Packer and Schwartz

[lynn cates]

potato

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Still don't know why Mac--or ANY senior copper--would not know about such an important identification.

Why would Kosminski's case be a hot potato? How important were the family?

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Still don't know why Mac--or ANY senior copper--would not know about such an important identification.

I thought I'd given my reason in some detail in yesterday post. But to re-sum it up...

I don't think anyone was kept totally out of the loop. The department were generally aware of Anderson and Swanson's Maniac revealing in blood theory, a man sent to an asylum who died shortly afterwards.

What wasn't generally known unless you were directly involved, is that there was a later ID of the same suspect at an Asylum (Convalescent Home) at a later date.

This was know only by the Heads Anderson and Monroe

Anderson had a general mistrust of MacNAughten (his junior officer) who asked for a transfer. I think Macnaughten had formed his theory early on in the investigation when Anderson didn't have a clue but trusted Swanson who was sceptical about the Drowned Doctor theory.

The time scale is important FOUR years. The ripper case was considered closed by March 1889 Abberline..was transferred shortly afterwards MAY.

The Crawford letter incident happens June/July 1890 and Anderson and Monroe disagree how it should be handled and fall out. But the Asylum convalescent ID doesn't take place until later possibly early 1891.

This is arranged by Swanson and its failure is kept quiet accept by Anderson who believes the public would be best served by changes to police procedure, that allows more police powers (Still a matter of debate)

Macnaughten doesn't research his memo until 1894, everyone had long since moved on by then.. He comes across the kozminski file but it don't contain anything after March 1889 FIVE years earlier.... Think about five years ago?

Why would Kosminski's case be a hot potato? How important were the family?

Cheers.
LC

The family were 'low class jews' Andersons words not mine... They weren't important.

The Hot Potatoe was what would have happened in the Eastend if News Papers released the story that low class jews had hidden Jack the Ripper....the place would have been torn apart

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

PS it might be worth adding here that the this set of events only make sense if another witness other than Schwartz or Lawende were used...

Thats because the main file on Kozminski and viewed by MacNAughten in 1894, clearly shows Kozminski was a suspect from very early in the investigation possibly even the early source of the Leather apron stories.

When a Bloody shirt appears in a laundry in Batty street a man is detained and questioned. But there are many suspects. The man doesn't become a serious suspect until following an attack on a Matilda in Brick lane in November.

This is where Cox gets on his trail... But the important factor is they didn't have enough evidence to make a prosecution...

This means either schwartz was used and failed to ID the suspect or declined to help... But either way if schwartz was unlikely to be the seaside Home witness otherwise why was the suspect released and followed?

Yours Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Actually your wrong...the main thrust here is that Schwartz can not have been Swanson's ID witness... Yours Jeff

Tom is correct...look at the thread premise in post 1. And you are the one that's taking this down an unintended road Jeff.

[Abby Normal]

PS it might be worth adding here that the this set of events only make sense if another witness other than Schwartz or Lawende were used...

Thats because the main file on Kozminski and viewed by MacNAughten in 1894, clearly shows Kozminski was a suspect from very early in the investigation possibly even the early source of the Leather apron stories.

When a Bloody shirt appears in a laundry in Batty street a man is detained and questioned. But there are many suspects. The man doesn't become a serious suspect until following an attack on a Matilda in Brick lane in November.

This is where Cox gets on his trail... But the important factor is they didn't have enough evidence to make a prosecution...

This means either schwartz was used and failed to ID the suspect or declined to help... But either way if schwartz was unlikely to be the seaside Home witness otherwise why was the suspect released and followed?

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff
the witness was lawende. The final straw for me is that in the granger ID the witness was described as having seen the suspect shortly before the womans "dissected" body was found. so it couldn't have been Schwartz as Stride wasn't mutilated and must refer to Eddowes who was and the witness in that case was Lawende.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff
the witness was lawende. The final straw for me is that in the granger ID the witness was described as having seen the suspect shortly before the womans "dissected" body was found. so it couldn't have been Schwartz as Stride wasn't mutilated and must refer to Eddowes who was and the witness in that case was Lawende.

As explain Lewende makes even less see as Swanson witness as he was used in an ID shortly afterwards... If he'd already positively ID a suspect but refused to give evidence...As Paul Begg points out, why would the police ask him to ID a different suspect..

