Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post



    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?
    Because he was not the killer !

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk


    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      Because he was not the killer !

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Exactly!

      The phrase 'definitely ascertained fact', is relevant to an ongoing investigation, not a successfully completed one.

      Anderson uses this phrase, because Lawende was found owing to the door-to-door search, after the Eddowes murder.
      That's how the fact came to be 'definitely ascertained'.

      Anderson means; this fact (the witness was a Polish Jew), supported the analysis that Scotland Yard had already done, which indicated that the culture of certain Jews in the East End, prohibits them from turning over a guilty fellow Jew, to the police.
      In a sense, he is really just giving the boys at Scotland Yard, a pat on the back.

      However, Anderson simply surmises that as Lawende was a Polish Jew, that the problem must lie specifically with Polish East End Jews.

      That is Anderson's assumption!

      He does not know, nor has he been told by any witness, that JtR is Polish!

      Consequently, that is why all the effort that has gone into Kosminski, was probably doomed to failure from the start.
      Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 03-29-2020, 11:31 AM.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
        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
        So Pipeman probably smoked his own company's tobacco.
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Because he was not the killer !

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Aye, but somebody was, yet nobody was.
          Meaning, somebody was the killer, yet nobody was 'placed at the scene'.
          So, you're observation applies to everyone, the killer included.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • "Kosminski was the suspect" - Donald Swanson

            "Kosminski, a Polish Jew, & resident in Whitechapel....There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'". - Macnaghten Memoranda

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
              "Kosminski was the suspect" - Donald Swanson

              "Kosminski, a Polish Jew, & resident in Whitechapel....There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'". - Macnaghten Memoranda
              I take "circs" (ie; circumstances) to mean 'type of person', as opposed to evidence. In other words Kozminski was the 'type' of person Anderson believed the killer to be, but, he still could not be connected with the crimes.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • I read it just the opposite, Jon. But we'll have to agree to disagree.

                Comment


                • Before we all go pinning the Whitechapel murders on an innocent Jew, please don't forget that Robert Anderson was an inveterate liar.
                  Last edited by Simon Wood; 03-29-2020, 08:02 PM.
                  Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    but, he still could not be connected with the crimes.

                    I am afraid this is not true.

                    "This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City P.C. near Mitre Square"



                    The Baron

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      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.'
                      One can suggest that, but in the end it is changing what Anderson actually wrote in a way that fundamentally changes the meaning of what he wrote, and then building an argument upon the altered evidence.

                      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.
                      Only the new version would fit the above description, but not the original actual quote.

                      Joseph Lawende was the witness, and he was a Polish Jew - and that is the definitely ascertained fact, not the identity of JtR!
                      But the rest of the quote only makes sense if Andersen is continuing on the same vein, which if your altered presentation of his meaning would require Andersen to be referring to Lawende as "...a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the brute.", where he's clearly referring to JtR. The modification no longer fits with the entirety of what Andersen actually said, refuting the validity of the suggested reinterpretation. It may work in isolation to that one sentence, but not to the whole of the evidence.

                      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?
                      Andersen's complaint was that he believed the witness (who is unnamed, but Lawende is argued to be the witness by researchers), recognized the suspect but refused to swear to that identification, therefore removing them as a prosecution witness. There's nothing to suggest the witness was playing games as per the above, or that the witness believed they knew for sure who JtR was; in fact, just the opposite (which is one of the reasons Lawende is suggested as the witness as he's on record saying he doubts he could identify the man he saw).

                      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?
                      Because that would require at least two things, that Kosminski was actually in police custody (there's no official record of his arrest, and there's no official record even of Andersen's above "confrontation" either, it's only in his book), and it would require a witness who was sure of their ability to identify him. Lawende tells us he couldn't identify the person even at the time. Of course, further those points, it also requires that Kosminski was, in fact, JtR, which is not proven - he's just one of many suspects we have.

                      Even if it wasn't Kosminski, and Andersen never says himself that it was, no matter who it was we cannot place them at the scene. The above applies to any name one puts forward, so it doesn't differentiate between an innocent or guilty person. By that simple test, even the real JtR would be exonerated because we cannot put anyone at any of the scenes at the time of the murder.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                        I am afraid this is not true.

                        "This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City P.C. near Mitre Square"



                        The Baron
                        Sorry Baron, but bearing a resemblance is not a connection.

                        Kozminski would have to have been known to be in the vicinity at the time to have a connection.
                        Hundreds, if not thousands could be said to 'resemble' the man seen by the PC, especially as we do not know what that resemblance entailed; height, weight, appearance, by clothing, ethnicity or by age?
                        Precisely what?

