere speculation, unless you have undisclosed source material.

It may be in my next book.

The cachous are not so easily explained away. Schwartz describes Stride being thrown on to the footway, and in such circumstances her natural instinct would have been to throw out her hands and spread her fingers to break her fall, thus dropping the cachous and possibly breaking her wrist. That didn't happen.

The cachous are extremely easy to explain. She reached for the money to give her robber/killer and only at that time did the tissue holding the cachous lodge between her thumb and forefinger. She was then murdered. Same reason there's a thimble next to Eddowes' hand and an envelope under Chapman's head.

What's also problematic is that, if Schwartz is to be believed, where did Stride and her killer go between PC Smith's sighting at 12:35 and Schwartz's sighting at 12:45? Unless, of course, they were different men, but given the time frame that doesn't seem very likely to me. This becomes an even bigger problem if it is argued that Stride's killer intended to murder her in Dutfield's Yard.

It was believed then and is still the predominant thought that Smith's man and Schwartz's man are two different men. Stride likely went nowhere with Smith's man and then melted into the gateway to solicit passerby, such as BS Man, who quite possibly may have been nothing more than an irate Morris Eagle removing her from his gateway on his way back into the club, choosing to assault the obviously Jewish looking Schwartz in the process. Let's not forget what a local, probably Abraham Ashbrigh, had to say about them at the time: "You see," he explained, "the members are bad Jews - Jews who do not heed their religion, and they annoy those who do in order to show contempt for the religion."

Schwartz essentially describes a man pulling Stride from the gateway and then tossing her down and yelling at him. He doesn't see a knife. Morris Eagle was said to have reacted upon seeing Stride dead and he explained his reaction as him being squeamish about dead bodies. That might have been so or it might have been that he'd just confronted that woman minutes earlier.

Schwartz is not a perfect witness. There's reasons to believe him and reasons not to believe him. He may have been lying, or he may have been telling the truth about what he saw, but what he saw might be irrelevant to her actual murder. Or he might have seen her murderer and it was Jack. Or it wasn't Jack. See what I mean?

What I DO know is that we cannot view the hard evidence (i.e. corroborated witnesses, crime scene evidence, etc.) through the lens of Schwartz because you'll get nowhere. Schwartz might be irrelevant. I don't think he is, but he might be. However, if he was lying, he was an extremely lucky liar because his evidence was supported pretty well by Mortimer and Brown.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hello Tom,

Nice to see you posting again.

If Schwartz was somehow associated with the club then it would make no sense for Eagle to assault him, correct?

c.d.

[Observer]

Hello Jon,

Regarding Stride's clothing. I think the real issue here is: how did Stride get into Dutfield's Yard after being thrown to the pavement? I very much doubt that she would have gone into the pitch black darkness of the Yard, with a man who had just assaulted her, voluntarily, particularly as she would have been aware of the Ripper-scare . If he dragged her, surely her dress would have been torn/frayed. If she was carried in why didn't she scream for help, as she did earlier, according to Schwartz? And if she screamed, why did no one hear anything?

John, Liz Stride lay a mere four and a half feet inside the entrance to the yard, there was no need to drag or carry her the mere two paces from the pavement

[Observer]

The cachous are extremely easy to explain. She reached for the money to give her robber/killer and only at that time did the tissue holding the cachous lodge between her thumb and forefinger. She was then murdered. Same reason there's a thimble next to Eddowes' hand and an envelope under Chapman's head.

Hi Tom

The killer had took the time to arrange Chapman's few belongings neatly by the side of her body. As you have said, Eddowes was found with a thimble lying very near to her hand. It's possible that the killer actualy placed it on her finger, it being dislodged by either the killer knocking her hand as he cut off a section of her apron, or perhaps becoming dislodged by one of the policemen, or doctors.

I speculated some time ago that the cashous had possibly been placed there by the killer. It's a similar kind of mocking action, which was in evidence at the scene of the Chapman, and Eddowes murders.

[Wickerman]

I speculated some time ago that the cashous had possibly been placed there by the killer. It's a similar kind of mocking action, which was in evidence at the scene of the Chapman, and Eddowes murders.

And the organs removed from Kelly were not discarded at random, but appear to have been intentionally placed where they were found.
So, it appears you may have found a reasonable case to suggest the killer placed those cachous in Stride's hand afterall.
Good thinking Obs.