A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In answer to # 862 of Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

I think that all of the people in the photograph in # 1 of this thread would have been considered to be recognisably Jewish in Whitechapel at that time.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Swanson then provides a different scenario on the endpapers, that 'a' suspect was taken to a witness for identification, which is the opposite of Anderson, yet he seems to think he is still talking about Anderson's own suspect. This is the suspect that was called Kozminski.

He doesn't say that Anderson's suspect was called Kozminski.


But does he need to?

He calls Anderson's suspect the suspect, which means that he at least thinks that Anderson meant Kosminski.



This is why I think we have two different suspects, the one Swanson is talking about was called Kozminski, not necessarily Anderson's suspect.


The only Polish Jewish suspect mentioned by Macnaghten is Kosminski, the one mentioned by Swanson is Kosminski, and Anderson's is unnamed.

If Anderson meant someone other than Aaron Kosminski, whom on earth could he have meant?

And if he meant someone other than a Kosminski, how could Swanson and Macnaghten have failed to know of him?

If Swanson's source for Kosminski was not Anderson but police records, then those same records must have been available to Macnaghten, who is aware of only one Jewish suspect and only one Kosminski.

And we are aware of only one Kosminski who could have been a suspect in the case.



If there is a difference, it is subtle, but such differences always are when the writer has confused two different suspects.


I suggest that Macnaghten, Anderson and Swanson all meant Aaron Kosminski, but the details they gave are wrong and contradictory because he never was a serious suspect and he metamorphosed into a hybrid suspect, mixed up with Piser and Druitt.

If he had been a serious suspect, Macnaghten would not have used inverted commas when describing him as a suspect, nor indicated that the case against him was entirely circumstantial.

If Anderson had been proven right, as he claimed to be, then he would have been able to refer to some incriminating evidence to explain why Kosminski could have become a suspect PRIOR TO his incarceration.

And if Kosminski had really been a police suspect, then Swanson would not have got his date of death wrong by about three decades.

He was obviously confusing him with Druitt.

[Wickerman]

...

I am afraid that that only reinforces my argument, previously stated, that Kosminski did not come to the police's attention until after he had been certified or, as Anderson put it, safely caged in an asylum.

Was that Kozminski though?

Anderson himself has the Polish Jewish suspect already in an asylum when his alleged identification took place and it is, as I argued before, no accident that he has no identity parade - because such a procedure could hardly have been conducted in an asylum.

That was the one who Anderson suspected, but Anderson didn't name his suspect.
Swanson add's his first note -
"because the suspect was also a Jew.......", then a marginal note "And after this identification.....", so he certainly is in agreement with Anderson at that point.

Swanson then provides a different scenario on the endpapers, that 'a' suspect was taken to a witness for identification, which is the opposite of Anderson, yet he seems to think he is still talking about Anderson's own suspect. This is the suspect that was called Kozminski. He doesn't say that Anderson's suspect was called Kozminski.

This is why I think we have two different suspects, the one Swanson is talking about was called Kozminski, not necessarily Anderson's suspect.

If there is a difference, it is subtle, but such differences always are when the writer has confused two different suspects.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Jeff
I have to concur here. What evidence could they have ? No DNA , CCTV etc A lot of it was, as you say Jeff gut instinct and experience etc Unfortunately the police didn't have anything to fall back on, as in past serial murders of this kind.

The reason I favour Kosminski within the named police suspects is down, mainly to the police officer who in my opinion who would have the most in depth knowledge of the case, Swanson. And he names Kosminski as the killer. Was he right ? I am not sure about that at all. What I do believe however is that there were grounds for suspicion against him, and some form of ID [ whether it would stick or not ] , did take place.

Regards Darryl

The only grounds for suspicion that we know of are that Kosminski had been certified as a lunatic after allegedly threatening a relative with a knife.

Some members have been suggesting that that is the incident that brought him to the police's attention.

