Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Fisherman]

Fleetwood Mac:

" in order to believe Lawende to be the witness, then you have to believe that his evidence was make or break."

Lawende saw a man standing together with a woman who COULD have been Eddowes. Full stop.

How could anybody swing for that?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fleetwood Mac:

" I think we can safely say that the witness and suspect were acquaintances at the very best, as one didn't know the other was Jewish."

And I think that we can safely say that they were aquaintances at the very least, if the identification was to rest on a two and a half year old observation of questionable quality.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fleetwood Mac:

"clearly, Swanson's man was capable of rationality and self-control.
The suspect could quite easily have been Aaron Kosminski, and the witness could quite easily have been Lawende or Schwartz."

Aaron Kosminski of 1891...? The man who ate out of the gutter, the compulsive masturbator who heard voices? Rational and self-controlled? Who was incarcerated due to this? Swanson would regard him as a fully responsible man?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Lawende saw a man standing together with a woman who COULD have been Eddowes. Full stop.

How could anybody swing for that?

I don't think they could Fisherman. If that is truly all that Lawende saw, I don't see how he could have been the witness. Perhaps Schwartz?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I don't think they could Fisherman. If that is truly all that Lawende saw, I don't see how he could have been the witness. Perhaps Schwartz?"

Then theyīd be hanging a man for pushing a woman. Sounds like a first to me, Sally. I think both men are unviable from the hangmanīs perspective, to be honest.
And remember that Swanson clearly said that Schwartīs sighting offered place for a second violent man - the Ripper - at a time closer to 1.00. Swanson does not seem to be very hot on BS man being the Ripper, thus. So why hang him - if the miniscule Kosminski WAS this broadshouldered man from the outset...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood Mac:

" in order to believe Lawende to be the witness, then you have to believe that his evidence was make or break."

Lawende saw a man standing together with a woman who COULD have been Eddowes. Full stop.

How could anybody swing for that?

The best,
Fisherman

Because it depends upon what else they had.

For all we know they could have had evidence from the family. All they needed then was someone to place him at the scene of one of the crimes minutes before a murder. The final piece in the jigsaw.

The problem with this is that in the event the family had supplied the police with damning information then it should have been enough to have him shipped off to Broadmoor - regardless of the ID.

I think that you and I are ably demonstrating that all of this is guesswork, but we do know beyond doubt that two senior policeman claimed that there was a successful ID of a man named Kosminski and they believed this man was the murderer.

Oh, and Lawende: he saw them minutes before she was murdered, at the scene of the crime, and he identfied her (clothes or otherwise). Still enough room for me to doubt that Lawende was the witness, but I think your comment above down plays the significance of Lawende's sighting.

[Phil H]

theyīd be hanging a man for pushing a woman. Sounds like a first to me, Sally. I think both men are unviable from the hangmanīs perspective, to be honest.

So should we not be asking: "Did the police have a witness that is not identified by name in the files?"

To me I glimpse a huge circumstantial gap in our information today, and in what we know of how the police acted then, that might accomodate such a witness.

Phil H

[Hunter]

Yes, I subscribe to that theory too: that Anderson and/or Swanson is misremembering the Sadler failed identification of 1891.

I disagree. Swanson was specific about this identification and how the witness and suspect reacted, which would have been an entirely different result with Sadler. And the special "difficulty" involved in getting the suspect to the ID location that Swanson remembered makes it also unlikely that he mis-remembered that location.

In this theory Swanson had known about 'Kosminski' for as long as Anderson -- and agreed that this was the murderer -- but did not know that he had been positively identified by a Jewish witness until the memoir of 1910. Anderson clarified by explaining that the suspect had been transported to a seaside location outside of London by police of a different jurisdiction. This was all a generation before, eg. a long time ago, and so Swanson accepted it and made a private notation -- for which he would never be held accountable.

I am not aware that Anderson stated that the suspect had been transported "outside of London by police of a different jurisdiction," but Swanson clearly writes that the suspect was "sent by us."

If this ID did take place in some form, it would have been orchestrated by Swanson, not Anderson. Swanson was in operational charge of this case, as he had conducted ID procedures on other cases as well. Unlike Anderson or Macnaghten, Swanson was an operational officer. This would have been his job and is probably why he wrote so prolifically about this event in Anderson's book, because he remembered it, not just was told about it.

[Lechmere]

With respect to people's memory and how it fades over time - I would suggest there is a direct relation to how closely they were connected to the events they remember. If they 'remember' hearsay, it is likely to be less firmly planted in their mind than direct experience. I think Anderson and Swanson were going in hearsay that they subsequently misremembered... and hence garbled.

Hence their garbled memories are not deliberate deception - merely wish fullfillment and poor memory not refreshed by access to files.

