Who do you credit as the most reliable witnesses?

[c.d.]

If Abberline believed Schwartz's story what exactly does that mean? Well I would say that he believed Schwartz saw a woman being thrown to the ground and that the man then went on to yell something at him possibly "Lipski." But Abberline had no way of know what had transpired prior to the incident that might have caused it. He had no way of knowing Stride's role in it and if she could have been the instigator. He also had no way of knowing what took place between the B.S. man and Stride after Schwartz left the scene.

So Abberline's belief really needs some context to it. Just saying he believed Schwartz doesn't tell us much.

c.d.

[Elamarna]

If Abberline believed Schwartz's story what exactly does that mean? Well I would say that he believed Schwartz saw a woman being thrown to the ground and that the man then went on to yell something at him possibly "Lipski." But Abberline had no way of know what had transpired prior to the incident that might have caused it. He had no way of knowing Stride's role in it and if she could have been the instigator. He also had no way of knowing what took place between the B.S. man and Stride after Schwartz left the scene.

So Abberline's belief really needs some context to it. Just saying he believed Schwartz doesn't tell us much.

c.d.

While that is true, it does give us an account on a women, at the approximate location and time, that a victim ascribed to be a Ripper Victim was found.

The argument I made in the talk on the seaside Home witness was that according to Anderson and Swanson the witness saw something that would without question convict.
For me Lawende seeing a couple who may have been Eddowes and killer a few minutes before ( maybe 10-15) close to a murder site , but not at one is not going to convict, if one had a competent defence barrister.
No more so than Mrs LONG and her couple outside 29 Hanbury , or Mary Ann Cox and her Blotchy.

But an actual assault, that fits like a glove.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

While that is true, it does give us an account on a women, at the approximate location and time, that a victim ascribed to be a Ripper Victim was found.

The argument I made in the talk on the seaside Home witness was that according to Anderson and Swanson the witness saw something that would without question convict.
For me Lawende seeing a couple who may have been Eddowes and killer a few minutes before ( maybe 10-15) close to a murder site , but not at one is not going to convict, if one had a competent defence barrister.
No more so than Mrs LONG and her couple outside 29 Hanbury , or Mary Ann Cox and her Blotchy.

But an actual assault, that fits like a glove.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Im a little rusty on the topic of the Seaside Home but why do you think that they made the ID there rather than somewhere in London? I’ve often wondered if it was, for whatever unknown reason, that the witness was at the time residing there due to a recent illness, or that they had moved to the coast, as it certainly seems strange that they would have taken Kosminski there just for reasons of secrecy

A further question is - what do you think of the possibility of the unnamed witness being one whose name was never made public? Or at least one who isn’t one of the usual suspects (Lawende and Schwartz etc)?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Im a little rusty on the topic of the Seaside Home but why do you think that they made the ID there rather than somewhere in London? I’ve often wondered if it was, for whatever unknown reason, that the witness was at the time residing there due to a recent illness, or that they had moved to the coast, as it certainly seems strange that they would have taken Kosminski there just for reasons of secrecy

A further question is - what do you think of the possibility of the unnamed witness being one whose name was never made public? Or at least one who isn’t one of the usual suspects (Lawende and Schwartz etc)?

The reason why there is the hard one,
Maybe it was where the witness was living.
Maybe the witness was staying there short term.
The location of where is open to debate. For long Hove as been favoured, but Adam wood suggested another, linked to city police nearer to Dover.
Or maybe it simply was a SEASIDE Home, the Home of the witness.

As for the ID, yes unknown is a good choice, certainly above Lawende for me.

And I suspect there were two witnesses.
One who saw something that would convict, that's why the Schwartz account fits so well, and another who links that suspect to the other murders.
Such as a policeman maybe , near to Mitre Square who sees the same suspect as Schwartz or an unnamed witness.

The various accounts of someone seen by this policeman or that one, may have a kernel of truth buried away.
While many go for Harvey or more recently Watkins, I like the accounts of at least 2 men stopped in Wentworth st .
But I have no hard position on.it yet Mike.

The talk answers alot of why I.prefer Schwartz or unknown.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

The reason why there is the hard one,
Maybe it was where the witness was living.
Maybe the witness was staying there short term.
The location of where is open to debate. For long Hove as been favoured, but Adam wood suggested another, linked to city police nearer to Dover.
Or maybe it simply was a SEASIDE Home, the Home of the witness.

As for the ID, yes unknown is a good choice, certainly above Lawende for me.

And I suspect there were two witnesses.
One who saw something that would convict, that's why the Schwartz account fits so well, and another who links that suspect to the other murders.
Such as a policeman maybe , near to Mitre Square who sees the same suspect as Schwartz or an unnamed witness.

