Plausibility of Kosminski

[Hunter]

To follow up on FM's points...

Very good points, Fleetwood; although I am not surprised.

I would add that in evaluating this particular witness, it would be what the chief investigator might have thought about the value of witnesses... and that was Swanson. Most of the information that Dr. Anderson may have received would have come from the individual that was in charge of the case. That is not to say that on occasion, Anderson did not become personally involved in certain aspects. His injection into the Mylett case is such an example, largely because there was conflict involved in that instance and pressure from Monro that provoked Anderson's direct involvement. But, overall, he would have relied upon the trained individuals for information that he accessed.

Swanson's Oct 19th, 1888 report contains his evaluation of both Schwartz and Lawende; in part to compare the various individuals that were sighted with the murder victims of Sept. 30. He expresses his concerns and the caveats presented by both Schwartz and Lawende. But it is apparent that he opted for Lawende as most reliable because he was looking for a sighting that was closest to the time a murder was committed. Also, as you reminded us, Lawende was the only witness in this series who had corroboration for what he saw. No other witness did. Though Swanson didn't mention this, it would have been paramount in any assessment of witness testimony to a trained investigator. We know Swanson was keen on the various witness statements because he constructed a chart for the purpose of analysis.

This is not to say that he disbelieved Schwartz (despite what the Star later reported about police suspicions). The indication was that Schwartz's police testimony (rather than the Star's interview of him) 'cast no doubt upon it'. Swanson believed that Schwartz may or may not have seen Stride with her murderer, but it was 'reasonable to believe that the man he (Lawende) saw was the murderer' of Kate Eddowes.

There are two press reports suggesting that Lawende was used in the ID attempts on Sadler and Grainger. Press reports certainly are what they are, but there is no direct indication anywhere that Schwartz was used in such a manner. Anderson's statement that Gary mentions leaves us nothing either way, because it can be interpreted in various forms. If he interpreted it as his lieutenant appears to have done, it could be that he thought that the man seen at the entrance to Church Passage was the best bet for the murderer to actually have been seen by someone. He could have colored it a little to add emphasis to his positive assertion about the ID.

In the end, however, what Swanson says in his annotations to Anderson's book is the most telling about who the witness may have been. The use of City CID in surveillance of the suspect certainly implies that the use of a witness in the City murder was involved. Otherwise, there is no practical reason for the City CID to set up surveillance on a suspect residing in Met territory. Perhaps Stewart or one of the other former policemen can confirm this, but the City would have incurred the cost for such an undertaking. Therefore it makes little sense for them to do so unless it actually involved a case that fell under their jurisdiction.

I'm not sure if it is known if Israel Schwartz was available in the years following the murders. We do know that Lawende remained in the area.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The only weak argument around here is yours.

You completely misunderstand. As a trained historian Sugden is well versed in the interpretation of historical sources. I am sure that you are more than capable of interpreting in your own field but, again, you are not a trained historian. Nor am I. But I was not using Sugden to illustrate the correct interpretation of the sources. I was using him to illustrate the fact that someone trained in the discipline required to interpret historical data reached the conclusion that Lawende was Anderson's witness.

Now that does not make Sugden always right, and I do not agree with him on all his opinions or conclusions.

I do not presume that you have an 'inability to systematically analyse and process information', but I do disagree with you on the current point in question. By the way, does this ability to 'systematically analyse and process information' make you always right?

I'm a touch surprised with this 'trained historian' comment.

I suppose I would fall into that category, having obtained a first degree in history.

The absolute underlying foundation of the study of history is this: there is no right and wrong, only conclusions, although, admittedly, some are based on stronger foundations than others. The study of history is not a science; whereas science can tell you what is probable, the study of history can't.

I would imagine that any historical subject is the subject of debate, primarily because, as human beings, we filter information based on our personal experiences and beliefs. And, in a case of what appears to be so many contradictions, it's one that is open to debate more than say the causes of the first world war.

