Aaron or not

[Chris]

A letter from George Henry Hutt to the Evening News, printed on September 11:

"SLAUGHTERING THE JEWS.
SIR - with reference to the above heading, on Saturday, evening last, I found it difficult to traverse the streets in the vicinity of the Whitechapel, without observing in almost every thoroughfare , knots of persons (consisting of men, women and children), and overhearing their slanderous and insulting remarks towards the Jews, who occasionally passed by. With justice to my countrymen, I mention that the foul epithets was made use of by people of the most ignorant and dangerous class, promoted by the information they had casually obtained that a man known as "Leather Apron" had a Jewish appearance, and was wanted for the recent Whitechapel murders." (...) "'Hard words break no bones,' but often they lead to that end. The Jew is certainly no coward when on the defensive and if such conduct as I personally witnessed on Saturday last is not suppressed, the consequences may be serious indeed"

Thanks to Rob for posting these interesting extracts.

The full transcript of the letter in the Evening News can be seen here -
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18880911.html - and concludes:
"48 and 49, Bishopsgate-street, Without, G. H. H.
September 10."

The identification of the author comes from the Jewish World, 14 September 1888, p. 7, which says:
MR. G. H. HUTT writes to the Evening News calling attention to the
insulting treatment to which Jews are just now being subjected in the
vicinity of Whitechapel, and the districts surrounding the locality of
the recent murders, and expressing the hope that the authorities may
stop any further ebullitions of ill feeling so as to prevent possible riot.

Apparently this is the same PC George Henry Hutt who later had Catherine Eddowes in his charge on the night of her death.

[Jeff Leahy]

Rob

Can I be the first to congratulate you. This is awesome research. I hope you don't mind if I don't comment amediately on your findings.

There is a lot to take in and reflect on. I'd prefer to read it again in the cold light of day.

Absolutely Awesome.

Jeff

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks a lot Rob,fascinating material and much to think on!
Best
Norma

[robhouse]

An Informant? Also the Batty St Lodger story, etc.

The earliest reports of the so-called "Batty Street Lodger" story appeared on October 15 1888. On this day the Echo reported the story as follows:

"The police are, writes a Correspondent this morning, watching with great anxiety a house in the East end, which, it is believed, was the actual lodging made use of by someone connected with the East end murders. From various statements made by the neighbours, the landlady had a lodger, who, since the Sunday morning of the murder, has been missing. It appears, according to the statements made by the landlady to her neighbours, her lodger returned home early on the Sunday morning, and she was disturbed by his, moving about. She rose very early, and noticed her lodger had changed some of his clothes. He told her he was going away for a little time, and he asked her to wash the shirt he had taken off, and get it ready for him by the time he came back. When she took the shirt she was astonished to find the wristbands and part of the sleeves completely saturated with wet blood. Acting on the advice of some of her neighbours, she gave information to the police and showed them the shirt. They then took possession of it, and obtained from her a full description of the lodger."


The earliest reports on this story were largely incorrect, and were apparently based on statements made by the neighbors, and not by the landlady herself. When reporters talked to the landlady herself, she was "reticent", and spoke very poor english.

The errors are apparently corrected in various articles printed after the initial reports, which make it clear that there was in fact no lodger at all, but that the bloody shirt was dropped off by a man who did not live at 22 Batty St.

On October 16, the Echo reports:

"A strange and suspicious incident in connection with the Whitechapel murders has just been explained by the arrest, late on Saturday, of a German whom the police had every reason to suspect as being connected with the murder of Elizabeth Stride, at Berner street. The affair has until now been kept a profound secret; but the matter was, it is asserted, regarded at first as of such importance that Inspector Reid, Inspector Abberline, and the other officers engaged in the case, believed that a clue of a highly important character had been obtained. It appears that Detective Sergeants W. Thicke and S. White, of the Criminal Investigation Department, made a house to house inquiry in the locality of the Berner street murder. They then discovered that on the day after that crime a German left a bloodstained shirt with a laundress at 22 Batley (sic) street - a few yards from the seat of the tragedy - and remarking, "I shall call in two or three days," departed in a hurried manner. His conduct was deemed highly suspicious. Detectives Thicke and White, who probably know more of the East end criminals than any other officers, arrested the man suspected on Saturday night. He was conveyed to Leman street Station, and inquiries were immediately set on foot. These resulted in the man's release this morning. Our representative made an inquiry respecting the above incident this afternoon, and ascertained that the shirt had a quantity of blood on the front and on both sleeves.

