A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[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?

[Azarna]

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

[FISHY1118]

The silence is deafening.

[barnflatwyngarde]

The silence is deafening.

Well that's a bit of good news!

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The silence is deafening.

And THAT is a FACT.

[DJA]

[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

[rjpalmer]

Also:

Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 02 July 2002 - 03:13 am


"The Home Secretary's conclusion was that it would be more practical to, "...take all houses in a given area which appear suspicious upon the best inquiry your detectives can make. Search all those, which the owners or persons in charge will allow you to search. Where leave is refused, apply to a magistrate for a search warrant, on the ground that it is probable or possible the murderer may be there. If search warrants are refused, you can only keep the houses under observation..."

"To specify the meaning of the word 'clue', used by Anderson, to suit a preferred suspect is stretching the imagination a little too far. A clue is a clue, whether it is of a physical nature or supplied by way of the verbal evidence of a witness. There is no reason to suppose, from the official records, that the house to house enquiries threw up a specific suspect. Indeed the contrary is indicated. The police report of 25 October 1888, to the Home Office, concluded, "I do not think there is any reason whatever for supposing that murderer of Whitechapel is one of the ordinary denizens of that place."

"It is amazing how Anderson's later writings are retrospectively applied to the official reports of 1888 and used to qualify or interpret them differently from the obvious meaning intended. The argument thus, again devolves to Anderson and his odd quotes."

[Scott Nelson]

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.

Hi RJ,

Last I heard, Adam Wood preferred the "another Kosminski" theory.

Regarding the apparent lack of knowledge of Kosminski at SY, I think Henry Moore, in addition to Anderson and Swanson, knew. Sagar and Henry Smith as well. Recall Smith interviewed a witness from the Mitre Square murder and recounted that he would not be able to identify the man again, so Smith was probably reluctant to proceed with the "Seaside Home" identification and thereafter didn't recall it as being anything conclusive (that Kosminski could be the Ripper). But years later (According to HL Adam in the Foreward of his book) Smith apparently changed his mind about the Ripper's identity -- his friendship with Anderson having been on the mend.

I think that the limited knowledge of Kosminski at SY and the City Police was on a "need to know" basis because of witness non-cooperation, family pressure and the religious strife that could have affected the region.

Oh, but I'm talking about David Cohen (Kosminski), not Aaron Kosminski. If we try to shoehorn Cohen into the October house-to-house search, I think the timing works better than for the enfeebled former hairdresser, Aaron Kosminski.

[Sunny Delight]

The guy in the picture doesn’t look particularly Jewish (maybe slightly?) and would anyone be able to tell anyway from across a road in less that ideal lighting. And let’s not forget, Lawende said that he wouldn’t have been able to ID the man so he certainly didn’t pay close attention to his face. This is obvious stuff.

Could the man seen with Eddowes have been Jewish? Of course he could. It doesn’t mean that he was of course but he certainly could have been.

Was using the term 'Jewish appearance' a way of saying Eastern European?

[rjpalmer]

But years later (According to HL Adam in the Foreward of his book) Smith apparently changed his mind about the Ripper's identity -- his friendship with Anderson having been on the mend.

Hi Scott,

Well, all I can say is that you're certainly getting a lot of mileage out of this simple statement by HL Adam in his introduction to The Trial of George Chapman:

"Several prominent officials have from time to time asserted that they had established his identity. The late Sir Melville Macnaghten, the late Sir Robert Anderson, Sir Henry Smith, and many others of less importance have assured us regarding this."

No one has ever located any source for Smith changing his mind about the non-identification of the Ripper between 1910 and 1930, let alone that he went over to Robert Anderson's way of thinking.

I suspect Adam is misremembering or misstating Smith's comments about Oswald Puckeridge in 1910, forgetting that Smith admitted that Puckeridge (who he does not name by name) had had an alibi.

That's how I see it.

Further, Swanson and Macnaghten were involved in the Sadler investigation, as was Henry Moore. It is clear that SY was attempting to trace Sadler's movements in 1888, including his supposed employment at a warehouse in Buck's Row.

Rather strange behavior had they already positively determined that Kosminski was the Ripper "back in the day."

Cheers.

[The Baron]

Further, Swanson and Macnaghten were involved in the Sadler investigation, as was Henry Moore. It is clear that SY was attempting to trace Sadler's movements in 1888, including his supposed employment at a warehouse in Buck's Row.

Rather strange behavior had they already positively determined that Kosminski was the Ripper "back in the day."

Cheers.

I don't think it is strange since there were 7 victims before Coles and it was not set in stone that all of them were victims of one hand only.


TB

[rjpalmer]

I don't think it is strange since there were 7 victims before Coles and it was not set in stone that all of them were victims of one hand only.


TB

It's a reasonable objection, except that Anderson himself dismissed Mylett and McKenzie as Ripper victims.

Equally important, there is a credible report that the Aldgate witness (Joseph Lawende) was used in a failed attempt to identify Sadler.

That rather puts a damper on he objection, since no one can credibly argue that Scotland Yard didn't think that Kate Eddowes was a victim of Jack the Ripper. In some ways, she and Annie Chapman were the only undeniable victims of the same hand, though it's hard for me to believe that Nichols and Kelly weren't also.

[The Baron]

It's a reasonable objection, except that Anderson himself dismissed Mylett and McKenzie as Ripper victims.

There is still Stride and Tabram.

Ongoing official and open Investigation had nothing to do with what Anderson believed.


TB

[Parisi North Humber]

Was using the term 'Jewish appearance' a way of saying Eastern European?

I have often wondered what was meant by "Jewish appearance".
Did it mean genetic as in thick dark hair and swarthy skin or did it mean cultural as in clothes and/or a Kippah or was it a mixture possibly including mannerisms?

Helen x