Who do you credit as the most reliable witnesses?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know some disagree but I see no reason to doubt John Richardson. Smith of course as Wick says. I also see no real reason for Schwartz to have lied either.

[mpriestnall]

Cadosch.

[erobitha]

The only credible witness in my view is Lawende simply because of the short time window before Eddowes was murdered.

I have long dismissed Schwartz for many reasons which I won’t list here. Also I do not believe it was Schwartz who did the ID at the seaside home. I believe that was Lawende (if it did indeed happen).

I think the police took him very seriously as a witness.

[Elamarna]

The only credible witness in my view is Lawende simply because of the short time window before Eddowes was murdered.

I have long dismissed Schwartz for many reasons which I won’t list here. Also I do not believe it was Schwartz who did the ID at the seaside home. I believe that was Lawende (if it did indeed happen).

I think the police took him very seriously as a witness.

I consider Lawende to be far from.the best witness. Of the known Witnesses Schwartz is certainly the most likely to be the seaside home witness, although a unnamed witness is perfectly possible.
I gave the reasons for this in the Rippercast online talk in October 2021.

For me what points at Schwartz is the comments by Abberline, Anderson ( and Warren, relying on Anderson's comments) in internal police documents in early Nov 88.
It's clear that those on the ground (Abberline) and those at Scotland Yard consider him to be reliable.

Steve

[Fiver]

In that case none.

I'm far from persuaded that any of them saw Jack.

There are separate issues.

* Did the witness actually see someone or were they lying?

* How accurate was the witness' description?

* Was the person that they saw the killer?

Like GUT, I have doubts if any of the witnesses saw the killer.

I also wonder about the accuracy of the the most detailed descriptions. The human mind tends to fill in the blanks. Someone giving a detailed description of a stranger seen for a few moments in poor lighting is either vastly more observant than others or their memory has filled in a lot of blanks and the description is wildly inaccurate.

[erobitha]

I consider Lawende to be far from.the best witness. Of the known Witnesses Schwartz is certainly the most likely to be the seaside home witness, although a unnamed witness is perfectly possible.
I gave the reasons for this in the Rippercast online talk in October 2021.

For me what points at Schwartz is the comments by Abberline, Anderson ( and Warren, relying on Anderson's comments) in internal police documents in early Nov 88.
It's clear that those on the ground (Abberline) and those at Scotland Yard consider him to be reliable.

Steve

Hi Steve,

1) Why was Schwartz not summoned to the inquest?
2) What address did Swanson have for Schwartz? Notice anything strange about the address Swanson had?
3) Why can no-one find any record of Israel Schwartz?

Lawende may not have got the clearest view but he definitely saw the killer.

Regards,

Jay

[Scott Nelson]

P.C. Smith and/or Israel Schwartz.

I've since changed my mind. I'll go with P.C. Edward Watkins.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

1) Why was Schwartz not summoned to the inquest?
2) What address did Swanson have for Schwartz? Notice anything strange about the address Swanson had?
3) Why can no-one find any record of Israel Schwartz?

Lawende may not have got the clearest view but he definitely saw the killer.

Regards,

Jay

Hi, there are many possible answers to the above questions
Indeed, part of this makes up a substantial part of a planned work on the Seaside Home Identification.

But here are a few possible answers, by no means a full list of probabilities, nor really in-depth details, but a useful starting point.

1. Schwartz may have actually given evidence, but it was held in camera.

Anderson clearly says, in the memo/report to Warren that Schwartz had given evidence.
This was repeated by Warren to the Home Office, at no point in the Home Office reply is this disputed.
Now it may just be a slip by Anderson, and none picked up on it at the time, but given this all occurs after the inquest, it's clear that the police still held Schwartz to be a reliable witness.
It therefore seems strange to say the least that Baxter should simply decide not to call him.
We are therefore left, with several possibilities.

1. He was called, but was heard in camera.
2. He was not actually called, but a written report/statement was submitted to Baxter, who decided not to call him.

Why ? Again several possibilities.

A. Baxter dismissed him, but given the police, Abberline and Anderson still believed he was reliable, this would be most perverse by Baxter.

B. The police may have asked, (they could not tell or instruct Baxter, it was his decision and his alone who was called), the coroner, not to call him, as it may hinder the investigation. It would then be the coroner's choice to call him or not.

Maybe an important point here is what could calling Schwartz to the inquest archive to help the jury reach there decision.
On time, his are close enough to others so that little is gained. Given he apparently could not name BS man, it would not allow the jury to say anything other than by person unknown.


That's just one argument, there are several more, but that's part of the planned work.

On your point 2, I am missing what you are getting at, maybe you could clarify.


On point 3, why is he not traced?

Well some researchers have found person's who may be Schwartz at a later date, but it's far from certain. The problem is the possibility of informal anglised name changes, which can make tracing whole families very difficult.

