The witness that refused.

[caz]

Or maybe Lawende's reluctance (assuming Lawende was the witness) was based on the fact that not only had he said right at the start that he probably would not recognise the man again, but he hadn't actually seen him do the slightest harm to the woman. For all the witness knew (and this would have applied to Schwartz too, even though he had seen a bit of manhandling with Stride) the man he saw could have gone off home to the missus and the killer could then have seen his opportunity to pounce, with not a soul to witness the approach or the deed. No reasonable fellow would fancy the idea of a man being hanged on that basis, Jew or Gentile.

Love,

Caz
X

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Henry

I didn't say that Anderson was right. Rather, I am just reporting what Anderson said in his memoirs. I entirely agree that the story is unsatisfactory and opens up a host of unanswered questions.

In fact, if you look at all the different newspaper stories over the years following 1888, the press carried a myriad different stories of what had become of the Ripper and who he could have been.

Macnaghten and Anderson provided two divergent answers, and because what they were saying is in a sense given credence by the fact that they were senior policemen, presumably they knew what they were writing about. That is the belief of students of the case who put store in what the two men wrote.

For my own part, having studied the Jewish aspects of the case, I am more inclined to think that Anderson was perhaps talking about a generic Jew rather than the unbalanced Polish Jew Aaron Kosminski.

If you listen to the last Rippercast, you will hear Martin Fido explain his theory that his study of asylum records leads him to believe that Kosminski was a harmless man and that it was the much more dangerous insane Jew David Cohen who was the man being discussed.

In other words, it could be that the identities of Cohen and Kosminski had got mixed up in Anderson's mind and when he was talking about the attempted identification he meant Cohen and not Kosminski. That's not to say though that Aaron Kosminski might not come under scrutiny and have been treated as a leading suspect as well, so that's where the mix-up might have occurred because there were at least two insane Jews who were in the frame.

All the best

Chris

[Henry Flower]

That's very true Caz. True to the known facts and very understandable on a human level.

[Henry Flower]

Thanks Chris - its a while since I read Fido's first Cohen book; it didn't seem wholly convincing (but then, after 120 years of mythologizing, the truth itself might sound disappointing) but it was saner than most suspect books and was full of fascinating stuff. I'll give the podcast a listen - thanks again

[Scott Nelson]

That's not to say though that Aaron Kosminski might not come under scrutiny and have been treated as a leading suspect as well, so that's where the mix-up might have occurred because there were at least two insane Jews who were in the frame.

Both named Aaron.

[ChrisGeorge]

That's not to say though that Aaron Kosminski might not come under scrutiny and have been treated as a leading suspect as well, so that's where the mix-up might have occurred because there were at least two insane Jews who were in the frame.

Both named Aaron.

Did I say that?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Chris, and thanks for the reply. I understand the chronology of what did happen (largely thanks to SPE's superb Seaside Home dissertation at this site), but your answer only serves to underline more strongly the problem I'm having with this story: as you say, the police didn't wait twenty years - they waited indefinitely, there was never any such statement at all; only some hints in personal memoirs, and some personal jottings.

Apart from that - nothing. No relative, no neighbour, no acquaintance, no constable - nobody went public until Anderson's hints in his memoirs? Not one person gave an anonymous tip-off to the press to the effect that Jack the Ripper had likely been identified and was caged? I find that baffling and unconvincing. This was a world-famous case that heaped ridicule on the force. Anderson's patrician BS about the 'traditions of his old department suffering if the suspect were named' - Scotland Yard had taken a good kicking over their failure to bag the Whitechapel murderer.

All of which makes me think that Kozminski was, if anything, merely one of a number of possible suspects, and not a particularly special one; and that his guilt solidified into a 'moral certainty' (to a few) only after sufficient time had passed without further Whitechapel murders, and after he was wrongly believed to be safely dead.

Which leaves rather a sour taste in my mouth. For all we know there was no refusal on Lawende's part - perhaps he genuinely had no great certainty. Maybe he thought Kozminski bore a strong resemblance but could not say anything more definite - which self-serving commissioners later turned into a refusal on ethnic grounds as their excuse for not having brought a suspect to trial in a world-famous murder case...

Amen Henry

It all boils down to-If Anderson thought the case was solved by the positive identification of Kosminsky sometime prior to Kosminski's admittance to the asylum in Feb 1891, why did he not share this conviction to anyone in the force (let alone the public) until many years later? The case was still ongoning at the time of the ID. I think its clear that he did not come to his "definitely ascertained fact" until much much later after the alleged ID.

