Plausibility of Kosminski

[lynn cates]

PM

Hello Maria. Better not to highjack. Just PM me.

Cheers.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

Whilst we have independent evidence, albeit the Daily Telegraph report, of an attempted identification of Sadler as the Ripper (supported, however, by the fact that the official records show that consideration to Sadler being the Ripper was given) we have no independent evidence of any identification being made of any 'Kosminski'.

Really, Stewart? Do Swanson’s marginalia jottings not provide corroboration of the Kosminski identification, albeit it in an unofficial context?

We do not know that Schwartz had a better view of his man's face or not, and any sighting of the man's face would be only whilst passing the couple, as was Lawende's.

Schwartz followed Broad Shoulders from Commercial Road to Dutfield’s Yard, witnessed an assault on Stride at relatively close quarters and even heard Broad Shoulders’ voice. When compared to the event witnessed by Lawende, the Schwartz sighting was superior both in terms of its detail and duration. Unquestionably so.

Lawende's words were 'I doubt whether I should know him again.' That there was a possibility that Lawende might recognise his man again is evidenced by his later use as a witness.

Or sheer desperation on the part of investigators.

The obvious questions are also raised as to why Lawende was not used in an attempt to identify the Polish Jew suspect …

How do you know he wasn’t?

… and as to why Schwartz was not used in an attempt to identify Sadler.

Again, how do you know he wasn’t?

I simply cannot agree that any witness ever got a good view of the murderer which is what Anderson claimed. The reasons being that (a) the known sightings were in far from ideal conditions and (b) no murder was seen being committed (so how can you say that anyone got a good view of the murderer) and (c) the alleged identification was carried so long after the event as to be totally valueless.

(My emphasis.)

I don’t say that anyone ‘got a good view of the murderer’, Stewart. That was Anderson’s assertion. I have merely stated that, in terms of its quality and duration, the Schwartz sighting was better than that of Lawende.

I cannot see how you can say that Schwartz's view of the man's face was 'for a more extended period than that which encompassed Lawende's Church Passage sighting.'

Again, Stewart, you are attributing to me something that I never said. I have consistently referred to the overall sightings as opposed to Schwartz or Lawende’s view of their man’s face. It’s a subtle distinction, though one I’d assumed that you, as a former policeman, would have grasped with little difficulty.

What has to be understood is that any evaluation of the available record will always be, to some degree, subjective. Thus Sugden, a qualified historian, concludes Anderson's witness was Lawende, whilst you, presumably not a qualified historian, conclude it was Schwartz.

It’s always the sign of a weak argument when the qualifications of a third party are introduced as a means of illative substantiation. So no, whilst I’m not a qualified historian, I am qualified in the scientific methodologies (quantitative and qualitative) and thus trained in the discipline of thematics as well as related subdisciplines such as interpretative phenomenological analysis. Your concern for my presumed inability to systematically analyse and process information is therefore misplaced.

My argument is eminently straightforward. Anderson stated that an identification of a suspect (who Swanson named as Kosminski) was undertaken by ‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’. Most observers are of the opinion that this witness must have been Lawende, largely (so it would appear) because Lawende was subsequently summoned to view Sadler. Be this as it may, the task for the objective researcher is to identify which of the known witnesses accords best with the criteria laid down by Anderson.

It was on this basis, Stewart, and this basis alone, that I proffered Schwartz as a stronger candidate than Lawende.

But then how could Lawende have been described as ‘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.

[Chris]

Clearly, therefore, Levy must have seen the man.

Yes, Levy did see the man and the woman. But he stated at the inquest "I cannot give any description of either of them."
[Evans and Skinner, Ultimate Sourcebook, p. 238]

[Fleetwood Mac]

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’?

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, unless of course all three walked past the couple and took absolutely no notice, which we know to be inaccurate; and written records suggest that that man was Lawende.

I think the argument for Lawende being the man (when compared with Schwartz), is not necessarily what he saw (I mean, there's no use giving a detailed account where the man was unlikely to have been JTR): rather the circumstances.

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

Everything fits with Lawende: killed in a dark corner, no other couple around at the time, time of death, time of sighting, police beats etc. It's a good case for the man he saw being Jack.

I think there are fewer variables with Lawende than there are with Schwartz.

Schwartz sees an event that he alone witnesses; there are plenty of others milling around who do not witness this event. The attack did not take place in a dark corner, i.e the corner in which she was found. Schwartz is not called to the inquest, nor someone representing him (which has to be of some significance).

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.

Now, all of that is my thinking, granted.

