The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?

[GBinOz]

And then there's this:
Derby Daily Telegraph 1 October 1888:
"indeed one of the policemen who saw the body [Eddowes] in the mortuary expressed his confident opinion that he had seen the woman walking several times in the neighbourhood of Aldgate High Street. . . . The police theory is that the man and woman, who had met in Aldgate, watched the policeman [Watkins] pass round the square, and they then entered it for an immoral purpose".

And this:
New York Times, Oct 2 1888:
"The only trace considered of any value is the story of a watchboy who saw a man and a woman leave Aldgate station, going towards Mitre-square. The man returned shortly afterward alone. The police have a good description of him. . . . a policeman swears he was not absent over 15 minutes from Mitre-Square, and must have been watched by both man and woman as he went through, they following".

Aldgate station, where Eddowes was arrested for being drunk, and across the road from Butcher's Row, where Sagar had a suspect under surveillance.

I have difficulty believing that the Ripper, only minutes before murdering Eddowes, would stand under a street lamp and allow himself to be seen by three potential witnesses.

I wonder if the City PC was Watkins, and he was the witness at the I.D., and the Jewish factor and embellishment by Anderson? JMO.

Cheers, George

[Scott Nelson]

Well George, I think the City PC witness was Watkins or Harvey (1st ID in the asylum). But the Seaside Home witness may have been a fellow Jew (2nd ID outside asylum).

[JeffHamm]

Not necessarily.

Pearson's Weekly August 6, 1912, told by ex PC E.T. Langdon:
"Let me recall one of the murders, the Mitre Square murder. It was night and the policeman passed through the square once, everything then being apparently alright. He walked on, coming to a court leading out of a street out of Mitre Square. Halfway up the court he stood sideways to allow a man to pass him. The man came from the direction of the square."

Cheers, George

Hi George,

This is a story told 24 years later, so some details have a good chance of having been corrupted. On the assumption there is a grain of truth in this story (and of course, that assumption could be wrong), and that a PC did "turn sideways" to let a man pass through a passage (and the man was JtR), then to start with, we have two passages to consider. St. James Passage and Church Passage.

The story starts by describing PC Watkin's patrol (as PC Harvey didn't actually patrol Mitre Square) as he had passed through the square prior to the murder, and all was fine. The problem is, there simply isn't enough time for the murder, PC Watkin's patrol of St. James would only be a couple minutes after he left Mitre Square. In the simulations I've put together, PC Watkins finishes his patrol of St. James just over 6 minutes after having passed the crime location. I suppose one could argue that Eddowes and JtR enter the square on the heels of PC Watkins' exit, allowing for JtR to exit out towards St. James 5-6 minutes later. If so, then either Lawende and co did not see Eddowes and JtR (as they see the couple still at the other end of Church Passage somewhere between 1:33 and 1:35, inclusive), or we're dealing with the issue of clock sync (Lawende et co's 1:33-1:35 corresponds to PC Watkin's 1:28-1:30, let's say - roughly two clocks out of sync by something like 5 minutes - hardly out of the question). There's no way to verify either of those, of course, but both are possible.

The other possibility is that the PC who lets JtR pass is PC Harvey, and he does so as he patrols Church Passage. JtR has left the crime location just moments prior because Morris had just opened the door to the warehouse during his cleaning, and as he exits back down Church Passage, along comes PC Harvey, let's him pass, and cannot see the body in the darkness as the light at the Mitre Square end of Church Passage interferes with his night vision. In this scenerio, the story has conflated PC Watkin's patrol of Mitre Square with PC Harvey, or is simply poorly describing PC Harvey's previous patrol of Church Passage as having included Mitre Square itself (that being explained by the passage of time, or even just poor wording choice I suppose).

Now, there is another possibility. The passage, as described in the story, is neither Church Passage nor St. James Passage, because it is described as "...a court leading out of a street out of Mitre Square ...", meaning, the court connects to a street that in turn connects to Mitre Square, so the court/passage doesn't directly connect to Mitre Square. This, I think, is interesting as we looked at a passage that might have connected Mitre Street to Leadenhall Street near the Aldgate Street end. Based upon the simulations I've done, if JtR did go through that passage (which of course requires it to have been open for use at the time), then he would have done so at the time PC Watkins is estimated to be there as well. A few of us discussed this a while back, and sadly, it could never be determined if that passage way was open for public use at the time, making it impossible to even decide if this option is truly viable. Sigh.

