Aaron or not

[jason_c]

Edited - double post

[Observer]

Hi Gentlemen

Sorry to interupt, in the event of the Ripper being caught would Lawende's evidence have been of any use? He had already told the inquest that he doubted whether he would know the man again. I wonder what a jury would have made of his evidence?

Of course there is some play in the statement "I doubt it", but I doubt whether his evidence would have been of any use in a trial.

all the best

Observer

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Gentlemen

Sorry to interupt, in the event of the Ripper being caught would Lawende's evidence have been of any use? He had already told the inquest that he doubted whether he would know the man again. I wonder what a jury would have made of his evidence?

Of course there is some play in the statement "I doubt it", but I doubt whether his evidence would have been of any use in a trial.

all the best

Observer

Just to point out an interesting discussion on the 'Reclaimed' thread.

"I believe that Levy is the best candidate for Anderson?s witness. Look at the statistics; 12 Kosminski men in London in 1891; fewer (less than 4) in 1877, when Levy sponsors Martin Kosminski?s British Naturalization application. So during the murders, there were between 4 and 12 men in all of London named Kosminski. And Levy sees someone near Mitre Square, and Sims says that a ?policeman? saw the Pole near Mitre square, who could only later be identifed by height and build (when referring to Kosminski). Ergo, Levy knew Martin K., Martin K. knew another man named Kosminski, this man was also know to Levy and his general appearance could be collaborated by a cop."

I beleive the suggestion being made that possible Aaron Kosminski might have been known to Lawende and Levy, which is why they were not more fourth coming in the testemony..however that is purely speculation.

For me Berner Street is more interesting because of its location and access from Sion Sq, 16 Greenfeild Street and even Batty Street.

There's some facinating stuff on this thread by SNelson and Chris Philips which I can recommend everyone should check back and read.

Yours Jeff

PS. Given my recent critisism of Dan Norder I beleive it would be a little churlish on my part not to thank him for the hard work he has put in reclaiming these lost threads on Kosminski. So many thanks Dan

[Stewart P Evans]

Speculation

Here we go again - deep within the realms of speculation and no new arguments put forward - only repetition of the old mantra. These are old ideas being repeated.

Lawende being used as a possible witness to identify Jack the Ripper showed the police were clutching at straws, just as they would had they used Schwartz. For there was no witness who could positively identify the murderer. Ergo, no witness could be responsible for the Polish Jew suspect being hanged. Everything regarding the failed identification of the Polish Jew suspect rests on the words of only two men being truthful and accurate - Anderson and, by the 'marginalia', Swanson. No other police officer or official makes any reference to such a thing whatsoever. However, what we do have is the definite fact that the police initially suspected Sadler of being the Ripper in February 1891 and the reference, in the Daily Telegraph, to the Mitre Square witness [Lawende] being used in that attempted identification - which failed.

I have fully analysed this evidence and I am of the opinion that it is a rather large coincidence that Aaron Kosminski should be permanently incarcerated as insane just over a week before the Coles murder on 13 February 1891 and the subsequent failed identification of Sadler as Jack the Ripper by a Jewish witness. The missing 'ingredient' of the Anderson scenario is that Sadler was not a Polish Jew. I am fully aware that to turn that, years later, into the Anderson theory would involve deception on his part and, presumably, Swanson. It is an explanation that fits. And Anderson is not the 'whiter than white' character that many have tried to make him out to be.

To say that 'the ID is the only contemporary evidence we know of against anyone' is misleading and incorrect. For we have no evidence, other than Anderson's 1910 book, and Swanson's 'marginalia' that any such event occurred. It certainly wasn't contemporaneous with the murders, if it took place, anyway. It's fine to ask rhetorical questions such as 'was there additional evidence against him that led to police suspicions?' but the fact that nothing at all is mentioned in any official record, or anywhere else, and Macnaghten's indication that there was 'no shadow of proof' against him in 1894 militates against such a claim. Many people threaten others with knives, especially in domestic situations. But to do so doesn't show that person to be a homicidal maniac, or even to have homicidal tendencies. And in 1891 when Kosminski was committed to Colney Hatch, Maurice Whitfield, the Relieving Officer at Mile End, stated that Aaron Kosminski was not dangerous to other people.

Anderson, it should be remembered, was not a policeman, he was a barrister and government civil servant and his rank in the police force was of an 'officer corps' nature. It was, and remained, highly embarrassing to him that the start of his illustrious career in the CID was marked by a series of ghastly unsolved murders of an unprecedented nature. It sat uneasily with him and was of a high profile enough nature to still be on his mind in 1910 when he scribed his reminiscences - to the degree that he felt it necessary to mislead his readers about the nature of the Mylett murder, which he claimed was not a murder at all. It remains very difficult to believe that such a high profile identification as that alleged by Anderson, together with the attendant people that, of necessity, would have to know about it, ever took place and was not mentioned by others.

