A Case of Misattribution?

[Wickerman]

You might have a point if we were dealing with Anderson’s claims alone, Jon, but the fact remains that Swanson corroborated those elements of Anderson’s narrative which are under discussion on this thread.

I would not call it corroboration Garry. Swanson falls short of calling this suspect the killer. What Swanson was doing was essentially filing in some background.

In the footnote (p.138) Swanson is explaining why the witness refused to identify the suspect. Whether Swanson also believed this suspect was the killer is not even mentioned. He is however being diplomatic in agreeing (in the margin) that after the 'identity' no other murder of this kind occured.

This would have meaning if we knew when precisely this ID took place. If this ID took place in July 1890 (Kosminski, in Mile End Workhouse), one year and 9 months after Millers Court, then this statement is meaningless.

Swanson then provides more background (on endpapers) on the man Anderson believed was the killer. At no point does Swanson confirm Anderson's belief that this was indeed the Whitechapel murderer.
Swanson terminates this expose by declaring "Kosminski was the suspect", in other words he is saying, "Kosminski was Mr Anderson's suspect".

Swanson's notes to my mind do not convince that he himself believed Kosminski was the Whitechapel murderer. He is only being diplomatic because, in my opinion, Swanson realizes that the police simply "did not have a clue", so he is being professional to the end.

Regards, Jon S.

[auspirograph]

... there was no CPS during the period under scrutiny. The police to a large extent decided who was and who was not committed for trial, meaning that Swanson would have been experienced and knowledgeable in such matters. As such it is not easy to dismiss his belief that Kosminski would have been convicted on a single piece of eyewitness evidence had the case gone to trial.

Garry,

Not so, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General decided if and when a case progressed to trial or for anyone to be as you say 'committed' to trial. As we know, this did not happen in the Whitechapel murders with any suspect because, as Macnaghten notes officially;

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murder, many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one."

This leaves only one simple explanation for Swanson's beliefs. In the absence of any direct sighting of the Whitechapel murderer at either Mitre Sq or Berner Street, the police were mindful of extracting a confession to support their trial application, which again did not happen.

There was no evidence, no trial, hence, a suspect who was deemed insane could not have been "caged in an asylum" legally despite Anderson's assurances and Swanson's beliefs.

[Garry Wroe]

That's entirely possible, but what other Ripper witnesses were brought in to look at Sadler? And why weren't they mentioned by the press?

Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, Tom. Prosecutions then as now were based upon weight of evidence. Investigators wouldn’t have confined themselves to using only one witness when they had multiple witnesses at their disposal. Thus Lawende, Schwartz, Long and Cox would have been called upon to view anyone considered a realistic suspect. The fact that the press learned only of Lawende’s involvement in the Sadler affair is not confirmation that Lawende alone was used. It is confirmation that investigators succeeded in keeping the press in the dark with reference to the other eyewitnesses.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi all

Could somebody please answer my question above?
Thanks in advance!

[Garry Wroe]

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?

You might have a point if we were dealing with Anderson’s claims alone, Jon, but the fact remains that Swanson corroborated those elements of Anderson’s narrative which are under discussion on this thread.

[Garry Wroe]

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...

Let’s look at Lawende from a different perspective, Dave. If Swanson was accurate when stating that City detectives mounted a covert round the clock surveillance on Kosminski, Major Smith would almost certainly have called upon Lawende to ascertain whether Kosminski was the man seen with Eddowes shortly before her death. The fact that Smith ultimately admitted defeat in the Ripper case is important, for it informs us that Lawende could not have identified Kosminski on behalf of the City force. Thus he either wasn’t Anderson’s witness, or he was and the identification was tainted courtesy of his previous exposure to Kosminski. If the latter, he would have been unusable in any criminal trial and therefore couldn’t have been the witness whose evidence would have convicted Kosminski.

[Garry Wroe]

Sufficient, in itself, to secure a conviction, you think?

Swanson certainly thought so, Colin. But then, is it realistic to think that the Crown would have gone to the time and expense of a murder trial founded on a single piece of eyewitness evidence? I doubt it. At the very least witnesses would have been called to attest to Kosminski’s unsavoury character, penchant for knives, history of violence, hatred of prostitutes and so forth. In my view the Seaside Home identification would have been supported by a damning circumstantial case.

