Who Was Anderson’s Witness?

[Scott Nelson]

Furthermore, I keep making this point: There were hundreds, if not thousands, of immigrant Jewish families named "Cohen" living in London at the time. Many had changed their European surnames to more anglicized, but still Jewish, sounding names like Greenbalm, Abrahams, Isaacs, Goldstein, Koch, etc. Why couldn't the police have just held back the name "Kosminski" and simply had him confined under his anglicized name?

[Simon Wood]

After undertaking a lot of research, much of which is in "Deconstructing Jack," I would not trust Sir Robert Anderson further that I can spit. I am convinced he had some sort of agreement with Macnaghten. "You choose the drowned barrister, while I plump for the Polish Jew. That way we can both ignore the Russian doctor with the iron-clad alibi whilst sounding like we know what we're talking about."

[GBinOz]

After undertaking a lot of research, much of which is in "Deconstructing Jack," I would not trust Sir Robert Anderson further that I can spit. I am convinced he had some sort of agreement with Macnaghten. "You choose the drowned barrister, while I plump for the Polish Jew. That way we can both ignore the Russian doctor with the iron-clad alibi whilst sounding like we know what we're talking about."

Well said Simon. Ivory tower police chiefs. I put more creedence in the likes of Swanson, Abilene and Reid.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Jon,

Thank for those links. The Daily Telegraph account did say "The particulars of this affair were subsequently stated to be untrue", but I was looking at the Dairyman's account of customer in the stables. I read the newspaper account as two separate incidents connected only by the Dairyman having reason to suppose that the outrage was actually perpetrated, and he suspects that the murderer of Mary Ann Nicholls in Buck's-row had something to do with it. I was actually drawing attention to similarity of the description of the man in the stable to BGB/Britannia-man.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Thank for those links. The Daily Telegraph account did say "The particulars of this affair were subsequently stated to be untrue", but I was looking at the Dairyman's account of customer in the stables. I read the newspaper account as two separate incidents connected only by the Dairyman having reason to suppose that the outrage was actually perpetrated, and he suspects that the murderer of Mary Ann Nicholls in Buck's-row had something to do with it. I was actually drawing attention to similarity of the description of the man in the stable to BGB/Britannia-man.

Cheers, George

Hi George.
Yes, you are correct, for some reason I thought they were connected. I had read it before many years ago, but you are right although both events happened on the same night, they were not said to be related.

The stranger put on a white jacket?, something like cricketers wear?
(is Herlock in the building?)

Perhaps, as they say, "the eye's have it"?, though we would need just a little bit more.

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Jon,

As a result of your reminder of the earlier version of Mac's Memo, I located an excellent article in Ripperologist #124 here : http://www.mangodesign.biz/rip124.pdf on the early draft in which Mac is quoted as stating:

It will be noted that the fury of the mutilations increased in each case, and, seemingly, the appetite only became sharpened by indulgence. It seems, then, highly improbable that the murderer would have suddenly stopped in November ’88, and been content to recommence operations by merely prodding a girl behind some 2 years and 4 months afterwards. A much more rational theory is that the murderer’s brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller’s Court, and that he immediately committed suicide, or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by them confined in some asylum. No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one.

It can be seen that Mac is indulging in speculative theories, and his acknowledgement that "No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer" is sharply contradictory of Anderson's statement that a witness made a positive ID.

IMHO the errors and contradictions contained in the Anderson Memoir and the MaNaughten Memorandum make their value questionable, and this is only reinforced by the fact that the police were still searching for a Ripper suspect at the time of the Coles murder.

This edition of Ripperologist also has an excellent article by Neil and Tracy I’anson on Jacob Levy.

Cheers, George

[Michael W Richards]

Well Herlock, I'm likely on the side of those who doubt Anderson's I.D. took place as described.
I guess not knowing when the I.D. occurred is the first major hurdle, Kozminski theorists might choose to place it in 1890, but that's only trying to make the evidence fit the theory.

