|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Israel Schwartz
Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: Specific Witnesses:
Israel Schwartz
Author: Alkhemia
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 01:52 pm |        | Hello all:
For a moment, I'd like to resurrect a point that was touched upon by some posts made in late February. Since I am a newcomer to these boards, I would like to add my proverbial 2 cents worth;
(Specifically relating to the assertion that the "Jewish Witness" wouldn't testify against a fellow Jew)
A few weeks ago, I had a meeting with a Rabbi and two Professors of Jewish History at the University of Judaism in Bel Air, California. All three men are eminent scholars and very well-respected within the academic community (both secular and religious). During our conversation, I asked them specifically about JtR and the assertion that a Jewish witness would not identify JtR because he was a fellow Jew. All three of them rejected that idea because murder is absolutely against Jewish Law. If the "Jewish Witness" had known who the murderer was and done nothing, he would not only be violating Jewish Law but he would also be a silent accomplice to murder. Even if the witness knew the murderer would be executed, Judaism recognizes and accepts the punishments given by "Gentile Law." Perhaps the London police jumped to conclusions because they didn't understand Jewish culture and assumed that they would protect each other at any cost. Again, this is the opinion of the men I spoke with; I simply do not know.
The above does bring to mind a few interesting points. Are we to believe that; 1) The murderer looked so overtly Jewish that he couldn't have passed for any other nationality/religion/culture 2)That Schwartz/Lawende came forward and then protected a man they didn't know for the sole reason that he is Jewish 3) The "Jewish Witness" violates Jewish Law to protect a murderous lunatic 4) Or was the "Jewish Witness" a friend/acquaintence of JtR and instead of protecting a fellow Jew, he is actually protecting a friend?
Alkhemia |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 03:02 pm | | Dear Alkhemia,
In my experience, a difficulty one often faces in consulting learned practising Jews is that they tend to read the word 'Jew' as mening 'one who is observant of the [Jewish scriptural] Law', whereas the police at the time and most of us working on the Ripper theory are only referring to people who happen to be Jewish by descent. In the former meaning, for example, the Ripper couldn't possibly be a Jew unless he was so mad as to be unaware of what he was doing. The Law is severe about the mutilation of corpses.
[Secular] law-abiding practising Jews were (and, I imagine are) indeed, so supportive of the criminal law where outrages against the person are concerned that a Jewish clothes dealer from Field Lane ran 'all the way' to the police office (I'm not sure how far) because it was the Sabbath and he would not take a cab or omnibus on the day in 1831 he learned his evidence was wanted against the bodysnatchers Bishop, Head and May.
But the ordinary not-very-religious immigrant Jew of 1888, the authorities felt, was deeply prejudiced against the police (as well he might be having experienced Czarist antiSemitism from every kind of Russian uniformed officer). And we know from both Swanson and Anderson that the Jewish witness who believed he had identified a suspect held in either an asylum or 'the seaside Home' as the Ripper refused to 'swear to' or 'give evidence against' the man, in part because he was a fellow Jew.
All the best,
Martin F
The question |
Author: Alkhemia
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 04:04 pm | | Martin:
Thank you for your reply! I agree that some of the more learned Jewish scholars tend to have a very specific connotation for the word "Jew." A few years ago, I spoke with a Chassidic Rabbi who believed that a "Jew" followed all 513 Laws and if you didn't (even if you were of Jewish descent), he considered you a gentile. Everyone brings their own preconceived notions to things - but since I don't have any definite theories concerning this case, I thought the position of a contemporary Jewish scholar(s) might be interesting.
Until your post, the "Jewish Witness" refusing to give evidence against the murderer tended to bother me. For instance, I'm of Irish descent and I would never think of protecting a murderer just because he was Irish nor do I have a general feeling of distrust or fear of persecution from the police. I now realize that I was removing that situation from its context and not taking into account the feelings of the average (non-observant) immigrant Jew towards the authorities.
Thank you for helping to clear things up for me!
Alkhemia |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 04:23 pm | | Alkhemia:
Don't mench. You're welc.
