Lawende And Schwarz

[belinda]

Something is bothering me about Andersons witness.The Police only used one witness probably either Lawende or Schwarz at the House to identify the suspect the witness would not testify but there was a second potential witness so when the first one refused why didn't they try the other.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Something is bothering me about Andersons witness.The Police only used one witness probably either Lawende or Schwarz at the House to identify the suspect the witness would not testify but there was a second potential witness so when the first one refused why didn't they try the other.

That's a very good point.

The only argument I can think of is that "the only person" who "had a good view" of the murderer was the only person able to convict the suspect.

I've sort of changed my mind on this. I argued in the past for the Lawende.

But, given a choice between the two men, it must have been Schwartz.

The police must have believed Schwartz witnessed the murder of Stride in order to arrive at the conclusion: "good view of the murderer".

At the ID, clearly the witness did not realise the suspect was Jewish when he "identified him unhesitantly". Otherwise, he would have kept quiet on the grounds of "not wanting it on his conscience". So, what happened?

I read the thread including the suggestion the suspect may have spoke in Yiddish. But, why? Presumably the police/suspect communicated in English prior to the "confrontation".

In the past, I believed a Jew would shop a Jew - based on little knowledge of Jewish protocol. Since then, however, I have read that actually Jews were reluctant to shop fellow Jews to Gentile justice on grounds of religious doctrine and fear of being ostracised within the Jewish community (classed as an informant).

So, perhaps the witness identifies the suspect. The suspect starts ranting at the witness in Yiddish to remind him of his obligations as a fellow Jew. In order for this to work, then the suspect must have known that the witness was Jewish, i.e. he must have appeared Jewish - would this lend weight to Schwartz rather than Lawende?

There is a nice little tie in with "Lipski" here. I've never believed that a murderer would stop to hurl an insult for no other reason than being insulting. I mean, murder doesn't occupy my mind but were I to try my hand I can't imagine stopping half way through to call someone a wanker before getting back to work. So, perhaps "Lipski" was BS man putting pressure on Schwartz to not give any information to the authorities, i.e. "you know what happened to Lipski, he was hanged by the Gentile authorities, Jews do not shop fellow Jews".

[PaulB]

That's a very good point.

The only argument I can think of is that "the only person" who "had a good view" of the murderer was the only person able to convict the suspect.

I've sort of changed my mind on this. I argued in the past for the Lawende.

But, given a choice between the two men, it must have been Schwartz.

The police must have believed Schwartz witnessed the murder of Stride in order to arrive at the conclusion: "good view of the murderer".

At the ID, clearly the witness did not realise the suspect was Jewish when he "identified him unhesitantly". Otherwise, he would have kept quiet on the grounds of "not wanting it on his conscience". So, what happened?

I read the thread including the suggestion the suspect may have spoke in Yiddish. But, why? Presumably the police/suspect communicated in English prior to the "confrontation".

In the past, I believed a Jew would shop a Jew - based on little knowledge of Jewish protocol. Since then, however, I have read that actually Jews were reluctant to shop fellow Jews to Gentile justice on grounds of religious doctrine and fear of being ostracised within the Jewish community (classed as an informant).

So, perhaps the witness identifies the suspect. The suspect starts ranting at the witness in Yiddish to remind him of his obligations as a fellow Jew. In order for this to work, then the suspect must have known that the witness was Jewish, i.e. he must have appeared Jewish - would this lend weight to Schwartz rather than Lawende?

There is a nice little tie in with "Lipski" here. I've never believed that a murderer would stop to hurl an insult for no other reason than being insulting. I mean, murder doesn't occupy my mind but were I to try my hand I can't imagine stopping half way through to call someone a wanker before getting back to work. So, perhaps "Lipski" was BS man putting pressure on Schwartz to not give any information to the authorities, i.e. "you know what happened to Lipski, he was hanged by the Gentile authorities, Jews do not shop fellow Jews".

Actually, 'Mentor', when berating Anderson, says that murder was a crime alien to the Jews, so much so, said 'Mentor', that he would question himself on learning the suspect was a Jew. It would be a dilemma easy enough to imagine. As to why they didn't have him identified by the second witness, it's entirely possible that they would have done if they had had the opportunity, but Anderson makes it clear that the Ripper 'got away' because they had to release him - that's what Anderson seems to be saying when he refers to the British not having the powers of the French police (who could hold a suspect almost indefinitely whilst they conducted their investigations).

[Jonathan H]

I think that there was only a single Jewish witness, Lawende, and only a single Ripper suspect he 'confronted' between 1888 and 1891 -- Tom Sadler (though Lawende may have confronted William Grant in 1895 and, remarkably, affirmed to that suspect).