The various accounts of someone seen by this policeman or that one, may have a kernel of truth buried away.
While many go for Harvey or more recently Watkins, I like the accounts of at least 2 men stopped in Wentworth st .
But I have no hard position on.it yet Mike.

The talk answers alot of why I.prefer Schwartz or unknown.

Steve

I haven’t gotten around to listening to your talk yet Steve but I’m hoping to remedy that at the weekend.

[Abby Normal]

If Abberline believed Schwartz's story what exactly does that mean? Well I would say that he believed Schwartz saw a woman being thrown to the ground and that the man then went on to yell something at him possibly "Lipski." But Abberline had no way of know what had transpired prior to the incident that might have caused it. He had no way of knowing Stride's role in it and if she could have been the instigator. He also had no way of knowing what took place between the B.S. man and Stride after Schwartz left the scene.

So Abberline's belief really needs some context to it. Just saying he believed Schwartz doesn't tell us much.

c.d.

does the quote in my sig by Abberline tell you anything?

[c.d.]

does the quote in my sig by Abberline tell you anything?

Yes, that you put way too much emphasis on that quote. Abberline is simply stating a fact. Notice that he is NOT saying "ahaaa! this has to be our man.

The problem is that no one can define with absolute certainty what constitutes a peaked cap and we cannot go back and ask witnesses what exactly they meant by using that term. And the other problem (and this is huge) is that apparently everybody and their brother wore some type of peaked cap back then.

Your quote is an important clue because it could possibly be describing the killer. But is it a VALUABLE clue? That's where we part ways. Think of a baseball game here in America during the summer. A murder takes place at the game. The police get a description from several people that the killer was wearing sneakers. Now, is that an important clue? Absolutely. But when the chief of police says round up everyone wearing sneakers they end up with 20,000 fans outside his door. See the problem?

Don't confuse important with valuable and don't hang your hat on it (pun intended).

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, that you put way too much emphasis on that quote. Abberline is simply stating a fact. Notice that he is NOT saying "ahaaa! this has to be our man.

The problem is that no one can define with absolute certainty what constitutes a peaked cap and we cannot go back and ask witnesses what exactly they meant by using that term. And the other problem (and this is huge) is that apparently everybody and their brother wore some type of peaked cap back then.

Your quote is an important clue because it could possibly be describing the killer. But is it a VALUABLE clue? That's where we part ways. Think of a baseball game here in America during the summer. A murder takes place at the game. The police get a description from several people that the killer was wearing sneakers. Now, is that an important clue? Absolutely. But when the chief of police says round up everyone wearing sneakers they end up with 20,000 fans outside his door. See the problem?

Don't confuse important with valuable and don't hang your hat on it (pun intended).

c.d.

Hi CD

Yes, that you put way too much emphasis on that quote. Abberline is simply stating a fact. Notice that he is NOT saying "ahaaa! this has to be our man.

Actually he is-that statement was in reference to Chapman. who he thought most likely to be the ripper.

The problem is that no one can define with absolute certainty what constitutes a peaked cap and we cannot go back and ask witnesses what exactly they meant by using that term. And the other problem (and this is huge) is that apparently everybody and their brother wore some type of peaked cap back then.

No they didnt. they wore all kinds of hats. wide awakes, bowlers, deerstalkers etc. and the witnesses did specify- a peaked cap-like something a sailor would wear.

Your quote is an important clue because it could possibly be describing the killer. But is it a VALUABLE clue? That's where we part ways. Think of a baseball game here in America during the summer. A murder takes place at the game. The police get a description from several people that the killer was wearing sneakers. Now, is that an important clue? Absolutely. But when the chief of police says round up everyone wearing sneakers they end up with 20,000 fans outside his door. See the problem?

Don't confuse important with valuable and don't hang your hat on it (pun intended).

Im absolutely flabbergasted that you dont realize the clue and importance of many of the witnesses describing a suspect with a peaked cap. Of course its a valuable clue and Abberline realized it. You havent grasped it yet apparently. oh well. Sorry, but Ill go with the most astute detective who was on the case at the time.

And I will hang my (peaked) hat on it!

[Bridewell]

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

Hi Steve,

I don't quarrel with any of that. The possibility that Schwartz's evidence may have been heard in camera is not something I had considered but I think it unlikely.

