A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[Elamarna]

You are mistaken on Sagar, he was a City detective watching a man for a period of time... He is not linked to seeing a man leaving Mitre Square.


Well, he has been quoted on this website and others as claiming that such a sighting took place.

Are you saying all those quotes are wrong?



So in mid 1890, I do not think anyone was sure, but I believe that Swanson and Anderson had a suspicion, that they needed to confirm.

I speculate an ID was held, the suspect was identified and then in late 1890 Early 91, the circle I spoke of decided not to go to trial.


If Anderson knew in mid-1890 of a positive identification, then why would he not have become convinced of the suspect's guilt till 1895?

Anderson and Swanson were clear that the prosecution case depended on the testimony of the witness; why then would they wait until as late as 1891 before deciding not to prosecute the suspect?

Please provide a link to a quote that Sagar claimed to see a man leave Mitre Square.

The claim that a policeman saw such, I covered in some detail. But it's not Sagar.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please provide a link to a quote that Sagar claimed to see a man leave Mitre Square.

The claim that a policeman saw such, I covered in some detail. But it's not Sagar.

What I wrote was:

he [Sagar] has been quoted on this website and others as claiming that such a sighting took place.

As I said, the sighting is not credible.


I repeat the point I made in my previous message to you:

If Anderson knew in mid-1890 of a positive identification, then why would he not have become convinced of the suspect's guilt till 1895?

[Elamarna]

You are mistaken on Sagar, he was a City detective watching a man for a period of time... He is not linked to seeing a man leaving Mitre Square.


Well, he has been quoted on this website and others as claiming that such a sighting took place.

Are you saying all those quotes are wrong?



So in mid 1890, I do not think anyone was sure, but I believe that Swanson and Anderson had a suspicion, that they needed to confirm.

I speculate an ID was held, the suspect was identified and then in late 1890 Early 91, the circle I spoke of decided not to go to trial.


If Anderson knew in mid-1890 of a positive identification, then why would he not have become convinced of the suspect's guilt till 1895?

Anderson and Swanson were clear that the prosecution case depended on the testimony of the witness; why then would they wait until as late as 1891 before deciding not to prosecute the suspect?

How many more times must I say this.
In June 1892, in the press article I quoted above he implies he knows.
That's 1892!

The 1895 comment is that the man as died.
These are different comments.

Why wait? because they did not have all the evidence until that date .
I made that clearv in a previous post too.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How many more times must I say this.
In June 1892, in the press article I quoted above he implies he knows.
That's 1892!

The 1895 comment is that the man as died.
These are different comments.

Why wait? because they did not have all the evidence until that date .
I made that clearv in a previous post too.

Thanks for clarifying that.

That still leaves the question: if a positive identification was made in July 1890, why does Anderson not become convinced of the suspect's guilt until 1892?

It is not, I suggest, believable.

Some defenders of Swanson here have said that he may, in his advancing years, have become confused about when the suspect died.

As I have noted, getting the year of death wrong by three decades looks like more than mere confusion.

Anderson saying in 1895 that the man had died means either that the man really had died by then or both Anderson and Swanson were wrong.

In the light of these facts, I can understand why you consider the possibility that the suspect was someone other than Aaron Kosminski.

What I do not understand is why you should ever have considered the possibility that the suspect was Aaron Kosminski.

[Elamarna]

What I wrote was:

he [Sagar] has been quoted on this website and others as claiming that such a sighting took place.

As I said, the sighting is not credible.

provide the quote of Sagar saying he saw a man leaving the square?
Or if you mean he claimed he had heard such provide that quote

Cox did indeed say, a murder took place while one of their best was at the top off the street, but he does not mention Anyone actually seeing a man leave, nor does he state it was Mitre Square.

But lets , for the sake of debate, assume Sagar did say such..Why would it not be credible?
Is it that YOU, simply don't want to believe such.

[The Baron]

provide the quote of Sagar saying he saw a man leaving the square?
Or if you mean he claimed he had heard such provide that quote

Cox did indeed say, a murder took place while one of their best was at the top off the street, but he does not mention Anyone actually seeing a man leave, nor does he state it was Mitre Square.

But lets , for the sake of debate, assume Sagar did say such..Why would it not be credible?
Is it that YOU, simply don't want to believe such.

Feb. 9th, The Seattle Daily Times:

"We believe," he said, "that he came nearest to being captured after the Mitre Square murder in which the woman Kelly was the victim. She had been detained in Bishopsgate police station until 1 a. m. At 1:45 a. m. she was dead. A police officer met a well dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court. Continuing on his patrol he came across the woman's body. He blew his whistle, and sent the other officers who rushed up in pursuit, the only thing to guide them being the sound of retreating footsteps. The sounds were followed to King's Block in the model dwellings in Stoney Lane, but the search got no further."


TB

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see you're repeating the argument used by others on this forum that when I make a statement it is merely an assumption.

The irony is that your previous two sentences, which you presented as fact, are merely assumptions on your part.

Your allegation that I invented what I wrote is untrue and shows what a low class of individual you are.

What I’m doing PI is asking you to provide evidence for a claim that you yourself have made. Without evidence to back this up then it’s simply an assumption on your part. It really can’t be clearer or simpler than that. If something cannot be proven it cannot be accepted as true. Why is this a difficult concept for you?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

provide the quote of Sagar saying he saw a man leaving the square?
Or if you mean he claimed he had heard such provide that quote

But lets , for the sake of debate, assume Sagar did say such..Why would it not be credible?
Is it that YOU, simply don't want to believe such.

As you know, the perpetrator of these outrages was never brought to justice, but I believe he came the nearest to being captured after the murder of the woman Kelly in Mitre-square. A police officer met a well-known man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court near the square, and a few moments after fell over the body. He blew his whistle, and other officers running up, they set off in pursuit of the man who had just left. The officers were wearing India rubber boots, and the retreating footsteps of a man could be clearly heard. The sounds were followed to King's-block in the model dwellings in Stoney-lane, but we did not see the man again that night.


Daily News, 9 Jan. 1905.


I am surprised you think that only I do not find the reported sighting incredible.

Pc Watkins did not testify anything to corroborate Sagar's nonsense.

You're not seriously saying that you believe it?

[The Baron]

His argument is, since Anderson didn't use this piece of information, that a man of a jewish appearance was seen leaving the court, to defend himself and his position, that means it didn't happen.



TB

[Elamarna]

Thanks for clarifying that.

That still leaves the question: if a positive identification was made in July 1890, why does Anderson not become convinced of the suspect's guilt until 1892?

It is not, I suggest, believable.

Again I answered this in a previous post, I speculate that they wanted to be sure no further murders of "this type" occurred.

Some defenders of Swanson here have said that he may, in his advancing years, have become confused about when the suspect died.

As I have noted, getting the year of death wrong by three decades looks like more than mere confusion.

Anderson saying in 1895 that the man had died means either that the man really had died by then or both Anderson and Swanson were wrong.

I have given a reasonable explanation for this, that given the police had not been the ones to commit him, that they seemingly did not want to draw attention to him, they maintained a very low key watch on him.
Maybe only yearly or 6 monthly reports, maybe not just on him, but on others too , to ensure he was not singled out.
So when he is transferred in 1894, there is a miscommunication, the transfer gets reported as death.

In the light of these facts, I can understand why you consider the possibility that the suspect was someone other than Aaron Kosminski.

What I do not understand is why you should ever have considered the possibility that the suspect was Aaron Kosminski.

I have spent many years studying this case, I am a researcher by training.
The possibility that Kosminski is not Aaron cannot be excluded. Only a fool fits himself to a theory or an opinion 100%

As for your 2nd question, because he fits 90% of what Swanson says.
And the circumstantial evidence is also strong.
On the batty street incident, the laundress says the shirts was left by a local Master Tailor, who had connections to west end fashion houses,and it belonged to a friend.

Both of Aaron's brothers were tailors, Issac was a master tailor and indeed had connections to west end fashion houses.

There is more, but I have no intention of writing a book for you.

So let me make this short.

I am 99% convinced that Anderson and Swanson believed they knew who the killer was.

I do however accept they could have been mistaken , but I have no doubt they belived it.

I am 85% convinced that Aaron is Kosminski.

That leaves room for other candidates for Anderson suspect such as Cohen, or an unnamed Kosminski.
There were a few about in the area, two in Middlesx street/Houndsditch, 1 in Goulston Street, several in Whitechapel Road, 1 in Chicksand street, and that's not including the family of Martin Kosminski, or others who may have registered under different names.

[Elamarna]

As you know, the perpetrator of these outrages was never brought to justice, but I believe he came the nearest to being captured after the murder of the woman Kelly in Mitre-square. A police officer met a well-known man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court near the square, and a few moments after fell over the body. He blew his whistle, and other officers running up, they set off in pursuit of the man who had just left. The officers were wearing India rubber boots, and the retreating footsteps of a man could be clearly heard. The sounds were followed to King's-block in the model dwellings in Stoney-lane, but we did not see the man again that night.


Daily News, 9 Jan. 1905.


