A Case of Misattribution?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hunter,

Wynne Baxter was explaining how Stride displayed none the "skilful mutilation" as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and none of the "unskilful injuries" as in the case of Eddowes.

The lack of skill in the Eddowes murder, as opposed to the skill shown in the Nichols and Chapman murders, made it appear to him as "possibly the work of an imitator."

Eddowes could hardly be described as an imitation of Stride.

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

I think a large part of the problem is that we don't know if the refusal to give testimony against a fellow Jew is to be taken literally or if it was simply the impression of the police officials who were present. So we have two possible scenarios:

1. "Yes, that is definitely the man I saw that night. I am absolutely sure of that but I will not state that in a court of law. I will not testify against another Jew."


2. The police officials who were present are talking afterwards over a pint -- "don't tell me he didn't recognize the suspect. The son of bitch simply wouldn't testify against a fellow Jew."

c.d.

[Garry Wroe]

Then you are suggesting not only misattribution but also misidentification.

Kosminski appears to have been a hebephrenic schizophrenic, Roy. On top of this he seems to have been a relatively benign individual not given to violence or aggressive outbursts. All things considered he just doesn’t strike me as having been the kind of man who would have assaulted and then killed Stride using a knife.

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.

Eyewitness identifications are notoriously unreliable, Roy, to the extent that here in the UK they can no longer be used as the sole means of convicting a defendant. Thus I wouldn’t be too surprised if it turned out that Schwartz did misidentify Kosminski.

[Garry Wroe]

... 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.

What I assume lay at the heart of Swanson’s thinking, Fish, relates to a chain of evidence principle that was then applied in English criminal cases when neither direct evidence nor a confession were forthcoming.

Schwartz saw Stride being manhandled at 12:45am just feet from the spot on which her body would be discovered fifteen minutes later. Whilst Dr Blackwell estimated that she had died at some point between 12:46 and 12:56am, both he and Phillips stated that death occurred ‘comparatively slowly’.

Thus the fracas witnessed by Schwartz was clearly thought to have been the onset of an attack that resulted in Stride’s murder. The fact that Blackwell believed Stride could have died as early as 12:46 from a wound that was not instantaneously fatal is indicative that the throat could have been cut even as Schwartz fled the scene. In short, Schwartz was believed to have seen all but the murder itself. Had this not been the case Swanson could never have been confident that the Schwartz sighting alone would have secured a conviction.

[Garry Wroe]

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?

Not exactly, Colin. It is predicated on an assessment of the Ripper’s known crime scene behaviour and the ritualized injuries which featured in all of the definitely attributable killings. Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were each throttled, for example; Stride was not. Each sustained a cut throat that penetrated back to the spinal column; Stride did not. Each was lain on her back; Stride was placed on her left side. Each was left with her legs exposed and splayed wide apart; Stride’s legs were covered and not parted. Each sustained sharp force injuries to her abdomen and genitalia; Stride suffered no such injuries.

On top of this, the drunken, aggressive and abusive behaviour of Broad Shoulders bore no resemblance whatever to the passivity of Eddowes’ Church Passage companion. Indeed, the overtly menacing approach witnessed in Berner Street occurred at none of the other crime scenes.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

Agreed, Simon.

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.

Not to my way of thinking, Simon. Schwartz observed violence being perpetrated on a woman just feet from the spot on which her murdered body was discovered minutes later.

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.

Personally, Simon, I regard the ‘interruption theory’ as yet another red herring. It accords neither with the medical opinion nor the physical evidence. Had Jack the Ripper been interrupted by Diemschutz, Stride would have been found lying on her back with her skirts draped about her waist in preparation for the abdominal mutilation. She wasn’t. Given that her throat wound would not have proved instantaneously fatal, she would also have been alive when Diemschutz happened on the scene. She wasn’t. It is clear, therefore, that the interruption theory has no evidential basis, and was only proposed as an explanation for an absence of abdominal injuries in what was assumed to have been a Ripper event.

