The Seaside Home

[Bridewell]

In the Swanson comments (in his copy of Anderson's book) we find, among others, the following observation:

"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. On suspect’s return to his brother’s house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards – Kosminski was the suspect – DSS"

It seems to be almost universally accepted that the identifying witness must have been either Israel Schwartz (Berner St) or Joseph Lawende (Mitre Square), but I'm not convinced. MacNaghten, in the Lady Aberconway version of the memoranda, states:
"No-one ever saw the Ripper unless it was the City Pc (on) a beat near Mitre Square".
I don't see how this gets to be interpreted as a reference to a City witness. "A City Pc (on) a beat" surely alludes to a patrolling Police Constable, probably Pc James Harvey whose beat took him to the Mitre Square end of Church Passage, but not into the Square itself. If the Lady Aberconway version, Anderson's remarks and Swanson's comments are read in conjunction, it seems - to me anyway - far more likely that the suspect (whoever he was) was sent to the Seaside Home to be identified by a police, rather than civilian, witness.
I'd also like to know why Swanson tells us that the City CID were watching the brother's house in Whitechapel. Why were the Met not doing it?

[Fleetwood Mac]

In the Swanson comments (in his copy of Anderson's book) we find, among others, the following observation:

"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. On suspect’s return to his brother’s house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards – Kosminski was the suspect – DSS"

It seems to be almost universally accepted that the identifying witness must have been either Israel Schwartz (Berner St) or Joseph Lawende (Mitre Square), but I'm not convinced. MacNaghten, in the Lady Aberconway version of the memoranda, states:
"No-one ever saw the Ripper unless it was the City Pc (on) a beat near Mitre Square".
I don't see how this gets to be interpreted as a reference to a City witness. "A City Pc (on) a beat" surely alludes to a patrolling Police Constable, probably Pc James Harvey whose beat took him to the Mitre Square end of Church Passage, but not into the Square itself. If the Lady Aberconway version, Anderson's remarks and Swanson's comments are read in conjunction, it seems - to me anyway - far more likely that the suspect (whoever he was) was sent to the Seaside Home to be identified by a police, rather than civilian, witness.
I'd also like to know why Swanson tells us that the City CID were watching the brother's house in Whitechapel. Why were the Met not doing it?

Bridewell,

I agree with you in that the possibility of MacNaghten saying: "City PC" and meaning something else, lies somewhere between slim and nil.

Also, I agree that when saying: "the only man whoever saw the ripper" it could not have meant Schwartz or Lawende, as quite simply there is too much doubt with both (given a choice between the two, I would go with Lawende).

So, that does leave a City PC.

Where I disagree is in this: I feel the obvious answer is Watkins.

The doctors had the earliest time of death at 1.40. Sequiera arrives at 1.55, which backs up Watkins being at the murder scene at 1.44.

Dr Brown estimated 5 minutes at the earliest, 10 minutes mid range to undertake the whole kill/mutilate thing.

So: 1.40 death; 5 minutes at the least for Jack; Watkins is there at 1.44.

The obvious spotter of Jack is Watkins.

Edited to add:

Descriptions were deliberately surpressed at the inquest.

That would suggest to me that they knew exactly what he looked like and did not want it made public. Perhaps Watkins and Lawende agreed on the man's description, and in the event Lawende was taken to ID a suspect perhaps it was because they knew from Watkins' account that Lawende did see Jack.

[Bridewell]

Bridewell,

I agree with you in that the possibility of MacNaghten saying: "City PC" and meaning something else, lies somewhere between slim and nil.

Also, I agree that when saying: "the only man whoever saw the ripper" it could not have meant Schwartz or Lawende, as quite simply there is too much doubt with both (given a choice between the two, I would go with Lawende).

So, that does leave a City PC.

Where I disagree is in this: I feel the obvious answer is Watkins.

The doctors had the earliest time of death at 1.40. Sequiera arrives at 1.55, which backs up Watkins being at the murder scene at 1.44.

Dr Brown estimated 5 minutes at the earliest, 10 minutes mid range to undertake the whole kill/mutilate thing.