Anyway, we're left with lots of options, none of which even need to be correct. For example, we always have to consider that the "city PC sighting" became a popular story through the rumour mill, but the actual event was Met PC Smith's sighting of Stride. Over time, given how obviously close the city PC were to overlapping with JtR in Mitre Square, PC Smith's sighting of Stride gets conflated with an unnamed PC and placed at the location of the Mitre Square murder of the same night). I know "memory conflation" feels like a cop-out (sorry for the pun), but unfortunately that is part of human recollection, and given the more dramatic nature of the Mitre Square murder, this sort of memory error could easily occur. Another possibility is that the sighting was by a PC other than Watkins or Harvey, and we just don't have a record of it (but I'm not sure where it might have occurred, although it would be interesting if one could find a location making PC Long involved - give it time, I'm sure someone will ).

Anyway, just tossing out all sorts of things that occurred to me, none of which are intended as anything other than ideas to consider.

- Jeff

[jerryd]

Jeff.

As far as Langdon's account, Robert Sagar had almost an identical account, so something was travelling amongst the police to lead them to believe this.

Also, the passage leading from Mitre Street to Leadenhall being there in 1888 wasn't completely dismissed. At least not by me. An 1897 area map still shows that passage.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff.

As far as Langdon's account, Robert Sagar had almost an identical account, so something was travelling amongst the police to lead them to believe this.

Also, the passage leading from Mitre Street to Leadenhall being there in 1888 wasn't completely dismissed. At least not by me. An 1897 area map still shows that passage.

Hi jerryd,

Yes, there are a few versions of this story floating around, where a PC passes a man in a passage somewhere near Mitre Square. The concern I have is that these stories all tend to be told well after 1888, which raises the concern that while there was a story going around, the "facts" of the story have become garbled through the "rumor mill" (for lack of a better description) over time. What would make me more comfortable would be some document or report, much closer to 1888, that details this event.

And sorry if I wasn't clear before. In the discussions of the Mitre Street to Leadenhall passage, we never came to the conclusion it couldn't have been available, the problem was we couldn't determine if it was open to the public at night or if it was locked off/gated; basically, we couldn't really confirm it was available, although we couldn't confirm it wasn't either. We were left, as always, not really knowing.

As I recall, later maps, like the one you mention, did seem to show it going all the way through (but again, some passage ways were gated off and so effectively not there), but other maps we looked at didn't seem to indicate it was a passage that went all the way through, and only allowed access from Leadenhall street into a courtyard area (where there was a school or something?). I think we compared it with recent maps, and they show a through and through passage, but it appeared to follow slightly different lines. There was, I believe, some discussion that the modern version may have had to been included because there was a law that requires maintaining "traditional through ways" (or something like that; basically, if there had continually been a public access way in the past and for long enough then renovations/rebuilds in the area had to continue to provide that passage way). That would seem to suggest the passage was open to public use in 1888, otherwise it wouldn't meet that criterion and a modern builder wouldn't want to "waste" valuable real estate. Unfortunately, we could never confirm that is actually why the new version of the passage exists today.

If we could nail down the state of that passage in 1888, and confirm it went all the way from Mitre Street to Leadenhall and was open to public access and not gated at night, then I think a very good argument could be made about that Leadenhall passage being the passage that gets referred to in these stories. And that would make PC Watkins the most likely person to be the "City PC" who is credited as being possibly the only person who saw JtR. The location certainly fits with the estimated locations for both JtR and PC Watkins (provided, of course, JtR fled that way). Its location also fits with the various versions we've seen of this story, with some versions having some details that appear to be off and others a closer fit (the one above is a pretty good fit, actually, it is a passage off a street off Mitre Square).

I'm intrigued by it, but I'm just being very cautious; it's all too easy to accept an exciting idea simply because it is so interesting and potentially important. I generally become even more cautious in such situations, reminding myself that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If it's true, though, I think the information is possible to track down (meaning, information about the state of that passage in 1888; I'm sure there will be records, somewhere, that answer that for us).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

If anyone is interested in the previous discussions on the Mitre Street/Leadenhall passage, we looked at this around a year ago starting around here in the other thread.

