Schwartz v. Lawende

[S.Brett]

This is an interesting idea? Stride definately seems different from the other women, and was said to have worked for jews....

Kozminski had a strong hatred of woman. Is it possible he had arranged to meet Stride, that their was a connection other than casual prostitution?

A number of ripperologists have speculated that Stride might have been meeting a specific person on the night of her death, and if your theory about the man seen by Marshal, PC Smith and later Schwartz are the same man who stops and argues, then Stride appears to have been with him a long time for a client?

Did Stride know Aaron Kozminski?

Hi Jeff,

Cox:

He made his way down to St George's in the East End, and there to my astonishment I saw him stop and speak to a drunken woman.

I crouched in a doorway and held my breath. Was he going to throw himself right into my waiting arms? He passed on after a moment or two, and on I slunk after him.

As I passed the woman she laughed and shouted something after me, which, however, I did not catch.

It does not sound like a considerable distance/time... but:

Not far from where the model lodging house stands he met another woman, and for a considerable distance he walked along with her.

This time he walked with her a considerable distance/time.

Only in the case of Eddowes I would say he had a "short time" with his victim. We do not know how long he walked with (Smith, Tabram) Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Kelly.

I am convinced that the Ripper knew many of the prostitutes, some by name, some by sight... but in the end they all were random victims...

Yours Karsten.

[John G]

Hi Tom

There's a lot of problems with Lawende being the Seaside home witness...

For a start shortly after Kozminski enters the Colney Hatch Asylum, Lawende was again used as a witness.... As Begg pointed it it seems totally unfeasible that having positively identified Kozminski and refused to give evidence against him that the police would then knock on his door and say 'You know that guy you said was definitely Jack the Ripper and you let off the hook' well we've got a different man in the cells would you have a look at him?'

It doesn't really make sense. Besides why would Lawende cooperate with police if he didn't intend to testify? Again that doesn't make sense, he seems very helpful to the police. Several top cops thought him their best witness.

So for me Schwartz has always been a better bet as the Seaside Home witness, its possible he had a better view of the suspect than Lawende...

What Karsten has been arguing over the last few months however rules out both Schwartz and Lawende, in that Kozminski came to police attention early.

Therefore why wait two years to do an ID?

Surely if Lawende and Schwartz were used they failed to make an ID... because according to Cox the man he followed and was suspected was at large almost three months after the last murder and MacNAughten pin points that date as March 1889.

Yours Jeff

Hello Jeff,

I would agree that Lawende was a less than inspiring witness, and appears the police thought so as well. Thus, it seems that he was asked to see if he could identify Thomas Sadler, but failed to do so, and subsequently Grant Grainger. However, in the latter case the Pall Mall Gazette reported:

"The person is stated to have identified Grainger as the man he saw. But obviously identification after so cursory a glance, and after the lapse of so long an interval, could not be reliable; and the enquires were at length pulled up in a cul-de-sac ". (The emphasis is mine).

I also think that, like George Hutchinson, the authorities quickly lost confidence in Schwartz. However, you and Karsten seem to be arguing in favour of a third witness. Who do you think that may have been? And why was that witness not used to identity Sadler and Grainger?

[S.Brett]

However, you and Karsten seem to be arguing in favour of a third witness. Who do you think that may have been?

Hi John,

My answer (I hope it is okay) is:

I am not convinced that Swansonīs "And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London..." and "after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified..." are one and the same incident.

I think it s quite possible that almost two years had passed between "And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London..." (End of 1888) and "after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified..." (second half of 1890).

I guess that the police had informed (November/December 1888) this "strong suspect" with "many circs" that he is the "Prime suspect" and that the police would watch him (from now on) by day & night and the "Prime suspect" knew about this identification... and no other murder of this kind took place in London...

(1888) First an "identification" without a witness (Lawende, Schwartz failed, PC near Mitre Square-he was not sure, failed to see the manīs face-, Packer saw him 1,5 hour before Stride was found dead)... (1890) the second identification took place at the Seaside Home with a witness who identified him "the moment he was confronted with him"...

Regards, Karsten.

[John G]

Hi John,

My answer (I hope it is okay) is:

I am not convinced that Swansonīs "And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London..." and "after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified..." are one and the same incident.

I think it s quite possible that almost two years had passed between "And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London..." (End of 1888) and "after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified..." (second half of 1890).

I guess that the police had informed (November/December 1888) this "strong suspect" with "many circs" that he is the "Prime suspect" and that the police would watch him (from now on) by day & night and the "Prime suspect" knew about this identification... and no other murder of this kind took place in London...

(1888) First an "identification" without a witness (Lawende, Schwartz failed, PC near Mitre Square-he was not sure, failed to see the manīs face-, Packer saw him 1,5 hour before Stride was found dead)... (1890) the second identification took place at the Seaside Home with a witness who identified him "the moment he was confronted with him"...

Regards, Karsten.

Hi Karsten,

Thanks for this. Paul Begg considered the possibility that the witness could have been PC Smith although, as he pointed out, a major problem is that he wasn't Jewish (Begg, 2004).

