Aaron or not

[Natalie Severn]

I love this, Norma. It shows the fundamental absurdity of the situation.

You are POSTIVELY identifying the witness (Lawende) in an identification that you say never happened.

Do you see why the more astute Kosminskites might not be quite convinced?

And I'm not even one of them

RJ,
All I am actually saying to Glenn is that if there was a witness to this absurd and very unlikely "identification" by a Jewish witness of a Jewish suspect [how I hate all this Jewish talk regarding the Ripper] who refused to testify,then it has to be the Jewish witness used in 1891 for Sadler and in 1895 for Granger ie The Mitre Square witness.Now I dont actually think it likely that this ridiculous rigmarole ever took place, but I follow Stewart"s reasoning to some degree and think that is ever there was such a farcical carry on then Lawende was their man.
Now to confuse matters even further I tend to reject Lawende"s sighting as having been the Ripper and Catherine Eddowes. I think more and more that Catherine made for 29 Aldgate where she had had her collar felt that afternoon and been marched off to Bishopsgate in a drunken stupor.I dont think she made for the nonexistent 29 Aldgate High Street.So if this was so I believe she probably arrived at her "corner" ie the corner of Aldgate and Mitre Street to solicit while PC Watkins back was turned.And it was there she met the ripper and went to her usual place-the darkest corner of Mitre Square----just immediately behind 29 Aldgate, and two minutes from her turf,which I think was in front of a tailors shop with a "hotel" over it belonging to a policeman.She probably was known there too.
I reckon she met her death a little before 1.35-----she left the police station at 1.00 and it would have taken her about 7 or 8 minutes to get to 29 Aldgate so what was she doing the last 25 minutes?
Anyway,thats what I tend to think which removes Lawende from the picture.I am probably wrong but at the moment I am sticking with it.
Cheers
Norma

[rjpalmer]

I agree with you over Lawende.It has to be him really.

I love this, Norma. It shows the fundamental absurdity of the situation.

You are POSTIVELY identifying the witness (Lawende) in an identification that you say never happened.

Do you see why the more astute Kosminskites might not be quite convinced?

And I'm not even one of them

[rjpalmer]

The Late Great Melvin Harris:

"Some have argued that a crucial sighting of the Ripper was made on the night of the double event. One group favours the sighting by Schwartz at Berner Street, another opts for Lawende's sighting near Mitre Square. One of these eye-witnesses, so the reasoning runs, was much later able to finger Kosminski" (The True Face of Jack the Ripper, p. 31)


Phil Sugden, on pgs. 405-407 of his book, discusses who Anderson & Swanson's witness was. He offers 3 possibilities: Schwartz, PC Smith, and Joseph Lawende. He states his reasoning and plumps for Lawende.

Paul Begg, on pg. 378-382 of his book (plus footnote p. 509-510) also discusses who Anderson and Swanson's witness was. He offers 3 possibilities: Schwartz, PC Smith, and Joseph Lawende. He states his reasoning and plumps (more or less--he's not particularly explicit) for Schwartz.

Since they both use exactly the same form, and basically the same reasoning (in reverse) why PRECISELY is it that Begg is somehow being set aside for being dishonest on this point?? Or have "Ripperologists" lost all interest in fair-play??

Why can't Norder simply honestly discuss the issue rather than cloak it in a cloud of bluster and accusation and a painfully obvious "dumbing it down"?

[rjpalmer]

I'm not going to go through and quote the entire passage (both because I have better things to do with my time and because Begg has a history of first complaining that he never said something he clearly did and then threatening to sue if someone quotes from his book with enough text to prove that he did say it) but anyone here can certainly go look at it themselves..

The amazing accusations keep piling up.

This shows fundamentally dishonesty.

Norder wants to pretend he's involved in 'scholarly debate' but can't be bothered to actually address the man's points and cite them accurately.

I INVITE any honest researcher to read Begg's chapter on 'who was the witness' and come back here and tell me Norder is giving an honest rendition of it.

Begg makes two suggestions:

1) Macnaghten is garbling the City PC for 'PC Smith' in Berners Street. This has NOTHING to do with Schwartz, so Norder is simply misunderstanding and misrepresenting the argument.

2) That Schwartz IS the witness, but that Macnaghten and Anderson are referring to two different witnesses and two different events. (See pg. 381-2).

Q.E.D.

