What are the chances of….?

[Lewis C]

Hi GBinOZ

Thanks, some interesting paragraphs. Deeming makes a good candidate for JtR, except he was in another country at the time of the murders. I saw an interesting documentary about him some time ago - with images of his death mask - quite disconcerting. I had not been aware that he knew Catherine Eddowes, though I see that is newspaper speculation and not corroborated. It is not entirely convincing about the dressmaker either - no name, a bit of newspaper license perhaps.

The conversation with Andrew Shields sounds more likely but not necessarily a prostitute in Whitechapel.

Hi etenguy,

There has been research (I think from about 10 years ago) that claims to have proven that Deeming was in England and not in prison at the time of the murders. I think that I remember Paul Begg saying in a book review in Ripperologist that this new research succeeded in proving that Deeming was in England and free.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below:

Who knows - could be hundreds of reasons - but who is to say he did not wear it when first seen by the witness. It was at night and the witness may not have seen it then. In any case, this was just a possible speculation - not a theory or possibly even likely.


Why would a fair-haired man with the appearance of a sailor have been wearing a Jewish symbol?



No-one suggested this possibility.


That possibility is implied by anyone who says that the witness could have been someone other than Lawende or Schwartz.



Anderson took the view in retrospect, but in any case, he may have mentioned it in passing - he may not. But given the speculation at the time that JtR might be Jewish, it might have been considered a pertinent fact.


I think you are mistaken.

Anderson made it clear that his view that Jews would not testify against one another was held by him in 1888:

And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

[etenguy]

Neither Anderson nor Swanson mentioned that the suspect identified himself as Jewish at the identification.

Indeed - nor did they say who the witness was, nor did they say who the suspect was, nor did they say where the identification took place except in vague terms - there was a lot they did not mention.

Anderson claimed that the witness 'learned' that he was Jewish, which suggests that he was somehow informed that the suspect was Jewish by a third party, not by the suspect himself.

Anderson being as vague about this as anything else connected to the purported identification - it could mean anything.

Why would the suspect have worn a Jewish symbol at the identification, but not when he was first seen by the witness? Why would a fair-haired man with the appearance of a sailor have been wearing a Jewish symbol and why would a Jewish witness not have noticed it?

[as for the possibility that the witness would not have been Lawende, it is hardly possible that the man seeks by Schwartz who shouted a well-known anti-Jewish insult as a man of recognisably-Jewish appearance went by was himself Jewish.
As for the witness recognising the suspect's Jewish appearance, why would he have failed to recognise his Jewish appearance previously?
And why would he have identified him as the suspect he had seen previously if he were unwilling to identify a fellow Jew of Jewish appearance?

Who knows - could be hundreds of reasons - but who is to say he did not wear it when first seen by the witness. It was at night and the witness may not have seen it then. In any case, this was just a possible speculation - not a theory or possibly even likely.

What are the chances of a witness who was never mentioned by the press, is absent from police records, and who did not appear as a witness at any inquest, somehow appearing belatedly and becoming the police's star witness?]

No-one suggested this possibility.

Why would the police inform the witness that the suspect was Jewish when Anderson took the view that Jews would not testify against fellow Jews?
That is the very possibility he would have wished to avoid.

Anderson took the view in retrospect, but in any case, he may have mentioned it in passing - he may not. But given the speculation at the time that JtR might be Jewish, it might have been considered a pertinent fact. But I only mentioned it as an example of a possibility - one amongst many - not suggesting it as a theory.

[etenguy]

Hi etenguy,

You may find this interesting:

Deemings handwriting was compared to samples accredited to the Ripper, as foreign and domestic papers alleged his acquaintance with Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes. Eddowes it was reported had written to Deeming during his travels, although like many other claims this too remains unproven. On 8 April 1892 a report was published in the Melbourne Evening Standard claiming he had been identified by a London dressmaker as being in the East End the night Eddowes was murdered, seeing a photograph of Deeming she recognized him as a Mr Lawson. Whom she had kept company with on 30 September 1888, meeting him again the following day she claimed he displayed an intimate knowledge of Eddowes mutilations.

In Australia the belief Deeming was the Ripper was reinforced by accounts of his conversations with doctors at Melbourne Gaol, who were sent by the Court to determine his sanity. He told Dr Andrew Shields he had on occasions gone searching for a woman (prostitute) who had given him syphilis intending to kill her, and believed in the extermination of all such woman. Lamenting his contraction of a venereal disease he said with a peculiar intensity, "I've had my own back, anyhow, as more than one of them found out."

Deeming had a ginger moustache and used the name Lawson as an alias.

Cheers, George

Hi GBinOZ

Thanks, some interesting paragraphs. Deeming makes a good candidate for JtR, except he was in another country at the time of the murders. I saw an interesting documentary about him some time ago - with images of his death mask - quite disconcerting. I had not been aware that he knew Catherine Eddowes, though I see that is newspaper speculation and not corroborated. It is not entirely convincing about the dressmaker either - no name, a bit of newspaper license perhaps.

