Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[jerryd]

Yes, Dalston is about a 50 minute walk to the north. But, given the time of night, travelling along the major streets would be prudent, and heading down to Aldgate then over to Commercial Street and then going north would make sense if he was heading there. I just can't find a Norfolk Road in the Dalston area though.

I didn't know Harris lived in Castle Alley. Was that reported somewhere, or has he been tracked down in a census?

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Both.

Evening News
9 October, 1888

...three of the members named respectively Joseph Levy, butcher, 1 Middlesex street, Aldgate; Joseph Levander, commercial traveller in or manufacturer of cigarettes, whose business premises are in St. Mary Axe, corner of Bury street; and Mr. Henry Harris, furniture dealer, of Castle street, Whitechapel, left the club.

1891 Census- 34 Newcastle Street

No. 34 Newcastle Street backs up to Castle Alley. In fact, looking over the hoarding of the backyard of #34 in 1889 would be a direct view of the murder of Alice McKenzie.

[jerryd]

I just can't find a Norfolk Road in the Dalston area though.

Norfolk Road is now called Cecilia Road. I can post a map if you want to see it with the name Norfolk Road.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jerry,

The Evening News of 9th October 1888 said that Lawende was "a commercial traveller in, or manufacturer of, cigarettes, whose business premises are in St. Mary Axe, corner of Bury Street."

This "fact" found its way into the JtR A-Z.

But there wasn't a "corner of St. Mary Axe and Bury Street", so perhaps the Evening News meant Bury Court.

Regards,

Simon

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,

The Evening News of 9th October 1888 said that Lawende was "a commercial traveller in, or manufacturer of, cigarettes, whose business premises are in St. Mary Axe, corner of Bury Street."

This "fact" found its way into the JtR A-Z.

But there wasn't a "corner of St. Mary Axe and Bury Street", so perhaps the Evening News meant Bury Court.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

I found some research by Chris Phillips from years back. It has Lawende at No. 99 (not 79) Fenchurch working for Messrs. Gustav Kuschke and Co.

[JeffHamm]

...
Who is right, Jeff or myself?
...

Strictly speaking, that's unknowable. None of us were there, and all we have are written transcripts of what was said, so already we're dealing with 2nd hand information, so we can't even be 100% sure that what we're reading is, in fact, exactly what the person said at the time. Just compare two different sources, such as the official transcript records with any of the Newspapers, and you'll find difference in wording. Sometimes the differences appear inconsequential to the meaning, other times we find the implications differ.

Also, how language is used changes over time and differs between localities, and we're over 130 years removed, and most of us further still in miles. It's also used differently depending upon education, social norms which in turn differ between economic status, and so forth. None of us come close to those giving testimony on those dimensions. Furthermore, language is infinitely flexible, we can "say the same thing but use different words", or to put that another way, "the meaning of the whole statement is more than the meaning of the individual statements." So while the devil is in the details, when the details are questionable the devil can lead you astray. Any individual sentence, particularly those spoken on the fly, can be found to be ambiguous to some degree. For my own approach, what I try and do when looking at specific statements is constantly check back with the overall gist of what the person has said, as often it is the overall context which helps to disambiguate a particularly ambiguous individual statement. Otherwise, one ends up down endless rabbit holes, following the will-o-the-wisps of our own creative ways of interpreting one sentence or word or phrase.

On top of all that, we also have to remember that what people report they saw and what they actually saw are not the same thing. What they report they saw is based upon a memory for an event, while what they actually saw is the event itself. Remembering events will be error prone to some degree, particularly in the finer details, but sometimes it can be wildly different, conflating two separate events into one memory. People will also have differences of opinions on some things (Lawende's and Levy's estimates of how long they waited after 1:30 is an example), and we have no idea which, if either, of them is closer to the truth. Some people will be prone to forming opinions that lean in one direction, others prone to lean the other way (meaning, one might be prone to overestimate the time, others prone to underestimate it; same applies to medical professionals when giving their opinion on the amount of skill required, or how much time is required, or even how confident one is - it's well known that people can be highly confident in incorrect beliefs, confidence is not an indicator of factual correctness). Those can be referred to biases, but I don't mean that in a pejorative way, you could also just think of it as personality differences.