The old suggestion that Levy might be 'Anderson's witness' is simply not borne out by any of the attendant police reports, inquest statements and reports of the day. Again it is an idea floated twenty years ago by Paul Begg and requires much manipulation of the facts that stretches the imagination to breaking point. These ideas have been argued at length many times in the past. There is some excellent research being done by Chris Phillips and Rob House on the Kosminskis and much valuable material is being found. Not least of all that Aaron's family had changed their name to Abrahams. It was quite common for Jewish immigrants to change their names or to Anglicise them so although 12 Kosminskis were recorded in London at the time I am sure that this figure will be revised when the work of Messrs Phillips and House is completed.

[Stewart P Evans]

Explained

Hi Gentlemen
Sorry to interupt, in the event of the Ripper being caught would Lawende's evidence have been of any use? He had already told the inquest that he doubted whether he would know the man again. I wonder what a jury would have made of his evidence?
Of course there is some play in the statement "I doubt it", but I doubt whether his evidence would have been of any use in a trial.
all the best
Observer

As I have explained already, whether or not Lawende's evidence would have been any use is irrelevant as it would appear that he was used in the attempted identification of Sadler as Jack the Ripper between 14 and 18 February 1891. Any half decent defence counsel would have made short work of any of the suggested witnesses (Lawende, Schawartz or Levy) had they been used at a trial. For a start none of them could be actually proved to have seen the murderer at work because of time differentials and, in the case of Eddowes, lack of proper identification of her as the actual woman seen. This alone makes a nonsense of the claims of Anderson and his 'definitely ascertained fact.'

[Stewart P Evans]

Identification

Just to point out an interesting discussion on the 'Reclaimed' thread.
"I believe that Levy is the best candidate for Anderson?s witness. Look at the statistics; 12 Kosminski men in London in 1891; fewer (less than 4) in 1877, when Levy sponsors Martin Kosminski?s British Naturalization application. So during the murders, there were between 4 and 12 men in all of London named Kosminski. And Levy sees someone near Mitre Square, and Sims says that a ?policeman? saw the Pole near Mitre square, who could only later be identifed by height and build (when referring to Kosminski). Ergo, Levy knew Martin K., Martin K. knew another man named Kosminski, this man was also know to Levy and his general appearance could be collaborated by a cop."
I beleive the suggestion being made that possible Aaron Kosminski might have been known to Lawende and Levy, which is why they were not more fourth coming in the testemony..however that is purely speculation.
For me Berner Street is more interesting because of its location and access from Sion Sq, 16 Greenfeild Street and even Batty Street.
There's some facinating stuff on this thread by SNelson and Chris Philips which I can recommend everyone should check back and read.
Yours Jeff

What people fail to appreciate here is that when a witness actually knows a suspect you do not hold an identification as they merely state in their evidence that 'the person was [Joe Bloggs] who is known to me.'

[Roy Corduroy]

No Trial

Even if the witness had ID'ed the suspect at asylum, that man could not have been brought to trial under English law. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Roy

[Jeff Leahy]

Many people threaten others with knives, especially in domestic situations. But to do so doesn't show that person to be a homicidal maniac, or even to have homicidal tendencies. And in 1891 when Kosminski was committed to Colney Hatch, Maurice Whitfield, the Relieving Officer at Mile End, stated that Aaron Kosminski was not dangerous to other people.

I think we should be very careful with Whitfeilds assumption. On the whole Schitzophrens are completely harmless and only a danger to themselves. And we need only look at Peter Sutcliffs prison record to deduce this. However other factors, such as Alcohol, can make a big difference to schitzophrenic behaviour. While alone at night and under direction from 'God' he might be a very different person altogether. His behaviour is consistant with Schitzophrenic Serial killers.

There is some excellent research being done by Chris Phillips and Rob House on the Kosminskis and much valuable material is being found. Not least of all that Aaron's family had changed their name to Abrahams. It was quite common for Jewish immigrants to change their names or to Anglicise them so although 12 Kosminskis were recorded in London at the time I am sure that this figure will be revised when the work of Messrs Phillips and House is completed.

Yes it will be excellent to get some fresh new opinion on the subject. Lets wish them 'God speed' with that research and listen to what they have to say when they are ready to do so.

Many thanks for your time
Jeff

[Monty]

Even if the witness had ID'ed the suspect at asylum, that man could not have been brought to trial under English law. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Roy

Depends on what other evidence they had, but it would have been difficult to secure a guilty verdict so I doubt a trial would have ensued.

