Ep. #28- Kosminski Was The Suspect

[Robert]

So we have Woolf at 34 Yalford, and Lubnowski had been at 32 from 1882 -1885.

[robhouse]

It seems morris and matilda moved sometime between Feb 1891 (when Aaron was admitted to Mile End from 16 Greenfield St) and April 1891 when Morris and Matilda show up in the census at 63 New Street.

In the April 91 census Isaac is still at 74 Greenfield St. On May 4 Isaac removed his daughter from the Settles St school, and by July 1891 no one is registered at 74 Greenfield St (1892 Electoral register). So he probably moved around May 1891.

As Chris wrote:

"Isaac may have moved away from 74 Greenfield Street soon after the date of the 1891 census (5 April), as he did not appear on the electoral register compiled that July, despite having previously been registered. He had definitely left by July 1892, when another man was listed at that address. In October 1893, the family moved to 171 Cable Street, where they would remain for at least the next two decades."

On 18 March 1898 Isaac is listed as:

"Isaac and Bertha Abrahams of 171 Cable Street St George's, E., and 11 York terrace, Ramsgate"

And in the 1899 Ramsgate & St Lawrence Directory :
"Abrahams, Isaac, lodging house, 11, York Terrace, West Cliff"

It seems Isaac's wife Bertha later lived at this address, and also at 25 Albion Place Ramsgate, and I think Isaac is listed at both addresses. Seems he owned the boarding house, but kept his address at Cable St.

From Chris: "After Bertha's death [in 1914], Isaac probably moved away from 171 Cable Street, his home of more than 20 years. By Jan 1915 (see below), he is living at the Rising Sun at 87 Sidney St with his son Mark and daughter Ray, and by mid-1919 he was living again with his son and daughter-in-law, Mark and Florence, at the "Dolphin", a public house at 97-99 Whitechapel Road [11]. Mark Abrahams was listed as publican of the "Dolphin" in the Post Office Directories for 1918-1922 (together with Edward Cecil Moore from 1919 onwards) [12]."

I am sure I may have got some of this mixed up. Chris, do you think Isaac and Bertha lived at Ramsgate, and essentially had 2 addresses, or do you see this as more of a business they were running there? Or both?

Rob H

[dougie]

Just a thank you to everyone who took part in the Kosminski podcast for an enjoyable and informative few hours of discussion.I enjoyed it immensely....Didnt even know what a podcast was previously.....now where is that podcast on Druitt,thats next on my list.
regards

[Jeff Leahy]

PS excuse my ignorance but did the Kosminski's own or rent these properties?

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

I think it's also worth considering a more prosaic reason for the Lubnowskis' move from 16 Greenfield Street to 63 New Street, which apparently coincided with Aaron's committal - the birth of twins to Matilda in the middle of March 1891, to add to the five children they already had.

Hi Chris, thanks for that..but did not Rob say that two families moved? Do I have this wrong?

also Chris Scott mentions that they move to Ramsgate, but I was unclear about the time scale, any advice would be much appreciated

Pirate

[Chris]

My knowledge of geography is hazy, so bear with me. Isn't it the case that Whitechapel extended further into "the City" than is commonly supposed? There was a case discussed over on the Forums, where the boundary ran two thirds of the way through a pub. Also, I think Scott Nelson made a point about how far west Whitechapel extended in his latest essay in the Rip. So, could there not have been a certain ambiguity in the meanings of the terms "City" and "Whitechapel" close to the borderline?

I think "Septic Blue" discovered that there was a small portion of Whitechapel parish which, anomalously, lay within the City boundary - a matter of two or three houses if I remember correctly. But I find it difficult to believe that a subtlety like that is the explanation for Swanson's statement.

Incidentally, as Rob mentioned a little new information about Woolf Abrahams's residences, perhaps it is worth posting the details here.

The last location for Woolf that we have before 1888 is 62 Greenfield Street, where he was living in July 1887 (according to the 1888 electoral register).

He was previously known to have been at 3 Sion Square by 26 May 1890, when his daughter Matilda was born there.

Now in addition we know that Woolf's daughter Rebecca was admitted to the Infants' section of Settles Street School on 6 May 1889, her address then being 34 Yalford Street (which ran between and parallel to Plummers Row and Greenfield Street) [LMA LCC/EO/DIV05/SET/AD/006, no 11544]. Rebecca transferred to the Girls' section on 25 February 1890, by which time her address was 3 Zion Square [LMA LCC/EO/DIV05/SET/AD/001, no 2017].

