Lawende's trade

[YankeeSergeant]

Just a really quick question. In the witness section Joseph Lawende is described as a "commercial traveler" Is this akin to a trveling salesman?

[miss marple]

Yes. Miss Marple

[Monty]

He dealt in the cigarette trade.

Monty

[YankeeSergeant]

Thanks

He dealt in the cigarette trade.

Monty

Thanks! It clears things up just a bit.

[Adam Went]

Perhaps that's why he payed so much attention to the man with Catherine Eddowes while Harry Harris And Joseph Hyam Levy didn't - he thought the man could be a potential customer of his cigarettes!

Cheers,
Adam.

[Sister Hyde]

Perhaps that's why he payed so much attention to the man with Catherine Eddowes while Harry Harris And Joseph Hyam Levy didn't - he thought the man could be a potential customer of his cigarettes!

Cheers,
Adam.

Hello Adam,

Since in the reading of "the London Underworld" from Mayhew which was discussed and advised in the book section of the forum, something caught my attention, when Mayhew talks about the "receivers" of stolen goods, he often mentions cigar-makers and tobacconists receiving the plundered goods and associating with the thieves, and since people seem to have different opinions on the speed of evolution between the 1850's and the 1880's, I'm still very confused, does this kind of "receivers" still apply to the 1880's? If so, could have Lawende had another illicit way of making business? and could the man he recognized been a thief he would have been acquainted to?

[Adam Went]

Hi Sister Hyde,

Hmm.....sadly we don't know a lot about the lives of our major witnesses, although Lawende is a little different as we have an actual photograph of him later in life. I'm not aware of anything which would suggest that he had some underhanded ways of doing business (not sure if anybody else can elaborate?) but if he had the opportunity, like most people, he may have taken it - got to make a quid somehow!

Having said that, Lawende was the one out of the group who spoke up to the police. Harry Harris claimed he saw basically nothing and Joseph Hyam Levy said similar whilst behaving very strangely at times, i'm a little curious about him. So for Lawende to bring himself to the attention of the police in that way would suggest to me that he probably didn't have too many skeletons in the closet that he needed to be worried about.....if it was Levy who was the salesman, we might be a little more interested.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Sister Hyde]

Hi Sister Hyde,

Hmm.....sadly we don't know a lot about the lives of our major witnesses, although Lawende is a little different as we have an actual photograph of him later in life. I'm not aware of anything which would suggest that he had some underhanded ways of doing business (not sure if anybody else can elaborate?) but if he had the opportunity, like most people, he may have taken it - got to make a quid somehow!

Having said that, Lawende was the one out of the group who spoke up to the police. Harry Harris claimed he saw basically nothing and Joseph Hyam Levy said similar whilst behaving very strangely at times, i'm a little curious about him. So for Lawende to bring himself to the attention of the police in that way would suggest to me that he probably didn't have too many skeletons in the closet that he needed to be worried about.....if it was Levy who was the salesman, we might be a little more interested.

Cheers,
Adam.

That's the thing, Lawende didn't look really like a suspicious guy and he did talk to the police, gave a description, but still claimed he would not recognize the man again, but it seems that a lot of people, even honests, could resort to thefts or good receivings and so on when needed (from what I've read on the area and the time). Levy behaved strange and suspiciously which suggests he knew the guy, now if well acquainted to Lawende and IF a jew, it means Lawende was likely to know him as well.
Now some people think that the man could have been a client of Lawende, which is far from being a stupid idea, although selling out just a simple customer would not create such a dilemma I think (I mean it's just a client, you can make a new one), while selling out a thief who might tell the police he knows you for receiving his stolen goods occasionally would definitely create a big dilemma. it could be an option too.

[Fleetwood Mac]

but still claimed he would not recognize the man again

Not quite. He doubted it.

Still odd, though, that Swanson's report includes a good description of a man facing Lawende.

I'm struggling to see the logic in such a good description leading to a "I doubt it" comment.

Also, the whole thing is a touch odd: Swanson's report states the description, e.g. 5'7 or 5'8, was given by TWO men coming out of the club, yet Levy has the man at about 5'3?; Levy states: "I cannot give any further description of him" - so who are the TWO men in Swanson's report? - when Levy said: "I cannot", does this mean I have been asked not to?

[Sister Hyde]

Not quite. He doubted it.

