Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[Elamarna]

Well, Anderson's attitude was indeed prejudiced, which is why he was criticised after publication of his memoirs.

The question I would ask is: if his identification of the suspect was not also based on prejudice, then why is it that the alleged witness cannot be identified?

The witness cannot have been Schwarz or Lawende - and there are not any other candidates.

The story of the witness is part and parcel of Anderson's prejudiced approach to the case.

According to Anderson, just as according to the newspaper editor with his remark about gentile justice, the Jewish witness - if he ever existed - refused to help bring a fellow Jew to justice.

Why would this alleged witness have come forward in the first place, if he were not prepared to help the police?

Is it actually believable that the whole case against Kosminski depended on eyewitness evidence, as alleged by Anderson and Swanson?

That would mean that there was nothing against Kosminski that could convince a court that he had committed the murders, other than the say-so of a witness that he had actually seen him around the time of one of the murders - presumably eating from the gutter.

I remember reading Paul Begg's first book soon after it was published and his remark that he was surprised that Anderson's Polish Jew accusation had not been taken more seriously.

I am surprised that it is still being taken seriously at all.

We will disagree as to why he was critised for a start.

Churchill is giving a warning shot, Anderson knew far too much about events in Ireland.
By critising in the house, Churchill exercise parliamentary privilege, he could say anything liked with no legal comeback.

Why would you assume the witness would be identified by Anderson or Swanson?
Or do you mean identified today?

As for your statement the witness COULD NOT BE Schwartz or Lawende that's just your opinion PI1, no more no less.

The witness mat not have initially realised the suspect was Jewish.



Are you aware that Messirah was very actively practiced amongst new arrivals from the east.
And of course the editor of the largely anglised Jewish chronicle was going to deny such existed. The issues between The old established Jewish community and the new comers was large.

The witness saw him eating out of the gutter?

Seriously that's pure ..... well I dont to be rude.

The witness got a view of the killer, and the identification would have lead to conviction, that what is said.

Such would mean that he saw something that would leave no doubt probably an attack on a victim.

I assume you have not listen to the podcast from last year's Casebook online conference?

One further point, you are attempting to extrapolate the comments by Jacob Cohen from 1891 back to 1888, that's really not realistic..

While I said based mainly on the ID, there was I suggest other less conclusive evidence.

It seems that you still do not understand the theories, or are aware of new research. This is why earlier I said one needs to read the arguments in New books.

[Pontius2000]

As I pointed out previously, overt anti-Semitism was rife during the period in which the Whitechapel Murders took place and that was something the police had to deal with.

That is a recorded fact.

The accusation made at the time that the murderer was a Jew was not based on evidence but on prejudice.

Anderson expressed that prejudice and was heavily criticised for it by both the City of London Police Commissioner and Inspector Reid.

Anderson was not the only one to make the accusation that the murderer was protected by fellow Jews: a newspaper editorial alleged that the Jews of the East End would not hand over one of their number to 'gentile justice'.

The murderer himself tried to exploit the anti-Semitism by writing an accusation against them.

A senior Home Office official by the name of Godfrey Lushington recorded that he was convinced that the man who assailed Stride 1/4 of an hour before she was murdered was Jewish even though he had shouted an anti-Semitic insult.

Now we come to inspector Abberline.

He rejected what Lushington wrote and instead recorded that he believed that the anti-Semitic slur was directed at Schwarz, the witness, because of his 'Jewish appearance'.

The Jewish butcher theory was revived by Robin Oddell in the mid 1960s.

Old habits die hard!

When confronted with incontrovertible evidence that the kind of knives used by Jewish slaughter men could not have caused the injuries caused by the Whitechapel murderer, Odell admitted it was so and then remarked, 'but I still think a Jewish slaughter man committed the murders'!

I cannot remember who was in charge of the investigation at the time - whether it was Reid or Abberline - but the police did investigate whether such a theory was tenable and came to the conclusion, 77 years before Odell wrote his book, that it was not.