[GBinOz]

Anyway, we're left with lots of options, none of which even need to be correct. For example, we always have to consider that the "city PC sighting" became a popular story through the rumour mill, but the actual event was Met PC Smith's sighting of Stride. Over time, given how obviously close the city PC were to overlapping with JtR in Mitre Square, PC Smith's sighting of Stride gets conflated with an unnamed PC and placed at the location of the Mitre Square murder of the same night). I know "memory conflation" feels like a cop-out (sorry for the pun), but unfortunately that is part of human recollection, and given the more dramatic nature of the Mitre Square murder, this sort of memory error could easily occur. Another possibility is that the sighting was by a PC other than Watkins or Harvey, and we just don't have a record of it (but I'm not sure where it might have occurred, although it would be interesting if one could find a location making PC Long involved - give it time, I'm sure someone will ).

Anyway, just tossing out all sorts of things that occurred to me, none of which are intended as anything other than ideas to consider.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

While I agree that these stories can be a product of Chinese whispering, it seems to have gone as high as Macnaghten who claimed that Kosminski "strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC [sic] near Mitre Square". With this statement he was saying that the PC at least saw Kosminski after the event, opening the possibility that it was the PC that was Anderson's witness. "Strongly resembled" falls short of a positive ID, so this may be the reason he was not charged rather than the fellow Jew embellishment. On the other hand, I bear in mind other statements made by MM that were of questionable accuracy.

I am always refreshed by the ideas you "toss out" as you are always open minded and not at all rusted on to any theory or suspect.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff,

I just rewatched your simulation and it appears that Watkins was clear of the Mitre Sq entrance and proceeding along Mitre St at about 1:31:20 and is adjacent to the St James's Place end of the James passage at about 1:35:10. It is possible that Watkins may have walked along the James Passage before continuing his beat (similar to Harvey in the Church Passage), and this is where he encountered JtR. It gives Jack only 4 minutes at his task, but most scenarios involve a short time. Just another possibility to consider.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

While I agree that these stories can be a product of Chinese whispering, it seems to have gone as high as Macnaghten who claimed that Kosminski "strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC [sic] near Mitre Square". With this statement he was saying that the PC at least saw Kosminski after the event, opening the possibility that it was the PC that was Anderson's witness. "Strongly resembled" falls short of a positive ID, so this may be the reason he was not charged rather than the fellow Jew embellishment. On the other hand, I bear in mind other statements made by MM that were of questionable accuracy.

I am always refreshed by the ideas you "toss out" as you are always open minded and not at all rusted on to any theory or suspect.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Thanks. I enjoy delving into the complexities of the information, and as you know, by the time I come up for air I usual end up on the "I'm not sure we really know" fence. ha ha. But I enjoy exchanging ideas with you as well as you often give me things to ponder.

Yes, Macnaghten's statement could be the earliest reference, but it could be a mistake on his part (it has been suggested he transplanted PC Smith to become a city PC near Mitre Square). And, if so, this could even be the start of the rumour, which grew in detail from there. If Macnaghten had provided a bit more detail, like the PC's name, it would really have helped. The fact he doesn't name him, but just refers to him as "the city PC", has that feel of not having the full details in front of him when he was writing that and so working from memory - always a worry.

I'm not trying to "explain away" things, though, as I think it could be a very important wrinkle in the events, and if we could verify (or confirm it was an error), that would indeed be a step forward. Every little point where we have to make a choice is just another opportunity to make a wrong choice. So if we could at least reduce the number of intersections, we have made the route clearer to follow.

So, I'm of the "maybe there's a city PC to consider, but maybe there's not?" I'm not convinced either way, but there are possibilities that do fit well with there being one, so I do think that is worth considering. Just don't hang your hat on it yet.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I just rewatched your simulation and it appears that Watkins was clear of the Mitre Sq entrance and proceeding along Mitre St at about 1:31:20 and is adjacent to the St James's Place end of the James passage at about 1:35:10. It is possible that Watkins may have walked along the James Passage before continuing his beat (similar to Harvey in the Church Passage), and this is where he encountered JtR. It gives Jack only 4 minutes at his task, but most scenarios involve a short time. Just another possibility to consider.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Yes. If so, one either assumes that the church passage couple are not Eddowes and JtR, or that Lawende and company's time is based upon a clock that is out of sync with PC Watkin's by about 3 to 5 minutes. Both are possible, of course, although where Eddowes and JtR could be waiting while PC Watkin's does his patrol (so they can enter as soon as he leaves) is a bit of challenge. It works for Church Passage couple, but then we must assume the clocks are not in sync (which, to be honest, I think is a safer bet than assuming they are in sync! But it's the amount and direction of the discrepancy that is important).

