Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Take Your Pick

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Take Your Pick

    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.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

  • #2
    Through the years, I have convinced myself that it was actually Edward Watkins who saw the Ripper as he was exiting Mitre square via St. James passage. But Watkins wasn't Jewish and wouldn't have refused to give further evidence after identifying the suspect (if he had any). As for a Jewish witness, this could have been somebody never mentioned, possibly a family member or acquaintance. So, there may have been at least two identification confrontations with the suspect by two separate witnesses, one at the Seaside Home, the other in the asylum.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think that we should be wary of tying ourselves to a two horse race on the subject of who the witness was Scott. Over the years it seems to have been pretty much an either/or scenario. As I read through Rob House’s book I’m coming away with the feeling that the objections/questions that have been brought up over the years (largely valid ones) seem less problematic to me than they did a few years ago.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

      Comment


      • #4
        Rob House took many of his leads from me.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes I saw your name in the acknowledgments Scott.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

          Comment


          • #6
            Oh...I didn't know that. He never sent me a complimentary copy.

            Comment


            • #7
              The question is; did the witness refuse to give evidence out of fear or loyalty?

              If the witness was scared of reprisal, then he may have been fearful to give evidence

              If the witness was loyal to their Jewish Community, they may have chosen to not have a fellow Jew convicted.

              Or it could have been a combination of both fear and loyalty, or perhaps even a family member or acquaintance.


              I don't have a particular front runner; but I'd consider the likes of Joseph Hyam Levy, Nathan Shine or even Goldstein.
              "Great minds, don't think alike"

              Comment


              • #8
                I think that Lawende, Levy, and Schwartz all are very valid possibilities for the witness in question, and it could be someone that we've never heard of. Kosminski is a stronger Ripper suspect if it was Lawende or Levy than if it was Schwartz for 2 reasons. One is that there's a higher probability that the man that Lawende and Levy saw was Eddowes' killer than that the man that Schwartz saw was Stride's killer. The other is that Eddowes is almost certainly a Ripper victim, while Stride might not have been.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Lewis C View Post
                  Kosminski is a stronger Ripper suspect if it was Lawende or Levy than if it was Schwartz for 2 reasons. One is that there's a higher probability that the man that Lawende and Levy saw was Eddowes' killer than that the man that Schwartz saw was Stride's killer. The other is that Eddowes is almost certainly a Ripper victim, while Stride might not have been.
                  Hi Lewis C,

                  I respectfully disagree with your opinion in this regard. Given the proximity of the homes of two of Kosminski's relatives, with the likelihood that he was living with, or frequently visiting, one or both, I think that Schwartz could well have seen Kosminski. That doesn't mean that Kosminski killed Stride, or was the ripper. But it could be that he became Anderson's suspect.

                  I am not entirely persuaded that the woman Lawende saw was Eddowes. Scott's reference in his dissertation to the NY Times article regarding the report of a man leaving the Aldgate Station area with a woman and returning alone aligns with Watkins story of stepping aside to let a man pass in the Orange Market, the reservation being that no times were quoted. The Aldgate Station area was where Eddowes was found drunk early in that evening, and her returning there instead of going home would not be inconsistent with her story having known the ripper. Just speculation, of course.

                  Cheers, George
                  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

                  ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
                    I don't have a particular front runner; but I'd consider the likes of Joseph Hyam Levy, Nathan Shine or even Goldstein.
                    Well said RD. Three good suggestions.

                    Cheers, George
                    The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

                    ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                      Oh...I didn't know that. He never sent me a complimentary copy.
                      You’re between Andrew Firth and Paul Begg.

                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
                        The question is; did the witness refuse to give evidence out of fear or loyalty?

                        If the witness was scared of reprisal, then he may have been fearful to give evidence

                        If the witness was loyal to their Jewish Community, they may have chosen to not have a fellow Jew convicted.

                        Or it could have been a combination of both fear and loyalty, or perhaps even a family member or acquaintance.


                        I don't have a particular front runner; but I'd consider the likes of Joseph Hyam Levy, Nathan Shine or even Goldstein.
                        Another suggestion that I’ve considered over the years RD is what if it was simply a case of the witness not being anything like sure enough for a positive ID, maybe he said something like “well he resembles him but..” and the officers (possibly confident or even over-confident that they had the right man) took from it that the witness was holding back for reasons other than not being certain.

                        Then when they went to report to Swanson they said ‘he wouldn’t positively ID him but we got the impression that he knew it was him but he wasn’t willing to testify against one of his own.’ Swanson then relates this to Anderson who, also believing that they had the right man, latches on to this suggestion and takes it as a fact. Therefore according to him the witness ID’d him but refused to testify.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          ...

                          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.”
                          I don't put a lot of weight on Anderson's beliefs, the above is just him trying to justify his suspicions the killer was a Jew, but he couldn't prove it - because the witness let him down.
                          It couldn't be that he was just wrong, he is claiming he would have locked up the killer if the witness had done the honorable thing.



                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Just to be clear, neither Anderson nor Swanson stated or implied that they themselves were present for the identification, correct?

                            c.d.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                              Just to be clear, neither Anderson nor Swanson stated or implied that they themselves were present for the identification, correct?

                              c.d.
                              Correct.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X