[Natalie Severn]

Glenn,
I agree with you over Lawende.It has to be him really.I very much enjoyed your two posts above,especially the one about the comical boasting of Major Smith.But its perfectly true,they all seem to be blowing their own trumpets all the time,and fluffing up their feathers while saying what they know will attract attention.I think I'am going to try and get Major Smith"s book from the library this week!
Best
Norma

[Varqm]

Another RJPalmer vs. Dan Norder tussle .. guys I know it is not as exciting but stick to the message not the messenger.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

As for Begg's alternative suggestion of Schwartz being the Jewish witness at the identification, my main problem with that theory is that Swanson said that it wasn't absolutely certain that the man Schwartz saw was the murderer.
So then how can Schwartz be considered the man 'who best saw the murderer?'

In my personal view the witness referred to has to be Lawende since his status was never questioned on that point. Sure, Lawende said himself that 'he would not recognise the man again' but since we know he was called to identify Sadler, it seems obvious that he WAS used for this purpose, regardless if it was Sadler or Kosminski - or both - that was the subject for identification. We have no record of Schwartz as an identification witness in that context.


All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

You know Glenn, you tend to make a lot of comments based upon hearsay.Major Smith took quite a strong stand against Anderson
and his Jewish theories about the Ripper.If you read what he says,here on the casebook, it reveals a fairly thoughtful man,not prepared to lie over saying he knew who the Ripper was or make ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims about the Jewish Community shielding their own from Gentile Justice.
I take it with a pinch of salt when someone has had their reputation trashed by a contemporary and rival police.
Also,there was nepotism throughout Victorian Society---just today I noted how Macnaghten had been pulled from where he was happily tending his tea plantations in India,to become,without any experience in the British police force,an assitant Chief Constable.This was because he was a great friend of James Monro.
Best
Natalie

Hi Natalie,

There most certainly was nepotism throughout Victorian society, but Smith certainly stands out from the crowd as rather unshamefully crediting himself with titles he never earned (after all, the title itself on his memoirs is an obvious lie).
It shall also be noted that I also take Macnaghten with a large pinch of salt, and this is mainly because he wasn't involved in the Ripper investigation when the murders actually happned - many of his statements appear to be flawed with errors and confusion based on second hand information. So I think it's a bad idea to support Smith by using Macnaghten as a comparison, as none of them can be considered to be that reliable. For the record, I also have a few problems with Anderson, as I feel his self-assured statements about knowing the identity of the Ripper as a the Polish Jew as pompous, Victorian bragging made in hindsight several years after the investigation - again, in order to make himself appearing as the hot shot official with all the answers.

As for the comments on Smith's credibility, it only takes a reading of his memoirs to see that some of what he says is bollocks and fabrications, all aimed to make himself important (like how he rides through East End on Met territory - out of his own jurisdiction - the night of the Double event, and his ridiculous dubious claims to have found a 'water sink with blood in it' in Dorset Street (which of course is a complete fairy-tale).
Some of those self-important traits he no doubt also shared with Dr Robert Anderson, but certainly Smith belongs in a category of his own.
He is very entertaining, though. I don't think I've read a book of memoirs that made me roll on the floor with laughter to such an extent.

As I said, the City police appear to have been more up to date and 'modern' in their investigation procedures and in their way of handling the crime scenes and the evidence. It is quite possible Smith had something to do with that, but most likely it was a joint result of the City police being able to learn from the Met's mistakes during the previous murders.

All the best

[Natalie Severn]

Hi RJ,
I am sorry but I cant get my head round things today properly as I have both a cold and hayfever! But I am intrigued by your comments about what I said about Anderson and his "agents provocateurs".I got this stuff from two sources.First Professor William Shipman in his book on East End 1888 where he describes the anarchists and Irish cells are penetrated by the likes of Sgt Stephen White,posing as anarchists and in his case being "outed" on one occasion! White wasnt egging them on particularly, just "listening in" but there were fairly large numbers of such agents as these as well as agents provocateurs in plain clothes ,"attending meetings".
Further,Clive Bloom has this to say in Violent London,page 257:
"It was not until the successful outcome of long police surveillance and the arrest of John Daley that the general public heard of the new police organization,which was first reported as existing on March 24th 1884 in The Times.By now there were 600 detectives in the Metropolitan Police and a network of agents,spies and "agents provocateurs" deep inside anarchist,socialistand Irish organizations."
Clive Bloom is a respected professor of History at a London University."

I am not sure either what exactly you are referring to when you say I misquoted Robert Anderson over a Churchill remark.Can you clarify?

