Packer and Schwartz

[S.Brett]

Hi Jeff,

Starting from a premise id say thats the best way of new research uncovering.... new info

That is: Finding Aaron Kozminski in an East End Infirmary and in a (private) asylum in Surrey.

What we have: Aaron Kozminski in Mile End Old Town Workhouse (July 1890 and February 1891) and in Colney Hatch & Leavesden.

It seems that the Jewish Home in Stepney Green was a Jewish Workhouse and later it belonged to the Nightingale in Surrey. Later again we find the Jewish Hospital in Stepney Green.

And I could find another Asylum in Surrey with a Seaside Home (Royal Hospital for Neuro-Disability).

Nightingale:

“The charity’s origins can be traced back to 1840. The three original homes were called the Hand in Hand Asylum, the Widows’ Home Asylum and the Jewish Workhouse, also known as the Jewish Home. They were established in the old Jewish quarter in London’s East End to cater for the needs of poor Jewish people”

http://www.nightingalehammerson.org/about-us/the-history-of-nightingale-hammerson.html

“The Hand in Hand Home occupied the following premises: 5 Duke's Place (from 1843), 22 Jewry Street (from 1850), Wellclose Square (from 1854) and 23 Well Street, Hackney (from 1878). The Widow's Home was first based at 22 Mitre Street, then 19 Duke Street (from 1850), 67 Great Prescott Street, Goodmans Fields (from 1857) and later moved next door to the Hand in Hand in 1880.
The Jewish Workhouse was founded in 1871 by a movement led by Solomon Green, the son of Abraham Green one of the founders of the Widow's Home. The first premises were at 123 Wentworth Street. In 1876 the Home moved to 37-9 Stepney Green.”

http://www.aim25.ac.uk/cgi-bin/vcdf/detail?coll_id=14761&inst_id=118

Surrey:

Nightingale
105 Nightingale Lane, Wandsworth Common, SW12 8NB/ Surrey

“…and the Jewish Workhouse, also known as the Jewish Home (1871), at 37-39 Stepney Green.”

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

Royal Hospital for Neuro-Disability
West Hill, Putney, SW15 3SW/ Surrey

“In 1885 a holiday home - Seaside House - was established for the inmates (and later pensioners) in St Leonard's-on-Sea. (The house was sold in 1901.)” (106 Queen Victoria Street?)

http://www.workhouses.org.uk/Wandsworth/

http://www.rhn.org.uk/about-us/history/

“In 1947 the Hospital was informed that it would be nationalised under the NHS Act (1946), along with the Jewish Hospital and Home for Incurables in Tottenham and the British Home and Hospital for Incurables in Streatham. All three homes appealed against this on the grounds that they would be able to provide more specific care to their patients, focussed on long-term needs. In 1950 the Ministry of Health withdrew its claim.”

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

London/East End:

Jewish Home and Hospital for Incurables
295 High Road, South Tottenham, N15 4RT

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

http://pmj.bmj.com/content/80/945/426.full

London Jewish Hospital
Stepney Green, Tower Hamlets, E1 3LB

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

In Mile End Road were two Jewish homes (1891):

Portuguese and Spanish Jew´s hospital between 251-255 Mile End Road.
Jewish Home (Samuel Shuter, supt.), 37-39 Stepney Green Mile End Road.

See my post 877:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=360458#post360458

I am not sure whether the "Seaside Home" belonged to an asylum or to the police or whether it was located at the coast. Maybe, it was plain and simple a police´s barrack in London called "Seaside Home", who knows...

But I am sure that the Police already known "Kosminski" in October 1888. In this case, I do not think that they were waiting with Lawende & Schwartz for an ID until the second half of 1890/ Beginning 1891.

"Oh no! ... I only had a short look at him" (Major Smith/probably Lawende) and "Would you know him again? - I doubt it. The man and woman were about nine or ten feet away from me."...

...does not sound like "A good view of the murderer"...

I guess that Schwartz and Lawende were confronted with "Kosminski" in October 1888 but failed.

A third witness found by the police in the second half of 1890? Why not? If "Kosminski" was a Prime Suspect since October 1888 then the police did not have the Seaside Home witness at the time of the murders. When they had found the witness the MET police informed the City Police to bring "Kosminski" to the place "Seaside Home". I guess, all the time "Kosminski" was more a City Police suspect than a MET Police suspect.

Yours Karsten.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

Are they not muddled about his death?

Cheers.
LC

No. Swanson is very clear. He died shortly afterwards.

I'm in know doubt that is what he believed.

The problem is we know Kozminski didn't die until 1919..

So there are a number of possibilities: 1. Anderson deliberately covered Kozminski up claiming he was dead...he was a old spy. 2. Anderson was given incorrect information when Kozminski was transferred to Leavesdon. 3. There was a record mix-up at the asylum, the records after all are missing at Leavesdon until 1910, which strangely is when Anderson released TLSOMOL 4. Other

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

. But a top level copper like Mac?
Cheers.
LC

I don't see why Mac would be aware of the Crawford letter?

This is a private communication from the Earl of Crawford, arguably way above Macnaughtens social circle?

And Anderson would only answer to Monroe...and they fell out

Monroe didn't even tell his wife or close family...they kept stum.

Anderson's background was as a master spy against the irish, keeping stuff under his belt was part of his job, and its known he didn't trust Macnaughten

But I'm not claiming Macnaughten was kept out of the loop but simply told only part of the story

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi jeff
I guess my problem with that whole scenario is that it makes up a witness when you already have a witness (or two) that is most likely and also the invention of the mythical third witness is done to help bolster kos's suspect hood.
.