I have not seen any evidence that Abberline shared Anderson's prejudices.

no one has denied that anti-semitism existed in the 19th century just as it does now (see Kanye West for further proof). The problem is that you seem to be suggesting that the existence of anti-semitism exempts any Jew from being the killer or even the suspect. And that Anderson’s/Swanson’s suggestion that a witness wouldn’t give a positive identification because the suspect was a fellow Jew is based only on anti-semitism. That is absurd. Not sure where you’re from or your circumstances, but as an American police officer of 21+ years now, I’ve seen this exact scenario play out more times than I can even remember.

Anderson himself stated that he was not saying JtR killed because he was Jewish, but that it was simply a matter of fact that the killer was Jewish. For some reason, you and other people who study this case, have turned Anderson himself into a villain and can’t accept this simple explanation at face value.

but no matter how you feel about it, and despite the fact that we will likely never definitively know the identity of JtR, there are certain facts that cannot be denied….

(1) soon after the murder of Mary Kelly, police got “hot on the trail” of certain suspects, at least 1-3 if not more. At least one of these suspects, probably at least two, and possibly more, happened to be Jewish. It would go almost without saying that one of these suspects was Kosminski because he was specifically named by two high ranking police officials.
(2) after police got hot on trail of suspect/suspects, the blitz style murder and disembowellments of east end prostitutes abruptly ended.
(3) the following year, the final entry into Scotland Yard’s Whitechapel Murder file was made, suggesting that, for all intents and purposes, the police considered the case closed.

so you can go on saying that the case against Kosminski was a fairy tale based only on anti-semitism until you’re blue in the face. But unless you can refute those facts, I’ll give Anderson and Swanson’s opinion more value than I give yours.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Presumably, the witness didn't know the suspect was a Jew until the identification?

What would have been different about his appearance at the seaside home from his appearance in the East End?

Inspector Abberline recorded his opinion that the man who assaulted Stride shouted an anti-Jewish insult at the witness Schwarz because of Schwarz's Jewish appearance.

We know from a newspaper report that Kosminski was religious.

That suggests that he was recognisably Jewish.

What would happen at the seaside home to make him look more Jewish?

[Harry D]

Why would this alleged witness have come forward in the first place, if he were not prepared to help the police?

Presumably, the witness didn't know the suspect was a Jew until the identification?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is nothing overtly Anti Semitic about that identification. We have a suspect, and a witness. That they are apparently both Jewish does not make the procedure or the conclusion Anti Semitic.


Abberline and Reid ran the case on the ground in Whitechapel yes, but they reported up to Swanson, who stayed with the case the whole time , from Nichols til after Coles.
He also coordinated on a daily basis with senior officers in the City Police.
He undoubtedly knew more about the case than anyone.

Steve

Well, Anderson's attitude was indeed prejudiced, which is why he was criticised after publication of his memoirs.

The question I would ask is: if his identification of the suspect was not also based on prejudice, then why is it that the alleged witness cannot be identified?

The witness cannot have been Schwarz or Lawende - and there are not any other candidates.

The story of the witness is part and parcel of Anderson's prejudiced approach to the case.

According to Anderson, just as according to the newspaper editor with his remark about gentile justice, the Jewish witness - if he ever existed - refused to help bring a fellow Jew to justice.

Why would this alleged witness have come forward in the first place, if he were not prepared to help the police?

Is it actually believable that the whole case against Kosminski depended on eyewitness evidence, as alleged by Anderson and Swanson?

That would mean that there was nothing against Kosminski that could convince a court that he had committed the murders, other than the say-so of a witness that he had actually seen him around the time of one of the murders - presumably eating from the gutter.

I remember reading Paul Begg's first book soon after it was published and his remark that he was surprised that Anderson's Polish Jew accusation had not been taken more seriously.

I am surprised that it is still being taken seriously at all.

[Elamarna]

Are you referring to Paul's evidence about 3:45?
I think we can agree he arrived at about 3.40 or earlier.