                        And, what did Kozminski even look like?
                        You, me,... we don't even know that.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                          One can suggest that, but in the end it is changing what Anderson actually wrote in a way that fundamentally changes the meaning of what he wrote, and then building an argument upon the altered evidence.

                          Only the new version would fit the above description, but not the original actual quote.

                          But the rest of the quote only makes sense if Andersen is continuing on the same vein, which if your altered presentation of his meaning would require Andersen to be referring to Lawende as "...a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the brute.", where he's clearly referring to JtR. The modification no longer fits with the entirety of what Andersen actually said, refuting the validity of the suggested reinterpretation. It may work in isolation to that one sentence, but not to the whole of the evidence.

                          Andersen's complaint was that he believed the witness (who is unnamed, but Lawende is argued to be the witness by researchers), recognized the suspect but refused to swear to that identification, therefore removing them as a prosecution witness. There's nothing to suggest the witness was playing games as per the above, or that the witness believed they knew for sure who JtR was; in fact, just the opposite (which is one of the reasons Lawende is suggested as the witness as he's on record saying he doubts he could identify the man he saw).
                          Jeff,
                          there is only one race involved in the relevant part of the text - the Jewish race.
                          The phrase 'my words', must be being used to cover all parties, because they all share a common trait - Jewish ethnicity.
                          Anderson is attempting to do two things:
                          • Suggest that the refusal of a Polish Jewish witness to testify against the suspect, proves that Scotland Yard were on the right track with their diagnosis
                          • State that witness and suspect and the class of East End Jews that would have protected the suspect, were not a reflection on the Jewish religion in general, but only a particular local culture
                          Anderson is saying that it was the behaviour of the Polish Jew witness (Lawende), that vindicated their analysis - it's really just self-congratulation.
                          On the other hand, he makes the effort to avoid smearing the Jewish religion - he is a very devout man himself, and doesn't want to be misconstrued in that regard.
                          The bottom line is that the notion that TLSofMOL suggests there was a definitely ascertained Polish Jew suspect - who was identified immediately when a man of the same nationality and religion came face-to-face with him - is false.

                          Because that would require at least two things, that Kosminski was actually in police custody (there's no official record of his arrest, and there's no official record even of Andersen's above "confrontation" either, it's only in his book), and it would require a witness who was sure of their ability to identify him. Lawende tells us he couldn't identify the person even at the time. Of course, further those points, it also requires that Kosminski was, in fact, JtR, which is not proven - he's just one of many suspects we have.
                          Charles Lechmere is regarded by some as a suspect, can be placed at a murder scene, and was never in police custody.
                          As for your point about Lawende not being able to identify the suspect, that really begs the question:
                          How does Anderson know the suspect is a Polish Jew, if Lawende wouldn't know the suspect if he sat down across from him at a pub?
                          Furthermore, if Lawende does indeed know the suspect was a Polish Jew, and Anderson knows that because Lawende told him, do we have a case of lying under oath at the inquest - and known to have occurred by the Assistant Chief Commissioner?
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Which of these is true?...

                            Eddowes inquest, Oct 11:

                            [Coroner] Would you know him again?
                            [Lawende] I doubt it.
                            Anderson's memoir:

                            ...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.
                            If the first, how can there be a definitely ascertained Polish Jew suspect?

                            If the second, is this just a lucky guess, on the part of a hoaxer:

                            6 Oct 1888
                            You though your-self very clever I reckon when you informed the police. But you made a mistake if you though I dident see you. Now I known you know me and I see your little game, and I mean to finish you and send your ears to your wife if you show this to the police or help them if you do I will finish you. It no use your trying to get out of my way. Because I have you when you dont expect it and I keep my word as you soon see and rip you up. Yours truly Jack the Ripper.

                            PS You see I know your address


                            If it is a lucky guess, why is the Evening News saying this, Oct 9:

                            ...the police having taken exclusive care of Mr. Joseph Levander, to a certain extent having sequestrated him and having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy. They are paying all his expenses, and one if not two detectives are taking him about.
                            And if not a lucky guess, then Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky are probably genuine, and we have start to wonder; how could Jack the Ripper be aware of Joseph Lawende's identity?
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                              Jeff,
                              there is only one race involved in the relevant part of the text - the Jewish race.
                              The phrase 'my words', must be being used to cover all parties, because they all share a common trait - Jewish ethnicity.
                              Anderson is attempting to do two things:
                              • Suggest that the refusal of a Polish Jewish witness to testify against the suspect, proves that Scotland Yard were on the right track with their diagnosis
                              • State that witness and suspect and the class of East End Jews that would have protected the suspect, were not a reflection on the Jewish religion in general, but only a particular local culture
                              Anderson is saying that it was the behaviour of the Polish Jew witness (Lawende), that vindicated their analysis - it's really just self-congratulation.
                              On the other hand, he makes the effort to avoid smearing the Jewish religion - he is a very devout man himself, and doesn't want to be misconstrued in that regard.
                              The bottom line is that the notion that TLSofMOL suggests there was a definitely ascertained Polish Jew suspect - who was identified immediately when a man of the same nationality and religion came face-to-face with him - is false.



