A Case of Misattribution?

[Garry Wroe]

And no Garry its not anti-anderson rhetoric. The whole basis of your theory hinges on the credibility/accuracy of those making the statements. I think its clear we need to keep that in mind when we assess what Anderson and his loyal follower Swanson say about it.

If you have evidence to support the notion of Swanson having been Anderson's poodle, Abby, this would be the ideal thread on which to present it.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby.
I thought that quote was attributed to Charles Warren?
"Ultimate", p.110.




Wasn't it Anderson who wrote in October 1888, about there being "five successive murders", in which the police are "not having the slightest clue of any kind".?

Either Anderson's "suspect" surfaced after Kelly's murder, or years later.
Given what we know of how divided the police were after the Kelly murder, this suspect doesn't appear to have surfaced subsequent to those investigations, so when?
The further away we get the less likely this suspect was responsible for the Whitechapel murders.

Jon S.

Hi Wicker
I beleive Warren may have approived it but it was written by Anderson.

Either Anderson's "suspect" surfaced after Kelly's murder, or years later.
Given what we know of how divided the police were after the Kelly murder, this suspect doesn't appear to have surfaced subsequent to those investigations, so when?
The further away we get the less likely this suspect was responsible for the Whitechapel murders.

Kos didnt surface until 1890 as a possible suspect-so I agree with you totally.

[Garry Wroe]

If the evidence of Anderson's witness "would have been sufficient, in itself, to secure a conviction", the witness could not have been Lawende or Schwartz. Either Swanson was exaggerating or there was another witness we don't know about.

For my money, Colin, the possibility of there having been a star witness about whom we know nothing is negligible. It appears to be a straight choice between Lawende and Schwartz. Since Lawende readily admitted the unlikelihood that he would recognize Eddowes' companion, he would have been a hindrance rather than a help as a prosecution witness. Like it or not, therefore, Schwartz must have been the Seaside Home witness, and the assault he observed on Berner Street must have been been interpreted by investigators as part of the attack that resulted in Stride's death. I can see no alternative explanation for Swanson's certainty on the matter.

[Abby Normal]

If you have evidence to support the notion of Swanson having been Anderson's poodle, Abby, this would be the ideal thread on which to present it.

Well that would be impossible Garry, because Swanson was a man not a dog.

[Abby Normal]

For my money, Colin, the possibility of there having been a star witness about whom we know nothing is negligible. It appears to be a straight choice between Lawende and Schwartz. Since Lawende readily admitted the unlikelihood that he would recognize Eddowes' companion, he would have been a hindrance rather than a help as a prosecution witness. Like it or not, therefore, Schwartz must have been the Seaside Home witness, and the assault he observed on Berner Street must have been been interpreted by investigators as part of the attack that resulted in Stride's death. I can see no alternative explanation for Swanson's certainty on the matter.

how about intentionall embellishment or just misremembering?

[Hunter]

Hi Abby,
If you have a copy of the 'Ultimate' or 'Scotland Yard Investigates' you might want to check them out. They both have photocopies of Warren's letter and explanations about it.

[Garry Wroe]

how about intentionall embellishment ...

So far as I'm aware, Abby, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Swanson was prone to either exaggeration or mendacity.

or just misremembering?

He remembered Kosminski's name, the brother in Whitechapel and the mental instability.

[Garry Wroe]

Tom,
like you said, the only argument that has some validity for Stride being a "non canonical" is the lack of postmortem mutilations.

I take it that you've not been following this thread, Maria.

There are these people who, against all evidence, insist that Stride must have been killed as early as 00.30 and therefore she cannot have been a "Ripper interruptus".

Who are 'these people'?

All kind of pseudo-evidence is used for this: Mortimer having allegedly spent an entire half hour "in front of" her doorstep, Kozebrodsky stating that Diemschitz called him out to the Yard at 00.40 a.m.. These are the misconceptions that need to be corrected.

No, you've not been following this thread.

But Berner Street continues to be so neglected as a sub-field of Ripperology, that people (and not necessarily newbies!) keep stating the Thomas Coram knife or take Matthew Packer's suspect for granted.