However, I would argue that a failure to trace him, argues for his reliability and importance , rather than against it.

Lawende definitely saw the killer?

While probability argues that he did, it's not a certainty, there is a possibility that the couple seen by Lawende are NOT the couple, or that the man left, and another person was the killer.
The often cited arguments with regards to split second timings are flawed because of the very serious issue of non syncronizied timings in the case.
In the whole of the Ripper murders, ONLY two times are syncronizied to each other, those are the times given by Lawende and Levy, they used the same source, but even then they differ slightly in their estimation of the time past since that time was taken.

Therefore I believe while Lawende probably saw the killer, it's not the certainty you believe.

My own view is that Jospeph Hyam Levy is a better witness than Lawende , indeed the work done for both the podcast and the planned book surprised me at just how poor a witness Lawende is, certainly not a fit for "the only person who ever got a good look".

I suggest if you have not listened to the podcast, that you do.

But of course we will probably not agree, and that's fine by me.
Debate is the way we advance.

Steve

[Elamarna]

I've since changed my mind. I'll go with P.C. Edward Watkins.

Certainly possible Scott.


Steve

[Curious Cat]

I've since changed my mind. I'll go with P.C. Edward Watkins.

I'm not so sure. For one thing, he tells the reporter for The Star (1st October) that he went straight to Dr Sequeira after finding Catherine Eddowes body. But at the inquest a few days later he says he went to alert George Morris at the Kearley & Tonge building. PC Watkins stayed with the body alone as Morris went to raise the alarm, finding PC Harvey and PC Holland when he reached the end of Mitre Street. It was PC Holland who brought Dr Sequeira to the scene.

[erobitha]

Hi, there are many possible answers to the above questions
Indeed, part of this makes up a substantial part of a planned work on the Seaside Home Identification.

But here are a few possible answers, by no means a full list of probabilities, nor really in-depth details, but a useful starting point.

1. Schwartz may have actually given evidence, but it was held in camera.

Anderson clearly says, in the memo/report to Warren that Schwartz had given evidence.
This was repeated by Warren to the Home Office, at no point in the Home Office reply is this disputed.
Now it may just be a slip by Anderson, and none picked up on it at the time, but given this all occurs after the inquest, it's clear that the police still held Schwartz to be a reliable witness.
It therefore seems strange to say the least that Baxter should simply decide not to call him.
We are therefore left, with several possibilities.

1. He was called, but was heard in camera.
2. He was not actually called, but a written report/statement was submitted to Baxter, who decided not to call him.

Why ? Again several possibilities.

A. Baxter dismissed him, but given the police, Abberline and Anderson still believed he was reliable, this would be most perverse by Baxter.

B. The police may have asked, (they could not tell or instruct Baxter, it was his decision and his alone who was called), the coroner, not to call him, as it may hinder the investigation. It would then be the coroner's choice to call him or not.

Maybe an important point here is what could calling Schwartz to the inquest archive to help the jury reach there decision.
On time, his are close enough to others so that little is gained. Given he apparently could not name BS man, it would not allow the jury to say anything other than by person unknown.


That's just one argument, there are several more, but that's part of the planned work.

On your point 2, I am missing what you are getting at, maybe you could clarify.


On point 3, why is he not traced?

Well some researchers have found person's who may be Schwartz at a later date, but it's far from certain. The problem is the possibility of informal anglised name changes, which can make tracing whole families very difficult.

However, I would argue that a failure to trace him, argues for his reliability and importance , rather than against it.

Lawende definitely saw the killer?

While probability argues that he did, it's not a certainty, there is a possibility that the couple seen by Lawende are NOT the couple, or that the man left, and another person was the killer.
The often cited arguments with regards to split second timings are flawed because of the very serious issue of non syncronizied timings in the case.
In the whole of the Ripper murders, ONLY two times are syncronizied to each other, those are the times given by Lawende and Levy, they used the same source, but even then they differ slightly in their estimation of the time past since that time was taken.

Therefore I believe while Lawende probably saw the killer, it's not the certainty you believe.

My own view is that Jospeph Hyam Levy is a better witness than Lawende , indeed the work done for both the podcast and the planned book surprised me at just how poor a witness Lawende is, certainly not a fit for "the only person who ever got a good look".

I suggest if you have not listened to the podcast, that you do.

But of course we will probably not agree, and that's fine by me.
Debate is the way we advance.

Steve

I shall keep it brief.

