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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So Anderson was lying and Swansons notes are what? Forgeries?

Swanson may have believed Anderson's fantasy, but that belief is being taken by some as corroboration of Anderson's tale, which it is not.

Swanson provided no inside information that would confirm that he had any personal familiarity with the case he was describing.

He did not name the witness, the suspect's brother's name, the street he lived in, nor provide the name of a single person involved in the transportation, identification, or surveillance of Kosminski.

When he does name something - the workhouse - it is wrong.

Most seriously, he claims that the identification of Kosminski coincided with the cessation of the murders, whereas we know that more than a year after the last murder, Kosminski was walking a dog in the City of London.

All manner of excuses are made for Swanson - that he could not be expected to provide such details and that a literal reading of his claim makes it true.

The problem is that Kosminski was free to commit murder for 27 months following the murder of Kelly, but did not do so.

If Anderson and Swanson were aware of that fact, then they must have known that they were accusing an innocent man.

If they did not know, then they are completely unreliable witnesses to what really happened.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m certain that it’s obvious to almost all that the “it couldn’t have happened” argument holds no more water than if it was stated that “we know that the police couldn’t have been interested in x because we know that x wasn’t the killer.”

It’s also an established fact that eye witnesses can be very unreliable, even under favourable circumstances, and that the police, even today, approach them with caution. Lawende himself admitted that he only saw the man briefly, at night, near a gas lamp. He saw him so briefly that he was unsure if he could have identified him had he seen him again. It was also pointed out that Lawende didn’t even look back at the man and woman after they had passed by. This tells us that he gave the couple little attention. So we know, from Lawende himself, that he saw the man briefly, in passing, at night under a gas lamp and that he paid little attention. Given the known unreliability of witnesses who had a better view of their subject these were very far from being ideal conditions and so extreme caution should be applied by all of us.

The fact that he said that the man had a light moustache therefore has to also be considered with caution. He could simply have been mistaken when thinking back. Experts tell us the we can all be guilty of ‘filling in the gaps’ when recalling events so again, caution is vital. We also know that colours are often difficult to judge under lighting….how much more so at a brief glance? How, for example, can we know that the man in question didn’t have a moustache fused with grey? People can go grey at pretty much any age (and before comment is made, I’m not claiming this as a fact or even a particularly likely possibility, but I’d suggest that it’s a possibility nonetheless)

That he felt that he had the appearance of a sailor has been discussed in detail elsewhere but we have to remember some facts here. Firstly, we have absolutely no way of knowing what gave Lawende this impression or if another person might have arrived at the same impression or not. It might simply have been because of the kind of headwear that he was wearing. We can only speculate in the absence of information. Secondly, it should go without saying that just because someone ‘had the appearance of ***’ we can’t assume that they actually were ***. Most people in that area were extremely poor and the clothes that they wore would have been of the cheapest kind (possibly bought at pawn shops or market stalls or even handed down from a family member) And finally, of course, we have to consider the almost certain fact that the killer wanted to continue what he was doing and to avoid capture. So, if he was a sailor, would he have made himself stand out by appearing at or near the crime scene dressed obviously as a sailor? It’s been suggested that the killer might have been a police officer but we would hardly expect that person to have been in uniform. It’s it entirely reasonable that the killer would have worn old clothes so that he was less likely to stand out or to be recognised. If he had spare clothes might he not have worn different clothes on occasion for that reason?

Lawende’s ID can’t point us toward or away from any particular suspect unless he had some impossible to hide characteristics like being 20 stone or 6 feet 9 or having one leg (perhaps with a crutch and a parrot on his shoulder)

[Sunny Delight]

I am quite sure Smith did not know anything about the identification procedure - because it couldn't have happened!

Lawende's suspect was a man with the appearance of a sailor and a fair moustache.

He was not a Polish Jew.

