Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Jonathan H]

Poor Jeff

You just don't understand any of it, do you, even what we are arguing about.

And you will look at it a dozen more times and still be bewildered.

It stems from an inability to admit you are mistaken.

This is the Townsend Letter reference--agaiin--a letter that you bitchily claimed Macnaghten destroyed, even though Anderson says in his memoirs that he did so.

'The public never realised what a marvellous escape Mr. Gladstone had in April, 1893, when the lunatic Townsend, with a loaded revolver in his pocket, lay in wait for him in Downing Street. A lunatic is often diverted from his purpose as easily as a child; and the man's own explanation of his failing to fire was that the Premier smiled at him when passing into No. io-a providential circumstance that, for Mr. Gladstone was not addicted to smiling. That case cost me much distress of mind. " Never keep a document," should be the first rule with a criminal. "Never destroy a document," should be an inexorable rule in Police work. But in this case I had destroyed a letter that would have proved an important piece of evidence. I always ignored threatening letters myself, and I have had my share of them ; and when one of my principal subordinates brought me a letter threatening his life, I felt so indignant and irritated at the importance he attached to it, and the fuss he made over it, that I threw it into the fire. That letter was from Townsend, and though no harm came of my act, I could not forgive myself for it.'

You cannot cope with the notion that limited and ambiguous material allows for multiple and competing interpretations.

Do you realise that you ahve boxed yourself in about that allaged March 1889 i.d., as the Seaside Home was not built until the following year?

I suppose not.

Whatever you do you cannot change the fact that you had never noticed that Macnaghten had a sense, correctly, that "Kosminski" was alive in thr asylum, and not deceased, and that Anderson (and Swanson--in 1895?)thouht his suspect was deceased and wasn't. It was actually Mac's Ripper that was dead--just a coincidence?

Think about that for a moment, if you are able.

In 1895 Swanson told a reporter that the best suspect was deceased.

In 1898 Macnaghten showed, or communciated verbally, the susepct contents of his Report to Major Griffiths, but it was data significantly different from the version he filed, for in this version it is clear that the Polish susopect is probably still alive. Which he was.

In 18945 Swanson says as he will write in 1910, or thereabouts, that the best suspect is long dead amd three years later Macnaghten communciates to Griffiths that this same suspect is probably alive--which he was.

It is not that you don;t agree with me that is the problem. The material is ambiguous enough to alllow for different interpretations.

It is that I am not permitted to have a differing line of interpretation.

To PaulB

Sorry, I missed a much earlier reply of yours on this thread.

That Macnaghten never directly denied the witness idnentification. That's true. It is my interpretation that he implies it in his memoir.

Inference is an important historical tool.

You use the same one to argue that Israel Schwartz was probably--not definitely--Anderson's Jewish witness.

There is no hard evdience that that is so, but soft evdience will do for a working theory.

How are we different?

[Scott Nelson]

Given that City detectives mounted a round-the-clock surveillance of Kosminski, moreover, it is inconceivable that Lawende wouldn't have been summoned to give Kosminski the once over. Thus Major Smith would have been aware of any identification secured by the Met, and he would certainly have been aware of an equivalent operation ordered by himself. That he subsequently castigated the proposed Anderson solution speaks volumes. It demonstrates both that the Seaside Home identification could not have been as decisive as Anderson would have us believe, and that Lawende could not have identified Kosminski on behalf of the City.

I've covered this many times before. The identification event was such a mundane affair, it was hardly known to anybody. Again, it would have been arranged by City Police (and Major Smith) since it's outcome would have been based on the cooperation of their witness (not necessarily Lawende). Scotland Yard simply sent the suspect to be identified -- the city police handled most of the arrangements. Smith probably didn't even want to do it because he had little confidence in the witness. Anderson, years later after the publication of his book, had reconnected with Smith to assure him the Ripper's identity was almost certain based on other evidence lost to us.

[harry]

What didn't they/we Know.
1...Who was the suspect

2...Who was the witness.

3...Who was the victim

4...Where was the ID

5...When was the ID

6...Who sent the suspect

7...Who accompanied the suspect

8...Who accompanied the witness

9...What is a seaside home

10..Why wasn't an arrest made

11.. WHO TOLD THE TRUTH

Just one of the above might help.