Martin |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 05:54 am | | Hi All,
Just a small pedantic point here - unless the Jewish witness actually saw the murder taking place, he couldn't have 'known who the murderer was'. All he could have done was identify someone who was seen with a victim shortly before her body was discovered - a suspect. A small distinction, but could this be a reason why the witness wasn't comfortable about testifying against a fellow Jew? Was he afraid that the police might use his evidence, not so much to hang a fellow Jew who was guilty of murder, but to clear up the case by convicting a possibly innocent fellow Jew?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 08:06 am | | Hi Caz,
We have to start with Anderson's definite words, 'the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer...' Of course, this is only Anderson's opinion, because, as you say, there is no record of anyone seeing the murderer murdering, and not the slightest likelihood that any such record would have disappeared from the surviving files without trace.
We're also dealing with Anderson's and Swanson's opinions when we say that he refused to testify or swear to his statement because he learned that the suspect (as Swanson properly refers to him throughout) was a fellow-Jew. He may have bellowed, 'Gawd's teeth, guv'nor! I aint gonna grass up a mucker from me old Auntie Leah's shtetl', or he may have just winced visibly and closed his mouth on hearing the man he'd identified addressed as Isaacs, or Abrahams, or Katzenellenbogan. (I purposely don't say Cohen....!) We simply don't know. We do know that Swanson adds as a second reason that he didn't want his testimony to cause the death of a fellow creature, from which we might deduce that the suspect could be tried, convicted and hanged. This puts Swanson once again in conflict with Anderson, who says the ID took place after the suspect was safely caged in a lunatic asylum, and that in turn means he would be unfit to plead and culd not be tried or executed.
It don't get easy to stick to the given statements in this area and postulate historical events, and it can't be done without some conjecture and interpretation since our two documents contradict each other. But as Anderson and Swanson both say the witness was Jewish, and we know of two Jewish witnesses, Schwartz and Lawende, whose testimony was taken seriously by the police, I think we're safest to stick with considering them and their sightings, and not open up the further can of worms that they didn't actually see the murders. It helps if one makes a point of remembering that at this stage we're looking for 'Anderson's suspect' rather than 'Jack the Ripper'.
Confused? I've done my best.
Martin F |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 09:38 am | | Hi Martin,
Yes, I appreciate all the points you make, and the great job you've done not to leave me confused. Not many people manage that!
I guess we have to assume that a conviction would not have rested on the identification of a suspect alone (ie that the police had something else to go on), but I just wondered if the witness may have thought it might, and that he may have been troubled with the thought of being the sole cause of a fellow Jewish suspect's fate, as opposed to wanting to protect a fellow Jew and brutal killer. Just idle speculation on my part, not meant to go anywhere.
I particularly like your last point:
It helps if one makes a point of remembering that at this stage we're looking for 'Anderson's suspect' rather than 'Jack the Ripper'.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Avril Sprintall
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 10:59 am | | I may be wrong, but didn't Anderson also state that the only person to have a good view of the suspect was " the PC in Mitre Square"?
This error gives rise to a few doubts as to his recollections. |
Author: Avril Sprintall
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 11:04 am | | | Sorry, ignore the previous posting, I have confused Anderson & McNaughton - apologies. |
Author: Bryan Stebelton
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 12:15 pm | | | This is by no means my opinion,only a thought I've occasionally entertained,as I have already laid out my theory as to the identity(ies)of the ripper.But as to the Eddowes murder and to a lesser degree several others,constables were very near the crimes,especially so in the Eddowes case.I may of overlooked it but has anyone either present day or during the murders opined that the killer may have been a pc? Not that I believe a pc to be the killer,but I would be intrested to know if any suspicion,warranted or not had fallen to a pc? |
Author: Paul DUNLOP
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 03:41 pm | | Mr stebelton,
Thats an interesting theory, but I suspect unlikely.