Because we (meaning humans) are highly creative thinkers, and we dislike mysteries (that's why we want to solve them after all, we have an instinct to dislikes the unknown), we can easily end up creating solutions that satisfy that instinct and provide us with an explanation despite the fact the solution is entirely based upon making choices for which one could just as easily have made another. What I'm most interested in is finding the points in the events where those divisions in choice start, accepting that strictly speaking, they start the moment one enters the case because we're working with 2nd hand information, so the first choice we have to make is "are these records accurate?". Where I think things diverge reflects my own personal biases, and there are others who believe we can go further and others who believe we can't even get to where I think we can. Those are points of discussion, where we present our various lines of reasoning behind why we believe what we believe. It's not enough to just say "I believe X", because there are 25 other letters in the alphabet, each of which somebody will believe in (and 26 more once lower case is included, and ... you get the idea ). What becomes important is not so much our beliefs themselves, but why we believe what we believe. I try to ensure that my beliefs can be tied to multiple lines of reasoning, which is why I do things like compare statements of times and travel with distances and average walking speeds - do those correspond and make sense? Do we have multiple people, all describing the same event? If so, is there a common interpretation that generally fits all, or at least most, of them, allowing for variation in specific details?

It's incredibly hard to do, and it is through discussions here where I've found people have pointed out where I've overlooked something, or where it becomes clear I've failed to see where I entered my own rabbit hole. While I try to acknowledge that, doing so doesn't mean I've agreed to simply shift into their warren of thinking, but most likely I'll retreat to the point where things diverge. On the other hand, people stating strong beliefs without being able to back them up except by presenting the twists and turns of their own rabbit holes that start based upon what seems an improbable choice in the first place, are not going to be things that I find convincing. Those points of "choice" need to be tied to something objective in the evidence, not simply a creative way to find ambiguity in singular statements, and certainly not when the ambiguity is only created by ignoring selective bits of recorded evidence (this is not directed at you by the way, nor is it directed at anyone in particular, rather just a description of what does, or does not, convince me; which is only useful to the extent anyone finds it important to do so).

Anyway, self isolation appears to have resulted in a bit of my own navel gazing, but just thought I would share a bit about my own personal approach. It would be a boring and pedantic world if we all had exactly the same approach and criterion. The benefit of different styles is that it ensures something is thoroughly examined, and it is by doing so that we all learn something despite ourselves.

- Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jerry,

I just looked in the 1888 [compiled 1887] Post Office Directory.

Gustav Kuschke and Co. "tobcc.mrs" are listed at 99 Fenchurch Street.

Regards,

Simon

[JeffHamm]

Norfolk Road is now called Cecilia Road. I can post a map if you want to see it with the name Norfolk Road.

Thanks for that! I was able to find Cecilla Road on Google Maps, which then allowed me to find it on the older maps. I plotted what looks to be a plausible route for Lawende to get from Duke Street to Norfolk Road, keeping to major streets as one might expect given the hour. Looks to be about an hour's walk. Note, the route just gets him to Norfolk Road via Sandringham as I don't have the street numbers, but Norfolk runs about 630 feet south, or about 1100 feet north from the end point, so from there to home is not going to add all that much time.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Jerry,

The Evening News of 9th October 1888 said that Lawende was "a commercial traveller in, or manufacturer of, cigarettes, whose business premises are in St. Mary Axe, corner of Bury Street."

This "fact" found its way into the JtR A-Z.

But there wasn't a "corner of St. Mary Axe and Bury Street", so perhaps the Evening News meant Bury Court.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon

There were cigarette and tobacco warehouses at the corner of St Mary Axe and Bevis Marks, no. 56 & 58, so perhaps this is where he worked.