I am surprised you think that only I do not find the reported sighting incredible.

Pc Watkins did not testify anything to corroborate Sagar's nonsense.

You're not seriously saying that you believe it?

It's simply another retelling of a story which was fairly common.

In some versions it's Stephen White who is the officer.
I have already commented on how the well known version of that is very different from the original.
It's clear the story is incorrect.

Story's get embellished and changed during the retelling.

That does not mean, that the man's (sagar) own recollections of his own actions are unreliable.

Have you never repeated a story that is significantly different from how it began life.
Does that make you unreliable.

The story of a police officer seeing someone close to a murder site is persistent, I have long suspected that there may be a small kernel of truth buried away in those stories.

That a police officer saw someone near to a murder, that this suspect was the same person seen in Berner Street by Schwartz.

[Elamarna]

Feb. 9th, The Seattle Daily Times:

"We believe," he said, "that he came nearest to being captured after the Mitre Square murder in which the woman Kelly was the victim. She had been detained in Bishopsgate police station until 1 a. m. At 1:45 a. m. she was dead. A police officer met a well dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court. Continuing on his patrol he came across the woman's body. He blew his whistle, and sent the other officers who rushed up in pursuit, the only thing to guide them being the sound of retreating footsteps. The sounds were followed to King's Block in the model dwellings in Stoney Lane, but the search got no further."


TB

See my response to PI on this.
It's clearly a story that was in circulation, the actual officer varies depending on who quotes it. In some It's Watkins, in some It's White.

Possibly a kernel of truth buried away. a copper may have seen some one close to a murder site.

The retelling does not make Sagar unreliable.

[The Baron]

Your allegation that I invented what I wrote is untrue and shows what a low class of individual you are.

It didn't take you long after apologising 10 times to Herlock to say this to him???????


The man who is criticising Anderson being anti-Semitist describing the suspect of being a low class polish jew, is now himself using the same language to talk to another poster in the 21 century!

The hypocrisy.


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It's simply another retelling of a story which was fairly common.

In some versions it's Stephen White who is the officer.
I have already commented on how the well known version of that is very different from the original.

Story's get embellished and changed during the retelling.

That does not mean, that the man's (sagar) own recollections of his own actions are unreliable.

Have you never repeated a story that is significantly different from how it began life.
Does that make you unreliable.

The story of a police officer seeing someone close to a murder site is persistent, I have long suspected that there may be a small kernel of truth buried away in those stories.

That a police officer saw someone near to a murder, that this suspect was the same person seen in Berner Street by Schwartz.

As I said, it is just part of the anti-Semitism which infected the case.

Abberline, Henry Smith and Reid were quite definite that the murderer was a gentile.

Either Anderson and Swanson kept the truth from them - which is not believable - or the identification story is fantasy.

There are too many allegations of Jews being responsible, either individually or collectively, for them to be based on anything more than prejudice and fantasy.

When challenged by Smith, Anderson couldn't come up with anything - because there never had been anything.

The 'Jew done it' story is an old fable, going through the centuries of allegations of crucifixion of gentiles (for which Jews were hanged in medieval London) to the ritual murder libels - including a notorious framing of a Jew in Tsarist Russia for the ritual murder of a child, resulting in his acquittal in 1913.

The same fingerprints are all over the Whitechapel Murders case, but in spite of your own Jewish extraction, you just can't see it.

[Elamarna]

As I said, it is just part of the anti-Semitism which infected the case.

Abberline, Henry Smith and Reid were quite definite that the murderer was a gentile.

Either Anderson and Swanson kept the truth from them - which is not believable - or the identification story is fantasy.

There are too many allegations of Jews being responsible, either individually or collectively, for them to be based on anything more than prejudice and fantasy.

When challenged by Smith, Anderson couldn't come up with anything - because there never had been anything.

The 'Jew done it' story is an old fable, going through the centuries of allegations of crucifixion of gentiles (for which Jews were hanged in medieval London) to the ritual murder libels - including a notorious framing of a Jew in Tsarist Russia for the ritual murder of a child, resulting in his acquittal in 1913.

The same fingerprints are all over the Whitechapel Murders case, but in spite of your own Jewish extraction, you just can't see it.

Still continuing the idiosyncratic belief that junior officers and Smith knew more about the case than Swanson.
Such simply demonstrates a total lack of understanding .
One can lead a horse to water, but One cannot make it drink.
Such applies perfectly to yourself.
You have fixed ideas, not just about Kosminski or Anderson , but on many issues related to the case.
Your opinion is the ONLY valid opinion. That comes over time after time.