Schwartz v. Lawende

[Trevor Marriott]

I have to wonder about the purpose of the Seaside Home identification. Whether the witness was Schwartz or Lawende and even if it was a positive identification, I can't see that sufficient enough to charge the suspect and bring him to trial unless there was also a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence against him as well. Could Anderson's main purpose simply have been to confirm his belief that the suspect was most likely the Ripper?

c.d.

You have to remember that the rules of evidence were far more relaxed then than today. What about if this ID did take place, what was to stop a police witness who was present and witnessed the positive ID giving evidence of the positive ID, the original witness could have been treated as what is known now as a hostile witness. There was nothing to stop the police using this tactic on such an important case.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Israel Schwartz's statement does not seem to have had the same clout as Lawendes...the latter is actually sequestered while being used as a witness, and Israels statement isn't even entered into the formal records. That should narrow the possibilities a bit...assuming of course that ANY Seaside ID actually took place.

[Trevor Marriott]

Israel Schwartz's statement does not seem to have had the same clout as Lawendes...the latter is actually sequestered while being used as a witness, and Israels statement isn't even entered into the formal records. That should narrow the possibilities a bit...assuming of course that ANY Seaside ID actually took place.

And I dont belive it did in the way we have been asked to believe. When there appears to be such an important witness in the case but that witness is never named, or is there any record of such a witness having ever existed other than what Swanson and Anderson wrote, and furthermore no mention of any statement, because before any such ID would have taken place the police must have taken a written statement.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

You have to remember that the rules of evidence were far more relaxed then than today. What about if this ID did take place, what was to stop a police witness who was present and witnessed the positive ID giving evidence of the positive ID, the original witness could have been treated as what is known now as a hostile witness. There was nothing to stop the police using this tactic on such an important case.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

Plus, Lawende was not permitted to identify the deceased because he had not seen the face of Eddowes on the night in question. Lawende, was not a definite eye-witness from a legal perspective.
Which means, if the woman was not Eddowes, then the man was not the killer.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

You are right and we have to wonder just who this mysterious un named witness was if he ever existed, and what he saw, because as is known there is no record of anyone ever seeing the murders taking place. This is another part of this mystery that does not stand up to close scrutiny.

In todays world identification is a big issue and so guidelines have been issued from a stated legal case. The stated case is R v. Turnbull 1976; from this case certain identification guidelines were then adopted. A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE:

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the
person/incident memorable?

Time lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Plus, Lawende was not permitted to identify the deceased because he had not seen the face of Eddowes on the night in question. Lawende, was not a definite eye-witness from a legal perspective.
Which means, if the woman was not Eddowes, then the man was not the killer.

Well in the absence of anyone else coming forward to say he or she was part of the couple seen, or any of the police officers saying they saw other females with males at that time, we can draw and inference that the couple was Eddowes and the killer. Another deciding factor is that if Pc Watkins is to be believed then his timings suggest the couple seen were the killer and Eddowes and they were not already in the square at the time Lawende saw the couple.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Dr. John Watson]

Accepting that we do not know what this 23 year old Kozminski looked like, I have great difficulty in imagining the following suspect description of the man who assaulted Stride in the gateway as describing Kozminski.

At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.

Wickerman, try imagining a little harder! In my experience, estimated age is the thing most often misjudged in witness descriptions, and a difference of six years or less would hardly be sufficient to rule out Kozminski as the suspect seen by Schwartz. As I recall, at that time Kozminski was living with his brother only two or three blocks from Berner and Fairclough, where the assault occurred. The most direct route home from Commercial Road would be down Berner to Fairclough, then left a block or two, then right to his residence. This could easily account for Kozminski being at the right place, at the right time, to encounter Stride and be seen by Schwartz.

[c.d.]

Thanks for your responses. It seem though that the original question remains unanswered. Was the purpose of the Seaside Home investigation to confirm Anderson's personal belief that they had the Whitechapel Murderer in their grasp or was it his intent to hopefully get a confirmed witness identification that could be taken to court? Because if it was the latter it would appear that he was rather uninformed as to how unlikely it was that that identification would hold up in court.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for your responses. It seem though that the original question remains unanswered. Was the purpose of the Seaside Home investigation to confirm Anderson's personal belief that they had the Whitechapel Murderer in their grasp or was it his intent to hopefully get a confirmed witness identification that could be taken to court? Because if it was the latter it would appear that he was rather uninformed as to how unlikely it was that that identification would hold up in court.

c.d.

It seems the main purpose was they had a suspect so they set up an ID with a witness. Although not too sure at the time of tthe ID anderson knew what he had...he may have heard of the ID after the fact.
and yes agree with your last sentence.

my own personal belief is that anderson didnt become convinced he had the ripper until much later, after faulty memory and wishful thinking kicked in.

[Michael W Richards]

Are we correct in our assumptions that the most probable people used as a witness in a Seaside ID attempt are these 2 gents? What if some of what other witnesses said was withheld at the Inquests and from the press, and their proximity to a suspect the police had made the ID attempt worthwhile? What if Morris Eagle, who improbably stated that he wasn't sure if a body was in the passageway when he came in through the gates, saw something or someone leaving? Or someone he knew over the body? The sighting with the most punch would be Schwartz's, but with the lack of evidence to suggest his story factored into a storyline for the Police and the lack of evidence his story was even tagged to the Inquest files, that seems like a dead end.

[Damaso Marte]

Are we correct in our assumptions that the most probable people used as a witness in a Seaside ID attempt are these 2 gents? What if some of what other witnesses said was withheld at the Inquests and from the press, and their proximity to a suspect the police had made the ID attempt worthwhile? What if Morris Eagle, who improbably stated that he wasn't sure if a body was in the passageway when he came in through the gates, saw something or someone leaving? Or someone he knew over the body? The sighting with the most punch would be Schwartz's, but with the lack of evidence to suggest his story factored into a storyline for the Police and the lack of evidence his story was even tagged to the Inquest files, that seems like a dead end.

I've seen Levy suggested on Casebook before.

(Though I'm skeptical that any seaside ID ever took place)

[Michael W Richards]

I've seen Levy suggested on Casebook before.

(Though I'm skeptical that any seaside ID ever took place)

I have too. There is something fishy about Eagle in my opinion, as I mentioned, and I have a scenario in mind for Berner Street where he could factor in. And where Schwartz might as well. What if Eagle saw someone in the passageway when he returned, but that facet of his story is withheld? It might explain why he "couldn't be sure" whether he had to walk over or step around a dying woman. And if Israel left a few minutes earlier, via the side door, and saw a man and a woman quietly arguing behind the gate, you have 2 Jews that saw someone close up. I think when Israel informs his friend Wess of what he saw, they agree its better to have the altercation off the property for the sake of all the Jews in the neighborhood. Remember, this is the night where police actually destroy evidence to prevent any uprising against the Jews.

[Sam Flynn]

There is something fishy about Eagle

There often is, especially after a meal

[Michael W Richards]

There often is, especially after a meal

Perhaps I should have used the word "suspicious" Sam, I now have an upset stomach thinking about Fish and Eagle chowder.