Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Schwartz v. Lawende

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hi Hamrammr!

    Thanks, very interesting.

    Swanson´s report dated 19 October 1888 to the Home Office does mean that this report is the first entry in the HO 144/221/A49301C ? Correctly? Further entries and notes were made later.

    13 Nov. 1888 Mr. H. Hales (?)

    states that Mr. Packer believes the murder to be his own cousin

    Commr. of Police

    14. Nov. 1888
    (date stamp)

    Manchester Guardian 19 November 1888:

    The statement made by a man to Packer, the fruit seller of Berner-street, that he was of opinion that his cousin had committed the foul deeds, is still being investigated by the detectives, who are inclined to doubt the veracity of the greater portion of the details. They, however, believe they have found the cousin referred to, and attach little importance to what was at first supposed to be a substantial clue.

    Is it Mr. H. Hales who states that Mr. Packer believes the murder to be his own cousin?

    Who is Mr. H. Hales?

    I found a Mr. Matthew H. Hale, solicitor:

    http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...nn-austin.html

    This "Packer-entry" what is next to it?

    Regards, Karsten.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by S.Brett View Post
      Hi Hamrammr!

      Thanks, very interesting.

      Swanson´s report dated 19 October 1888 to the Home Office does mean that this report is the first entry in the HO 144/221/A49301C ? Correctly? Further entries and notes were made later.

      13 Nov. 1888 Mr. H. Hales (?)

      states that Mr. Packer believes the murder to be his own cousin

      Commr. of Police

      14. Nov. 1888
      (date stamp)

      Manchester Guardian 19 November 1888:

      The statement made by a man to Packer, the fruit seller of Berner-street, that he was of opinion that his cousin had committed the foul deeds, is still being investigated by the detectives, who are inclined to doubt the veracity of the greater portion of the details. They, however, believe they have found the cousin referred to, and attach little importance to what was at first supposed to be a substantial clue.

      Is it Mr. H. Hales who states that Mr. Packer believes the murder to be his own cousin?

      Who is Mr. H. Hales?

      I found a Mr. Matthew H. Hale, solicitor:

      http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...nn-austin.html

      This "Packer-entry" what is next to it?

      Regards, Karsten.
      Hi Karsten,

      Yes, this is what is confusing me. It's not clear which of these is being reported in the Manchester Guardian. Either:

      1. Hales told Packer that he believed his (Hales') cousin was the murderer, or:
      2. Hales told Packer that he believed Packer's cousin was the murder.

      The two accounts make it unclear.

      Also, what was the 'substantial clue?' Was it merely the report made by Hales?

      Many thanks,
      Dean
      "We want to assemble all the incomplete movements, like cubists, until the point is reached where the crime can commit itself."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hamrammr View Post
        Hi Karsten,

        Yes, this is what is confusing me. It's not clear which of these is being reported in the Manchester Guardian. Either:

        1. Hales told Packer that he believed his (Hales') cousin was the murderer, or:
        2. Hales told Packer that he believed Packer's cousin was the murder.

        The two accounts make it unclear.

        Also, what was the 'substantial clue?' Was it merely the report made by Hales?

        Many thanks,
        Dean
        Hi Dean,

        It might have been that way:

        The first report (or information) made by Hales (on 13 November 1888) stated, wrongly, that Packer suspected his own cousin.

        This information, after clarification (19 November 1888), turned out as a statement made by a man to Packer that this man was of opinion that his cousin had committed the foul deeds.

        I am a "Kosminski man" and I have a theory that Packer had seen Aaron Kozminski on the night of the Double Event in Berner Street. Packer stated that he had seen this man later in October 1888. Packer said that the man lived "in the next street". The cousin of Aaron Kozminski was Morris Lubnowski, a bootlaster, and he lived in Greenfield Street, a street "next" to Berner Street. The shop of Packer was between Greenfield Street (the cousin Morris) and Providence Street (Aaron´s brother Woolf Abrahams lived there). Packer said that he saw this suspect again at the end of Greenfield Street (end of October 1888).

        Perhaps, Morris Lubnowski talked to Packer (for whatever reasons) around the time of the first statement (Hales). But this is pure speculation.

        All of this happened following the Kelly murder. In my theory no one (family and police) did know where Aaron Kozminski was staying between 9 and 22 November 1888. In such a case, via press, the police could have played down the "substantial clue"... maybe it was a strategy of the police to say "little importance"...

        Many greetings from Germany,

        Karsten.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by S.Brett View Post
          Hi Dean,

          It might have been that way:

          The first report (or information) made by Hales (on 13 November 1888) stated, wrongly, that Packer suspected his own cousin.

          This information, after clarification (19 November 1888), turned out as a statement made by a man to Packer that this man was of opinion that his cousin had committed the foul deeds.

          I am a "Kosminski man" and I have a theory that Packer had seen Aaron Kozminski on the night of the Double Event in Berner Street. Packer stated that he had seen this man later in October 1888. Packer said that the man lived "in the next street". The cousin of Aaron Kozminski was Morris Lubnowski, a bootlaster, and he lived in Greenfield Street, a street "next" to Berner Street. The shop of Packer was between Greenfield Street (the cousin Morris) and Providence Street (Aaron´s brother Woolf Abrahams lived there). Packer said that he saw this suspect again at the end of Greenfield Street (end of October 1888).