The problem I have with Schwartz being Anderson's witness is, if the I.D. didn't happen around Oct-Nov. 1888, then how did they find him to take him for an I.D.
The police didn't have any mysterious system to find people in those days, especially renters. If we can't find him today (one recent possibility on Howards List?) with all our access to records the police in the day wouldn't have had it any easier.

Lawende is a different matter, and the police could find him at a moments notice, because he ran a business - he had a business address. It appears the police used him in 1891 to try I.D. Sadler, but failed, then again early in 1895 to I.D. Grainger, but no action taken by police.
So it seems Lawende was the 'go-to' witness for any I.D. by the police at that time. So, he must be the leading candidate for those who believe an I.D. did take place something along the lines as Anderson described.

The fact that he is considered a go-to guy despite the fact that he is quoted saying just two weeks after the sighting that he couldnt be sure he could identify the man again is perhaps a statement about incompetence by the investigators, desperation, or possibly deception.

I doubt that any such id took place at all myself, likely part of Andersons attempt at justification for being anti-semetic.

[Wickerman]

Bear in mind George, Anderson only spoke of the I.D. years after Mac. had wrote his memorandum. So, Mac doesn't contest Anderson, but he does make Anderson's later claim appear dubious - Mac. would have known about an I.D., if such a thing happened as described, and by his words he clearly didn't.
Memoirs are all questionable in this case, but Mac. wasn't writing a memoir, he was still on the force, which makes his words potentially more reliable, yet we know he too made mistakes.
On the other hand, we know I.D.'s did happen, so what Anderson spoke about in my view is an I.D. that has been highly exaggerated.

[GBinOz]

Bear in mind George, Anderson only spoke of the I.D. years after Mac. had wrote his memorandum. So, Mac doesn't contest Anderson, but he does make Anderson's later claim appear dubious - Mac. would have known about an I.D., if such a thing happened as described, and by his words he clearly didn't.
Memoirs are all questionable in this case, but Mac. wasn't writing a memoir, he was still on the force, which makes his words potentially more reliable, yet we know he too made mistakes.
On the other hand, we know I.D.'s did happen, so what Anderson spoke about in my view is an I.D. that has been highly exaggerated.

Hi Jon,

I noted in the Ripperologist article a quote by Loftus regarding Gerald Melville Donner: "He told me that Sir Melville Macnaghten was his grandfather, and showed me the private notes, in Sir Melville’s handwriting on official paper, rather untidy and in the nature of rough jottings. As I remember them, they gave three suspects: a Polish tanner or cobbler: a man who went round stabbing young girls in the bottom with nail scissors; and M J Druitt, a doctor of 41 years of age.". Notable is that apart from Ostrog being replaced with Cutbush (possibly a memory lapse), the Polish Jew is now described as a Polish tanner or cobbler. Aaron Kosminski was a hairdresser. Nathan Kaminski was a cobbler. This seems to reinforce the case for mistaken identity.

Cheers, George

[Darryl Kenyon]

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer"

Cheers, George

But in the Aberconway version - No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer[ unless possibly it was the City PC who was a beat near Mitre Square ]

And under his summing up of Kosminski - This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square.

Regards Darryl

[Joshua Rogan]

the Polish Jew is now described as a Polish tanner or cobbler.... Nathan Kaminski was a cobbler.

So was Piser.

[Abby Normal]

If anyone has sugden he pretty much sorts it all out. He quotes a news article that says in relation to the witness at the koz ID was a victim who was eviscerated-stride wasnt but eddowes was . so the witness was lawende and not schwartz. and considering schwartz wasnt at the stride inquest, i doubt the police would use him even if they could, perhaps do to the translation issue. And lawende was deemed reliable as he was used again to try an ID someone.
The witness at the Koz ID was Lawende.

[Scott Nelson]

The witness could have been someone we've never even heard of.

[rjpalmer]

So was Piser.

Are you two suggesting that Anderson's theory was a load of old cobblers?

[The Baron]

The witness could have been someone we've never even heard of.

Exactly Scott! Thats what I think too.
Everything about this identification points in this direction.



The Baron