This is, of course, the sequel to the exciting story concerning the bloodstained shirt which was current yesterday."

A letter from Carl Noun, a lodger at 22 Batty Street, to the Evening News makes it clear that the clothes were not dropped off by a lodger:

"I beg of you to publish a contradictory statement respecting the Whitechapel murder; in fact, your reporter has been wrongly informed, or else it his own suggestion.

The police are not in the house, nor has the woman had a lodger who is now missing, but a stranger brought the shirts, and when he fetched them, he was detained by the police, and after inquiries discharged." (...) "There are only two lodgers, one a drayman, name of Joseph, who works for the Norwegian Lager Beer Company, and the other a baker, name of Carl Noun, who has been at work in Margate, and only returned on the 6th of this month after the season was over. I trust you will publish these statements as I put it to you, in fact it may injure the poor woman in her business. - Respectfully.

C. NOUN (a lodger in the house)."

On October 17, the Echo was the first newspaper to publish the following article which is clearly a follow-up to the previous day's article on the arrest of the "German":

"EAST-END ATROCITIES
SUSPECTED MURDERER TRACKED.
EXPECTED CONFESSION

There are indications in official circles that at no period during the search for the miscreant has there been so much chance of an arrest as at the present moment. From more than one source the police authorities have received information tending to show that the criminal is a foreigner, who was known as having lived within a radius of a few hundred yards from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy. The very place where he lodges is asserted to be within official cognisance. If the man be the real culprit, he lived some time ago with a woman, by whom, he has been accused. Her statements are, it is stated, now being inquired into. In the meantime the suspected assassin is "shadowed." Incriminating evidence of a certain character has already been obtained, and, should implicit credence be placed in the woman already referred to, whose name we will not transpire under any circumstances until after his guilt is prima facie established, a confession of the crimes may be looked for at any moment. The accused is himself aware, it is believed, of the suspicions entertained against him."

(...)

"The laundress at 22, Batty-street, where a German left a blood-stained shirt, is Mrs. Kuer, also a German. The man, who was arrested, as already stated, and liberated, explained the blood-stains by the fact that he was with a friend who was cutting his corn, when the knife slipped and inflicted a wound, when the injured man stanched the cut by using the sleeves of his companion's shirt. There were, however, extensive stains upon the front of it as well, and this the man asserts was done by the blood spurting on to it. Mrs. Kuer denied that she gave information to the police, who were told of the circumstances by a neighbour. Mrs. Kuer says the man had occasionally called with a shirt to be washed. She feels certain she says that the man is entirely innocent of any such offence as was at first suggested by the police. Inspector Reid, Inspector Helson, and other detective officers are pursuing their investigation."

In many ways, this article matches well with Kozminski. The man spoken of is a "foreigner", who "was known as having lived within a radius of a few hundred yards from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy" (Kozminski's likely address on Greenfield St is almost exactly 300 yards from the site of the Berner Street murder.) The article also states that the man is shadowed, and "The very place where he lodges is asserted to be within official cognisance." And perhaps most intersting of all, "If the man be the real culprit, he lived some time ago with a woman, by whom, he has been accused. Her statements are, it is stated, now being inquired into." "Incriminating evidence of a certain character has already been obtained" - this may be the bloodstained shirt?

On October 18, the Evening News published an article based apparently on an interview with the Batty St laundress Mrs. Kuer, which further clarified that there was no lodger. The story also repeats much of what was printed by the Echo on October 17:

"A Press representative had an interview, yesterday, with the landlady of the house, 22, Batty-street, Whitechapel, which place was alleged to be the resort of the owner of the blood-stained shirt. The lodging-house is kept by a German woman, the wife of a seaman. She denied that the man for whom the police were searching was one of her lodgers, and asserted that he simply had his washing done at the house. He was a ladies tailor, working for a West-end house, and did not reside in the Leman-street district. She explained the presence of blood on the shirt by saying that it was owing to an accident that occurred to a man (other than the one taken into custody) who was living on the premises, and that the police would have known nothing of it but for her having indiscreetly shown it to a neighbour. The woman denies that the detectives are still in possession of her house. "

This is interesting as we now know that Aaron Kozminski's brothers, both Isaac Abrahams and Woolf Abrahams, were "ladies tailors". Regarding Isaac, this is clearly indicated in the Booth survey of tailors:

"96 / Abrahams / 74 Greenfield St - Ladies coats - first-class work."