Both Schwartz and Lawende can be safely eliminated

Yours Jeff

[Abby Normal]

As explain Lewende makes even less see as Swanson witness as he was used in an ID shortly afterwards... If he'd already positively ID a suspect but refused to give evidence...As Paul Begg points out, why would the police ask him to ID a different suspect..

Both Schwartz and Lawende can be safely eliminated

Yours Jeff

well, seeing you totally disregarded the evidence I provided In my last post that showed Lawende was the witness, not sure the point is in continuing.

Anyway-they asked him to ID subsequent witnesses because police thought he was the best witness for some reason, and the Kos ID probably didn't go down as Anderson said it did. It was probably more along the lines of I think it was him but not sure enough to testify against.

All which just shows the (poor) quality of the sighting and the unreliability of any ID that Lawende did. However, there should be little doubt that Lawende was the witness-please see my previous post.

[lynn cates]

secret I D

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"What wasn't generally known unless you were directly involved, is that there was a later ID of the same suspect at an Asylum (Convalescent Home) at a later date.

This was know only by the Heads Anderson and Monroe."

But why? that's what I mean by "out of the loop."

"The time scale is important FOUR years. The ripper case was considered closed by March 1889."

By whom? And why was the 1896 letter even considered if this were so?

"Macnaughten doesn't research his memo until 1894. . ."

How do we know that?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

going batty

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks for the PS.

Umm, I would not put much faith in the Batty st incident, if I were you.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

agreed

Hello (yet again) Jeff.

"Both Schwartz and Lawende can be safely eliminated"

We finally agree.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Abby

I've not disregarded 'evidence' the whole raison D'atre for the last year has been to reavaluate the source material and actually listening to what it says instead of caveating, he must have got this wrong , been confused, events are muddled...

I believe everything becomes clear once you realise we are simply looking at different events over a period of time. And thus the Grainger ID is a separate event...

well, seeing you totally disregarded the evidence I provided In my last post that showed Lawende was the witness, not sure the point is in continuing.

That of course is your prerogative. And of course I've not ruled out the possibility of Lawende or schwartz being the witness, I'm simply saying its improbable once you listen to what Anderson actually says and what Cox says..

If Cox is talking about Kozminski , and i think that 'Probable' then Kozminski was arrested shortly after the Kelly murder. Here cox says he gets on the trail of the suspect for almost three months...

However if he was released and followed of three months there can NOT have been a good case against Kozminski at the time. Both Lawende and Schwartz were the best (Known) witnesses....which eggs the question...Why were they not used at the time?

Also what if they were used and failed to positively ID the suspect?

The police would be forced to let him go even if they believed he was JtR..

The resulting out come would be exactly what Cox describes...a long surveillance?

Cox also describes the surveillance coming to an end when the suspect was placed out of reach in a Private Asylum in Surrey at the same time MacNaughten says he enters the asylum March 1889.

What Karsten has suggested might make more sense is that a witness to the Millers Court murder, and there are possibilities, came to light after March 1889 following further enquiries...

While I understand this is difficult to qualify, what is being speculated is this would make more sense of what Anderson and Swanson describe in TLSOMOL and the Marginalia...

Anyway-they asked him to ID subsequent witnesses because police thought he was the best witness for some reason, and the Kos ID probably didn't go down as Anderson said it did. It was probably more along the lines of I think it was him but not sure enough to testify against.

Again this requires Anderson getting it wrong. And I don't believe he did. Anderson probably worked from notes and a diary when righting TLSOMOL and makes some very specific changes from the Blackwoods version following the criticism of Mentor... But he sticks to the basic story which he is clear about.

Because of what he says Anderson has been turned into a ripperologist boggie man.... personally i think the simple explanation that he is describing a different event to MacNaughten is far more probable.

All which just shows the (poor) quality of the sighting and the unreliability of any ID that Lawende did. However, there should be little doubt that Lawende was the witness-please see my previous post.

Well yes I beleive that, as with Lynn, we have reached the same conclusion. That both Schwartz and Lawende are unlikely to be the man described by Anderson as 'The only person to have a good look at the killler'

Lawende never claimed this and to some extent it was Major Smith who up'd Lawende as a witness....

