Packer and Schwartz

[lynn cates]

feeling left out

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"Because Anderson received the letter of introduction from Crawford not Macnaughten..."

Indeed. But surely Swanson never received it either?

"So Macnaughten doesn't know about that meeting..."

So it would appear. But Swanson did?

"Anderson and Monro decide on a course of action which is kept quiet because it's a 'Hot Potato'."

Of course, Monro did not receive the letter?

"The ID is never updated into the March 1889 file but kept as a separate report, the only other person who might have known something as the City police kept surveillance is SMITH."

So Smith--COL Police--is let in; and, Mac (Met) is left out?

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Anderson is talking about a witness who's name has not come down to us because the police documentation concerning Kozminski as a suspect has not come down to us. The press did not even know about this suspect.

In my opinion, we can all forget about any witness who is known from before October 23rd, this is the date of the letter by Anderson where he claims the police "have not the slightest clue of any kind".

Therefore, Kozminski as a suspect only surfaced after that date. So there could have been another witness who was located by police after Oct. 23rd, who we are not aware of.

Yep that seems like the ticket Jon...

Whether we should continue that debate on the current thread is another matter....????

But what you are suggesting isn't that far from what Scot Nelson is suggesting is it NOT?

And of course Karsten and I. have a theory that sort of mirrors these points of views...

Its interesting that from different perspectives we draw similar conclusions

Yours Jef

But PS...If kozminski came to the attention of police at an early date...(Very probable) then all the witnesses FAILING to recognise him...is PROBABLE if he were let go....and thus followed... Tis all coming clear

[Wickerman]

Hi wicker
well kosminsky is who they thought did it. but if neither Lawendes or Schwartz was the witness then neither is their suspect-salor man or BS man is the suspect.

so not only do we need to come up with another witness-we have to come up with another suspect that witness saw, no?

who is the unknown witness then and who is the unknown suspect? And when and where did this unknown suspect see his suspect?

Indeed, Swanson identifies Anderson's "suspect" as Kozminski, this is true.
I have no doubt that Anderson personally believed Kozminski was the murderer, but that "belief" is not necessarily correct.
So the suspect in this case remains unchanged, the suspect is Kozminski.

What we do not know, but Anderson apparently did know, is that there was another witness, unknown to us, who identified Kozminski as the murderer.
It wasn't Schwartz nor Lawende, in part, because the men they saw were not identified as Jews.
And, in the case of Schwartz it is hardly conceivable (due to the shout of "Lipski") that BS-man was Jewish.
And, in the case of Lawende, if the police assumed the suspect was like a "sailor" (which they couldn't possibly have known), why not also assume he was Jewish, if his attire suggested as much? Likely, because it didn't.
As far as we know, neither suspect was believed to be a Jew.

So on what grounds are we to assume either of those suspects were Jewish? (in order to conform to the Anderson's Witness theory).

Anderson is talking about a witness who's name has not come down to us because the police documentation concerning Kozminski as a suspect has not come down to us. The press did not even know about this suspect.

In my opinion, we can all forget about any witness who is known from before October 23rd, this is the date of the letter by Anderson where he claims the police "have not the slightest clue of any kind".

Therefore, Kozminski as a suspect only surfaced after that date. So there could have been another witness who was located by police after Oct. 23rd, who we are not aware of.

[Jeff Leahy]

We know what his sister looked like, but not Kozminski himself.
Anderson is of no help with that issue.

Thank you jon...your input as always has been appreciated and this thread has been really interesting and challenged so many ideas and speculations on the subject...

But Xmas is coming... and while all these issues/debates will continue, perhaps its all time we relaxed and went else where

I think Packer and Scwartz have reached their conclusion

Yours Jeff

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

I think we should be careful here I have no intension of coursing any offence to our jewish members, but I don't think it reasonable to suggest that Jewish people have a specific appearance infact the exact opposite..

Sometimes Jeff, I think we are drawn to apply political correctness to a period when it did not exist.

So i think you have a red herring... appearance wise you couldn't tell whether Kozminski was polish and this is confirmed by the witness who only refused to give evidence when he learned the suspect was jewish after the ID.

Those words by Anderson are part of the reason this problem exists, sadly his words do not confirm anything.

So we know Kozminski in appearance didn't look, what people might assume, as being of jewish appearance

We know what his sister looked like, but not Kozminski himself.
Anderson is of no help with that issue.

[Wickerman]

I disagree (not saying that the man was Jewish or not), it's really hard for someone who doesn't speak a language to make a distinction of accent in said language. Schwartz didn't speak English, he needed a translator when telling his tale.

Schwartz was Hungarian, Kozminski was Polish.
Whether Schwartz understood English is not really the issue.

[Jeff Leahy]

I am considering... I am considering... No... No, Jeff... it is just another Jeff Leahy Karsten Giese Thread... we do not need...

I'm happy to reconvene, at the other site... Things are slower there and lets face it Xmas with Howard as Father Xmas is gonn a be more fun

I think the Schwartz + Packer thread is done for now

Theres lots of knew stuff to consider, thats whats great about casebook it stirs things up for periods....but it gives a head ache after a while

Its black friday end of the week, whats that all about? Will be posting Xmas tree on Facebook beginning of month as should be...

But give us some time to look into this new infirmary idea its strong but my babe secretary researcher is weak at present

See you at the other side...bye bye for now casebook...and thanks for all the fish love you guys

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

The mother, Golda, didn't come to London until several years later.