[Scott Nelson]

1. Someone named Kosminski
2. Possibly PC James Harvey or Joseph Levy
3. C-5 plus or minus
4. A Seaside Home establishment - location uncertain
5. Probably late 1888 or early 1889
6. Scotland Yard - Met Police
7. City of London Police
8. City Police or the witness was convalescing there already
9. A Convalescent Hospital/Rest Home
10. There wasn't enough direct evidence to do so and the suspect was certified to be insane prior to the identification.
11. I think the Swanson Marginellia comes the closest.

[S.Brett]

Hi at all!

Why not a witness who saw Aaron Kozminski "took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister"?

Let us think about that:

22 November 1888 Morning Advertiser (London)

“Great excitement was caused in the East-end, and throughout the metropolis generally, yesterday by the attempted murder of a woman in the district of the tragedie… is known as Annie, or Matilda, Farmer. She is stated to be a married woman of good appearance and about 34 years of age.”

“Almost immediately the woman ran downstairs bleeding from a wound in the throat. She asserted that the man attempted to cut her throat, that a struggle had taken place, and that her assailant then fled.”

"Wanted, for attempted murder on the 21st inst., a man aged 36, height 5 feet 6 inches, complexion dark, no whiskers, dark moustache, black jacket, vest, and trousers, round black felt hat. Respectable appearance. Can be identified."

Farmer was 40 years old in 1888.

“She is stated to be a married woman of good appearance and about 34 years of age”?

I know a photograph of Matilda Lubnowski. She was 34 years old in 1888.

“A man was arrested in the East-end early this morning (? 22. November ?) under very suspicious circumstances. Between one and two o’clock a woman, who was in the company with a man in a narrow thoroughfare near Brick-lane, was heard to call "Murder!" and "Police!" loudly. At the moment the man was seen making off at a rapid pace. He was pursued through several streets by the police and detectives who have lately been concentrated in considerable numbers in the neighbourhood, and was captured near Truman, Hanbury, and Buxton’s brewery. The man is reported to have drawn a knife, and made a desperate resistance, but he was eventually overpowered, and conveyed to the Commercial-street station.”

Was there confusion between Annie Farmer and a woman called “Matilda” in the press? Shortly before: The press confused Charles Ludwig with the “Batty Street Lodger Story”! (Rob House)

Farmer is Indoor! Matilda is Outdoor!

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/morning_advertiser/18881122.html

See also post 423 Paddy, Huddersfield Daily Chronicle 19 February 1894 in this thread:

“He seized a relative by the throat”

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=341071

I remember Rob House “Prime suspect:

December 1888

“The Dublin Express London correspondent on Thursday gave as the latest police theory concerning the Whitechapel murderer, that he has fallen under the strong suspicion of his near relatives, who to avert a terribly family disgrace, may have placed him out of harm's way in safe keeping. As showing that there is a certain amount of credence attached to this story, detectives have recently visited all the registered private lunatic asylums, and made full inquiries as to the inmates recently admitted.”

Crawford Letter:

“My dear Anderson,

I send you this line to ask you to see & hear the bearer, whose name is unknown to me. She has or thinks she has a knowledge of the author of the Whitechapel murders. The author is supposed to be nearly related to her, & she is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril.

I have advised her to place the whole story before you, without giving you any names, so that you may form an opinion as to its being worth while to investigate.

Very sincerely yours,
Crawford“

We all think that the witness in Seaside Home saw a man in the company with Stride, Eddowes or Kelly, Chapman, Nichols. Perhaps, he saw Aaron Kozminski with Matilda Lubnowski near Brick Lane in the morning of 22 November 1888. You know: Once, Aaron Kozminski "threatened his sister with a knife".

Maybe, Matilda refused to cooperate with the police in November 1888. Maybe, Matilda was looking for help in December 1888 (Crawford/ Anderson) and maybe, she gave up in the second half of the year 1890 or at the beginning of the year 1891 and the Seaside Home took place. All the time before; without any assistance of Matilda, an ID cannot take place (“No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer”).

