|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through October 06, 2003 | Andy and Sue Parlour | 25 | 1 | 10-06-03 4:28 am |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 911
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 4:42 am: | 
|
Thanks Andy.
PS your PS was cut short!
Robert |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 347
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 10:06 am: |
|
Hi, Andy:
I like the thought of you pushing Sue forward to ask the questions while you hide around the corner. I could imagine the same thing being done in 1888 with a husband and wife team of sleuths. 
Nice to know that there may be in existence a photograph of Joseph Lawende that may be made public. That would be terrific. Keep us posted.
All the best
Chris |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Hello Chris,
Yes, it is no good hiding the truth. My secret is now out! That is the way we have found out some things. The Stride info from the Swedish Church for example, laid in a dusty old draw in Stockholm for over a 100 years until we found it with the help of a Swedish Verger, but that's another story!
I have 2 cousins who are Police Inspectors and they both admit gentle persuasion is the better choice especially when questioning anyone.
We have been told that there is the possibility of a photo of Joseph Lawende, so let's keep our fingers crossed.
A&S |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Hi, Andy and Sue:
Nice to get some insight into your research methods. Andy and Sue Parlour = Bad Cop and Good Cop. 
Chris |
BAPearce
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 4:43 am: |
|
Hello Leanne is Ripperoo Australian by any remote chance Belinda |
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 12:08 pm: |
|
While looking for something else last night in the Ultimate JtR Companion, I read a newspaper account from the East Anglian Daily Times, 26 November 188 regarding the Annie Farmer attack. The interesting thing was at the end of the article which stated, "Two of the men who described at the time the man believed to have committed the Berners [sic] Street and other murders, to-day reported that they have again seen him, but that though they followed him he disappeared suddenly down an unfrequented turning."
Now if memory serves me correctly, only two men supposedly saw what was suspected as the murderer of Elizabeth Stride: Schwartz and, ahem, Packer. Yet Kate Eddowes did have three men who saw the man she was with: Lawende,Levy and Harris. In my mind, despite what Chris found regarding a Lawende and Schwartz living on the same street, I suspect that, if it truly did happen, it was Lawende with either Levy or Harris. That is assuming that there are not two other witnesses floating around which we are unaware of.
Does anyone have any further information regarding that story?
And while dealing with Lawende, has anyone reconciled Lawende being able to furnish a partial description of the man with Kate, despite his statement of not being able to recognize him again, with Harris's statement of belief in the A-Z from the Evening News, 9 October 1888, that "...neither Mr. Levander [sic]nor Mr. Levy saw anything more than he did, and that was only the back of the man."
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 11:51 am: |
|
"...neither Mr. Levander [sic]nor Mr. Levy saw anything more than he did, and that was only the back of the man."
>>This is an interesting statement, and more should be discussed about it here. Lawende supposedly said that he saw Eddowes' back and her companion's front. So exactly how were the couple standing when passed by Lawende, Harris and Levy? I'd think that they must have had the ability to see the couple in profile at least briefly, since they said that Eddowes was resting her hand on the man's chest. This couldn't be seen if all they had was a view from either Eddowes' her companion's back.
I have always interpreted the scene as the man facing in the direction of St. Botolph's church, and Lawende turning his head to the left to view the couple in profile as he passed.
Saddam
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 415
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 10:59 am: |
|
Dave,
Odd that. Ive always interpretted it as the man on the angle facing between St Boltophs and Aldgate.
Monty
 |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 9:08 pm: |
|
"...the man on the angle facing between St Boltophs and Aldgate."
>>Same here. This would have the man facing Lawende.
Saddam
|
afamon
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 11:18 am: |
|
Mon grand pere s appelle Israel Mendel Lawende,mort dans le getto de varsovie,il avait aussi un commerce de tabac.
ALAIN HOFFMANN |
Stepan Poberowski
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 9:22 am: |
|
Hi all
According to FreeBMD, Joseph Lavender married Annie Lowenthal in March 1873 and Leopold Lavender married Fanny Lowenthal (b. Sept. 1852, Whitechapel) in September 1872 (both in the City of London). Our Lawende and his relative married sisters!
All the best,
Stepan |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 437
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:17 am: |
|
Alain,
Je nas pas comprendais vous.
J'habit dans la maison !