[Hunter]

Wynne Baxter was explaining how Stride displayed none the "skillful mutilation" as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and none of the "unskilful injuries" as in the case of Eddowes.

The lack of skill in the Eddowes murder, as opposed to the skill shown in the Nichols and Chapman murders, made it appear to him as "possibly the work of an imitator."

Eddowes could hardly be described as an imitation of Stride.

Baxter was not describing Eddowes' mutilations as an imitation of Stride, of course. He was considering the Eddowes murder as an unskilled imitation of Chapman; thus, in his reasoning, the Eddowes murder not being committed by the same hand who killed Nichols, Chapman, or Stride. In his mind, Stride and Eddowes were killed by different hands while still considering the notion that Stride may have been killed by the same hand that killed Nichols and Chapman.

[Hunter]

Chris, I fully respect your approach to this dilemma, what I am not comfortable with is this, protecting the identity of a witness need not extend to omitting 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.

Here is the relevant section in the 1887 Coroner's Act. The most pertinent part in bold. Baxter would have had every inclination to exercise this discretion in this instance... to prevent any possible flight of the man seen by Schwartz; to protect the witness himself from possible threat and to consider the implications of such testimony on an already tenuous ethnic climate exacerbated by the murders.


Section 3 - part 3:
It is obvious, although the inquiry of the coroner is preliminary only, that it may, and frequently does, lead to accusation. Such an inquiry ought, for the purposes of justice, in some cases, to be conducted in secrecy. It may be requisite that the party suspected should not, in so early a stage, be informed of the suspicion that may be entertained against him, and of the evidence upon which that suspicion is founded, lest he should elude justice by flight, by tampering with the witnesses, or by any other means. Accusation may begin at the moment when tho evidence commences. Cases may also occur, in which privacy may be requisite for the sake of decency; others, in which it may be due to the family of the deceased. Many things may be disclosed to those who are to decide, the publication of which to the world at large would be productive of mischief, without any possibility of good. Even in cases in which absolute privacy may not be required, the exclusion of particular persons may be necessary and proper. Of the necessity of this privacy or exclusion the coroner is the judge. It is a power necessary to the due administration of justice; and it is impossible that the proceedings should be conducted S. 3 (3). with due order and solemnity, and with the effect that justice demands, if the presiding officer have not the control of the proceedings. The coroner is therefore the proper person to exercise discretion as to the degree of publicity to be allowed in inquests held by him.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Garry,

I agree with you completely about what Schwartz observed. Time, place, incident, plus later identification of Stride. A material witness if ever there was one.

But the giant red-herring of the murder-interruptus incident, the Ripper's unsated lustmord and subsequent Eddowes murder—the official version of events—could never have won the day had Schwartz given evidence at the Stride inquest.

You cannot create a scare about a lone Jack the Ripper stalking the streets of the East End if on the same night there just happened to be another unconnected murder just around the corner, which is why Stride was made to look like the work of Jack.

Schwartz's evidence rocked Jack's boat. Small wonder he did not appear at the inquest.

This is why I find it impossible to imagine Schwartz having been the witness at a "Kosminski ID".

One final point.

William Stewart, 1939—

"There is not a shred of evidence to support the belief that Elizabeth Stride was murdered by the Ripper . . . The murder of Stride was a coincidence and, merely because her body was found in a yard, both Press and public jumped to the conclusion that both this murder and that of Eddowes . . . was the work of the Ripper."

What do you think became of the person who actually did murder Elizabeth Stride?

Regards,

Simon

[Garry Wroe]

S.Brett, post #85:-

"the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer" must be LAWENDE, not SCHWARTZ

Highly unlikely, SB. To begin with, Lawende saw very little and remembered even less, as a consequence of which he would have been all but useless as a prosecution witness. Additionally,Swanson not only claimed that Kosminski was positively identified at the Seaside Home, he also asserted a prior interest on the part of City investigators, who went so far as to mount a round the clock surveillance operation on Kosminski.