[DJA]

Try the corner of St Mary Axe and Bury Court.

About 5 doors from the Baltic Exchange.




Also 79 Fenchurch Street.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi NBFN,
I'll wait till you play your cards then. Who do I thinks right, you or Jeff? We'll, it's not about who's right, it's about prising out details and interpreting them, a strong point of Jeff's I might add. Levy's account merits scrutiny, it's always assumed all three left as one, but maybe Levy did go alone? Then there's the timings, the PC's beats etc. It's an area that's gone over more than most the 'double', ironic given that Stride is the most likely non canonical. Or maybe because of? At any rate, if your looking to work out plausible possible scenarios, your in good company with Mr Hamm. He'll keep you grounded.

And if you want a theory dissected with ruthless wit, email it to Lord Orsam.

Thanks Al.
I guess I worded that a bit too dramatically - really just wanted to get your (and others) opinions.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No, Anderson was referring to the suspect, not the witness.

Will break down Anderson's text a bit more.

...I am almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer and of the pressman who wrote the letter above referred to.

He makes reference to two people here.

In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact.

Thus the 'he' becomes indeterminant - why not suppose that the pressman was the Polish Jew?
And why not suppose that 'he' refers to the 'he' of the preceding sentence...

I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him.

The reason it is supposed that 'Polish Jew' refers to the suspect, derives from the preceding paragraphs.
Anderson says:

And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.

By 'diagnosis', he means what we would refer to as a criminal profile.
In point form, this is the profile they were working with:

One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover:

• that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type
• that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders
• and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice.

The profile does not include the nationality of the murderer.

The next stage in the investigation, is the door-to-door search...

During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

So 'the conclusion we came to', supports the diagnosis.
However, at this stage the identity of the murderer is still unknown.
The identity does not become known until 'the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him'.
The point is that the murderer is not necessarily a Polish Jew, according to what Anderson is saying.

Swanson probably misinterpreted Anderson.
Rather than stating 'Kosminski was the suspect', he should have written; 'Lawende was the witness'
Especially since Jack the Ripper was not Polish.

And my words are meant to specify race, not religion.

This sentence is in regard to '; but he refused to give evidence against him'.
The witness's refusal to give evidence should not be regarded as a general reflection on the Jewish religion (is what Anderson is saying), but only on 'that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice'.

Now the focus shifts from the witness to the 'religion' of the suspect...

For it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the brute.

Here, 'all religious sentiment' means - the beliefs of all religious people.
So we can surmise: Jack the Ripper was an atheist.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What has to be kept in mind when reading Anderson's autobiography, is that he is writing for a general audience in the 1910 era, and not Ripperologists.
Sir Robert wants to explain to the world why the Ripper was never caught.
Essentially, it's down to the culture of certain lower class Jews in the East End - a culture that does not accept 'Gentile Justice' when one of their own are involved, even if that one is a serial killer.
If not for that, the killer would have been brought to justice.
Other than that insurmountable hurdle, Scotland Yard basically got it right (according to Anderson), with both their analysis and information gathering - the later backing up the former...

And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.

That is what Anderson discusses in his memoir - he does not discuss the Ripper per se, other than the hint about 'the religion of a loathsome creature'.

Think about someone reading TLSofMOL, a hundred years ago, when they come across this:

I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence against him.

You and I know with a fair degree of confidence, that this unnamed person is probably Israel Schwartz, or Joseph Lawende.
In 1920, virtually no one on Earth knows who Israel Schwartz is, and only a handful would recall Lawende from the 1888 papers.
So this person would have a tendency to react like something like this:

Wow! Was there really a person that had a confrontation with Jack the Ripper, and lived to tell the tale? And who was that person?

To which Robert responds: In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact.