Woolf Abrahams death certificate in 1944 lists "Occupation: formerly a Ladies Tailor (journeyman)".

It is also interesting to note that the man who supposedly cut himself, is not the man who dropped off the shirts, but rather is a man "who was living on the premises". This reference to "premises" calls to mind Sims statement that "The first man was a Polish Jew of curious habits and strange disposition, who was the sole occupant of certain premises in Whitechapel after night-fall". I have wondered if "premises" might refer to the shop of Aaron's brother Isaac, the ladies tailor, whose workshop was at 74 Greenfield Street.

The statement that the man "did not reside in the Leman-street district" is most likely in reference to the German Ludwig who did reside in the Leman St area, and who was arrested and looked into as a suspect around this time. Also, it is important to note that the Echo reports that the man is a German. This may again be a reference to Ludwig. But another possibility is that the man is Aaron's brother, and that this brother spoke German. I am not at this point very clear on this myself, but the Kozminski's hometown of Klodawa was very close to the German border and had been within (German-speaking) Prussia until 1846 (some 25 years after the birth of Aaron's parents). To me it seems likely that German was spoken in this area. There is also the statement in Aaron's Colney Hatch case notes from Nov. 17 1892 that says he "Only speaks German."

And so, in my opinion, the original "Batty Street lodger" story is likely tied to these later follow-up articles that speak of a "German," "ladies tailor" as being the man who dropped off the shirts. I think it is also likely that this is tied to the story of the man who lived within "radius of a few hundred yards from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy" and who "he lived some time ago with a woman, by whom, he has been accused."

This last aspect is interesting if the suspect is Aaron Kozminski, and it has been suggested he may have been accused by a relative, such as for example his sister Matilda. The "Earl of Crawford" letter to Robert Anderson may in fact relate to Kozminski. This is the only letter in Sir Robert Anderson's surviving correspondence at the Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Department of Duke University. It reads:

"I send you this line to ask you to see & hear the bearer, whose name is unknown to me. She has or thinks she has a knowledge of the author of the Whitechapel murders. The author is supposed to be nearly related to her, & she is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril."

As Stephen Ryder writes: "The natural conclusion, at first, is that this letter may relate to Anderson's suspect, thus explaining his reasoning behind keeping it among his correspondence." This indeed may be the case, and the letter seems to fit Kozminski, especially in that the author is a woman, "nearly related" to the suspect, and that "she is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril."

This would fit very well given the heightened level of anti-semitism in the East End, which reached a peak apparently around October 1888.

See for reference:

A letter from George Henry Hutt to the Evening News, printed on September 11:

"SLAUGHTERING THE JEWS.
SIR - with reference to the above heading, on Saturday, evening last, I found it difficult to traverse the streets in the vicinity of the Whitechapel, without observing in almost every thoroughfare , knots of persons (consisting of men, women and children), and overhearing their slanderous and insulting remarks towards the Jews, who occasionally passed by. With justice to my countrymen, I mention that the foul epithets was made use of by people of the most ignorant and dangerous class, promoted by the information they had casually obtained that a man known as "Leather Apron" had a Jewish appearance, and was wanted for the recent Whitechapel murders." (...) "'Hard words break no bones,' but often they lead to that end. The Jew is certainly no coward when on the defensive and if such conduct as I personally witnessed on Saturday last is not suppressed, the consequences may be serious indeed"

See also the editorial entitled "Panic and Prejudice" that appeared in The Jewish World on October 12, 1888:

The "epidemic of horrors of the last few weeks has become a source of special anxiety to the Jewish community. The occurrence of an abnormal amount of undetected crime in a district densely inhabited by Jews would, under any circumstances, have given point to the uneasiness which we must feel as ordinary citizens; but the persistency with which attempts have been made to connect Jews directly with the crimes, and even to lay the responsibility for them at the door of the community as a body, is a grave matter which has given rise to no little apprehension. "

And in a letter from Samuel Montagu to the Pall Mall Gazette, printed on October 15:

"Being a constant reader and in general accord with your policy of defending the weak against the strong, I felt much pain in your yesterday's issue grave insinuations against the Jews who live in my constituency. In Jewish history there are frequent record that, when epidemics have occurred, or murders have taken place, false accusations have been made against the Jews, inciting the ignorant and the criminal classes to acts of violence. "

If correct, and the suspect referred to is Aaron, this would mean that Aaron Kozminski was informed on by a woman, perhaps following the detention and questioning of Aaron's brother, and that Aaron Kozminski first became a suspect around this time.

