A Case of Misattribution?

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi Garry
I enjoyed your theory-it was very interesting. However.

"Thus Schwartz must have been the witness whose evidence was sufficient in itself to have secured a conviction. "

The caveat with this is that if Anderson (and swanson) can misremember the IDs outcome to being so positive, they could easily misremember Lawendes sighing as also being so positive.

[Garry Wroe]

The caveat with this is that if Anderson (and swanson) can misremember the IDs outcome to being so positive …

I’m not sure that I follow you, Abby. Whereas Anderson stated that the witness identified the suspect ‘unhesitatingly’ the moment he was presented with him, Swanson confirmed the identification and further stated that it took place at the Seaside Home. There was absolute consistency between the two men in this context.

… they could easily misremember Lawendes sighing as also being so positive.

The witness wasn’t named, Abby. Swanson stated that the witness’s evidence would ‘convict the suspect’, and confirmed his intended meaning beyond any shadow of doubt when declaring that he ‘would be the means of the murderer being hanged’.

We know that the witness was male, Jewish, had no prior knowledge that the suspect was a fellow Jew, and that, according to Anderson, he was the ‘only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’. From this we can be certain that the witness was either Lawende or Schwartz. Swanson, however, provided critical additional information when asserting that the witness’s evidence alone would have been sufficient to have secured a murder conviction. This could mean only one thing: the witness had seen an actual attack taking place. No other sighting would have been sufficient in itself to have secured a conviction. Thus the witness must have been Schwartz. It could have been no-one else.

[Roy Corduroy]

Mis-Identification

... So Schwartz was Anderson’s mystery witness, and Kosminski was the man identified as Liz Stride’s attacker and thus Jack the Ripper. ...

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.

even in the event that he did kill Stride –a proposition which to my mind is extremely doubtful

Then you are suggesting not only misattribution but also misidentification.

In which case, if Israel Schwartz mistakenly identified the 23 year old Aaron Kosminski as the man he saw attack Elizabeth Stride, then perhaps the man he really saw was 19 year old Joseph Lis (Silver), cadet criminal who was in England until 1889. As proposed by Charles Van Onselen.

So Garry, for me anyway your suggestion has a silver lining.

Roy

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"we really have to start looking at Schwartz and Stride in a new light"

I cut that quote a bit short, admittedly, but I like it all the same. New light is always useful.

... but on the Schwartz matter: how would Swanson convict BS man/Kosminsky on what Schwartz claimed to have seen? It only amounts to a very minor case of battering! And Swanson takes great care to point out that there was time aplenty after the incident for other men to step in. It is often suggested on the boards that Pipeman took over where BS man left of - how would Swanson rule that - and any other scenario with BS man way up Ellen Street when Stride died - out, and convict Kosminsky?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Garry,

Joseph Lawende being the witness at the "Kosminski ID"—a witness whose evidence "would be the means of the murderer being hanged"—makes little sense. All he saw was a man he doubted he would know again standing with a woman whose clothes were all he could later identify.

Not much there to bother the hangman.

Israel Schwartz being the witness at the "Kosminski ID"—a witness whose evidence "would be the means of the murderer being hanged"—makes even less sense. The idea of him being able to uniquely identify the Ripper violates the murder-interruptus timing of the double-event [a scenario endorsed by the Saucy Jacky postcard] which, to retain any semblance of credibility, necessitated Schwartz not being called to give evidence at the Stride inquest.

Schwartz upsets the status quo.

The focus of our attention should be Anderson, Macnaghten and the frankly questionable "Swanson" endpaper notation.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

The concept of the double event is founded on mere supposition, and unsupported supposition at that.

Is not the concept of two single killers committing separate murders within an hour of each other, and a half-mile of each other, also founded on supposition?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Wickerman]

... And the coroner had a wide discretion in presenting evidence (very useful it was that the coroner couldn't be guilty of libel while holding an inquest--that's how wide the discretion was).

Hi Dave.
This issue of the Coroner's discretion raises another point of interest.
(Bearing in mind the 19th century system)

In various debates on Casebook the suggestion is made that "X" was never called as a witness so the police must have not thought the story worthy, etc. etc.