I am afraid that that only reinforces my argument, previously stated, that Kosminski did not come to the police's attention until after he had been certified or, as Anderson put it, safely caged in an asylum.

Anderson himself has the Polish Jewish suspect already in an asylum when his alleged identification took place and it is, as I argued before, no accident that he has no identity parade - because such a procedure could hardly have been conducted in an asylum.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Such is of course totally pointless, as no one is suggesting that Jewish men in the East End, regularly attacked Gentile women.

An exception evidently needed to be made.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I doubt Anderson because the fact that different contemporary police officers of high enough rank that one would expect them to be aware of all the evidence all seem to have had their own ideas about who JtR was, and they all suggest different people. It seems to me that the police didn't really have any hard evidence against anyone, and each had their own "gut instinct" as to who it was.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
I have to concur here. What evidence could they have ? No DNA , CCTV etc A lot of it was, as you say Jeff gut instinct and experience etc Unfortunately the police didn't have anything to fall back on, as in past serial murders of this kind.

The reason I favour Kosminski within the named police suspects is down, mainly to the police officer who in my opinion who would have the most in depth knowledge of the case, Swanson. And he names Kosminski as the killer. Was he right ? I am not sure about that at all. What I do believe however is that there were grounds for suspicion against him, and some form of ID [ whether it would stick or not ] , did take place.

Regards Darryl

[JeffHamm]

It is not just that you can't name another example of a Victorian era Polish/Jewish serial killer in the UK.

It's also that you can't name a Jewish serial killer in the UK in ANY era.

It's also that, so far, no-one here has been able to cite a record of a Polish Jew attacking a Gentile woman in the East End of London.

These are the people who according to Anderson were so unscrupulous that they were prepared to allow one of their own to continue eviscerating women and bringing their organs home with him, yet there seems to be no record of one of them actually assaulting a Gentile woman.

Does that not cause you to doubt Anderson's claims?

Hi PI1,

I do doubt Anderson's claims, just not for the reasons you list as they are not reasons to doubt him. For example, it could be that JtR was the only Polish Jewish UK Serial killer in history, and if so, Anderson was right despite my doubts. Although I personally don't subscribe to any of the suspect theories, I'm just saying that if Anderson was correct, then it would appear that would indeed be the case.

I doubt Anderson because the fact that different contemporary police officers of high enough rank that one would expect them to be aware of all the evidence all seem to have had their own ideas about who JtR was, and they all suggest different people. It seems to me that the police didn't really have any hard evidence against anyone, and each had their own "gut instinct" as to who it was.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is no reason why JtR couldn't be Polish and Jewish. He doesn't have to be, of course, but just because you can't name another example of a Victorian era Polish/Jewish serial killer in the UK doesn't really mean much.


- Jeff

It is not just that you can't name another example of a Victorian era Polish/Jewish serial killer in the UK.

It's also that you can't name a Jewish serial killer in the UK in ANY era.

It's also that, so far, no-one here has been able to cite a record of a Polish Jew attacking a Gentile woman in the East End of London.

These are the people who according to Anderson were so unscrupulous that they were prepared to allow one of their own to continue eviscerating women and bringing their organs home with him, yet there seems to be no record of one of them actually assaulting a Gentile woman.

Does that not cause you to doubt Anderson's claims?

[JeffHamm]

Thanks for your interest, Jeff.

I did concede some time ago that there have been Jewish serial killers, but it seems to be largely a twentieth-century American phenomenon.

Even in Israel, it seems there have been no more than two.

I also gave details of serial killers in Poland and Russia/USSR and pointed out that there have never been any Jewish serial killers in Russia, USSR, Poland or Germany.

There are several anti-Semitic websites incorrectly identifying many serial killers as Jewish.


Harold Shipman was not Jewish.

Joel Rifkin was not born to Jewish parents.

Ed Gein was not Jewish.

Seweryn Kłosowski was not Jewish.

Dariusz Kotwica was not Jewish.