Vous grand pere Lewande...oui?
Notre Lewande ??
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 180
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:40 am: |
|
Monty,
Don't go moving to France anytime soon d'accord!
Stepan,
I must have missed something here. Why were you looking for a Joseph Lavender?
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1440
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:56 am: |
|
Monty
Good moaning.
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 442
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:59 am: |
|
Sarah,
Mai oui...mai oui mon petit choux fille !
Ron,
You stuuuuuupid woman !!
Monty
 |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 183
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Allo allo,
I'm feeling a very European air to this thread.
Ok, just spotted the Lavender reference earlier in the thread so just ignore my question.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 204
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 12:31 pm: |
|
Monty,
I think Alain is responding to the very first post on this thread which points out that Joseph Lawende was a commercial traveller in the cigarette trade and was born in Warsaw. Alain's grandfather was called Israel Lawende and died in the Warsaw Ghetto during WW2, and was also in the tobacco trade so possibly it was a family business and the two were related in some way. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 445
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 4:27 am: |
|
Alan...or is it ALAIN...eh?
I picked that up.
I was just trying to establish, in my flatulent..Im mean fluent (maybe right the 1st time) french if he meant OUR Lewande.
How has he made this link?
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 187
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 4:47 am: |
|
Monty,
Maybe Alain's grandfather was a brother or cousin or something.
Alain,
Savez-vous plus d'informations sur votre grand-père? J'espère que vous mettez plus de messages ici. Merci.
Sarah |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 446
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 7:57 am: |
|
Sarah,
No one likes a show off.
Alain...or is it Alan ?
Yes, can you any info you have regrading your Grandad here please ?
It maybe worth looking at.
Avanti Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 190
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 9:11 am: |
|
Monty,
As if I would!!
Do we have any information of Joseph Lewande? Family details?
Sarah |
Erin Sigler
Inspector
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 199
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 10:30 pm: |
|
Sarah, good question! Anybody know? |
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 2:57 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Sarah, Erin, there are census details for Lawende and family on Witnesses->Lawende,Joseph->Lawende's description->Archive thru October 6, 2003. (sorry, I don't know how to format a link).
Hope this helps
Jim |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 12
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 10:25 am: |
|
If anyone has a photo that is of Joseph Lawende, it would be great to see it on the forum. Also i did read 'The Lodger' by Stewart Evans, it was interesting about the bit in the book about a policeman of the time interviewing Lawende, and his 'hunch' was that he felt Lawende knew more than he was telling, because he was just plain scared. I would personally think that Lawende gave opposite details (for some details) of the killer. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1109
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
I'm not sure whether this has been seen before. I guess it has, as the "A-Z", quoted by Leanne at the head of this thread, gives the date of Lwende's arrival in the UK as 1871.
Anyhow, in case the reference is useful to anyone:
UK National Archives:
HO 144/311/B6288
Nationality and Naturalisation:
Lawende, Joseph, from Russia. Resident in London. Certificate A6137 issued 21 May 1889. 1889
Chris Phillips
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2067
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 4:14 am: |
|
Ben, Caz,
I have moved this to the appropriate thread.
Hope you don’t mind.
Re salient facts
“4) A reporter who interviewed Joseph Levy was of the opinion that he assumed a "knowing air" when quizzed on his suspect sighting. I am certain Lawende was involved in a reporter situation which paralells (sic) that of his companion, but I don't have the details to hand at present.”
Which is the salient fact here? The reporters supposed view or Levy was indeed holding something back?
“7) This very same Jewish witness would, according to Donald Swanson, "be the means of the murderer being hanged". SOMETHING must be behind Swanson's obvious conviction that the jury would return a guilty verdict.”
Seeing as Lawende did not see the females facial details a conviction would not have been obtained. As we know, the description of the male was held back. Not the female. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude Lawende was not certain as to the ID of the woman and therefore could not state for certain that she and the victim were one in the same. On this basis a conviction for murder, which in turn would lead to hanging, would not happened.
If Swanson was certain that this witness would ‘be the means of the murderer being hanged’, then this witness was not Lawende.
“8) In an altercation involving three men against one, the "three" will usually win should the altercation lead to violence.”
