The witness that refused.

[Jonathan H]

Joseph Lawende is the witness to a Gentile-featured, sailorish-attired youngish suspect chatting non-menacingly with Eddowes, and who (albeit un-named) apparently said 'no' to Tom Sadler and 'yes' to William Grant.

If the 'Pall Mall Gazette' of 1895 has got this right, Lawende despite the passage of several years fully justfied police faith in his sighting and powers of recall in that he affirmed to a prime, Jack the Ripper suspect.

In the same article, not only is Swanson quoted as saying this is not the Ripper but he has sound knowledge that the real killer is deceased.

How sound? If Lawende said yes to Grant (Grainger) it still did not move them from another suspect who could not be arrested. They preferred a dead man to an eyewitness confirmation of a youngish, thuggish sailor who had been caught red-handed trying to slice up a Whitechapel harlot (his victim lived). No wonder his own lawyer thought that his client was 'Jack'.

But why not CID?

Is it because Anderson had become convinced that the fiend had to be a Polish-Jew protected by his fellow low-life, sectarians, and had made his rigid opinion well know to his colleagues?

And then into his office, at the time of the Grant investigation, springs his insufferable, 'Eton forever' deputy with vital news he has just learned. That an insane Polish-Jew, local to the East End and permanently sectioned back in early 1889 -- and soon after deceased -- was believed by his own family to be the real 'Jack'?

Oh, and he was reportedly guilty of the Sin of Onan too, repeatedly ...

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

He may have been the best of a bad known bunch.

He may have had a good look at a man 10 minutes before the murder - by his own admission he didn't.

Regardless, he certainly can not be classed as viewing the murderer with the degree of certainty proposed by Anderson.

It seems that Anderson's witness was not Lawende.

[lynn cates]

via media

Hello Cris. That's a very good point. Lawende was also not too eager to come forward nor too hesitant. And his testimony was cautious.

All this makes it look genuine.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

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.

[jason_c]

Hi Jason
But that did not seem to to stop them from using him for later IDs. That coupled with the fact that he may have been viewed by the police as the most reliable witness because he was "respectable" and spoke English (and was at the inquest) to me points to him as the witness in the Kos ID.

I agree. Lawende was possibly the best of "a bad bunch" of witnesses.

[Abby Normal]

We have to remember that Lawende's sighting was significant not just in terms of a sighting near Mitre Square and within minutes of the murder. His sighting also tentatively included Eddowes herself with a man.

This still of course does'nt deal with Lawende's statement that he would not recognize the suspect.

Hi Jason
But that did not seem to to stop them from using him for later IDs. That coupled with the fact that he may have been viewed by the police as the most reliable witness because he was "respectable" and spoke English (and was at the inquest) to me points to him as the witness in the Kos ID.

[jason_c]

Hi FM
It seems that both suspect and witness were jewish from what both Anderson and Swanson said. Considering its a main point of emphasis for both on why the witness would not swear to it, I think its pretty clear.

So, when Anderson states: "a good view of the murderer", he means someone who was caught in the act or was seen coming out of the alley/square seconds after the murder, i.e. there is/was no room for doubt

Given the higher level police officials propensity in getting many facts wrong when recalling events later in general and Andersons seemingly character trait of "wishful thinking" and exageration, I could see him definitely categorizing lawende or Scwartz as witnesses who 'Got a good view of the murderer".

We have to remember that Lawende's sighting was significant not just in terms of a sighting near Mitre Square and within minutes of the murder. His sighting also tentatively included Eddowes herself with a man.

This still of course does'nt deal with Lawende's statement that he would not recognize the suspect.

[Abby Normal]

From what we're told there would appear to be no grounds for inferring that any great interval separated the identification from the committal and I'd have thought no more than a couple of days.



Well, I don't know why they didn't, but they didn't. Maybe because they were constrained by habeus corpus to release the suspect or charge him and took the former course while they put pressure on the witness or otherwise sought to strengthen their case.



Well, I think you have to argue fairly strongly that it is obvious that Anderson made up his mind "many" years after the identification. He was arguably dropping broad hints as early as 1895 and I know of no reason for supposing that it was at that time a recently reached decision.



Actually, to be pedantic but precise, what Anderson actually says is that it was a definitely ascertained fact that the suspect was a Polish Jew. We all share your problem, though. It is undeniably a conundrum of a story. I have to say, though, that Anderson's character seems to me, at least as far as the secular side is concerned, that he wasn't given to sober reflection over time, but given to making a snap decision and thereafter stubbornly resisting any temptation to change it.

