Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Wickerman]

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?...

Playing devils advocate here:
The City police appear to have placed Lawende in isolation, why do that if he knew nothing?

The coroner is not conducting a trial, there is no accused. So what does it matter if Lawende makes it known he would not know the man again?

The isolation was just until the inquest, once it is published that Lawende cannot identify the man his life may not be in danger, but until the inquest he was kept out of the public eye, just for his safety.

Personally, I doubt he saw the killer or Eddowes, so like I said, just an exercise in devils advocate.

I have always assumed it was just to keep the press away from him.

[DJA]

The police were diverting attention away from where Eddowes was found.

GSG achieved similar.


Two Twins - Riddles.com

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Playing devils advocate here:
The City police appear to have placed Lawende in isolation, why do that if he knew nothing?

The coroner is not conducting a trial, there is no accused. So what does it matter if Lawende makes it known he would not know the man again?

The isolation was just until the inquest, once it is published that Lawende cannot identify the man his life may not be in danger, but until the inquest he was kept out of the public eye, just for his safety.

Personally, I doubt he saw the killer or Eddowes, so like I said, just an exercise in devils advocate.

I have always assumed it was just to keep the press away from him.

Why only Lawende, and not Harris and Levy?

How do the press know who of the three, saw what, prior to the inquest?
I guess they could have worked out that one of the three saw more than the other two, because one of them is being chaperoned around by detectives!
Kinda gives the game away.

So how could one of the three have seen more if they all left in the same direction along Duke St, paying minimal attention to the CPC?

Could it be because Harris and Levy left for home one way, but Lawende went in the other, before circling back for another look?

And if Lawende ended up identifying a suspect in custody, the instant he set eyes on him, why was the suspect never charged, regardless of Lawende's supposed policy regarding testifying against a fellow Jew (and is Lawende fairly classified as one of these 'low-class Polish Jews' Anderson speaks of, anyway?)?

Could it be that the confrontation Lawende had with Jack the Ripper, was outside Church Passage, to which he had returned after a brief interval away?

Is a confrontation in the wild, rather than in custody, the reason the police were not in a position to charge the suspect?
And is this plus the Oct 6 postcard, the real reason he needs police protection, rather than for his own safety from those overly pushy pressmen?

These same reporters seem to have direct contact with Levy, without his safety being compromised.
And if Levy knows so little of consequence, why this?...

Mr. Joseph Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give us the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but that he is afraid to be called on the inquest. Hence he assumes a knowing air.

Clearly there is more going on than just a few men briefly noticing an unidentified man and woman together, right near the murder location and a few minutes prior to it.
Basing arguments on inquest text can only take us so far - the rest has to be determined by reading between the lines.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

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

The other main problem with this ID issue is that we don't not know what the witness evidence was and what it related to for the police to conduct an ID parade in the first place.

This is what makes everything about The Swanson Marginalia questionable and also Anderson's comments.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

The other main problem with this ID issue is that we don't not know what the witness evidence was and what it related to for the police to conduct an ID parade in the first place.

This is what makes everything about The Swanson Marginalia questionable and also Anderson's comments.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There are lots of unknowns around all of these, that's for sure.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Playing devils advocate here:
The City police appear to have placed Lawende in isolation, why do that if he knew nothing?

? That's a take on things I've not heard. So forgive me if the idea is more common than I realize, but upon what are you basing the idea the police put Lawende in isolation? That seems unlikely, given he's a witness, and I know of no contemporary suggestion of him being a suspect.

The coroner is not conducting a trial, there is no accused. So what does it matter if Lawende makes it known he would not know the man again?

None. Although the fact remains that he stated he didn't believe at that time he could.

The isolation was just until the inquest, once it is published that Lawende cannot identify the man his life may not be in danger, but until the inquest he was kept out of the public eye, just for his safety.

There's nothing I'm aware of that the police did anything to "protect" any other witness. There's also nothing I'm aware of that suggests they treated Lawende differently. So I guess I'm wondering what you are basing the above upon? What makes you think the police kept Lawende in isolation, that wouldn't apply to other potential witness?

Personally, I doubt he saw the killer or Eddowes, so like I said, just an exercise in devils advocate.

By which you must mean, the CPC is not, in your view, Eddowes and JtR? But we don't know if they were, or were not, so how can you make that claim?

