Packer and Schwartz

[Scott Nelson]

It is possible (and pure speculation) that this woman was Matilda Lubnowski (sister) or Golda Abrahams (mother). A family in great fear in October (November/December) 1888 when the brother was suspected of being Jack the Ripper (and not 1890).

The mother, Golda, didn't come to London until several years later.

[S.Brett]

The mother, Golda, didn't come to London until several years later.

Yes, of course... after 1891... thank you Scott... my mistake...

[Jeff Leahy]

I am considering... I am considering... No... No, Jeff... it is just another Jeff Leahy Karsten Giese Thread... we do not need...

I'm happy to reconvene, at the other site... Things are slower there and lets face it Xmas with Howard as Father Xmas is gonn a be more fun

I think the Schwartz + Packer thread is done for now

Theres lots of knew stuff to consider, thats whats great about casebook it stirs things up for periods....but it gives a head ache after a while

Its black friday end of the week, whats that all about? Will be posting Xmas tree on Facebook beginning of month as should be...

But give us some time to look into this new infirmary idea its strong but my babe secretary researcher is weak at present

See you at the other side...bye bye for now casebook...and thanks for all the fish love you guys

Yours Jeff

[Wickerman]

I disagree (not saying that the man was Jewish or not), it's really hard for someone who doesn't speak a language to make a distinction of accent in said language. Schwartz didn't speak English, he needed a translator when telling his tale.

Schwartz was Hungarian, Kozminski was Polish.
Whether Schwartz understood English is not really the issue.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

I think we should be careful here I have no intension of coursing any offence to our jewish members, but I don't think it reasonable to suggest that Jewish people have a specific appearance infact the exact opposite..

Sometimes Jeff, I think we are drawn to apply political correctness to a period when it did not exist.

So i think you have a red herring... appearance wise you couldn't tell whether Kozminski was polish and this is confirmed by the witness who only refused to give evidence when he learned the suspect was jewish after the ID.

Those words by Anderson are part of the reason this problem exists, sadly his words do not confirm anything.

So we know Kozminski in appearance didn't look, what people might assume, as being of jewish appearance

We know what his sister looked like, but not Kozminski himself.
Anderson is of no help with that issue.

[Jeff Leahy]

We know what his sister looked like, but not Kozminski himself.
Anderson is of no help with that issue.

Thank you jon...your input as always has been appreciated and this thread has been really interesting and challenged so many ideas and speculations on the subject...

But Xmas is coming... and while all these issues/debates will continue, perhaps its all time we relaxed and went else where

I think Packer and Scwartz have reached their conclusion

Yours Jeff

[Wickerman]

Hi wicker
well kosminsky is who they thought did it. but if neither Lawendes or Schwartz was the witness then neither is their suspect-salor man or BS man is the suspect.

so not only do we need to come up with another witness-we have to come up with another suspect that witness saw, no?

who is the unknown witness then and who is the unknown suspect? And when and where did this unknown suspect see his suspect?

Indeed, Swanson identifies Anderson's "suspect" as Kozminski, this is true.
I have no doubt that Anderson personally believed Kozminski was the murderer, but that "belief" is not necessarily correct.
So the suspect in this case remains unchanged, the suspect is Kozminski.

What we do not know, but Anderson apparently did know, is that there was another witness, unknown to us, who identified Kozminski as the murderer.
It wasn't Schwartz nor Lawende, in part, because the men they saw were not identified as Jews.
And, in the case of Schwartz it is hardly conceivable (due to the shout of "Lipski") that BS-man was Jewish.
And, in the case of Lawende, if the police assumed the suspect was like a "sailor" (which they couldn't possibly have known), why not also assume he was Jewish, if his attire suggested as much? Likely, because it didn't.
As far as we know, neither suspect was believed to be a Jew.

So on what grounds are we to assume either of those suspects were Jewish? (in order to conform to the Anderson's Witness theory).

Anderson is talking about a witness who's name has not come down to us because the police documentation concerning Kozminski as a suspect has not come down to us. The press did not even know about this suspect.

In my opinion, we can all forget about any witness who is known from before October 23rd, this is the date of the letter by Anderson where he claims the police "have not the slightest clue of any kind".

Therefore, Kozminski as a suspect only surfaced after that date. So there could have been another witness who was located by police after Oct. 23rd, who we are not aware of.

[Jeff Leahy]

Anderson is talking about a witness who's name has not come down to us because the police documentation concerning Kozminski as a suspect has not come down to us. The press did not even know about this suspect.

In my opinion, we can all forget about any witness who is known from before October 23rd, this is the date of the letter by Anderson where he claims the police "have not the slightest clue of any kind".