Nonetheless, if Schwartz was discredited, or undermined, it would seem strange that they wouldn't turn to PC Smith as an alternative witness. After all, his evidence gels quite nicely with Mortimer's, and it might be possible that it was noticed that his estimate of time of sighting was based upon a false premise, i.e. that that he arrived back on Berner Street at 1:00am when in must have been closer to 1:10. The timeline therefore needs to be pushed forward around 10 minutes, placing his sighting at 12:40-45, not 12:30-35, as he estimated.

[lynn cates]

mmwwah

Hello Tom.

"I'm finding the times work out harmoniously without Schwartz but become a real brain puzzle when you try to squeeze him in there."

When do you wish to collect your kiss? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

The Seaside Home witness seems most likely to have been Lawende. Either Schwartz was long gone from London by then or they'd decided he hadn't been a good witness. Or maybe he just refused to be used as a witness again. Hard to say. BS Man was most certainly not the witness and Pipeman was not Jewish, so it was either Schwartz, Lawende, or one of the other Mitre Square witnesses, but most likely Lawende. It's quite interesting, if not telling, that Abberline doesn't mention his own witness, Schwartz, in telling his George Chapman theories.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom
Maybe he does, but just didn't name him. see my sig below.

[S.Brett]

he arrived back on Berner Street at 1:00am when in must have been closer to 1:10. The timeline therefore needs to be pushed forward around 10 minutes, placing his sighting at 12:40-45, not 12:30-35, as he estimated.

Hi John,

It cannot be ruled out, yes...

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

Since the police and populous believed (rightly or wrongly) the murderer committed another whilst all the people present at the club were under police detention, the debate seems unproductive.

Since the murders, if taken out of an automatic assumptions category, do not in any important way resemble each other, so I dont see any reason to assume they both were done by one man.

Liz Strides murder is presumed to be the same murderer as Kates if you believe,.... like many, many people do...that only 1 killer with a knife ruled the East End Streets for about 2 1/2 months. Historical timing, and geographical relationship, and a murderer-mutilator at large are the bits of "evidence" that are used to make that conclusion.

I prefer using the physical and circumstantial evidence myself.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Tom.

"I'm finding the times work out harmoniously without Schwartz but become a real brain puzzle when you try to squeeze him in there."

When do you wish to collect your kiss? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Its funny Lynn, Ive been suggesting the above for quite a few years here, Im sure you recall my Dutfields Yard timeline thread a few years back, what Im wondering now is when the claim of an original idea will follow.

[John G]

Hi John,

It cannot be ruled out, yes...

Hi Karsten,

Yes, I tend to agree. As I noted earlier, Paul Begg considered the possibility that PC Smith could have been the witness, although he ultimately rejects the idea, i.e because he wasn't Jewish. However, the difficulty is the comments of senior officers on the subject, i.e. Anderson, Macnaghton, Swanson, are so confusing that no known witness fully meets the criteria.

And there is evidence that a police constable may have been involved as a witness:Major Arthur Griffiths stated, "This man was said to resemble the murderer by the one person who got a glimpse of him-the police constable in Mitre Square."

Sir Melville Nacnaghten wrote, "This man on appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square." Later in the report he added, " No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the City PC who was a beat near Mitre Square.")

And George R Sims stated, "The policeman who got a glimpse of Jack in Mitre Court said, when some time afterwards he saw the Pole, that he was the height and build of the man he had seen on the night of the murder."

Of course, no City PC is known to have seen a suspect in or near Mitre Square, so could they be getting confused with PC Smith, the Berner Street witness?

Could it be that two witnesses were utilized with, say, PC Smith confirming that he resembled the man he saw, and Lawende making a positive ID? Could that explain the confusion with the Mitre Square connection?

[S.Brett]

Of course, no City PC is known to have seen a suspect in or near Mitre Square, so could they be getting confused with PC Smith, the Berner Street witness?

Could it be that two witnesses were utilized with, say, PC Smith confirming that he resembled the man he saw, and Lawende making a positive ID? Could that explain the confusion with the Mitre Square connection?

Hello again, John!

New York Times
October 2, 1888

The only trace considered of any value is the story of a watchboy who saw a man and woman leave Aldgate station, going towards Mitre-square. The man returned shortly afterward alone. The police have a good decription of him

The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, 2 October, 1888:

a man was, later in the day, brought to the Leman-street Police-station by a constable who found him prowling about not far from Mitre-street. His face was haggard, and he seemed unable to give any account of himself. Upon him were found 1s 4―d in money and a razor, and round his throat was a woollen scarf of a violet colour, upon which were several long hairs, supposed to be those of a woman. (1 October 1888)

By the "watchboy", The police have a good decription of him... and it is possible that the man brought by a constable who found him prowling about not far from Mitre-street corresponded with the description of the man the watchboy saw... and this "watchboy" is the police constable in Mitre Square, the City PC near Mitre Square/the City PC who was a beat near Mitre Square and The policeman who got a glimpse of Jack in Mitre Court said, when some time afterwards he saw the Pole, that he was the height and build of the man he had seen on the night of the murder.

I say it again, pure speculation for my part... I guess a City PC is more likely than a MET PC (Smith)...