The conversation with Andrew Shields sounds more likely but not necessarily a prostitute in Whitechapel.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The first if is if the suspect said nothing - maybe he did, maybe not. If not there are any number of ways that the suspect might have been identified as Jewish, perhaps from something he wore, a Jewish symbol, or maybe the police mentioned the suspect was Jewish - or perhaps the witness recognised a Jewish appearance.

The witness refused to make an official identification, which left the police without an identification they could use.




Neither Anderson nor Swanson mentioned that the suspect identified himself as Jewish at the identification.

Anderson claimed that the witness 'learned' that he was Jewish, which suggests that he was somehow informed that the suspect was Jewish by a third party, not by the suspect himself.

Why would the suspect have worn a Jewish symbol at the identification, but not when he was first seen by the witness?

Why would a fair-haired man with the appearance of a sailor have been wearing a Jewish symbol and why would a Jewish witness not have noticed it?

[as for the possibility that the witness would not have been Lawende, it is hardly possible that the man seeks by Schwartz who shouted a well-known anti-Jewish insult as a man of recognisably-Jewish appearance went by was himself Jewish.

What are the chances of a witness who was never mentioned by the press, is absent from police records, and who did not appear as a witness at any inquest, somehow appearing belatedly and becoming the police's star witness?]

As for the witness recognising the suspect's Jewish appearance, why would he have failed to recognise his Jewish appearance previously?
And why would he have identified him as the suspect he had seen previously if he were unwilling to identify a fellow Jew of Jewish appearance?

Would it not have been improper for the police to have discussed the suspect's background with the witness?

Why would the police inform the witness that the suspect was Jewish when Anderson took the view that Jews would not testify against fellow Jews?

That is the very possibility he would have wished to avoid.

[GBinOz]

There is, of course, the possibility that Eddowes went to Mitre Square to meet JtR to blackmail him. It is reported she knew the identity of JtR - though if she ever did profess to know this it was more likely a blag. (Not a serious suggestion - just adding for completeness)

Hi etenguy,

You may find this interesting:

Deemings handwriting was compared to samples accredited to the Ripper, as foreign and domestic papers alleged his acquaintance with Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes. Eddowes it was reported had written to Deeming during his travels, although like many other claims this too remains unproven. On 8 April 1892 a report was published in the Melbourne Evening Standard claiming he had been identified by a London dressmaker as being in the East End the night Eddowes was murdered, seeing a photograph of Deeming she recognized him as a Mr Lawson. Whom she had kept company with on 30 September 1888, meeting him again the following day she claimed he displayed an intimate knowledge of Eddowes mutilations.

In Australia the belief Deeming was the Ripper was reinforced by accounts of his conversations with doctors at Melbourne Gaol, who were sent by the Court to determine his sanity. He told Dr Andrew Shields he had on occasions gone searching for a woman (prostitute) who had given him syphilis intending to kill her, and believed in the extermination of all such woman. Lamenting his contraction of a venereal disease he said with a peculiar intensity, "I've had my own back, anyhow, as more than one of them found out."

Deeming had a ginger moustache and used the name Lawson as an alias.

Cheers, George

[etenguy]

If the police would not have asked the suspect to say anything - for the reason given - and the suspect did not say anything, then how could the witness possibly have discerned at the time of the identification that the suspect - who of necessity could not be of Jewish appearance - was in fact Jewish?

The first if is if the suspect said nothing - maybe he did, maybe not. If not there are any number of ways that the suspect might have been identified as Jewish, perhaps from something he wore, a Jewish symbol, or maybe the police mentioned the suspect was Jewish - or perhaps the witness recognised a Jewish appearance.[/QUOTE]

And they both insisted that the witness did identify the suspect.

The witness refused to make an official identification, which left the police without an identification they could use.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI

There are a lot of assumptions underlying your argument which I am not sure we can be certain about. Assuming this identifcation event took place, we do not know if Lawende was the person supposedly there (though that must be a good guess). And we cannot know what actually happened during the event nor at what point the suspect might have been identified as jewish. It is frustrating. Regarding the suspect being sent home - if the witness failed to deliver an identification at the event, then the suspect might have been free to go home.

I assumed for the sake of argument that the identification took place.

If the police would not have asked the suspect to say anything - for the reason given - and the suspect did not say anything, then how could the witness possibly have discerned at the time of the identification that the suspect - who of necessity could not be of Jewish appearance - was in fact Jewish?

It would have had to be after the suspect had been charged, and possibly much later.

Neither Anderson nor Swanson ever mentioned any arrest, let alone any charges being brought.

And they both insisted that the witness did identify the suspect.

[etenguy]

Thanks for your reply, etenguy.