Therefore, Kozminski as a suspect only surfaced after that date. So there could have been another witness who was located by police after Oct. 23rd, who we are not aware of.

Yep that seems like the ticket Jon...

Whether we should continue that debate on the current thread is another matter....????

But what you are suggesting isn't that far from what Scot Nelson is suggesting is it NOT?

And of course Karsten and I. have a theory that sort of mirrors these points of views...

Its interesting that from different perspectives we draw similar conclusions

Yours Jef

But PS...If kozminski came to the attention of police at an early date...(Very probable) then all the witnesses FAILING to recognise him...is PROBABLE if he were let go....and thus followed... Tis all coming clear

[lynn cates]

feeling left out

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"Because Anderson received the letter of introduction from Crawford not Macnaughten..."

Indeed. But surely Swanson never received it either?

"So Macnaughten doesn't know about that meeting..."

So it would appear. But Swanson did?

"Anderson and Monro decide on a course of action which is kept quiet because it's a 'Hot Potato'."

Of course, Monro did not receive the letter?

"The ID is never updated into the March 1889 file but kept as a separate report, the only other person who might have known something as the City police kept surveillance is SMITH."

So Smith--COL Police--is let in; and, Mac (Met) is left out?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

guesses

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

"But we know Anderson starts his theory in 1892 'A maniac reveling in blood'

Macnaughten knows little about Kozminski, only the office rumours until he writes his memo and discovers the March 1889 file. Almost two years later 1894 when the Sun suggests Cutbush"

But these are just guesses?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

reread

Hello (yet again) Jeff. Thanks.

"It's reasonable speculation given what Cox says."

Cox identifies Kosminski? Must reread.

Cheers.
LC

[S.Brett]

If "Kosminski" was a suspect in October 1888 what exactly happened around the 9 November 1888 (Kelly murder)? When Kelly was found how did the police behave in the matter of "Kosminski"? If the police watched him in October (Infirmary/his house or shop) where had he been around the 9 November? Cox said (if he watched "Kosminski"): "it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail". So what had happened? If the (City?) PC near Mitre Square did recognize (in height & build) "Kosminski" after the Double Event then it is possible that the City Police already watched "Kosminski" in October for a certain period. After the Kelly murder "Kosminski" would have been "the first choice" for an interview by the police or not? He took trophies from the Kelly crime scene. It should have been the best time hours after the murder to interview this suspect and to search his premises. In this case and in the matter of "Kosminski" it seems to me that the witness Hutchinson did not recognize "Kosminski" as the Astrachan Man (some time after the Kelly murder). I guess that "Kosminski" was not in his familiar environment when the Kelly murder took place. My guess is that the police did not know where he was staying at the time of the Kelly murder. Maybe, he "lived" on the street and had found a sort of hiding place. This could possible also explain why the police "detectives have recently visited all the registered private lunatic asylums, and made full inquiries as to the inmates recently admitted" in December 1888. There was an incident after the Farmer attack on the morning of the 22 November 1888. Imagine that "Kosminski" s sister found his brother in the East End Streets with the end that he was taken into custody and after he was released the family brought him to an infirmary and further to an (private) asylum in Surrey then it made sense for the detectives to visit all the registered private lunatic asylums.

[S.Brett]

Btw::

In this connection it makes sense that the witness with the "good view of the murder" is a Jew near Millerīs Court. If "Kosminski" thought that he was identified he could not go home. Remember: "And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London" (Swanson). What "Kosminski" did not know: The police had not found this important witness... but two years later... ."after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified" (Swanson) the police had found the Jewish witness..."And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point" (Anderson)

[S.Brett]

This would also explain why he took a knife (against his sister?):

22. November 1888 Morning Advertiser (London)

"The man is reported to have drawn a knife, and made a desperate resistance, but he was eventually overpowered, and conveyed to the Commercial-street station."

He was afraid of the Jewish witness.

[Jeff Leahy]

In my opinion, we can all forget about any witness who is known from before October 23rd, this is the date of the letter by Anderson where he claims the police "have not the slightest clue of any kind".

Therefore, Kozminski as a suspect only surfaced after that date. So there could have been another witness who was located by police after Oct. 23rd, who we are not aware of.

I agree to some extent Jon... especially if we reason the man described by Cox was Kozminski..

Then any of the witnesses must have failed to ID the suspect... and that is what Cox describes a man they follow (Presumably because they had to let him go) who they were unable to construct a case against

As you say Anderson still hasn't formed his opinion by aug/sept 1889

But its all simply explained by two separate unrelated events with the same suspect upto March 1889.

And a later event ID by a later witness, late 1890 early 1891

Yours jeff