I have always assumed it was just to keep the press away from him.

Maybe you've assumed wrong? That happens a lot in life.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Doh, double post.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

The other main problem with this ID issue is that we don't not know what the witness evidence was and what it related to for the police to conduct an ID parade in the first place.

This is what makes everything about The Swanson Marginalia questionable and also Anderson's comments.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Fully agree, all we have is (at best) a summary of the witness' account, and even then, a summary filtered through years of memory. We have nothing on why the suspect was brought forth for "confrontation" (a method now known to be highly error prone towards false positives) in the first place (i.e. did they do this regularly, on whms, or was there anything substantial? Nobody knows, because it's not documented.

While many potentially interesting lines flow on when one allows oneself to free associate, without evidence they get cut off as unsubstantiated pretty quickly.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

As a thought experiment, imagine that Anderson's witness is actually the Ripper (and the suspect therefore innocent).
What would be the most rational strategy for this 'witness', if the confrontation occurs at an ID parade?
I would suggest there would be two things that would maximise the false witness's prospects for freedom:

1. unhesitatingly identify the 'suspect' the instant he is confronted with him
2. subsequently refuse to give evidence against him

The point is; the murderer could come forward as a witness, and then easily game the system.

[Trevor Marriott]

As a thought experiment, imagine that Anderson's witness is actually the Ripper (and the suspect therefore innocent).
What would be the most rational strategy for this 'witness', if the confrontation occurs at an ID parade?
I would suggest there would be two things that would maximise the false witness's prospects for freedom:

1. unhesitatingly identify the 'suspect' the instant he is confronted with him
2. subsequently refuse to give evidence against him

The point is; the murderer could come forward as a witness, and then easily game the system.

The witness testimony would have to be tested as some point and not readily accepted as being correct so what you suggest in reality would not happen.

Why would the killer want to come forward as a witness if he knew he could not be identified. His actions in doing that would without a doubt draw needless attention to himself.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The witness testimony would have to be tested as some point and not readily accepted as being correct so what you suggest in reality would not happen.

Yes, they would have to recall the witness at some point. That is, assuming they can find him.

Why would the killer want to come forward as a witness if he knew he could not be identified. His actions in doing that would without a doubt draw needless attention to himself.

Well that's a big assumption (not being identifiable).
Supposing he couldn't be identified though, the only reason I can think of is that the murder has occurred too close to home, and by coming forward as an witness who was merely passing by the property at the time, he takes himself away from the crime spot.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, they would have to recall the witness at some point. That is, assuming they can find him.

If the witness is of that importance and he disappears then the case folds

Well that's a big assumption (not being identifiable).
Supposing he couldn't be identified though, the only reason I can think of is that the murder has occurred too close to home, and by coming forward as an witness who was merely passing by the property at the time, he takes himself away from the crime spot.

Why would a killer come forward and profess to be a witness because he might not know that police had other evidence in their hands to negate what he was saying, and then he is looked at as a suspect because he has openly placed himself in close proximity to the crime scene. The police do not always disclose to the press or public the full extent of their evidence.

I am really not sure where you are going with what you are trying to suggest

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

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)

That would be my theory, Jeff. I think I'm the only one who holds to it, so "others" is stretching it somewhat, but thanks for making it sound like it just might be widely acknowledged!

[Trevor Marriott]

That would be my theory, Jeff. I think I'm the only one who holds to it, so "others" is stretching it somewhat, but thanks for making it sound like it just might be widely acknowledged!

Correct me if I am wrong but other than Eddowes no males were seen in company with the victims prior to their murders!

So all this discussion about witnesses is academic.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

? That's a take on things I've not heard. So forgive me if the idea is more common than I realize, but upon what are you basing the idea the police put Lawende in isolation? That seems unlikely, given he's a witness, and I know of no contemporary suggestion of him being a suspect.

It was reported that Lawende was sequestered, but the article does not say by whom. The reasonable supposition is by the City police.

By which you must mean, the CPC is not, in your view, Eddowes and JtR? But we don't know if they were, or were not, so how can you make that claim?

To be honest, I think Macnaghten erred with his "City PC", in my view he confused Mitre Square with Berner St. - PC Smith being the only constable who gave a suspect description in this case.

Maybe you've assumed wrong? That happens a lot in life.

- Jeff

Tell me about it