Remember what Cox, Sagar, Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten said…

Cox:

“The murderer was a misogynist, who at some time or another had been wronged by a woman. And the fact that his victims were of the lowest class proves, I think, that he was not, as has been stated, an educated man who had suddenly gone mad. He belonged to their own class.”

“Had he been wronged by a woman occupying a higher stage in society the murders would in all probability have taken place in the West End, the victims have been members of the fashionable demi-monde.”

“but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail. Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes”.

Cox observation took nearly three months… “Matilda” took place on 22. November 1888… Macnaghten said about Kosminski “about March 1889”… December, January, and February = three months…

Sagar: “Identification being impossible”

Swanson:

“And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London”
22 November 1888 or Seaside Home 1890/91?

Cox:

“It is indeed very strange that as soon as this madman was put under observation, the mysterious crimes ceased…”

Anderson:

“It sometimes happens that the murderer is known, but evidence is wholly wanting. In such circumstances the French Police would arrest the suspected person, and built up a case against him at their leisure, mainly by admissions extracted from him in repeated interrogations.”

On Swansonīs list (Scotland Yard Investigates Evans/Rumbelow page 224) in the upper line -Alleged Attempted Murder- is Annie Farmer and underneath the line is blank.

21.11. 1888 9.30 AM Annie Farmer 19 George St.
22.11. 1888 1.30 AM Matilda Lubnowski thoroughfare near Brick Lane (but no complaint)???

In this case a possible witness had a good view of the murderer then the suspect was captured… and conveyed to the Commercial-street station…

There was a witness: At the moment the man was seen making off at a rapid pace

Anderson:

"I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him"

[PaulB]

To PaulB

Sorry, I missed a much earlier reply of yours on this thread.

That Macnaghten never directly denied the witness idnentification. That's true. It is my interpretation that he implies it in his memoir.

Inference is an important historical tool.

You use the same one to argue that Israel Schwartz was probably--not definitely--Anderson's Jewish witness.

There is no hard evdience that that is so, but soft evdience will do for a working theory.

How are we different?

Hi Jonathan
I do not offer my conclusion that Schwartz was the witness as a fact. You did offer your conclusion as a fact that Macnaghten denied the witness identification. That's where we differ.

Inference is a dangerous historical tool because it allowes one to take from a source what one thinks the source is saying, which is what I think you have done. There is no reason to infer that Macnaghten knew about the identification story and denied it actually happened, the inference is that he knew about it and attached no significance to it (which is unlikely) or that he didn't know about it at all.

And whilst I have the opportunity, pending the discovery of a better candidate, I do think Aaron Kosminski was Anderson's suspect. I do not know whether he was or wasn't Jack the Ripper (insufficient data for any decision to be made there).

Cheers
Paul

[Jeff Leahy]

Poor Jeff

You just don't understand any of it, do you, even what we are arguing about.

Jonathon I have consistently quoted MAcNaughten on his retirement, The Daily Mail 2 June 1013…..Its on Page 322 of the A to Z. I suggest you take the trouble to look it up…

Here MacNAughten clearly and categorically states 'I have destroyed all my documents and there is now no record of the secret information which came into my possession at one time or another'

Absolutely no mention of a letter…none. If you believe that the authors of the A to Z have miss printed or miss quoted MAcNAughten then I suggest you take it up with them. However in the mean time I will simply take it as FACT that MAcAnughten made the claim to have destroyed information relating to the case.

Do you realise that you ahve boxed yourself in about that allaged March 1889 i.d., as the Seaside Home was not built until the following year?

Not only have I not boxed myself in but it is an argument I have clearly won.

Whatever you do you cannot change the fact that you had never noticed that Macnaghten had a sense, correctly, that "Kosminski" was alive in thr asylum, and not deceased, and that Anderson (and Swanson--in 1895?)thouht his suspect was deceased and wasn't. It was actually Mac's Ripper that was dead--just a coincidence?

There is NO contextual evidence to support this claim. Not a jot. Not only does MacNAughten not have a clue what happened to Kozminski (And I believe still is) but when he knows someone is alive he states it categorically As he does about Ostrog.

I've given you the actual quote made by Sims in 1907..And its clear here also that Sims combines Koz and Ostrog and is using non specific language.

Its only in your imagination that you believe MAcNaughten to know Kozminski is alive, when in FACT he doesn't know what happened to the man once place in the asylum. He never mentions Colney Hatch and unless he had been told by Anderson or Swanson would have know idea which if any asylums the suspect was in, in order to check this out.

We know Anderson kept track on people in Colney Hatch and the most probable explanation for Anderson belief is the transfer to Leavesdon.

It is that I am not permitted to have a differing line of interpretation.

You can make any interpretation you like. What you can not do is state as fact that MacAnughten knew kozminski was alive in 1907…There is no contextual evidence for this… If you actually read what MacNAughten says in the memoranda and take into account what he states about Ostrog actually being alive then the brackets (And I believe still is) Clearly indicate that MAcNaughten is unsure what happened to Kozminski once he was placed in an asylum…. If he didn't know in 1894 it seems probable as MAcNAughten never states it directly that he ever new what happened to Kozminski once he was place in an asylum in March 1889.

Those are the FACTS.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi at all!

Why not a witness who saw Aaron Kozminski "took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister"?

Let us think about that:

22 November 1888 Morning Advertiser (London)

“Great excitement was caused in the East-end, and throughout the metropolis generally, yesterday by the attempted murder of a woman in the district of the tragedie… is known as Annie, or Matilda, Farmer. She is stated to be a married woman of good appearance and about 34 years of age.”

“Almost immediately the woman ran downstairs bleeding from a wound in the throat. She asserted that the man attempted to cut her throat, that a struggle had taken place, and that her assailant then fled.”

"Wanted, for attempted murder on the 21st inst., a man aged 36, height 5 feet 6 inches, complexion dark, no whiskers, dark moustache, black jacket, vest, and trousers, round black felt hat. Respectable appearance. Can be identified."

Farmer was 40 years old in 1888.

“She is stated to be a married woman of good appearance and about 34 years of age”?

I know a photograph of Matilda Lubnowski. She was 34 years old in 1888.

“A man was arrested in the East-end early this morning (? 22. November ?) under very suspicious circumstances. Between one and two o’clock a woman, who was in the company with a man in a narrow thoroughfare near Brick-lane, was heard to call "Murder!" and "Police!" loudly. At the moment the man was seen making off at a rapid pace. He was pursued through several streets by the police and detectives who have lately been concentrated in considerable numbers in the neighbourhood, and was captured near Truman, Hanbury, and Buxton’s brewery. The man is reported to have drawn a knife, and made a desperate resistance, but he was eventually overpowered, and conveyed to the Commercial-street station.”

Was there confusion between Annie Farmer and a woman called “Matilda” in the press? Shortly before: The press confused Charles Ludwig with the “Batty Street Lodger Story”! (Rob House)

Farmer is Indoor! Matilda is Outdoor!

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/morning_advertiser/18881122.html

See also post 423 Paddy, Huddersfield Daily Chronicle 19 February 1894 in this thread:

“He seized a relative by the throat”

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=341071

I remember Rob House “Prime suspect:

December 1888

“The Dublin Express London correspondent on Thursday gave as the latest police theory concerning the Whitechapel murderer, that he has fallen under the strong suspicion of his near relatives, who to avert a terribly family disgrace, may have placed him out of harm's way in safe keeping. As showing that there is a certain amount of credence attached to this story, detectives have recently visited all the registered private lunatic asylums, and made full inquiries as to the inmates recently admitted.”

Crawford Letter:

“My dear Anderson,

I send you this line to ask you to see & hear the bearer, whose name is unknown to me. She has or thinks she has a knowledge of the author of the Whitechapel murders. The author is supposed to be nearly related to her, & she is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril.

I have advised her to place the whole story before you, without giving you any names, so that you may form an opinion as to its being worth while to investigate.

Very sincerely yours,
Crawford“

We all think that the witness in Seaside Home saw a man in the company with Stride, Eddowes or Kelly, Chapman, Nichols. Perhaps, he saw Aaron Kozminski with Matilda Lubnowski near Brick Lane in the morning of 22 November 1888. You know: Once, Aaron Kozminski "threatened his sister with a knife".