I would say from her evidence, the murder could have taken place at something like 3.32, or about five minutes before Lechmere arrived on the scene, with the murderer having very recently disappeared into the darkness.

I did read that she made a statement, but as you say it seems she wasn't at the inquest.
I don't think there is anything in her statement that is obviously open to challenge.

When the newspapers asked how it was possible for the murder to have occurred without anyone hearing anything, it seems they were mistaken.

No I am talking about lilley.

The train should have passed at around 3.30, but it may have been a couple of minutes out, and her statement is not really pricise.

As for the time, I really don't like absolute times, they are meaningless in my view. We can talk of ranges of 2-3 minutes either way.
Trying to set events to the minute GMT is I suggest impossible. However, relative timings, how long after event x did event y happen, are usefully, but still not pricise.

[Elamarna]

As I pointed out previously, overt anti-Semitism was rife during the period in which the Whitechapel Murders took place and that was something the police had to deal with.

That is a recorded fact.

The accusation made at the time that the murderer was a Jew was not based on evidence but on prejudice.

Anderson expressed that prejudice and was heavily criticised for it by both the City of London Police Commissioner and Inspector Reid.

Anderson was not the only one to make the accusation that the murderer was protected by fellow Jews: a newspaper editorial alleged that the Jews of the East End would not hand over one of their number to 'gentile justice'.

The murderer himself tried to exploit the anti-Semitism by writing an accusation against them.

A senior Home Office official by the name of Godfrey Lushington recorded that he was convinced that the man who assailed Stride 1/4 of an hour before she was murdered was Jewish even though he had shouted an anti-Semitic insult.

Now we come to inspector Abberline.

He rejected what Lushington wrote and instead recorded that he believed that the anti-Semitic slur was directed at Schwarz, the witness, because of his 'Jewish appearance'.

The Jewish butcher theory was revived by Robin Oddell in the mid 1960s.

Old habits die hard!

When confronted with incontrovertible evidence that the kind of knives used by Jewish slaughter men could not have caused the injuries caused by the Whitechapel murderer, Odell admitted it was so and then remarked, 'but I still think a Jewish slaughter man committed the murders'!

I cannot remember who was in charge of the investigation at the time - whether it was Reid or Abberline - but the police did investigate whether such a theory was tenable and came to the conclusion, 77 years before Odell wrote his book, that it was not.

I have not seen any evidence that Abberline shared Anderson's prejudices.

The question of if Anderson's suspect was based on Anti Semitism is far more complicated I suggest than you feel.

Anderson's view is so far as we know based mainly, on the claimed ID.
You are of course open to reject that ID, but in the end such objections are opinions.

There is nothing overtly Anti Semitic about that identification. We have a suspect, and a witness. That they are apparently both Jewish does not make the procedure or the conclusion Anti Semitic.

Yes Anti Semitism was rife as you say, but there was also alot of issues between the older established Jewish community, often from Western Europe and the newer arrivals from Eastern Europe. I assume you have read Fishman's East End 1888, if not you should. It gives a very clear view of the anti Semitic feelings at the time.


Abberline and Reid ran the case on the ground in Whitechapel yes, but they reported up to Swanson, who stayed with the case the whole time , from Nichols til after Coles.
He also coordinated on a daily basis with senior officers in the City Police.
He undoubtedly knew more about the case than anyone.

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I suspect, it was nearer to 3.35 than 3.45, but again that's just my view.

Are you referring to Paul's evidence about 3:45?
I think we can agree he arrived at about 3.40 or earlier.

I would say from her evidence, the murder could have taken place at something like 3.32, or about five minutes before Lechmere arrived on the scene, with the murderer having very recently disappeared into the darkness.

I did read that she made a statement, but as you say it seems she wasn't at the inquest.
I don't think there is anything in her statement that is obviously open to challenge.