I am not stating that this is a fact, I am merely pointing out these very interesting and thought-provoking articles and suggesting some possible connections and conclusions that can be drawn from them.

Please excuse typos and errors as I wrote this quickly.

Rob House

[Observer]

Hi Stewart

Firstly, I do not consider you the villain of the piece. Secondly you have forgotten more than I know about this case, and your recent posting to this thread has greatly enlightened me. I'll agree, there does seem to be a certain cloud hanging over the Swanson annotations due to the differing types of pencil used, the inconsistant fading of the various annotations, and the fact that the endpaper annotations appear to be in a slightly different hand to the rest of the annotations.

However, considering the history of the book, and who has come into contact with it, who would want to fake those annotations? What would they gain? Call me naïve, but I think they’re genuine.




All the best

Observer

[Natalie Severn]

Regarding the "impeccable provenance" being referred to here ,I would suggest that whether Swanson"s grandson was a thoroughly charming old gent or not ,just being a thoroughly charming or nice gentleman doesnt mean his claims had "impeccable provenance".

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Chris and Victor

Stewart also says that Jim Swanson had little real interest in the case.

Given what information is known, do you not find it surprising that he might reach a conclusion that Aarons brother was the identifying witness?

As Stewart says, 'it doesnt work', why have an ID identification at all?

Why would he think such a thing?

[Chris]

Chris, but the "confusion" over Aaron's name in the unmuzzled dog incident had to be explained to the court by his brother in 1889.

Yes, it seems Aaron used both surnames. But apart from the references in records relating to Aaron, I don't know of any other member of the family who used the name Kozminski in England.

[Victor]

Chris, but the "confusion" over Aaron's name in the unmuzzled dog incident had to be explained to the court by his brother in 1889.

[Chris]

It would be interesting if we could find out any more information as to when Aaron's family started using the name "Abrahams" and if that connects in any way to Jim Swanson's theory of a family informer.

Aaron's elder brother Isaac probably adopted the name Abrahams when he came to England in or around 1871. He was certainly known as Abrahams by the time his son Mark (or Marks) was born in December 1872.

As I read Stewart's post, Jim Swanson's theory wasn't based on any family information - only on the records that are known to us.

[Jeff Leahy]

Who exactly claims the Swanson marginalia and end notes have "impeccable provenance?