I can well imagine that there was a Jewish witness in Millerīs Court. Swanson (again) "And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London" could mean that the suspect was aware that he was seen by a witness who "had a good view of him"... but the police were not aware of this Jewish witness until the second half of 1890... were the police hoping to catch him red-handed after the suspect was watched by day and night from the end of 1888 (Cox and Co.?)? Did he stop killing prostitutes because he felt the presence of the police ( Cox:When darkness set in I saw him come forth from the door of his little shop and glance furtively around to see if he were being watched) or because he knew he was seen ("identified") by a witness (Millerīs Court)? (or both?)

It is a fact: I do not know much about the truth...

Karsten.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom,

And, of course, we have Abberline's comments:" ...the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man of 34 or 35 years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back , and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view. "

It has often been said that this undermines Hutchinson's account, but it also undermines Schwartz as well, unless Abberline didn't believe that Stride was a Ripper victim.

And, as I noted in my earlier post, PC Smith may well have seen Stride with the suspect close to 12:45, rather than 12:35, which would explain explain why Mortimer heard the heavy tread of a policeman passing by just before she went to her doorstep at around 12:46.

Of course, if correct, this timeline would also seriously undermine Schwartz.

Hi John. Yes, good eye there. And Abberline did accept Stride as a Ripper victim. I also agree to some extent about PC William Smith, although I did not see where you posted about it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

Thanks. The rain and the grapes, of course, count against Packer but:

Packer said I sold him 1/2 pound black grapes 3d and then, she was eating the grapes? Who said that? Did I miss a thing? Did she like grapes at all? I have black grapes in my garden and I do not like them. Hard seeds and hard skins and every time I eat them I spit them out, only eating the fruit/juice pulp.

Stride: All the teeth on the lower left jaw were absent I think Stride had some problems eating certain foods (more "drinking" the grapes).

Packerīs first statement closed his shop at 12.30am that morning and the second On Sat night about 11pm... 1/2 an hour till I shd. say 11.30. talking to one another. I then shut up my shutters could imply that Packer was not sure about the time estimate...

Dull morning; fine day; sudden heavy rain at "9.5p.m." lasting till after midnight...

http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/weather.html

sudden heavy rain at "9.5p.m." lasting till after midnight

J. Best, 82, Lower Chapman-street, said:

I was in the Bricklayers' Arms, Settles-street, about two hundred yards from the scene of the murder on Saturday night, shortly before eleven, and saw a man and a woman in the doorway. They had been served in the public house, and went out when me and my friends came in. It was raining very fast, and they did not appear willing to go out

PC Smith at the inquest:

[Coroner] Did you see the man's face? - He had no whiskers, but I did not notice him much. I should say he was twenty-eight years of age. He was of respectable appearance, but I could not state what he was. The woman had a flower in her breast. It rained very little after eleven o'clock.

William Marshall, examined by the Coroner, said:

While I was standing at my door, from half-past eleven to twelve, there was no rain at all

Dr. Blackwell:

The clothes were not wet with rain.

Stride was a prostitute roaming the streets and was seen by some witnesses... went out but did not appear willing to go out when It was raining very fast shortly before eleven (Best)... It rained very little after eleven o'clock (PC Smith/ at 12.30/12.35am???)... from half-past eleven to twelve, there was no rain at all (Marshall)...

sudden heavy rain at "9.5p.m." lasting till after midnight but The clothes were not wet with rain

It seems to me there was no heavy rain after midnight, it was there shortly before eleven and it stopped around 11.00pm and after eleven o'clock it rained very little (till 11.30pm) and then,from half-past eleven to twelve, there was no rain at all. If Stride came from a pub at 11.00pm and went to Packer who saw her standing until 11.30pm when it rained very little so it is possible that she, after 11.30pm (no rain at all), had time enough to getting dry.

Karsten.

You can twist the evidence any way you wish to reach whatever conclusion you want, but what Packer said was they were standing in the rain for 15 minutes and he even remarked to his wife about them standing in the rain. And he said she was eating grapes. But she did neither of these things and Packer was in bed when all this happened. Then after this Le Grand gets the whole Batty Street lodger thing going and Packer's back in the mix saying he's seen his Ripper suspect 20 or more times before and he lives on Batty Street. Then he sees him hop a tram on Greenfield Street, then he teams up with another lying witness and follows his Ripper down another street. Then he says he was beat up and spent three weeks at London Hospital, but the LH register puts the lie to that. The only honest statement he gave was his first which was to the effect that he saw nothing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I say it again, pure speculation for my part... I guess a City PC is more likely than a MET PC (Smith)...

Or it was intended to read 'City Police Witness' (i.e. Lawende).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Its funny Lynn, Ive been suggesting the above for quite a few years here, Im sure you recall my Dutfields Yard timeline thread a few years back, what Im wondering now is when the claim of an original idea will follow.

Are you serious? All you've been posting these last six years or so is a rehash of my original research on Schwartz that shows he might have been associated with the Berner Street club. I don't mind anyone citing me or my ideas and agreeing with them. That's the whole point of sharing, after all. But putting it into print and not crediting me doesn't go far with me, let alone claiming it was your idea in the first place. Give me a break.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott