Who Was Anderson’s Witness?

[Darryl Kenyon]

The evidence we have is that Lawende's suspect had fair hair, not dark hair.

We have photographs of Kosminski's brothers and sister.

They had dark hair.

Where is the evidence that Aaron Kosminski had a fair moustache?

Again nowhere does it say that Lawende's man had fair hair. Just your assumption.

I never claimed Kosminski had a fair moustache. It is you who are making claims .

[Herlock Sholmes]

In case readers are unaware of this, I will mention that a few months ago you alleged that I was wrong and that Lawende had not described his suspect as having had the appearance of a sailor.

You alleged further that I had conjured up that detail in order to support my theory that the murderer was a sailor.

I recall further that you referred to other reports of Lawende's description of the suspect and thereby questioned my description of the suspect's hair colour.

I see you are doing it again.

Anyone can look up Swanson's record of Lawende's description of the suspect and see that he had a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor.

Ok…..now the truth.

I have never once said that Lawende didn’t say that he had the appearance of a sailor. Why would I deny something that’s on record?

What I said, and what I stand by because it’s true, is that just ‘having the appearance’ of sailor doesn’t mean that he was a sailor. What I also said was that Lawende could easily have been influenced by the man’s cap and neckerchief. You ignore that a go for the jacket even though Lawende never specified as to how he came by his opinion.

When that I said that you had conjured up a detail I was again telling the exact truth. You claimed that sailors were known to have worn ‘salt and pepper’ jackets. This is untrue. I asked you then to prove this and I’ve asked you recently to prove this but you haven’t because we all know that there’s no such thing.

What you then tried to prove, amazingly, was that when someone (Lawende) describes a ‘loose fitting’ jacket that he’s naming an actual type of jacket. That you can go somewhere and ask for a ‘loose jacket’ because ‘loose jacket’ is somehow a style or make of jacket. Then you tried to tie this in to a quote about a sailor wearing a ‘loose fitting monkey jacket’ as if on some planet that backs up your argument!

And finally, we aren’t talking about his moustache, we are talking about his hair and I’ll make the same very obvious points that I made then. Lawende was viewing a suspect standing under a lamp. This is well known by all (probably with the exception of you) to cause issues when identifying colour….making some colours appear lighter. Ask Trevor as an ex-copper how cautious the police are over the identification of colours seen at night under street lighting…..not just hair colour can be wrong but the colour of cars and clothing. So, a) a man can have a moustache that’s a different shade to the hair on his head, and b) witnesses can easily be mistaken on the identification of colour at night under street lighting.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Again nowhere does it say that Lawende's man had fair hair. Just your assumption.

I never claimed Kosminski had a fair moustache. It is you who are making claims .

It is not merely an assumption on my part.

It is a reasonable deduction from the evidence.

It is not as though we have no evidence of the suspect's hair colour.

I never said you claimed Kosminski had a fair moustache.

I was responding to Sunny Delight, who claimed that Lawende identified Kosminski.

He was thereby implying that Kosminski had a fair moustache.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not merely an assumption on my part.

It is a reasonable deduction from the evidence.

It is not as though we have no evidence of the suspect's hair colour.

If he said ‘brown’ how can it be a reasonable assumption to say ‘fair?’

[Darryl Kenyon]

Another version of the man's description is given in an undated Home Office document written in or after July 1889: "Age 30 to 35. Height 5ft. 7in., with brown hair and big moustache, dressed respectably. Wore a pea jacket, muffler and a cloth cap with a peak of the same material.

This is the only description I can find of hair colour
The full description differs in many respects to others so it may not be entirely accurate.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If he said ‘brown’ how can it be a reasonable assumption to say ‘fair?’

He did not say brown.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Another version of the man's description is given in an undated Home Office document written in or after July 1889: "Age 30 to 35. Height 5ft. 7in., with brown hair and big moustache, dressed respectably. Wore a pea jacket, muffler and a cloth cap with a peak of the same material.

This is the only description I can find of hair colour
The full description differs in many respects to others so it may not be entirely accurate.

Regards Darryl

Both Swanson's record and that published by The Times, both recorded in October 1888, mention a fair moustache, fair complexion, age 30 (or thereabouts), a red neckerchief, and a peaked cap.

Of those five details, only one appears in the record of the following year which you quote.