                              Charles Lechmere is regarded by some as a suspect, can be placed at a murder scene, and was never in police custody.
                              As for your point about Lawende not being able to identify the suspect, that really begs the question:
                              How does Anderson know the suspect is a Polish Jew, if Lawende wouldn't know the suspect if he sat down across from him at a pub?
                              I think it entirely reasonable to assume that if the police had a suspect in custody and brought in a witness (let's assume Lawende for simplicity as even if that assumption is wrong it doesn't matter), then it is entirely reasonable to conclude the police know the suspect's race, religion, age, name, and so forth already. It seems likely they would not inform the witness of these details, so the real question is how the witness knew the suspect was a Polish and Jewish or maybe just knew they were Polish or just knew they were Jewish? Those, alone or in combination, however, appears to be something that people of the time were able to spot and/or infer, possibly by accents, style of dress, and so forth. But it seems odd to think the police would not know the information pertaining to the suspect and would require the witness to provide this.

                              The situation described (which some doubt ever actually occurred; others have suggested that Andersen may be misremembering an attempt to get a witness to identify of Pizer, but I can't now recall the details of that, sorry) is that the police had the suspect taken to the Seaside Home, and then brought in the witness to see if they could identify the suspect as JtR (or, more accurately, as the person they saw on whatever night in question we're dealing with). The witness would not swear to the identification. In the scenerio, as described by Andersen, the suspect is in their custody, hence the information about the suspect would be available to them. There's no question to beg.
                              Furthermore, if Lawende does indeed know the suspect was a Polish Jew, and Anderson knows that because Lawende told him, do we have a case of lying under oath at the inquest - and known to have occurred by the Assistant Chief Commissioner?
                              We don't know that the witness did know the suspect was a Polish Jew, Andersen only indicates they recognized the suspect as being Jewish.

                              - Jeff
                              Last edited by JeffHamm; 03-30-2020, 01:52 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                                I think it entirely reasonable to assume that if the police had a suspect in custody and brought in a witness (let's assume Lawende for simplicity as even if that assumption is wrong it doesn't matter), then it is entirely reasonable to conclude the police know the suspect's race, religion, age, name, and so forth already. It seems likely they would not inform the witness of these details, so the real question is how the witness knew the suspect was a Polish and Jewish or maybe just knew they were Polish or just knew they were Jewish? Those, alone or in combination, however, appears to be something that people of the time were able to spot and/or infer, possibly by accents, style of dress, and so forth. But it seems odd to think the police would not know the information pertaining to the suspect and would require the witness to provide this.
                                Of course the police know the suspect's race, religion, age, name, and so forth already.
                                But if the witness is just inferring the suspect is Polish and Jewish, from accents (would the suspect have spoken at an identification?) and dress style, it is a rather lame identification, and really just goes toward validation of Scotland Yard's supposed criminal diagnosis.
                                The critical issue with this partly hypothetical ID procedure, is that if the witness is Lawende, he has already told Baxter that he would probably not be able to recognise the suspect again; therefore the procedure has little or no value, and the validity of the Polish Jewish suspect (as JtR) is very far from being definitely ascertained.
                                However, if that logic is correct, then what are we to make of this?...

                                ... [he] unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him

                                That is unequivocal, and if this identification occurred in custody and not in 'the wild', why does Anderson use the phrase 'the instant', to describe how quickly the identification occurred?

                                Also, why does the witness's refusal to testify against the subject, put an end to the matter? Can't the suspect be charged anyway?
                                Does the claim by Anderson that the witness refused to testify have any evidential support?
                                Were there other serious criminal cases at the time, in which a Jewish person refused to testify against another Jew?
                                Did that come with any penalty?

                                The situation described (which some doubt ever actually occurred; others have suggested that Andersen may be misremembering an attempt to get a witness to identify of Pizer, but I can't now recall the details of that, sorry) is that the police had the suspect taken to the Seaside Home, and then brought in the witness to see if they could identify the suspect as JtR (or, more accurately, as the person they saw on whatever night in question we're dealing with). The witness would not swear to the identification. In the scenerio, as described by Andersen, the suspect is in their custody, hence the information about the suspect would be available to them. There's no question to beg.
                                Maybe not in that scenario.
                                So perhaps Pizer is a better candidate for JtR, than Kosminski?
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X