Packer and Schwartz

[Scott Nelson]

*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.

[Scott Nelson]

duplicate

[Jeff Leahy]

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

Explain?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff,

If, as Anderson implies, Lawende identified Kosminski but refused to give testimony against a fellow Jew, why then not have Schwartz look at him as well? In other words, if you have two witnesses why not use two witnesses?

c.d.

Hi CD

Yes ..exactly...there is a clear problem here...however you look at what is known...on several levels

I'm simply trying to figure this out...

I'm simply say start again...refigure....and most importantly...research

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

Yours jeff

[Scott Nelson]

But an unknown witness does make more sense to me than trying to argue confusion and muddle on the part of Swanson and Anderson

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

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff,

If, as Anderson implies, Lawende identified Kosminski but refused to give testimony against a fellow Jew, why then not have Schwartz look at him as well? In other words, if you have two witnesses why not use two witnesses?

c.d.

I think thats a good point

Also if Lawende refused to testify against a fellow jew, why was he so helpful and considered an important witness to the extent he was also used at the grainger ID sometime after the failed seaside Home ID

None of which makes sense. Which is why I've been drawn towards Karsten's third witness who comes to light at a later date..it is however uncomfortable territory I don't usually like standing in...

Until this thread i had always favoured Schwartz over Lawende...Karsten has change my mind about both possibilities

However the idea Schwartz was used quite early in the investigation and failed to make a positive ID...that still interests me

I guess the counter argument is that if they were still using Lawende at a later date after the kozminski Seaside Home ID and the new witness refused...why not use Lawende?

Yours Jeff

[c.d.]

Hello Jeff,

If, as Anderson implies, Lawende identified Kosminski but refused to give testimony against a fellow Jew, why then not have Schwartz look at him as well? In other words, if you have two witnesses why not use two witnesses?

c.d.

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

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

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

Hi CD

Macnaughten states that there were strong circumstances.

He also claims that the suspect strongly resembles a man seen by a City PC. And this can only relate to the Eddows murder... If her killer left through teh square via Mitre Street back towards Algate station, past butcher Row (on the opposite side).... Then he would be in City Police territory for some time before turning left into Goulston street.

So this seems quite possible.

And while your criticisms of Schwartz and Lawende seem reasonable, we are still left with Anderson's claims...the only man who ever had a good view of the killer...

Frankly the only possibility that would make sense is a third 'unknown ' witness that didn't come forward or was discovered at a later date (After March 1889) and of course this takes us into the realms of considerable speculation...

Karsten has forwarded the possibility of the Carmen seen by Sarah Cox at the entrance to Millers court as being one such possible source, the problem however is why the time gap? as Swanson and Anderson ID doesn't take place until shortly before Kozminski enters Colneyt Hatch almost two years later, beginning of January 1891...

And if the witness was somehow connected to the lady who met Anderson via Crawford... then surely that witness would not be surprised to learn the suspect was jewish... which at present brings us around in full circle..

But an unknown witness does make more sense to me than trying to argue confusion and muddle on the part of Swanson and Anderson

Yours Jeff

[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.

[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.

[Jeff Leahy]

We finally agree.

Cheers.
LC

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

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]

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

[lynn cates]

agreed

Hello (yet again) Jeff.

"Both Schwartz and Lawende can be safely eliminated"

We finally agree.

Cheers.
LC