Hi Paul

Well, I don't know why they didn't, but they didn't. Maybe because they were constrained by habeus corpus to release the suspect or charge him and took the former course while they put pressure on the witness or otherwise sought to strengthen their case.

To your point-I had a thought. The whole episode of sending the suspect "with difficulty" for an ID to the seaside home may be indicitive that the police were already having problems with the doctors/work house staff re Kos's sanity issues and what they could do with the suspect (jurisdiction/authority questions?)before they even did the ID. So perhaps the whole insanity/legal problem was already firmly established in Andersons/Swansons minds prior to the ID, which coupled with Kos being later officially "certified insane' sealed the deal for them in terms of the futility of bringing a charge against him.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Bridewell,

I think the important statement reagrding the witness is this: "the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer".

I'd imagine the consensus is that Lawende's sighting can not be deemed to be a good view of a/any murderer given the situation, i.e. 10 minutes before a murder, possibly Eddowes etc.

Anderson's words make a clear distinction between the principles of what constitutes a suspect and what constitutes a murderer, i.e. the suspect is a suspect because at that juncture there was no hard evidence to link the supect to the murder; 'the murderer' is a statement lacking scope for an alternative view - the man viewed by the witness was undoubtedly the murderer.

So, when Anderson states: "a good view of the murderer", he means someone who was caught in the act or was seen coming out of the alley/square seconds after the murder, i.e. there is/was no room for doubt.

This would exclude Lawende and associates. Schwarz is a better bet assuming his version of events is true - a story lacking confirmation at a busy time of the night, which detracts from the possibility of Schwarz being the witness.

Who are we left with then?

Well, either he/she no longer resides within the files, or we're jumping through hoops to come up with someone.

I'm wondering if there's any room for negotiation on whether or not the witness was Jewish. "The suspect was also a Jew" has been taken to mean the witness was Jewish. Could it mean something else? Could there be some other reason why the witness, a gentile witness, would not want a Jewish man convicted? Could it be for political reasons, e.g. socialist - a decision based on an over-riding political desire for social equality, and in the grand scheme of things the witness deemed it to be detrimental to his cause to have a Jew outed as Jack The Ripper? Could there be another reason why a gentile witness would not testify against a Jew?

On a possible gentile witness, the City PC witness is the best bet for obvious reasons: seaside home, Jack seemingly pressed for time at Mitre Square etc.

Hi FM
It seems that both suspect and witness were jewish from what both Anderson and Swanson said. Considering its a main point of emphasis for both on why the witness would not swear to it, I think its pretty clear.

So, when Anderson states: "a good view of the murderer", he means someone who was caught in the act or was seen coming out of the alley/square seconds after the murder, i.e. there is/was no room for doubt

Given the higher level police officials propensity in getting many facts wrong when recalling events later in general and Andersons seemingly character trait of "wishful thinking" and exageration, I could see him definitely categorizing lawende or Scwartz as witnesses who 'Got a good view of the murderer".

[Fleetwood Mac]

Mine too, Fleetwood. Do you have any particular individual in mind?

Regards, Bridewell

Hello Bridewell,

I think the important statement reagrding the witness is this: "the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer".

I'd imagine the consensus is that Lawende's sighting can not be deemed to be a good view of a/any murderer given the situation, i.e. 10 minutes before a murder, possibly Eddowes etc.

Anderson's words make a clear distinction between the principles of what constitutes a suspect and what constitutes a murderer, i.e. the suspect is a suspect because at that juncture there was no hard evidence to link the supect to the murder; 'the murderer' is a statement lacking scope for an alternative view - the man viewed by the witness was undoubtedly the murderer.

So, when Anderson states: "a good view of the murderer", he means someone who was caught in the act or was seen coming out of the alley/square seconds after the murder, i.e. there is/was no room for doubt.

This would exclude Lawende and associates. Schwarz is a better bet assuming his version of events is true - a story lacking confirmation at a busy time of the night, which detracts from the possibility of Schwarz being the witness.

Who are we left with then?

Well, either he/she no longer resides within the files, or we're jumping through hoops to come up with someone.