I do not get your point that 'my criterion would require (if Kosminski was JtR) there be two Polish-UK-Jewish-Victorian-era serial killers!'

It is a fact that there is no recorded case of a Jewish serial killer in Britain.

It is also a fact that there is no recorded case of a Polish Jewish serial killer anywhere.

It is also a fact that so far no-one here has been able to come up with a recorded case of a Polish Jew attacking a Gentile woman in the East End of London in the late nineteenth century.

It is also a fact that the much lower propensity among Jews of the East End of London to commit violence was noted - and must have been known to Anderson - and I provided sources.

Elamarna claims that I am biased and prejudiced and as bad, in my own way, as the people who said that an Englishman could not have committed the murders.

I did not claim that a Jew could not have committed the murders.

I said that it is very unlikely.

Does that make me prejudiced?

I think most people would say no, because I have cited facts.

I would repeat that all of the facts I have cited sit very uneasily with Anderson's claims.

Anderson was claiming that Polish Jews in the East End of London were protecting a Polish Jew whom they knew to have been eviscerating Gentile women and taking organs from them, and enabled him to continue to do so.

What are the chances of his allegations being true when no-one here can even cite a case of a Polish Jew having assaulted a Gentile woman?

I could have been misled by the internet. I just did a quick search for Jewish Serial Killers, and it listed Shipman and Gein as examples in the list that showed up as a preview, but perhaps I stumbled upon misrepresentations.

I'm not sure it matters if Joel Rifken wasn't born to Jewish parents, unless you're of the view there's a genetic component and those genes are less common in Jewish populations? I think David Berkowitz's birth mother was Jewish, though, but I could be mistaken. His adoptive parents were Jewish, though, and that was the religion of his upbringing (though he went through various periods with different religious views).

And no, I recognized that both Kłosowski and Kotwica were not Jewish, but they were Polish, and one, and possibily both, murdered Gentile woman in the UK (Kotwica, to be clear, is only suspected and nothing has been shown he murdered anyone in the UK at this time, but the police are looking as they think there's a high chance he did).

Anyway, the point is, there are, of course, Jewish serial killers, and there are, of course, Polish Serial killers, and there are serial killers who move to other countries and commit murders there. There is no reason why JtR couldn't be Polish and Jewish. He doesn't have to be, of course, but just because you can't name another example of a Victorian era Polish/Jewish serial killer in the UK doesn't really mean much.

Other than Ted Bundy, can you name a white, American, law-student, from the 70s who targeted for murder young woman with long hair parted in the middle?

If you make your criterion specific enough, you an probably reduce the examples to 1, but that doesn't mean much really.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Although not from the Victorian Era, Harold Shipman was Jewish and murdered a lot of people in the UK.

Other Jewish serial killers, although from the US, would be David Berkowitz (as mentioned), Joel Rifkin, and Ed Gein.

Kłosowsk (George Chapman), was Polish, a serial killer in the UK, in the Victorian era (and even a suspect for JtR!), but I don't think he was Jewish.

And another Polish serial killer (also not Jewish as far as I know), would be Dariusz Kotwica, who murdered three people around Europe (Austria and Sweden) and is suspected of murders in the UK, Netherlands, and Czech Republic, but this is recent so not Victorian era.

I realize that none of these meet all 4 of your requirements of Polish, UK murders, Jewish, and Victorian era, but the more constraints you put on it, the less likely one will find an exact match for nationality, country, religion, and era; particularly as your criterion would require (if Kosminski was JtR) there be two Polish-UK-Jewish-Victorian-era serial killers!

Serial killers come from all religions, all nationalities, are found in all countries, and in all likelihood have been around far longer than we have them on record.

- Jeff

Thanks for your interest, Jeff.

I did concede some time ago that there have been Jewish serial killers, but it seems to be largely a twentieth-century American phenomenon.

Even in Israel, it seems there have been no more than two.

I also gave details of serial killers in Poland and Russia/USSR and pointed out that there have never been any Jewish serial killers in Russia, USSR, Poland or Germany.