fido
16th January 2006, 03:40 PM
Grateful thanks to Grey Hunter for his many kind remarks.
A couple of points should perhaps be added to his time line. When Jim Swanson and his brother first acquired their grandfather's copy of Anderson's memoirs and saw the marginalia they immediately recognized the public interest, and offered the information for sale to the News of the World. A reporter took details and they were paid a reasonable fee for the time - something like seventy-five pounds if I remember aright. Shortly after that N o W changed owners or editor, and the new regime didn't use the material. The Swanson brothers felt it was no longer theirs to publish, and when he saw the reviews of new Ripper work in 1987, Jim Swanson didn't contact the Telegraph until he had offered to return the fee to the News of the World and had received their waiver and permission to do what he liked with it. This very characteristic gentlemanliness and honesty typifies the traits that made those of us who met him absolutely convinced that there could be no hanky-panky about Mr Swanson: the provenance was absolutely certain as Mr Swanson was pretty sure his aunt had never even opened the book.
And then there's the handwriting. Now add to the time line the fact that the Home Office expert received not one but two pieces to compare with the marginalia. Paul Begg was as cautious as Grey Hunter and insisted on sending a phtocopy of the marginalia with a sample of DSS's handwriting for examination. I well remember being called to the telephone in the St Katharine's Dock Yacht Club one night to hear a shocked Paul tell me the marginalia were forged: the Home Office expert said there was not a single point of comparison between the two hands. Now I had seen a great deal of Swanson's handwriting both before and after his retirement, including marginalia in other books and the brief recollections he wrote in a notebook; I also have some post-graduate training in paleography (the deciphering of old hands) and considerable experience of deciphering much more difficult Victorian handwriting than Swanson's (notable Disraeli's scrawl and Dickens's varied fist). I have struggled with "crossed" letters where paper folded to make its own envelope has its message side overwritten at a perpendicular angle to give the space of two pages rather than one. I had no doubt whatsoever that the marginalia were in Swanson's hand, and the provenance was so good that my scholarly training told me this was genuine without a shadow of doubt. I confidently pronounced the Home Office expert absolutely wrong, much to Paul's distress and concern for my sense and sanity. But he looked carefully at the report he had received, and suddenly realized that he had mistakenly sent in a memorandum by some one else as the supposed example of Swanson's handwriting. When he corrected this he received the positive report from the Home Office, and, to echo the confident Inspector Abberline (retd) you may take my word for it, there isn't the remotest possibility that the Swanson marginalia are forged.
But Grey Hunter's basic question about their proper standing is perfectly sensible. After all, they are in themselves incorrect. They say two things about "Kosminsky" which are categorically not true of Aaron (though they apply to David Cohen): namely that he was taken into care with his hands tied behind his back, and that he died shortly after his incarceration. He also says two things about him which do apply to Aaron and could not possibly apply to Cohen - that his name was Kosminsky and at one time he lived at his brother's house in Whitechapel. This is what led me to assume confidently that I had been correct in postulating that Kosminsky and Cohen had somehow become confused in the minds of the police who knew about them.
Of course Grey Hunter is perfectly correct to say that, be he Kosminsky or Cohen, the Polish Jew conclusion was in effect only a theory: if it had been the assured conclusion of everyone in Scotland Yard we shouldn't have had Macnaghten and Basil Thompson in the next generation, and apparently Warren at the time, believing some version of the Druitt theory - (possibly even Druitt confused with Ostrog since the idea that he was a medic seems always to have been part of it). The amount of error and confusion in the senior Scotland Yard descriptions of the suspects (and remember the Macnaghten memoranda make errors of detail about every one of the suspects described) proves conclusively that there was no confirmed and agreed Scotland Yard conclusion that the Ripper had been positively identified. Anderson thought this, and Swanson may have agreed with him - (his notes don't say that he did). Anderson may or may not have believed that details about the Polish Jew that applied to two men were actually applying to one. But the reason for giving his conclusion priority rests entirely on a scholarly assessment of the validity of sources: was the source in a position to know what he was talking about? Does his character and personality as evinced in other writings and people's descriptions of him indicate that he would be reliable? Does his evidence conflict with any known facts? On all three counts, Anderson was clearly far and away the best contemporary source offering any theory available in 1987, which is why Paul Begg accepted him as the basis for fingering Kosminsky and I accepted him as the basis for fingering Cohen. Since 1987 the only other contemporary source to emerge who can be compared with him is Littlechild. Unfortunately Littlechild's life and memoirs don't tell us enough for us to be as sure of his reliability as we can be in Anderson's case, though I see no reason to imagine for one moment that he was saying anything he didn't believe to be true and know to reflect things thought by at least some other people at the time of the murders. What counts against his theory is the badness of Tumblety as a suspect.
When Charles Nevin was consulting me over the Swanson Marginalia,and we were both marvelling at Keith Skinner's skill in spotting the very difficult entry identifying Kosminsky's first treatment in a workhouse infirmary (which had eluded both of us when we individually scanned the creeds book in which it is to be found) he remarked to me that it was not surprising that David Cohen was the most plausible suspect ever proposed: Ripper theory is not known for its plausibility as a rule. Of course Tumblety as a suspect doesn't have the utter absurdity of PAV or Walter Sickert. But a flamboyant quack doctor with a high public profile and a good deal of status satisfaction in his life doesn't fit the psychological profiles of serial killers drawn up by experts as varied as Colin Wilson, Joel Norris and the FBI profilers. The crossover from homosexual molestation to heterosexual mutilating murder is even more extreme than the Chapman shift from ripping stray hookers to poisoning unwanted wives. And the suggestion that Tumblety was at liberty on an unrecorded police bail at the time of MJK's murder is as speculative as anything that has been proposed about any other suspect. Tumblety joins the queue of seriously possible suspects, but I think he's far from its head.
Nice to be back for a moment, though I don't anticipate revisiting the boards very frequently, alas. The teaching term start again tomorrow.
Martin Fido

[Victor]

It would be interesting if we could find out any more information as to when Aaron's family started using the name "Abrahams" and if that connects in any way to Jim Swanson's theory of a family informer.