So: 1.40 death; 5 minutes at the least for Jack; Watkins is there at 1.44.

The obvious spotter of Jack is Watkins.

Edited to add:

Descriptions were deliberately surpressed at the inquest.

That would suggest to me that they knew exactly what he looked like and did not want it made public. Perhaps Watkins and Lawende agreed on the man's description, and in the event Lawende was taken to ID a suspect perhaps it was because they knew from Watkins' account that Lawende did see Jack.

Hi Fleetwood Mac.

I can see the logic of your reasoning, but would Harvey not have shone his lamp into Mitre Square - a known haunt of prostitutes?
Surely, if both Lawende and Watkins saw the Ripper, both would be sent to do the identification? MacNaghten refers to only one person having possibly seen the Ripper:

"No-one ever saw the Ripper, unless it was the Pc (on) a beat near (my italics) Mitre Square.

Watkins' beat included Mitre Square, so it wasn't a beat near that location. I'm still drawn towards Harvey, if anyone at all.

I actually think the whole idea of a witness refusing to testify against a fellow Jew is highly suspect. Jews have testified against their fellows in the past, resulting in their execution, so why not in this instance? Why, also, if you have an identification of the killer, would you not go public with it at the time? Because the truth is too embarrassing perhaps? The records suggest that Watkins was well-regarded, whereas Harvey was dismissed in July 1889, for a reason not yet established. Harvey's account (combined with that of Watkins) leaves a ridiculously small time frame for the Eddowes murder in my view, which suggests - to me anyway - that, at best, he wasn't where he should have been or, at worst, saw the Ripper at work and failed to intervene. It's not what I want to believe (as a retired police officer myself), but it seems to be, at least, a distinct possibility.

[Jonathan H]

A bearded 'Jack'?

For what it is worth this is what Macnaghten claimed about a witness sighting in the only document about the Ripper case, under his own name, for the public domain.

From Chapter IV of 'Days of My Years', Chapter IV: 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper':

'The madman started off in search of another victim, whom he found in Catherine Eddowes. This woman's body, very badly mutilated, was found in a dark corner of Mitre Square. On this occasion it is probable that the police officer on duty in the vicinity saw the murderer with his victim a few minutes before, but no satisfactory description was forthcoming.'

I would add the following too.

Sims relentlessly claimed that he was a dead-ringer for the murderer based on a coffee-stall owner saying that a man he served on the morning of the 'double event' who had allegedly and correctly predicted that there would be two victims, and who had blood-stained cuffs. The coffee-stall man then saw the 1879 pamphlet, 'The Social Kaleidoscope', in which the younger, thinner George Sims appears on the front -- and the man said this was a great likeness for the miscreant.

I make this observation: Lawende described a man who bears a generic resemblance to Druitt. Macnaghten went to great lengths to obliterate this description (and thus Sims never used it) and to further muddy the waters by inverting it, via 'Aberconway' and Griffiths and Sims, into a presumably Gentile cop seeing a Jewish suspect, who supposedly somewhat resembled 'Kosminski'.

Mac's memoirs dumped that element.

Also, that Sims parted his hair in the middle in that pamphlet picture but not in subsequently pics of the famous author where the cleave is located off-centre (at the time Sims was using and advertising the hair-restorer 'Tatcho' to retard his encroaching baldness).

The Druitt of high school has a dead-centre parting too (and hooded eyes, a high forehead, and a small chin like the young Sims.)

I think Macnaghten had thus seen a pic of Druitt, and massaged Sims' vanity by confiding that he really did look like 'Dr D' when the writer was younger, which would also further obscure Druitt, as it gives the false impression that the fiend was bearded:

Here is Sims from "Lloyds Weekly", Sept. 22nd, 1907:

"What was the man with the blood-stained cuff like? That was the question. The coffee-stall keeper described him from memory. A day or two later passing by a stationer's shop he saw exhibited in the window a sixpenny book entitled "The Social Kaleidoscope." On the cover was a portrait of the author.