The Coroner can only really exercise his discretion over what to hear if he has read all the witness statements in possession of the police.
If, the police are deciding what is relevant and what is not then this limits the Coroner's powers of discretion.

The police are experienced enough to know in advance what the Coroner needs to select from, so yes, some completely irrelevant statements will be held back, but the selection of 'who to summons' from the broadly relevant statements must lay with the Coroner's office, not the police?

If that is the case, the decision to omit anyone was the Coroner's?

Does that sound correct?

Regards, Jon S.
Incidently, many thanks for the 'sick note' example.

[Dave O]

Hi Jon,

Right, that would be the coroner's call. The coroner's a magistrate of sudden death, with the powers of a magistrate. At the inquest, he's in charge. His job was to allow the jury access to evidence, and advise them upon points of law. He'd be the one deciding what was relevant and what wasn't, and so he would be the one to decide which witnesses would appear at the inquest (but also keep in mind that evidence at an inquest is for the jury's benefit, and jurors could also ask for witnesses, and the coroner had to be careful not to inhibit the jury on relevant evidence). And the coroner acted independently, meaning that in investigating a sudden death, he really could not be interfered with. Many people worried about the strength of the office.

However, while independent, the coroner would at the same time also be dependent upon the cooperation of not just the police and other organizations, but the community at large. If he didn't get it, he could compel it. That's because in the usual course of holding inquests into all sorts of manner of deaths, in any given parish the coroner's people wouldn't have numbered many people--you'd have the coroner, a single officer, a deputy coroner might be involved, and perhaps a clerk. Often, the workload would be 3, 4, 5, 7, even 10 inquests in a day, so you can see why the coroner would require assistance, because without it, they'd get very little done. So information about a death could come to the coroner via any means at all--through the police, through hospitals, private individuals, etc, and this would be encouraged. If you were a witness yourself, you had a duty to come forward rather than wait to be found, and whether or not you were heard at the inquest would be at the coroner's discretion.

So in a murder investigation, cooperation of the police as an interested party would be essential to any inquest, since besides providing legwork and manpower, they would also be a very important conduit of information--not the only one, but they'd be supplying most of it. I'm not privy to actual dialogues between coroners and police inspectors, but as an interested party, I'm sure an inspector would share opinions about witnesses with the coroner, and likely that opinion would carry weight.

What they couldn't do is tell the coroner, "we have this witnesses, but you can't call him or her." They didn't have that power to direct a coroner. And I'm pretty sure that it would be illegal for them to withhold a relevant witness from the coroner. I think it's more realistic to suppose that what they might do is appeal to the coroner's discretion. He might make a call, or, if he was wise and the information was actually relevant, and not wanting to be guilty of misconduct himself, he might in turn pass it over to the jury's discretion. For sure there's a risk there, because a coroner could never guarantee in advance what a jury might do. Apparently though, Schwartz doesn't make in front of a jury, and I think all we're left starting at is Baxter's discretion at work, and we don't know his reasoning.

Hope that's not too long-winded and that it helps. And you're welcome for the photograph

Best,
Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave O,

Schwartz giving evidence at the Stride inquest would have completely screwed the double-event scenario.

It really is that simple.

Regards,

Simon

[S.Brett]

For example:

A witness seeing Stride with a man that night combined with a PC from Mitre Square could result in “a man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by two witnesses near two different crime scenes”. Maybe it does not matter whether he was seen with or without a woman.

What if, the police found a (Jewish) witness in Goulston Street who saw a man with a bloodstained shirt? A suspect without a victim. What if, this Jewish witness could identify the “Bloodstained Shirt -Suspect”, without hesitation? What if, the witnesses from/near Berner Street and Mitre Square saw this suspect on the night of the DoubleEvent?

"would be the means of the murderer being hanged"???

Take note of House-house-searches and the Batty Street Lodger Stories (October 1888)!!!

