Search in titles only Search in Witnesses only
Ripper Discussions
Why Wasn't Hutchinson used to try to ID Kosminski?
tanta07
Originally posted by Columbo View Post
As with everything else involving the ripper, no one author provides all the information. For a convincing case on Kosminski read "Jack the Ripper and the Case for Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect".
Sudgen's book is excellent but far from exhaustive in the suspect department. I usually skip those chapters when I'm re-reading it.
I read Robert House's book back when it first came out. I've been meaning to give it another read. I need to find it - it's currently buried somewhere in my house (I tend to leave books lying all over the place).
Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
To each his own, but Paul Begg argues the exact opposite in 'The Facts.'
Lawende didn't see a crime being committed, and thus his testimony could not have led to the suspect being hanged, whereas Schwartz saw an actual physical altercation, and thus his testimony would have been more damaging. I believe that is his reasoning.
"Find the witness" is a game Ripperologists play, but there were multiple witnesses and no one was certain who saw what, including the Met in 1888.
Either way, Anderson's claim is highly dubious on legal grounds.
If the suspect was insane, he couldn't plead; if he couldn't plead, he couldn't stand trial; if he couldn't stand trial, he couldn't hang.
Ergo the witness's testimony couldn't have led to the suspect being executed, which was supposedly the reason why the witness refused to testify.
The more one examines it, the more problematic Anderson's insistence becomes.
Quickly passing through, but I think I'm right in saying that Anderson only said that both the witness and the suspect were Jews and that the witness refused to testify against a fellow Jew. It was Swanson who added that the witness also feared that his testimony would lead to the suspected being hanged. Whether or not the suspect would have been hanged if he was insane (which, of course, was highly unlikely), it could have been, and if we believe Swanson, it was what the witness believed. I'm sure the police would have done everything in their power to enlighten the witness, but perhaps he was intransigent. Anyway, the point is that the execution of the suspect was the witness's belief, presumably not that of either Anderson or Swanson, both of whom would presumably have known that an insane man would not hang. It may be, of course, that it was not obvious to anyone at the time of the identification that the suspect was insane, in which case the matter of hanging is moot. In Anderson's case, however, it might be worth noting that in the Blackwood's article he says the suspect was already in an asylum. Hanging would then have been out of the question.
You are right in saying that the case I made was that Lawende only saw a woman he identified as Eddowes talking with a man. I'm sure the suspect's defence counsel would have argued that (a) Lawende paid hardly any attention to the man and therefore could not be certain of his identification (which is basically what Lawende said himself), and (b) that his identification of Eddowes was equally uncertain, and that even if it had been Eddowes there was no evidence that he didn't part from her company soon after Lawende must have passed. Of course, there may have been a mountain of circumstantial evidence against the suspect and the testimony of the eyewitness, showing the suspect and victim together shortly before the latter was found dead, clinched the case. If that was the case then my argument has little merit, otherwise I would say that Schwartz, who saw an altercation, is a better possibility. As you say, pin a tail on the suspect is a game Ripperologists play. Although, of course, the witness was apparently a Jew, which limits the number of known candidates.
Originally posted by PaulB View Post
I too believe Schwarz would make a better witness than Lawende, the only problem I find with Schwarz, and I hope you comment on this, is that Swanson pointed that Schwarz was mistaking the time of his sighting.
All that makes me think there was a witness that we still don't know anything about.
Originally posted by tanta07 View Post
excellent book. one of the best "suspect" books
Originally posted by The Baron View Post
Pall Mall Gazette talking about the man used as a witness against Grainger:
...whom the police believe to have actually seen the WC murderer with a woman a few minutes before that womans dissected body was found in the street.
so the witness is Lawende as stride was not mutilated (dissected). cant be schwartz.