[Jeff Leahy]

When Jim Swanson approached the Daily Telegraph with the notes his grandfather had made he had two objectives -

1. To get some recognition of the part that his grandfather had played.
2. To put an end to all the fanciful conjecture concerning the killer and so make public the fact that the senior persons in Scotland Yard C.I.D. were satisfied that they knew who the Ripper was and that he had been safely put away.

Jim was quite convinced that Kosminski named by his grandfather was the Ripper. The difference between his grandfather's statement that "he died shortly afterwards" and the results of Martin Fido's research into the Colney Hatch records did not alter Jim's conviction.

After reading Paul Begg's 1988 book, Jim Swanson felt that once the Ripper files were closed and his grandfather had moved on to other important cases his interest in Kosminski would have diminished and would have been only cursory.

Jim also thought there was more behind the identification of the murderer than either his grandfather or Anderson were prepared to disclose and it was not simply a question of one Jew betraying another. Anderson's most positive statement that "he was stating a definitely ascertained fact" led Jim to suspect that there was a pact between senior CID personnel (not those working on the ground locally) and an informant, either discovered in the house to house search or who more likely presented himself to Scotland Yard, the price of his disclosures and the subsequent identification was absolute secrecy. Note also that the identification was not local. The suspect concerned having been taken to the Seaside Home etc.

Jim thought that the informant and identifier was Kosminski's brother. He would have traded his knowledge for secrecy and no prosecution (which would have meant hanging) and knowing that he would be safely detained.

Jim's reasoning, of course, is flawed not least of all because if the informer/identifier was Aaron's brother there would have been no need at all for an identification. But, at least, it shows that Jim was putting some thought to what he had read.

I hope you don't mind me quoting you in full Stewart, but its just a great post, many thanks.

I am particularly interested in the part where you claim Jim Swanson beleived Arons own brother was involved in the identification..and wondered if he had ever given anymore details about this beleif?

Yours Jeff

PS. I dont think anybody has ever suggested that you were wrong to question the Marginalia..Indeed Martin Fido appears to agree with you in full...I much enjoyed reading back the re-claimed thread..so thank you Ally.

[jason_c]

When Jim Swanson approached the Daily Telegraph with the notes his grandfather had made he had two objectives -

1. To get some recognition of the part that his grandfather had played.
2. To put an end to all the fanciful conjecture concerning the killer and so make public the fact that the senior persons in Scotland Yard C.I.D. were satisfied that they knew who the Ripper was and that he had been safely put away.

Jim was quite convinced that Kosminski named by his grandfather was the Ripper. The difference between his grandfather's statement that "he died shortly afterwards" and the results of Martin Fido's research into the Colney Hatch records did not alter Jim's conviction.

After reading Paul Begg's 1988 book, Jim Swanson felt that once the Ripper files were closed and his grandfather had moved on to other important cases his interest in Kosminski would have diminished and would have been only cursory.

Jim also thought there was more behind the identification of the murderer than either his grandfather or Anderson were prepared to disclose and it was not simply a question of one Jew betraying another. Anderson's most positive statement that "he was stating a definitely ascertained fact" led Jim to suspect that there was a pact between senior CID personnel (not those working on the ground locally) and an informant, either discovered in the house to house search or who more likely presented himself to Scotland Yard, the price of his disclosures and the subsequent identification was absolute secrecy. Note also that the identification was not local. The suspect concerned having been taken to the Seaside Home etc.

Jim thought that the informant and identifier was Kosminski's brother. He would have traded his knowledge for secrecy and no prosecution (which would have meant hanging) and knowing that he would be safely detained.

Jim's reasoning, of course, is flawed not least of all because if the informer/identifier was Aaron's brother there would have been no need at all for an identification. But, at least, it shows that Jim was putting some thought to what he had read.

Witnesses scared to come forward are not confined to 1888 Whitechapel. There was recently a case where a number of teenagers witnessed a murder. A poem or graffitti was subsequently left "naming" the killer. I believe the named accused was recently acquitted.

Of course many of these types of cases are gang related. Could this Ripper ID be similar? Subsituting gang for race.

The witness, instead of having some conscience about condemning a fellow Jew was fearfull of any backlash by the Jewish community against himself. We often read the quote "no Englishman could have committed such a crime". Could there have been a similar feeling amongs jews? - "No Jew could have committed such a crime". Thus the witness feared physically for himself.

I dont wish to sound anti Jewish. I only wish to state that strong feelings must have been present in the Jewish community surrounding this case, as well as amongst other communities.

[Varqm]

Great reading. Thanks SPE