When the newspapers asked how it was possible for the murder to have occurred without anyone hearing anything, it seems they were mistaken.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The point is this….you have two young men coming from Poland, “low class” and living in the East end, one named Kosminski and one Klosowski. They would not have been differentiated as different classes of people by London gentiles like Anderson and Abberline. To suggest Anderson’s opinion of a Polish Jew suspect was based on anti-semitism but Abberline’s opinion of Chapman was ok because he technically not Jewish is a totally ridiculous argument. Both Kosminski and Chapman would have been viewed as low class foreigners. Abberline indeed did not elaborate that he felt definitively that Chapman WAS JtR. He did however say that Chapman was a likely suspect. And with what the police knew of serial killers in the Victorian era, Chapman absolutely would have been a likely suspect.

As I pointed out previously, overt anti-Semitism was rife during the period in which the Whitechapel Murders took place and that was something the police had to deal with.

That is a recorded fact.

The accusation made at the time that the murderer was a Jew was not based on evidence but on prejudice.

Anderson expressed that prejudice and was heavily criticised for it by both the City of London Police Commissioner and Inspector Reid.

Anderson was not the only one to make the accusation that the murderer was protected by fellow Jews: a newspaper editorial alleged that the Jews of the East End would not hand over one of their number to 'gentile justice'.

The murderer himself tried to exploit the anti-Semitism by writing an accusation against them.

A senior Home Office official by the name of Godfrey Lushington recorded that he was convinced that the man who assailed Stride 1/4 of an hour before she was murdered was Jewish even though he had shouted an anti-Semitic insult.

Now we come to inspector Abberline.

He rejected what Lushington wrote and instead recorded that he believed that the anti-Semitic slur was directed at Schwarz, the witness, because of his 'Jewish appearance'.

The Jewish butcher theory was revived by Robin Oddell in the mid 1960s.

Old habits die hard!

When confronted with incontrovertible evidence that the kind of knives used by Jewish slaughter men could not have caused the injuries caused by the Whitechapel murderer, Odell admitted it was so and then remarked, 'but I still think a Jewish slaughter man committed the murders'!

I cannot remember who was in charge of the investigation at the time - whether it was Reid or Abberline - but the police did investigate whether such a theory was tenable and came to the conclusion, 77 years before Odell wrote his book, that it was not.

I have not seen any evidence that Abberline shared Anderson's prejudices.

[Elamarna]

Thanks for your reply.

'while I don't think Lechmere did it, I see no issue with him taking organs to his place of work, probably easy to dispose of them if he wanted.'


My response to that is that from everything we know about serial killers taking trophies from their victims, is it believable that he would dispose of them so soon?

If he did so, what would have been the point of taking them?

He obviously wanted to look at them afterwards, at his leisure.

What is the point of taking them somewhere where he isn't going to be able to do that - and instead discarding them?


I am familiar with the Brady Street entrance, as I walked down Durward Street before it was rebuilt and when there was a sign 'Essex Wharf' which, if it was in
the same location as the original Essex Wharf, was just about opposite the murder site.

I agree with you about that being an unlikely entrance for her.

I suppose you deal with Harriet Lilley's statement in your book?

On your first point, how different serial killers behave is based Obviuosly only on those caught.
I suggest, that maybe different killers take trophies for different reasons.
Yes I said he could easily dispose of, but he could equally have kept on his person.
Once removed from the body, they really wouldn't "bleed" that much. If wrapped I doubt they would be noticed.

And do we know if Lechmere had what would amount to a locker at Pickfords?
I don't think we do.
I am very much into looking at all possibilities.

Yes that's where Essex wharf was.
And yes I do mention Harriet lilley .
Its a shame she wasn't called to the inquest.
Baxter would either have exposed her or she would have stood up to scrutiny.
One issue with her statement is while we know what time the train was due to pass, we don't have records to show what time it did.
I suspect, it was nearer to 3.35 than 3.45, but again that's just my view.
Do I think she heard the attack?
Very possibly.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Ok PI1,
first point here, while I don't think Lechmere did it, I see no issue with him taking organs to his place of work, probably easy to dispose of them if he wanted.



