Tweet
The debate has gone on for years over who Anderson’s and Swanson’s reluctant Jewish witness was. The two most obvious candidates are Joseph Lawende and Israel Schwartz.
Two facts about the master-witness stand out which would seem to rule out either of these men:
1. The master-witness was a vacillating, unreliable individual. Schwartz may not have appeared at the inquest but Abberline and Swanson both regarded him and his testimony as reliable and trustworthy.
2. Swanson said that the witness’ evidence would have been sufficient in itself to see the suspect hanged. All Lawende and his friends saw was a woman whom they could not positively identify as Catherine Eddowes talking to a man in Church Passage – they could have been innocent bystanders on their way home from the pub. Any defence lawyer could blast this evidence into orbit.
Could the master-witness have been Nathan Shine?
1. Shine allegedly saw a man with a knife kneeling over Elizabeth Stride’s body – that would certainly be sufficient evidence to see the varmint hanged.
2. Shine was a member of the IWMES – presumably no friend to the Establishment and upstanding, law-abiding, righteous citizen who would dutifully hand a felon over to the constabulary.
3. Shine is not mentioned in any surviving police document and is not known to have made a formal statement. This strongly suggests he was a witness who was not regarded as trustworthy.
4. Shine’s story survived through oral tradition only. But why? During the autumn of terror dozens of people were no doubt telling their mates in the pub ‘ooh! The fellow sitting next to me on the omnibus today had a black bag and I’m sure I saw a knife sticking out of it.’ None of these stories, quite rightly, have survived in the telling through three generations the way Shine’s did. What is special or significant about Shine’s story therefore?
Two facts about the master-witness stand out which would seem to rule out either of these men:
1. The master-witness was a vacillating, unreliable individual. Schwartz may not have appeared at the inquest but Abberline and Swanson both regarded him and his testimony as reliable and trustworthy.
2. Swanson said that the witness’ evidence would have been sufficient in itself to see the suspect hanged. All Lawende and his friends saw was a woman whom they could not positively identify as Catherine Eddowes talking to a man in Church Passage – they could have been innocent bystanders on their way home from the pub. Any defence lawyer could blast this evidence into orbit.
Could the master-witness have been Nathan Shine?
1. Shine allegedly saw a man with a knife kneeling over Elizabeth Stride’s body – that would certainly be sufficient evidence to see the varmint hanged.
2. Shine was a member of the IWMES – presumably no friend to the Establishment and upstanding, law-abiding, righteous citizen who would dutifully hand a felon over to the constabulary.
3. Shine is not mentioned in any surviving police document and is not known to have made a formal statement. This strongly suggests he was a witness who was not regarded as trustworthy.
4. Shine’s story survived through oral tradition only. But why? During the autumn of terror dozens of people were no doubt telling their mates in the pub ‘ooh! The fellow sitting next to me on the omnibus today had a black bag and I’m sure I saw a knife sticking out of it.’ None of these stories, quite rightly, have survived in the telling through three generations the way Shine’s did. What is special or significant about Shine’s story therefore?
Comment