Yes, of course... after 1891... thank you Scott... my mistake...

[Scott Nelson]

It is possible (and pure speculation) that this woman was Matilda Lubnowski (sister) or Golda Abrahams (mother). A family in great fear in October (November/December) 1888 when the brother was suspected of being Jack the Ripper (and not 1890).

The mother, Golda, didn't come to London until several years later.

[S.Brett]

A man who cooks the best seafood risotto she's ever tasted I might add

Aaaahhh... that is the reason why she stayed...

But seriously its going to be a few days until she's off the high dosses. I've printed out what you posted and get her to check against the various Rothchilde Family charitable connections

A strong woman... I am a picture of misery... when I catched a cold...

Your probably right about us starting to drift off subject...shall we start a new thread? 3rd Witness? or perhaps If not Schwartz or Lawende who was the seaside Home witness.....or something like that?

I am considering... I am considering... No... No, Jeff... it is just another Jeff Leahy Karsten Giese Thread... we do not need...

Bear in mind i still have Cox's surveillance route to post somewhere

To Packer and Schwartz:

I find it hard to believe that PC Smith´s Man and BS Man were one and the same. Packer probably knew Woolf Abrahams and Aaron Kozminski (as customers?) and what if he saw Aaron with Stride that night?

[Jeff Leahy]

Poor Cat... married with Jeff Leahy...

A man who cooks the best seafood risotto she's ever tasted I might add

But seriously its going to be a few days until she's off the high dosses. I've printed out what you posted and get her to check against the various Rothchilde Family charitable connections

Although we never found a direct connection to the Earl of Crawford having explored the many possibilities. The conclusion we drew was the letter of introduction must have been throw a close friend in his social circle...An after dinner conversation over cigars, rather than a formal political association connected to Crawfords Sweater involvement although they could all be intertwined...

But the Swaeter bill was done and dusted by summer 1889 and I don't think the letter was written until the following year.

The sweater bill is interesting because his alibi for being on the ground must have been early 1889 when these investigations were being carried out..

But one of the Rothchildes asking a favour of Crawford to introduce a lady with a problem at one of their charity infirmaries, makes most sense for the connection...

Your probably right about us starting to drift off subject...shall we start a new thread? 3rd Witness? or perhaps If not Schwartz or Lawende who was the seaside Home witness.....or something like that?

Bear in mind i still have Cox's surveillance route to post somewhere

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

Actually its more Catrins area of expertise.. So if you want any leads chasing up I'll put her to work..Please outline any infirmaries or institutions...she's only lying around on her back all day doing nothing

Yours Jx

Poor Cat... married with Jeff Leahy...

http://ezitis.myzen.co.uk/earlswood.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Earlswood_Hospital

"Reed, a well-known philanthropist, had been involved in various charitable foundations - the London Orphan Asylum, the Infant Orphan Asylum for fatherless children and the Royal Hospital for Incurables."

"Lord Palmerston, Baron Rothschild and Lord Ashley became officers of the charity."

http://ezitis.myzen.co.uk/royalhospitalhome.html

"Revd Dr Andrew Reed (1787-1862), was a practical philanthropist who had previously established the London Orphan Asylum (1813), the Infant Orphan Asylum (1827), the Asylum for Fatherless Children (later renamed the Reedham Orphanage) in Coulsdon (1843) and the Asylum for Idiots in Earlswood (1847)."

There were "connections" between Earlswood and West Hill/ Putney via Dr Andrew Reed and Baron Rothschild.

Jeff, we are slightly off-topic... once again...

Schwartz´s BS Man a drunken troublemaker?

[Jeff Leahy]

What a mistake... of course I know his name... sorry, as I wrote I know very little about Crawford/Montagu & Co...

Actually its more Catrins area of expertise.. So if you want any leads chasing up I'll put her to work..Please outline any infirmaries or institutions...she's only lying around on her back all day doing nothing

Yours Jx

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff
yes of course, but what im trying to get at as with my exchange with Wicker, is if neither Schwartz or Lawende is the witness then the men they saw-BS man and sailor man-cant be the suspect.

Ah I see...but disagree

All it means is that the witness, Long, Schwartz and Lawende were unable to identify the suspect..

None of them claimed they would be able to recognise the man again. They gave general descriptions...

So surely its quite possible they saw Kozminski but were unable to identify him?

so an unknown witness sees something and someone, presumably with one of the victims the night of the double event (or was it earlier-with an earlier victim?). If its not sailor man or BS man who is it? when did the unknown witness see the suspect? where did he see the suspect? what was taking place when the witness saw the suspect?

I don't know...

But surely that is what Karsten has been theorising? A possible witness at Millers Court?

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

I think you'd have to prove a president that the New Scotland Yard' was ever jokingly called the Seaside Home

An idea in the heat of the moment... not important...

Besides Anderson says the ID took place in an Asylum so a convalescent Seaside home attached to the Surrey asylum makes more sense

As I always say... I think we agree...

PS you need to be careful with Crawford..its a title not the mans name, his real name was: James Ludovic Lindsay. These were pretty high ranking aristocrats... But both his sons did work in the east end doing charity. A number of the Rothchilde woman also did charity work here. Theres a good chance they were receiving money from the rothchildes who were jewish but not astkenazim...any info on who funded the infirmary would be useful

What a mistake... of course I know his name... sorry, as I wrote I know very little about Crawford/Montagu & Co...