Having said this, however, there was no CPS during the period under scrutiny. The police to a large extent decided who was and who was not committed for trial, meaning that Swanson would have been experienced and knowledgeable in such matters. As such it is not easy to dismiss his belief that Kosminski would have been convicted on a single piece of eyewitness evidence had the case gone to trial.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jon S,

I have to go with you on this. This is just one of a very long list of things that show Anderson's words to be untrustworthy. 'the suspect' whoever he was, the witness, whoever he was, the place of ID, wherever that was- doesnt exactly fill fact seekers with confidence. Even if the marginalia et al is woven in, 'Kosminski' is so reknowned he hasnt a first name, the witness is still nameless- and The place of ID is so irrational, unnamed and illogical that by sheer weight of all-round non-identification it should be completely thrown out. And thats BEFORE the details of how this woman mutilating evil nightmare is considered so gentle we have no detail of an escort with him TO the said ID place, and even worse, when ID'd as the most famous murderer in history since Vlad the Impaler, we are expected to believe the police were content to let him go free, and be looked after in the bosom of his oh-so-caring family until THEY decide he's a lunatic and get him incarcerated and away from society. You would have thought that Anderson who arranged this debacle would have had the foresight to have a Doctor at the ID to declare the suspect a lunatic there and then as he wasn't even arrested! Pleasd do forgive my incredulity- it's no wonder this 'evidence' is so wafer thin it is laughable.
I know that Ive stated the Top Cops were bad but nobody can believe THIS level of inadequacy and incompetance. It isnt possible- because if this is the prime example of Sir Robert Anderson, Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, spymaster extraordinaire and specialist on Fenianism- then the force were in a much worse state than anyone knew. They were led, on this display, by a buffoon.

The whole concept from start to finish is one man's made up story to satisfy his own sense of inflated ego. And Swanson is merely filling in the gaps that Anderson didnt put into print. Those arent Swanson's words- they are Anderson's being regailed by Swanson, methinks. And I believe IF Anderson did have ANY faint notion of anything, it was through a tip off by a man watching and getting pally with the people of the IWMEC after the murder of Stride, and in his head turned Strides would be killer into Jack the Ripper saving Andersons ego and the reputation of the old department. Hey presto, the case is solv-ed, as a certain French Inspector of screenplay once said. Anderson would have approved of the powers of Jacques Clouseau (Jack- please note-)

That is a darn sight more plausible than believing an ID taking place 60miles from Whitechapel that goes against known FACT of how and where a Jack the Ripper police ID would, and did take place, re Pizer. (another Jew by the way). Not to mention the sighting of one prime witness from across the road at night without a clear look at the man's face. How in heaven's name could this witness identify the man at the Seaside Home? By his stance perhaps? Maybe they did the ID in a semi-darkened room to help the witness? ha ha. As for the other supposed prime witness, he didnt even give evidence at the inquest his sighting was so important.

With all due and great deference to Rob- if this is the ground basis for Scotland Yard's 'Prime' suspect- then the only way is up. Because with that as base evidence before this Kosminski is looked into in depth- it doesnt even get off the ground. And even IF Aaron Kosminski WAS the man Anderson is on about, his antecedants only show him to be a harmless lunatic. No 'evidence' of violence on the scale of JTR, before or AFTER his incarceration.

Well at least we have an in depth look at the life and times of one harmless lunatic from 1888. A few thousand more to go. Jews first. Form an orderly queue. I'm sure another 10 can be fitted up one way or another. Let's try changing the name somehow shall we? Perhaps say he was known by another surname. Oh yes. Or a different Polish Jew known to be both dangerous and mad that didnt die so soon after the murders that the police were still hunting Jack the Ripper long after this Polish Jew died.

My apologies. But expecting to believe all those unprovable circumstances is way beyond normal rational logic and thought. And some of us get charged with contributing to Ripperology being at the depths of a quagmire for pointing out what utter twaddle this is!

One considered and knowledgable expert in the field, to his great credit, has said that the genre is in desperate need of new evidence. The genre, others have said is stuck in a rut like a scratch on an old 78rpm record. Remaking the same song with a new lable wont change the groove. And hanging on to regurgitated old non-provable circumstances isnt the answer either.


Best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Garry. That's entirely possible, but what other Ripper witnesses were brought in to look at Sadler? And why weren't they mentioned by the press?

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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.