Despite the fact that Major Smith was desperate to lay hands on the Whitechapel Murderer, he later admitted to having had no clue as to his identity. Yet if City detectives had gone to the extreme of mounting a round the clock undercover surveillance operation on Kosminski, it stands to reason that Major Smith not only knew about it, but would have called upon Lawende to view Kosminski, whether in an overt or covert capacity. Either way, Lawende clearly did not identify Kosminski as the man he had seen with Eddowes. He couldn’t have done, otherwise Kosminski would have been arrested by City investigators in connection with the Mitre Square murder. This being the case he couldn’t have been the witness who unhesitatingly identified Kosminski at the Seaside Home shortly thereafter. But this goes without saying, since nothing about Lawende’s testimony could have resulted in a conviction in its own right.

[Wickerman]

Here is the relevant section in the 1887 Coroner's Act. The most pertinent part in bold.

Thankyou. In cases of privacy then yes I see Sec. 3 pt 3. being applicable.
In this case though, Schwartz's story was already in the public domain.
If Schwartz had been called as a witness, and if there is an implied sequence to observe, he would not have appeared anytime before the 5th Oct., among other witnesses who also saw Stride just minutes before her death.

Apart from the witnesses name (Schwartz) what was there left to protect when his story had been public knowledge for a week?


Alternately, if the reason for Schwartz's story being withheld had been soley so as not to tip the villain off, then what happened to Lawende served the same purpose, without keeping the witness out of the Inquest.
Crawford interrupted the questioning with:
"Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man."

Yet, the press had already given out the description of the man involved in the Berner St. incident along with Schwartz's story.

I appreciate your point Chris, I just think, if this Sec. 3 pt 3. was the reason, it looks more like a case of bolting the gate after the horse has gone.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

I appreciate your point Chris, I just think, if this Sec. 3 pt 3. was the reason, it looks more like a case of bolting the gate after the horse has gone.

Hi Jon

Possibly, having been criticised for his performance at previous inquests, he felt he had to be seen to make some concilliatory gestures or else face unpleasant consequences...Maybe the Lord Chancellor had made this clear to him?

Judicious use of Sec 3 Pt 3 would offer him one such avenue, and his praise of the police investigation another...

Pure supposition of course!

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hello Simon,

Whoever killed Stride must have kept a blinking low profile when he realised he might be fitted up as Jack the Ripper.
In my opinion, given the police reaction after 30th September, given the press reaction and not least the public reaction, I can well see the man going awol from the area.

There is an alternative however. IF, and I do mean IF, the Stride killer was a Jew from the IWMEC, THEN it is possible that this lone killing MAY have been kept hushed up within the IWMEC membership..I do not connect this with Swanson's questionable marginalia claim. I AM happier connecting it with part of Anderson's story about refusal to give up one of their own (especially if the man was an anarchist- Anderson's undercover operations area- Special Branch involvement in the case- National Security aspect)) - with the caveat that Anderson embellishes the whole thing into a Jack the Ripper identification and therefore SRA solves the crimes...
IF this killer was a slash n dash man, was known within club circles, I can see Jewish elders arranging his future for him- and no one knows the wiser until SRA gets a tip off 7 years later. That would explain all the anomelies because SRA wasnt told the whole story.
This scenario would leave Swansons marginalia hanging out to dry as made up on known public knowledge and a scenario put together. Deliberately, perhaps.

As an additional point, for me it is obvious that should there have been a one man double murder that night- knowing where he killed Stride and the furore that would cause amongst the Met Police swamping the area, there is no way on God's Earth he would go BACK into Met Police swamped East End to dump the apron piece! Thats not being the all seeing super cool Jack the Ripper.


Just a few speculative thoughts.

Best wishes

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Phil

Not disagreeing entirely with you, but I don't think the Jewish elders (in the traditional sense of the word) would have approved of the IWMEC or it's activities, (although I suppose they might've exerted some influence for the greater good of the Jewish community)...

I can't see the general IWMEC membership being fully complicit either...the more who know, the less chance of secrecy...a small caucus maybe...

All the best

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

Quite- so that leaves the group within the group- the troublemaking anarchists known to frequent the place (see addition to text)

best wishes

Phil