Why is Lawende definitely Anderson's Witness?

[Mort Belfry]

Just a small question which has probably been brought up before, but when Anderson mentioned his witness identifying his Polish Jew suspect, why is it always assumed to be Lawende as that witness?

Why, for example, is it never assumed to be Israel Schwartz? Is it because Stride lacked the signature mutilations of the other victims and the likelihood of her being a Ripper victim is slightly less diminished in comparison to Eddowes and that for the Ripperologists who want to believe Kosminski's or Cohen's culpability they make it easier for themselves to tie it in with Eddowes?

Or is it just a definite fact that Lawende was the only witness to ever, misquote, get a good look at the murderer, un-misquote?

[Howard Brown]

Dear Mort:

Or is it just a definite fact that Lawende was the only witness to ever, misquote, get a good look at the murderer, un-misquote?-Mr. Belfry

As far as we know,no one actually saw an act of murder being committed in relation to the WM. Without expanding too much, had Lawende and two other men come across an act of murder being committed,its impossible that their witnessing would have gone unreported until the time Lawende is assumed to have been the Seaside witness. Its Anderson who stated the witness saw the murderer,when in fact Lawende stated in court that he would not remember the individual(man) he saw with,not murdering, the Mitre Square victim.

Schwartz actually saw an act of violence being committed and in my view,the prelude to the murder of Stride by the Whitechapel Murderer. I feel the same way you do about Schwartz...since Lawende stated he wouldn't be able to identify who he saw and Schwartz definitely remembered details of the Berner Street character ( his small brown moustache, etc), that its worth considering that he may have been the Seaside witness.

Are you aware that witnesses were brought in years after the Double Event to size up William Grainger & Thomas Sadler for other crimes which the authorities felt were potentially linked to the WM?

[Suzi]

Hi How-
Nobody (sadly ) saw the fatal deed...or else we wouldn't be chums would we (!)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm back to it- Schwartz and Lawende saw bits and pieces of a hideous jigsaw.

(When they were called in of course we get to some other reasoning).... It's very difficult to believe what they saw and tie it all up into one,or even two people isn't it...

Call me cynical but an awful lot of men /women even were lurking around with small brown moustaches-most of them unseen/known/trusted/friends.

This happened in Vienna let's be honest with a little bloke in a crowd waving about 1914 around the outbreak and there are a hell of a lot more photos of him later!!!!! The moustache was a bit a bit of a bugger tho' Damn!!!

Suzi xx

[Mort Belfry]

Are you aware that witnesses were brought in years after the Double Event to size up William Grainger & Thomas Sadler for other crimes which the authorities felt were potentially linked to the WM?

I knew about Sadler, vaguely, but I didn't know about Grainger. I was recently reading one of the articles on this site by Evans who felt pretty certain that it was Lawende again who was brought in for Sadler. Is there any known proof of this?

[Howard Brown]

Dear Mr. Belfry:

The Pall Mall Gazette reported the following on May 7th,1895 after Grainger had been put in a lineup by CID:

"There was one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel Murderer with a woman a few minutes before that woman's dissected body was found in the street..."

Since there was no known male witness to the Nichols and Chapman murders...Kelly being murdered indoors...and Stride not mutilated...then this individual had to be the Mitre Square witness...which was Lawende.

This of course is based on the acceptance that the PMG was accurate on all counts here. Maybe SPE could add further insight into this issue.

[Observer]

Hi Howard thers a Jack the ripper film on ITV 3 at the mo

all the best

Observer

[Howard Brown]

Dear Observer,sor:

Thanks very much for telling me that,but since I do not watch television,I won't be "observin' " the documentary you have kindly told me about.

Nice of you to let me know.

How

[perrymason]

Hi all,

I believe that part of the reason so much emphasis is put on Lawende's witness account is due to the time remaining in the victims life when he sees her and the suspect together. Mathematically, if Jack the Ripper was responsible for Kates death, then Sailor Hat man is almost certainly Jack..or one of two "Jacks".

The more I think about Macnaughtens quote the more I believe he was referring to the witness of Mitre Square, not the city PC he mentions, I think it was just an uncorrected error.

If Schwartz saw Liz with Broadshouldered Man, and he wasnt Jack, then there is still some time left for him to appear...due to the fact that the victim receives only a single cut, which in and of itself, does not resemble Jack's MO at all.

Lawende was put up in a room for some time while they investigated his sighting, and the supression of what is obviously a key and very germaine witness sighting at the Inquest does hint at the importance they believed his account warranted.

Best regards all.

[Observer]

Righto Howard, no problem, yer not missing much,it's the James Mason Christopher Plummer one

all the best

Observer

[Howard Brown]

Dear Observer:

Thanks once more,as I have that on disc...I watch that from time to time for thread ideas on my site,believe it or not.

