A Case of Misattribution?

[Dave O]

Hi Garry,

Thanks for the kind word. I haven't a clue why Baxter didn't do it. Language and religion wouldn't have been a barrier. If there was a written statement, I think it would have been read aloud in court. If Baxter had cleared an open court to take the evidence, which I think he had the power to do, I think the press would have noted that he had done so. I don't believe the police would have withheld the evidence as their role was one of assistance, not hindrance. Even if they thought that Schwartz was lying or mistaken, which they don't seem to have thought, it seems to me that they still would have brought him in to get him to swear to what he saw, or what he thought he saw, or said he saw. If they were concerned about any descriptions circulating in the press, I believe they would have put that to the jury's discretion as they can't withhold evidence from the jury trying to reach a verdict (though it's true there would have been a risk there if the jurors proved troublesome, which they sometimes were).

I have no idea what was going on.

Cheers,
Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I think the answer is quite simple.

Schwartz and Lawende's descriptions of the men they saw were different, and you can only have one Ripper.

Also, Schwartz's inquest evidence would have knocked a big hole in the "Ripper disturbed at 1.00 am" scenario which played such an important part in the concept of the double-event.

Regards,

Simon

[Dave O]

Hi Simon,

Wasn't Baxter open to the idea that there was no double event?

Best,
Dave

[Garry Wroe]

Much appreciated, Dave. Your take on the issue accords very much with my own, which is some consolation at any rate. Given that the various news agencies apparently didn't get to Schwartz, I'm beginning to wonder whether he might have been sequestered.

[Garry Wroe]

Wasn't Baxter open to the idea that there was no double event?

He certainly implied that the Eddowes murder was an immitative crime.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

I honestly don't know, but the "Ripper disturbed at 1.00 am" scenario was part of Wynne Baxter's summing up at the Stride inquest.

"If he [Diemschitz] had not actually disturbed the wretch in the very act, at least he must have been close on his heels; possibly the man was alarmed by the sound of the approaching cart, for the death had only just taken place."

Exit Schwartz.

Regards,

Simon

[Dave O]

Hi Garry,

I've seen two "sick notes" for absent witnesses in Macdonald's records, but I can't imagine that would apply to Schwartz, not with them adjourning multiple times over much of October. Just thought I'd mention it.

Dave

[Wickerman]

Much appreciated, Dave. Your take on the issue accords very much with my own, which is some consolation at any rate. Given that the various news agencies apparently didn't get to Schwartz, I'm beginning to wonder whether he might have been sequestered.

Being sequestered wouldn't prevent him appearing at the inquest though. We do read that Lawende was also sequestered (sequestrated?)

"They have no doubt themselves that this was the murdered woman and her murderer. And on the first blush of it the fact is borne out by the police having taken exclusive care of Mr. Joseph Levander, to a certain extent having sequestrated him and having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy. They are paying all his expenses, and one if not two detectives are taking him about."
Evening News, 9 Oct. 1888.

Paying all his expences suggests they put him up in a hotel? or something of that nature. The detectives must be bodyguards?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi Garry,

I've seen two "sick notes" for absent witnesses in Macdonald's records, but I can't imagine that would apply to Schwartz, not with them adjourning multiple times over much of October. Just thought I'd mention it.

Dave

You don't remember the names, Dave?, or are you not talking about the Kelly Inquest?

Regards, Jon S.

[Dave O]

Hi Jon,

No, they're nothing to do with the Kelly inquest (in that case, most of the police statements are numbered in Macdonald's hand so you can see his tentative witness order prior to the inquest).

But here's one of the excuses though, related to a Tottenham inquest October 20 1888 (LMA/MJ/SPC/NE 326 D), just so people can see what one looks like (inquest on Henry Elliott, who tried to murder his brother-in-law and then shot himself to death out in public). But again, I don't think this would have applied to Schwartz.

Dave

[Carotid Capers]

Hi, Cadet, this is most interesting although one detail nags at me. Swanson writes “..the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with great difficulty ...”. Hoxton, as you point out, is 500m from Dorset Street, Hove 50 miles or whatever from London….on the strength of this detail, the Police Home at Hove would seem more likely as the "Home" in question where the ID was purported to have taken place?

[Garry Wroe]

I've seen two "sick notes" for absent witnesses in Macdonald's records, but I can't imagine that would apply to Schwartz, not with them adjourning multiple times over much of October. Just thought I'd mention it.

Agreed, Dave.