My view is a mathemetician is better suited to this subject than a historian, seriously, because a mathemetician will break it down into simple logic (in as far as can be done so) and not get caught up in the improbable and the outlandish.

And, really, it is logic that dictates Lawende: there are fewer variables surrounding Lawende; fewer what ifs; reduced reliance on other people to make it work; reduced guesswork etc.

Edited to add: I feel the real value that a historian can add to this subject is through retrieving source information as opposed to intrepreting them - too many variables and inconsistencies.

[Phil Carter]

The references to Phil Sugden's standing as a trained historian suggest that someone may have the answer to a question I need to resolve before the end of October. The Drexel University conference seems focused on paying great attention to academic involvement in Ripper research, but at present is only listing Christopher Frayling and me as pioneers. I would like to correct this by adding Phil, but cannot find out what his qualifications are or where he teaches or has taught.
Martin Fido

Hello Martin,

I may be wildly mistaken here, but I believe at some time or another.. Hull University?

kindly

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Invalid

...
But then how could Lawende have been described as [/FONT]‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’?
The only person?
Lawende was not alone when he sighted the couple close to Church Passage. He was in the company of Harris and Levy, each of whom saw more or less exactly what Lawende observed. Indeed, not only did Levy draw the attention of his companions to the couple, he later he provided a description in which the man’s height was estimated as several inches shorter than that proposed by Lawende. Clearly, therefore, Levy must have seen the man. So how is it that Lawende is readily accepted as ‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’?
Naturally, I’m aware that Anderson’s description of his witness may not have been as precise as it might have been and that a degree of confusion has crept in accordingly. I also recognize the possibility that Anderson might have ‘sexed up’ certain aspects of his narrative in order to appease his publisher. But we have what we have. Therefore, until such time as new evidence emerges, I will continue to evaluate the mystery witness not on unrelated events or wishful thinking, but rather on the basis of what Anderson actually wrote about him.

Your argument here is invalid (did you process the data correctly?). Levy stated at the inquest that the man he 'should say' was about three inches taller than the woman but he said of the couple, 'I cannot give any description of either of them.' Harris did not even appear at the inquest as a witness, having seen only the back of the man.

But fine, you are perfectly entitled to 'evaluate the mystery' in your own way and to not base that evaluation on 'unrelated events or wishful thinking'. A very commendable method of working. We do indeed 'have what we have' but everyone will continue, I am sure, to put their own interpretation on 'what we have.' I am sure that you, like me, have better things to do than indulge in this rather pointless exchange.

[Stewart P Evans]

Identity parades...

What I find difficult to fathom gentlemen is that Lawende said he probably couldn’t identify the man again. Yet what comes of the description is fairly detailed: fair, fair mustache, about 30, peaked cap, red kerchief, medium build, rough looking etc.
Now my guess is he mostly saw clothing and only facial coloring for the brief instant and in the dim lighting; ie, no facial features. This is all well and good.
But hauling him in years later to identify Sadler, Grant and perhaps Koz contradicts the original (Lawende) statement. Now I understand, perhaps it was a best bet mentality and against Lawende's better judgement but this is speculation. Not only that (and correct me if I’m wrong) but I think he said ‘yes’ to one identification(Grant?).
I suppose this situation is a microcosm of the entire case: contradictory, confusing, scant evidence, little corroboration.
Greg

Greg, I have been involved in running a few identity parades over the years and we have had witnesses who have said that they did not think they would be able to recognise an offender again, only to then identify the culprit when confronted with him.

[Garry Wroe]

Well, the fact that Levy saw the man doesn't necessarily detract from Lawende being the better of the three witnesses. One of them must have remembered a greater number of details …

Agreed, FM. But Anderson stated that his witness was the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer. This was either a product of descriptive imprecision, or he wasn’t describing Lawende, who as we know viewed the couple close to Church Passage whilst in the company of Levy and Harris.