However, I can state that in some of the murder cases that I am aware of, the murderer can sometimes be found with the body, or 'finding' the body in situ, to account for why they have blood on themselves.
e.g
Tracey ANDREWS, who stated that her boyfriend had been stabbed following a 'road rage' incident in a quiet lane in Worcestershire, when in fact she had stabbed him following a quarrel.
She was covered in blood and needed an excuse to account for this fact.
I have read ( and am still reading ) books about JTR and I must admit that I have wondered how a P.C has walked past a murder site, folowed by a 'carman', then another P.C, then another person, only to return to the same point minutes later and find a body.
These days suspicion would fall initially on the person reporting the crime, or finding the body.
The Police would then put the suspect under intense media pressure ( T.V etc ) to watch how they react.
This was obviously not an option in 1888.
Paul D. |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 04:02 pm | | There have been occasional suggestions that a PC would (for example) have found it easy to walk through the streets after the murders without arousing suspicion. There was even a definite (false) accusation laid against Det Sgt Thick at the time (details will be found in Evans and Skinner). I don't think any of the suspicions of police have ever seemed persuasive to those who have given the case most study.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Bryan Stebelton
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 05:05 pm | | | Thank you both for your feedback.And Mr.Fido I am a fan,have read your book as well as those of many others.I wasn't aware of the accusation of pc Thicke,but that definitley answered my inquiry.I would be honored if you would look at the post I placed on the suspects page under the Tumblety heading,and let me know what you think of my pet theory.Mind you that I don't beat the theory into anybody and am aware that it is in part conjecture. thank you,Bryan |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 05:33 pm | | Although Stuart Evans has dismissed this argument , I wonder if its worth repeating again just to see what others make of it - it concerns the ' PC in Mitre Square '. From ' Sickert and the Ripper Crimes ' by J.O. Fuller ( just because this book accuses Sickert of being the Ripper don't dismiss this out of hand ! ) :
...a description appeared in the Police Gazette ( of the man seen with Eddowes - SJO ) in the issue that carried two descriptions of the man seen with Elizabeth Stride. The Police Gazette does not give the names of the witnesses to whom it owes descriptions . In the Stride case I could recognise those taken from the statements of PC William Smith and Schwarz. I had no means to recognise the source of the description of the man seen with Eddowes...I wrote to New Scotland Yard , asking if I might be furnished with the name of the witness - was it Levin or Lawende ( alternatively spelt by Inspector Swanson ) who had amplified his first statement , or somebody else ? I recieved a reply from W. Wadell , Curator of the Black Museum : the above description was provided not by Lawende but by PC White. " ( pages 118-119 )
The description that actually appeared in the Police Gazette goes as follows :
"...a man , age 30 , height 5ft 7 or 8 inches , complexion fair , moustache fair medium build , dress pepper and salt coloured jacket , grey cloth cap with peak of same material , reddish neckerchief tied in a knot , appearance of a sailor."
Now is the above description actually from Lawende as Mr Evans claims , even though Bill Waddell states it was from a PC White. Is Scotland Yard wrong ? And is the mysterious PC White really Sgt Stephen White of H division , could the article descibing White's meeting with the Ripper in the ' People's Journal ' of 1919 actually be based on fact ?
If anyone can get in touch with the Black Museum , maybe they could confirm the story. P.S. Stewart's comments are to be found under ' Sgt Stephen White ' in the Police Officials section of the Casebook.
Simon |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 04:13 am | | Simon
Stewart is correct. The description attributed to White by Bill Waddell is attributed to Lawende in the contemporary Home Office files (HO/144/221/a49301C 8c). |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 04:31 am | | Alkhemia/Caz
I personally feel that the only person who ever had a view of anyone who could with probability be described as the murderer was Israel Schwartz, who, if he is believed, actually saw a woman whom he identified as Stride assaulted on a spot very close to where her dead body was shortly afterwards found (his description of the man was, as Swanson noted, very similar to Lawende's description of the man seen with Eddowes. If they were indeed both the same man then Stride and Eddowes were killed by the same hand, which could make either Schwartz or Lawende the witness; I plump for Schwartz because he did see a woman being assaulted, whereas Lawnde only saw a man and a woman talking and nothing further could probably have been proved against him. But assaulting a woman later found dead and fitting the description of a man seen in the company of another victim would. I think, probably have been sufficient to hang him.)