So Anderson was lying and Swansons notes are what? Forgeries?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If he knew nothing about it, he would have said he knew nothing and would have pointed out that he WOULD have known something. Which he would have. This bit about Lawende wasn't for the benefit of the lay reader, it was for the benefit of those in the know. And I'm sure they all got the message. I personally do not think Anderson was lying at all about the Seaside Home ID. Why would he? It happened, it probably just did not have the gravitas he wished it did. After all, the witness refused to give evidence against the suspect. That part is often left out by those wanting to imbue the identity parade with more relevance than it perhaps carries. But if we put aside random newspaper accounts for a minute and look at just what the contemporary investigators tell us (directly or otherwise), I'd say we get a picture of an identification occurring with Joseph Lawende as the witness and someone who goes by 'Kosminski' as the suspect, and it ends without a positive ID, possibly because the witness (who maybe enjoys the attention and notoriety a little too much) was simply not capable of identifying a suspect because, as Smith said, he never got a good enough look.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I am quite sure Smith did not know anything about the identification procedure - because it couldn't have happened!

Lawende's suspect was a man with the appearance of a sailor and a fair moustache.

He was not a Polish Jew.

[Tom_Wescott]

It is certainly true, as you say, that Smith does not deny in his memoir that the identification confrontation, claimed by Anderson to have happened, actually happened.

On the other hand, he does not concede that it did.

Is it possible that, as he knew nothing about it, he was arguing that IF such an identification confrontation did take place, it COULDN'T have resulted in the witness saying that he recognised the suspect?

If he knew nothing about it, he would have said he knew nothing and would have pointed out that he WOULD have known something. Which he would have. This bit about Lawende wasn't for the benefit of the lay reader, it was for the benefit of those in the know. And I'm sure they all got the message. I personally do not think Anderson was lying at all about the Seaside Home ID. Why would he? It happened, it probably just did not have the gravitas he wished it did. After all, the witness refused to give evidence against the suspect. That part is often left out by those wanting to imbue the identity parade with more relevance than it perhaps carries. But if we put aside random newspaper accounts for a minute and look at just what the contemporary investigators tell us (directly or otherwise), I'd say we get a picture of an identification occurring with Joseph Lawende as the witness and someone who goes by 'Kosminski' as the suspect, and it ends without a positive ID, possibly because the witness (who maybe enjoys the attention and notoriety a little too much) was simply not capable of identifying a suspect because, as Smith said, he never got a good enough look.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is certainly true, as you say, that Smith does not deny in his memoir that the identification confrontation, claimed by Anderson to have happened, actually happened.

On the other hand, he does not concede that it did.

Is it possible that, as he knew nothing about it, he was arguing that IF such an identification confrontation did take place, it COULDN'T have resulted in the witness saying that he recognised the suspect?

[Tom_Wescott]

I know which part of Smith's memoir you are referring to:

"You will easily recognize him, then," I [Smith] said. "Oh no!" he [Lawende] replied ; "I only had a short look at him."

Are you suggesting that Smith may have been conceding that a confrontation, with Lawende as the witness, may have taken place but that Anderson's claim that Lawende identified the suspect was untrue?

Yes. The Seaside Home ID happened as Anderson said, but Smith is pointing out that the witness the police are using is not a good one. And he WOULD have been aware that the witness ID happened, and that the city witness Lawende had been used. That's why he doesn't contradict Anderson on that point, But he does give to history his knowledge that Lawende would not have been able to identify the man he saw with Eddowes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I know which part of Smith's memoir you are referring to:

"You will easily recognize him, then," I [Smith] said. "Oh no!" he [Lawende] replied ; "I only had a short look at him."

Are you suggesting that Smith may have been conceding that a confrontation, with Lawende as the witness, may have taken place but that Anderson's claim that Lawende identified the suspect was untrue?

[Tom_Wescott]

I am not sure that is what you mean.

Smith made it clear that he was convinced that Lawende saw the murderer, but he also made it clear that he did not believe a word of Anderson's allegations about Jews thwarting what Anderson called gentile justice.

Smith evidently did not believe Anderson's claim that anyone had been identified as the murderer, or else he would not have described Anderson's efforts to identify the culprit as a fruitless investigation.

No, it's what I mean. Smith states that Lawende did see the Ripper but not well enough to identify him. Meanwhile, he's bagging on Anderson, who is claiming to have identified the Ripper. Reading between the lines, Smith is telling us A) Lawende was the witness, and B) his witness evidence holds no value.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

For me Anderson and Swanson were convinced the ID was fairly successful and had informed McNaughton that the witness had stated Kosminski strongly resembled the man he had seen near Mitre Square.

That would mean the witness being a Jewish policeman.

Where is the evidence that a Jewish policeman was ever in the vicinity of the site of any murder?