If only it was that easy to say which direction Polly entered Bucks Row from.

She probably entered from the west, that's the most obvious, but she could have walked along to Brady then walked up into Bucks Row. Its the most unlikely option, but we can't rule it out completely.

Lech obviously comes from the East.

So it's highly unlikely that they came from the same direction in my view.


Steve

Thanks for your reply.

'while I don't think Lechmere did it, I see no issue with him taking organs to his place of work, probably easy to dispose of them if he wanted.'


My response to that is that from everything we know about serial killers taking trophies from their victims, is it believable that he would dispose of them so soon?

If he did so, what would have been the point of taking them?

He obviously wanted to look at them afterwards, at his leisure.

What is the point of taking them somewhere where he isn't going to be able to do that - and instead discarding them?


I am familiar with the Brady Street entrance, as I walked down Durward Street before it was rebuilt and when there was a sign 'Essex Wharf' which, if it was in
the same location as the original Essex Wharf, was just about opposite the murder site.

I agree with you about that being an unlikely entrance for her.

I suppose you deal with Harriet Lilley's statement in your book?

[Pontius2000]

I wrote:

If you can find any evidence that Inspector Reid or Abberline were looking for a kosher butcher, please do let me know.


You replied:

maybe you’ll let me know if/when you’ve read enough on this case to realize how stupid that last sentence sounds considering Abberline believed a POLISH JEW who was a far more ridiculous suspect than Anderson’s/Swanson’s suspect was the Whitechapel Murderer.


I replied:

there is the unfortunate fact - and I know that you people don't like that word (at least when I use it) - that Seweryn Kłosowski, aka George Chapman, WAS NOT JEWISH (my capitals this time).

So, unfortunately (for you), what I wrote in my previous post - the one to which you reply - is correct: INSPECTORS REID AND ABBERLINE WERE NOT LOOKING FOR A JEWISH BUTCHER (or barber).'



You replied:

whether or not he was actually Jewish is totally beside the point.



I cannot think of a better example than yours of someone who has lost an argument being unwilling to admit the fact.

And it IS a fact.

Contrary to what you stated, Seweryn Kłosowski was NOT Jewish.

Contrary to what you stated, Inspector Abberline did NOT state that in his opinion the murderer was Jewish.

And far from being totally beside the point, as you claim, the fact that Seweryn Kłosowski wasn't Jewish IS the point!

You're the one who has been suggesting that the murderer may have been a Jewish butcher.

You then produce as your candidate a suspect who you claim was a Jewish hairdresser, and it turns out that he wasn't even Jewish.

And as if that isn't bad enough, you preface your remarks by saying that I haven't read enough - a complaint against me that seems to be spreading like an epidemic on this forum - to realise how stupid I am to have said that Abberline wasn't looking for a Jewish butcher suspect.

Seweryn Kłosowski was neither a butcher nor a Jew.

The point is this….you have two young men coming from Poland, “low class” and living in the East end, one named Kosminski and one Klosowski. They would not have been differentiated as different classes of people by London gentiles like Anderson and Abberline. To suggest Anderson’s opinion of a Polish Jew suspect was based on anti-semitism but Abberline’s opinion of Chapman was ok because he technically not Jewish is a totally ridiculous argument. Both Kosminski and Chapman would have been viewed as low class foreigners. Abberline indeed did not elaborate that he felt definitively that Chapman WAS JtR. He did however say that Chapman was a likely suspect. And with what the police knew of serial killers in the Victorian era, Chapman absolutely would have been a likely suspect.

[Elamarna]

I don't understand why you think that's 'amazing'.

If my question about how Lechmere would have been able to go to work or back home with someone else's heart on his person receives the response that he may not have had her heart on him, what else could he say about Chapman and Eddowes?

If Holmgren thinks Lechmere COULD have taken Chapman's and Eddowes' organs to home or work, then the issue of whether he took Kelly's heart doesn't really matter, because according to that reasoning, he could have taken her heart to work.