Lawende was backed up by Levy and Harris as having seen a couple in the right time at the right place, unlike Schwartz.

But then, assuming he was telling the truth, Schwartz saw Liz Stride being physically assaulted fifteen minutes before her body was discovered. I’m unsure about you, FM, but I know which witness I would have regarded as the most important.

Schwartz is not called to the inquest, nor someone representing him (which has to be of some significance).

This is certainly curious, I have to agree. There again, Swanson’s report of 19th October leaves no room for doubting that Schwartz and his story were being taken seriously, so his apparent exclusion from the Stride inquest is unlikely to have been on the grounds of veracity. It’s a strange one, and no mistake.

The circumstances suggest Lawende is a much better witness, and he gives a good enough account, e.g. fair; if he notices that he's fair then he's had a decent look at him to deduce that.

The only problem being, FM, that Anderson implied that his was a stellar witness – ‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’. Contrast this with Lawende’s admission in the immediate aftermath of the Eddowes murder that he doubted whether he would recognize Eddowes’ companion if confronted with him. So was Anderson overstating the case for Lawende, or was he referring to someone else altogether?

Personally, I think the circumstances surrounding the respective murders and Schwartz not being called to the inquest rules out Schwartz as being Anderson's man. I would say it's more likely to have been someone other than Lawende or Schwartz than it is to have been Schwartz.

Unfortunately, we know of no other candidate. But then Schwartz is the only witness who saw a victim being physically attacked shortly before her death. For any modern murder investigation, that would be pure gold.

[Phil Carter]

We do indeed 'have what we have' but everyone will continue, I am sure, to put their own interpretation on 'what we have.'

Hello Stewart,

Indeed.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor, Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief.


kindly

Phil


PS Perhaps Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy?... a film version of Le Carre´s classic is about to be premiered by the way, with a Swedish gentleman at the helm. It has rave reviews, I am led to understand.

[Supe]

For what it is worth (which turned out to be not much) I trained as a historian all the way through graduate school and then taught in college for several years. As pointed out by others, history is not a science and there are no opportunities to test for reproducible results (though sociologists think they can do just that). Instead, historians ponder a number of things when rendering a judgement after examining the various statements, documents, recollections, hearsay and fables. Among these would be the provenance of the "evidence," the general reliability of a source, the reliability of the source in the specific area discussed, what biases -- pro and anti -- the source may have had in general and in particular, whether (however reliable the source) the information under discussion is nonetheless egregiously contrary to established fact and so on and on.

In the end, there is a certain amount of artistry involved in rendering an opinion. And again, the historian himself must be weighed in the balance for bias and previous veracity before his opinions are accepted as currently perceived wisdom.

And if anyone cares, I would lean toward Lawende as the witness.

Don.

[Stewart P Evans]

Historians

I'm a touch surprised with this 'trained historian' comment.
I suppose I would fall into that category, having obtained a first degree in history.
The absolute underlying foundation of the study of history is this: there is no right and wrong, only conclusions, although, admittedly, some are based on stronger foundations than others. The study of history is not a science; whereas science can tell you what is probable, the study of history can't.
I would imagine that any historical subject is the subject of debate, primarily because, as human beings, we filter information based on our personal experiences and beliefs. And, in a case of what appears to be so many contradictions, it's one that is open to debate more than say the causes of the first world war.
My view is a mathemetician is better suited to this subject than a historian, seriously, because a mathemetician will break it down into simple logic (in as far as can be done so) and not get caught up in the improbable and the outlandish.
And, really, it is logic that dictates Lawende: there are fewer variables surrounding Lawende; fewer what ifs; reduced reliance on other people to make it work; reduced guesswork etc.
Edited to add: I feel the real value that a historian can add to this subject is through retrieving source information as opposed to intrepreting them - too many variables and inconsistencies.

Like many of these subjects, this is debatable. Historians are notorious for disagreeing with each other, but you still need to know how to evaluate historical sources and how to interpret what they tell us. But you must know more about that than I do.