This is NO fact. Depends on the three men. Would they come to aid or would they flee? If they did join in would they be capable to succeed? Like I say, there is no guarantee on this issue.
As for George Hutchinson, I agree.
Maybe this was down to the fact that the Met boys found Hutchinson (or rather he came to them) and Lawende was City Polices witness.
Of course, the meeting may have happened and the report of it lost (due to the Blitz damage or pilfering). I would expect Swanson and Anderson to have mentioned it however so yes Ben, I agree completely.
Does this act, or rather non-act, confirm that Hutchinson was regarded completely as a witness and not as a suspect?
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3332
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Hi
you mention that Lawnde was a City and Hutch a Met witness.
would they have shred tatics/information?
Jenni
"trala-la-la-lala-la-la-lalal-la!"
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 104
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Hi Monty,
Apologies for the belated reply.
Seeing as Lawende did not see the females facial details a conviction would not have been obtained.
Well, either they accept the likelihood that Eddowes was the woman observed by the three Jewish witnesses, or embrace an altogethe more absurd concept - one that involves another woman, of the same height as Eddowes and almost identically attired, a woman who for some inexplicable reason, did not come forward to account for her presence and that of her 1:34am companion.
Such is the ludicrousy of the latter scenario, that Eddowes MUST have been woman in question.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2071
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 4:19 am: |
|
Hey Ben,
No apologies needed.
“Such is the ludicrousy of the latter scenario, that Eddowes MUST have been woman in question. “
I agree, however any defence brief worth his salt would point out the fact that Lawende did not ID Eddowes face.
No matter how low the probability that the female he saw was not Eddowes, it is still reasonable to suggest the possibility it was not her.
Her clothing was not exceptional, her height and build not unusual. In order to convict for murder there has to be a certainty beyond reasonable doubt.
If I was a Judge/Juror then I have to say that Lawendes story would not banish this reasonable doubt.
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2427
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 5:07 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
Take the recent, as yet unsolved case here in Croydon, in which a young woman was sexually assaulted and stabbed to death (by a man whose DNA reveals that he has attacked before).
If Lawende and co had been walking past the scene of crime just a little earlier, they might have seen the victim with her male companion, but missed the fatal attack. They would have described this male and, had it not been for DNA technology, he would now be in serious trouble without the ghost of an alibi. And he was in fact the victim's former boyfriend - a classic prime suspect if ever there was one.
As it is, this male said goodnight to the victim and left, and then she was attacked and killed practically on her doorstep, by another man who had presumably watched and waited to pounce the moment she was alone. Lawende and co would have seen sweet Fanny Adams.
Nothing is cut and dried in the ripper case.
Lawende's evidence regarding the couple he saw would never have led, by itself, to anyone being hanged, if the interests of justice were being served.
Love,
Caz
X |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 105
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Hi Monty and Caz,
Of course, it would be erroneous to state that the Mitre square suspect was 100% certain to have been Jack thr Ripper, just as it would be eroneous to asset that Eddowes was 100% certain to have been the woman observed in his company.
As I have demonstrated, however, any alternative solution to the above must be considered unlikely in the extreme. We're not 100% certain, but we're not far off - not by any margin.
A jury would have been resigned to the extreme likelihood that the man and woman observed in Mitre square were JTR and Kate Eddowes respectively. By extension, a guilty verdict would, therefore, result in the hanging of a man who was very probably Jack the Ripper.
Wouldn't any human being living in Whitechapel at the height of the Autumn of Terror (described as such for a very salient reason) wish to dispose, once and for all, of a man who was very probably Jack the Ripper?
Of course, they could adopt an alternative mentality: "Yes, this man was very probably Jack the Ripper, but as there is the tiniest smidgeon of doubt on the subject of identities, we must adhere to proper rules of justice, and allow this man to go free".
For the aformentioned reason, I believe the jury would have made little hesitation in returning a verdict of guily, and it is interesting that Donald Swanson arrived at the same conclusion.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
Best,
Ben |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2434
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
But Ben,
Do you not acknowledge that the circumstances could have been similar to the Croydon case I described?
Without the DNA evidence, you would now be adamant that my hypothetical witnesses very probably saw the killer, when in fact they would have seen the last innocent man to talk with the victim - literally moments before he left and the real killer saw his chance.