          Perhaps, Morris Lubnowski talked to Packer (for whatever reasons) around the time of the first statement (Hales). But this is pure speculation.

          All of this happened following the Kelly murder. In my theory no one (family and police) did know where Aaron Kozminski was staying between 9 and 22 November 1888. In such a case, via press, the police could have played down the "substantial clue"... maybe it was a strategy of the police to say "little importance"...

          Many greetings from Germany,

          Karsten.
          Hi Karsten,

          Yes, it does sound like a mix-up in the reporting. Makes a lot more sense that the customer's cousin was the one suspected and not Packer's. Thanks!

          Dean
          "We want to assemble all the incomplete movements, like cubists, until the point is reached where the crime can commit itself."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by S.Brett View Post
            Hi Dean,

            It might have been that way:

            The first report (or information) made by Hales (on 13 November 1888) stated, wrongly, that Packer suspected his own cousin.

            This information, after clarification (19 November 1888), turned out as a statement made by a man to Packer that this man was of opinion that his cousin had committed the foul deeds.

            I am a "Kosminski man" and I have a theory that Packer had seen Aaron Kozminski on the night of the Double Event in Berner Street. Packer stated that he had seen this man later in October 1888. Packer said that the man lived "in the next street". The cousin of Aaron Kozminski was Morris Lubnowski, a bootlaster, and he lived in Greenfield Street, a street "next" to Berner Street. The shop of Packer was between Greenfield Street (the cousin Morris) and Providence Street (Aaron´s brother Woolf Abrahams lived there). Packer said that he saw this suspect again at the end of Greenfield Street (end of October 1888).

            Perhaps, Morris Lubnowski talked to Packer (for whatever reasons) around the time of the first statement (Hales). But this is pure speculation.

            All of this happened following the Kelly murder. In my theory no one (family and police) did know where Aaron Kozminski was staying between 9 and 22 November 1888. In such a case, via press, the police could have played down the "substantial clue"... maybe it was a strategy of the police to say "little importance"...

            Many greetings from Germany,

            Karsten.
            Yes most interesting your cousin theory makes much sense...are you using the date 22nd November because of the incident with Matilda in Brick Lane?

            Are you ruling out a connection to the attack on Annie Farmer?

            Yours Jeff

            Comment


            • Morning Karsten further to me last post:

              This 'Cousin' theory if correct gives some credence to the idea that Aaron Kozminski was suspected by his own family of being jack the Ripper....And while interesting is a double edged sword

              I've been thinking for some time now that if this were the case it might be argued that MacNAughten and Anderson had the SAME reason of suspecting their suspects...that they spoke to family members who claimed they were Jack they Ripper.....This might give both men firm 'conviction' especially if either men did not know about the others 'private info' (I reference the Crawford letter here)... However one or other has to be wrong.....and the possibility remains both families were mistaken..So both men might have firm conviction and be mistaken..What it explains however, is why the policeman involved said what they did....

              Balancing the two suspects without Anderson and Manaughtens evidence I am still inclined to prefer Kozminski on the grounds that I believe a Druit killer would attack over a broader area than just Whitechapel, so the geography is more compelling with Kozminski

              Yours Jeff

              PS I've been giving thought to your comments on Sims.....The only conclusion I can draw is he must have had information from Anderson...do you think like Littlechilde he may also have written to Anderson when making his enquiries?
              Last edited by Jeff Leahy; 02-18-2016, 04:15 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                Yes most interesting your cousin theory makes much sense...are you using the date 22nd November because of the incident with Matilda in Brick Lane?
                Yes, Jeff...

                Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                Are you ruling out a connection to the attack on Annie Farmer?
                Yes, I am... and ruling out Alice Mackenzie...

                I am claiming that the police and the amily did not know where Aaron was staying after the Kelly murder and that Morris asked Packer:

                Have you seen my brother? We do not know where he is! (Maybe Packer was used to see the brother).

                See also my posts on JTRForums:

                http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....337#post290337

                Yours Karsten.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                  I've been thinking for some time now that if this were the case it might be argued that MacNAughten and Anderson had the SAME reason of suspecting their suspects...that they spoke to family members who claimed they were Jack they Ripper.....This might give both men firm 'conviction' especially if either men did not know about the others 'private info' (I reference the Crawford letter here)... However one or other has to be wrong.....and the possibility remains both families were mistaken..So both men might have firm conviction and be mistaken..What it explains however, is why the policeman involved said what they did....
                  I agree!

                  Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                  Balancing the two suspects without Anderson and Manaughtens evidence I am still inclined to prefer Kozminski on the grounds that I believe a Druit killer would attack over a broader area than just Whitechapel, so the geography is more compelling with Kozminski
                  Right!