There are several anti-Semitic websites incorrectly identifying many serial killers as Jewish.


Harold Shipman was not Jewish.

Joel Rifkin was not born to Jewish parents.

Ed Gein was not Jewish.

Seweryn Kłosowski was not Jewish.

Dariusz Kotwica was not Jewish.


I do not get your point that 'my criterion would require (if Kosminski was JtR) there be two Polish-UK-Jewish-Victorian-era serial killers!'

It is a fact that there is no recorded case of a Jewish serial killer in Britain.

It is also a fact that there is no recorded case of a Polish Jewish serial killer anywhere.

It is also a fact that so far no-one here has been able to come up with a recorded case of a Polish Jew attacking a Gentile woman in the East End of London in the late nineteenth century.

It is also a fact that the much lower propensity among Jews of the East End of London to commit violence was noted - and must have been known to Anderson - and I provided sources.

Elamarna claims that I am biased and prejudiced and as bad, in my own way, as the people who said that an Englishman could not have committed the murders.

I did not claim that a Jew could not have committed the murders.

I said that it is very unlikely.

Does that make me prejudiced?

I think most people would say no, because I have cited facts.

I would repeat that all of the facts I have cited sit very uneasily with Anderson's claims.

Anderson was claiming that Polish Jews in the East End of London were protecting a Polish Jew whom they knew to have been eviscerating Gentile women and taking organs from them, and enabled him to continue to do so.

What are the chances of his allegations being true when no-one here can even cite a case of a Polish Jew having assaulted a Gentile woman?

[JeffHamm]

...
There has never been a recorded case of a Jewish serial killer in British criminal history.
...

Although not from the Victorian Era, Harold Shipman was Jewish and murdered a lot of people in the UK.

Other Jewish serial killers, although from the US, would be David Berkowitz (as mentioned), Joel Rifkin, and Ed Gein.

Kłosowsk (George Chapman), was Polish, a serial killer in the UK, in the Victorian era (and even a suspect for JtR!), but I don't think he was Jewish.

And another Polish serial killer (also not Jewish as far as I know), would be Dariusz Kotwica, who murdered three people around Europe (Austria and Sweden) and is suspected of murders in the UK, Netherlands, and Czech Republic, but this is recent so not Victorian era.

I realize that none of these meet all 4 of your requirements of Polish, UK murders, Jewish, and Victorian era, but the more constraints you put on it, the less likely one will find an exact match for nationality, country, religion, and era; particularly as your criterion would require (if Kosminski was JtR) there be two Polish-UK-Jewish-Victorian-era serial killers!

Serial killers come from all religions, all nationalities, are found in all countries, and in all likelihood have been around far longer than we have them on record.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Probably because it is totally irrelevant to whether or not Kosminski was the Ripper.

That and it makes no sense.

I suggest it is very relevant, especially as Anderson claimed that certain stereotypical conduct on the part of Jews was inextricably linked with the identity of the murderer.

If Polish Jews did not attack Gentile women in the East End of London, what does that say in favour of Anderson's stereotypical representation of them?

The fact that five leading policemen - Macnaghten, Warren, Smith, Reid, and Abberline, did not accept Anderson's Polish Jew theory suggests that it did not fit well with his portrayal of Polish Jews and the facts known about the murders.

I would also point out respectfully that asserting that a statement makes no sense is not the same as proving that it makes no sense.

[Fiver]

Just a reminder that I did issue a challenge for someone to produce evidence of Polish Jewish men attacking Gentile women in East London in the late nineteenth century, but so far no-one has.

Probably because it is totally irrelevant to whether or not Kosminski was the Ripper.

That and it makes no sense.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

We are told the suspect first came to the attention of the investigation following the door to door search, so there was clearly other evidence, now lost.


Anderson never so much as hints at the existence of any such evidence.

You are making an assumption that such evidence existed.

Anderson does not say that there was any proximity between the timing of the door-to-door search and his becoming interested in the alleged suspect.