I'm not saying this happened in the Mitre Square case. But the defence would not have been doing their job properly if the Eddowes case had come to trial and they didn't hammer home the reasonable doubt that anyone a) actually saw the murderer in the first place, and b) was able to recognise and identify the suspect as the same man they saw briefly that night.
Love,
Caz
X |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 920
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 3:52 pm: |
|
All this devolves around the concept of "reasonable doubt" which I think has caused many legal scholars headaches as to exactly what it means.
Notice that it does not say beyond doubt. If it did nobody would ever be convicted of anything. It is almost easier to describe unreasonable doubt. You caught me with my hand in the cookie jar and crumbs all around my mouth and the cookies all gone. I informed you that I didn't do it, that a flying saucer landed and the little green men got out and ate all the cookies and smeared my face with crumbs and stuck my hand in the empty jar and flew away just before you arrived. You might for a fleeting moment doubt my guilt but the doubt would be an unreasonable doubt because it would be based on an unreasonable scenario.
The people who came up with the phrase "reasonable doubt" knew that if absolute certainty was the standard a lot of guilty people would go free. I think they were trying to say that barring some really wierd set of circumstances the only logical explanation is that this person is guilty. |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 107
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 8:31 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
As far as can be ascertained, the Croydon attacker was not a serial murderer, and as such, s/he does not make for a germane comparison with Jack the Ripper. Again, the ripper's reign of terror created precisely that - terror. If a juror were to be confronted by the likely instigator of that "terror" who, in their right mind, would give him a clean bill of health?
But the defence would not have been doing their job properly if the Eddowes case had come to trial and they didn't hammer home the reasonable doubt that anyone a) actually saw the murderer in the first place
Caz, which of the following would constitute the lesser of two evils: returning a guilty verdict on the grounds that the Mitre Sq. suspect was very probably JTR, or allowing this same suspect to go free on the grounds of "reasonable doubt"? |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 906
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 9:34 pm: |
|
To return for a moment to Jen's query of last Friday, yes, the two departments seem to have cooperated. In a document from October 27, 1888, City Police Inspector James McWilliam wrote "This department is co-operating with the Metropolitan Police in the [Eddowe's murder] matter, and Chief Inspector Swanson and I meet daily and confer on the subject."
Similarly, in a November 6 report to the Home Office Swanson says much the same and specifically mentions Lawende's description. As Hutchinson's description was printed in the newspapers the City Police need only have purchased a copy in that instance.
More to the point of Ben's eagerness to hang high someone, anyone, is that both McWilliams and Swanson were unhappy with Lawende's identification of Eddowes. It was based solely on her clothes as seen from the rear (mainly that they were black). Moreover, Lawende was adamant he could not again identify the man he saw. On that lack of evidence there isn't even a trial.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2436
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:13 am: |
|
Thanks Don - you put it in a nutshell.
Ben,
I don't even want to get into your last point.
Suffice to say, I hope you are never called for jury service. 'Very probably' can fall a mile short, as in the Croydon case. (And it is beginning to look like the Croydon man is a serial sex attacker who has murdered for the first time. The case is very high profile here, and has featured twice on BBC's Crimewatch programme. Had there been no DNA technology, the wrong man would now be believed, by you at least, to be 'very probably' the killer.)
Love,
Caz
X |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2077
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:34 am: |
|
Ben,
Lawendes description of Eddowes does not banish any reasonable doubt against the thought it was indeed NOT her.
As Facial ID was not established, as her attire was common and considering the lighting situation, the question put to Lawende (if any trail did occur) would be...
... "can you state, without any doubt in your mind whatsoever, that the woman you saw with my client outside the poorly lit Church passage, was most certainly the murdered victim you later saw at the mortuary? Baring in mind that in a written statement you gave to the Police, you clearly admit to NOT seeing the said womans face at any stage.......and please remember that you are under sworn oath."
If Lawende states he wasnt sure, no matter what percentage, then the case has to be thrown out.
If Lewande states he is sure, it WAS the woman then he has just perjured himself. The defence would jump on his previous Police statement admitting he did not see the womans face and therefore he has either lied or is mistaken. Whichever of the two, Lawende credability as a witness has been destroyed. A lose lose situation for the prosecution.
The Jury would have no choice.