Regardless, while 4 minutes is pretty short, it is more than the 3 minutes estimated by Dr. Sequeria (sp?), so there's some support. It is shorter than the longer estimated required time of 5 minutes though, and interestingly is exactly the average of the two estimates. Maybe that's a good thing?

I'm glad to hear the simulation is useful for things like this. It's fine if they just help visualise the testimony, but it's nice if they help answer questions not thought of at the time they were made.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George,

Thanks. I enjoy delving into the complexities of the information, and as you know, by the time I come up for air I usual end up on the "I'm not sure we really know" fence. ha ha. But I enjoy exchanging ideas with you as well as you often give me things to ponder.

Yes, Macnaghten's statement could be the earliest reference, but it could be a mistake on his part (it has been suggested he transplanted PC Smith to become a city PC near Mitre Square). And, if so, this could even be the start of the rumour, which grew in detail from there. If Macnaghten had provided a bit more detail, like the PC's name, it would really have helped. The fact he doesn't name him, but just refers to him as "the city PC", has that feel of not having the full details in front of him when he was writing that and so working from memory - always a worry.

I'm not trying to "explain away" things, though, as I think it could be a very important wrinkle in the events, and if we could verify (or confirm it was an error), that would indeed be a step forward. Every little point where we have to make a choice is just another opportunity to make a wrong choice. So if we could at least reduce the number of intersections, we have made the route clearer to follow.

So, I'm of the "maybe there's a city PC to consider, but maybe there's not?" I'm not convinced either way, but there are possibilities that do fit well with there being one, so I do think that is worth considering. Just don't hang your hat on it yet.

- Jeff

If this did happen in the way described by MM then that Pc`s evidence would have formed an integral part of the police investigation and the officer concerned would have given a statement with a description of the man seen, again we see a senior officer making a sweeping statement in later years which lacks corroboration.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sunny Delight]

Hi jerryd,

Yes, there are a few versions of this story floating around, where a PC passes a man in a passage somewhere near Mitre Square. The concern I have is that these stories all tend to be told well after 1888, which raises the concern that while there was a story going around, the "facts" of the story have become garbled through the "rumor mill" (for lack of a better description) over time. What would make me more comfortable would be some document or report, much closer to 1888, that details this event.

And sorry if I wasn't clear before. In the discussions of the Mitre Street to Leadenhall passage, we never came to the conclusion it couldn't have been available, the problem was we couldn't determine if it was open to the public at night or if it was locked off/gated; basically, we couldn't really confirm it was available, although we couldn't confirm it wasn't either. We were left, as always, not really knowing.

As I recall, later maps, like the one you mention, did seem to show it going all the way through (but again, some passage ways were gated off and so effectively not there), but other maps we looked at didn't seem to indicate it was a passage that went all the way through, and only allowed access from Leadenhall street into a courtyard area (where there was a school or something?). I think we compared it with recent maps, and they show a through and through passage, but it appeared to follow slightly different lines. There was, I believe, some discussion that the modern version may have had to been included because there was a law that requires maintaining "traditional through ways" (or something like that; basically, if there had continually been a public access way in the past and for long enough then renovations/rebuilds in the area had to continue to provide that passage way). That would seem to suggest the passage was open to public use in 1888, otherwise it wouldn't meet that criterion and a modern builder wouldn't want to "waste" valuable real estate. Unfortunately, we could never confirm that is actually why the new version of the passage exists today.

If we could nail down the state of that passage in 1888, and confirm it went all the way from Mitre Street to Leadenhall and was open to public access and not gated at night, then I think a very good argument could be made about that Leadenhall passage being the passage that gets referred to in these stories. And that would make PC Watkins the most likely person to be the "City PC" who is credited as being possibly the only person who saw JtR. The location certainly fits with the estimated locations for both JtR and PC Watkins (provided, of course, JtR fled that way). Its location also fits with the various versions we've seen of this story, with some versions having some details that appear to be off and others a closer fit (the one above is a pretty good fit, actually, it is a passage off a street off Mitre Square).

