The perfect witness who won't testify

[RivkahChaya]

To suppose that a witness would shield a co-religionist was somehow unique to the Jews in Whitechapel in the LVP is quite wrong. Indeed, reluctance to bear witness against someone with whom there is shared religious, racial or ethnic background is a recurring problem for the police everywhere.

Except that this person was apparently willing to make a day's trip somewhere for the identification, and then turn around and refuse to testify. It seems to me that if it was just a question of shielding another Jew, he wouldn't have admitted to seeing anything in the first place.

Hello Rivkah. I still think we need more information about "Julius Wirtkofsky" a "Polish Jew." A certain "Julius Lowenheim" said he could identify him as a man who had made a statement about killing prostitutes.

This is in the police files for the case and marked for December of 1888--just after "MJK" died, and the "murders" stopped.

That makes more sense, because it's the kind of hearsay testimony that, depending on the source, can make the police sure of who the perpetrator is, but unable to make a case.

However, it sounds too much like other stories, like the man who was killing prostitutes to avenge his son. At least in that story, the man is looking for a particular prostitute-- and his son succumbed rather quickly, if the woman was still alive. All the "vendetta against prostitutes" stories don't sit well with me, because MJK was the only real pro of all the women-- career prostitute, that is-- while the others, and the jury is still out on Eddowes, seem to be women who turned to it occasionally when they needed money for the night. Someone hell-bound on making a point, I'd think would be setting fire to brothels, or murdering the people in charge of them.

[Errata]

Hello Rivkah. I still think we need more information about "Julius Wirtkofsky" a "Polish Jew." A certain "Julius Lowenheim" said he could identify him as a man who had made a statement about killing prostitutes.

This is in the police files for the case and marked for December of 1888--just after "MJK" died, and the "murders" stopped.

Cheers.
LC

Wirtkofsky? That rings bells. I don't know why yet.

[lynn cates]

further

Hello Rivkah. Here is some more information.

Cheers.
LC

http://books.google.com/books?id=es7eUDSL26wC&pg=PA443&lpg=PA443&dq=julius+wirtkofsky&source=bl&ots=zuNt5U6olK&sig=al5-05NdAJ9bDnqshETOjbRUW9M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=giioUKqOMoSHrAHoroDQAg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=julius%20wirtkofsky&f=false

[lynn cates]

Wirtkofsky

Hello Rivkah. I still think we need more information about "Julius Wirtkofsky" a "Polish Jew." A certain "Julius Lowenheim" said he could identify him as a man who had made a statement about killing prostitutes.

This is in the police files for the case and marked for December of 1888--just after "MJK" died, and the "murders" stopped.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Good for the soul?

I must confess, whilst with my conscious mind I fully acknowledge the valid status of Aaron Kosminski, or at least some Kosminski, as a suspect, I do keep wondering about that Dover Seaside Home and the alleged City Policeman witness, and asking myself whether the whole tale of a Jewish witness who wouldn't testify is actually smokescreen for a policeman who, for some reason or another, couldn't...

I know it sounds far out, but it's banging away at the back of my mind...

There, it's out in the open...

All the best

Dave

PS Sorry if this is the wrong thread for it...it just felt "comfortable" here....

[Supe]

To suppose that a witness would shield a co-religionist was somehow unique to the Jews in Whitechapel in the LVP is quite wrong. Indeed, reluctance to bear witness against someone with whom there is shared religious, racial or ethnic background is a recurring problem for the police everywhere.

There was a recent story from Baltimore, MD, about police having to contend with a "Don't be a snitch" attitude in black neighborhoods (there are even Don't Be A Snitch T-shirts available) and Baltimore is hardly unique in that regard, nor are some blacks the only racial group to protect its own.

In New York it has been reported of a reluctance among members of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community to finger other Orthodox sexual predators. Moreover, one need only recall the child molestation coverups by some Roman Catholics as another example among many that involve all faiths.