There is no evidence that Kosminski came to the attention of the police prior to his incarceration in Colney Hatch.

The first mention of him by Anderson is as follows:

I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum ...

He chooses his words carefully.

He does not say:

I will only add that when the individual whom we had suspected / whom we had been keeping under surveillance / whose home we had searched / whom we had previously interrogated was caged in an asylum ...

He does not say that the suspect became a suspect prior to his incarceration.

His career had not been cut short by his having been arrested, put under surveillance, or being found being protected by his people.

Quite evidently, he had not been unmasked during any investigation nor found to be being shielded by his relatives.

Similarly, Macnaghten does not state that Kosminski became a suspect prior to his incarceration.

Neither Anderson nor Macnaghten mentions any search that may have led to Kosminski's identification.

It is not a fact, but merely your interpretation of what Anderson wrote, that any concrete evidence came to light.

Only Swanson claims that Kosminski was a suspect before he was incarcerated, but he does not mention any search leading to his becoming a suspect.

According to Anderson, the alleged Polish Jewish suspect did not come to the attention of the investigation as a direct result of the house to house search, but as as result of a deduction made by Scotland Yard, from its fruitless result, that the murderer was a Jew.

No-one at Scotland Yard ever corroborated this claim of Anderson's and, indeed, Reid, Abberline, Smith, Warren, and Macnaghten were all of the view that the murderer was a gentile.

Why do you think the fact that Anderson mentions a search that yielded no suspect but does not mention a search that did yield a suspect allows you to make the deduction that such a search did take place?

Was there something preventing Anderson from telling his readers of some convincing explanation for the Polish Jew becoming his suspect?

There is no evidence that Kosminski came to the police's attention at any time prior to his admission to Colney Hatch, just as there is no evidence that Druitt came to the police's attention at any time prior to his suicide.

If, as Anderson claimed, the suspect evaded justice by being protected by his relatives, then what on earth is he doing in an asylum by the time the police have evidence against him?

Why was he not arrested at his relatives' house, interrogated, and then subjected to identification?

Why was he already in an asylum?

It is obvious that Anderson could not cite anything concrete against any suspect.

Anderson claimed that Scotland Yard formed a hypothesis that the murderer was a Jew who was living with and being protected by his fellow Jews and that that hypothesis was proven right.

How could it have been proven correct if, instead of living with and being protected by his fellow Jews, the suspect was in an asylum?

Why was the suspect's hideous career ... cut short by committal to an asylum?

Why was his career not cut short by his detection and arrest by the police, on being found being shielded by his relatives?

All we have from Anderson is that he claimed that he and his colleagues came to the conclusion that the murderer was a Polish Jew; the investigation then focused on a Polish Jew who was in an asylum; a Jewish witness who had seen the murderer identified him without realising he was Jewish.

There was no logical reason to conclude that the murderer was a Polish Jew, living with his relatives.

It was known to the police that Polish Jews were not in the habit of attacking gentile women.

The police believed that the murderer took internal organs with him from the victims, which suggested that the murderer lived alone.

Anderson's reasoning - that the murderer could not be someone living alone and must therefore be Jewish - is nonsensical and based on his prejudiced notion that only Jews would protect a murderer.

There had to be some concrete evidence against a suspect for him to have been subjected to an identification procedure.

If so, then why could not Anderson say what it was and why it could not be used in a prosecution?

How would the witness discover that the suspect was Jewish?

According to Anderson, the suspect had been protected by Jews - presumably his relatives - and enabled to continue to commit murder.

Anderson claimed that this kind of conduct by Jews was a well-known fact.

Knowing this, why would the police allow the witness to learn that the suspect was Jewish and thereby wreck all hope of a successful prosecution?

It is not a fact that there was clearly other evidence, now lost.

That is an assumption on your part and nothing more.



What this included is unknown, but may have included the Batty Street incident, family concerns, the results of surveillance, a second ID, verifying the main ID. The list of possibilities goes on.