I'm wondering if there's any room for negotiation on whether or not the witness was Jewish. "The suspect was also a Jew" has been taken to mean the witness was Jewish. Could it mean something else? Could there be some other reason why the witness, a gentile witness, would not want a Jewish man convicted? Could it be for political reasons, e.g. socialist - a decision based on an over-riding political desire for social equality, and in the grand scheme of things the witness deemed it to be detrimental to his cause to have a Jew outed as Jack The Ripper? Could there be another reason why a gentile witness would not testify against a Jew?

On a possible gentile witness, the City PC witness is the best bet for obvious reasons: seaside home, Jack seemingly pressed for time at Mitre Square etc.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Nell,

While there's no evidence for this, I quite like it as a theory. It would explain quite a lot, especially the role of Hutchinson, of whom we know so very little. (Why is that?)

I'm brainstorming now, so the flow may not be too good.

What if your theoretical Jacob X was Hutchinson & he did more than his statement says he did? Would he really wait as long as he claimed he did without trying to take a sneaky look through the window? "Hutchinson the Peeping Tom" would make more sense than "Hutchinson The Man Who Stands For Ages Opposite Millers Court, Just Waiting For Someone To Emerge". It would also explain the improbable amount of detail he supplied in his description if he saw the man, not under street-lighting, but by the light of an open fire. The police seem to have set quite a lot of store by this description, without any logical reason for doing so, on the information given. Trying to (a) lull the killer into a false sense of security and/or (b) give the witness a measure of protection perhaps? After all, Abberline was no fool, despite claims to the contrary, and was of the opinion that GH wasn't lying.

Don't shoot! I'm not saying that's how it was. Just speculatin' is all!

Regards, Bridewell

Hi Bridewell.
i am quoting CN's relevant part:

If, in Swanson’s theory, Suspect ceased killing because he was afraid Lawende/Levy/Harris or Schwartz could identify him, that would leave the Kelly murder unaccounted for. We have no reason to believe Swanson or any other contemporary divorced Kelly from the series – that’s a modern idea.

The ID took place well after the Kelly murder.

[Bridewell]

Interesting

I'm puzzled about one reference in the Marginalia. 'And after this identification which suspect knew no more murders of this kind took place in London'. Is this a cessation theory on Swanson's part? If so, it doesn't quite make sense.

This cannot refer to Suspect’s reaction to the identification which took place at the Seaside Home. He was returned from thence to his relative’s house where he was watched night and day for the short duration before he was committed to the asylum. Suspect could not have committed any further murders had he wanted to. This cannot be what Swanson means.

What I believe Swanson means therefore is that ‘Suspect ceased killing because he knew an individual who could subsequently identify him had seen him in the act of committing a murder (or bending over the body etc).’

We know Swanson’s Witness was male and Jewish. Lawende, Levy, Harris and Schwartz are all ruled out however because they were all witnesses from the night of the double event. If, in Swanson’s theory, Suspect ceased killing because he was afraid Lawende/Levy/Harris or Schwartz could identify him, that would leave the Kelly murder unaccounted for. We have no reason to believe Swanson or any other contemporary divorced Kelly from the series – that’s a modern idea.

I would like to posit the existence of Witness Jacob X from the night of the Kelly murder. Let us suppose Jacob X arrives in Miller’s Court sometime around 4.30-5.00 for whatever purpose, nefarious or otherwise. He is attracted by the fire in Kelly’s room which would probably have been visible glowing behind the coat-curtain. He looks into the room and sees Jack in the flame-light in mid business. Jacob flees in panic.

Jacob later comes forward as a witness. He is the most significant witness so far. The police decide to keep him secret – the press, remember, had been less than helpful in their dealings with another important witness on a previous occasion. It may even be that the police appear to give so much credence to George Hutchinson precisely because he acts as a decoy – deflecting press and other undesirable attention away from Jacob X.
So no trace of Jacob X has survived in the police records? So what! Neither has any trace of the Polish-Jew Suspect – we can only infer his existence from two or three oblique sources.

Hi Nell,

While there's no evidence for this, I quite like it as a theory. It would explain quite a lot, especially the role of Hutchinson, of whom we know so very little. (Why is that?)

I'm brainstorming now, so the flow may not be too good.

What if your theoretical Jacob X was Hutchinson & he did more than his statement says he did? Would he really wait as long as he claimed he did without trying to take a sneaky look through the window? "Hutchinson the Peeping Tom" would make more sense than "Hutchinson The Man Who Stands For Ages Opposite Millers Court, Just Waiting For Someone To Emerge". It would also explain the improbable amount of detail he supplied in his description if he saw the man, not under street-lighting, but by the light of an open fire. The police seem to have set quite a lot of store by this description, without any logical reason for doing so, on the information given. Trying to (a) lull the killer into a false sense of security and/or (b) give the witness a measure of protection perhaps? After all, Abberline was no fool, despite claims to the contrary, and was of the opinion that GH wasn't lying.