I used the example of Sugden merely to illustrate that one of the leading Ripper historians, who is academically qualified, reached the conclusion, after assessing the sources, that Lawende was Anderson's witness. That, of course, does not make him right, but it does provide an example of a very objective purveyor of the known facts reaching that conclusion. Personally I feel that my nearly thirty years of police work stands me in good stead for assessing and interpreting the evidence, as much of it, and the best, is provided by police reports and statements.

I would argue that common sense and a liberal application of Occam's razor may be the best way to set about the case, but, I guess, that is logical.

[Stewart P Evans]

Phil Sugden

The references to Phil Sugden's standing as a trained historian suggest that someone may have the answer to a question I need to resolve before the end of October. The Drexel University conference seems focused on paying great attention to academic involvement in Ripper research, but at present is only listing Christopher Frayling and me as pioneers. I would like to correct this by adding Phil, but cannot find out what his qualifications are or where he teaches or has taught.
Martin Fido

Martin, Phil works/worked at Hull University. He told me once that he studied history under Professor Bernard Porter (of The Origins of the Vigilant State etc. fame).

[GregBaron]

Yes that's the one...

Greg, I have been involved in running a few identity parades over the years and we have had witnesses who have said that they did not think they would be able to recognise an offender again, only to then identify the culprit when confronted with him.

Thank you Stewart. I have no doubt this is true. My only hope is that the witness is right. It has been shown, especially here of late in the U.S., that people sent to the gallows based largely on witness identifications have sometimes (often?) been wrong. DNA evidence has proven them mistaken.

But I'll save that discussion for another thread at another time....

On another note, in a Plausibility of Koz thread shouldn't we be discussing how a 23 year old Polish Jew might look like a 30 year old fair, Gentile sailor?


Greg

[TomTomKent]

Greg, I have been involved in running a few identity parades over the years and we have had witnesses who have said that they did not think they would be able to recognise an offender again, only to then identify the culprit when confronted with him.

Infact, although I admit knowing nothing about identity parades other than that opening scene of The Usual Suspects,given how many of the people who came forwards in the Ripper case as a witness would tend towards sensationalism, and at least some kept cropping back up in the newspapers (erm, the greengrocer who sold the grapes then apparently saw the Ripper on the tram or something?) an intially reluctant witness who wasn't sure he would be of use but tried his best might to my naive ideas sound fairly reliable.

I think, though can't be sure, Mr Fido may have said something simaler in his "On the trail of JTR" audiobook. Or I could be completely wrong, in which case I am sorry.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Like many of these subjects, this is debatable. Historians are notorious for disagreeing with each other, but you still need to know how to evaluate historical sources and how to interpret what they tell us. But you must know more about that than I do.

I used the example of Sugden merely to illustrate that one of the leading Ripper historians, who is academically qualified, reached the conclusion, after assessing the sources, that Lawende was Anderson's witness. That, of course, does not make him right, but it does provide an example of a very objective purveyor of the known facts reaching that conclusion. Personally I feel that my nearly thirty years of police work stands me in good stead for assessing and interpreting the evidence, as much of it, and the best, is provided by police reports and statements.

I would argue that common sense and a liberal application of Occam's razor may be the best way to set about the case, but, I guess, that is logical.

I suppose one of the differences, Stewart, is that historians aren't really in the real world: we're dealing with bits of paper. In contrast, the policeman has the experience of dealing with people - in the event you'd like to understand how people actually are, then spend some time around people watching what they do/how they act. So, the policeman certainly has the upperhand in that respect, and, in a case sorely lacking in consistency of source material, then there has to be a certain amount of intuition employed - best served through experience of solving crime.

Historians struggle with objectivity as a rule, usually due to political beliefs or an interest in a particular field, such as social history at the expense of economic history; but I'm certainly not suggesting the gentleman in question isn't up to the job. I suppose his track record will speak volumes.