[Abby Normal]

Amen Henry

It all boils down to-If Anderson thought the case was solved by the positive identification of Kosminsky sometime prior to Kosminski's admittance to the asylum in Feb 1891, why did he not share this conviction to anyone in the force (let alone the public) until many years later? The case was still ongoning at the time of the ID. I think its clear that he did not come to his "definitely ascertained fact" until much much later after the alleged ID.

sayeth the cricket "chirp"

[PaulB]

Amen Henry

It all boils down to-If Anderson thought the case was solved by the positive identification of Kosminsky sometime prior to Kosminski's admittance to the asylum in Feb 1891, why did he not share this conviction to anyone in the force (let alone the public) until many years later? The case was still ongoning at the time of the ID. I think its clear that he did not come to his "definitely ascertained fact" until much much later after the alleged ID.

How do you know Anderson didn't "share his conviction" with anyone else on the Force?

[Abby Normal]

How do you know Anderson didn't "share his conviction" with anyone else on the Force?

Hi Paul
i guess i dont know for sure, but the main thing is that nothing was done about it at the time. The ID took place at least several years before Kos was sent to the asylum. If, at this time(the ID) Anderson really thought the case was solved it was before Kos was officially declared insane, correct? So the excuse could not have been well we cant legally charge an insane person since there was no hope of conviction. And if there was an official diagnosis of insanity before the admittance to the asylum (Say at the time he was sent to the workhouse) then why even do the ID?

And in any case if you think you have Jack the Ripper at last, when and where he is declared insane should not really matter if you think it is "a definitely ascertained fact" because any police official with an ounce of gumption would make a charge and fight it out in court. At least it would be on record.

of course if Anderson did not come to his definetly ascertained fact until many years later after they had lost track of Kos, which i think seems rather obvious, then his actions, or inactions at the time make sense.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Or maybe Lawende's reluctance (assuming Lawende was the witness) was based on the fact that not only had he said right at the start that he probably would not recognise the man again, but he hadn't actually seen him do the slightest harm to the woman. For all the witness knew (and this would have applied to Schwartz too, even though he had seen a bit of manhandling with Stride) the man he saw could have gone off home to the missus and the killer could then have seen his opportunity to pounce, with not a soul to witness the approach or the deed. No reasonable fellow would fancy the idea of a man being hanged on that basis, Jew or Gentile.

Love,

Caz
X

I wouldn't agree with this Caz.

The man's conscience would have been clear. His testimony would have been no more than I saw this man at this time with a woman who may have been x.

My problem with the identification is that something seems to be missing.

a) Swanson's private notes would suggest that he is recording an event that happened. There is no political gain from notes seen only by him.

b) Swanson states the man in question would have hanged. Would he? Based on a sighting outside of the square with a woman who may have been Eddowes.

c) Does this mean Swanson is talking of some event other than Lawende?

d) Does this mean he is talking of Schwarz?

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

[harry]

A question for anyone.Wasn't it then,and isn't it now,that a court decides if a person is fit to stand trial.My recollection of a person that would fit such a description was Straffen.

[Abby Normal]

A question for anyone.Wasn't it then,and isn't it now,that a court decides if a person is fit to stand trial.My recollection of a person that would fit such a description was Straffen.

Hi harry
I beleive you are correct. A Dr would be the one to declare him legally insane, but the court would decide about a trial. If he was declared insane before a charge, then I think the court could also have him examined by a court appointed Dr, but not 100% sure on this. I also, would like to hear more about the process on this from someone who knows. I think the excuse that they did not charge Kos because he was insane and had no hope of a conviction is a rather flimsy one. As I said before, at the very least, it would be on record.

I mean we are talking about a world famous serial murder case in which the public were scared and outraged and the police were under enormous pressure to solve the case and a top police official is claiming the case was solved.

[Carrotty Nell]

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

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.

[caz]

I wouldn't agree with this Caz.

The man's conscience would have been clear. His testimony would have been no more than I saw this man at this time with a woman who may have been x.

Fair enough, FM, but it's a bit black and white. It would have been only too human if a witness in those circumstances did not quite trust the justice system of the day not to read too much into such a sighting and possibly hang the wrong man as a result. After all, why did he think he was being asked to identify the 'suspect' if what he saw was not going to be used against the man?

Love,

Caz
X