Don't shoot! I'm not saying that's how it was. Just speculatin' is all!

Regards, Bridewell

[Bridewell]

Mine Too

Or, my favoured interpretation: the ID did take place, but the witness wasn't wasn't Lawende, nor Schwarz.

Mine too, Fleetwood. Do you have any particular individual in mind?

Regards, Bridewell

[Abby Normal]

From what we're told there would appear to be no grounds for inferring that any great interval separated the identification from the committal and I'd have thought no more than a couple of days.



Well, I don't know why they didn't, but they didn't. Maybe because they were constrained by habeus corpus to release the suspect or charge him and took the former course while they put pressure on the witness or otherwise sought to strengthen their case.



Well, I think you have to argue fairly strongly that it is obvious that Anderson made up his mind "many" years after the identification. He was arguably dropping broad hints as early as 1895 and I know of no reason for supposing that it was at that time a recently reached decision.



Actually, to be pedantic but precise, what Anderson actually says is that it was a definitely ascertained fact that the suspect was a Polish Jew. We all share your problem, though. It is undeniably a conundrum of a story. I have to say, though, that Anderson's character seems to me, at least as far as the secular side is concerned, that he wasn't given to sober reflection over time, but given to making a snap decision and thereafter stubbornly resisting any temptation to change it.

Hi Paul
Thanks for the informative response. Your thought about delaying a charge after the ID makes sense, i suppose-i had not thought of that. Perhaps then he was certified and after they found that out they realized a charge would be futile.


Actually, to be pedantic but precise, what Anderson actually says is that it was a definitely ascertained fact that the suspect was a Polish Jew

But he also said that undetected crimes were rare in London, and that the ripper case was not one of them and he said he was tempted to name the culprit if not for the fear of libel, so he had a specific person (Kos) in mind when he said it.

Thanks again for the reply.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul
Thanks for the response.

What we appear to be told is that the suspect was sent for identification and then returned to his brother's house where 24-hour surveillance was maintained until within a very short time he was taken by his family and duly certified insane.

If he was not certified insane until after the ID and after the 24 hour surveillance (I beleive the quote was ...where he was watched day and night) then it seems that there was at least several days, more probably weeks, that Kos was being watched-plenty of time to charge him (before he was certified insane) if Anderson thought at that time the case was solved, no?

From what we're told there would appear to be no grounds for inferring that any great interval separated the identification from the committal and I'd have thought no more than a couple of days.

Had the charges been brought before the suspect was certified then the police could have laid out their case before the magistrate and the suspect's fitness to plead then been assessed. Had that happened then the police would have got their evidence on record.

Exactly-so why didn't Anderson have him charged immediately-- before he was declared insane? As we both said, at the very least it would be on record.

Well, I don't know why they didn't, but they didn't. Maybe because they were constrained by habeus corpus to release the suspect or charge him and took the former course while they put pressure on the witness or otherwise sought to strengthen their case.

Well, I guess they would, but we don't know that Anderson came to his conclusions many years after the event,

IMHO it seems he did come to this conclusion many years later-my main point with all of this being that if he did (I think its obvious) then it diminishes the significance of his "definitely ascertained fact".

Well, I think you have to argue fairly strongly that it is obvious that Anderson made up his mind "many" years after the identification. He was arguably dropping broad hints as early as 1895 and I know of no reason for supposing that it was at that time a recently reached decision.

I have no problem with Kos as a suspect. I actually must accept him as viable for the fact that 3 senior police mention him and for a possible ID by a witness. However, i have a problem with Anderson saying the case was solved and his "definitely ascertained fact" coming any time other than many years later-which of course dimishes his reliability and therefor Kos's candidicy for being the ripper.

Actually, to be pedantic but precise, what Anderson actually says is that it was a definitely ascertained fact that the suspect was a Polish Jew. We all share your problem, though. It is undeniably a conundrum of a story. I have to say, though, that Anderson's character seems to me, at least as far as the secular side is concerned, that he wasn't given to sober reflection over time, but given to making a snap decision and thereafter stubbornly resisting any temptation to change it.