[Chris]

and perhaps thats what forced the families hand, so they had him committed?

I think it's also worth considering a more prosaic reason for the Lubnowskis' move from 16 Greenfield Street to 63 New Street, which apparently coincided with Aaron's committal - the birth of twins to Matilda in the middle of March 1891, to add to the five children they already had.

[Monty]

Without giving too much away...

...with regard a certain publication out this month but the drafting in of officers from other areas happend throughout the investigation, as early as September. Sometimes to much confusion.

Jeff- overt obs would certainly be a deterent but sometimes the odds had to be weighed.

[Jeff Leahy]

When I was in the job we sometimes used officers from other areas for observations, especially following, as they would not be recognised by local villains.

But surely you wouldnt have drafted 'undercovers from another division? as in this case?

And if they had a positively identified suspect they were forced to release, while they gather more evidence or get witness to testify, would not their main concern be that the suspect doesn't get away or commit anymore crimes, so having a highly visable 'saveillance' may have been a good idea, the suspect knowing he is being watched...

and perhaps thats what forced the families hand, so they had him committed?

Pirate

[Robert]

My knowledge of geography is hazy, so bear with me. Isn't it the case that Whitechapel extended further into "the City" than is commonly supposed? There was a case discussed over on the Forums, where the boundary ran two thirds of the way through a pub. Also, I think Scott Nelson made a point about how far west Whitechapel extended in his latest essay in the Rip. So, could there not have been a certain ambiguity in the meanings of the terms "City" and "Whitechapel" close to the borderline?

[Stewart P Evans]

Observations

Thanks. That's an interesting point, which I must admit hadn't occurred to me.

When I was in the job we sometimes used officers from other areas for observations, especially following, as they would not be recognised by local villains.

[Chris]

Use of the City detectives for such observations would, of course, have been preferred as they would have been far less likely to have been recognised by the locals than the local CID.

Thanks. That's an interesting point, which I must admit hadn't occurred to me.

[Stewart P Evans]

City Murder

Stewart
While you're here, I wonder whether you have any thoughts on the question of why the City, rather than the Metropolitan, CID should have been used (according to the Marginalia) to carry out the surveillance on the house of Aaron's brother "in Whitechapel".

Accepting that the marginalia, or rather endpaper note, is correct I can only assume that it would have been because the subject (i.e. 'Kosminski') was suspected of a City murder, i.e. Eddowes. This, of course, reinforces the idea that Lawende was the witness used, and not Schwartz. The Met's use of the same witness (with Sadler) was, presumably, because they suspected him of also being the killer of Stride. Use of the City detectives for such observations would, of course, have been preferred as they would have been far less likely to have been recognised by the locals than the local CID.

[Chris]

Stewart

While you're here, I wonder whether you have any thoughts on the question of why the City, rather than the Metropolitan, CID should have been used (according to the Marginalia) to carry out the surveillance on the house of Aaron's brother "in Whitechapel".

[Stewart P Evans]

Schwartz and Lawende

Swanson on Schwartz as a witness - "...account must be taken of the fact that the throat only of the victim was cut in this instance which measured by time, considering meeting (if with a man other than Schwartz saw) the time for agreement & the murderous action would I think be a question of so many minutes, five at least, ten at most, so that I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer, although it is clearly the more probable of the two." (the other being seen by PC Smith).

Swanson on Lawende as a witness - "...Mr. Lamende [sic] states that he could not identify the man, but also the woman stood with her back to him, with her hand on the man's breast, he could not identify the body mutilated as it was, as that of the woman whose back he had seen, but to the best of his belief the clothing of the deceased, which was black was similar to that worn by the woman whom he had seen. and that was the full extent of his identity."

Neither of these witnesses inspire confidence and any defence counsel would make short work of them in a court of law. Add to that the fact that the alleged identificaton of Kosminski was carried out over two years later it would have been totally worthless for a conviction. This, indeed, makes a total nonsense of Anderson's claims which are impossible given that it can't be proved that either of them saw the killer, Anderson was talking in terms of a 'definitely ascertained fact.'

However, as to which witness was used the record, such as it is, favours Lawende as we are told in the Daily Telegraph report of 18 February 1891 that it was he whom was used in the failed identification of Sadler (just a week after Aaron Kosminski was banged up). There are deeper considerations here.