[Sunny Delight]

Robert Anderson writes

'......the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence against him.'

Donald Swanson adds:

'...because witness was also a Jew and because his evidence would convict the suspect and witness would be means of murderer being hanged, which he did not want left on his mind'

Malcolm McNaughton:

' Kosminski, a Polish Jew, who lived in heart of the district where the murders were comimitted............... This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City P.C. near Mitre Square.'

It is interesting that Swanson does not contradict Anderson. He adds to Anderson's certainty that the witness had told them he did not want to testify as he did not want the hanging of a fellow Jew left on his conscience. It is also interesting that McNaughton states in a draft version of his memorandum that Kosminski strongly resembled the man seen by a City PC near Mitre Square. This all ties in. But McNaughton seems to believe that the ID was not conclusive.

For me Anderson and Swanson were convinced the ID was fairly successful and had informed McNaughton that the witness had stated Kosminski strongly resembled the man he had seen near Mitre Square. Over the years much like the Police force becoming wholly convinced that Colin Stagg had killed Rachel Nickel in the 1990's Anderson became convinced of Kosminski's guilt. It became indisputable in his mind. The ID formed the central plank in this. Maybe he and Swanson were right. Maybe it was cast iron. Have we ever considered that they were?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... the Anderson-Smith biographical war of words makes it pretty clear that Smith is naming Lawende as Anderson's witness.

I am not sure that is what you mean.

Smith made it clear that he was convinced that Lawende saw the murderer, but he also made it clear that he did not believe a word of Anderson's allegations about Jews thwarting what Anderson called gentile justice.

Smith evidently did not believe Anderson's claim that anyone had been identified as the murderer, or else he would not have described Anderson's efforts to identify the culprit as a fruitless investigation.

[Tom_Wescott]

hey tom welcome back.
you keep referring to Lawende as a suspect..
you mean witness right?

anyway Sugden put the issue to bed on Lawende being the Seaside ID witness when he found a contemperaneous newspaper article referring to Lawende as the sadler ID witness and the witness in the Edoowes case.

Hi Abby. I can't believe I referred to Lawende as a suspect. That's what I get for posting while I'm working. I'm not sure what you mean by what Sugden put to bed. Regardless of how Lawende may or may not have been used later on, the Anderson-Smith biographical war of words makes it pretty clear that Smith is naming Lawende as Anderson's witness. If it were Schwartz, I think Smith would have made veiled references to his problematic evidence as opposed to how his own witness - Lawende - was problematic. Same holds true for Lawende's cohorts that evening. Also, Schwartz completely disappears from the police accounts after November 1888, never to emerge again evening in later musings and rememberings. Which, by the way, I consider extremely strange.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

More importantly, he went to great pains to downplay his own suspect - Lawende - by pointing out that he never could have identified the man he saw. As he was writing in response to Anderson, I can see no reason why he would do this except to remind Anderson that his witness identification was worthless. And I do believe Smith would have been informed if not involved of every element of the Seaside ID. I should mention that none of this is a negative towards the suspect Kosminski, because clearly other factors made him a suspect, or why else have Lawende look at him? Only to point out that Smith is (IMO) inferring that Lawende was the witness whom Anderson describes in his memoirs.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

hey tom welcome back.
you keep referring to Lawende as a suspect..
you mean witness right?

anyway Sugden put the issue to bed on Lawende being the Seaside ID witness when he found a contemperaneous newspaper article referring to Lawende as the sadler ID witness and the witness in the Edoowes case.

[Tom_Wescott]

I would advise anyone to read the actual lines written by Sir Henry Smith, in which he rubbished everything Anderson said about the Jews and dismissed his allegation that the Jews prevented the Whitechapel Murderer from being brought to justice.

More importantly, he went to great pains to downplay his own suspect - Lawende - by pointing out that he never could have identified the man he saw. As he was writing in response to Anderson, I can see no reason why he would do this except to remind Anderson that his witness identification was worthless. And I do believe Smith would have been informed if not involved of every element of the Seaside ID. I should mention that none of this is a negative towards the suspect Kosminski, because clearly other factors made him a suspect, or why else have Lawende look at him? Only to point out that Smith is (IMO) inferring that Lawende was the witness whom Anderson describes in his memoirs.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott