Joseph Lawende & Israel Schwartz - Gross Police Neglicence?

[Stewart P Evans]

Alice McKenzie

what about Alice Mckenzie Stewart.. what's your opinion on her?

My personal opinion is that she was not a Ripper victim.

[Malcolm X]

what about Alice Mckenzie Stewart.. what's your opinion on her?

[Stewart P Evans]

Idea

Hi again Stewart,
what evidence is there that they have not ignored Millwood and Wilson?
Even Baxter, who was the coroner in the Millwood case, didn't refer to it.
But Emma Smith is included in the police files about the Ripper. It may be your opinion that Millwood and Wilson have nothing to do with the Ripper, but my take is that they are more likely to have been attacked by JtR than Emma Smith.
Amitiés,
David

The idea that either of these two women may be early Ripper victims is a modern one. The coroner's function was to look into the cause of death and in the case of Millwood a verdict of death from natural causes, not murder, was reached. This would dictate no further police action in respect of murder as no case of murder existed. The woman's death would preclude any further effort to trace the unknown offender for the alleged assault.

In the case of Wilson she was attacked at Bow, well east of the Ripper murder sites, and it appeared to have been a case of bungled robbery. There is no firm evidence to show that she was a casual street prostitute as were the Ripper victims and, as Phil Sugden states, 'it is best discounted.' It amazes me how these two women seem to have been added to the Ripper's tally by modern theorists. It's fine to keep an open mind, but there is no firm reason on this earth that these two should be included in any assessment of the M.O. of the Ripper.

The case of Emma Smith is altogether a different one. She was a casual street prostitute of a similar nature to the later victims and was a Whitechapel victim. At the time of her death she was a solitary case but she was, obviously, retrospectively added to the later file of unsolved Whitechapel murders. The cases of Millwood and Wilson were not even murders.

You are welcome to whatever 'take' you wish, I simply do not agree with you.

[Jon Guy]

A couple of other I.D. parades that took place are Violenia and Mrs Fiddymont with John Pizer.

Dr Mickle would not allow Police to put Isenschmid in a line up.

[Stewart P Evans]

OK

Hi Stewart,
I think you're both right and wrong.
My view is that the police wasted a great deal of time with all the theories and suspects suggested by the newspapers, the armchair detectives, and even Queen Victoria!
In this respect, they've not been negligent, quite the contrary...and that was a mistake.
Not to say that they did no other mistakes. But when we criticize them in 2009, that's only for the sake of discussion, and we very well know that we are wise after the event.
Amitiés,
David

It's OK to have personal views but to what degree the police may, or may not, have wasted time is impossible to say or to assess at this remove in time. Indeed it would appear that the silly suggestions were quickly disposed of by the police. The details of the police enquiries made in this respect are missing.

[DVV]

What evidence is there that the police 'completely ignored' the Millwood and Wilson cases of early 1888?

There is no evidence that they later looked at them in connection with the Ripper crimes, and there was, presumably, no reason for doing so. In my opinion it is highly unlikely that there was any connection between the Millwood and Wilson attacks and the Ripper.

Hi again Stewart,
what evidence is there that they have not ignored Millwood and Wilson?
Even Baxter, who was the coroner in the Millwood case, didn't refer to it.
But Emma Smith is included in the police files about the Ripper. It may be your opinion that Millwood and Wilson have nothing to do with the Ripper, but my take is that they are more likely to have been attacked by JtR than Emma Smith.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

So how can the police be accused of being negligent when they were doing all this?

Hi Stewart,
I think you're both right and wrong.
My view is that the police wasted a great deal of time with all the theories and suspects suggested by the newspapers, the armchair detectives, and even Queen Victoria!
In this respect, they've not been negligent, quite the contrary...and that was a mistake.
Not to say that they did no other mistakes. But when we criticize them in 2009, that's only for the sake of discussion, and we very well know that we are wise after the event.

Amitiés,
David

[Stewart P Evans]

No Evidence

...
Also frustrating is the fact that the cases of Millwood and Wilson were completely ignored by the police.
Comparing Lawende's suspect with Ada's offender could have been interesting.
Amitiés,
David

What evidence is there that the police 'completely ignored' the Millwood and Wilson cases of early 1888?

There is no evidence that they later looked at them in connection with the Ripper crimes, and there was, presumably, no reason for doing so. In my opinion it is highly unlikely that there was any connection between the Millwood and Wilson attacks and the Ripper.

[IchabodCrane]

Dear Stewart,

thank you very much for posting your detailed replies and providing background information. It is indeed much appreciated and interesting to learn how many suspects were actually being dealt with. A lot of discussions on these boards probably only exist because so many files from the police investigation of the time were subsequently destroyed (I believe most of them during the war). A huge shame.

The question regarding the identifications occurred to me coming from the Hutchinson thread, where a witness placed himself near a murder site shortly before estimated time of murder. A possibility is that he was checked and cleared of suspicion, and the police files were later destroyed. It would be interesting to speculate how thoroughly he was likely checked (identification or not). But as you stated earlier, there may be too much material lost to even speculate about such things,

Thanks again for your posts,
IchabodCrane

[Stewart P Evans]

Suspects

...
Or have identifications taken place, all with negative results, were correctly recorded in police files, and the files later destroyed during the war? ...
So how come the police give the impression of having been grossly negligent to the point of incompetence when it came to arranging simple identifications? Is there a legal reason connected to it or are there historical reasons that identifications were not commonly used?
...
IchabodCrane

Also in Swanson's 19 October 1888 report is the following, "...enquiry has been made into the movements of a number of persons estimated at upward of 300 respecting whom communications were received by police & such enquiries are being continued."

Here we see that not only were the police dealing with detained suspects, they were also looking at others who had merely been suggested as suspicious by members of the public writing to the police. Unfortunately the letters and other communications received by the Metropolitan Police in this regard have not survived although, oddly, most, if not all, received by the City Police have survived.

But this shows that the Metropolitan Police were investigating over 300 individuals merely named as suspicious and whom were not apparently detained. There would have been a docket raised on every one of these communications but they haven't survived. And some of the public suspicions would have been laughable and some malicious.

So how can the police be accused of being negligent when they were doing all this?

[Stewart P Evans]

Carried Away

Probably because Saddler was the only guy they ever thought might truly be the ripper. If they brought any witnesses in to identify anyone the witness must have messed up bad because MacNaghten ends up saying no one ever saw the ripper. In the end he pins MacKenzies murder on Saddler!

Re- the statement I have placed in bold above, let's not get carried away here! Sadler was one of the few suspects actually under arrest for murder (of Coles) and there was every reason to treat him seriously. This was over two years after the 1888 murders and they obviously feared a re-appearance of the Ripper. The Coles case is a good indicator that in February 1891 the police had no definite cause to think that the Ripper was not still at large.

[Stewart P Evans]

Very Easy

...
The question I would like to pose to the more experienced researchers on these boards is that how come there were no routine identifications using witnesses Lawende & Schwartz vis-a-vis all interrogated suspects in the autumn and winter of 1888? At least we have no written records that such identifications have taken place. And we know that among others, Dr. Francis Tumblety was in police custody, while Joseph Barnett and George Hutchinson were interrogated by police, and suspicion was cast on Michael Ostrog and Montague J. Druitt (post-mortem). Since here the police had two witnesses who had had a good view of the suspect(s) minutes before murders were committed, how difficult can it be to arrange for a (post-mortem) identification, and match both identifications against another?
Or have identifications taken place, all with negative results, were correctly recorded in police files, and the files later destroyed during the war? If so why did McNaghten mention those suspects? Stewart P. Evans mentions in his dissertation... Suspect and Witness - The Police Viewpoint that although the interrogation technique used with Hutchinson was not up to today's standard (as can be judged from the witness statement's transcript), the police in general were very experienced and acting professional for their time. So how come the police give the impression of having been grossly negligent to the point of incompetence when it came to arranging simple identifications? Is there a legal reason connected to it or are there historical reasons that identifications were not commonly used?
...
Thank you very much
IchabodCrane

It is very easy to be critical of the police of 1888 and their perceived methods. There could possibly have been some routine identifications using both Lawende and Schwartz of which we have no record today.

Swanson's overall report of 19 October 1888 [HO 144/221/A49301C folio 158] includes the following remark, "...about 80 persons have been detained at the different police stations in the Metropolis & their statements taken and verified by police..." and this indicates that there were a lot of suspects arrested on suspicion at that time, many probably on the flimsiest of evidence. The police certainly were not being idle or negligent.

As early as 22 September 1888 there is an indication that routine suspect line-ups and attempted identifications were being made in H Division police stations as witness this illustration from the Illustrated London News of that date with the title 'Trying to identify a supposed murderer in Whitechapel' -



The problem for us today is that much of the 1888 documentation is missing, for various reasons. That is not to say that the overall reports on the murders haven't survived, for they have. But the documentation such as arrest reports, statements, station occurrence books, bail records, routine docket enquiries, persons brought to station registers, police pocket books, etc. no longer exist.

These records would have revealed the names of many suspects, such as all the 80 referred to above, and any attempted identifications of them, and would certainly give us a different and clearer picture regarding suspects and how they were dealt with. Of course the newspapers were not updated on all police activity so they do not provide anything like an accurate record of police enquiries and activities.

There is simply not enough material to accurately assess the quality of the police enquiry.

[IchabodCrane]

Or probably because the others didn't match the description given by Lawende? It was stated on another thread that Tumblety was held for one day on suspicion of being related to the ripper crimes. It's hard to imagine that Sadler was the first person the police thought was really the ripper, justifiying a face-to-face identification. There must have been many suspects before. The Question is why were there no routine identifications in 1888/1889?

[Mitch Rowe]

Probably because Saddler was the only guy they ever thought might truly be the ripper. If they brought any witnesses in to identify anyone the witness must have messed up bad because MacNaghten ends up saying no one ever saw the ripper. In the end he pins MacKenzies murder on Saddler!

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Tom,
yes I know about the Sadler & Seaside home identifications. The vexing question is why didn't they use him (or one of his buddies) to identify Tumblety, Barnett, Hutchinson or the dead MJD?
Thanks & cheers,
IchabodCrane