I'm not certain it is to bolster Kozminski as a suspect. Surely he already is a Prime Suspect as Rob House stated.

And the intention is to try and make sense of the Sources. Why Anderson, Swanson and Macnaughten appear to contradict each other.

I'm saying they don't contradict each other if you look at the conundrum from the correct point of view..

And interesting I don't appear to be the only ripperologist who has reached this place. Scot Nelson seems to be agreeing that Kozminski must have come to light early in the investigation...Aaron Kozminski not being the Kozminski of March 1889...

So some similarities to the reasoning/speculation being put froward by Karsten and myself...

We're simply arguing that the knowns about Aaron Kozminski are to closely a match to the knowns given by Swanson...so they must be one and the same

However we're speculating two separate events an early event upto March 1889 where Aaron enters a private Asylum

And a later event where his family seek assistance from the police almost two years later.

Two events one suspect explaining the apparent difference in what MacANughten states and what Anderson states

Whether that would make Kozminski a stronger suspect I'm not convinced

Given that it would rely on Lawende and Schwartz failing to ID kozminski in Nov 1888... It might be argued it makes him a weaker suspect because the case against him can't have been good at the time.

The second event is relying on his families suspicions (No different to Druit) and an ID two years after the event, by an unknown suspect who refused to testify

Yours jeff

[lynn cates]

muddled

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

Are they not muddled about his death?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

public

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"Swanson and Monroe never told a soul. It was a different world where people simply kept quiet."

Well, I can certainly see why the public would be kept out--at least until the ID were certain. But a top level copper like Mac?

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

I think Lawende could well have been the witness used in the grainger case, which happened after Kozminski went into Colney Hatch.

But then i don't think Lawende was Swansons Seaside Home witness, they were completely separate unrelated events, in my opinion

I believe that Karsten speculation of a third witness connected to Millers Court makes the most probable sense as the suspect 'knew he was recognised'

Its just how when and where they found him that is problematic

Yours Jeff

Hi jeff
I guess my problem with that whole scenario is that it makes up a witness when you already have a witness (or two) that is most likely and also the invention of the mythical third witness is done to help bolster kos's suspect hood.

It reminds me of the mystical third man theory in the in the stride murder.

However, if it helps simulate research and if the unknown witness is ever found than I will be the first to say congrats.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Scott.

"Maybe there isn't that much confusion and muddle to be had -- only a lot of arbitrary assumptions."

Well, that's my take as well.

Cheers.
LC

Surely the muddle is by those looking at the case. Anderson and Swanson are not muddled...they are very clear.

Mcnaughten may have been muddled, Druit was after all a barrister not a Doctor...or perhaps it was simply that his source his private info was muddled, and Macnaughten got it all correct aswell?

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Not sure why the threat passed by 1910?

Cheers.
LC

The family had long since moved away and the East end move on... However Anderson still refuses to reveal the name...It rather distinctive..

Besides Anderson had a bee in his bonnet... his sense of duty

Anderson believed that police required more powers, like the french, to do there job....

Swanson and Monroe never told a soul. It was a different world where people simply kept quiet. It would never have happened today

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

take

Hello Scott.

"Maybe there isn't that much confusion and muddle to be had -- only a lot of arbitrary assumptions."

Well, that's my take as well.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

thinking

Hello CD.

"the idea of either Lawende or Schwartz being a courtroom witness seems to be a bit of a stretch so maybe they can both be eliminated and the hunt for Anderson's witness continues."

I think so.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

threat

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Not sure why the threat passed by 1910?

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

I've been advocating the "alternative" Kosminski suspect now for well over a decade. There are plenty of articles about this on this site, plus articles in old issues of Ripper Notes, Ripperologist and Ripperana. My views on the probable Kosminski "confusion" are spelled out most recently in the February 2013 Ripperologist.

Hi Scot

Have you a specific alternative in mind? I've only ever come across Aaron Kozminski as a feasible choice...

The possibility that there was some confusion between Kozminski and Cohen given there similarities seems quite possible..

Yours Jeff

PS The question i posed myself yesterday... If the Seaside Home ID took place in January 1891 and the suspect refused to testify, why wasn't another witness bought in? Either Lawende or schwartz...or indeed if the witness was Schwartz or Lawnde why wasn't the other used?

Well there would be a very clear reason not to do so if the available witnesses were used in November 1888 and they failed to identify the suspect...Then the suspect would have to be released..

There would be know point re-using these witnesses at a later date?

It would also explain why MacNAughten thinks the suspect isn't very good..

So a third unknown witness coming to police attention after March 1889 still makes the most sense

[Scott Nelson]

I've been advocating the "alternative" Kosminski suspect now for well over a decade. There are plenty of articles about this on this site, plus articles in old issues of Ripper Notes, Ripperologist and Ripperana. My views on the probable Kosminski "confusion" are spelled out most recently in the February 2013 Ripperologist.

[Jeff Leahy]

*That Aaron Kosminski was a low class Polish Jew
*That Aaron had strong homicidal tendencies and great hatred of prostitutes
*That Aaron went to an asylum about March 1889
*That Aaron was positively identified as a suspect at a seaside home
*That Aaron was brought to a workhouse with his hands tied
*That Swanson was mistaken when he wrote that the suspect died soon after he was put in the asylum

And that's only for starters.

This really is something we need to start debating

And i'm happy to put any contrary point across in terms of balance

But all of your above are explained with one simple statement

'the same suspect..two sperate events'

A reasonable-knowledgable debate would be of interest?

Yours Jeff