Maybe, Matilda refused to cooperate with the police in November 1888. Maybe, Matilda was looking for help in December 1888 (Crawford/ Anderson) and maybe, she gave up in the second half of the year 1890 or at the beginning of the year 1891 and the Seaside Home took place. All the time before; without any assistance of Matilda, an ID cannot take place (“No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer”).

Remember what Cox, Sagar, Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten said…

Cox:

“The murderer was a misogynist, who at some time or another had been wronged by a woman. And the fact that his victims were of the lowest class proves, I think, that he was not, as has been stated, an educated man who had suddenly gone mad. He belonged to their own class.”

“Had he been wronged by a woman occupying a higher stage in society the murders would in all probability have taken place in the West End, the victims have been members of the fashionable demi-monde.”

“but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail. Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes”.

Cox observation took nearly three months… “Matilda” took place on 22. November 1888… Macnaghten said about Kosminski “about March 1889”… December, January, and February = three months…

Sagar: “Identification being impossible”

Swanson:

“And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London”
22 November 1888 or Seaside Home 1890/91?

Cox:

“It is indeed very strange that as soon as this madman was put under observation, the mysterious crimes ceased…”

Anderson:

“It sometimes happens that the murderer is known, but evidence is wholly wanting. In such circumstances the French Police would arrest the suspected person, and built up a case against him at their leisure, mainly by admissions extracted from him in repeated interrogations.”

On Swansonīs list (Scotland Yard Investigates Evans/Rumbelow page 224) in the upper line -Alleged Attempted Murder- is Annie Farmer and underneath the line is blank.

21.11. 1888 9.30 AM Annie Farmer 19 George St.
22.11. 1888 1.30 AM Matilda Lubnowski thoroughfare near Brick Lane (but no complaint)???

In this case a possible witness had a good view of the murderer then the suspect was captured… and conveyed to the Commercial-street station…

There was a witness: At the moment the man was seen making off at a rapid pace

Anderson:

"I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him"

Hi Brett

A most interesting theory.

I've only ever stated that it is unlikely that Lawende is Andersons and Swansons ID witness. I've always preferred Schwartz because if your correct about the Crawford letter it seems logical they would have know where Kozminski lived.

While I find your theory about Matilda most interesting, my concerns would be whether a non ripper victim would give Anderson the moral certainty he almost certainly entertained.

Great post Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

Dear PaulB

I am glad you have cleared that up because I know for a fact that others--mistakenly--thought as I did about your interpretation, in terms of Aaron Kosminski.

You are, likewise, a little off-track about what I think happened in terms of Macnaghten and the Anderson/Swanson i.d. story.

In his memoir Mac's cliche beat cop is Lawende disguised, who saw nothing satisfying. That's a direct stab at Anderson--who in "Days of My Years" is airbrushed from history, along with Kosminski (and Ostrog).

The Chief Constable later Assistant Commissioner knew the i.d. had happened. He knew that it involved a Jewish witness (Lawende) and he knew that it had come to nothing in regards to Tom Sadler and William Grant.

For that was the i.d. Anderson later muddled; a Ripper suspect(s) identified by a Jewish witness, or not. We know this because it appears in other sources--though only two--whereas Schwarz disappears from the extant record.

We know that Anderson was capable of all sorts of confident conflations and confusions due to the shambolic 1908 interview and so it is not a stretch, to me, that the 1910 memoir footnote about a witness is of the same order: sincere but muddled to the point of grotesque distortion, just as he did to Dr Philips.

Major Smith in 1910 denied Anderson's account, and by implication so did Sir Melville Macnaghten in 1914, as he did also through his proxy Sims (very rudely) in 1910.

Mac set in motion the myth of the i.d. of a Jewish suspect and a Jewish witness when in the Aberconway version he turned inside-out the witness, Lawende, and suspect, the Gentile-featured, light-moustachioed young man at the Eddowes murder whom Mac believed--rightly or wrongly--was a sighting of Montague Druitt, whom he believed from 1891--again, rightly or wrongly--was the Ripper.

I subscribe to the theory that due to internal bureaucratic pressures and, later, external public relations reasons Macnaghten, in a sense, created "Kosminski" the deceased suspect in 1895.

