Packer and Schwartz

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

Maybe he did, Jeff.

Kozminski enter Colney Hatch Asylum in Feb 1891 = Fact

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Thought I'd take in. This thread has FA to do with Packer and Schwartz.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Actually your wrong...the main thrust here is that Schwartz can not have been Swanson's ID witness... Something that has been fairly main stream by various Kozminskites over previous decades (And of course it can not have been lawenda either) all of which raises problems

And then Packer is often dismissed as an unreliable witness and the resulting argument is usually that he should be dismissed completely...

What we are trying to do here is reavaluate

Sometimes a thread takes its own direction..however if anyone would prefer for that debate to take place under other thread topics .. I'm happy to re-avaluate where those posts should be..

However your opinion on what is actually being discussed would actually be more useful Tom than counter productive criticism

Yours Jeff

[Tom_Wescott]

Thought I'd take in. This thread has FA to do with Packer and Schwartz.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Scott Nelson]

All of them believed Kozminski died shortly after he entered the asylum.

Maybe he did, Jeff.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"MacNaughten didn't know about Swanson's/Anderson's ID"

But isn't that odd, in itself? Why is Mac cut out of the loop?

Cheers.
LC

A to Z: A cautious note is given by Sir Robert Anderson in his memoirs , where he recalled being vexed with a senior colleague, who made a silly fuss about a threatening letter. Chief inspector Swanson, recorded privately that this colleague was 'Macnaghten CH Const'

By 1891, matters seem to have come to a head and it was reported Manaughten was seeking transfer to the uniform branch, but somehow they were tided over and Macnaughten continued to serve under Anderson until the laters retirement in 1901. He then served for two years under major Edward Henry, to whom he dedicated his book...

Morning Lynn

I'm note certain Macnaughten was kept out of the loop. I believe he came to his conclusion on Druit when Anderson was still saying they didn't know who the ripper was.... That Anderson was approached by a member of Kozminski's family (Via Crawford) And Anderson gave his word to keep it quite in return for their assistance...Macnaughten not knowing about further evidence simply stuck with his theory

A to Z: In 1890, Monroe told Cassells Magazine that he had 'decidedly' formed a theory on the case, adding 'when i do theorise it is from a practical stand point, and not upon upon visionary foundation'

Is this an attack on MacNaughtens theory?

A to Z cont: He also said, however, that the police had 'Nothing positive' by way of clues, with the rider that such crimes were difficult to solve since the victims, as well as the murderer, sought secret sites

Macnaughten was aware of the story of a Maniac revealing in blood, but didn't know the whole story which was kept quite to protect the family of Kozminski....Monroes 'Hot potato'

When MAcnaughten came across Kozminski file he was surprised how unconvincing the file was unto march 1889...

But he didn't know about the Crawford letter or the later ID... Which must have taken place with a new witness discovered after the Millers court murder...

While of course this is speculation, hopefully its reasonable speculation which explains why the various coppers believed what they did..

All of them believed Kozminski died shortly after he entered the asylum. Whether Anderson actually new he was alive or not is another question, however I'm certain that Abberline..and Swanson believe the suspect was dead..

So Macnaughten must have know the general theory past around the department. What he didn't know (I believe still is) are the details of the ID... which was organised by Swanson, so he does

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

loop

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"MacNaughten didn't know about Swanson's/Anderson's ID"

But isn't that odd, in itself? Why is Mac cut out of the loop?

Cheers.
LC