A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[rjpalmer]

Not credible…….to you.

Hi Michael.

To be fair, Phil Sugden, Stewart Evans, and several other highly sophisticated historians of the case didn't find Anderson's claims credible, either.

If I may, let me reprint the following two posts from the archive...back when such matters were discussed at length. I thought Wickerman's post was particularly astute. My old friend/adversary David Radka then tosses in his two cents, so it might be worth reviewing their concerns.



Author: Jon Smyth
Monday, 15 February 1999 - 08:41 pm
In 'Blackwoods' magazine Anderson had stated 'During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district'....(and goes on to imply that his 'suspect' came from a result of those searches)
(see also RIPPER SUSPECTS; GENERAL DISCUSSION; WHO WASN'T JACK THE RIPPER? - D. Radka, Feb. 15, 1:53pm)

Home office file HO/144/220/A49301.C
one letter dated Oct. 4 1888, from Sir J. W. Ellis (former Lord Mayor of London) suggesting that a cordon be thrown around suspicious area and all houses forcibly searched.....
and one dated Oct. 5 1888, response from Matthews
agreeing, with conditions.....

Clearly the house-to-house had not commenced during Andersons absence, as Anderson returned to duty on Oct. 6 1888.

Warren, on Oct. 18th thanked the citizens for their help and co-operation during the house-to-house search.....

Oct. 24 1888, a letter with a minute enclosed from Anderson, which said 'That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal is unusual, but that 5 successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue is extraordinary, if not unique in the annals of crime' ....'and that the residents show a marked desire to assist in every way'....

The house-to-house being conducted sometime between the 5th and the 18th of Oct. had obviously produced no adequate results .....

Which is not what Anderson implied in his Blackwoods article.......

Author: D. Radka
Monday, 15 February 1999 - 09:34 pm
Right, Jon. The search was made in 1888 and produced no results. Kosminski was picked up years later, and the implication Anderson gave as to what generated the pick-up was the search. It doesn't make sense, does it?

Implications, anyone?

_____


Let me add a couple of footnotes. First, it is now known that Anderson briefly traveled to Ireland for his father's funeral during the house-to-house, so it is not particularly surprising that he later wrote that he was 'abroad' during it, though it appears that he was only abroad during part of it. I never found this to be a particularly important detail.

The idea that Macnaghten was "out of the loop" in the Kosminski affair because he was not at Scotland Yard in 1888 doesn't make a great deal sense in reference to Aaron Kosminski, and I don't find it valid objection.

The Seaside Home that Begg, Fido and Rumbelow identify as the one Swanson was referring to did not opened in March 1890--when Macnaghten was at SY, and at a time that Macnaghten was also paid an extra stipend to be Anderson's special assistant on certain matters. The two men worked together intimately. It beggars belief that a conclusive identification in case that had so fascinated Macnaghten could have happened without him knowing all about it.

Unless Elamarna is suggesting that Anderson's suspect was someone other than Aaron Kosminski?

In which case it is equally difficult to believe that Major Smith had been out-of-the-loop, because McWilliam and Swanson were liaising daily, and Swanson tells us that Kosminski was a suspect of the City CID. How could he have been out of the loop in reference to the City's own suspect?

One can perhaps start to see why Sugden, Evans, Wood and others began to doubt how any of this could 'gel' into a credible solution.

Best wishes,

RP

[DJA]

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The silence is deafening.

And THAT is a FACT.

[barnflatwyngarde]

The silence is deafening.

Well that's a bit of good news!

[FISHY1118]

The silence is deafening.

[Azarna]

The top hat and 'tache combo really looked impressive! Thanks for sharing such an interesting picture with us.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not speculation on my part.



"You can state most emphatically," said Mr. Abberline, "that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."



To convince those who have any doubts on the point, Mr. Abberline produced recent documentary evidence which put the ignorance of Scotland Yard as to the perpetrator beyond the shadow of a doubt.


"I know," continued the well-known detective, "that it has been stated in several quarters that 'Jack the Ripper' was a man who died in a lunatic asylum a few years ago, but there is nothing at all of a tangible nature to support such a theory.

(Pall Mall Gazette, 31 March, 1903)




It is very convenient when asked for evidence to be able to reply that the matter was hushed up.

The reason suggested - that Anderson wished to prevent anti-Jewish riots - falls flat on its face.

If Anderson kept the identification secret in order to prevent anti-Jewish riots in the 1890s, why was he not worried about anti-Jewish riots in 1910?

And if he was worried about the revelation triggering anti-Jewish sentiment, why did he make the gratuitous and unfounded accusation against Jews that they would not give up a criminal to gentile justice?

Those are not the words of someone who wants to calm anti-Semitic feelings, but someone who doesn't mind stirring them up.


And I suggest you have no answer to that.

I realise that I can’t get a response but I’ll still make a simple response with a few maybe’s.

Maybe because 1910 was 32 years after 1888 and situations change? Maybe he felt that there was no longer the same threat of riot in 1910? Or, maybe as he’d been retired for 9 years he thought that it was no longer his problem? Maybe they didn’t ‘announce’ Kosminski because they didn’t have enough evidence and they knew that he would never be free again? Maybe the witness couldn’t ID the killer with confidence and he was worried about sending an innocent man to the gallows and maybe the police who were present, because they were confident, suspected that he was reluctant to ID a fellow Jew. Maybe this is how the information was relayed to Anderson and he just took is as a fact rather than opinion?