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Pall Mall Gazette of 7 May 1895 say 'there is one person whom the police believe...'? I don't think anyone is disputing that Lawende may have seen Jack the Ripper with Eddowes, or even that Anderson and Swanson might have among those who believed he did, but the phrasing doesn't mean Lawende was the same person as the witness who identified Anderson's suspect. The newspaper report also stated that the witness had only a 'cursory glance', which raises the question of whether anyone would ever have thought that an identification based on such a 'cursory glance' would have resulted in a conviction (given the caveats already outlined). On which point, Anderson said his witness was 'the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer'. It can't be said of Lawende that he had a 'good view' of anyone. It was but a 'cursory glance'. And if Anderson's eye-witness had been Lawende, what worth would Lawende's testimony have been in the case of Grainger if he'd already positively identified someone else? Indeed, would the police have brought in Lawende to identity Grainger if he had already made one positive identification?
Swanson said that 15 minutes separated Schwartz's sighting from the discovery of Stride's body, and he rightly pointed out that this was ample time for her to have recovered from the assault witnessed by Schwartz and to have been accosted by someone else. This was Swanson's view at the time of stride's murder, a time when he was leaving open the possibility that the man seen by Schwartz was not Stride's killer. But equally, of course, Stride was dead and undiscovered in the passage and that Schwartz did see her killer. That's just my view on it.
but the phrasing doesn't mean Lawende was the same person as the witness who identified Anderson's suspect.
I think its a pretty obvious inference. even without actually naming him, Lawende was the only jewish witness who saw the ripper "with a woman a few minutes before that womans dissected body was found in the street." hes the only witness it could be.
as for the rest of your post I was only commenting on the likelihood of Lawende being the Koz ID witness. but to address your point, they used him for Grant and apparently Grainger so it seems he was the only witness the police trusted the most and could still track down years later. and to me, using him for different suspects many years later only highlights how the police were clutching at straws and how much Andersons "definitely ascertained fact" that Koz was the ripper was just a bunch of hot air.
I don't think the witness was Lawende
- He was used to identify another suspect, and that doesn't make sense unless the Kosminski's identification took place after that.
- Lawende, Levy and Hayam, the 3 of them lived in Whitchapel, and I think Lewende will recognise Kosminski if he had a good view of him sooner or later, no need to arrange with difficulties that identification.
-Lawende didn't have a good view of the murderer.
-Lawende didn't see the man attacking the woman.
-(but when he learned that the suspect was a jew) using the word "learned" makes me think the witness may have difficulties to understand english.
Schwarz superpasses Lawende in all those points.
I still think, it could have been another witness whom we don't know about.
Andersons "definitely ascertained fact" that Koz was the ripper was just a bunch of hot air.
I dare say Abby, that Kosminski is the solo suspect in the whole case.
Suspect of course doesn't equal a convicted murderer.
All other named persons are merely persons of interest.
hi baron
dont get me wrong, ive always considered koz a viable suspect indeed one of the strongest of a weak group, Andersons bloviating notwithstanding.
I said that it wasn't disputed that Lawende was the witness who saw a woman shortly before her body was found. I questioned whether that witness was the witness who identified Anderson's suspect. I gave you my reasons, not the least of which was that Anderson said the witness got a good view of the suspect, which even the Pall Mall Gazette acknowledged Lawende did not.
And maybe you're right and Anderson was spouting a lot of hot air. I just wish there was good evidence one way or the other.
Trevor Marriott
The spanner in the works is that Lawende was a City Police witness. It was the Met that supposedly conducted and organised the ID parade, why would they do that unless they were going to also use one of their own witnesses i.e. Schwartz, and what followed thereafter as written in the marginalia also doesn't make sense.
More nails in the coffin of the marginalia
www.trevormarriott.co.uk
There is plenty of evidence to show why the ID parade could not have happened in the way described in the marginalia.
More to show it didn't happen than it did.
agree. while i question andersons conclusion of a definietly ascertained fact i equally question Sugdens conclusion of "exhonerating" koz. Ive always felt that Koz was a viable suspect. hes the only suspect that has any kind of direct tangible evidence against (eyewitness/ID), was definitely in the area and local and did threaten his sister with a knife (which I beleive is probably the incident that brought him to the attention of the police).