In view of the fact that Lawende had testified that he did not hear any conversation between the suspect and the woman he identified as Eddowes, there would have been no reason for the police to ask the suspect at the identification to say anything at all.

It is in any case very unlikely that a man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor would have been Jewish.

If I am right that the suspect at the identification would not have said anything, then the witness could hardly have found out that the suspect was Jewish until some time later, by which time the suspect would have been arrested and charged.

In that case, the suspect could not have been sent back home, as Swanson claimed happened.

Hi PI

There are a lot of assumptions underlying your argument which I am not sure we can be certain about. Assuming this identifcation event took place, we do not know if Lawende was the person supposedly there (though that must be a good guess). And we cannot know what actually happened during the event nor at what point the suspect might have been identified as jewish. It is frustrating. Regarding the suspect being sent home - if the witness failed to deliver an identification at the event, then the suspect might have been free to go home.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have wondered whether the witness (presumably Lawende) would have failed to make an identification on the basis of a shared religion in light of these crimes. However, if they did, it might have been hearing the language and accent used by the suspect that convinced him.



You would think there would be more to it, but indeed it does happen that lack of evidence means some are sent home even though the police may think there is strong reason to believe they were guilty.

Thanks for your reply, etenguy.

In view of the fact that Lawende had testified that he did not hear any conversation between the suspect and the woman he identified as Eddowes, there would have been no reason for the police to ask the suspect at the identification to say anything at all.

It is in any case very unlikely that a man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor would have been Jewish.

If I am right that the suspect at the identification would not have said anything, then the witness could hardly have found out that the suspect was Jewish until some time later, by which time the suspect would have been arrested and charged.

In that case, the suspect could not have been sent back home, as Swanson claimed happened.

[etenguy]

As for the witness getting cold feet upon learning that the suspect was Jewish, as I have argued before, it is very difficult to believe that the witness both failed to recognise the suspect as Jewish in the first place and discovered that he was Jewish before the suspect could be arrested and charged.

I have wondered whether the witness (presumably Lawende) would have failed to make an identification on the basis of a shared religion in light of these crimes. However, if they did, it might have been hearing the language and accent used by the suspect that convinced him.

Swanson's story about Kosminski simply being allowed to return home after being identified as the Whitechapel Murderer does not ring true.

You would think there would be more to it, but indeed it does happen that lack of evidence means some are sent home even though the police may think there is strong reason to believe they were guilty.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI,

I don't read too much into it really, it's either Swanson jotting down an opinion, which is just a brief note and naturally lacks a comprehensive analysis of the case against 'Kosminski', or he's noting what Anderson's theory was regardless of his own belief. Whatever the true extent of the Seaside Home identification, any case against any person is going to hinge on more than a lone sighting. That the witness feared being responsible for Kosminski going to the gallows may be as such, but it seems highly unlikely that that alone would condem anyone, something Swanson undoubtedly was aware of, but what, if there ever had been, the case against Kosminksi was, we'll never know.

Sorry for any confusion caused by my mis-typing 'testify again' instead of 'testify against him'.

If Swanson was aware that Kosminski could not have been hanged on the strength of identification evidence alone, then does that not suggest that he was repeating a story that had been told him, rather than something he personally recollected?

As for the witness getting cold feet upon learning that the suspect was Jewish, as I have argued before, it is very difficult to believe that the witness both failed to recognise the suspect as Jewish in the first place and discovered that he was Jewish before the suspect could be arrested and charged.

Swanson's story about Kosminski simply being allowed to return home after being identified as the Whitechapel Murderer does not ring true.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I agree.

What does that say about Swanson's claim that the alleged identification of Kosminski would have resulted in his being hanged in the event that the witness had been prepared to testify again?

Hi PI,

I don't read too much into it really, it's either Swanson jotting down an opinion, which is just a brief note and naturally lacks a comprehensive analysis of the case against 'Kosminski', or he's noting what Anderson's theory was regardless of his own belief. Whatever the true extent of the Seaside Home identification, any case against any person is going to hinge on more than a lone sighting. That the witness feared being responsible for Kosminski going to the gallows may be as such, but it seems highly unlikely that that alone would condem anyone, something Swanson undoubtedly was aware of, but what, if there ever had been, the case against Kosminksi was, we'll never know.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The time frame for another person other than Lawendes man is vanishingly small, if the couple sighted was Eddowes and a man, he's odds on the killer. You wouldn't hang him on that alone though.

I agree.

What does that say about Swanson's claim that the alleged identification of Kosminski would have resulted in his being hanged in the event that the witness had been prepared to testify again?

[etenguy]

There is, of course, the possibility that Eddowes went to Mitre Square to meet JtR to blackmail him. It is reported she knew the identity of JtR - though if she ever did profess to know this it was more likely a blag. (Not a serious suggestion - just adding for completeness)