I suggest it cannot be relied upon.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Both Swanson's record and that published by The Times, both recorded in October 1888, mention a fair moustache, fair complexion, age 30 (or thereabouts), a red neckerchief, and a peaked cap.

Of those five details, only one appears in the record of the following year which you quote.

I suggest it cannot be relied upon.

No, you mean that it’s inconvenient and so you select the one that suits you. The one that you pick only mentions the man’s moustache whereas the one that Darryl quotes actually specifies the hair.

End of subject.

[Sunny Delight]

Please see my replies below.

Did Lawende state that the man he saw had fair hair? I have never seen that stated. Fair moustache yes but not fair hair and one does not necessarily follow the other. None of that matters either. The Police became aware of a man who was of unsound mind, threatened a woman with a knife and was a foreign Jew who lived in the locality. They believed this warranted further investigation. An ID was held and according to two senior officers the witness identified the suspect. The witness was also a Jew.

According to McNaughten Kosminski strongly resembled the man seen by a City PC near Mitre Square. Now if McNaughten had written a memorandum of complete accuracy this would be hard to challenge. As it was the memo was not completely accurate and contained errors. Now we know that Lawende saw a man near Mitre Square. We can surmise although not certain that McNaughton meant City Police Witness when he wrote his notes. McNaughton knows Kosminski strongly resembles a witness description. If we put it all together:

- Anderson and Swanson organise an ID of Kosminski. Lawende is the witness. He states Kosminski strongly resembled the man he saw. Years later Swanson and Andsrson garble this into a positive ID 'which suspect knew'.

- McNaughten was Assistant Chief Constable and it is inconceivable he didn't know this was happening. Now unless he went to visit Kosminski himself and then searched out the statement from a City PC to discern if there was a real similarity my guess is that he was informed that the witness had stated Kosminski strongly resembled the man he had seen. When writing the Aberconway version from memory he wrote City PC. However it was a City Police Witness.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No, you mean that it’s inconvenient and so you select the one that suits you. The one that you pick only mentions the man’s moustache whereas the one that Darryl quotes actually specifies the hair.

End of subject.

Incredible!

You actually reject Swanson's record, made within three weeks of the murder, and the Times' report, made two days after the murder, which agree on five points, and prefer a much later, undated report, written by an un-named Home Office official, which mentions only one of the five points, and on the basis of that you conclude that the suspect had brown hair.

You are the one who is selecting the record that suits you.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Did Lawende state that the man he saw had fair hair? I have never seen that stated. Fair moustache yes but not fair hair and one does not necessarily follow the other.

The best evidence we have is that the suspect was fair.


None of that matters either. The Police became aware of a man who was of unsound mind, threatened a woman with a knife and was a foreign Jew who lived in the locality.

There is no evidence of that.

There is no evidence that the police ever became interested in Kosminski before he was incarcerated.

There is no evidence that the police knew prior to his incarceration that he had allegedly threatened his relative with a knife.


They believed this warranted further investigation.

There is no evidence of that.


An ID was held and according to two senior officers the witness identified the suspect. The witness was also a Jew.

There is no evidence that an identification procedure was held.

In particular, no date has ever been mentioned, nor the names of anyone who was present, including the name of the alleged witness.

There is no evidence that a Jewish witness ever mentioned a Jewish suspect in the entire case.


According to McNaughten Kosminski strongly resembled the man seen by a City PC near Mitre Square. Now if McNaughten had written a memorandum of complete accuracy this would be hard to challenge. As it was the memo was not completely accurate and contained errors. Now we know that Lawende saw a man near Mitre Square. We can surmise although not certain that McNaughton meant City Police Witness when he wrote his notes.

I suggest that is farfetched.

Macnaghten was unreliable but he knew the difference between a City Police Constable and a City Police Witness!


McNaughton knows Kosminski strongly resembles a witness description.

As I recall it, Macnaghten was so doubtful about that that he removed it from his memorandum.

He also made it clear that he did not believe that the murderer had been in an asylum.

That explains why he recorded his inclination to exonerate Kosminski.

There is no evidence that Kosminski resembled a fair sailor.


- Anderson and Swanson organise an ID of Kosminski. Lawende is the witness. He states Kosminski strongly resembled the man he saw. Years later Swanson and Andsrson garble this into a positive ID 'which suspect knew'.