I'm intrigued by it, but I'm just being very cautious; it's all too easy to accept an exciting idea simply because it is so interesting and potentially important. I generally become even more cautious in such situations, reminding myself that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If it's true, though, I think the information is possible to track down (meaning, information about the state of that passage in 1888; I'm sure there will be records, somewhere, that answer that for us).

- Jeff

Most if not all of the City Police records were destroyed during the Blitz so we must always caveat scenarios with the fact that information long lost to us may give a better indication of what these officers were alluding to in later years. However in regards the Seaside Home ID it does seem to me that there are many 'if', 'buts' and 'maybe's' when it comes to the witness being a City PC. Of all the city witnesses Joseph Lawende by far was seen as the most crucial and indeed he was used in the Frances Cole case in an attempt to link James Sadlier with the JTR killings. When it comes to the Seaside Home I think Stewart Evans nailed it in his article on here Kosminski and the Seaside Home. Here is an extract:

'From all the known evidence, the witness used for the identification must be Lawende. Indeed, he was used a week after Kosminski was committed to Colney hatch Asylum, in an attempt to identify James Thomas Sadler (arrested in connection with the Frances Coles’ murder) as the ‘Ripper.’ Only Lawende satisfactorily fills the bill as the witness.
Now the great mystery in all this is the alleged identification of Kosminski, by the witness, at the Seaside Home. How are all the apparent anomalies and contradictions thus presented addressed? There are some patent, and understandable, errors in the writings of the various police officers. They may be summed up as follows: -

1. , "He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889."
2. Macnaghten, "This individual in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square."
3. Anderson, "I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him…"
4. Swanson, "He was sent to Stepney workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards.

These are confined to demonstrable errors, not assumptions, and are few. Indeed if they can be explained the recollections of Anderson, Macnaghten and Swanson are remarkably accurate in relation to Kosminski, allowing for the effects of the passage of time on memory.

So what conclusions may be fairly reached from the foregoing? The following list, I would say, fairly sums up the common sense and most likely scenario: -

1. The witness must have been Lawende a City Police witness, in a City murder case.
2. The identification took place between 12 and 15 July 1890 at the time of Kosminski’s first attack of insanity, his short stay at the Workhouse, and whilst he was in the custody of the workhouse officials. (it would have been impossible to do after he had been committed to an asylum).
3. The identification took place at the Convalescent Police Seaside Home at Clarendon Villas, Brighton.
4. "…where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification and he knew he was identified." – Swanson.
5. "On suspect’s return to his brother’s house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day and night." – Swanson.
6. "In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back he was sent to Stepney Workhouse [4 February 1891] and then to Colney Hatch…" – Swanson.

Thus, the only real errors at all are Macnaghten’s mistake as to the first date of incarceration ("about March 1889" and he makes similar factual errors regarding the other two suspects), Swanson’s misnaming of the workhouse and his idea that he had died ("…and died shortly afterwards.") The mistakes are understandable; in Macnaghten’s case because he probably had no dealings with the suspect in a practical sense, and may have been writing from memory. In Swanson’s case because the asylum may well have been asked to let the police know only if he should ever become eligible for release, which he patently did not, he may have assumed that Kosminski had died because of the state he was in. In the case of Anderson, his error is confined to suggesting that the identification be carried out after the suspect "was caged in an asylum." As I show later, such identification would be impossible as it would not be allowed, and would serve no legal purpose. However, Anderson was writing some 19 years after the event and was concealing the identity of his preferred suspect. It therefore requires no stretch of the imagination to say that it was easier for him, without having to detail the temporary detention in the workhouse in 1890, and the final incarceration six months later, merely to write of the identification being attempted after his incarceration. He merely simplified the account for publication.