Family concerns??

Anderson accused Kosminski's / the Polish Jew's relatives of perverting the course of justice and you imply that they could have informed on him?

If they informed on him, then they could not have been protecting him, in which case Anderson's allegation against the Jews collapses!


the results of surveillance??

That is impossible because Anderson has the suspect already in an asylum.

How could he have been under surveillance?

If surveillance had pointed to his guilt, why was he not arrested and interrogated?

Instead, he is in an asylum.

Moreover, if surveillance did not point to his guilt, how can his guilt be a definitely ascertained fact?



Macnaghten says there were MANY circumstances to consider the man he called Kosminski. That he ultimately rejected him in favour of Druitt is actually neither here nor there, the important issue is that he DID CONSIDER him.


It certainly IS here or there.

The important issue is that Macnaghten was unaware that Kosminski's guilt was a definitely ascertained fact - evidently because his guilt never was definitely ascertained - and instead declared his inclination to exonerate him!

He noted that no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one suspect, which flatly contradicts Anderson's claim that Kosminski was ever identified as the murderer.



That is what this is all about, being prepared to consider any suspect, from any background, look at the arguments, dont dismiss those arguments or evidence that do not fit our own theories of bias.
This you appear to be unwilling to do.


That is precisely what Anderson was NOT prepared to do!

He decided that the murderer was a Jew who was shielded by his relatives or co-religionists - but never even claimed that the suspect was FOUND being shielded by his relatives!

He was not interested in a gentile suspect because his bias told him that the murderer had to be a Jew.

He did not consider the possibility that the murderer was a gentile who was being shielded by a gentile criminal fraternity - because of his bias.

According to Anderson, the murderer HAD to be Jewish and he makes it clear that he came to that decision BEFORE Kosminski became a suspect.

Anderson did not focus on a Polish Jewish suspect because there was evidence against him, but because he had decided that the suspect would be a Polish Jew.

The basis of your case against Kosminski is nothing more than Anderson's prejudice.



This you appear to be unwilling to do.


I am willing to do that in any criminal case, but all the evidence in this case is that the murderer was a gentile.

I have presented it, but you simply ignore it and accuse me of bias and prejudice.

In reality, Anderson at that time believed the murderer was a gentile and recorded his views that the graffito was anti-Jewish and written by the murderer, and that an anti-Jewish insult was shouted by a suspect at Israel Schwartz.

It was only many years later that he started to suggest that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

So far, neither you nor any other supporter of Anderson here has produced evidence that Polish Jews in Whitechapel attacked gentile women.

It was unheard of for Polish Jews to attack gentile women, let alone murder them, and there has never been a Polish Jewish serial murderer anywhere.

I have yet to see you respond to such evidence directly.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You guys know there are Jewish serial killers, right? David Berkowitz comes to mind.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

There has never been a recorded case of a Polish Jewish serial killer.

There has never been a recorded case of a Jewish serial killer in British criminal history.

So far, no-one here has been able to cite the case of a Polish Jew assaulting a Gentile woman in the East End of London in the late nineteenth century.

These facts should, I suggest, cause one to be sceptical of the value of Anderson's claim that, prior to his becoming interested in Kosminski / the Polish Jew, the police had become convinced that the murderer must be Jewish.

I never said, as Elamarna claims, that it was impossible for the murderer to have been Jewish.

I said it was very unlikely.

I have cited evidence from that period that the incidence of violent crime among the Jewish population was much lower than that of the Gentile population.

In response, Elamarna has dismissed the evidence as simply opinion and my assertions as prejudiced.

That is not, I suggest, an adequate response because serious questions require serious answers.

No-one has produced any evidence of Polish Jews attacking Gentile women, no-one has disputed my two statements about Jews and serial killers, no-one has so far disputed the validity of the sources I cited about violence in the East End of London, and no-one has disputed my assertion that I did not state that it was impossible for the murderer to have been a Jew.