I dont think I am "biased" about the Parnell Commission.I am fully aware of the thuggery of Clan na Gael"s Alexander Sulllivan and his part in the murder of Dr Cronin.However,Parnell would not have particularly wanted to make dangerous enemies of Clan na Gael would he? After all they had enormous clout,not just in New York and Chicago but in vast regions of the States and in Ireland too.Parnell was a politician,he had to keep them "on side".It doesnt mean he approved of their tactics.He himself chose the democratic Parliamentary road to Home Rule,not via terrorism and armed struggle.
Best Norma

[Dan Norder]

Please show me where I misrepresented your screed.

That's pretty easy, as you provide it yourself:

I quote it and demonstrated that you misrepresented Begg's argument in a fundamental way.

Dan Norder:

“Nobody who says anything different even exists”

Paul Begg certainly does in his book in several occasions attempt to claim that his opinion is fact and that nobody who says anything different exists, and I have provided several examples of that, including his false claim that there "was and is no doubt" that the Ripper walked straight from Mitre Square to Goulston Street and immediately dropped the piece of apron there with nothing in between.

The problem here is that you, as you typically do, pick and splice various comments together to try to confuse people about what the topic being discussed even is, so that you can claim someone said something false about some topic when what they were really talking about in that instance was something else entirely. That's nothing but an outright and calculated attempt to deceive people, and it's pretty much the standard RJ Palmer plan, as demonstrated in coutless threads here over the years.

As far as the claim that Begg doesn't try to claim that the "city PC" was Macnaghten's memory being screwed up and thinking of Schwartz instead (which is funny because Begg will admit that all other sources could be working from a faulty memory but refuses to admit the very real possibility that Anderson's memory was at fault instead), all anyone has to do is look at Begg's book to see that that's exactly what he does. I'm not going to go through and quote the entire passage but anyone here can certainly go look at it themselves.

On top of that, when this discussion has come up in the past and Begg has responded (or had a proxy respond for him), he has always completely backed up the claim that Macnaghten's memory was confused and that his "city PC" who witnessed the Ripper "near Mitre Square" was, in his mind, supposed to be Schwartz... who, as the rest of us know, had nothing to do with the City PC investigation and was nowhere near Mitre Square. For you now to try to quote other parts of his book and pretend he said something different is really quite ridiculous.

What I find quite tedious is how some people seem to think that certain authors are beyond criticism, no matter how many errors they make and how slanted their arguments are. Everything seems to run smoothly when people criticize Melvin Harris, Trevor Marriott, Ivor Edwards, Stephen Knight, Tony Williams and many others (usually Patricia Cornwell as well, but lately she's had a particularly aggressive and defender). But for some odd reason when people criticize Paul Begg's mistakes, certain people come out of the woodwork to start personal attacks and misrepresenting what was said to try to cover it all up. Begg (and a few of his most vocal supporters) don't seem willing to allow the same standards of conduct and academic debate to apply to his work.

[Natalie Severn]

Personally, I am at odds how anyone can credit major Smith as a reliable source. Smith was a busybody - with much higher ambitions than his actual capacity and competence for the job - who had no actual experience in police work; it is well known that he for years had applied to several positions in the police but failed and only managed to get the job as Assistant Commissioner for the City police taking advantage of his personal contacts. The title of his memoirs - From Constable to Commissioner - should alone be enough to verify him as a very dubious source since he never was a constable.
As is also evident from his - I admit - very entertaining accounts, he made up a lot of stoires in order to make himself important.

Now, the above is well known for most people who have done the slightest study in the field, so it amazes me how anyone can actually refer to major Smith as a valid source on any subject. No doubt, he belonged to a police force that has to be considered a bit more up to date with its criminal investigation methods compared to the rather primitive approaches of the Met (although that was probably more due to people like James Fraser rather than Smith), but besides that he stands out as nothing but a comic figure.

All the best

You know Glenn, you tend to make a lot of comments based upon hearsay.Major Smith took quite a strong stand against Anderson
and his Jewish theories about the Ripper.If you read what he says,here on the casebook, it reveals a fairly thoughtful man,not prepared to lie over saying he knew who the Ripper was or make ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims about the Jewish Community shielding their own from Gentile Justice.
I take it with a pinch of salt when someone has had their reputation trashed by a contemporary and rival police.
Also,there was nepotism throughout Victorian Society---just today I noted how Macnaghten had been pulled from where he was happily tending his tea plantations in India,to become,without any experience in the British police force,an assitant Chief Constable.This was because he was a great friend of James Monro.
Best
Natalie

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Personally, I am at odds how anyone can credit major Smith as a reliable source. Smith was a busybody - with much higher ambitions than his actual capacity and competence for the job - who had no actual experience in police work; it is well known that he for years had applied to several positions in the police but failed and only managed to get the job as Assistant Commissioner for the City police taking advantage of his personal contacts. The title of his memoirs - From Constable to Commissioner - should alone be enough to verify him as a very dubious source since he never was a constable.
As is also evident from his - I admit - very entertaining accounts, he made up a lot of stoires in order to make himself important.