I think the reason that Anderson and Swanson believed he was deceased is due to Macnaghten telling them that.

This is what everything I see tells me.

Is the above fact or theory? It is a theory based on trying to make sense of a jumble. For me the above fits together quiet neatly.

Could I be wrong? Sure, I often am.

Here is something you may not have seen.

It is the only account of the Lawende sighting outside the 1888 sources (and Major Smith, who has the wrong hat) that places the Druitt figure in the frame, albeit disguised--literally so in this case. It is from Guy Logan's "The True History of Jack the Ripper"(1905) and it matches the 1888 primary sources: a Gentile murderer being seen by a Jewish man:

"... with a few deft touches effected an almost total change in his outward appearance. A fair wig and a light moustache completely transformed him ..." p. 144

"Shortly after 1:30 a man and woman were seen talking at the corner of Church Street, one of whom stated his opinion that the clothing he had seen at the station was like that warn by the woman he saw." p. 152

I can't tell you what it meant to me to see [part of] my theory confirmed.

[Jonathan H]

Jeff it is you who claimed that it was Macnaghten who burned documents..

That's true about the 1913 press conference reports, but we were not debating those sources but rather the Townsend letter referred to by Anderson in his 1910 memoirs.

You had written that Macnaghten destroyed the Townsend letter when he hadn't -- and Anderson had not claimed he had. You managed to be unfair to both Mac and Sir Bob in one hit.

And graceless about admitting your mistake, but then I guess you still have not realized it -- and will write, again, that Mac said he burned documents in 1913.

Which he said he did and which we are not debating.

It is interesting--up to a point-- to see what cut-glass bias really looks like, and your suffocating obsession with Anderson and Kosminski is quite something.

It blinds you to what material we are even 'discussing'.

It is an obsession because, unlike Paul Begg and many others,you do not concede other interpretations of limited and ambiguous data are possible. The value of said interpretation is in the eye of the beholder.

I think Macnaghten knew all there was to know about Aaron Kosminski and Anderson (and Swanson) did not.

The Seaside i.d as a literal event never happened.

Oh, and here, again, is the bit you never cut-and-paste of my posts because it is too terrifying, or do you just not understand it:

The 1908 interview in "The Daily Chronicle", with Anderson proves that the aging, retired chief--who had been sacked in 1901--was capable of the most grotesque, partisan and self-serving conflations and confusions. Perhaps some people have not seen the pertinent quotation as it is not on this site:

''In two cases of that terrible series [the Ripper crmes] there were disticnt clues destroyed - wiped out absolutely - clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin. In one case it was a clay pipe. Before we could get to the scene of the murder the doctor had taken it up, thrown it into the fireplace, and smashed it beyond recognition. In another case there was writing in chalk on the wall - a most valuable clue; handwriting that might have been at once recognized as belonging to a certain individual. But before we could secure a copy, or get it protected, it had been entirely obliterated ... I told Sir William Harcourt, who was then Home Secretary, that I could not accept responsibility for non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes, for the reasons, among others, that I have given you.'

As the late Philip Sudgen cogently wrote about this primary source:

'Even in the brief allusion to the Ripper case there are two glaring errors. Sir William Harcourt ceased to be Home Secretary in 1885, three years before the murders began. The man with whom Anderson dealt with in 1888 was Henry Matthews. The reference to the pipe is also incorrect. Anderson's mention of a fireplace clearly indicates that he had the murder of Mary Kelly in mind for this was the only one in the series committed indoors. Dr. Phillips, the divisional police surgeon, was called out to the scene of the crime. And a pipe belonging to Joe Barnett, Kelly's lover, was found in Mary's room. But this was not the pipe that was smashed. Anderson was confusing the Kelly murder with that of Alice McKenzie in Castle Alley about nine months later. A clay pipe found with Alice's body was thrown to the floor and broken. However, this incident occurred at the mortuary, during the post-mortem examination, not at the crime scene, and the culprit was one of the attendants, not Dr. Phillips. So here, two years before his memoirs appeared, and speaking of investigations for which he bore overall responsibility, Anderson was confounding officials and running quite separate incidents together in his head.'