If we accept for the sake of this current question that Schwartz was the witness, it is possible to postulate that while positive it was the man he had seen, did not know that the man was the murderer. Drawing this fine distinction in his mind, may have made him reluctant to give evidence that would result in the man being hanged. |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 06:46 am | | Hi Paul, and everyone,
Would anyone happen to know if any first-hand account of what Schwartz saw remains written or taken down directly in his own language? I know the Star reporter had a translator and reported the translation and Swanson used another translator and synthesized the statement into a page of notes on the 19th of October. I was wondering if there are any records of what Schwartz actually said in Hungarian either to the police or to the Star or to a contemporary, small local Hungarian paper.
I've never seen any report of an account in Hungarian, but I would think he might have told his story to someone for the record directly in his own language.
Just wondering,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 06:51 am | | John
To my knowledge nothing exists beyond what we already have. |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 07:02 am | | Thanks, Paul.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 07:55 am | | Hi All,
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your earlier post, it made a lot of sense to me (not that others don't, you understand, except when I try to wrestle with your philosophical ones!)
It's only natural if we find it hard to accept that a person would refuse to testify against someone they knew, or thought they knew, was a vicious killer, just because of a common bond like race or creed. But I don't think anyone has to accept this because it's my guess that the reason handed down to us for the witness not testifying was nowhere near that simple in reality. It would have been the result of many thought processes on the part of the witness, all experienced consciously or unconsciously in seconds.
Schwartz and Lawende would not have known, as the police did, the strength or otherwise of their combined testimony. A decision not to testify would have involved many factors coming together other than conscience, such as fear of reprisal, and his perception of the authorities and the justice system - all would have flashed through the witness's mind when deciding not to testify and giving his reason. We don't know if the reason given reflected his real reasons; if he was looking for the best way out of a sticky situation, it worked. The police, for whatever reasons of their own, accepted his stricken conscience argument and let him off the hook.
In any case, whoever was the witness, we can see that the conscience issue, as Paul says, could concern reluctance to help convict a fellow Jew who he could not be 100% sure was the killer, regardless of what other witnesses had to say, or the strength of the police's case as a whole.
I can certainly understand why the witness might have feared reprisal. Combined with a very possible suspicion of authority, I can see all sorts of consequencies occurring to him, which he would never have been able to voice when giving his objections to the police. If we assume, for this exercise, that the witness knows he can't be certain it was Jack he saw, we could consider the following thought processes:
Jewish witness testifies - fellow Jew is convicted. The witness might be forgiven for seeing this as a dream for a bigoted police force and press that he would rather not be instrumental in making come true, thanks all the same.
Jewish witness testifies - but fellow Jew gets acquitted: could be very bad news. Worst scenario is that he is seen to be siding with the coppers against one of his own kind, in their failed attempt to fit up Johnnie Foreigner.
See what I mean? The witness had to think on his feet and come up with an argument for not testifying to suit the occasion and his audience.
Apologies for rambling, and getting nowhere in particular. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Bryan Stebelton
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 09:10 am | | | to all, great insights everyone,I'm a firm believer that the answers that could have led to the solution of the case, lie in the Stride,Eddowes murders. the best witness imo is also Schwartz,and truly the only good physical evidence(apron piece,chalk writing)and the fact that his escape route was known,back to the east end and not the city proper which shows possibly proof of residency.Not to mention that Schwartz is the lynch pin of the case I outlined on the Tumblety board.I like the theory on the mystery pc,thats very interesting fuel for the mind.thanks all Bryan. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 03:01 pm | | Hi all,
I have a question about the witness who allegedly identified "Kosminski" as Jack the Ripper.
The more I have looked into this, the more confused I become. I have read varying accounts of this alleged identification which offers wildly different scenarios.