[Garry Wroe]

Being sequestered wouldn't prevent him appearing at the inquest though. We do read that Lawende was also sequestered (sequestrated?)

Perhaps I should have presented it as 'sequestered', Jon, as in conveniently out of Baxter's reach whilst the Stride inquest was in progress. Ordinarily I wouldn't countenance such a possibility, but then the Kelly hearing leaves no room for doubting that something very strange was going on in the background.

[Garry Wroe]

I have to admit that this was a gutsy position to take by Gary from the outset...

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that my approach has been ‘gutsy’, Mike. I have long believed that there are two areas of the case with which modern researchers could make real headway, and the so-called double event is one of them. If we accept that Anderson and Swanson related factual (if not entirely accurate) details pertaining to the Kosminski identification, there was only one witness who observed a physical assault being inflicted on a soon to be killed victim. Thus Schwartz must have been the witness whose evidence was sufficient in itself to have secured a conviction. As for the Stride killing, there genuinely isn’t any evidence to connect it to the Ripper series. Not a scrap. The concept of the double event is founded on mere supposition, and unsupported supposition at that.

But let’s see. If I’m wrong, the evidence to disconfirm my hypothesis will be forthcoming. If it isn’t, we really have to start looking at Schwartz and Stride in a new light and re-evaluate our perceptions of the case as a consequence.

[S.Brett]

Carotid Capers!

Hi CC,

Primarily, we can essentially assume that the "Seaside Home", "...was only one of nearly seventy seaside convalescent homes for men, woman, and children, most of which were located on the southern English coastline"(Robert House)

Perhaps the Police Convalescent Seaside Home at Hove (Brighton)
or similarly
Metropolitan Convalescent Institution at Bexhill-on-sea
(To all researchers: It would not surprise me if the Witness Thomas Ede/ William Eade lived there, `in Bexhill,` sometimes)
Morley House Seaside Convalescent Home for Working Men
"... Morley House reserved a certain number of beds for members of the City of London Police Force..." (Robert House)
The latter would be important for "the City PC"

On the other hand, is it really possible that Swanson confused Sadler and the Sailor's Home- Story with the "Kosminski" (and "a Seaside Home", whatever)- Incident? It seems too easy...but it is possible...

I think, "Kosminski" was seen near the crime scene, near the Berner Street that night (shortly before the crime) and not identified by anyone whom we guess. This incident ("was seen near by") could be one of Macnaghten´s "many circs". If "Kosminski" was seen there (near Berner Street) and identified by a witness from another crime scene, then the suspect would have been associated in connection with the Stride-Murderer.

To Hoxton (and Holloway):

Where I live, there is a "Seaside Garden" (a Inn with outdoor area). But there is no sea, just a tiny lake. "Tiny Lake Garden" would sound better than "Seaside Garden".

Somewhere in the USA there was a "pink room" inside a prison (mentioned in a book written by John Douglas). Maybe, the asylum-wards had "names". One of those fancy names was perhaps "Seaside Home", who knows...

Anderson 1895:

"Jack the was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum"

Anerson 1901 (and again 1907):

"...the fiend was on the prowl as they were before the mania seized him, or after he had been safetly caged in an asylum"

Anderson 1904:

"...undoubtedly insane, and was ultimately confined within an asylum"

Anderson 1910:

"I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him, but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him".

and

"…In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact".

Anderson was 69 years old, 9 years in retirement, 22 years after the Whitechapel- Murderer, when his "Maniac" turned to a "Polish Jew" und his "person who had a good view" (also a Jew) identified this Pole (in an asylum). Sounds like: Old enough and far away from 1888... time to tell the whole truth...

Anderson mentioned an asylum again and again. Macnaghten and Swanson did so. Sagar und Cox did so. Und Cox said "Surrey". If the "Seaside Home" was in Surrey, "...where he had been sent by us with great difficulty in order to subject him to identification" (Swanson) it is possible that the suspect was brought from an asylum to another asylum. Of course, Hoxton is not in Surrey. But that Holloway Asylum was in Virgina Water, Surrey. "...but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey" (Cox) and "On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night" (Swanson) could mean, Cox and Sagar talking about the same occurrence. If "Kosminski" was in a simple asylum in London, where the first witness appeared, there could have caused too much trouble and it seems better to take the suspect away from London. "And after this identification which the suspect knew" (London) "with great difficulty" (to Surrey), "and he knew he was identified" (City PC).