I think that, and for once I am not alone, it is too big a coincidence that within a couple of weeks of a Polish Jewish Ripper suspect, Aaron Kosminski, being permanently sectioned, a Jewish witness, Lawende, said 'no' to a Ripper suspect (Sadler, an English Gentile), after the murder of a young and pretty Whitechapel prostitute (Frances Coles) ...

... and that some other Jewish witness (maybe Lawende again, maybe not) also 'confronted' a Polish Jewish Ripper suspect, also 'Kosminski' (the semi-fictional version of Aaron Kosminski) and said 'yes' and then also 'no' also soon after -- or long after? -- a young and pretty Whitechapel prostitute was murdered, and mutilated.

The original story is, I believe, the mundane, disappointing truth, and the second one is the mythological -- and self-serving -- clincher tale, with the elements neatly rearranged by a Super-ego and a fading memory.

With the added -- and equally fictitious -- finale about the Ripper being conveniently, satisfyingly deceased 'soon after', when he was really alive for decades.

I also think it is too big a coincidence that the element missing-in-action from version two, the description of a seamanish man and subsequently a seaman suspect, has become -- in the Swanson's notation -- a seaside hospital location for the other 'confrontation'.

[PaulB]

I think that there was only a single Jewish witness, Lawende, and only a single Ripper suspect he 'confronted' between 1888 and 1891 -- Tom Sadler (though Lawende may have confronted William Grant in 1895 and, remarkably, affirmed to that suspect).

I think that, and for once I am not alone, it is too big a coincidence that within a couple of weeks of a Polish Jewish Ripper suspect, Aaron Kosminski, being permanently sectioned, a Jewish witness, Lawende, said 'no' to a Ripper suspect (Sadler, an English Gentile), after the murder of a young and pretty Whitechapel prostitute (Frances Coles) ...

... and that some other Jewish witness (maybe Lawende again, maybe not) also 'confronted' a Polish Jewish Ripper suspect, also 'Kosminski' (the semi-fictional version of Aaron Kosminski) and said 'yes' and then also 'no' also soon after -- or long after? -- a young and pretty Whitechapel prostitute was murdered, and mutilated.

The original story is, I believe, the mundane, disappointing truth, and the second one is the mythological -- and self-serving -- clincher tale, with the elements neatly rearranged by a Super-ego and a fading memory.

With the added -- and equally fictitious -- finale about the Ripper being conveniently, satisfyingly deceased 'soon after', when he was really alive for decades.

I also think it is too big a coincidence that the element missing-in-action from version two, the description of a seamanish man and subsequently a seaman suspect, has become -- in the Swanson's notation -- a seaside hospital location for the other 'confrontation'.

Jonathan,
Lawende did not positively identify Sadler and Sadler was not a Jew and therefore Lawende would not have refused to testify because the suspect was a fellow Jew. There is no correlation between Lawende/Sadler and the story told by Anderson and Swanson. And as much as you love the idea that Anderson and Swanson were misremembering the non-identification of a Gentile by a Jew as a positive identification of a Jew by a Jew, and as much as you play down the emphasis placed by Anderson on the witness's refusal to identify the suspect as the reason why he wasn't brought to justice, and as much as you seem able to accept that an identification at 'the Seaside Home' could be perverted into a positive identification in Leman Street Police Station by Duncan Campbell of Sadler as the man who sold him a knife in the sailor's home behind the police station, the points raised above were why wasn't the second eye-witness used (and there were two), and Mac's understanding that Jews were reluctant to squeal on each other. On balance, a rather extravagant and unlikely in memory garbling of the facts in what was in principal the most serious 'unsolved' crime of their careers, I think it's reasonable to allow consideration of the story actually told by Anderson and Swanson without having to consider it in light of the confusion theory.
Paul

[Jonathan H]

Not Alone ...

Hi PaulB

No not 'confusion', substitution; the disappointing events of 1891 have been eliminated altogether in favour of the tale told by Anderson-Swanson, one which gives the false, self-serving impression that it all happened soon after the Kelly murder -- and that 'soon after' the definitely identified Ripper was dead (Swanson, Anderson's son).

I counter-argue that you play down another paradoxial element; that Anderson and Swanson thought 'Kosminski' was deceased and yet Macnaghten probably knew he was alive.

Two deceased chief suspects by two police chief, only one of whom is actually dead.

That requires some explanation if Anderson and/Swanson is/are arguably the most reliable primary, police source on this matter.