- Swanson's recorded address in his Scotland Yard files has an address that never existed for Israel Schwartz. If the address did not exist how could the police contact him for an ID years later?
- I've done a lot of genealogy work. I know how difficult it can be, but one lesson I have learned is the truth is usually found somewhere, you just need to look in the right places. as yet, no right places exist for Israel Schwartz
- Not one person corroborated his so-called testimony to Abberline. BS and Pipeman could be figments of a fantasist's imagination for all we know. God knows Packer was quickly called that
- There is no evidence Schwartz was called "on camera"

I go back to my original point. Only Lawende can claim he saw the victim with someone we know was found within a matter of minutes dead. That makes him a pretty good witness in my view. We know a lot about Lawende. He was not as hard to find.

Schwartz is no one I have ever taken seriously, but that is just my personal opinion.

[Elamarna]

I shall keep it brief.

- Swanson's recorded address in his Scotland Yard files has an address that never existed for Israel Schwartz. If the address did not exist how could the police contact him for an ID years later?
- I've done a lot of genealogy work. I know how difficult it can be, but one lesson I have learned is the truth is usually found somewhere, you just need to look in the right places. as yet, no right places exist for Israel Schwartz
- Not one person corroborated his so-called testimony to Abberline. BS and Pipeman could be figments of a fantasist's imagination for all we know. God knows Packer was quickly called that
- There is no evidence Schwartz was called "on camera"

I go back to my original point. Only Lawende can claim he saw the victim with someone we know was found within a matter of minutes dead. That makes him a pretty good witness in my view. We know a lot about Lawende. He was not as hard to find.

Schwartz is no one I have ever taken seriously, but that is just my personal opinion.

You are entitled to your opinions, but we shall disagree.
There is certainly a group of people who do not want to accept Stride as a Ripper Victim, there is also a group who while they do accept her, do not want to accept BS as her killer.
Then we have those who just do not want to take Schwartz seriously.

I have used the word WANT at every stage there, because it is a choice people make.

It's not I suggest a choice lead by evidence,
Because it's clear the police believed he was reliable after the inquest on Stride had finished, unlike Packer who was soon discounted.

Lawende is NOT the only one to see a victim with someone minutes before they are found; that view is only arrived at by discounting Schwartz who saw a woman being attacked at the approximate location, minutes before Stride is found.

If and it's a big if, Schwartz was heard in camera, there would be no suriving records to prove it anyway. A pity Baxters papers were not saved.


But each to his own.


Steve

[erobitha]

You are entitled to your opinions, but we shall disagree.
There is certainly a group of people who do not want to accept Stride as a Ripper Victim, there is also a group who while they do accept her, do not want to accept BS as her killer.
Then we have those who just do not want to take Schwartz seriously.

I have used the word WANT at every stage there, because it is a choice people make.

It's not I suggest a choice lead by evidence,
Because it's clear the police believed he was reliable after the inquest on Stride had finished, unlike Packer who was soon discounted.

Lawende is NOT the only one to see a victim with someone minutes before they are found; that view is only arrived at by discounting Schwartz who saw a woman being attacked at the approximate location, minutes before Stride is found.

If and it's a big if, Schwartz was heard in camera, there would be no suriving records to prove it anyway. A pity Baxters papers were not saved.


But each to his own.


Steve

I think it's fine to disagree. That is the nature of the debate. We will not all see things in the same light.

My conclusions on Schwartz are based on a choice that is true to an extent, but they are based on documented facts that support that choice. They are not just wild speculations or feelings.

You can interpret the information one way, I choose to interpret it another. Stride was a Ripper victim because throat-cutting of that nature was rare as it was. Interruption remains the best explanation as 45 minutes later Eddowes was dead by a similar method. We get caught up in the idea that murder was his motive. It never was. Post-mortem mutilation was. He was denied with Stride.

"On camera" is one of those things that seems a convenient argument. Something I often get accused of with my candidate for JtR.

[Elamarna]

I think it's fine to disagree. That is the nature of the debate. We will not all see things in the same light.

My conclusions on Schwartz are based on a choice that is true to an extent, but they are based on documented facts that support that choice. They are not just wild speculations or feelings.

You can interpret the information one way, I choose to interpret it another. Stride was a Ripper victim because throat-cutting of that nature was rare as it was. Interruption remains the best explanation as 45 minutes later Eddowes was dead by a similar method. We get caught up in the idea that murder was his motive. It never was. Post-mortem mutilation was. He was denied with Stride.

"On camera" is one of those things that seems a convenient argument. Something I often get accused of with my candidate for JtR.

We can agree on much of that.
In camera is just one option, I personally prefer the idea, a report was submitted, and a request made not to call, which Baxter agreed to.

Steve

[c.d.]

Not one person corroborated his so-called testimony to Abberline.

What exactly is "so-called testimony?" How does it differ from just regular testimony?

The fact that his testimony is uncorroborated tells us nothing about the veracity of his story. Now if you want to have doubts as to his story because it was uncorroborated that is another matter. But simply being uncorroborated does not necessarily mean it is untrue. I am sure we have all witnessed things with no one else around.

c.d.