                  Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                  Sims.....The only conclusion I can draw is he must have had information from Anderson...do you think like Littlechilde he may also have written to Anderson when making his enquiries?
                  I do not know...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Hamrammr View Post
                    Hi Karsten,

                    Yes, it does sound like a mix-up in the reporting. Makes a lot more sense that the customer's cousin was the one suspected and not Packer's. Thanks!

                    Dean
                    Hello Dean,

                    That would be one way.

                    Karsten.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by S.Brett View Post
                      Yes, Jeff...

                      Yes, I am... and ruling out Alice Mackenzie...
                      I understand your reasoning for this...But it is still a major sticking point, especially as we don't know at what date Kozminski was released from the Private asylum

                      As I pointed out if the family paid a quarter (1yr) upfront which seems to be a typical requirement its possible he was back on the street in time

                      I'd prefer to remain open minded

                      Yorus Jeff

                      Comment


                      • Hi Jeff,

                        Never say never...

                        But the same mistake tiwce? If Kosminski was kept under surveillance after the Double Event but not around the time of the Kelly murder, after this murder, the police would have watched this suspect (at large) by day and night... and when he was at liberty (his time in Surrey)...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by S.Brett View Post
                          Hi Jeff,

                          Never say never...

                          But the same mistake tiwce? If Kosminski was kept under surveillance after the Double Event but not around the time of the Kelly murder, after this murder, the police would have watched this suspect (at large) by day and night... and when he was at liberty (his time in Surrey)...
                          Agreed but we know that Kozminski was back on the street and NOT being watched in Dec 1889...

                          Even if he'd only just got out thats one hell of a time to keep surveillance

                          My guess is that no one new he was out....they didn't have a case against him after all

                          MacNAughten ' and I believe he still is'

                          Until the Kozminski family approached Anderson asking for help...

                          If Anderson said to Swanson...do you know anyone by the name Kozminski, suddenly bels start to ring.... But I think the case was pulled back after March 1889, Abberline being transfer around May presumably while Koz was still in the private asylum?

                          And whether Koz in out in July or Dec, he's out after three months or six you takes your pick...also typical psychotic episodes last 18-22 weeks so july would fit a release if that was his cycle

                          Yours Jeff
                          Last edited by Jeff Leahy; 02-18-2016, 11:01 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Hi Jeff!

                            Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                            Agreed but we know that Kozminski was back on the street and NOT being watched in Dec 1889...
                            PC Borer (City Police) saw Aaron Kozminski with an unmuzzled dog and this would mean: NOT being watched by officers? Please explain this to me a little more precisely.

                            Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                            Even if he'd only just got out thats one hell of a time to keep surveillance

                            My guess is that no one new he was out....they didn't have a case against him after all
                            Cox:

                            Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes.

                            There were several other officers with me, and I think there can be no harm in stating that the opinion of most of them was that the man they were watching had something to do with the crimes


                            Sagar:

                            suspicion fell upon a man, who, without doubt, was the murderer

                            I feel sure we knew the man

                            Too important... I guess the police took no risk...

                            Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                            MacNAughten ' and I believe he still is'
                            Could indicate an "in and out of an asylum suspect"... and Macnaghten got this information...

                            Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                            Until the Kozminski family approached Anderson asking for help...

                            If Anderson said to Swanson...do you know anyone by the name Kozminski, suddenly bels start to ring....
                            Cox:

                            We told them we were factory inspectors looking for tailors and capmakers

                            ... and this happened after the Kelly murder.

                            If I am not wrong the Sweating System inquiries (see Crawford) started when "Kosminski" was removed to a private asylum (March 1889). Before that Cox and his colleagues were factory inspectors looking for tailors and capmakers. I think it is possible that the Crawford Letter was written in October/November 1888. The reason why Cox and Co. were factory inspectors looking for tailors and capmakers could have been:

                            They were watching a man in a street with tailors and capmakers. Within of some months they could have seen many things. Things in terms of crime etc. and Crawford sprang into action again...

                            Karsten.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by S.Brett View Post

                              If I am not wrong the Sweating System inquiries (see Crawford) started when "Kosminski" was removed to a private asylum (March 1889). Before that Cox and his colleagues were factory inspectors looking for tailors and capmakers. I think it is possible that the Crawford Letter was written in October/November 1888. The reason why Cox and Co. were factory inspectors looking for tailors and capmakers could have been:

                              They were watching a man in a street with tailors and capmakers. Within of some months they could have seen many things. Things in terms of crime etc. and Crawford sprang into action again...

                              Karsten.
                              I'm not going to reply to that tonight.... You have to except surely that the main set of events happened much later January 1891

                              We have to join the events?

                              Yours Jeff

                              Comment


                              • After the double event

                                It could be that the police did not know where Kosminski was?

                                Woolf pulled his daughter Rebecca out of Berner street school while living at Providence street on 11/10/88 and she didn't restart Settles school (now living at 34 Yalford Street) untill 6/5/89.

                                Maybe they didnt tell anyone where they were going or lied and said they were going away? The next family record was the birth of Woolf and Betsys son, Joseph, at 34 Yalford Street on 9 March 1889 who sadly died after 2 days.

                                Info from RIP128 New Light on Aaron Kosminski (Chris Phillips and myself)

                                Pat...................

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X