Packer and Schwartz

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

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

[Jeff Leahy]

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

Explain?

[Scott Nelson]

duplicate

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[lynn cates]

threat

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Not sure why the threat passed by 1910?

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]

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