If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I'm not suggesting he was lying. There are a number of other possibilities. Perhaps the likeliest is that he was paraphrasing briefly something the witness had said, perhaps 30 years earlier, which - as someone has already pointed out - may itself have been based on a misunderstanding of the situation.
Ok, so we're struggling to come up with a reason for Swanson lying to himself.
In Swanson's notes he says the suspect was identified to the extent he would have been convicted and hanged. What are the chances of Swanson a) misconstruing that said by the witness? b) inaccurately recollecting the central elements of the event? Bear in mind this will have been the most high profile case he worked on: a major event in his life's work.
I think the chances are slim.
If you agree with this reasoning, then you have to ask this: would Lawende's sighting have been enough to guarantee a conviction? I don't think so. It follows thus is there information out there that could help here. Yes, the oft dismissed City PC witness sighted by more than one police official. Would a sighting of a man coming out of the square seconds before the body was found have been enough to secure a conviction?
And, the City Police witness and Swanson's notes are essentially of the same nature. Both records of an event not made public. If Swanson isn't lying to himself, then could the City Police witness be more than a mere figment of the imagination? Yes.
Whilst not wanting to paint an unnecessarily unkind complexion upon SRA, may I point out that many of his anecdotes in TLSOMOL can be demonstrated as extremely unlikely.
He truly seems to have been a product of his own imagination, a person who never quite received the recognition he felt he so richly deserved.
Regards,
Simon
Last edited by Simon Wood; 09-10-2011, 08:18 PM.
Reason: spolling mistook
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.
Which leads us to the next question: which of the City PCs were Jewish?
Funny you should ask. Richard Brown was Jewish, was dismissed maybe a day after Kelly's murder, though was allowed to resign, and then killed himself about the evening of Kelly's murder. he had no real relatives save for an uncle (I think). Something he did (it seems) the night of Kelly's murder got him into trouble. OK, so this means he couldn;t have ID'ed a suspect in 1890 or later.
Mike
Last edited by The Good Michael; 09-10-2011, 08:35 PM.
Reason: Wrong first name
I don't agree with you on this, most of Schwartz's time was walking behind BS, so all he saw was the back of his head. The only time he would have looked at his face was when he was on the other side of the road looking back at him. About the same distance from where Lawenda saw the man with Eddowes. Church Passage entrance was better lighted than Dutfields yard entrance.
Rob
Does anyone think Lawende's testimony would have been enough to convict the man seen with Eddowes? Whoever the witness was, Swanson believed his statement would have been enough to convict the man.
Would you have convicted him on the basis of being stood at the Duke Street/Church Passage corner, probably with the victim, 10 minutes before a body was found in the corner nearest Mitre Street? Gotta say, that wouldn't be enough for my conscience. I'd want more than that before hanging a man.
Ok, so we're struggling to come up with a reason for Swanson lying to himself.
As I've said, I didn't suggest that Swanson was lying. You were the one who raised the question of Swanson lying.
I'm not really clear what you're arguing, but if your interpretation of what Swanson wrote is leading you to suggest someone actually witnessed one of the murders, and that that fact was not only concealed from the public but also expunged from internal police communications, then that's a pretty strong indication that your interpretation is wrong!
As I've said, I didn't suggest that Swanson was lying. You were the one who raised the question of Swanson lying.
I'm not really clear what you're arguing, but if your interpretation of what Swanson wrote is leading you to suggest someone actually witnessed one of the murders, and that that fact was not only concealed from the public but also expunged from internal police communications, then that's a pretty strong indication that your interpretation is wrong!
1) Were Swanson's notes, i.e. a positive ID, held on record?
2) If the positive ID wasn't held on record, could the City PC witness sighting have been kept off record?
3) Yes.
Does anyone think Lawende's testimony would have been enough to convict the man seen with Eddowes?
No, and I have said as much several times before. The strength of his statement rests entirely on his "belief" that the clothes he was shown by police were what Eddowes was wearing that night, he could easily have seen another couple.
Whoever the witness was, Swanson believed his statement would have been enough to convict the man.
In taking the view that Kosminski 'might' have been the killer I have been trying to view the evidence from the police perspective, not from my own.
And, continuing in that vein, we cannot forget that Swanson chose a "Mitre Sq." witness for the identification of Sadler many years later.