The following facts must also be accepted as irrefutable: -

1. In the October 1888 house to house inquiries, according to Anderson, the police had investigated, "…the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his bloodstains in secret."
2. It is recorded that the officers engaged in these house to house inquiries were given books, expressly for the purpose, to make notes in. There must have been a list compiled of ‘every man in the district’ who fitted this criteria.
3. Kosminski would have been on this list which, given the nature of the area, would have contained many similar Jews.
4. The first real suspicion against Kosminski as the ‘Ripper’ must date from c. 12 July 1890, the time of his first attack of ‘insanity’ and his removal to the workhouse.
5. An informer immediately communicated this suspicion to the police.
6. The police must have been present at the identification.
7. If the identification took place on the dates I have indicated, and the facts indicate that it did, then Kosminski’s escort would have been staff from the workhouse, not police.
8. Therefore, and this would seem certain, Kosminski was never actually arrested by the police.
9. The City Police watched Kosminski for the 6 months between his return to his brother’s [sic] house (15 July 1890), and his removal back to the workhouse (4 February 1891).
10. Expenses would have been incurred over the identification, and the subsequent ‘watch’ on Kosminski'

Kosminski and the Seaside Home: Stewart Evans Copyright 1999.

[Aethelwulf]

Most if not all of the City Police records were destroyed during the Blitz so we must always caveat scenarios with the fact that information long lost to us may give a better indication of what these officers were alluding to in later years. However in regards the Seaside Home ID it does seem to me that there are many 'if', 'buts' and 'maybe's' when it comes to the witness being a City PC. Of all the city witnesses Joseph Lawende by far was seen as the most crucial and indeed he was used in the Frances Cole case in an attempt to link James Sadlier with the JTR killings. When it comes to the Seaside Home I think Stewart Evans nailed it in his article on here Kosminski and the Seaside Home. Here is an extract:

'From all the known evidence, the witness used for the identification must be Lawende. Indeed, he was used a week after Kosminski was committed to Colney hatch Asylum, in an attempt to identify James Thomas Sadler (arrested in connection with the Frances Coles’ murder) as the ‘Ripper.’ Only Lawende satisfactorily fills the bill as the witness.
Now the great mystery in all this is the alleged identification of Kosminski, by the witness, at the Seaside Home. How are all the apparent anomalies and contradictions thus presented addressed? There are some patent, and understandable, errors in the writings of the various police officers. They may be summed up as follows: -

1. , "He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889."
2. Macnaghten, "This individual in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square."
3. Anderson, "I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him…"
4. Swanson, "He was sent to Stepney workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards.

These are confined to demonstrable errors, not assumptions, and are few. Indeed if they can be explained the recollections of Anderson, Macnaghten and Swanson are remarkably accurate in relation to Kosminski, allowing for the effects of the passage of time on memory.

So what conclusions may be fairly reached from the foregoing? The following list, I would say, fairly sums up the common sense and most likely scenario: -

1. The witness must have been Lawende a City Police witness, in a City murder case.
2. The identification took place between 12 and 15 July 1890 at the time of Kosminski’s first attack of insanity, his short stay at the Workhouse, and whilst he was in the custody of the workhouse officials. (it would have been impossible to do after he had been committed to an asylum).
3. The identification took place at the Convalescent Police Seaside Home at Clarendon Villas, Brighton.
4. "…where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification and he knew he was identified." – Swanson.
5. "On suspect’s return to his brother’s house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day and night." – Swanson.
6. "In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back he was sent to Stepney Workhouse [4 February 1891] and then to Colney Hatch…" – Swanson.

Thus, the only real errors at all are Macnaghten’s mistake as to the first date of incarceration ("about March 1889" and he makes similar factual errors regarding the other two suspects), Swanson’s misnaming of the workhouse and his idea that he had died ("…and died shortly afterwards.") The mistakes are understandable; in Macnaghten’s case because he probably had no dealings with the suspect in a practical sense, and may have been writing from memory. In Swanson’s case because the asylum may well have been asked to let the police know only if he should ever become eligible for release, which he patently did not, he may have assumed that Kosminski had died because of the state he was in. In the case of Anderson, his error is confined to suggesting that the identification be carried out after the suspect "was caged in an asylum." As I show later, such identification would be impossible as it would not be allowed, and would serve no legal purpose. However, Anderson was writing some 19 years after the event and was concealing the identity of his preferred suspect. It therefore requires no stretch of the imagination to say that it was easier for him, without having to detail the temporary detention in the workhouse in 1890, and the final incarceration six months later, merely to write of the identification being attempted after his incarceration. He merely simplified the account for publication.


