Who Was Anderson’s Witness?

[Wickerman]

Excellent deduction Jon. As I recall Smith's suspect description was close to that of Packer.

Hi George.
You will recall there were two versions of Mac's Memorandum?, it's the earlier one where we read about the City PC witness, also in that version Mac writes:

He had got the victim behind a kind of stable door through which three Jews drove up to an Anarchist Club in Berners Street.

He thought 'three Jews' disturbed the killer in Dutfields Yard, clearly he did confuse the two murders. It was this error that gave me the hint that the PC witness may have been at Berner street not Mitre Square.
It's a slim possibility, but I think justified by his equal error of 'three Jews'. Interestingly, both these claims were dropped in the later version we have here on Casebook.

There is a interesting article in the Daily Telegraph 6 Oct 1888:

"It is a remarkable circumstance - much more than an ordinary coincidence - that the description of the supposed murderer given by Packer was yesterday confirmed by another man who, without being aware of the fact, also chose from the sketches the one which had been already selected by Packer. Search for an individual answering to the description above detailed, but having a small moustache and wearing a black deerstalker felt hat, instead of a soft one, has been made by the police in Whitechapel ever since Saturday, Sept. 1, the day following the Buck's-row tragedy. Information was tendered at the King David's-lane Police Station, at about that time, by a dairyman who has a place of business in Little Turner-street, Commercial-road. It will be recollected that on Saturday, Sept. 1, a desperate assault was reported to have been committed near to the music-hall in Cambridge-heath-road, a man having seized a woman by the throat and dragged her down a court, where he was joined by a gang, one of whom laid a knife across the woman's throat, remarking "we will serve you as we did the others." The particulars of this affair were subsequently stated to be untrue;....

Just a heads-up on the Cambridge Heath Road assault - a journalist admitted to inventing the story.

[JeffHamm]

I don't really have any new views on who the witness might have been, and some good possibilities have been suggested so far. However, one thing I've wondered about, is the part of the story where it is claimed the witness positively identified the suspect, but refused to testify upon learning the suspect was also Jewish, and then going on about why (that the Jewish witness would not testify against one of his own, and did not want to be responsible for the suspect being hanged, etc).

That aspect of the Seaside identification story always struck me as possibly a bit of overinterpretation of the events, coloured by the prejudices of the day. To illustrate what I mean here I'm going to present an entirely speculative version of events to represent the kind of thing that could have happened. The suspect is presented to the witness, who makes some sort of tentative statement like "that could be him, I'm not sure", and then, because they cannot be sure, reaffirms that by saying "I couldn't swear to it in court." The police, feeling like they are close to an identification, encourage the witness to "look again, think harder, etc", but the witness holds firm and is unable to swear to the identification.

The police, frustrated by this, attribute the witness's reluctance to swear to it based upon the suspect also being Jewish, simply because of prejudice and rather than because the witness just truly can't be sure if its the same person. Over time, the initial "That might be him" is taken as a positive identification because they were "so close", and so forth.

A lot of the focus on this Seaside Home, it seems to me, appears to accept the witness did positively id the suspect initially, and I'm not so sure that we should view that as a given.

So, if we consider the possibility the witness did not actually produce a strong, positive identification, perhaps Lawende makes for a good candidate? He did at the time say he was unlikely to recognize the fellow again. And if the suspect was someone who looked sort of like the person Lawende saw (or even he was), a tentative "that sort of looks like him" could be his initial response.

I also recall someone suggesting the idea that this whole identification could also be a misrecalling of identifications of Pizer earlier in the investigation, but I forget all the details of their idea, but they had some interesting reasons for suggesting it.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't really have any new views on who the witness might have been, and some good possibilities have been suggested so far. However, one thing I've wondered about, is the part of the story where it is claimed the witness positively identified the suspect, but refused to testify upon learning the suspect was also Jewish, and then going on about why (that the Jewish witness would not testify against one of his own, and did not want to be responsible for the suspect being hanged, etc).

That aspect of the Seaside identification story always struck me as possibly a bit of overinterpretation of the events, coloured by the prejudices of the day. To illustrate what I mean here I'm going to present an entirely speculative version of events to represent the kind of thing that could have happened. The suspect is presented to the witness, who makes some sort of tentative statement like "that could be him, I'm not sure", and then, because they cannot be sure, reaffirms that by saying "I couldn't swear to it in court." The police, feeling like they are close to an identification, encourage the witness to "look again, think harder, etc", but the witness holds firm and is unable to swear to the identification.

The police, frustrated by this, attribute the witness's reluctance to swear to it based upon the suspect also being Jewish, simply because of prejudice and rather than because the witness just truly can't be sure if its the same person. Over time, the initial "That might be him" is taken as a positive identification because they were "so close", and so forth.

A lot of the focus on this Seaside Home, it seems to me, appears to accept the witness did positively id the suspect initially, and I'm not so sure that we should view that as a given.

So, if we consider the possibility the witness did not actually produce a strong, positive identification, perhaps Lawende makes for a good candidate? He did at the time say he was unlikely to recognize the fellow again. And if the suspect was someone who looked sort of like the person Lawende saw (or even he was), a tentative "that sort of looks like him" could be his initial response.

I also recall someone suggesting the idea that this whole identification could also be a misrecalling of identifications of Pizer earlier in the investigation, but I forget all the details of their idea, but they had some interesting reasons for suggesting it.

- Jeff

I think this is a plausible possible explanation Jeff. We shouldn’t forget how desperate the police were for a result here and so they might have ‘nudged’ the witness from say “it could have been him” to “it certainly looks a bit like him.” But if he simply refused to take the final step and say “yes, that’s him,” and the police thought that they had the right man (rightly or wrongly) it might have been a kind of face-saving attempt to suggest that the killer knew it was him but wouldn’t say that because he didn’t want to send a fellow Jew to the gallows. They might even have reported to Anderson “he knew him alright but he just wouldn’t say it.”

[Wickerman]

I don't really have any new views on who the witness might have been, and some good possibilities have been suggested so far. However, one thing I've wondered about, is the part of the story where it is claimed the witness positively identified the suspect, but refused to testify upon learning the suspect was also Jewish, and then going on about why (that the Jewish witness would not testify against one of his own, and did not want to be responsible for the suspect being hanged, etc)....

- Jeff

It's not a legitimate reason. The police can't charge a lunatic so there's no way the suspect would have been executed.
Swanson would have known that.

[JeffHamm]

It's not a legitimate reason. The police can't charge a lunatic so there's no way the suspect would have been executed.
Swanson would have known that.

Hi Wickerman,

True, but if the suspect was Kosminski, and was returned to his brother's house in Whitechapel as per the marginal notes, wouldn't that suggest that at the time of the identification he was not considered a lunatic, and therefore potentially chargeable? I think it would depend upon when the whole event occurred. There are sufficient similarities to Kosminski that he's a viable option for the suspect, but at the same time, there are sufficient details incorrect that suggest Kosminski as a name might likewise be an error. While whoever the suspect was appears to have eventually been declared insane, if their mental health was on the decline but not to the point they were insane at the time of the identification, then wouldn't charges have been possible? They might eventually have had to drop them if the suspect lost it by the time the case came to court, but the witness would not know that was going to happen, etc.

- Jeff

[Scott Nelson]

Which then begs the question, if it was a City of London ID then why did Major Smith never talk of it?

He interviewed Lawende prior to the ID to see what he knew, as recounted in his book. It was apparent to Smith that Lawende only got 'a short look' at him. Smith was not impressed with Lawende's value as a witness, which is why I think Smith didn't want the ID proceeding, but went along with it nonetheless.

Note that Smith wrote that he had no idea where the suspect lived during the murders (outside City Police jurisdiction?), not that he had no idea who he was.

Smith and Anderson apparently made amends after the publication of their books in 1910. I speculate that Anderson probably convinced Smith of his suspect's guilt at that time.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

True, but if the suspect was Kosminski, and was returned to his brother's house in Whitechapel as per the marginal notes, wouldn't that suggest that at the time of the identification he was not considered a lunatic, and therefore potentially chargeable? I think it would depend upon when the whole event occurred. There are sufficient similarities to Kosminski that he's a viable option for the suspect, but at the same time, there are sufficient details incorrect that suggest Kosminski as a name might likewise be an error. While whoever the suspect was appears to have eventually been declared insane, if their mental health was on the decline but not to the point they were insane at the time of the identification, then wouldn't charges have been possible? They might eventually have had to drop them if the suspect lost it by the time the case came to court, but the witness would not know that was going to happen, etc.

- Jeff

Thanks Jeff, yes, but is the sequence correct?
Anderson made so many statements about his suspect, like in Blackwoods around Mar. 1910 he commented:

"....I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him, but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow Jew he declined to swear to him".

Which tends to suggest the suspect was certified before being identified.
To be honest though, I seem to recall another poster looked into this sequence and found Anderson had made contradictory statements, was it asylum-I.D. or I.D.-Asylum?
I may be wrong but I'm sure someone looked into it.

[JeffHamm]

Thanks Jeff, yes, but is the sequence correct?
Anderson made so many statements about his suspect, like in Blackwoods around Mar. 1910 he commented:

"....I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him, but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow Jew he declined to swear to him".

Which tends to suggest the suspect was certified before being identified.
To be honest though, I seem to recall another poster looked into this sequence and found Anderson had made contradictory statements, was it asylum-I.D. or I.D.-Asylum?
I may be wrong but I'm sure someone looked into it.

