Aaron or not

[Stewart P Evans]

City PC Witness

Just to point out an interesting discussion on the 'Reclaimed' thread.

"...And Levy sees someone near Mitre Square, and Sims says that a ?policeman? saw the Pole near Mitre square, who could only later be identifed by height and build (when referring to Kosminski). Ergo, Levy knew Martin K., Martin K. knew another man named Kosminski, this man was also know to Levy and his general appearance could be collaborated by a cop."

Apropos of this line of reasoning, and I appreciate that the words here aren't those of 'Pirate Jack', they are based on Macnaghten's 'Kosminski' as described (sans the name) by Arthur Griffiths in Mysteries of Police and Crime (1898) and George R Sims in his article in Lloyd's Weekly News of September 22, 1907, for which see both below.

The idea that a City PC saw the murderer near Mitre Square really ought to have been knocked on the head by now. It was first stated by Macnaghten in the 'Aberconway draft' of his memoranda where he stated "This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City P.C. near Mitre Square." It is, I feel, significant that Macnaghten left this particular point out of his official 1894 version as I believe he was not happy about it.

[Jeff Leahy]

Even if the witness had ID'ed the suspect at asylum, that man could not have been brought to trial under English law. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Roy

That's correct. However if the sanity of the subject 'at the time' was not accertained. Then they may have believed it possible to bring a prosecution.

We simply do not know Aaron's mental state in 1889-90. And remember that psychotic episodes happen in waves..(much like an acid trip) there is an ebb and flow into insanity that can often take several years. A typical episode lasting between three and four months..so periods of recovery often occur.

It is doubtful that an identification would have taken place if the police didnt think a prosecution might be possible.

[Monty]

Even if the witness had ID'ed the suspect at asylum, that man could not have been brought to trial under English law. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Roy

Depends on what other evidence they had, but it would have been difficult to secure a guilty verdict so I doubt a trial would have ensued.

And, in this particular case, the evidence was extremely minimal.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

Many people threaten others with knives, especially in domestic situations. But to do so doesn't show that person to be a homicidal maniac, or even to have homicidal tendencies. And in 1891 when Kosminski was committed to Colney Hatch, Maurice Whitfield, the Relieving Officer at Mile End, stated that Aaron Kosminski was not dangerous to other people.

I think we should be very careful with Whitfeilds assumption. On the whole Schitzophrens are completely harmless and only a danger to themselves. And we need only look at Peter Sutcliffs prison record to deduce this. However other factors, such as Alcohol, can make a big difference to schitzophrenic behaviour. While alone at night and under direction from 'God' he might be a very different person altogether. His behaviour is consistant with Schitzophrenic Serial killers.

There is some excellent research being done by Chris Phillips and Rob House on the Kosminskis and much valuable material is being found. Not least of all that Aaron's family had changed their name to Abrahams. It was quite common for Jewish immigrants to change their names or to Anglicise them so although 12 Kosminskis were recorded in London at the time I am sure that this figure will be revised when the work of Messrs Phillips and House is completed.

Yes it will be excellent to get some fresh new opinion on the subject. Lets wish them 'God speed' with that research and listen to what they have to say when they are ready to do so.

Many thanks for your time
Jeff

[Roy Corduroy]

No Trial

Even if the witness had ID'ed the suspect at asylum, that man could not have been brought to trial under English law. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Roy

[Stewart P Evans]

Identification

Just to point out an interesting discussion on the 'Reclaimed' thread.
"I believe that Levy is the best candidate for Anderson?s witness. Look at the statistics; 12 Kosminski men in London in 1891; fewer (less than 4) in 1877, when Levy sponsors Martin Kosminski?s British Naturalization application. So during the murders, there were between 4 and 12 men in all of London named Kosminski. And Levy sees someone near Mitre Square, and Sims says that a ?policeman? saw the Pole near Mitre square, who could only later be identifed by height and build (when referring to Kosminski). Ergo, Levy knew Martin K., Martin K. knew another man named Kosminski, this man was also know to Levy and his general appearance could be collaborated by a cop."
I beleive the suggestion being made that possible Aaron Kosminski might have been known to Lawende and Levy, which is why they were not more fourth coming in the testemony..however that is purely speculation.
For me Berner Street is more interesting because of its location and access from Sion Sq, 16 Greenfeild Street and even Batty Street.
There's some facinating stuff on this thread by SNelson and Chris Philips which I can recommend everyone should check back and read.
Yours Jeff

What people fail to appreciate here is that when a witness actually knows a suspect you do not hold an identification as they merely state in their evidence that 'the person was [Joe Bloggs] who is known to me.'