Regardless of what 'we' think of the viability of Lawende and what he could have seen, Swanson put more reliance on him (assuming he was the unnamed Mitre Sq. witness).
To understand these events better we have to try to put our opinions aside in favour of the officials who were involved.
Afterall, we are debating the question, "why was Kosminski suspected?", not that the police were correct to suspect him, that is a whole different question.
No, and I have said as much several times before. The strength of his statement rests entirely on his "belief" that the clothes he was shown by police were what Eddowes was wearing that night, he could easily have seen another couple.
For me, it's not so much a question of whether or not it was Eddowes. In my mind, I'm confident it was. Regardless, it would still not be enough for me to convict the man.
In sum, standing with Eddowes near to the murder site ten minutes before her body was found, wouldn't be enough for me to convict him. And Swanson was convinced he would have been hanged based on the witness's evidence.
I don't agree with you on this, most of Schwartz's time was walking behind BS, so all he saw was the back of his head. The only time he would have looked at his face was when he was on the other side of the road looking back at him. About the same distance from where Lawenda saw the man with Eddowes. Church Passage entrance was better lighted than Dutfields yard entrance.
Schwartz was right on top of the couple when BS Man pulled Stride out from the gateway and onto the pavement, started pulling her across the street, then turned her around and threw her down. Only THEN did Schwartz cross the street. It could only have been during this time that he got his close look at Stride. As you noted, the gateway was far too dark. As Schwartz was watching the incident up close and observed Stride, it stands to reason he observed BS Man during this time as well.
Funny you should ask. Richard Brown was Jewish, was dismissed maybe a day after Kelly's murder, though was allowed to resign, and then killed himself about the evening of Kelly's murder. he had no real relatives save for an uncle (I think). Something he did (it seems) the night of Kelly's murder got him into trouble. OK, so this means he couldn;t have ID'ed a suspect in 1890 or later.
Mike
Very interesting, Mike. Can you expand upon: "killed himself about the evening of Kelly's murder"?
It was (I believe) the night after Kelly;s funeral. He seems to have been well-liked by superiors and though dismissed for whatever it was he did, he was allowed to resign. he took dinner with an uncle or second cousin or something an dthen he purchased a gun and shot himself in Hyde Park. (I believe again).
He was Metro however, and no one has been able to prove that he was reassigned to the area of the murders, though many officers had been,
If I can dig up a dissertation, I will post the link. I think Chris George did the research.
It was (I believe) the night after Kelly;s funeral. He seems to have been well-liked by superiors and though dismissed for whatever it was he did, he was allowed to resign. he took dinner with an uncle or second cousin or something an dthen he purchased a gun and shot himself in Hyde Park. (I believe again).
He was Metro however, and no one has been able to prove that he was reassigned to the area of the murders, though many officers had been,
If I can dig up a dissertation, I will post the link. I think Chris George did the research.
Mike
Thanks for taking the time to reply, Mike.
I did read a few threads on JTR forums after you posted.
What interested me was your comment which suggested/stated the cause for his suicide: Mary Kelly's murder. I was curious as to the source for this link.
1) Were Swanson's notes, i.e. a positive ID, held on record?
2) If the positive ID wasn't held on record, could the City PC witness sighting have been kept off record?
Surely it's evident from what I've posted above that I don't accept that there was a "positive ID."
But in any case, we don't have any police documentation at all relating to Kozminski (except for the reference to him in the Macnaghten memorandum). If he was investigated by the City police, that's not surprising, because the City CID records relating to the Whitechapel Murders have been lost.
And the answer to your question number (2) is no, I don't believe a sighting by a City PC could or would have been kept off the record. Why on earth would it not have been mentioned in Swanson's report, where he discusses in detail the sightings by PC Smith and Schwartz, and compares the descriptions they gave with that given by Lawende?
If I suggested his suicide had something to do with Kelly's death, it wasn't my intention. It is a big coincidence that her death and his expulsion happened the same evening or within a day of each other. I believe he didn't report for duty the night of her murder, or a day before or after that, I don;t think it has been specified with certainty which night it was. And again, there is no evidence that he was on loan to the WM case.
It is also curious that he denied his Jewishness and claimed Church of England when he was hired as a policeman, but that may have had something to do with assuring himself of a job in case of any bias.
Comment