Now, the above is well known for most people who have done the slightest study in the field, so it amazes me how anyone can actually refer to major Smith as a valid source on any subject. No doubt, he belonged to a police force that has to be considered a bit more up to date with its criminal investigation methods compared to the rather primitive approaches of the Met (although that was probably more due to people like James Fraser rather than Smith), but besides that he stands out as nothing but a comic figure.

All the best

[Natalie Severn]

Another deeply intellectual post by Dan Norder with no specific citations. Just more vague innuendo. Please show me where I misrepresented your screed. I quote it and demonstrated that you misrepresented Begg's argument in a fundamental way.

Dan Norder:

“Nobody who says anything different even exists”

Natalie Severn:




Funny thing how much more intellectually persuasive a post can become when it isn’t dripping with bombastic rhetoric and ridiculous exaggeration and obviously bogus claims.

By the way, Dan, could you post some examples of Paul Begg “attacking” Sugden, and “attacking other researchers?" Maybe Natalie would like to help.

And by the way, don’t Evans & Rumbelow paint a rather bleak picture of Major Smith? Haven’t a dozen people on this website done it, too? Or is it that Natalie merley doesn't like it when Paul Begg makes the same point in support of his theory? Like I said, the Polish Jew theorists are not stupid.

Yes, you are quite right,RJ,few give Major Smith much credence and I suspect that may stem from the bias of both the press and old rivalries passing on gossip.
As I pointed out the "Yorkshire Post" seized on Major Smith"s rise to prominence through "knowing people" while neglecting to say that Macnaghten got his job via Monro in just the same way and by an even bigger jump through the ranks from Tea Planter to assistant Chief Constable.I never said anybody was stupid!

[rjpalmer]

Another deeply intellectual post by Dan Norder with no specific citations. Just more vague innuendo. Please show me where I misrepresented your screed. I quote it and demonstrated that you misrepresented Begg's argument in a fundamental way.

Dan Norder:

he [Begg] presents his own opinions as if they were the facts and pretends (either through omission or outright declaring it) that nobody who says anything different even exists. .

“Nobody who says anything different even exists”

Natalie Severn:

Now Paul does indeed acknowledge that a number of people" found the basic facts of Anderson"s story impossible to digest. page 358

Also ,to be fair ,on that same page Paul cites Sir Robert as having been lambasted in the "Jewish Chronicle" by the contolling editor of that journal, Leopold Jacob Greenberg,under the pen name "Mentor"-for claiming that Jews "guarded [Jack the Ripper]

Funny thing how much more intellectually persuasive a post can become when it isn’t dripping with bombastic rhetoric and ridiculous exaggeration and obviously bogus claims.

By the way, Dan, could you post some examples of Paul Begg “attacking” Sugden, and “attacking other researchers?" Maybe Natalie would like to help.

And by the way, don’t Evans & Rumbelow paint a rather bleak picture of Major Smith? Haven’t a dozen people on this website done it, too? Or is it that Natalie merley doesn't like it when Paul Begg makes the same point in support of his theory? Like I said, the Polish Jew theorists are not stupid.

[Dan Norder]

As far as the claim by RJ, made at length, that Begg does not try to claim that the witness in question Macnaghten refers to as being a "city PC" "near Mitre Square" who was the only one who might have seen anything was Schwartz, who of course was not a City PC witness or anywhere near Mitre Square, all anyone has to do is read the book. It's right there. RJ quotes at lengths from other sections of the book and tries to claim that that's Begg's main argument or that he is open to the idea when the rest of it clearly shows that he is not.

RJ has a long history of taking unrelated quotes (whether it be from Begg's work or regarding his favored suspect) and ignoring the ones directly about what is being discussed and trying to misrepresent what was said so hat he can launch attacks. RJ is being, and generally is, fundamentally dishonest in how he makes his arguments. And he's been caught so many times at it that I'm surprised he hasn't just given up at this point, because anyone who has paid attention for more than a few months has numerous examples of it.