“No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer” (Macnaghten)
But:
“This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square”
“the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer” (Anderson)- Schwartz???
"Probably the only trustworthy description of the assassin", having seen him with a woman at the corner of the passage leading from Duke Street to Mitre Square on the night of Eddowes's murder"
(The Case Sadler/Coles) - Lawende
“one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer with a woman” (The Case Grant/ Graham)- Lawende

"the only trustworthy description of the assassin" and "one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer" must be LAWENDE
Anderson´s:
"the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer" must be LAWENDE, not SCHWARTZ

BUT:

Lawende:
"seen him with a woman" and "seen the Whitechapel murderer with a woman"

Anderson about his murderer: Seen without woman/victim!!!??? just "a good view of the murderer" ??? Lawende and Schwartz saw a suspect with a victim.

[Hunter]

Hi Dave O,

Schwartz giving evidence at the Stride inquest would have completely screwed the double-event scenario.

It really is that simple.

With all due respect... it is not.

As Dave pointed out, witnesses appeared at the coroner's discretion, or in certain circumstances, at the request of the jury. In Baxter's summary, he intimates that he believed the two murders to not be connected. Up until the Stride inquest, Baxter did not have an amicable relationship with the police and even went so far as to insult their methods of investigation during his summary at the Chapman inquest.

All of this assumption by some that the police and/or the coroner thwarted their own investigation into the Stride murder because of a predetermination of a single killer or an interruption theory is unfounded. Both the police and the coroner had standard procedures that were followed in each instance, and each case was investigated separately throughout... compiling the antecedents of the victims, interrogating and examining people in and around the murder scene, investigating people known to the victim and compiling witnesses. That the results of such investigations left the police without any discernible clues only emphasizes the unique nature of her murder in the aftermath of methods of detection for the usual motive, not a fallibility born of presumption.

Baxter used his own discretion in dealing with the testimony of Israel Schwartz and his reasoning was a logical and sensible one. There is a provision in the 1887 Coroner's Act for him to do so in certain circumstances and the situation with Schwartz qualified as one. Baxter's demeanor was totally different at the Stride inquest than it had been at the previous ones... and for good reason. For the first time, he actually commended Inspector Reid & Co. for their efforts in this case... something he had never done before. He had been severely chastised from all quarters for his conduct at the previous inquest and was well aware of his diminished credibility. He backed off and let the police do their job and protect the anonymity of a possibly critical witness.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hunter,

Wynne Baxter was a double-eventer.

" . . . At 1 o'clock the body was found by the manager of the club . . . If he 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 . . .

" . . . there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre Square—possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful . . ."

The intimation was that Eddowes' murder may not have been connected with those of Nichols and Chapman.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Hope that's not too long-winded and that it helps. And you're welcome for the photograph

Best,
Dave

As always, "time well spent" reading your posts, thankyou very much Dave.

Regards, Jon S.

[Hunter]

Hi Simon,

The intimation by Baxter was that the two murders on the same night were not connected; the Mitre Square murder being "possibly the work of an imitator."

He was stuck with his 'Burke and Hare' theory on Nichols and Chapman and considered the mutilations on Eddowes to be 'unskilful' as compared to those perpetrated at 29 Hanbury St.

Wynne Baxter was no 'double eventer.' As far as the medical evidence was concerned, he was incorrect on both counts, but he had dug himself a hole and he was trying to extricate himself from it.

[Wickerman]

Baxter used his own discretion in dealing with the testimony of Israel Schwartz and his reasoning was a logical and sensible one. There is a provision in the 1887 Coroner's Act for him to do so in certain circumstances and the situation with Schwartz qualified as one. ........
He backed off and let the police do their job and protect the anonymity of a possibly critical witness.

Chris, I fully respect your approach to this dilemma, what I am not confortable with is this, protecting the identity of a witness need not extend to omiting his/her entire testimony from the process.

The same ends would also served if the witness was simply not named, but the "story" is still given out (read out?) with a view to assisting the Inquiry.

Afterall, according to Schwartz, his testimony bore directly on; place of death & time of death. So his story without his specific identity was required.

Regards, Jon S.