The witness that refused.

[lynn cates]

explanation

Hello Jonathan. I would have thought the Grainger identification had been changed into the Kosminski identification.

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

Well ... the writer might have made it up?

Or, he might have misunderstood something he scrounged.

Or, they really did have Lawende confront Grant and he said 'yes', Kebbell was not told, and the story only popped up once in the Gazette, and never again.

I'm just saying we cannot be absolutely sure without more information. Historical methodology says to be very wary of a single source if it is pointedly anomalous, eg. Druitt sacked whilst alive.

It still strikes me as a huge coincidence that two elements of the later Marginalia tale are present in the same article: a prime suspect deceased and a Jewish witness who allegedly says 'yes' against a Ripper suspect yet that case stalls forever.

If they are interviewing Swanson, you'd think he would have clarified if there had been a suspect-witness confrontation or not. Perhaps they didn't ask, or he refused to comment on it?

Or they just made it all up ...?

[DVV]

Hi Jonathan

Apart from the explanation that they just made it up, there is something else to consider.

Of course they made it up, there is no need to speculate any further.

How can man be identified as the notorious JtR without his lawyer being aware ?

And equally telling : no police official did believe in a Grant theory. He is never alluded to, even not by those who tried to counter Anderson, Macnaghten or Abberline.

[Jonathan H]

Yes, but the very first time the Lawende description enters the record it broadly matches 'Knifeman' (the press version of 'Pipeman') and not 'Broad-Shouldered man'.

[Wickerman]

Despite the caveats presented by Lawende's statement about not recognizing the man again, he is the only witness in this whole series who has corroboration by two other witnesses. This is always of major importance in any police assimilation of witness statements and would not have been unrecognized by Swanson.

He was the best 'of a bad lot' because his sighting was verified by Harris and Levy.

Hi Cris.
Do you mean that Lawende's sighting was confirmed by his two friends?
Even though that "sighting" was to a degree uncertain?

From what I understand, Levy only saw a couple, but took no notice of them and could not offer a description of either.
Also, Harris only claimed to have seen the back of the man.

Even if we compile all three together, we really have nothing of value. Which tends to raise the question, where did the 'detail' come from that made up the suspects description?

I had raised the question previously that some of Lawende's 'detail' may have been borrowed from the Stride case, the Schwartz suspect. If you notice, the description attributed to Lawende does change each time it is reported.

Regards, Jon S.

[Jonathan H]

Can you elaborate?

[lynn cates]

other way about

Hello Jonathan. Thanks. But I would have thought the converse?

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

'Kosminski' not Grant?

To Lynn

Yes I have wondered that too.

Surely Kebbell would have screamed that story from the clock-face of Big Ben -- instead not a word?!

So, I postulate the following:

Grant was investigated as the fiend, for sure.

But by then, 1895, Macnaghten was comfortably locked into Druitt and Anderson and/or Swanson were locked into 'Kosminski'.

It is why there is no senior police agitation over Grant, as there hjad been over Sadler.

Then why did the reporter make this error about the un-named Lawende?

Apart from the explanation that they just made it up, there is something else to consider.

In the same 'Pall Mall Gazette' story Swanson is quoted as saying that the more likely 'Jack' is deceased, and this will match his Marginalia of about fifteen, or more years later. Anderson's son's biog. will also confirm the notion of a Polish Jewish suspect who was subsequently deceased, after being affirmed by a witness and sectioned.

Therefore what the reporter may have picked up on from Swanson, or somebody privy to the Anderson-Swanson faction was that a Jewish witness had said 'yes' when 'confronted' with a Ripper suspect.

The reporter misunderstood and assumed they meant this suspect, Grant.

Whom Swanson or whomever actually meant was 'Kosminski', from several years before.

Otherwise we have a big coincidence; that a Jewish witness affirmed to a Ripper suspect and fifteen years later Anderson and/or Swanson both wrote about a Jewish witness who affirmed to a Ripper suspect -- and they are completely different suspects?

[DVV]

I don't believe for a moment all that stuff about Lawende and Grant.
In his long controversy with Forbes, Kebbell made no allusion at all to such an identification, although he tried his best to back up his theory.
Instead, we are provided with arguments such as "He used to carry a most extraordinary knife like that of a surgeon".

[lynn cates]

explains much

Hello Jonathan. If true, that would explain reams. And part of his description was intentionally--and admittedly--withheld.

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

To Nemo

I think you are confusing what George Sims wrote about the [non-existent] beat cop seeing the Polish Jew suspect some time later and thinking there were only certain features similar: the 1907 piece for Lloyds-Weekly.

Whereas the un-named Lawende apparently said, yes, it's him when confronted with Grant.

To Lynn

I think that the cops just put it about that Lawende could not really be sure as they assumed that the Ripper read the papers. They wanted to create a false sense of security. Their actions and Lawende's actions suggest they regarded him as the best witness, and the only witness worth wheeling in and out.

Why not -- if he affirmed to Grant?

The modern theories that Lawende was not Anderson's witness for the arguably non-existent Seaside Home 'confrontation', and that it was really Schwarz cut no ice with me at all.

[DVV]

No, Grainger was taller.
I don't know why his lawyer thought he was JtR, but the sequence of events has nothing to do with the Ripper MO.
It's very similar to the Sadler case.

[lynn cates]

explanation

Hello Nemo. If true, that would explain much.

Cheers.
LC

[Nemo]

I can't recall where I saw it but I think the witness only said Grainger/Grant was of the same height and build of the suspect

[lynn cates]

vague?

Hello Jonathan. It has always puzzled me that Lawende, in spite of his self confessed likely inability to pick out the "culprit" seen with Kate, was able to do the "No", "Yes" thing, years after the fact.

Is it at all possible that this consisted in some broad terms as, for instance, "Definitely not--too X" for Sadler; but, "Well, I cannot rule him out--possibly" for Grainger?

Cheers.
LC