The issue of his not being called to give evidence is a source of continual debate. The purpose of an inquest gives a possible answer for me. The coroner has to establish: who has died, where they died, when they died and how they died. Nothing else. There is no suggestion that Schwartz knew Stride so he cannot help with that. Where she died is, within a few feet anyway, apparent from the crime scene and the time can be largely established by the medical evidence and that of the witnesses who saw Stride very soon after she was killed. How she died is obvious and confirmed by post mortem. Strauss offers nothing in respect of the coroner's narrow remit which is not provided by other witnesses. His English was limited, perhaps non-existent, so he would have needed an interpreter. Witnesses giving evidence through an interpreter take up a lot of court time. I think that, in all the circumstances, the coroner's decision not to call a witness who didn't know the deceased and who didn't see her die is understandable. Schwartz's value would have been as a prosecution witness at trial. There he might be invaluable to one party or the other. He offers little or nothing relevant to an inquest.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Steve,

I don't quarrel with any of that. The possibility that Schwartz's evidence may have been heard in camera is not something I had considered but I think it unlikely.

The issue of his not being called to give evidence is a source of continual debate. The purpose of an inquest gives a possible answer for me. The coroner has to establish: who has died, where they died, when they died and how they died. Nothing else. There is no suggestion that Schwartz knew Stride so he cannot help with that. Where she died is, within a few feet anyway, apparent from the crime scene and the time can be largely established by the medical evidence and that of the witnesses who saw Stride very soon after she was killed. How she died is obvious and confirmed by post mortem. Strauss offers nothing in respect of the coroner's narrow remit which is not provided by other witnesses. His English was limited, perhaps non-existent, so he would have needed an interpreter. Witnesses giving evidence through an interpreter take up a lot of court time. I think that, in all the circumstances, the coroner's decision not to call a witness who didn't know the deceased and who didn't see her die is understandable. Schwartz's value would have been as a prosecution witness at trial. There he might be invaluable to one party or the other. He offers little or nothing relevant to an inquest.

Sorry but I simply cannot agree with this. James Brown did not know Liz, nor can he help with the medical evidence. Not only that but he flatly contradicts Schwartz on were Liz was at 12:45 and who she was talking to . There was plenty of time for an interpreter to be found and for Schwartz to give his evidence considering the adjournment.
It is suggested that Schwartz may have been held back in case of a trial. But Brown appearing at the inquest and his evidence virtually gives BS man an alibi. Not only that but no other known witness corroborates Schwartz in the slightest. If Pipeman was found, were was he at said inquest ? There is no definite answer that he was found, only a newspaper report which may not refer to him at all. A defense council would punch holes straight through Schwartz's testimony.
Worse Baxter makes much in his summing up [Oct 24], of Marshall's, PC Smith and Browns evidence. Comparing their descriptions etc. If Schwartz was totally believed Baxter needn't have concerned himself with Brown's testimony in his summing up and the differences/similarities between his and the other witnesses. In fact he needn't have mentioned him at all apart from saying other evidence has come to light [ Schwartz, without naming him ], which may suggest that Brown saw someone else, not Liz.
Yes the police followed Schwartz up, they had to. But if we look at the adjournment Baxter himself says "It would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time."
Was he by then still not aware of Schwartz ? Or was the inquiry adjourned in the first place to look for Pipeman and/or assess Schwartz's evidence.

Regards Darryl

[Elamarna]

Sorry but I simply cannot agree with this. James Brown did not know Liz, nor can he help with the medical evidence. Not only that but he flatly contradicts Schwartz on were Liz was at 12:45 and who she was talking to . There was plenty of time for an interpreter to be found and for Schwartz to give his evidence considering the adjournment.
It is suggested that Schwartz may have been held back in case of a trial. But Brown appearing at the inquest and his evidence virtually gives BS man an alibi. Not only that but no other known witness corroborates Schwartz in the slightest. If Pipeman was found, were was he at said inquest ? There is no definite answer that he was found, only a newspaper report which may not refer to him at all. A defense council would punch holes straight through Schwartz's testimony.
Worse Baxter makes much in his summing up [Oct 24], of Marshall's, PC Smith and Browns evidence. Comparing their descriptions etc. If Schwartz was totally believed Baxter needn't have concerned himself with Brown's testimony in his summing up and the differences/similarities between his and the other witnesses. In fact he needn't have mentioned him at all apart from saying other evidence has come to light [ Schwartz, without naming him ], which may suggest that Brown saw someone else, not Liz.
Yes the police followed Schwartz up, they had to. But if we look at the adjournment Baxter himself says "It would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time."
Was he by then still not aware of Schwartz ? Or was the inquiry adjourned in the first place to look for Pipeman and/or assess Schwartz's evidence.