[S.Brett]

Hi Brett

A most interesting theory.

I've only ever stated that it is unlikely that Lawende is Andersons and Swansons ID witness. I've always preferred Schwartz because if your correct about the Crawford letter it seems logical they would have know where Kozminski lived.

While I find your theory about Matilda most interesting, my concerns would be whether a non ripper victim would give Anderson the moral certainty he almost certainly entertained.

Great post Yours Jeff

Dear Jeff,

The attack on Matilda (near Brick Lane) might have looked like the attack on Liz Stride in Dutfield's Yard after Schwartz and Pipeman were gone. But this time a witness saw the struggle and the victim (Matilda) could escape. A good view is possible. Perhaps he saw the man again while this man was captured and at the police station Commercial Road.

Maybe, Aaron Kozminski had already been a prime suspect before this happened. Thinking of Batty Street Lodger Story and the bloody shirt (and an earlier observation in October 1888, no murder), thinking of the Constabler from Mitre Square "This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square"- Macnaughten or "This man was said to resemble the murderer by the one person who got a glimpse of him - the police-constable in Mitre Court”- Major Griffith, thinking of Macnaghten and the "many circs"...

And this time it would mean: REDHANDED!

Perhaps Matilda had followed Aaron one night and saw him at Millerīs Court and/or Hanbury Street, entering the backyards. Anderson:

"...he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class 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."

Yours Karsten.

[PaulB]

Dear PaulB

I am glad you have cleared that up because I know for a fact that others--mistakenly--thought as I did about your interpretation, in terms of Aaron Kosminski.

You are, likewise, a little off-track about what I think happened in terms of Macnaghten and the Anderson/Swanson i.d. story.

In his memoir Mac's cliche beat cop is Lawende disguised, who saw nothing satisfying. That's a direct stab at Anderson--who in "Days of My Years" is airbrushed from history, along with Kosminski (and Ostrog).

The Chief Constable later Assistant Commissioner knew the i.d. had happened. He knew that it involved a Jewish witness (Lawende) and he knew that it had come to nothing in regards to Tom Sadler and William Grant.

For that was the i.d. Anderson later muddled; a Ripper suspect(s) identified by a Jewish witness, or not. We know this because it appears in other sources--though only two--whereas Schwarz disappears from the extant record.

We know that Anderson was capable of all sorts of confident conflations and confusions due to the shambolic 1908 interview and so it is not a stretch, to me, that the 1910 memoir footnote about a witness is of the same order: sincere but muddled to the point of grotesque distortion, just as he did to Dr Philips.

Major Smith in 1910 denied Anderson's account, and by implication so did Sir Melville Macnaghten in 1914, as he did also through his proxy Sims (very rudely) in 1910.

Mac set in motion the myth of the i.d. of a Jewish suspect and a Jewish witness when in the Aberconway version he turned inside-out the witness, Lawende, and suspect, the Gentile-featured, light-moustachioed young man at the Eddowes murder whom Mac believed--rightly or wrongly--was a sighting of Montague Druitt, whom he believed from 1891--again, rightly or wrongly--was the Ripper.

I subscribe to the theory that due to internal bureaucratic pressures and, later, external public relations reasons Macnaghten, in a sense, created "Kosminski" the deceased suspect in 1895.

I think the reason that Anderson and Swanson believed he was deceased is due to Macnaghten telling them that.

This is what everything I see tells me.

Is the above fact or theory? It is a theory based on trying to make sense of a jumble. For me the above fits together quiet neatly.

Could I be wrong? Sure, I often am.

Here is something you may not have seen.

It is the only account of the Lawende sighting outside the 1888 sources (and Major Smith, who has the wrong hat) that places the Druitt figure in the frame, albeit disguised--literally so in this case. It is from Guy Logan's "The True History of Jack the Ripper"(1905) and it matches the 1888 primary sources: a Gentile murderer being seen by a Jewish man:

"... with a few deft touches effected an almost total change in his outward appearance. A fair wig and a light moustache completely transformed him ..." p. 144

"Shortly after 1:30 a man and woman were seen talking at the corner of Church Street, one of whom stated his opinion that the clothing he had seen at the station was like that warn by the woman he saw." p. 152

I can't tell you what it meant to me to see [part of] my theory confirmed.