Macnaghten can accurately recall that tiny detail about 'self-abuse' and yet get completely wrong the timing of when 'Kosminski' was 'safely caged', backdating it to a more satisfying and plausible date before he was on the Force -- when he had been there for two years?!

That's really odd, don't you think?

There's probably nothing new for us in this particular debate. Though people write to me to say how much they enjoy the civil back-and-forth.

Fido thought that the [seemingly] harmless Aaron Kosminski was sectioned too late not only not to be the Ripper, but even to be Anderson's 1888/9 chief suspect.

You keep saying 'you' as if this is one of my lonely crackpot takes on this subject.

It is not of, course, but I was remiss in not crediting it to Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow from 'Scotland Yard Investigates' (2006) for new, browsing posters might think from my post, and your counter-post, that I originated this theory.

If only ...

By the way, I never mentioned Duncan Campbell and the Seaman's Home.

At least let me have my one addendum to those distinguished ex-constables' theory that is actually mine: that Lawende's 'Jack the Seaman' and Mac's non-existent beat cop have fused into the 'Seaside Home' police location for the 'confrontation', the only I, and others, think happened.

As I recall, a polite Stewart did not think it was very strong ...

[PaulB]

Hi PaulB

No not 'confusion', substitution; the disappointing events of 1891 have been eliminated altogether in favour of the tale told by Anderson-Swanson, one which gives the false, self-serving impression that it all happened soon after the Kelly murder -- and that 'soon after' the definitely identified Ripper was dead (Swanson, Anderson's son).

Confusion about/substitution for... The latter makes it worse. At least confusion means that it was all written about in complete innocence. Substitution has them knowingly declaring as solved a crime the whole world and its mother knew was unsolved, and founding it on an a non-identification that hardly anyone knew about and that even those who were there probably wouldn't have recognised

I counter-argue that you play down another paradoxial element; that Anderson and Swanson thought 'Kosminski' was deceased and yet Macnaghten probably knew he was alive.

Jonathan, the witness's refusal to testify is the very heart and soul of Anderson's story, it's why the murderer was never brought to justice, it's the example of a failure which wouldn't have happened if the British police had had the powers of the French Police. Downplaying this aspect of the story if like serving a steak and kidney pudding without any steak and kidney. That Swanson thought the suspect was dead isn't comparable and is capable of several explanations. I'm not playing it down. I recognise it, note it, even use it when presenting the evidence for the suspect not being Aaron Kosminski.

Two deceased chief suspects by two police chief, only one of whom is actually dead.

That requires some explanation if Anderson and/Swanson is/are arguably the most reliable primary, police source on this matter.

I'm not sure that Anderson and Swanson are the most reliable primary sources. Arguably the most senior officers actively involved in the investigation in 1888.

Macnaghten can accurately recall that tiny detail about 'self-abuse' and yet get completely wrong the timing of when 'Kosminski' was 'safely caged', backdating it to a more satisfying and plausible date before he was on the Force -- when he had been there for two years?!

That's really odd, don't you think?

It might be odd. It might not be. It depends on how prominently it featured in Macnaghten's source. Macnaghten mentions it, so does Anderson, so do Knsminski's case papers. It seems to have mattered. Who knows why he got the date wrong. But it's not relevant, really, to the question of the identification, who the witness was, and so on.

There's probably nothing new for us in this particular debate. Though people write to me to say how much they enjoy the civil back-and-forth.

You are not a charlatan, you know the subject, you are offering a sincere and genuine theory, you have the facts at your fingertips, and you understand the processes through which one must work. That all merits respect. What's there to be uncivil about?

Fido thought that the [seemingly] harmless Aaron Kosminski was sectioned too late not only not to be the Ripper, but even to be Anderson's 1888/9 chief suspect.

No he didn't. He thought Aaron Kosminski was a harmless imbecile who not only as such clearly wasn't Jack the Ripper, but who Anderson wouldn't have suspected of being Jack the Ripper.

You keep saying 'you' as if this is one of my lonely crackpot takes on this subject.

It is not of, course, but I was remiss in not crediting it to Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow from 'Scotland Yard Investigates' (2006) for new, browsing posters might think from my post, and your counter-post, that I originated this theory.

If only ...

For all I know Don and Stewart might think 'if only' you had. I know, of course, that it is Don and Stewart's theory, but the same points apply.

By the way, I never mentioned Duncan Campbell and the Seaman's Home.

I know you didn't, but the 'sailors home' becoming 'the Seaside Home' and the positive identification of Sadler by Duncan Campbell is integral to the story, and in my view one of its core weaknesses.