"That is the living image of the man I saw," he exclaimed. He purchased the book and went off with it to Dr. Forbes-Winslow. "That is the man I saw, or his double," he exclaimed, handing over my little book to the astonished doctor, who knowing me fairly well, assured the coffee-stall keeper that it might be the double of the Ripper, but it certainly was not the fiend himself

I present the portrait as one put forward by a man who had every reason to believe that he had seen and conversed with Jack the Ripper, as the "double" of the Whitechapel Terror.

Various witnesses who had seen a man conversing with a woman who was soon afterwards found murdered said that he was a well-dressed man with a black moustache. Others described him as a man with a closely-trimmed beard."

.

[Wickerman]

... far more likely that the suspect (whoever he was) was sent to the Seaside Home to be identified by a police, rather than civilian, witness.

Yes a number of people have suggested that interpretation, the problem is that no records have survived of a City policeman being a witness in or near Mitre Sq..

Alternately, it is unusual to believe that a suspect is brought before the witness. The customary procedure is to bring the witness before the suspect.
If we are to believe Swanson then it suggests the witness (if not a policeman) was sequestrated in the Home in advance of the identification appointment.

On that note we do have one example of sequestration to consider.

".....the fact is borne out by the police having taken exclusive care of Mr. Joseph Levander, to a certain extent having sequestrated him and having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy. They are paying all his expenses, and one if not two detectives are taking him about. One of the two detectives is Foster. "
Evening News,9 October 1888

I'd also like to know why Swanson tells us that the City CID were watching the brother's house in Whitechapel. Why were the Met not doing it?

The City Police worked closely with the Metropolitan Police, nothing strange here.

Regards, Jon S.

[Monty]

Hey Bridewell,

The general concensus is that its an error, with Smith (a met PC) who stated he saw Stride with a man just before she was found murdered.

As Wicker states, it wasn't unusual for City and Met to cross patches. They liaised quite closely at times. It seems Met were aware (going on Swansons word).

It would be interesting to know how this obs was done, overt or covert? If the latter, how? Was the Met bobby on the beat there aware?

I'm more interested in the how?

Monty

[Fleetwood Mac]

If we are to believe Swanson

I feel the object of Swanson's comments are important here.

They were private notes intended solely for his own consumption. Why would he lie to himself?

To me, there are two possibilities here:

1) Those are Swanson's notes and due to the object of the notes they must surely be taken as read.

2) Those aren't Swanson's notes, which of course would call the whole thing into question (I'm not suggesting fraud or any foul play, of course).

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Bridewell,

The problem with Harvey is that he's in Aldgate when he hears of the murder. Morris finds him. So, I can't see how it would be Harvey. Unless you're suggesting that Harvey sees them at the corner of Duke Street/Church Passage. I believe Harvey went into the passage at 1.40. Perhaps, he was there just before they walked into the square (if indeed Jack and Kate entered from that passage).

It's certainly cutting it fine: Harvey at 1.40; Watkins at 1:44.

[Jonathan H]

To Fleetwood Mac

There is a third and a fourth possibility:

3. They are Swanson''s sincere and private beliefs, but his memory has failed him and he has thus merged bits and pieces together (eg. the Sadler non-identification by probably Lawende so soon after 'Kosminski' was sectioned.)

Then Swanson passed on this mish-mash to Anderson who accepted it (the latter's son also apparently claimed that his father believed that the Polish Jew suspect was long deceased).

Or,

4. Since Swanson never communicated this tale to anybody known, offered no public support to his former boss, and never communicated to his family with: hey, here's Jack's real name, it may not be his tale at all. He is rather recording what Anderson has told him, and knowing it was a mishmash he has tried to untangle it by writing so flatly at the end: 'Kosminski was the suspect'. Untangle it, and quietly bury it out of embarrassment.

That the first name of the 'suspect' is missing, and that the events of 1888 and 1891 have been seemingly compressed into one event -- with the Polish Jew conveniently deceased when he was not -- strongly suggest that this tale of Anderson's originates with Macnaghten (eg. who apparently told Tom Divall that the killer was a man who fled to the States after the Kelly murder, and died there in an asylum) and then passed onto an incredulous Swanson.


