Tweet
It’s hardly a new topic but are we right to assume that Joseph Lawende was Anderson’s witness or could it have been someone else? Lawende himself certainly expressed doubt as to his ability to recognise the man that he’d seen so he certainly doesn’t appear to have been a particularly promising choice (especially taking into account the lapse of time between the sighting and the ID)
In The Lighter Side of my Official Life Anderson stated “I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence.”
Even when seeing the woman believed to have been Catherine Eddowes, Lawende wasn’t alone so he wasn’t the ‘only’ person. And how could he have gone from a person doubting his ability to ID the man to one that ‘unhesitatingly identified’ the suspect? I’m not saying that it couldn’t have been Lawende; I’m just saying that it doesn’t sound like him. So who else could it have been?The obvious other candidate is Israel Schwartz of course. So what does he have going for him as a candidate; it’s something that I’ve been thinking about recently…
We know that Schwartz was alone when he’d seen the man.
It’s likely that he got a better view of Stride’s man than Lawende did of Eddowes’ man.
We know that Schwartz was threatened by the man that he’d seen with Liz Stride so maybe he’d threatened to go AWOL. If he had then might not the police have wanted to keep him to hand for any forthcoming ID’s and not have him off the radar? Could the police have offered to give him a room at the Seaside Home (telling him that it wouldn’t be long before they had their hands on the killer) This speculated explanation provides a reason for the identification being at the Seaside Home with Schwartz safely out of London and those staff and residents at the Seaside Home wouldn’t have needed to have been told the real reason for his stay.
It would also provide us with a reason for Schwartz absence from the inquest (even though he wasn’t a vital inquest witness of course) Would he really have wanted to be seen at the Inquest and then get followed home giving the killer time to pick his moment for revenge?
Also, might Schwartz lack of English explain a misunderstanding as to his reason for not being willing to testify against the suspect? Could he perhaps have pointed out that the man that he’d seen had shouted an anti-Semitic insult and yet Kosminski was Jewish which caused him to doubt himself saying that he wasn’t prepared to send the man to the gallows? Which led to Anderson being told what he felt was the reason for the refusal to testify.
Or…
What about Joseph Hyam Levy?
The Evening News reported on October 9th an interview with Levy and Harris. Describing Levy as a "butcher, [of] 1 Middlesex street [sic], Aldgate", it said "Mr. Joseph Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give us the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but that he is afraid to be called on the inquest. Hence he assumes a knowing air.".
Were they right about Levy being evasive? If reporters had picked up on it the wouldn’t the police have too? Might the police have gone back to Levy after suspecting that he was holding something back to put a bit of pressure on him? Maybe a bit of a guilt trip about how he could prevent further victims? It’s been suggested already, but we have no proof of it, but maybe he thought that he’d recognised the man with Eddowes? Maybe the man at the ID resembled someone that he knew but it wasn’t him and this planted the seeds of doubt causing him to refuse to ID the man. Maybe those present felt that he was simply refusing because he knew the man and that he was a Jew and that’s what Anderson was told?
I certainly don’t have the answer. I don’t believe, as some do, that the identification was an invention though.
In The Lighter Side of my Official Life Anderson stated “I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence.”
Even when seeing the woman believed to have been Catherine Eddowes, Lawende wasn’t alone so he wasn’t the ‘only’ person. And how could he have gone from a person doubting his ability to ID the man to one that ‘unhesitatingly identified’ the suspect? I’m not saying that it couldn’t have been Lawende; I’m just saying that it doesn’t sound like him. So who else could it have been?The obvious other candidate is Israel Schwartz of course. So what does he have going for him as a candidate; it’s something that I’ve been thinking about recently…
We know that Schwartz was alone when he’d seen the man.
It’s likely that he got a better view of Stride’s man than Lawende did of Eddowes’ man.
We know that Schwartz was threatened by the man that he’d seen with Liz Stride so maybe he’d threatened to go AWOL. If he had then might not the police have wanted to keep him to hand for any forthcoming ID’s and not have him off the radar? Could the police have offered to give him a room at the Seaside Home (telling him that it wouldn’t be long before they had their hands on the killer) This speculated explanation provides a reason for the identification being at the Seaside Home with Schwartz safely out of London and those staff and residents at the Seaside Home wouldn’t have needed to have been told the real reason for his stay.
It would also provide us with a reason for Schwartz absence from the inquest (even though he wasn’t a vital inquest witness of course) Would he really have wanted to be seen at the Inquest and then get followed home giving the killer time to pick his moment for revenge?
Also, might Schwartz lack of English explain a misunderstanding as to his reason for not being willing to testify against the suspect? Could he perhaps have pointed out that the man that he’d seen had shouted an anti-Semitic insult and yet Kosminski was Jewish which caused him to doubt himself saying that he wasn’t prepared to send the man to the gallows? Which led to Anderson being told what he felt was the reason for the refusal to testify.
Or…
What about Joseph Hyam Levy?
The Evening News reported on October 9th an interview with Levy and Harris. Describing Levy as a "butcher, [of] 1 Middlesex street [sic], Aldgate", it said "Mr. Joseph Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give us the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but that he is afraid to be called on the inquest. Hence he assumes a knowing air.".
Were they right about Levy being evasive? If reporters had picked up on it the wouldn’t the police have too? Might the police have gone back to Levy after suspecting that he was holding something back to put a bit of pressure on him? Maybe a bit of a guilt trip about how he could prevent further victims? It’s been suggested already, but we have no proof of it, but maybe he thought that he’d recognised the man with Eddowes? Maybe the man at the ID resembled someone that he knew but it wasn’t him and this planted the seeds of doubt causing him to refuse to ID the man. Maybe those present felt that he was simply refusing because he knew the man and that he was a Jew and that’s what Anderson was told?
I certainly don’t have the answer. I don’t believe, as some do, that the identification was an invention though.
Comment