Anderson and Swanson cannot even agree on whether the identification took place before or after the incarceration, nor on where it took place.

Neither of them ever named the witness.

There is no evidence that Kosminski had a fair moustache or the appearance of a sailor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Incredible!

You actually reject Swanson's record, made within three weeks of the murder, and the Times' report, made two days after the murder, which agree on five points, and prefer a much later, undated report, written by an un-named Home Office official, which mentions only one of the five points, and on the basis of that you conclude that the suspect had brown hair.

You are the one who is selecting the record that suits you.

But you’re ignoring all of the other points that I’ve made.

Look, no one can say or prove that the ripper wasn’t a seaman/sailor because we don’t know who he was. We can’t say that he wasn’t a butcher or a carpenter or a Doctor or a Market Porter. So understand that I’m not saying that the killer couldn’t have been a sailor. Ok?

But……just because someone might have had the appearance of a sailor can’t be used as proof that he was a sailor. Surely you can accept that? For a start, we can’t be certain that the man seen by Lawende was her killer (I’d say that the odds are against that) but it’s at least possible that after Lawende and co left the two parted company and Eddowes went through Mitre Square and bumped into her killer. It’s a possibility that should be at least considered.

Then we have to look at the circumstances of the ID. Lawende was passing and said that he didn’t think that he’d have been able to identify the man if he’d seen him again. And he said himself that he didn’t look back. This speaks of quite a brief look

He also saw the man at night under a street lamp. Which we know for a fact can affect the perception of colour.

He mentioned the colour of the man’s moustache (but not his hair) as fair. But we know that lighting can make light brown hair appear even lighter.

And to finish off….we know from Lawende himself that the man wore a cap and a neckerchief and we know from Lawende himself that he didn’t specify what led him to say that the man had the appearance of a sailor. So it could have been the cap or the neckerchief or both.

So with all of these unanswerable questions and with the vagueness and the conditions and the lack of explanation from Lawende what could possible cause to to defend so vehemently the notion that he was a sailor. He might have been, he might not have been. We can get no further forward than that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

He mentioned the colour of the man’s moustache (but not his hair) as fair. But we know that lighting can make light brown hair appear even lighter.

And to finish off….we know from Lawende himself that the man wore a cap and a neckerchief and we know from Lawende himself that he didn’t specify what led him to say that the man had the appearance of a sailor. So it could have been the cap or the neckerchief or both.

You have mentioned the man's fair moustache, neckerchief, and appearance of a sailor, none of which is mentioned in the report which describes his hair colour as brown.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have mentioned the man's fair moustache, neckerchief, and appearance of a sailor, none of which is mentioned in the report which describes his hair colour as brown.

And that’s you’re response? Ignoring the longer more detailed post?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

But……just because someone might have had the appearance of a sailor can’t be used as proof that he was a sailor. Surely you can accept that?

It can certainly be used as evidence that he was a sailor.

I have never claimed that it amounts to proof.


For a start, we can’t be certain that the man seen by Lawende was her killer (I’d say that the odds are against that) but it’s at least possible that after Lawende and co left the two parted company and Eddowes went through Mitre Square and bumped into her killer. It’s a possibility that should be at least considered.

I suggest that is farfetched.


Then we have to look at the circumstances of the ID. Lawende was passing and said that he didn’t think that he’d have been able to identify the man if he’d seen him again. And he said himself that he didn’t look back. This speaks of quite a brief look

Lawende was referring to his lack of recollection of the man's facial features.


He also saw the man at night under a street lamp. Which we know for a fact can affect the perception of colour.

He was able to identify the colour of the man's neckerchief as red.

He did not say it was pink.


He mentioned the colour of the man’s moustache (but not his hair) as fair. But we know that lighting can make light brown hair appear even lighter.

I refer you to my previous reply.


And to finish off….we know from Lawende himself that the man wore a cap and a neckerchief and we know from Lawende himself that he didn’t specify what led him to say that the man had the appearance of a sailor. So it could have been the cap or the neckerchief or both.

It could have been the cap, neckerchief and jacket, and even something about his stance.


So with all of these unanswerable questions and with the vagueness and the conditions and the lack of explanation from Lawende what could possible cause to to defend so vehemently the notion that he was a sailor. He might have been, he might not have been. We can get no further forward than that.

My recollection is that all the vehemence has been directed at me.

I defended my theory, as I am entitled to do.