Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help On Some Details

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

  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    The Swanson endpaper notes mimic the Sadler affair
    It's good to see you treading the same common ground as Stewart Evans, Simon. Perhaps there will be peace in the Middle East afterall.

    The Marginalia used to be widely discussed, but we have fallen on evil times and now the rage seems to be blaming various witnesses, bystanders, and drunken wife beaters. I think I preferred the 'Old School.'

    Anyway, let me make a completely agnostic observation. In the general scheme of things, witnesses are brought to where the suspect is being held. Yet Swanson, a man of vast police experience, is describing a suspect being brought to the witness. It's odd. He must have been aware of this oddness, no? But whether that's a mark against it, or a mark in favor of it, I cannot say. RP

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Trevor,

    The Swanson endpaper notes mimic the Sadler affair, in which there was a Ripper suspect, a Jewish witness, a Seamanís Home and an unsuccessful identification.

    Unhappily, though, James Sadler was not Jewish.

    But Ripperology never lets the facts stand in the way of a good story.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    My last comment in the quote you used was that I didn't believe the Kozminski note.
    There is good reason to accept both forces worked closely together, Swanson also told us that he & McWilliam met regularly over these murders.

    City records were destroyed during the war, as you well know.

    Lawende was used because the police knew where to find him, there doesn't seem to be any other justifiable reason.
    All the other witnesses appear to have been transient, and these ID's were years later, 1891 (Sadler), and 1895 (Grainger).
    But there is no record as to what date this ID is purported to have taken place. So much about this mythical ID parade that tells me it didn't happen in the way described, if in fact it acutally did happen at all.

    If they both worked closely together then surely they would have both been involved in this purported seaside ID, and if that had have been the case why would the City police have undertook the surveillance as described in a location which was under the Met?

    If they had been jointly involved surely such and event would have been documented by Major Smith in his memoirs, but in those memoirs he states they didnt have a clue.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Do you really believe what Swanson purportedly wrote in the marginalia?

    Surely if any such ID parade was going to take place you would have expected the police from both forces to work together and to use all the witnesses from both murders.

    There is no corroboration from The City that they carried out any surveillance as described by Swanson.

    In practical terms if this seaside ID ever did take place as described, would the police knowing they had a killer identified, simply have dropped him off leaving him to his own devices, I dont think so.

    On the question of Lawende, he had stated he would not be able to recognize the man seen with who it is believed was Eddowes, so why ask him to take part in an identification parade, any identification made after he had made his original statement would be worthless.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    My last comment in the quote you used was that I didn't believe the Kozminski note.
    There is good reason to accept both forces worked closely together, Swanson also told us that he & McWilliam met regularly over these murders.

    City records were destroyed during the war, as you well know.

    Lawende was used because the police knew where to find him, there doesn't seem to be any other justifiable reason.
    All the other witnesses appear to have been transient, and these ID's were years later, 1891 (Sadler), and 1895 (Grainger).

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Scott,

    Daily Telegraph, 18th February 1891.

    [ATTACH]19003[/ATTACH]

    Regards,

    Simon
    Hi Simon
    Interesting part of the article where it states that a confrontation took place, that implies the witness and the suspect were simply brought together in the same room. Not really a good idea from and evidential perspective.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    It was the City police who questioned the residents at Wentworth Dwellings where the graffiti was found, but it was Met. territory. The police did work together regardless who's 'patch' the enquiries were to be conducted.
    I'm not saying I believe the Kosminski detail, just that having the City conduct the stake-out on Met. territory is not sufficient to question it.
    Do you really believe what Swanson purportedly wrote in the marginalia?

    Surely if any such ID parade was going to take place you would have expected the police from both forces to work together and to use all the witnesses from both murders.

    There is no corroboration from The City that they carried out any surveillance as described by Swanson.

    In practical terms if this seaside ID ever did take place as described, would the police knowing they had a killer identified, simply have dropped him off leaving him to his own devices, I dont think so.

    On the question of Lawende, he had stated he would not be able to recognize the man seen with who it is believed was Eddowes, so why ask him to take part in an identification parade, any identification made after he had made his original statement would be worthless.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Hi Simon. But are you not quoting it out of context? Letís read it again, adding the preceding lineÖ

    ďA gentleman, who on the night of the Mitre-Square murder, noticed in Duke-Street, Aldgate, a couple standing under the lamp at the corner of the passage leading to Mitre-Square. The woman was identified as one victim...Ē

    Hold the phone. Really? Is that strictly true?

    While there is no doubt that the woman in Mitre-square was indeed Kate Eddowes, the above statement implies that the woman standing under the lamp was also identified as the victim, Kate Eddowes. Thatís two different claims.

    In truth, Lawende admitted to only seeing the womanís back, and, taken to the morgue, only stated that Eddowes clothing appeared to be the same as the woman he had seen under the lamp. I'm not sure that qualifies as "the woman was identified" and, whatever he may or may not have scribbled in a margin years later, the contemporary Swanson appears to have been unimpressed.

    Thus, I suggest that, if not an outright porkie, it is at least an exaggeration of what had actually occurred.

    And so to bed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi RJ,

    It's not my birthday, but thanks anyway.

    ". . . The woman [Eddowes] was identified as one victim of that night, Sept. 30, the other having been killed half an hour previously in Berner Street."

    No porkies there.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Hi Simon. It's a classic, but it does contain one pork pie.

    "The woman was identified as one victim of that night."

    Many happy returns, RJP

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Scott,

    Daily Telegraph, 18th February 1891.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DAILY TELEGRAPH 18 FEB 1891 SADLER.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	133.9 KB
ID:	667687

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Who says he was used in the Sadler ID?

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    Makes me wonder why people are so sure that Lawende was the Seaside Home witness and not Schwartz? Neither man witnessed the murder, but in Schwartz's case an attack was in progress and he got a better look at his man than Lawende did (he would not recognise him again). And of course Schwartz could refuse to identify the suspect out of loyalty to the Tribe.

    It's also unlikely that Lawende would've been rolled out to identify Sadler and Grainger if he was the Seaside Home witness.
    the police trusted him in the sadler ID, so he was probably used in the Kos ID.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darryl Kenyon
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    It was the City police who questioned the residents at Wentworth Dwellings where the graffiti was found, but it was Met. territory. The police did work together regardless who's 'patch' the enquiries were to be conducted.
    I'm not saying I believe the Kosminski detail, just that having the City conduct the stake-out on Met. territory is not sufficient to question it.
    Hi Wick, Does this not enforce why City police watched Kosminski? IE The City Police questioning the residents at Wentworth Dwellings where the graffiti was found,and also the bloody piece of Apron, which we all know belonged to Kate. Because she was killed on their territory so in consequence it was their investigation.
    Regards Darryl

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    It was the City police who questioned the residents at Wentworth Dwellings where the graffiti was found, but it was Met. territory. The police did work together regardless who's 'patch' the enquiries were to be conducted.
    I'm not saying I believe the Kosminski detail, just that having the City conduct the stake-out on Met. territory is not sufficient to question it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darryl Kenyon
    replied
    I think that Lawende is mainly proposed as being the witness because Swanson says in his notes -On suspect’s return to his brother’s house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night.
    Since Kosminski probably lived in Metropolitan territory at the time of the ID why would the City CID watch him? Unless he was their suspect IE He had been identified by Lawende for the Eddowes murder.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X