At least let me have my one addendum to those distinguished ex-constables' theory that is actually mine: that Lawende's 'Jack the Seaman' and Mac's non-existent beat cop have fused into the 'Seaside Home' police location for the 'confrontation', the only I, and others, think happened.

As I recall, a polite Stewart did not think it was very strong ...

[Fleetwood Mac]

Going back to Belinda's OP.

There are more than two potential witnesses, e.g. PC Smith.

Was Lawende any better a witness than PC Smith?

It is clear from Anderson's/Swanson's statements that as far as they were concerned they had one outstanding witness whose evidence would convict the suspect.

It clearly wasn't PC Smith; by extension it probably wasn't Lawende; by extension they assumed Schwartz had witnessed the murder of Stride (in the absence of an unknown witness, e.g. the City PC).

Moving on to Jonathan's post: there is no great mystery in that we don't know the location of The Seaside Home; nor the forename of Kosminski; nor why the ID took place at The Seaside Home. We don't know simply because those details weren't included. It is illogical to then claim it must be a garbled story.

Just a point on Swanson, it seems to me that Swanson is not simply repeating that which he was told. Comments such as "sent by us" suggests to me Swanson is including himself as one of those involved in the ID logistics. In the event he was relating a story, I'd imagine he would narrate from third person perspective.

[Jonathan H]

No, not us being uncivil, others unable to disagree without being disagreeable, therefore we -- and others -- provide a welcome contrast.

That's what I get told, anyhow.

I don't follow what you are saying about confusion versus substitution?

I believe that the painful events of 1891 have been blocked and substituted with the events of 1888/9, with a better ending, sincerely not deceitfully. Hey, Anderson is not Macnaghten.

This is Martin Fido from 'David Cohen' in the dissertations section:

' ... I was consequently astonished when I casually looked up a further Colney Hatch record book which ran to 1894 and discovered that there really was a Kosminsky ... I thought his incarceration was too late for him to be the Ripper, and even rather too late for him to be Anderson's suspect. When I found his medical records I was quite sure he wasn't Jack ...'

Am I misreading this?

[PaulB]

No, not us being uncivil, others unable to disagree without being disagreeable, therefore we -- and others -- provide a welcome contrast.

That's what I get told, anyhow.

I don't follow what you are saying about confusion versus substitution?

I believe that the painful events of 1891 have been blocked and substituted with the events of 1888/9, with a better ending, sincerely not deceitfully. Hey, Anderson is not Macnaghten.

This is Martin Fido from 'David Cohen' in the dissertations section:

' ... I was consequently astonished when I casually looked up a further Colney Hatch record book which ran to 1894 and discovered that there really was a Kosminsky ... I thought his incarceration was too late for him to be the Ripper, and even rather too late for him to be Anderson's suspect. When I found his medical records I was quite sure he wasn't Jack ...'

Am I misreading this?

No you are reading it very clearly. I recall that the two things were very close together and that it was the discovery of the medical notes and the conclusion that Kosminski was a harmless lunatic that tipped Martin's scale, not so much the lateness. Ill check what he says in his book.

[Hunter]

Just a point on Swanson, it seems to me that Swanson is not simply repeating that which he was told. Comments such as "sent by us" suggests to me Swanson is including himself as one of those involved in the ID logistics. In the event he was relating a story, I'd imagine he would narrate from third person perspective.

Exactly. He was in charge of the investigation. While others came and went he was the one constant in the whole chain of the police investigation.

If it was just Anderson's call in all of this, it could be easy to dismiss his claims - knowing the caveats and controversy that surrounded him then, as well as now. But Swanson is a different story. He was a career policeman; had no aspirations compared to the patronage appointed officials above him, other than to finish out his career as a policeman. He wrote annotations in many manuscripts; he had done so in reports while on active duty.

Here, he is writing extensively and conclusively on a subject he certainly felt he knew something about. He felt he was filling in the blanks, not just repeating something he had heard. That some of the details are not clear to us is unfortunate. But I doubt he was considering posterity when he wrote it; no more than he did when he wrote annotations in other documents on other matters.

[Jonathan H]

It's because he was so efficient that I don't believe Swanson would have made the errors about 'Kosminski' being dead and that no other murders were committed after he was caged, as he himself investigated Coles as if it was a 'Jack' murder (and involving two hats, and so on).

I think he would have known the full name too (but Anderson was relying on Macnaghten).

To me Swanson sought clarification between the two, contradictory versions of Anderson, wrote it down because it was so, well, bizarre, and kept it to himself.