Lewande, on the face of it, is in reality...and unfortunately, not as hot a witness as some believe.....but still a witness.
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3358
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:39 am: |
|
Guys,
If it was dark and he didn’t see her face. What were the identifying features and was it the Victorian equivalent to wearing jeans?
Jenni
"it's lovely weather for a sleigh ride together with you"
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 907
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
Jenni,
At the inquest, Lawende said of Eddowes: "I only saw her back. She had her hands on his chest. The man was taller than she was. She had a black jacket and a black bonnet. I have seen the articles which it is stated belonged to her at the police station. My belief is that they were the same clothes which I had seen upon the deceased." [emphasis added]
Whether the LVP equivalent of jeans and a T-shirt I couldn't say, but I suppose basic black is always in. Anyway, sounds like a witness description from a Shriner convention: "Well, the suspect WAS wearing a red fez!" Narrows it down.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 108
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
Suffice to say, I hope you are never called for jury service.
Irrelevent and immaterial I'm afraid, Caz. Never having lived in 1888 Spitalfields, in which an atmosphere of ripper-related terror was clearly prevalent, it matters not what you or I would have done under the circumstances. We weren't there.
My suspicion, however (which is bolstered by Swanson's recorded words) is that a jury eager to put an end to the ripper's reign of terror, would rather return a guilty verdict based on the likelihood that the suspect was 95% certain to have been JTR, than allow this man to go FREE, possibly to kill again, on the grounds of the tiniest doubt.
We'd all dearly love to fathom that a 1888 Whitechapel jury would rigorously adhere to the rules of justice, but wishin' it won't make it so, sadly.
We, in 2005, were blissfully spared from enduring that atmosphere of terror created in the wake of the ripper's atrocities, and as such, our objectivity is not so tarnished.
Your position flies haphazardly in the face of the known facts. We know that a Jewish witness was subsequently described as the only man to have got a good look at the murderer. We know that Donald Swanson stated, in no uncertain terms, that this same witness would be the means of the suspect being hanged. Israel Schwarz, for example, got a better look at both suspect and witness, but would his sighting equate to a 100% certainty that he had identified killer and victim? Of course not! And yet Donald Swanson, who was THERE in 1888, was spectacularly convinced that Anderson's witness - whoevever he was - would be "the means of the murderer being hanged".
In order to reconcile the above, you have no option but to embrace one or both of the theories I have posited. Either we accept my initial suggestion that ONE of the Jewish witnesses observed more than they were willing, or perhaps instructed to divulge at the inquest OR we accept that a Jury would be willing to return a guilty verdict upon a fractionally-less-than-100% certainty that they had caught their man.
Incidentally, I was indeed a Jury member - last year at Maidstone Crown Court.
(Message edited by BenH on December 21, 2005)
(Message edited by BenH on December 21, 2005) |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 922
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Since Israel Schwartz got a better view than Lawende, couldn't he be the Jewish witness? |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 912
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Ben,
Is it not possible that in his frustration, years after the fact, that Swanson may have given himself over to some hyperbole? As it was, Swanson could not speak for any jury -- at most he was expressing his fervent hope that a jury would have convicted if a witness had only been more forthcoming. In any case, there are more possibilities than the two you posit.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 116
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Don,
I just can't accept that Swanson would be so incautious with his terminology. He cannot, of course, speak for a jury, but for some reason, he was amazingly confident that any such jury would return a guilty verdict.
I have suggested several reasons for this "confidence", none of which have been satisfactorily refuted.
All my best,
Ben |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 146
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 2:01 pm: |
|
Hey Ben,
We know that a number of men were almost killed by mobs who assumed that they were the Ripper with no evidence whatsoever. So is it conceivable that a jury would convict someone solely on the evidence that Swanson's witness provided? Absolutely. However, that does not necessarily prove that that evidence justified such a verdict.
c.d. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2438
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
We know that a Jewish witness was subsequently described as the only man to have got a good look at the murderer. We know that Donald Swanson stated, in no uncertain terms, that this same witness would be the means of the suspect being hanged.
And therein lies your problem.
A reasonably competent defence lawyer, in a trial situation, would make mincemeat out of the description; it doesn't matter how good a look the best witness got at a man who happened to be near the murder scene, if the murder itself was not witnessed. Had Lawende's two companions gone off in a different direction, Lawende himself would be no less a suspect on that basis than the man they all saw.
