Tweet
A few days ago I submitted a post that elicited a number of interesting yet off-topic responses. Below is a rehash of the said post which, as the more discerning members will be aware, echoes an argument I advanced in my book many moons ago with reference to Anderson and the Seaside Home identification. So here goes.
According to Anderson the Seaside Home witness was ‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’, a man who ‘unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him’. In reflecting on this assertion Swanson declared that the identification would ‘convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged …’ (My emphasis.)
In Swanson’s opinion, therefore, the identification in itself would have been sufficient to have secured a conviction. Since Lawende’s vague and unremarkable sighting could never have effected such an outcome, the witness could have been no-one other than Schwartz. Thus the assault perpetrated by Broad Shoulders must have been considered the initial stage of the attack that left Stride lying dead just a few feet away. If Dr Blackwell’s estimated time of death may be taken as reliable, moreover, the murder may have occurred within a minute of Schwartz departing the scene.
So Schwartz was Anderson’s mystery witness, and Kosminski was the man identified as Liz Stride’s attacker and thus Jack the Ripper.
All well and good. But there is a problem. Beyond more than a century of assumption and supposition there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate the contention that Stride fell victim to the Whitechapel Murderer. In point of fact everything about the Berner Street crime suggests that it was unrelated to the Ripper series. If this was indeed the case, the solution to the Seaside Home identification has been staring us in the face all along: Kosminski was implicated in the Ripper murders by way of a crime that was entirely unconnected to Jack the Ripper.
Whereas this scenario explains why Swanson believed the eyewitness evidence alone was sufficient to have secured a conviction, and why Anderson believed that the Whitechapel Murderer had been positively identified, Anderson clearly overstated the case when insisting that the identification had been established as a ‘definitely ascertained fact’. This was less of a lie than a straightforward case of wishful thinking fuelled by a non sequitur. The real flaw in Anderson’s conclusions relates to the Stride murder and its automatic inclusion in the Ripper series. Had this crime been evaluated strictly on the evidence it would have been treated as incidental, and Kosminski could not have been linked to Jack the Ripper, even in the event that he did kill Stride – a proposition which to my mind is extremely doubtful.
And that’s it. Cause and effect as explained by the evidence.
Over to you.
According to Anderson the Seaside Home witness was ‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’, a man who ‘unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him’. In reflecting on this assertion Swanson declared that the identification would ‘convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged …’ (My emphasis.)
In Swanson’s opinion, therefore, the identification in itself would have been sufficient to have secured a conviction. Since Lawende’s vague and unremarkable sighting could never have effected such an outcome, the witness could have been no-one other than Schwartz. Thus the assault perpetrated by Broad Shoulders must have been considered the initial stage of the attack that left Stride lying dead just a few feet away. If Dr Blackwell’s estimated time of death may be taken as reliable, moreover, the murder may have occurred within a minute of Schwartz departing the scene.
So Schwartz was Anderson’s mystery witness, and Kosminski was the man identified as Liz Stride’s attacker and thus Jack the Ripper.
All well and good. But there is a problem. Beyond more than a century of assumption and supposition there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate the contention that Stride fell victim to the Whitechapel Murderer. In point of fact everything about the Berner Street crime suggests that it was unrelated to the Ripper series. If this was indeed the case, the solution to the Seaside Home identification has been staring us in the face all along: Kosminski was implicated in the Ripper murders by way of a crime that was entirely unconnected to Jack the Ripper.
Whereas this scenario explains why Swanson believed the eyewitness evidence alone was sufficient to have secured a conviction, and why Anderson believed that the Whitechapel Murderer had been positively identified, Anderson clearly overstated the case when insisting that the identification had been established as a ‘definitely ascertained fact’. This was less of a lie than a straightforward case of wishful thinking fuelled by a non sequitur. The real flaw in Anderson’s conclusions relates to the Stride murder and its automatic inclusion in the Ripper series. Had this crime been evaluated strictly on the evidence it would have been treated as incidental, and Kosminski could not have been linked to Jack the Ripper, even in the event that he did kill Stride – a proposition which to my mind is extremely doubtful.
And that’s it. Cause and effect as explained by the evidence.
Over to you.
Sink the Bismark
Comment