[Stewart P Evans]

Explained

Hi Gentlemen
Sorry to interupt, in the event of the Ripper being caught would Lawende's evidence have been of any use? He had already told the inquest that he doubted whether he would know the man again. I wonder what a jury would have made of his evidence?
Of course there is some play in the statement "I doubt it", but I doubt whether his evidence would have been of any use in a trial.
all the best
Observer

As I have explained already, whether or not Lawende's evidence would have been any use is irrelevant as it would appear that he was used in the attempted identification of Sadler as Jack the Ripper between 14 and 18 February 1891. Any half decent defence counsel would have made short work of any of the suggested witnesses (Lawende, Schawartz or Levy) had they been used at a trial. For a start none of them could be actually proved to have seen the murderer at work because of time differentials and, in the case of Eddowes, lack of proper identification of her as the actual woman seen. This alone makes a nonsense of the claims of Anderson and his 'definitely ascertained fact.'

[Stewart P Evans]

Speculation

Here we go again - deep within the realms of speculation and no new arguments put forward - only repetition of the old mantra. These are old ideas being repeated.

Lawende being used as a possible witness to identify Jack the Ripper showed the police were clutching at straws, just as they would had they used Schwartz. For there was no witness who could positively identify the murderer. Ergo, no witness could be responsible for the Polish Jew suspect being hanged. Everything regarding the failed identification of the Polish Jew suspect rests on the words of only two men being truthful and accurate - Anderson and, by the 'marginalia', Swanson. No other police officer or official makes any reference to such a thing whatsoever. However, what we do have is the definite fact that the police initially suspected Sadler of being the Ripper in February 1891 and the reference, in the Daily Telegraph, to the Mitre Square witness [Lawende] being used in that attempted identification - which failed.

I have fully analysed this evidence and I am of the opinion that it is a rather large coincidence that Aaron Kosminski should be permanently incarcerated as insane just over a week before the Coles murder on 13 February 1891 and the subsequent failed identification of Sadler as Jack the Ripper by a Jewish witness. The missing 'ingredient' of the Anderson scenario is that Sadler was not a Polish Jew. I am fully aware that to turn that, years later, into the Anderson theory would involve deception on his part and, presumably, Swanson. It is an explanation that fits. And Anderson is not the 'whiter than white' character that many have tried to make him out to be.

To say that 'the ID is the only contemporary evidence we know of against anyone' is misleading and incorrect. For we have no evidence, other than Anderson's 1910 book, and Swanson's 'marginalia' that any such event occurred. It certainly wasn't contemporaneous with the murders, if it took place, anyway. It's fine to ask rhetorical questions such as 'was there additional evidence against him that led to police suspicions?' but the fact that nothing at all is mentioned in any official record, or anywhere else, and Macnaghten's indication that there was 'no shadow of proof' against him in 1894 militates against such a claim. Many people threaten others with knives, especially in domestic situations. But to do so doesn't show that person to be a homicidal maniac, or even to have homicidal tendencies. And in 1891 when Kosminski was committed to Colney Hatch, Maurice Whitfield, the Relieving Officer at Mile End, stated that Aaron Kosminski was not dangerous to other people.

Anderson, it should be remembered, was not a policeman, he was a barrister and government civil servant and his rank in the police force was of an 'officer corps' nature. It was, and remained, highly embarrassing to him that the start of his illustrious career in the CID was marked by a series of ghastly unsolved murders of an unprecedented nature. It sat uneasily with him and was of a high profile enough nature to still be on his mind in 1910 when he scribed his reminiscences - to the degree that he felt it necessary to mislead his readers about the nature of the Mylett murder, which he claimed was not a murder at all. It remains very difficult to believe that such a high profile identification as that alleged by Anderson, together with the attendant people that, of necessity, would have to know about it, ever took place and was not mentioned by others.

The old suggestion that Levy might be 'Anderson's witness' is simply not borne out by any of the attendant police reports, inquest statements and reports of the day. Again it is an idea floated twenty years ago by Paul Begg and requires much manipulation of the facts that stretches the imagination to breaking point. These ideas have been argued at length many times in the past. There is some excellent research being done by Chris Phillips and Rob House on the Kosminskis and much valuable material is being found. Not least of all that Aaron's family had changed their name to Abrahams. It was quite common for Jewish immigrants to change their names or to Anglicise them so although 12 Kosminskis were recorded in London at the time I am sure that this figure will be revised when the work of Messrs Phillips and House is completed.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Gentlemen

Sorry to interupt, in the event of the Ripper being caught would Lawende's evidence have been of any use? He had already told the inquest that he doubted whether he would know the man again. I wonder what a jury would have made of his evidence?

Of course there is some play in the statement "I doubt it", but I doubt whether his evidence would have been of any use in a trial.

all the best

Observer

Just to point out an interesting discussion on the 'Reclaimed' thread.