Jonathan
I don't want to get into a lengthy point by point discussion, so let me just take a single statement of yours.

"In his memoir Mac's cliche beat cop is Lawende disguised, who saw nothing satisfying. That's a direct stab at Anderson--who in "Days of My Years" is airbrushed from history, along with Kosminski (and Ostrog)."


We don’t know of any City PC who saw anything in the vicinity of Mitre Square, so did Macnaghten really write City PC when he meant a Jewish commercial traveller? Other people who have considered this have concluded that Macnaghten actually meant a policeman and was referring to Met policeman, PC Smith.

It has also been observed that Macnaghten wrote that the murderer of Stride was disturbed by some Jews who drove up to the Club. In fact if the murderer was disturbed by anyone it was by a single Jew. Multiple Jews are Lawende and Co over by Mitre Square. So it is entirely possible that Macnaghten transposed the multiple Jews near Mitre Square to the murderer-disturbing single Jew in Berner Street and the possible police eye-witness PC Smith in Berner Street into a City PC near Mitre Square.

If one wanted to speculate a little further, one might argue that Macnaghten knew about an eye-witness and assumed it was policeman Smith in Berner Street (who Macnaghten turned into a City PC), whereas the witness was in reality Schwartz.

I’m not going to argue the pros and cons of any of this, the point being that it is by no means even a reasonable assumption that Macnaghten’s beat cop was Lawende in disguise, but you offer it as a statement of fact. The transposition theory is equally probable, some might argue that insofar as it keeps Macnaghten’s witness a cop, albeit in Berner Street and not near Mitre Square, it is far more probable.

[Harry D]

2. Possibly PC James Harvey or Joseph Levy

PC Harvey is probably the best bet for Macnaghten's City PC, as he was not far behind the killer, but he never reported seeing anyone.

Joseph Levy is a witness who's often overlooked in the whole Seaside Home ID discussion. His guarded behaviour doesn't lead one to think he would cooperate with the police in an identification, unless he had been put up to it by someone else?

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff it is you who claimed that it was Macnaghten who burned documents..

Jonathon I wasn't quoting anything to do with Townsend. The quote I clearly gave is on P322 of the A to Z…The Daily Mail2 June 1913

That is the only quote I gave and it supports the idea that files might have been destroyed by MAcNAughten who claimed he destroyed evidence.

It is an obsession because, unlike Paul Begg and many others,you do not concede other interpretations of limited and ambiguous data are possible. The value of said interpretation is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes I'm saying you don't need to interpret. You simply have to read what the sources tell us….and then look at them from the right direction. Then nobody is wrong and nobody makes errors they just give the story to the best of their knowledge.

MAcANughten and Swanson are discussing different events.

I think Macnaghten knew all there was to know about Aaron Kosminski and Anderson (and Swanson) did not.

I could say I believe Noddy and Big ears were Jack the Ripper but there would still be no contextual or Source evidence to support the idea.

The Seaside i.d as a literal event never happened.

Then you dismiss Swanson as a source without any good reason for doing so..Swanson clearly stated there was a Seaside home. Anderson says the ID took place in an asylum. So the contextual evidence is that the ID happened in an Asylum Seaside Home..

Oh, and here, again, is the bit you never cut-and-paste of my posts because it is too terrifying, or do you just not understand it:
'

Its simply not relevant. Trying to make out Anderson was senile, forgetful or basically lying, just doesn't hold any water. As Martin Fido stated Anderson 'would not have lied for personal Kudos'

It also seems possible that Anderson far from writing from memory used considerable notes and possibly a diary. So when tired he could have had something to reference back to..

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Perhaps Matilda had followed Aaron one night and saw him at Millerīs Court and/or Hanbury Street, entering the backyards. Anderson:

"...he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class 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."

Yours Karsten.

Hi Karsten

Yes I think undoubtedly Anderson is talking very specifically about the Kozminski family. What he says here is clear and concise. Very carefully worded to avoid upsetting the jewish community in general.

Yours Jeff