Who Was Anderson’s Witness?

[jerryd]

Do you have a link to the photo that you could share?

Cheers, George

I do not. Sorry.

[DJA]

Now I wonder which of our suspects was a sailor ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Henry Gawen Sutton's father and paternal uncle were both Master Mariners.

Master mariner - Wikipedia

[caz]

Just to add....this is one of the flaws with Ripperology, people spend oodles of time and effort trying to construct theories using illogical material for the baseline. Anyone who uses Schwartz's story in any way to try and solve this murder will fail.

Having said that I will say this....IF Schwartz's story contains some actual facts then it might be that they tossed his story because he fabricated part of it.

Example.....Israel Schwartz attended the meeting or arrived at the club after it, he went to leave after the front door was locked and while leaving through the side door he sees a man accosting a woman inside the gates. He slips by them and dashes to his new home. Its a reasonable idea...because he is an immigrant Jew outside and immigrant jew club after an Immigrant jew meeting, he was more likely to have been there for that reason than to check to see if his wife finished moving what was probably a few suitcases 12 hours earlier....(he perhaps lived in one of those cottages until the move that morning...we dont know where he moved from for sure)...we can connect Schwartz and Wess as friends down the road a few years and its suggested they knew each other prior to that night. When the staff learn he was there and saw the tussle when he left, Wess goes to him to suggest that he go to the police and that he say that he was on the street when he saw Liz assaulted by someone who then yells an anti-Semitic remark at him. Why? Because the truth...that he saw Liz assaulted by someone who based on the other statements made, must have come from the people in attendance at the club and on the property. He provides a viable suspect who isnt from the property and hates jews.

Now, why would anarchist Jews be afraid of being accused of this murder? Well, lets just say as per Anderson that by Oct1st it was apparently presumed by law enforcement that the killer at large was an immigrant jew, which might lead to them being suspected for all the unsolved murders to date. The club would close. Maybe all the socialist clubs in the city. Diemshutz would lose his job, so would Eagle as occasional speaker, so would Mrs D, and Lave might lose his cottage in the passageway. Wess would perhaps be harrassed because of the "radical" nature of The Arbeter Fraint. Immigrant Jews would be in danger on the streets.

I'll respond to this on the correct thread...

[John Wheat]

Anderson's witness could be any witness. Lechmere maybe?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What about the suggestion that the witness might have been Joseph Levy who thought he had seen his relation Jacob?

What about Anderson's claim that, following the identification, on learning that the witness was Jewish, the witness refused to testify against him?

Can you explain why Joseph Levy would have needed to be reminded that his cousin Jacob was Jewish?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What about Anderson's claim that, following the identification, on learning that the witness was Jewish, the witness refused to testify against him?

Can you explain why Joseph Levy would have needed to be reminded that his cousin Jacob was Jewish?

You’re just trying to get your silly ‘Jewish’ argument going again. I’m not interested.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You’re just trying to get your silly ‘Jewish’ argument going again. I’m not interested.

You are not interested because you cannot provide an answer?

Anyone who is familiar with Anderson's claim that the murderer was a certain unnamed Polish Jew knows that he claimed that a Jewish witness refused to testify against him on learning that the man he had identified was Jewish.

Anderson made it clear that the witness had been unaware that the suspect was Jewish.

Your suggestion, that the witness recognised the suspect as a relative of his, is obviously impossible.

If you did answer that point, you would have to admit to being wrong.

And that, I suggest, is why you declare yourself to be not interested!

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are not interested because you cannot provide an answer?

Anyone who is familiar with Anderson's claim that the murderer was a certain unnamed Polish Jew knows that he claimed that a Jewish witness refused to testify against him on learning that the man he had identified was Jewish.

Anderson made it clear that the witness had been unaware that the suspect was Jewish.

Your suggestion, that the witness recognised the suspect as a relative of his, is obviously impossible.

If you did answer that point, you would have to admit to being wrong.

And that, I suggest, is why you declare yourself to be not interested!

What the hell are you talking about PI? The original dispute was than any Jewish person would have been unmistakably Jewish in appearance. You tried posting photos to prove it. Someone on here even posted a group photo with Lawende in it where some of his own family didn’t look Jewish. I and others posted photographs of provably Jewish men who no one could have recognised as Jewish without being told the fact….but true to form you simply wouldn’t accept it.

And know your making some point about the witness recognising a relative which I can’t even recall making. I’m not saying that I didn’t mention it but that I can’t remember. Clearly we’re referring to Levy which is just a possible suggestion that has been made and nothing more than that.

Have you just come back on here to dredge up certain obsessions of yours?

No need to answer that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

What the hell are you talking about PI? The original dispute was than any Jewish person would have been unmistakably Jewish in appearance. You tried posting photos to prove it. Someone on here even posted a group photo with Lawende in it where some of his own family didn’t look Jewish. I and others posted photographs of provably Jewish men who no one could have recognised as Jewish without being told the fact….but true to form you simply wouldn’t accept it.


Your entire paragraph is irrelevant.

This has nothing to do with any photographs or what you call 'the original dispute'.

It has nothing to do with whether I think someone looks Jewish or whether another member disagrees with me.