Regards Darryl

The major issue i have with the argument regards Brown Darryl, is the same i have all the time.
That is time, you say Brown contradicts Schwartz, unfortunately I believe that is only true if all the times given by every individual could be shown to be synchronised with each other, and they simply can't.
The talk given at the East End Conference
this year clearly demonstrated how unreliable these timings are.
Indeed even today we find multifaced public clocks, not only often up to 5 minutes out on GMT , but different faces showing different times.

It's clear from internal Met memos and letter, that Schwarz was still believed, AFTER the inquest closed.

[Varqm]

Hi Steve,

I don't quarrel with any of that. The possibility that Schwartz's evidence may have been heard in camera is not something I had considered but I think it unlikely.

The issue of his not being called to give evidence is a source of continual debate. The purpose of an inquest gives a possible answer for me. The coroner has to establish: who has died, where they died, when they died and how they died. Nothing else. There is no suggestion that Schwartz knew Stride so he cannot help with that. Where she died is, within a few feet anyway, apparent from the crime scene and the time can be largely established by the medical evidence and that of the witnesses who saw Stride very soon after she was killed. How she died is obvious and confirmed by post mortem. Strauss offers nothing in respect of the coroner's narrow remit which is not provided by other witnesses. His English was limited, perhaps non-existent, so he would have needed an interpreter. Witnesses giving evidence through an interpreter take up a lot of court time. I think that, in all the circumstances, the coroner's decision not to call a witness who didn't know the deceased and who didn't see her die is understandable. Schwartz's value would have been as a prosecution witness at trial. There he might be invaluable to one party or the other. He offers little or nothing relevant to an inquest.

Not in a murder inquest.

Marshall,Gardner ,Best did not know Stride, all the policemen and Iwec members did not know Stride,how come they are in the inquest.

The Stride inquest was a murder inquiry.If you are going to do a murder inquiry,you would not include an assault nearest the time of death in the spot where the victim's body was found? And instead put Gardner, Best ,Marshall,whose sighting was farther away in time? It would be a ridiculous inquiry.

[Bridewell]

Sorry but I simply cannot agree with this. James Brown did not know Liz, nor can he help with the medical evidence. Not only that but he flatly contradicts Schwartz on were Liz was at 12:45 and who she was talking to . There was plenty of time for an interpreter to be found and for Schwartz to give his evidence considering the adjournment.
It is suggested that Schwartz may have been held back in case of a trial. But Brown appearing at the inquest and his evidence virtually gives BS man an alibi. Not only that but no other known witness corroborates Schwartz in the slightest. If Pipeman was found, were was he at said inquest ? There is no definite answer that he was found, only a newspaper report which may not refer to him at all. A defense council would punch holes straight through Schwartz's testimony.
Worse Baxter makes much in his summing up [Oct 24], of Marshall's, PC Smith and Browns evidence. Comparing their descriptions etc. If Schwartz was totally believed Baxter needn't have concerned himself with Brown's testimony in his summing up and the differences/similarities between his and the other witnesses. In fact he needn't have mentioned him at all apart from saying other evidence has come to light [ Schwartz, without naming him ], which may suggest that Brown saw someone else, not Liz.
Yes the police followed Schwartz up, they had to. But if we look at the adjournment Baxter himself says "It would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time."
Was he by then still not aware of Schwartz ? Or was the inquiry adjourned in the first place to look for Pipeman and/or assess Schwartz's evidence.

Regards Darryl

You're fully entitled to disagree but my main point was: Schwartz could not assist with answers to the only four questions the coroner was concerned with:

Identification of the deceased, time of death, place of death and cause of death.

Schwartz didn't know Stride and she was alive when he last saw her.

Why would you call him just so that you can ask him questions he can't answer?

[Varqm]

You're fully entitled to disagree but my main point was: Schwartz could not assist with answers to the only four questions the coroner was concerned with:

Identification of the deceased, time of death, place of death and cause of death.

Schwartz didn't know Stride and she was alive when he last saw her.

Why would you call him just so that you can ask him questions he can't answer?

So were Marshall,Brown,Smith,,Collins,Krantz ,Spooner,Coram,Drage able to answer one of
the four questions?

[Wickerman]

Witnesses are not expected to directly answer the questions, they all provide a contribution towards that end.
If we take a pedantic view, the authorities could publish her description in the press and provide a location for anyone who thinks they recognise her to view the body.
Otherwise the doctor can offer an estimate of time of death and cause of death. The place of death in this case is a process of elimination.
The Coroner also needs to build a picture of her final movements just incase it could be a case of suicide. People have cut their own throats, I know most of us might think it unlikely but it is a fact and must be ruled out if possible.
Personally, I don't think Schwartz was called because his story was still being investigated. That is how I interpret Swanson's remark.