But my biggest argument against both Schwartz and Lawende is simple....If Cox is watching Kozminski then he came to police attension early and left it by March 1889...

So why weren't Schwartz and Lawende used? And if they were they must have failed to ID Kozminski...which makes sense

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

But why? that's what I mean by "out of the loop."
Cheers.
LC

MacNAughten wasn't out of the loop. The department were told about 'a maniac revelling in Blood' locked in an asylum

However unless they were directly involved they didn't require to know all the details... This was considered by the top heads as a 'Hot Potatoe' (Potential riots)

So the story of 'His own people' emerges at a later date when the threat has passed.

However Nacnaughten has an interest in the case and his own theory which he forms long before Andersons theory (Macnaughten isn't told about the Crawford letter as Anderson don't trust MAcnaughten) So imagine his surprise about Andersons claims when he comes to write a memo and the case in the file unto March 1889 against Kozminski is so weak...

He sticks to his guns that he solved the case

And he's right to do so, but then he doesn't know the whole story

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

We finally agree.

Cheers.
LC

We do Lynn but I'm fairly certain for very different reasons

Yours Jeff

[c.d.]

If Schwartz or Lawende were used, you have to wonder for what purpose? Certainly it would help confirm police suspicions regarding a particular suspect but then the question becomes what evidence did the police have at that time? Anderson seems to imply that the witness was reluctant to identify the suspect because it would put a rope around his neck but any reasonably competent attorney should have been able to tear Lawende's testimony to shreds. And it could be pointed out that Schwartz did not witness a murder merely a woman being pushed. That should have been obvious to the police so 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.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

I've not disregarded 'evidence' the whole raison D'atre for the last year has been to reavaluate the source material and actually listening to what it says instead of caveating, he must have got this wrong , been confused, events are muddled...

I believe everything becomes clear once you realise we are simply looking at different events over a period of time. And thus the Grainger ID is a separate event...



That of course is your prerogative. And of course I've not ruled out the possibility of Lawende or schwartz being the witness, I'm simply saying its improbable once you listen to what Anderson actually says and what Cox says..

If Cox is talking about Kozminski , and i think that 'Probable' then Kozminski was arrested shortly after the Kelly murder. Here cox says he gets on the trail of the suspect for almost three months...

However if he was released and followed of three months there can NOT have been a good case against Kozminski at the time. Both Lawende and Schwartz were the best (Known) witnesses....which eggs the question...Why were they not used at the time?

Also what if they were used and failed to positively ID the suspect?

The police would be forced to let him go even if they believed he was JtR..

The resulting out come would be exactly what Cox describes...a long surveillance?

Cox also describes the surveillance coming to an end when the suspect was placed out of reach in a Private Asylum in Surrey at the same time MacNaughten says he enters the asylum March 1889.

What Karsten has suggested might make more sense is that a witness to the Millers Court murder, and there are possibilities, came to light after March 1889 following further enquiries...

While I understand this is difficult to qualify, what is being speculated is this would make more sense of what Anderson and Swanson describe in TLSOMOL and the Marginalia...



Again this requires Anderson getting it wrong. And I don't believe he did. Anderson probably worked from notes and a diary when righting TLSOMOL and makes some very specific changes from the Blackwoods version following the criticism of Mentor... But he sticks to the basic story which he is clear about.

Because of what he says Anderson has been turned into a ripperologist boggie man.... personally i think the simple explanation that he is describing a different event to MacNaughten is far more probable.



Well yes I beleive that, as with Lynn, we have reached the same conclusion. That both Schwartz and Lawende are unlikely to be the man described by Anderson as 'The only person to have a good look at the killler'

Lawende never claimed this and to some extent it was Major Smith who up'd Lawende as a witness....

But my biggest argument against both Schwartz and Lawende is simple....If Cox is watching Kozminski then he came to police attension early and left it by March 1889...

So why weren't Schwartz and Lawende used? And if they were they must have failed to ID Kozminski...which makes sense

Yours Jeff

Thank you jeff.
I appreciate your detailed and well considered reply.

Then obviously you think the paper that reported the witness in the granger case was the same witness (a man) who saw the killer and victim together shortly before the ripper victims "dissected body was found in the street" must have been wrong and or making things up?

because the only witness who this could be is Lawende.
I was actually hoping you would address this specific piece of evidence-the newspaper report.