Then why don't you educate us, Maria? Your take on Diemschutz's 'poney' might make a good starting point.

[martin wilson]

Thanks Curious, if it was a kashket wiki informs me it was worn in Poland,Belarus and the Ukraine prior to the holocaust, by poor Hasidic jews, I thought it was an interesting possibility for a 'lower class Polish jew'
I cant find any evidence that William Marshall was jewish so my assumption is that he may have been unfamiliar with jewish dress and so described it as it appeared to him.
It may be significant because it is worn by the faithful which would rule out the man being a member of the club as jews had to renounce their faith to become a member.
All the best.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,
If you have a copy of the 'Ultimate' or 'Scotland Yard Investigates' you might want to check them out. They both have photocopies of Warren's letter and explanations about it.

Hi Hunter
Thanks for that. I took it from Paul Beggs Uncencored Facts. Is that a known error in the book? he clearly writes that it was written by Anderson and signed off by Warren.

[Bridewell]

Sufficient?

For my money, Colin, the possibility of there having been a star witness about whom we know nothing is negligible. It appears to be a straight choice between Lawende and Schwartz. Since Lawende readily admitted the unlikelihood that he would recognize Eddowes' companion, he would have been a hindrance rather than a help as a prosecution witness. Like it or not, therefore, Schwartz must have been the Seaside Home witness, and the assault he observed on Berner Street must have been been interpreted by investigators as part of the attack that resulted in Stride's death. I can see no alternative explanation for Swanson's certainty on the matter.

Hi Garry,

Sufficient, in itself, to secure a conviction, you think? You'd have to prove that the woman assaulted was Stride and that the attack seen was the cause of her death. With the burden of proof being 'beyond reasonable doubt', I would hope not to see a man hanged on Schwartz's evidence alone. It's not enough.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

As something of a counterpoint to this thread, I've been reading Rob House's excellent "JtR and the Case for Scotland Yards Prime Suspect" (a book I've only recently got hold of and would recommend).

Reading Garry's excellent posts here advocating Schwartz as the Seaside Home witness, then returning to the book, wherein Rob makes out a great case for Lawende, I find myself swaying first one way, then the other...

Fascinating stuff....

Cheers

Dave

[Wickerman]

Reading Garry's excellent posts here advocating Schwartz as the Seaside Home witness, then returning to the book, wherein Rob makes out a great case for Lawende, I find myself swaying first one way, then the other...

Rob's book is both good and necessary.

All these opinions in favour of either Lawende or Schwartz as Anderson's Witness predicate on the accuracy of Anderson's memoirs.
We know that faults exist in parts that can be verified by external sources.
I was only thumbing through some of the relevant pages of, The Lighter side..., last night and noticed another assumption passed off as fact.

Anderson claims that the Ripper series ended with Millers Court (pp.136-7), and this claim is based on his assumption that McKenzie was "by another hand". No problem there, but in support of his claim he also adds, "And the Poplar case of December 1888 was a death from natural causes,.."
This was a reference to the Mylett case, yet the official verdict was murder.
"The jury returned a verdict of "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown,"
We can see Anderson can be both assertive and wrong.

Was this error due to faulty memory?, or in this case was Anderson giving his personal belief, likely obtained from Dr. Bond, as "the official verdict", contrary to the truth? And if so, how much of his "suspect" is being sold to the public as a result of the same process?

When he has be proven wrong, why trust the claims that cannot be verified?

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick and Cog,

Garry does make a great argument for Schwartz as witness. Garry's arguments are usually logical and well thought out. However, the fact that all references to a police witness in the 1890's refer to Lawende, and exactly zero make reference to Schwartz, I'm inclined to go old school on this one and say Lawende was the seaside home witness. Always willing to change my mind in the face of new evidence, though.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

Many thanks, Tom. Most kind. For what it's worth, I believe that people have consistently fallen into the trap of assuming that investigators used either Lawende or Schwartz. That is inconceivable to my mind. Both would have been used, as well as any other witness who was deemed credible. Since Kosminski was only identified by one witness, therefore, it seems likely that one or more witnesses failed to identify him.