I would agree that Occam's razor is a decent way forward in terms of establishing what is most likely, but, I'd imagine some of the major discoveries were due to flashes of inspiration and knocking around ideas that seemed to have little grounding with others!

[Stewart P Evans]

Israel Schwartz

Israel Schwartz is certainly one of the minor mysteries of this case. One of the oddest things being that he did not appear, nor was his evidence heard, at the inquest. As a witness to an attack on Stride his evidence was relevant and should have been taken into consideration by the coroner.

Were it not for Swanson's remarks about him in his overall summary of the Stride murder we would be forced to consider that he had been totally discounted as a witness. But on 19 October 1888 Swanson wrote, 'If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it...' (an odd way, I think, of wording it). And there we have a true conundrum. On the one hand he is a relevant witness and on the other his evidence is not heard by the coroner. He did not speak English and I have wondered in the past if the coroner accepted a written statement from him without his appearance. However, the coroner's summing up leaves no doubt that he did not consider Schwartz's evidence.

Is there another answer? The only further mention of Schwartz is in the Star of 2 October 1888, the only newspaper that had managed to interview him. In a report of that date we find the following -

'In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.'

Taken literally this piece indicates that a man had been arrested on the strength of Schwartz's description but he wasn't the murderer. If a man had been arrested in this way Schwartz would, of course, have been required to try and identify the man at the police station. Whatever happened, according to this article (and it is subject to the usual caveats), it resulted in the police doubting the truth of Schwartz's story. Whatever is the answer to all the snippets of information. It is possible to suggest that Schwartz positively identified the man under arrest as Stride's attacker and then the police may have found the man was able to provide a solid alibi and had to be released without charge. Thus casting doubt on all that Schwartz said. It could be that Schwartz had told the police that he could identify the attacker only to be proved wrong when put to the test. But that does not necessarily mean that he was lying about the rest of his story, thus his statement would stay on file in case enquiries revealed further evidence to support him. But it may have cast doubt enough to prevent Schwartz's evidence being heard at the inquest.

It is probable that we shall never know the answer to this puzzle and the above is merely a suggestion as to a possible answer to the mystery. But mystery it is nonetheless.

[Trevor Marriott]

Agreed, FM. But Anderson stated that his witness was the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer. This was either a product of descriptive imprecision, or he wasn’t describing Lawende, who as we know viewed the couple close to Church Passage whilst in the company of Levy and Harris.


But then, assuming he was telling the truth, Schwartz saw Liz Stride being physically assaulted fifteen minutes before her body was discovered. I’m unsure about you, FM, but I know which witness I would have regarded as the most important.


This is certainly curious, I have to agree. There again, Swanson’s report of 19th October leaves no room for doubting that Schwartz and his story were being taken seriously, so his apparent exclusion from the Stride inquest is unlikely to have been on the grounds of veracity. It’s a strange one, and no mistake.


The only problem being, FM, that Anderson implied that his was a stellar witness – ‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’. Contrast this with Lawende’s admission in the immediate aftermath of the Eddowes murder that he doubted whether he would recognize Eddowes’ companion if confronted with him. So was Anderson overstating the case for Lawende, or was he referring to someone else altogether?


Unfortunately, we know of no other candidate. But then Schwartz is the only witness who saw a victim being physically attacked shortly before her death. For any modern murder investigation, that would be pure gold.

The question one has to ask is what was Stride doing in Berner Street outside The Club in the first place. Was she soliciting if she was then as likely as not she was propositioning almost every man that walked past. If that be the case could it be that in fact the man seen "attacking" her was no more than a man who she had accosted and who pushed her away to get rid of her and not her killer ?

As far as witnesses who makes a statement having witnessed a crime and states they would not be able to recognise the offender again is concerned the police would not ask that witness to participate in an Id parade. This would be a pointless excercise as if he did then go an participate and pick the person out the evidential value of that ID would be zero having stated in writng that he would not be able to identify him again