"I believe that Levy is the best candidate for Anderson?s witness. Look at the statistics; 12 Kosminski men in London in 1891; fewer (less than 4) in 1877, when Levy sponsors Martin Kosminski?s British Naturalization application. So during the murders, there were between 4 and 12 men in all of London named Kosminski. And Levy sees someone near Mitre Square, and Sims says that a ?policeman? saw the Pole near Mitre square, who could only later be identifed by height and build (when referring to Kosminski). Ergo, Levy knew Martin K., Martin K. knew another man named Kosminski, this man was also know to Levy and his general appearance could be collaborated by a cop."

I beleive the suggestion being made that possible Aaron Kosminski might have been known to Lawende and Levy, which is why they were not more fourth coming in the testemony..however that is purely speculation.

For me Berner Street is more interesting because of its location and access from Sion Sq, 16 Greenfeild Street and even Batty Street.

There's some facinating stuff on this thread by SNelson and Chris Philips which I can recommend everyone should check back and read.

Yours Jeff

PS. Given my recent critisism of Dan Norder I beleive it would be a little churlish on my part not to thank him for the hard work he has put in reclaiming these lost threads on Kosminski. So many thanks Dan

[Observer]

Hi Gentlemen

Sorry to interupt, in the event of the Ripper being caught would Lawende's evidence have been of any use? He had already told the inquest that he doubted whether he would know the man again. I wonder what a jury would have made of his evidence?

Of course there is some play in the statement "I doubt it", but I doubt whether his evidence would have been of any use in a trial.

all the best

Observer

[jason_c]

Edited - double post

[jason_c]

No evidence against Kosminski being the Ripper or violent?

1 Threatening his sister with a knife.
2 Sole occupant of certain premises after nightfall.
3 The disputed Identification.


In fact the ID is the only contemporary evidence we know of against anyone. Wether only points 1 and 2 lead directly to the ID i do not know. Or was there additional evidence against him that led to police suspiscions?

Natalie, i think you do Anderson a disservice giving him the belief that only a Jew could have committed such a crime. Im sure Anderson dealt with many Christian murderers in his time. His worldview would not have been moulded by only his religious knowledge but also his career in CID.

[Jeff Leahy]

I think the point would be 'That if Lawende had said Aaron Kosminski was JtR, but then refused to testify because he might be hung" then he is unlikely to be asked to identify another witness a few weeks later, if he had already said Aaron was JtR."

Of course as you point out 'it isn't out of the realms of possibility'

and whether Stride is a Victim is also hotly debated: checkout this weeks Ripper cast on the subject..

Jeff

[Stewart P Evans]

Generally Accepted?

Just a quick piont. I beleive it is generally accepted that Lawende is unlikely to be Swanson's witness. This is because he was called in as a witness at a later time to a seperate event ie the Coles murder.
Therefore i personally would go with Shwartz (although Levy's name has been mentioned) This creates other problems if you accept that Aaron is the Polish Jew suspect, which I believe the most likely senario.
That is 'was Aaron BS man?' and 'Was Stride a JtR victim?'
Clearly even if new information does turn up identifying him as Swansons identified suspect, the debate will continue whether or not Aaron was Jack the Ripper?
Jeff

It is news to me that 'it is generally accepted that Lawende is unlikely to be Swanson's witness. This is because he was called in as a witness at a later time to a seperate event ie the Coles murder.' As I recall, this was a suggestion of Paul Begg's.

It is a nonsense to suggest that if Lawende was the witness called in an attempt to identify Sadler as Jack the Ripper in February 1891, he would not be used in any other attempt. There is no evidence anywhere of Schwartz ever being used as a witness in any attempted identification. It is possible that Lawende was used again in 1895 in the case of William Grant.

It must also be remembered that although Schwartz was said to have witnessed a man 'pulling' and 'throwing down' a woman [identified as Stride] it was stated at the time that this was 15 minutes before the body was found and it was not clearly proved that the man Schwartz saw was the murderer.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi,

I read Evans that at the climactic moment, Lawende was taken to ID him, and could not. Not for any special reason, he just couldn't. Yes there are other theories.

Roy

Hello Roy

Just a quick piont. I beleive it is generally accepted that Lawende is unlikely to be Swanson's witness. This is because he was called in as a witness at a later time to a seperate event ie the Coles murder.

Therefore i personally would go with Shwartz (although Levy's name has been mentioned) This creates other problems if you accept that Aaron is the Polish Jew suspect, which I believe the most likely senario.

That is 'was Aaron BS man?' and 'Was Stride a JtR victim?'

Clearly even if new information does turn up identifying him as Swansons identified suspect, the debate will continue whether or not Aaron was Jack the Ripper?

Jeff

Good morning everyone..back after a massive computer crush..running on one hard drive back on amazingly fast 1 terror Lepard soon