Take Your Pick

[Herlock Sholmes]

This point could provide a possible explanation imo.

[c.d.]

Correct.

Thanks, Herlock.

c.d.

[Sunny Delight]

Yeah I think we can be 99% sure it was Lawende.

[Scott Nelson]

People may be forgetting, but Anderson and Swanson were saying the suspect was positively identified, but the witness refused to give further information that would help convict the suspect.

[c.d.]

It most certainly could have been Lawende but simply talking to someone on the street, as he apparently witnessed, is not a crime. Yes, it is extremely suspicious that the woman would be found dead shortly thereafter but I can't see any chance of a conviction in court unless the police had other evidence to go along with his identification.

I am wondering could the police have been trying to get a confession as opposed to grounds for going to court in an attempt to get a conviction?

c.d.

[c.d.]

People may be forgetting, but Anderson and Swanson were saying the suspect was positively identified, but the witness refused to give further information that would help convict the suspect.

The police believed they had finally caught Jack the Ripper. They had to have an identification from an eye witness. It beggars belief that they would have simply said " well that's a shame, but we respect your religious beliefs. Thanks for coming in anyway, have a nice day."

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s also worth recalling from the Inquest:

[Coroner] Would you know him again?
[Lawende] I doubt it.

[Wickerman]

Yeah I think we can be 99% sure it was Lawende.

The problem I have, possibly through my own ignorance, is Lawende was a City Police witness, nothing to do with the Met., though I think the City Police were under the Home Office in 1888, so still under Anderson.
If you recall, Macnaghten also referred to a City Police witness, but I think he confused the Stride murder with Eddowes.

[Wickerman]

People may be forgetting, but Anderson and Swanson were saying the suspect was positively identified, but the witness refused to give further information that would help convict the suspect.

How does that work?
All they need is a positive identification - what else?
I though the witness refused to say so in court, but then we hear an imbecile cannot be charged with a criminal offense.
So, how would they end up in a court?