Which of these four possibilities, if any, is the most likely must be judged by the individual.

[Wickerman]

They were private notes intended solely for his own consumption. Why would he lie to himself?

Errors are not lies.

3. They are Swanson''s sincere and private beliefs, but his memory has failed him and he has thus merged bits and pieces together (eg. the Sadler non-identification by probably Lawende so soon after 'Kosminski' was sectioned.)

Precisely so Jonathan. As we know, Swanson's notes date no earlier than 1910 (publication of Anderson's book) and no later than 1924 (when Swanson died).
Therefore Swanson was aged between 62 and 76 when he made those notes. Swanson thought Packer unreliable at 58 yet we are guided to accept without question the notes of a 62-76 year old man?

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

My suggestion, with regard to Harvey, would be that he walked the length of Church Passage at 1.40am, as he says he did, looked into Mitre Square, saw some sort of scuffle between a man and a woman & walked away without acting as he should have done. The man and woman seen in Church Passage by Lawende (around 1.36am) must have gone by this time (presumably into Mitre Square if it was Eddowes and her killer - Church Passage was only 3' wide at the time, so he would not have been able to pass them surely?
I question the need to travel all the way to Brighton for a witness viewing too. Escaping the eye of the press was surely possible without travelling such a distance. I seem to recall somewhere that an unsuccessful attempt had been made to check records at the Seaside Home. Does anyone know if I've got that right?

[Steven Russell]

That would suggest to me that they knew exactly what he looked like and did not want it made public. Perhaps Watkins and Lawende agreed on the man's description, and in the event Lawende was taken to ID a suspect perhaps it was because they knew from Watkins' account that Lawende did see Jack.[/quote]

This is absolute poppycock. If Scotland Yard had a reliable description of the killer, you can rest assured they would have released it to the public. They were desperate to catch Jack! Are you tripping or what?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Lechmere]

Regarding Swanson - people do regulary lie to themselves

[Fleetwood Mac]

My suggestion, with regard to Harvey, would be that he walked the length of Church Passage at 1.40am, as he says he did, looked into Mitre Square, saw some sort of scuffle between a man and a woman & walked away without acting as he should have done. The man and woman seen in Church Passage by Lawende (around 1.36am) must have gone by this time (presumably into Mitre Square if it was Eddowes and her killer - Church Passage was only 3' wide at the time, so he would not have been able to pass them surely?
I question the need to travel all the way to Brighton for a witness viewing too. Escaping the eye of the press was surely possible without travelling such a distance. I seem to recall somewhere that an unsuccessful attempt had been made to check records at the Seaside Home. Does anyone know if I've got that right?

I suppose the problem to get round is this: if Jack and CE are arguing at 1.40, then Jack is cutting it fine to do his thing and get out of there by 1.44.

Personally, I see no problem with travelling out of the way for an ID. Could be tricky conducting an ID in London. Press etc, word gets round, and it would be hard work to control.

[Bridewell]

That would suggest to me that they knew exactly what he looked like and did not want it made public. Perhaps Watkins and Lawende agreed on the man's description, and in the event Lawende was taken to ID a suspect perhaps it was because they knew from Watkins' account that Lawende did see Jack.

This is absolute poppycock. If Scotland Yard had a reliable description of the killer, you can rest assured they would have released it to the public. They were desperate to catch Jack! Are you tripping or what?

Best wishes,
Steve.[/QUOTE]
Hi Steve.

During the Eddowes inquest the coroner imposed restrictions concerning the description. There was highly critical press comment about a perceived failure by the police to publish full details of any description. The following is from the Joseph Lawende page on this web-site:

"But otherwise the description does not seem to have been circulated widely immediately after the murder. The article in the Evening News on 9 October criticised what it called the "idiotic secrecy" of the police, which had caused a delay in making public the partial descriptions provided by the witnesses.[2] (The following month, an article in the Daily Telegraph criticised the fact that the description had been circulated among the police but withheld from the public. The article suggested that the aspect the police had particularly wished to suppress was the suspect's resemblance to a sailor.[5])"