For the 1920 reader, the mystery person - not JtR - is who Robert wants to provide a couple of basic details for.
However, clearly this was no ordinary witnessing of the murderer, in the vicinity of, and close to the time of one of the murders.
Something that could reasonably be called a confrontation must have occurred.

For the modern Ripperologist, in contrast, there is a massive bias at work.
We don't want 'In saying that he was a Polish Jew...', to refer to a witness - we already know about the witnesses.
Instead, we want this to be a clue to the identity of Jack the Ripper!
Then we can go looking for a Polish Jew suspect...

Unfortunately, Robert was referring to a witness, not a suspect.
The good news is; we still know JtR was Jewish, and also that he was probably of the Atheist variety.
We should be able to determine his identity from there...

[Joshua Rogan]

Drivel

[JeffHamm]

What has to be kept in mind when reading Anderson's autobiography, is that he is writing for a general audience in the 1910 era, and not Ripperologists.
Sir Robert wants to explain to the world why the Ripper was never caught.
Essentially, it's down to the culture of certain lower class Jews in the East End - a culture that does not accept 'Gentile Justice' when one of their own are involved, even if that one is a serial killer.
If not for that, the killer would have been brought to justice.
Other than that insurmountable hurdle, Scotland Yard basically got it right (according to Anderson), with both their analysis and information gathering - the later backing up the former...



That is what Anderson discusses in his memoir - he does not discuss the Ripper per se, other than the hint about 'the religion of a loathsome creature'.

Think about someone reading TLSofMOL, a hundred years ago, when they come across this:



You and I know with a fair degree of confidence, that this unnamed person is probably Israel Schwartz, or Joseph Lawende.
In 1920, virtually no one on Earth knows who Israel Schwartz is, and only a handful would recall Lawende from the 1888 papers.
So this person would have a tendency to react like something like this:

Wow! Was there really a person that had a confrontation with Jack the Ripper, and lived to tell the tale? And who was that person?

To which Robert responds: In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact.

For the 1920 reader, the mystery person - not JtR - is who Robert wants to provide a couple of basic details for.
However, clearly this was no ordinary witnessing of the murderer, in the vicinity of, and close to the time of one of the murders.
Something that could reasonably be called a confrontation must have occurred.

For the modern Ripperologist, in contrast, there is a massive bias at work.
We don't want 'In saying that he was a Polish Jew...', to refer to a witness - we already know about the witnesses.
Instead, we want this to be a clue to the identity of Jack the Ripper!
Then we can go looking for a Polish Jew suspect...

Unfortunately, Robert was referring to a witness, not a suspect.
The good news is; we still know JtR was Jewish, and also that he was probably of the Atheist variety.
We should be able to determine his identity from there...

I think it's important to present the rest of Anderson's quote, which in full reads:
"In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact. And my words are meant to specify race, not religion. For it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the brute."

It's pretty clear he's not talking about the witness.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I think it's important to present the rest of Anderson's quote, which in full reads:
"In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact. And my words are meant to specify race, not religion. For it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the brute."

It's pretty clear he's not talking about the witness.

- Jeff

When Anderson says 'And my words are meant to specify race, not religion.' - he means 'And my words, thus far, are meant to specify race, not religion.'

He is referring to everyone involved - the witness, the East End Jews, and the murderer - all of which are Jews.
It is not just a reference to the prior sentence - 'my words' indicates it is meant in general, rather than about a specific person.

Joseph Lawende was the witness, and he was a Polish Jew - and that is the definitely ascertained fact, not the identity of JtR!

Can you imagine Lawende telling the police; 'Well I'm not going to give up his identity, but I'll give you guys a sporting chance - he's a Pole.'

It would all or nothing, and if Lawende did give up the identity, then why is Anderson going on about East End Polish Jews protecting that identity?

If they have the identity, who cares what the local attitudes are, and if they don't have it, then how do they know the suspect is a Pole?

A simple test: If it is actually a reference to a suspect, and that suspect was Kosminski, then why, after all these years, is it not possible to place Kosminski at a single murder scene?