Help On Some Details

[Harry D]

If and when they had a suspect under arrest, Schwartz could have played a vital role by confirming or denying that this was the man he saw.

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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Harry,

There was no Seaside Home witness.

The Seaside Home scenario is a late 20th Century invention.

Regards,

Simon

[Darryl Kenyon]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Scott Nelson]

Who says he was used in the Sadler ID?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

Daily Telegraph, 18th February 1891.



Regards,

Simon

[rjpalmer]

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

[Simon Wood]

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

[rjpalmer]

Hi Simon. But are you not quoting it out of context? Let’s read it again, adding the preceding line…

“A 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...”

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. That’s two different claims.

In truth, Lawende admitted to only seeing the woman’s 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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

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).

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk