The witness that refused.

[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]

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 ...?

[lynn cates]

explanation

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

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

make up

Hello (again) Jonathan.

"Or they just made it all up ...?"

And of course, this cannot be ruled out either.

Cheers.
LC

[Stephen Thomas]

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'.

No it doesn't, Jonathan

Pipeman was tall and Lawende's guy wasn't.

Please try not to make stuff up as you go along.

People might be disinclined to take your master thesis seriously.

[Jonathan H]

To Stephen Thomas

That's what broadly means. Not exact, but generally the same.

What is tall? Everybody is tall to a person who is not.

The point is so-called 'Knifeman' is carrying a knife, is lithe, Gentile-featured and attired as a proletarian.

Of course, what I find so revealing about your good self is the underlying venom of the post towards me.

Does my 'master thesis' threaten you ...?

[Wickerman]

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'.

Johnathan.
The first time we hear of any detail, all we have is, his height, moustache, neckerchief & cap.
Why?
Because the woman was standing in front of him, between Lawende & the suspect.

So where did the subsequent description of his clothing suddenly appear from?
Lawende couldn't see for the woman, remember?

First Description:
"of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak".

Second Description:
"age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair fair moustache, medium built, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor."

Third Description:
"aged from thirty to thirty-five; height 5ft 7in, with brown hair and big moustache; dressed respectably. Wore pea jacket, muffler, and a cloth cap with a peak of the same material.".

Where did all the extra detail come from?, Lawende only saw him once.

Schwartz Description:
"age about 30, ht. 5ft 5in. Comp. Fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers, black cap with peak,.."

Lawende could not see anything below the mans head & shoulders (First Desc.) because the woman was in the way.

Regards, Jon S.

[Jonathan H]

Yes, I see what you are getting at, but you're not factoring in from where the descriptions originate which is arguably the key to their evolution.

The overall is that Lawende's description is of a slimmish, youngish, Gentile-featuredish man, with a fair moustache, dressed as a prole, perhaps as a sailor. The figure whom Schwarz described was a burlier figure, and who acted as a thug -- out in the open and in front of witnesses.

In the alternate account, one which makes more sense at least as a story, the witness fled at the sight of a slimmer, Gentile-featured man brandishing a knife seemingly coming to the rescue of the woman.

In terms of the relative tightness of the timing, 'Knifeman' coming to the rescue of Stride would be the perfect cover for a serial murderer, as the thug and witness high-tail it and he is left alone with a likely Ripper victim -- armed with a knife.

Could that all be wrong? Of course. Are other interpretations possible? Of course.

Joseph Lawende was used by the police in 1891. That's how much confidence they had in him as the witness, reagrdless of what he might have said to the press or thre passage of years. And the prime suspect they brought before him was a Gentile sailor. Judging by the published description of 1888 it does not sound much like Tom Sadler -- and sure enough the eyewitness said 'no'.

[harry]

Perhaps in looking in Anderson's direction as the source of the 'He refused to testify' statement,we allow it began with the officers who were suppossedly present at this claimed seaside home identification,and that it was an oral communication,and not a written one that Anderson remembered. What is absent is any documentation that might help,but on the suspect's side,there is no information that he ever,in any way,made a confession.

[DVV]

Or they just made it all up ...?

There is no other alternative. Nothing from the police, nothing from Kebbell. Only one sentence in one newspaper.
As for Lawende, he was quite forgotten in 1895. His testimony is never referred to after the Ripper hunt. There is the "PC near Mitre Square" instead.

[Jonathan H]

You're a braver man than me, Gunga Din.

No alternative, hey?

Consider that before 1987, we would also throw out that Swanson ever thought 'Kosminski' was the fiend, or at least that he thought that the fiend was 'deceased' because the same 'Pall Mall Gazette' of 1895 was the only source to claim this about this significant police figure -- until his own Marginalia turned up.

I disagree, too, that Lawende was entirely 'quite forgotten'.

Macnaghten remembered him, all too well, artfully altering the story by pulling inside-out the ethnicity of witness and suspect.

It sure fooled Griffiths and Sims, and arguably set in motion the idea that somebody had seen 'Kosminski' at the scene of a Whitechapel murder.

I also subscribe to the Evans-Rumbelow theory of a fading, though sincere memory re-casting the Lawende-Sadler 'confrontation' to become the mythical one between the Polish Jewish suspect and a treacherous Jewish witness -- unnamed (poor co-operative Lawende).

[DVV]

I cannot disagree more.
How do you explain Kebbell's silence on the suject ?
Why no reference in other press records ?
In police recollections ?
In police theories, opinions, interviews.

And yes, I'm braver than you, figure d'anchois.

[Bridewell]

Up To A Point

That's what broadly means. Not exact, but generally the same.

Fair comment

What is tall? Everybody is tall to a person who is not.

To a person of average height, some people are tall some short. Schwartz, though, according to Swanson, did not describe Pipeman as "tall". He said he was 5' 11".

The point is so-called 'Knifeman' is carrying a knife, is lithe, Gentile-featured and attired as a proletarian.

He's more usually known as 'Pipeman' because he was lighting his pipe. The allusion to a knife was introduced in the account given by The Star newspaper, a secondary source at best. Where is this individual described as "lithe, "Gentile-featured and attired as a proletarian"? I can't find it. All I can find is Swanson's report, written on 19th October:

"Second man, age 35, height 5ft. 11in., complexion fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand"

& The Star's report:

"He described the man with the woman as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat.

"The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society".


What is your source for "lithe" "Gentile" "proletarian" please?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jonathan H]

The term secondary does not mean, in the context of historical methodology, a source of lesser importance.

It means a source crated by somebody who was not there at the time, eg. most history books.

Schwarz's version to the police is arguably more reliable because it is an offical record, and the witness knew this.

On the other hand his account to 'The Star', also a primary source and potentially unreliable because it is a tabloid seeking to hype it up, does provide a more coherent tale -- with a figure who broadly resembles the man who will later be seen chatting with the next victim:

'not so stout' eg. closer to thin; 'moustaches were red' eg. not Slavic; and 'same grade of society', eg. working-class; carrying a knife not smoking a pipe, eg. she was murdered with such a weapon.

The first account is of a man who fled the scene claiming he was the potential victim, and thus had no idea a woman was in lethal danger. The second account might be more candid as he fled from a dispute which was quickly and dangerously escalating, what with a weapon brandished.

[DVV]

The term secondary does not mean, in the context of historical methodology, a source of lesser importance.

It means a source crated by somebody who was not there at the time, eg. most history books.

???
Most history books are based on sources, primary and secondary.