Some have suggested the witness that Anderson and Swanson refer to is Israel Schwartz. Others claim it was Joseph Lawande. There even appears to be disagreement as to when the alleged identification occurred - some suggesting shortly after the "double event" and others saying it occurred a period of months or years afterward.
I fear that this is yet another circumstance in which we do not have definitive information. Over the past 20 years, I have read virtually every contemporary book on the case but must admit I am still perplexed by this part of the story. I would welcome any information that might help point me in the right direction to answer this question.
Thanks,
Rich |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 04:44 pm | | Rich - I'm really not trying to be snotty and superior, but we'll all wear ourselves out if we repeat and repeat material which is very familiar.
Could you get a copy of the A-Z from your local reference library and have a look at the entries under Lawende and Schwartz? Or use the 'Keyword search' on these boards. The basic facts about these witnesses are really quite clear and should be properly laid out in any decent book on the Ripper since Stephen Knight put Schwartz clearly in the public domain.
Martin F |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 05:12 pm | | Martin,
Thank you for the reply. I do have a copy of the A-Z and have looked on these boards. In addition, I have your book on the David Cohen theory which I do find compelling.
I am familiar with the eyewitness reports of both Schwartz and Lawende.
Some sources indicate that the witness who identified the named suspect was Schwartz (John Ross, among others). Yet others say it was Lawende (Phil Sugden, among others).
But perhaps this was not the place to ask for further information.
Thanks,
Rich |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 07:01 am | | Dear Rich,
I do apologise for misunderstanding the thrust of your question and so offering you patronising advice.
Whether Anderson's witness was Schwartz, Lawende, somebody else we've never heard of, or a figment of Anderson's geriatric imagination is purely a matter for individual deduction. Hence the differences.
The reasons for differing dates for the ID again result from different folk's different deductions. If you conclude that Anderson's suspect was Kosminski, then it seems that the ID didn't take place until about 1891 in which year he was finally passed through the infirmary to the asylum. If you think he was Cohen, then it has to have taken place before his death in 1889. If you think Swanson is accurate in placing the ID at the Seaside Home and further think the Seaside Home was the purpose-acquired house in Brighton, then it can't have taken place before 1890. But none of these determining conclusions could be reached by a simple examination of the facts about Schwartz and Lawende.
Apologies again,
Martin F |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 02:09 pm | | Martin,
No need to apologize. I think I was lamenting more than anything else that the witness issue is a mystery that will probably never be solved. And this is really not the time or place.
Thanks,
Rich |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 02 November 2002 - 07:03 pm | | | How wide was Berner Street? In other words how far away was Schwartz when he saw Stride attacked? Was it a narrow lane? A wide thoroughfare? Something inbetween? |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 02 November 2002 - 07:59 pm | | Diana,
Schwartz was on the same side of the street as Stride when she was attacked. He later walked across the street, and looked back at the attack taking place. I believe Berner Street was a relatively narrow backstreet in Whitechapel, wide enough for two carriages to pass by one another in motion, with perhaps a little margin left for a parked carriage on the side--greater experts please correct me.
David |
Author: Garry Wroe
Sunday, 03 November 2002 - 04:15 am | | Hi Diana.
Like the vast majority of East End thoroughfares, Berner Street was about twenty feet wide and poorly illuminated at the time of the Ripper murders.
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 03 November 2002 - 08:37 am | | | Thank you. Can anyone tell me exactly what Schwartz/Lawende's "peaked cap" would have looked like? I'm beginning to rethink my theory about Jack stopping off at home between Stride and Eddowes. Sugden says that both witnesses used the word "jacket" (page 212). On the same page Sugden describes an incident reported in the Star. A witness in Church Lane spotted a man sitting on a doorstep and wiping his hands at about 1:30. He had on a short jacket and a sailor's hat. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 03 November 2002 - 03:32 pm | | Hi, Diana:
The following photograph of suspect George Chapman (Severin Klosowski) with Bessie Taylor shows him wearing such a sailor's cap with a peak.
Chris
 |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 03 November 2002 - 08:48 pm | | | Thanks. I think I'm beginning to form a physical description in my mind. |
|
|
|
|