By the way,I found the entire ( or near entire ) documentary, "The London That Nobody Knows" with the aforementioned James Mason.

Its on VEOH ( www.veoh.com) and can be downloaded for your further perusal...sor. Thanks again for the kind gesture.

Dear Mike:

I suppose it belongs on another thread, but my "problem" with Lawende's usage as a witness after the Eddowes Inquest is that he had already stated he could not identify the individual he saw in Mitre Square. To dredge him up 6 and 1/2 years later for Grainger makes me shake my head. Thats why I mentioned the little caveat in relation to the PMG article. It also speaks volumes about how some dismissed or were oblivious to and of the Anderson Declaration.

Hope all is well,sor. Have a good holiday season.

How

[perrymason]

Dear Observer:

Thanks once more,as I have that on disc...I watch that from time to time for thread ideas on my site,believe it or not.

By the way,I found the entire ( or near entire ) documentary, "The London That Nobody Knows" with the aforementioned James Mason.

Its on VEOH ( www.veoh.com) and can be downloaded for your further perusal...sor. Thanks again for the kind gesture.

Dear Mike:

I suppose it belongs on another thread, but my "problem" with Lawende's usage as a witness after the Eddowes Inquest is that he had already stated he could not identify the individual he saw in Mitre Square. To dredge him up 6 and 1/2 years later for Grainger makes me shake my head. Thats why I mentioned the little caveat in relation to the PMG article. It also speaks volumes about how some dismissed or were oblivious to and of the Anderson Declaration.

Hope all is well,sor. Have a good holiday season.

How

Hi Howard,

Everything is great, thanks for asking...I hope the same with you.

I agree with you, it is troubling that we know that Lawende stated clearly he could not be sure he could recognize the man again and his glimpse was just that. But he did recognize Kate's clothing, which he identified as being the same as on the woman he had seen. Maybe he played down how accurate he might be if asked to view a lineup or suspect out of fear, or an interest in staying unconnected to these murders. The police did not expose him as having seen the killer almost assuredly, which providing his sighting story at the Inquest would have done, again, perhaps to placate the man and keep him "safe".The fact that they had the story was really the important part anyway, not who provided it.

On Grainger, are we really expected to believe that the police thought an ID that long after the killing spree would have any value? I just cant buy that, surely they knew that the likelihood of getting anything that might be useful in a prosecution was almost nil....so why would they have done that?

My guess would be that it might have been a ploy to intimidate Grainger into talking, if he was Jack and felt they were bringing in a man to view him that saw him with a victim. No-one remembered how good the initial ID actually was by this time, so they might have tried a bluff.

Alternately, we have no records that indicate Grainger was a suspect at the time of the murders, or whether he was paraded as part of a group in front of Lawende that October in 88......(was he in London for sure at that time?..cant recall), The ID attempt may have been to see if Lawende remembered Grainger's face from earlier line-ups....which again though, has limited value in court.

That they tried to ID a man using a witness that long after the sighting occurred is odd...but even moreso when as you say, the witness played down his ability to ID the man within a few weeks of the original sighting.

So my guess is that there are unknown factors here on that Grainger ID attempt...I dont think any of the investigators were fools.

All the best Mr Brown, all.

[Howard Brown]

On Grainger, are we really expected to believe that the police thought an ID that long after the killing spree would have any value? -Mike

Thats the rub,innit,Mike. I agree that since eyewitness evidence is often shaky more times than not, then the time between the Eddowes murder and the Grainger scenario seemingly would exclude anyone from 1888 who may have witnessed the eventual killer in Mitre Square or anywhere !!!!!

Yet,and unless something is flawed within the PMG article, the police did just that.

All the best,sor...

[Jeff Leahy]

Perhaps the whole point of the ID parade was not to get an ID at all but to try and get a CONFESSION from the suspect..

Remember that Anderson says the suspect new he had been identified.

and isnt it unlikely that Lawende was the witness, other wise why use him in another ID a few weeks later...dosnt make sense.

Pirate

[Ben]

Hi PJ,

and isnt it unlikely that Lawende was the witness, other wise why use him in another ID a few weeks later...

It would make sense if the Kosminski ID attempt wasn't as positive as Anderson later made out. If the identification was fully successful and implicated Kosminski, it's impossible to accept that the witness could have been allowed to refuse to swear to the ID on the grounds that he allegedly did.

Regards,
Ben

[Jeff Leahy]

True, but then we have to jump through all sorts of hoops trying to work out ‘why’ or ‘if’ Anderson would lie. When the simple facts remains that Kosminski was probably living in Greenfeild Street just around the corner from Berner street and we have a witness who sees a broad shouldered man attacking Liz Stride just minutes before she is found with her throat cut. Is it not just simpler to take Anderson at his word, and to have the witness as Shwartz.

That way everything fits well almost

Pirate