The question is not who you or I think was the better witness: the question is who did Anderson think was the better witness?

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.

I would like to think that the circumstances around the sighting means the police used logic to arrive at the 'better' bet, and logic dicates that bet was Lawende.

[Stewart P Evans]

No...

Really, Stewart? Do Swanson’s marginalia jottings not provide corroboration of the Kosminski identification, albeit it in an unofficial context?
...
[/FONT]

No not necessarly, this has all been discussed in the past. Anderson may have got his information from Swanson in the first place. We simply do not know. We have no independant corroboration that the identification actually took place as described. And the story of the identification was written twenty years after the event.

[Stewart P Evans]

Sighting

...
Schwartz followed Broad Shoulders from Commercial Road to Dutfield’s Yard, witnessed an assault on Stride at relatively close quarters and even heard Broad Shoulders’ voice. When compared to the event witnessed by Lawende, the Schwartz sighting was superior both in terms of its detail and duration. Unquestionably so.
...

From Commercial Road to Dutfield's Yard he would have only a back view. You do not know how close he was when the assault took place and the attacker called out to him across the road. Your claim that the Schwartz sighting was 'superior' is in your opinion only.

[Stewart P Evans]

Not a question...

...
...
Or sheer desperation on the part of investigators.
...

It's not a question of sheer desperation. Again this has all been discussed in the past. If there is a possibility that a witness may recognise a suspect again then the police would use that witness if he was the best, or only, witness available. Having said that that, I have already said that such an identification two years after the event would be legally valueless and that the idea would probably be to frighten an admission out of the suspect if he thought he was recognised.

[Stewart P Evans]

Let's just say...

...
How do you know he wasn’t?
Again, how do you know he wasn’t?
...

Let's just say that there is no evidence they were used, whereas there is evidence that Lawende was used later in an attempt to identify Sadler as the Ripper.

[Stewart P Evans]

As discussed

...
I don’t say that anyone ‘got a good view of the murderer’, Stewart. That was Anderson’s assertion. I have merely stated that, in terms of its quality and duration, the Schwartz sighting was better than that of Lawende.
...

As discussed, that is merely your opinion.

[Stewart P Evans]

I know...

...
Again, Stewart, you are attributing to me something that I never said. I have consistently referred to the overall sightings as opposed to Schwartz or Lawende’s view of their man’s face. It’s a subtle distinction, though one I’d assumed that you, as a former policeman, would have grasped with little difficulty.
...

I know what you mean by the overall sighting but, again as discussed, the length of the 'overall sighting' is irrelevant. What is relevant to positive identification is recognition of the face, ergo both would have seen the face of their suspect for about the same period of time.

[Stewart P Evans]

Weak argument

...
It’s always the sign of a weak argument when the qualifications of a third party are introduced as a means of illative substantiation. So no, whilst I’m not a qualified historian, I am qualified in the scientific methodologies (quantitative and qualitative) and thus trained in the discipline of thematics as well as related subdisciplines such as interpretative phenomenological analysis. Your concern for my presumed inability to systematically analyse and process information is therefore misplaced.[/COLOR]
...

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?

[GregBaron]

But I can't identify...

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

[fido]

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

[Stewart P Evans]

We all know...

...
My argument is eminently straightforward. Anderson stated that an identification of a suspect (who Swanson named as Kosminski) was undertaken by ‘[/COLOR]the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’. Most observers are of the opinion that this witness must have been Lawende, largely (so it would appear) because Lawende was subsequently summoned to view Sadler. Be this as it may, the task for the objective researcher is to identify which of the known witnesses accords best with the criteria laid down by Anderson.
...

We all know what Anderson stated, or at least we should by now.

Most students of this subject draw their own opinion and conclusions based on what they read. Those opinions and conclusions are as varied as the theories that obfuscate those who venture into this field. Ergo some favour Lawende as Anderson's witness, whilst others prefer Schwartz.

It is most commendable to be objective when assessing the historical sources, but not always easy to be so.

Again, I have to say, it is in your opinion that Schawartz 'accords best with the criteria laid down by Anderson.' Note, I have emphasised the word opinion.

[Stewart P Evans]

That...

...
But then how could Lawende have been described as [/FONT]‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’?
...

That you would have to ask Anderson. But I'm afraid we can't do that.

We are talking about words that Anderson used over twenty years after the event and his prose was never the best. Add to that the fact that his secular works may at times be described as 'picturesque', and you should realise what a shaky basis you are setting your argumant upon.

We also, of course, do not know the state of his memory (and I'm not suggesting he was senile) or of his information to hand when he wrote in 1910.