It follows that a competent lawyer would make mincemeat out of any suggestion by the prosecution that the jury could safely convict the man in the dock, based on what the witness saw - or much more pertinently on what he didn't see, ie the actual murder.
Love,
Caz
X
PS If you happened to be seen close in time and space to a murder scene, wouldn't you expect a jury to be directed very firmly against convicting you on the grounds that, in their minds, you were 'probably' the killer? |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 128
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 9:29 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
I'm afraid you're still imposing your own moral restraints upon a group of jurors who were residents, unlike us, of Whitechapel during the Autumn of Terror of 1888.
It follows that a competent lawyer would make mincemeat out of any suggestion by the prosecution that the jury could safely convict the man in the dock, based on what the witness saw
It also follows that a competent prosecution lawyer would reinforce the 99.9% likelihood that the couple observed by Lawende and chums were the ripper and his victim (neither of whom EVER came forward to clear their names - I wonder why?). The same is true of Schwarz.
If they allowed this man to go free, he would probably kill again elsewhere. What juror would wish that upon his/her conscience?
it doesn't matter how good a look the best witness got at a man who happened to be near the murder scene, if the murder itself was not witnessed.
This whole premise presupposes that Lawende (or Levy or Harris) was Anderson's witness, but what if it was Israel Schwarz, who actually witnessed an attack?
Donald Swanson did not mince his words, and certainly knew more about the sensibilities of an 1888 Whitechapel jury than we ever will. I'm with Swanson on this.
Best wishes,
Ben |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 180
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 11:41 pm: |
|
Hey Ben,
If Swanson had so much faith in Lawende, you would think that he would have had Lawende take a look at GH.
By the way, was a sketch of the suspect seen by Lawende ever produced?
c.d. |
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 170
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Hi c.d.
If Swanson had so much faith in Lawende, you would think that he would have had Lawende take a look at GH.
But this assumes that Swanson considered GH a suspect. There is no evidence to indicate that he did.
Good qustion re. a sketch. I believe there is one in Donald Rumbelow's book, apparently from a newspaper. I'll get back to you! |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4324
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Hi c.d.,
The only contemporary sketch I know of is one picture from Illustrated Police News, where Eddowes is seen together with the man, seen with his back towards the viewer.
No contemporary portrait sketch exists of Lawende's man as far as I know, and I couldn't find any in Rumbelow's book.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 09, 2006)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 171
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Hi CD and Glenn,
Page 280 of Rumbelow's book includes a sketch of a "the man seen with last two victims", based on the Double Event. He is depicted wearing a peaked cap as observed by Schwarz and Lawende.
Hope this helps,
Ben |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4325
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
Ah yes, true. Forgot about that one - the 'gorilla' sketch - and again from a newspaper. Not a very good one, though; according to Lawende (and Schwartz if he was the other witness referred to), the man also had a small moustache (according to Lawende, a fair one). Can't see any neckerchief either.
The papers didn't miss the opportunity to use their artists in order to sell copies, but besides that no official portraits seems to have been produced.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 182
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Hey Ben,
You say that there is no evidence to indicate that Swanson considered GH a suspect. Don't you think that is a bit odd if he had any suspicions whatsoever? I find it hard to believe that he would have relied solely on Abberline's report without some sort of discussion with Abberline. If he had any doubts about Abberline's conclusions, why not bring in Lawende to settle the matter?
c.d. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4327
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 5:38 pm: |
|
c.d.,
Lawende had clearly said that he would NOT recognise the man again, so what would be the point in bringing him in and using him for a confrontation?
As for GH being seen as a suspect, it is interesting to note that Abberline uses the word 'interrogate' in his report regarding Hutchinson ('I interrogated him...') and not 'interviewed' or questioned'. Could be to over-analyse things, and not that I really think Hutchinson was seen as a suspect for murder, but still...
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 185
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I agree completely. I was directing my comment towards Ben to see if I could shake some of his faith in Swanson's statement that Lawende's sighting would be sufficient to put a rope around someone's neck.
It also seems to be a confirmation of Swanson's belief in Abberline's judgment or else Swanson swallowed one of those naive pills that seemed to be making the rounds.
c.d. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