And, in this particular case, the evidence was extremely minimal.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

Even if the witness had ID'ed the suspect at asylum, that man could not have been brought to trial under English law. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Roy

That's correct. However if the sanity of the subject 'at the time' was not accertained. Then they may have believed it possible to bring a prosecution.

We simply do not know Aaron's mental state in 1889-90. And remember that psychotic episodes happen in waves..(much like an acid trip) there is an ebb and flow into insanity that can often take several years. A typical episode lasting between three and four months..so periods of recovery often occur.

It is doubtful that an identification would have taken place if the police didnt think a prosecution might be possible.

[Stewart P Evans]

City PC Witness

Just to point out an interesting discussion on the 'Reclaimed' thread.

"...And Levy sees someone near Mitre Square, and Sims says that a ?policeman? saw the Pole near Mitre square, who could only later be identifed by height and build (when referring to Kosminski). Ergo, Levy knew Martin K., Martin K. knew another man named Kosminski, this man was also know to Levy and his general appearance could be collaborated by a cop."

Apropos of this line of reasoning, and I appreciate that the words here aren't those of 'Pirate Jack', they are based on Macnaghten's 'Kosminski' as described (sans the name) by Arthur Griffiths in Mysteries of Police and Crime (1898) and George R Sims in his article in Lloyd's Weekly News of September 22, 1907, for which see both below.

The idea that a City PC saw the murderer near Mitre Square really ought to have been knocked on the head by now. It was first stated by Macnaghten in the 'Aberconway draft' of his memoranda where he stated "This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City P.C. near Mitre Square." It is, I feel, significant that Macnaghten left this particular point out of his official 1894 version as I believe he was not happy about it.

[c.d.]

That's correct. However if the sanity of the subject 'at the time' was not accertained. Then they may have believed it possible to bring a prosecution.

We simply do not know Aaron's mental state in 1889-90. And remember that psychotic episodes happen in waves..(much like an acid trip) there is an ebb and flow into insanity that can often take several years. A typical episode lasting between three and four months..so periods of recovery often occur.

It is doubtful that an identification would have taken place if the police didnt think a prosecution might be possible.

But wouldn't you expect, human nature being what it is, that the police who were involved in the investigation would want to see Jack the Ripper face to face? If so, I would think that it would be very hard to cover up their presence at an asylum. It seems to me that word of it would leak out.

c.d.

[Jeff Leahy]

But wouldn't you expect, human nature being what it is, that the police who were involved in the investigation would want to see Jack the Ripper face to face? If so, I would think that it would be very hard to cover up their presence at an asylum. It seems to me that word of it would leak out.

c.d.

Sorry CD. I simply have know idea. Perhaps the time frame? I'm not claiming Aaron is JtR. Just that he's the best suspect we have.

I cant see any president for policeman going to asylums to view suspects and gloat. But then JtR is a unique case.

yours Jeff

[Stewart P Evans]

No Expert

I think we should be very careful with Whitfeilds assumption. On the whole Schitzophrens are completely harmless and only a danger to themselves. And we need only look at Peter Sutcliffs prison record to deduce this. However other factors, such as Alcohol, can make a big difference to schitzophrenic behaviour. While alone at night and under direction from 'God' he might be a very different person altogether. His behaviour is consistant with Schitzophrenic Serial killers.
Jeff

I am no expert on mental illness but I would be loathe to contradict the verdict of an asylum officer who was there at the time, saw and assessed Kosminski and was cognisant of all the facts. There is simply insufficient relevant information to reach the conclusion that "His behaviour is consistant [sic] with Schitzophrenic [sic] Serial killers." In fact isn't it a little arrogant to cast doubt on Whitfield's word when so little is known? Isn't it rather odd that Aaron Kosminski was roaming free between December 1888 and February 1891 without committing another murder nor, that we know of, exhibiting any signs of being a danger to others, apart from the one comment via Jacob Cohen that 'He took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister.', which sounds very much like a one-off dispute?

[Dan Norder]

I beleive it is generally accepted that Lawende is unlikely to be Swanson's witness.

Paul Begg is one of only a few people in the field (in fact the only other researcher I can think of who advances that notion isn't an author) who think Anderson's witness was not Lawende. It's not only not generally accepted, but Begg's belief here flies in the face of most author's opinions.

In fact, if you'd been paying attention in the recent thread about Begg's book (instead of just showing up to act like a cheerleader) you would have noted that this was specifically mentioned as one of the many opinions Begg has and promotes as a fact in his book that is not accepted by other authors. Begg inists that the person referred to as the "City PC" who witnessed someone in "Mitre Square" as being Schwartz, who was not a PC, not in the City, and nowhere near Mitre Square.

It is generally accepted that the witness being referred to was Lawende, who, while not a PC, was a witness for the City police and was near Mitre Square and most certainly was used as a witness in later attempts to try to identify people as the Ripper.