Still odd, though, that Swanson's report includes a good description of a man facing Lawende.

I'm struggling to see the logic in such a good description leading to a "I doubt it" comment.

Also, the whole thing is a touch odd: Swanson's report states the description, e.g. 5'7 or 5'8, was given by TWO men coming out of the club, yet Levy has the man at about 5'3?; Levy states: "I cannot give any further description of him" - so who are the TWO men in Swanson's report? - when Levy said: "I cannot", does this mean I have been asked not to?

Hello Mister Mac

Yes he doubted it, but gave the most complete description, this is odd enough alright. concerning Levy, it could definitely mean he was asked not too or didn't want to sell a good acquaintance (or a relative) down the river. Concerning Joseph Levy, to me the oddest comment was still that he wasn't worried for his own safety with a short laughter.... Now I was only expressing this idea cause it struck me through the Mayhew reading (about stolen goods receivers, and often pointing at cigar makers, tobaconnists and so on), and also that a lot of people seem to think the ripper started in a gang, that it might not just be that he didn't want to sell out a client but maybe a dubious acquaintance who could have told the police why he knew him (which would have been much worst for Lawende, because stolen good receivers, even those who only did it occasionally, were very seriously punished for it), I'm not saying it was, but there are so many possibilities. These witnesses, and the Eddowes murder are the most "fascinating" to me, and I still believe it's the murder that could give us the most informations.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Mister Mac

Yes he doubted it, but gave the most complete description, this is odd enough alright. concerning Levy, it could definitely mean he was asked not too or didn't want to sell a good acquaintance (or a relative) down the river. Concerning Joseph Levy, to me the oddest comment was still that he wasn't worried for his own safety with a short laughter.... Now I was only expressing this idea cause it struck me through the Mayhew reading (about stolen goods receivers, and often pointing at cigar makers, tobaconnists and so on), and also that a lot of people seem to think the ripper started in a gang, that it might not just be that he didn't want to sell out a client but maybe a dubious acquaintance who could have told the police why he knew him (which would have been much worst for Lawende, because stolen good receivers, even those who only did it occasionally, were very seriously punished for it), I'm not saying it was, but there are so many possibilities. These witnesses, and the Eddowes murder are the most "fascinating" to me, and I still believe it's the murder that could give us the most informations.

So much of the witness statements are at odds with one another, which makes it a touch tricky to nail things down.

I mean, Levy has him at 5'3, and Lawende 5'7/5'8. Swanson settles on 5'7/5'8 as seen by two men coming out of the club. According to Harris, he saw as much as the other two, so why isn't the description that seen by three men? and why did Swanson say two men gave the description of 5'7/5'8 when Levy clearly didn't?

Is there any possibility that Swanson's two men in the report are not Levy/Harris/Lawende?

Also, I'd always assumed Morris's door was ajar during the murder, when in fact his testimony states 2/3 minutes before the knock on his door. I wonder if the endless theorising on whether or not JTR knew he only had 10 or so minutes due to knowing the police beats, is made redundant by Morris disturbing him when he opened the door ajar and he bolted - being a very lucky lad with a policeman about to turn into the square.

I do agree it's one of the more interesting (if such a word is apt in this context) murders.

The problem with your Lawende theory is that he gives a good description, so in a fashion he is not protecting the supposed assailant. Unless of course, Levy was accurate at 5'3 and Lawende lied at 5'7/5'8 - not likely in my opinion.

So, why, after giving such a good description of a man facing him, only 9/10 feet away, does he doubt he would be able to recognise him?

Is Lawende simply a cautious man? or an unwilling witness on the grounds of personal safety? or, as the description was supressed and therefore was deemed to be of importance, could he have been told to say that? In my view, something's amiss here.

[Sister Hyde]

So much of the witness statements are at odds with one another, which makes it a touch tricky to nail things down.

I mean, Levy has him at 5'3, and Lawende 5'7/5'8. Swanson settles on 5'7/5'8 as seen by two men coming out of the club. According to Harris, he saw as much as the other two, so why isn't the description that seen by three men? and why did Swanson say two men gave the description of 5'7/5'8 when Levy clearly didn't?

Is there any possibility that Swanson's two men in the report are not Levy/Harris/Lawende?