In my little town a century ago there was a murder within the newly burgeoning Italian immigrant community and the whereabouts of the killer -- known widely to many Italians -- was kept secret for more than a year until one person's conscience won out over the desire to conceal. And, again, such things happen among all groups with the same religious, racial or ethnic background; these examples just came to mind at once.

The thing to remember, though, is that while it can affect all groups, it doesn't affect everyone within that group.

Don.

[RivkahChaya]

I think that if there really was a faith-based reluctance, it probably had to do with the fact that in Europe up until about the 1860s or 1870s, most courts refused to swear in Jews, because they could not swear them in on the bible, while other courts subjected them to humiliating rituals. The Jewish witness may have been afraid of being abused first by the court, when he was sworn in, and then faced personal attacks if the defense tried to impeach him by using the fact that he was Jewish, and didn't have the same fear of divine retribution that Christians did, to impinge upon his honesty. He might have wanted to consult a rabbi on the matter of whether Talmudic requirements for witnesses before the Sanhedrin affected people testifying in secular courts.

The Sanhedrin may not impose the death penalty, unless there are at least two witnesses, who witnessed the crime directly, and warned the perpetrator before he acted, that he could be punished by death. The rule is the prevent death from being used as a punishment, not because Talmudic rabbis thought that scenario would ever play out.

However, it was responsibility of the Sanhedrin to secure witnesses, and make sure all that happened. The rule did not preclude a Jew from being the sole eye-witness in a criminal case in a secular court. Jews testifying in secular courts was so rare, though, that a lot of Jews wouldn't know that. They would know the Sanhedrin rule is they studied even a little Talmud, though. So a Jew in 1888, newly arrived from a shtetl, would understandably want to talk to his rabbi about that.

ERRATA: there is no hard and fast rule about waiting a year to place a headstone. It's just a tradition, and you can place it any time after shiva. The reason for waiting is to have it as the final act of the year-long period of mourning. Some people put the stone up after sheloshim. It really depends on the community, and the needs of the family.

The tradition started when people needed a long time to travel, and since bodies need to be buried as quickly as possible, there were usually lots of people who missed out on a funeral. Then you can't erect it during shiva, and some people had strong feelings about not erecting during sheloshim.

On top of that, headstones were expensive to buy, or very times consuming to make yourself (there are cemeteries around Indiana with hand-carved-- that is, hand tools, clearly amateur-job stones-- they're really interesting), so by the time the stone was paid for, it might be several weeks after the death anyway.

If you unveiled the stone one year after the death, there was plenty of time to get the money together to pay for it, and plenty of time for everyone who hadn't been able to get there for the funeral to arrive for the unveiling.

Outside the US, the unveiling is still more important than the burial in Jewish communities. In the US, the burial is becoming the focus of mourning, because that's the way the culture at large operates, sort of the way Hanukkah is becoming this big deal holiday. When I was a kid, and wanted gifts, my mother would tell me "Hanukkah isn't Christmas." Now, every December, she practically buys out Toys R Us for my son.

FWIW, I got lots of gifts on my birthday, and Purim was a big deal, with gifts, and sometimes I got to stay home from school the day after, but there were a lot of Jews where we lived, and a lot of family close by.

[Errata]

The part that has always bothered me is that his reluctance was based on his faith. Which doesn't really track with Judaism. I mean was it Moses? "Justice. Justice shall ye pursue." If he had absolutely identified the man as Jack the Ripper, any religious authority would tell him that he was morally obligated to testify, no matter the consequences to the suspect. So if it was a clean ID, and he chose not testify, that wasn't a religious objection. That's not something he would have learned he should do in his religious upbringing.