Hi Wickerman,

I had a look in my copy of the A-Z, and in the Swanson marginalia (backpages of the book), he writes "On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (city CID) by day and night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminsky was the suspect. D.S.S.)." Anderson himself, however, may have said things the other way around. It wouldn't surprise me if it were the case that both orders are presented somewhere.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi Wickerman,

In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards
- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

That description applies far more to David Cohen/Kaminsky. Kosminski went to Mile End Old Town Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died in 1919. For Kaminsky the time line is Stepney Workhouse/Coney Hatch in Dec 1888, death in Oct 1889. This would pull the identification forward, much closer to the MJK murder than if it were Kosminski. Jacob Levy could also be thrown in to complicate matters even further.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I think this is a plausible possible explanation Jeff. We shouldn’t forget how desperate the police were for a result here and so they might have ‘nudged’ the witness from say “it could have been him” to “it certainly looks a bit like him.” But if he simply refused to take the final step and say “yes, that’s him,” and the police thought that they had the right man (rightly or wrongly) it might have been a kind of face-saving attempt to suggest that the killer knew it was him but wouldn’t say that because he didn’t want to send a fellow Jew to the gallows. They might even have reported to Anderson “he knew him alright but he just wouldn’t say it.”

Hi Herlock,

On the other hand, perhaps it was Anderson that was using creative interpretation to steer the outcome to his preferred option of the suspect being a jew and not an Englishman.

Cheers, George

[erobitha]

He interviewed Lawende prior to the ID to see what he knew, as recounted in his book. It was apparent to Smith that Lawende only got 'a short look' at him. Smith was not impressed with Lawende's value as a witness, which is why I think Smith didn't want the ID proceeding, but went along with it nonetheless.

Note that Smith wrote that he had no idea where the suspect lived during the murders (outside City Police jurisdiction?), not that he had no idea who he was.

Yet the Swanson marginalia claims city CID had the suspect under watch. Would you not need to know where they lived to watch them?

So he knew where the suspect lived as he was under watch by his CID, but he felt the ID case was weak and therefore said he didn’t know where he lived? I’m not sure I buy that logic.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

That description applies far more to David Cohen/Kaminsky. Kosminski went to Mile End Old Town Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died in 1919. For Kaminsky the time line is Stepney Workhouse/Coney Hatch in Dec 1888, death in Oct 1889. This would pull the identification forward, much closer to the MJK murder than if it were Kosminski. Jacob Levy could also be thrown in to complicate matters even further.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Yes, it's a bit of a hodge podge, some bits fit Kosminski, others David Cohen. That's the problem with some of these things, and the memoirs, they are written so long after the fact that they are riddled with errors, blending multiple things together.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Excellent deduction Jon. As I recall Smith's suspect description was close to that of Packer. There is a interesting article in the Daily Telegraph 6 Oct 1888:

"It is a remarkable circumstance - much more than an ordinary coincidence - that the description of the supposed murderer given by Packer was yesterday confirmed by another man who, without being aware of the fact, also chose from the sketches the one which had been already selected by Packer. Search for an individual answering to the description above detailed, but having a small moustache and wearing a black deerstalker felt hat, instead of a soft one, has been made by the police in Whitechapel ever since Saturday, Sept. 1, the day following the Buck's-row tragedy. Information was tendered at the King David's-lane Police Station, at about that time, by a dairyman who has a place of business in Little Turner-street, Commercial-road. It will be recollected that on Saturday, Sept. 1, a desperate assault was reported to have been committed near to the music-hall in Cambridge-heath-road, a man having seized a woman by the throat and dragged her down a court, where he was joined by a gang, one of whom laid a knife across the woman's throat, remarking "we will serve you as we did the others."....

Hi George, I couldn't let this rest.
When I replied previously I couldn't remember the reference, and I couldn't find it.

It turns out it was Phil Sugden and the issue was explained in the East London Observer, 6 Oct. 1888.
If you can read this, how it transpired is all explained here.




It's unfortunate, I know, as you say it sounded like another BGB/Britannia-man activity.
This is the only instance I'm aware of where a story was entirely fabricated by a reporter/journalist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George, I couldn't let this rest.
When I replied previously I couldn't remember the reference, and I couldn't find it.

It turns out it was Phil Sugden and the issue was explained in the East London Observer, 6 Oct. 1888.
If you can read this, how it transpired is all explained here.




It's unfortunate, I know, as you say it sounded like another BGB/Britannia-man activity.
This is the only instance I'm aware of where a story was entirely fabricated by a reporter/journalist.

A lie from the Press?

Who’da thought it

[Scott Nelson]

Yet the Swanson marginalia claims city CID had the suspect under watch. Would you not need to know where they lived to watch them?

Where he lived during the murders is the question. The surveillance afterwards was apparently at the brother's house. And who was the brother? Woolf Abrahams or someone else? And if Cohen was the suspect, who was his brother? The only reason it has been written (Fido) that Cohen had no family is because the columns in the Whitechapel Union and Colney Hatch admission registers for known family were left blank.