A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.