So the only explanation is that either he wasn't sure, or he was sure that the man he identified was at the scene, but he had no confidence that meant the man was the killer. Which is a completely different issue than his reluctance being a matter of faith. Not only that, it was certainly within the power of the Police to first check that objection with a rabbi, who would have said it was crap, and then bring in a rabbi to talk to the witness to see if it changed his mind. Which if that happened you would think it would rate a mention. So why bring his religion in it at all, except to in fact say that the Jewish killer was being protected by his fellow Jews? Which no part of Jewish law supports. He could not have been protected by his fellow Jews, because too many of them would have been familiar with their moral obligation in this case, and someone would have turned him in. Some may have protected him, but not because of the law. Nothing in Judaism supports that behavior. And I can't say that some Jews didn't have an "us vs. them" mentality, but it would only have taken one man more concerned with law and justice, and it would have been over. It just pisses me off.

On a total aside Rivkah, do you know why we wait a year for the unveiling of headstones for the dead? I was discussing it with... Mr. Rob House I think, and I have to admit that it's been explained to me I don't know how many times, but I still don't know the answer. I'm under the impression that it's born of superstition akin with why we never leave a body alone... but I'm not sure.

[Wickerman]

It makes me wonder whether it's possible he never existed, or his value was highly exaggerated, and perhaps his reluctance as well. "We solved it, we have a witness, but he won't testify," is a great story.

Agreed, in one respect this story also provides a suitable defense. That it was not "our fault", we did all we could, but circumstances beyond our control worked against us.

I'm not saying the police invented it as a cover for not solving the case,...

No, but ID's were likely more common than we have written records of, and in this particular case more was made of this one than others.

Aside from UL characteristics, it seems to me there are other flaws in the story: one is the idea that the whole case can hang on an identification which is not of a person in the actual act of committing the crime

That has always interested me too, because it is well known that the only sure way to incriminate anyone is to catch them in the act, which has never been the case as far as we know.
Simply identifying a person last seen with a victim or, a person seen leaving the vicinity of a crime, neither can be seen as conclusive evidence of guilt.
So yes, that claim has another ring of hyperbole to it.

...and the other is the fact that the power of subpoena existed in 1888, and the witness could be compelled to testify.

There are others here who are better versed in applicable laws of the time and I am sure that point has been raised before. I'd like to be reminded of what conclusion our better informed members came to in this respect.

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

There's a lot of speculation about the Jewish witness who was taken to the Seaside Home to identify a Jewish suspect, probably Aaron Kosminski, and said that he was absolutely certain the person was the man he saw, however, he could testify to that fact in court, and therefore, Kosminski couldn't be tried.

It sounds like a strange story to me, because I wonder first what one person could have seen that all on its own made a compelling case, and without it, there was no case at all. Second, there is the mystery of not knowing who the person is. We know that he's Jewish, so most people think he was either Israel Schwartz or Joseph Lawende.

I'm struck by the fact that this story has elements of a type of Urban Legend. There are a lot of stories about the wonderful thing that is just out of reach, or that is being denied to us for some reason.

One example is the 200-mile carburetor. From about the 1920s, until fuel injection became standard, almost everyone "knew," somehow, that car manufacturers knew how to make a carburetor that would let a car get 200mpg (the best a carburetor even got was about 25mpg, and when the legend sprung up, it was more like 10mpg; for Brits, that's about 84 liters per kilometer, I think). The unnamed "car companies" wouldn't manufacture it, though, because they were being paid off not to, by the oil companies. There are lots of examples, but I'll spare you a long post that lists them.

Anyway, it just seems to me that the unnamed witness who could make the whole case, but won't come forward seems almost cut from Urban Legend mold.

It makes me wonder whether it's possible he never existed, or his value was highly exaggerated, and perhaps his reluctance as well. "We solved it, we have a witness, but he won't testify," is a great story. I'm not saying the police invented it as a cover for not solving the case, because that isn't how Urban Legends work. They happen when a tiny grain of truth turns into something much bigger after lots of retellings, or when endless speculation takes on a life of its own.

Aside from UL characteristics, it seems to me there are other flaws in the story: one is the idea that the whole case can hang on an identification which is not of a person in the actual act of committing the crime (there are even some statements that the ID was the only evidence), and the other is the fact that the power of subpoena existed in 1888, and the witness could be compelled to testify.

What do other people think?