On the ID being enough to hang the culprit, thus has to be nonsense as the culprit would have to be caught in the act - not just nearby or even with the victim at some time before.
Did anyone see a murder take place? Is there a missing report that might suggest there was? I very much doubt it.
Nothing the family could have said to the police (and there is zero reason to suppose they said anything) would alter the lack of any evidence to hang anyone on an ID based on being near a murder scene. That tells us that the 'hanging' statement is rubbish.

Lastly, relatively newly arrived Jews tended to look like Eastern European Jews. They looked very different from the gentile population. They stood out a mile off. That is no doubt how the suspect would have been identified as a Jew. That makes it all the more 'suspect' that the alleged witness didn't know until the ID that the suspect was a Jew.
This is another reason to doubt that the Seaside Home business happened as said and was in fact a garbled version of the Sadler ID.

[Fisherman]

Fleetwod Mac:

"For all we know they could have had evidence from the family. All they needed then was someone to place him at the scene of one of the crimes minutes before a murder. "

But they couldnīt, cold they? At least not courtesy of Lawende or Schwartz, reasonably. And how would the "family evidence" look, to call for a placing at the scene to complete the hangmanīs wishlist?
Eityher the family evidence was conclusive, in which case nothing more needed to be asked for, or it would NOT be conclusive - in which case, why and how would putting him at the spot(s) help the case? Sounds pretty weak to me - and Lawende or Schwartz would not be of much help, given the time elapsed.

"The problem with this is that in the event the family had supplied the police with damning information then it should have been enough to have him shipped off to Broadmoor - regardless of the ID."

Exactly!

"I think that you and I are ably demonstrating that all of this is guesswork, but we do know beyond doubt that two senior policeman claimed that there was a successful ID of a man named Kosminski and they believed this man was the murderer."

A man CALLED Kosminski, to begin with! And we donīt know who this man was - but we DO know that Aaron K makes for a poor suggestion in many a way. Also, whether Swanson believed the suspect was the killer or not can be questioned - he only tells us that the man in question was a suspect. Anderson says that the killer was incarcerated, but getīs much wrong - and that goes for many more things than the Ripper case.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

"So should we not be asking: "Did the police have a witness that is not identified by name in the files?"

Yes, we should. And not as per "they may have had another witness", but instead "for this to work, they would have had another witness".

And still, even if they DID - as denied by MacNaghten, for example - we also need to have a suspect that qualifies as a man fit to stand trial, and a man that could answer for himself, clearly and unambiguously bringing the message across that he accepted that he had been ID:d by that witness.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

I'm not sure that I entirely follow your logic, Fisherman.

And not as per "they may have had another witness", but instead "for this to work, they would have had another witness".

That goes too far for me at this stage, and would be unsafe reasoning. The statement is too definite to be sustained by what we know.

I am trying to think through the possibilies, but yet recognise that we have to stay grounded. I can INFER there may have been another witness, and that he came forward late; I do not KNOW that there was.

And still, even if they DID - as denied by MacNaghten, for example

Does MM DENY a witness - he refers to a CITY PC who saw someone near Mitre Square, does he not? That is usually dismissed, but what if he were exactly right? We KNOW the City police kept watch on a house in the Met area; we know of Sagar's suspect....

- we also need to have a suspect that qualifies as a man fit to stand trial, and a man that could answer for himself, clearly and unambiguously bringing the message across that he accepted that he had been ID:d by that witness.

Well, if I'd been Anderson or DSS, I might have accepted confirmation that the man sent to Brighton was the man seen near Mitre Square (or elsewhere).

Phil H

[Phil H]

Lechmere

I find you very ready to rule out as impossible or declare as "rubbish" things we do not fully understand. Is that not somewhat lacking in objectivity?

Phil H

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

"The statement is too definite to be sustained by what we know."

Fair enough, Phil - but that is what I make of it. I donīt see either Lawende or Schwartz as men who would pick Kosminski (or whoever it was) in the blink of an eye. Neither man saw their "suspect" very well, and much time had passed.

"I can INFER there may have been another witness, and that he came forward late; I do not KNOW that there was."

Nor do I - but I know that by any standards, the ID would have been an extremely questionable one if made by Lawende or Schwartz.

"Does MM DENY a witness"

No. And that was not what I said. I was pointing to Mac saying that no man ever got a good look at the Ripper, not that no witness at all existed.

"if I'd been Anderson or DSS, I might have accepted confirmation that the man sent to Brighton was the man seen near Mitre Square (or elsewhere)."

That would have wholly depended on what was said about the suspect, of course. And we donīt know that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

Anyone here seen the movie Harry and the Hendersons? You know that scene towards the end when they are driving to the forest to let Harry go, and traffic is at a dead stop, so Harry sticks his head out the window and starts wailing like a police siren?

That's how I totally picture the carriage ride with Kosminski to the Seaside Home.