Also, I'd always assumed Morris's door was ajar during the murder, when in fact his testimony states 2/3 minutes before the knock on his door. I wonder if the endless theorising on whether or not JTR knew he only had 10 or so minutes due to knowing the police beats, is made redundant by Morris disturbing him when he opened the door ajar and he bolted - being a very lucky lad with a policeman about to turn into the square.

I do agree it's one of the more interesting (if such a word is apt in this context) murders.

The problem with your Lawende theory is that he gives a good description, so in a fashion he is not protecting the supposed assailant. Unless of course, Levy was accurate at 5'3 and Lawende lied at 5'7/5'8 - not likely in my opinion.

So, why, after giving such a good description of a man facing him, only 9/10 feet away, does he doubt he would be able to recognise him?

Is Lawende simply a cautious man? or an unwilling witness on the grounds of personal safety? or, as the description was supressed and therefore was deemed to be of importance, could he have been told to say that? In my view, something's amiss here.

Witnesses statements in the JTR case is worst than a chinese finger trap!

The idea I was mentionning about Lawende is not my theory, it was just any idea that happened to cross my mind while reading a book (I'm a "Jacob Levyist" so in a way this idea wouldn't fit my "convictions", although I'm opened to any reliable information). And in a way I think when you're a witness and you do not wish to testify against someone you know, you can always give a true description of the person and say you doubt you would recognize the person again in order not to get any "wetter", because after all, how many men of this description are running the streets of the area? being a cautious person and an unwilling witness on the ground of personal safety is not incompatible. And you're damn right there, something IS amiss there.

About Morris and our Man being aware of how much time he had, Well i think it's very likely the Ripper knew how much time he had, when you read about how the gangs and thieves used to study and follow the beats of the officers affected to the area in which they had to commit their crime, well it's pretty likely that a serial killer would be even more cautious about it.

[Hunter]

So, why, after giving such a good description of a man facing him, only 9/10 feet away, does he doubt he would be able to recognize him?

Is Lawende simply a cautious man? or an unwilling witness on the grounds of personal safety? or, as the description was suppressed and therefore was deemed to be of importance, could he have been told to say that? In my view, something's amiss here.

Unlike Schwartz, Lawende did not come forward to volunteer information. He was discovered during the City Police inquiries and could naturally have been reticent upon being approached. There would be no reason for any of the official reports to exclude any suggestion by the police that he should say that he might not recognize the man. Rather, it was repeated by both McWilliams and Swanson that Lawende stated as such. It would not be unusual for witnesses obtained in such a manner to profess some uncertainty.

[Adam Went]

Hi Sister Hyde,

Interesting, isn't it? It could well be that Lawende and particularly Levy knew the man (which would then lead to the possibility that false descriptions were given, though god knows why you'd even come forward in the first place then? Think George Hutchinson, same thing...) or that he had been a customer of Lawende's, I think a lot more people knew a lot more people in that local area than we today think - things were done differently in 1888, there wouldn't be many who didn't know their own neighbours as is often the case today.

Then also what of the alleged seaside home identification in the 1890's, if Lawende was the man then? Same scenario as 1888 still, unless Lawende wasn't the witness....or the identification never happened as it was said to have done....

And round and round in circles it goes.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Sister Hyde]

Hi Sister Hyde,

Interesting, isn't it? It could well be that Lawende and particularly Levy knew the man (which would then lead to the possibility that false descriptions were given, though god knows why you'd even come forward in the first place then? Think George Hutchinson, same thing...) or that he had been a customer of Lawende's, I think a lot more people knew a lot more people in that local area than we today think - things were done differently in 1888, there wouldn't be many who didn't know their own neighbours as is often the case today.

Then also what of the alleged seaside home identification in the 1890's, if Lawende was the man then? Same scenario as 1888 still, unless Lawende wasn't the witness....or the identification never happened as it was said to have done....

And round and round in circles it goes.

Cheers,
Adam.

Hi Adam,

Yes, too interesting to be healthy, it can keep bugging your mind at night!

"though god knows why you'd even come forward in the first place then?"

I think Hunter has given a part of the answer maybe, because he didn't "volunteer", he was found. And maybe because the possibility of knowing him doesn't mean he thought what the man was doing was ok, and then just giving a vague description doesn't involve you further if you're reticent. Now if you have anything to hide, showing yourself too reticent might arouse suspicion too.

And I'll leave the Seaside home identification at the moment cause my mind's already going too round for a monday morning