Either Lechmere was able to carry other people's organs to work and home or he couldn't.


Is the book - or one of the books you are referring to - Inside Bucks Row – Mary Ann Nichols: An Anatomy of Murder (The Whitechapel Murders Project: Book 1) ?

I know you look at the so-called Mizen Scam and also possible escape routes, about which I had some exchanges with other posters both here and elsewhere recently.

Would you agree with me that Nichols and Lechmere were walking in opposite directions when they entered Buck's Row and that it is unlikely that she would have gone down it alone?

Ok PI1,
first point here, while I don't think Lechmere did it, I see no issue with him taking organs to his place of work, probably easy to dispose of them if he wanted.


Yes that's my book. It covers alot more than that, but you have heard of it. That's good.

If only it was that easy to say which direction Polly entered Bucks Row from.

She probably entered from the west, that's the most obvious, but she could have walked along to Brady then walked up into Bucks Row. Its the most unlikely option, but we can't rule it out completely.

Lech obviously comes from the East.

So it's highly unlikely that they came from the same direction in my view.


As for going down it alone, there we will disagree.
Here's why.
There is alot of evidence, both solid and circumstantial that Bucks Row and Winthrop street were a known Red light area.

The police say that in an internal report.

Mrs Green makes a great fuss about "bad women" , she complains too much , pointing at brothels in Thomas street .

The slaughter men, in the form of Tomkins admit that women often came to the slaughter House.

Last year Jonathan Tye, discovered not only were there brothels in Thomas, but there were two in Winthrop.

So I suspect she headed to the general area intentionally .
If she was just waiting for someone or walked with someone, it's truly impossible to say without any reports of her after she left Holland.

Some have suggested the gates to Brown's Yard were on occassions left open, and that girls used the yard, but that claim is pure speculation.

Steve

[Pontius2000]

I think Chapman even passed himself off as a jew at one point, but IMHO he is not a joke of a suspect.

Well Chapman was certainly a serial killer and a bad person, no argument there. The problem is MO and motivation. Whoever JtR was, he was obviously a sick person. A person who fantasizes about gutting a person and handling their insides is not the same type of person who poisons someone. One MO is very impersonal while the other is extremely sexual and very personal. JtR would not have settled down to a less messy MO because the messiness was part of the motivation. For Chapman, death was the motivation, for profit or whatever. For JtR, death would not have been the motivation, the “ownership” of the victim by rearranging their insides and/or taking internal organs via mutilation was the motivation. The only way to achieve this level of ownership was via the victims’ death.

I’m firmly of the opinion and agreement with Anderson/Swanson/McNaghtn that after Kelly, the killer’s “mind gave way altogether”… meaning he was taken out of commission via death, or incarceration, or constant surveillance/supervision. The third option could’ve worked for awhile, but he couldn’t have been surveilled on streets long term to maintain his behavior, he would’ve eventually been unable to control himself.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It seems he is clearly talking of just the heart in the MJK case.
That you wish to link that to.the other organs is shall I say amazing.


Steve

I don't understand why you think that's 'amazing'.

If my question about how Lechmere would have been able to go to work or back home with someone else's heart on his person receives the response that he may not have had her heart on him, what else could he say about Chapman and Eddowes?

If Holmgren thinks Lechmere COULD have taken Chapman's and Eddowes' organs to home or work, then the issue of whether he took Kelly's heart doesn't really matter, because according to that reasoning, he could have taken her heart to work.

Either Lechmere was able to carry other people's organs to work and home or he couldn't.


Is the book - or one of the books you are referring to - Inside Bucks Row – Mary Ann Nichols: An Anatomy of Murder (The Whitechapel Murders Project: Book 1) ?

I know you look at the so-called Mizen Scam and also possible escape routes, about which I had some exchanges with other posters both here and elsewhere recently.

Would you agree with me that Nichols and Lechmere were walking in opposite directions when they entered Buck's Row and that it is unlikely that she would have gone down it alone?