Maybe?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s difficult see how anyone could look at that photograph and see that by no means all of them look Jewish. I’d say 3 or 4 of the young girls might do and perhaps the man in the middle. The rest don’t. But if someone passed the guy in the middle on the opposite side of the road, took a fairly brief look and moved on, I’d be surprised if he’d have stated (at least with any confidence) that he was Jewish.

We don’t know who the guy was who was with Eddowes. Could it have been Kosminski? Of course it could.

[Christian]

Earlier this year I was delighted to receive from a descendant of Joseph Lawende a copy of a group photograph taken at the wedding of his daughter Rose to Isidore Goodman Samuel in 1899. Joseph can be seen on the right at the back, standing next to his wife Annie. The bridesmaid sitting in the centre at the front is Joseph's youngest daughter Ruby. I am most grateful to the owner of the photograph for permission to reproduce it here.

[ATTACH]9967[/ATTACH]

Incredible thanks for sharing!!

[erobitha]

Colorised.

[Elamarna]

It is not speculation on my part.



"You can state most emphatically," said Mr. Abberline, "that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."



To convince those who have any doubts on the point, Mr. Abberline produced recent documentary evidence which put the ignorance of Scotland Yard as to the perpetrator beyond the shadow of a doubt.


"I know," continued the well-known detective, "that it has been stated in several quarters that 'Jack the Ripper' was a man who died in a lunatic asylum a few years ago, but there is nothing at all of a tangible nature to support such a theory.

(Pall Mall Gazette, 31 March, 1903)




It is very convenient when asked for evidence to be able to reply that the matter was hushed up.

The reason suggested - that Anderson wished to prevent anti-Jewish riots - falls flat on its face.

If Anderson kept the identification secret in order to prevent anti-Jewish riots in the 1890s, why was he not worried about anti-Jewish riots in 1910?

And if he was worried about the revelation triggering anti-Jewish sentiment, why did he make the gratuitous and unfounded accusation against Jews that they would not give up a criminal to gentile justice?

Those are not the words of someone who wants to calm anti-Semitic feelings, but someone who doesn't mind stirring them up.


And I suggest you have no answer to that.

Oh dear, you can't accept that Abberline didn't know.
If such is indeed the case as i and others believe it is his statements are irrelevant.

I cannot answer your opinion?
Really?
I have been doing that for several.days, but you are just not listening my friend.

The view that it was against Jewish law to give a fellow jew up to gentile law is NOT unfounded.
You have been given the evidence,that such existed and was practiced amoungst the new comers to the UK in the 1880s.
Yet your Bias refuses to let you see that.

[jmenges]

I appreciate the several of you who reported the post.

JM

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That is your opinion.

I have clearly said more than two people, The commissioner and government representive at least fully in the know.

I listed others who may have known part of the story, yet you CONTINUE to MISREPRESENT whats been said..

Not only can I explain why I believe it was a secret, I have publically said so several times.


You state as fact Scotland Yard did not know.
Well just who do you think Anderson was? The Head of CID at Scotland yard.

Swanson?
Only the man appointed to coordinate and rum the investigation, based at ?
Scotland Yard.

Therefore senior Scotland Yard CID officers did know.

Would you really expect there to be records giving the details?



So your speculation that Scotland Yard did not know is just that, your speculation , your opinion. That's fine, but it's NOT FACT.

It is not speculation on my part.



"You can state most emphatically," said Mr. Abberline, "that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."



To convince those who have any doubts on the point, Mr. Abberline produced recent documentary evidence which put the ignorance of Scotland Yard as to the perpetrator beyond the shadow of a doubt.


"I know," continued the well-known detective, "that it has been stated in several quarters that 'Jack the Ripper' was a man who died in a lunatic asylum a few years ago, but there is nothing at all of a tangible nature to support such a theory.

(Pall Mall Gazette, 31 March, 1903)




It is very convenient when asked for evidence to be able to reply that the matter was hushed up.

The reason suggested - that Anderson wished to prevent anti-Jewish riots - falls flat on its face.

If Anderson kept the identification secret in order to prevent anti-Jewish riots in the 1890s, why was he not worried about anti-Jewish riots in 1910?

And if he was worried about the revelation triggering anti-Jewish sentiment, why did he make the gratuitous and unfounded accusation against Jews that they would not give up a criminal to gentile justice?

Those are not the words of someone who wants to calm anti-Semitic feelings, but someone who doesn't mind stirring them up.


And I suggest you have no answer to that.

[Elamarna]

I repeat: Scotland Yard did not know about the alleged unmasking of the murderer.

You can't explain why the unmasking of the murderer should be a secret restricted to two men.

That is your opinion.

I have clearly said more than two people, The commissioner and government representive at least fully in the know.

I listed others who may have known part of the story, yet you CONTINUE to MISREPRESENT whats been said..

Not only can I explain why I believe it was a secret, I have publically said so several times.


You state as fact Scotland Yard did not know.
Well just who do you think Anderson was? The Head of CID at Scotland yard.

Swanson?
Only the man appointed to coordinate and rum the investigation, based at ?
Scotland Yard.

Therefore senior Scotland Yard CID officers did know.

Would you really expect there to be records giving the details?



So your speculation that Scotland Yard did not know is just that, your speculation , your opinion. That's fine, but it's NOT FACT.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And no response to the evidence posted showing a Jew insulting another Jew by using the word ‘Lipski.’

There’s bobbing and weaving going on here that Muhammad Ali would have been proud of.