The following facts must also be accepted as irrefutable: -

1. In the October 1888 house to house inquiries, according to Anderson, the police had investigated, "…the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his bloodstains in secret."
2. It is recorded that the officers engaged in these house to house inquiries were given books, expressly for the purpose, to make notes in. There must have been a list compiled of ‘every man in the district’ who fitted this criteria.
3. Kosminski would have been on this list which, given the nature of the area, would have contained many similar Jews.
4. The first real suspicion against Kosminski as the ‘Ripper’ must date from c. 12 July 1890, the time of his first attack of ‘insanity’ and his removal to the workhouse.
5. An informer immediately communicated this suspicion to the police.
6. The police must have been present at the identification.
7. If the identification took place on the dates I have indicated, and the facts indicate that it did, then Kosminski’s escort would have been staff from the workhouse, not police.
8. Therefore, and this would seem certain, Kosminski was never actually arrested by the police.
9. The City Police watched Kosminski for the 6 months between his return to his brother’s [sic] house (15 July 1890), and his removal back to the workhouse (4 February 1891).
10. Expenses would have been incurred over the identification, and the subsequent ‘watch’ on Kosminski'

Kosminski and the Seaside Home: Stewart Evans Copyright 1999.

That's a good summary. The main points I can think of against the ID having real meaning in this case (i.e. Koz was the ripper) are:

• Time between double event (Lawende sighting) and ID (almost 2 years) in conjunction with Lawende saying he wouldn't recognise the man again - seems unlikely the ID can be taken as anywhere conclusive. In a modern case, surely the defence would drive a large hole through this?
• Abberline thought Chapman was probably the ripper when he was arrested in 1902. The idea that a positive ID took place and the ripper's ID was known, and he didn't know about it, doesn't wash.
• Similarly, Reid rejects the idea the rippers ID was known
• The MM mentions Koz, but only as one of three possible suspects

Based on his mistaken beliefs about the Mylett case, I think Anderson was one of those people who was probably very reluctant to alter his view once decided. I think he just believed what he wanted to, as per Mylett.

[GBinOz]

'From all the known evidence, the witness used for the identification must be Lawende. Indeed, he was used a week after Kosminski was committed to Colney hatch Asylum, in an attempt to identify James Thomas Sadler (arrested in connection with the Frances Coles’ murder) as the ‘Ripper.’ Only Lawende satisfactorily fills the bill as the witness.
Now the great mystery in all this is the alleged identification of Kosminski, by the witness, at the Seaside Home. How are all the apparent anomalies and contradictions thus presented addressed? There are some patent, and understandable, errors in the writings of the various police officers. They may be summed up as follows: -[LIST=1][*], "He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889."[*]Macnaghten, "This individual in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square."[*]Anderson, "I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him…"

Hi Sunny,

The problem I have with Lawende is, that having secured from him a positive I.D. of Kosminski, and with Kosminski safely locked in an asylum, why did they then trot Lawende out again, not only for Sadler, but also for Grainger whom he purportedly identified as the man he saw near the Church Passage. And what did Lawende and friends actually see? A glance at a man talking to a woman who was wearing black clothes similar to Eddowes. None of them saw her face, and I wonder why Jack would stand under a street lamp and let his face be seen by three potential witnesses.

There doesn't appear to be evidence to contradict Macnaghten's claim, only an adjustment of a speculated error by MM from City PC to City witness which, while convenient, has no corroboration. Traditional theory is that Lawende saw Jack with Eddowes. All I am suggesting is that there are other possibilities.

Cheers, George

[rjpalmer]

There doesn't appear to be evidence to contradict Macnaghten's claim, only an adjustment of a speculated error by MM from City PC to City witness which, while convenient, has no corroboration. Traditional theory is that Lawende saw Jack with Eddowes. All I am suggesting is that there are other possibilities.

Cheers, George

Paul Begg suggested the mystery witness was Israel Schwartz, but isn't there something inherently illogical about using a witness in the Stride case to identify a suspect in the Eddowes murder? (Swanson states that Kosminski was a City suspect--ie., suspected in the Eddowes case).

Such 'bundling' is rarely allowed. The Crown has to solve each murder case on its own merits--or lack thereof. A lawyer like Sir Robert would have been painfully aware of the legal pitfalls of such a muddle approach. The Crown can't charge someone with being 'Jack the Ripper'--they have to charge him with a specific murder or murders. Schwartz wouldn't have been legally relevant to the Eddowes case.