And know your making some point about the witness recognising a relative which I can’t even recall making.


You do not need to recall making it.

It is a matter of record that you did.

It is # 30 of this thread, in which you remarked:


What about the suggestion that the witness might have been Joseph Levy who thought he had seen his relation Jacob?



I’m not saying that I didn’t mention it but that I can’t remember.


Well, if I were you, I wouldn't say that I didn't mention it - because it's there in # 30.



Clearly we’re referring to Levy which is just a possible suggestion that has been made and nothing more than that.


That is correct and I never said it was anything more than that.



Have you just come back on here to dredge up certain obsessions of yours?


I made a point.

Instead of answering it, you are alleging that I have an obsession.

Do you actually think that's a sensible response to a reasonable question?

The point is that Anderson made it clear that the witness did not recognise the suspect as being Jewish at the identification.

I don't know whether you are going to claim that Joseph Levy was unaware that his relative was Jewish, but I don't think you will.

It is quite clear that Joseph Levy could not have been Anderson's witness for the reason stated.

You could simply have admitted that, instead of accusing me of having an obsession.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies below.

The suggestion wasn’t that Levy might have been the witness. It was a suggestion that Levy might have been the suspect. How could anyone ‘suggest’ Jacob Levy was a witness when we know who the witnesses were?

The suggestion from Anderson was that the witness wouldn’t positively identify a fellow Jew. So how could he have refused to identify the man because he was a Jew if he didn’t know that he was a Jew? One of the other witnesses (Hyam Levy) was related to Jacob Levy. So the possibility (and that’s all that it is - however possibly remote) is that Levy (Hyam Levy) might have mentioned to Lawende that the man with Eddowes might have been Jacob (he might simply have resembled him) therefore if that was the case (and it’s a big ‘if’) then Lawende decided not to identify a fellow Jew.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my answers below.

The suggestion wasn’t that Levy might have been the witness.


Of course it was!

That was exactly what you suggested in # 30:

'What about the suggestion that the witness might have been Joseph Levy who thought he had seen his relation Jacob?'




It was a suggestion that Levy might have been the suspect. How could anyone ‘suggest’ Jacob Levy was a witness when we know who the witnesses were?



I am just amazed that you frequently claim that it is I who am causing confusion.

You suggested that a Levy was a witness and another Levy was the suspect.




The suggestion from Anderson was that the witness wouldn’t positively identify a fellow Jew. So how could he have refused to identify the man because he was a Jew if he didn’t know that he was a Jew?


If you are saying that the witness knew that the suspect was a Jew before he identified him, then you have misunderstood what Anderson wrote.

Anderson was quite definite that the witness did NOT know that the suspect was Jewish.

Please don't tell me that I'm one hundred percent wrong or that no-one agrees with me or challenge me to find someone who agrees with me about this.

I could ask you to find someone who has read what Anderson wrote and agrees with you.



One of the other witnesses (Hyam Levy) was related to Jacob Levy. So the possibility (and that’s all that it is - however possibly remote) is that Levy (Hyam Levy) might have mentioned to Lawende that the man with Eddowes might have been Jacob (he might simply have resembled him) therefore if that was the case (and it’s a big ‘if’) then Lawende decided not to identify a fellow Jew.


That's the first time I have heard such a convoluted theory.

I have never before heard a theory that Levy influenced Lawende's behaviour at the identification.

It is of course impossible because Anderson was definite that the witness did not know that the suspect was Jewish.

In your scenario, why would Lawende have made the identification at all and then had to be informed that the suspect was Jewish?

It is ludicrous.


And it is NOT even what you suggested in # 30.

You wrote:

'What about the suggestion that the witness might have been Joseph Levy who thought he had seen his relation Jacob?'

No mention of Joseph Levy and Lawende conferring before the identification by Lawende.


You have certainly got a nerve writing all the insults you write about me and that I'm invariably wrong and do not make sense.

You are now putting forward a theory which is not even the one you had put forward - the one which is being discussed - and which is obviously wrong, just like the one you previously put forward, and makes even less sense than the previous one.

If the suspect had been a relative of the witness, no identification would have taken place.

If the witness had been told by a friend that the suspect was a Jewish relative of his, the identification would not have taken place.

What you are suggesting - that a Jewish witness refused to testify against a Jewish suspect because he refused to testify against a fellow Jew, but that he knew before he identified him that he was Jewish, is completely nonsensical.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my answers below.

Me no understand.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Me no understand.

Your original theory is nonsensical and your latest theory is even more nonsensical and when it is presented to you in black-and-white, you plead lack of understanding.

I wonder what that does for your credibility?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your original theory is nonsensical and your latest theory is even more nonsensical and when it is presented to you in black-and-white, you plead lack of understanding.

I wonder what that does for your credibility?

[New Waterloo]

This has probably been discussed a million times but as far as the Seaside Home is concerned surely the simple answer is that as the Home was used by Police Officers resting perhaps after illness or injury then the witness at the Home was a Police Officer and the suspect was taken there for the identity procedure. Would any local archive or police archive have details of residents at the Home at the time. Do we have an injured/sick officer who we know at the time of the identification. Please be gentle with me.

Regards all