Archive through March 22, 1999

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through March 22, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]: Kosminski, Aaron: Archive through March 22, 1999

Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 09 December 1998 - 05:43 am
Jeff D asked: "Do you believe that if Jack actually was Kosminski, that evidence which will conclusively prove him to be the killer will ever be found ? Do you think Kosminski,and Cohen are possibly one and the same, and how much credence do you put into Anderson's witness? (1) I don't know. I doubt it, but in a way we have the head of the C.I.D. at the time of the crimes telling us in no uncertain terms that Kosminski was th murderer. And he is tacitly supported by the officer with overall responsibility for the Ripper investigation. It any other field that would probably be sufficient evidence for most people. (2) Frankly - and remembering that Martin Fido, who advanced Cohen as a suspect, is a frighteningly intelligent man, a co-author of mine, and one of my closest person friends - I have to say that if Cohen and Kosminski are one and the same then we are eating ice creams in Hell. But actualy Martin does not suggest that they are the same person. In a nutshell, Martin advanced the opinion that Kosminski was a City suspect and Cohen was a Met suspect and that somewhere along the line they were confused. (3) I don't know what credence to put in the witness, mainly because we can't be certain who the witness was, though I favour Schwartz. What matters, though, is that Anderson and (apparently) Swanson gave considerable credence to the witness and, according to the latter, the witness himself recognised the importance of his testimony because he knew it would send the suspect to the gallows. One theory I have always advanced, but which nobody seems to have picked up on, is that if Schwartz was the witness and Kosminski was the man who assaulted Stride, Kosminski's guilt as being the Ripper is dependent on (a) the man who assaulted Stride also being the person who killed her, and (b)Stride being killed by the same person who killed the other Ripper victims. If you accept that Kosminski did kill Stride and that Stride was killed by the Ripper, then you understand Anderson. If you don't, you understand how Anderson got it wrong. This said, suspicion fell n the suspect before the identification. We don't know what caused those suspicions, what 'evidence' there was. But we can surmise that it was significant enough for (a) the police to go to 'difficulty' to arrange the identification and (b) for the eye-witness testimony - sme years after the event, remember - to be the needed icing on the cake of a conviction. By this I mean that it is hard to accept that an eye-witness testimony several years after the event would have been sufficient to send the suspect to the gallows - and Anderson and Swanson must have known this and would surely have informed the anxious witness accordingly, if only to encourage him to testify. It might therefore follow that there was a lot of evidence against the suspect which, taken with the witness testimony, would have been sufficient to gain a conviction. If such evidence existed, then we may assume that it connected Kosminski to the other crimes. (Phew! I see my phone bill going through the roof! I really must learn to write offline.)
Author: SKeenan Wednesday, 09 December 1998 - 02:42 pm
Damn you're good Mr. Begg! (A to Z was great as well). As far as your theory that Kos was the man that Schwartz saw assaulting Liz, I'd buy that for a dollar. (Never even thought Schwartz might be the witness) Given that I believe the man Schwartz saw was Stride's killer, I can believe that Kos killed her (if he indeed was I.D.'ed by Schwartz). But with all the circumstantial evidence indicating that Stride was killed by someone other that Jack, doesn't that rule out Kos as the Ripper? I go back to the idea that Kos was probably only capable of murderous assault in public--not cunning (or in control of himself) enough to be Jack the Ripper.
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 09 December 1998 - 04:11 pm
Thanks for the compliment. And, yes, if Stride was killed by Kosminski but not killed by Jack the Ripper, then Kosminski was not the Ripper. If Kosminski killed Stride, then anyone who accepted that Stride as a Ripper victim would have to accept that Kosminski was the Ripper. This seems to me be to a far more reasonable explanation of Anderson's "mistake" than the unconvincing (to me, at least) arguments that Anderson and Swanson's belief that Kosminski was the Ripper was self-delusion in old age or that they lied. But was Anderson mistaken? That was my point about the reasons which caused suspicion to fall on Kosminski in the first place and the postulation of evidence which, combined with the eye-witness testimony, would have sent the suspect to the gallows. Also, of course, there's the similarity of Schwartz and Lawende's descriptions of the man they each saw, right down to the peaked cap. The trouble is, we just don't know enough.
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 09 December 1998 - 05:47 pm
Peter Birchwood wrote: "OK, Kosminsky. Now I have to confess that I don't have your book but then I don't have two of Melvin's either so maybe fair is fair. I'm therefore basing my knowledge of Kosminski of Martin Fido and the A to Z, the authors of which escape me. It seems to me that there may have been problems in the identification of Kosminski. I take Martin's Cohen theory with interest and I agree that in the body of the suspect "Kosminski" we may have elements from two or three separate men. I don't know if I am alone in questioning whether the Swanson Marginalia have been investigated properly: we were in California when they appeared on the scene. Were they ever "forensicked?" If they were genuine anotations(sp?) by Swanson then they do point fairly conclusively to Aaron K. but there are indications that don't tie in absolutely with him. What I'm saying is that one day when I have more time than now I'd like to go over the research on this suspect myself. I do believe him to be a pretty good suspect and when I can find it I'll get your book. Regards, Peter" Hi Peter I think the provenance of the Swanson marginalia is impeccable: we know who owned it, it is part of a body of other documentation, including marginalia in other publications, showing that writing in the margins was something Swanson was prone to do, and the handwriting was established as Swanson's by a Home Office forensic document examiner named Dick Totty. I met the owner several times, talked with him, even had a loan of the book for a while (nerve racking as it is potentially the most valuable Ripper book, beaten only by a copy of William Stewarts with notes and corrections signed by George Bernard Shaw! The only statement by Swanson which does not fit Aaron Kosminski is that the suspect dies soon after admission to Colney Hatch, which, of course, Aaron Kosminski did not. In essence this is the only detail in Swanson's narrative supportive of David Cohen. In my opinion it is an insufficient - and unstable - foundation for basing the whole "confusion hypothesis" advanced by Martin. I've e-mailed a small part of the research material. If you can progress further, I'd be genuinely delighted. All the best Paul
Author: SKeenan Friday, 11 December 1998 - 01:06 pm
Hold on a sec! Anderson's witness cannot be Schwartz, for Schwartz could not have I.D.'ed Kosminski as the man he saw attacking Liz Stride. Schwartz' man called out "Lipski" when he saw the approaching Schwartz. Kosminski, a Jew, would not be atttacking other Jews with such an inflammatory remark. Surely then it was not Schwartz who was the witness. It must have been Lawende, the other Jewish witness (Anderson and Swanson both say the witness was Jewish). Doesn't this fact change the outlook of the case against Kosminski? Lawende, on two separate occasions after Eddowes' murder, stated that he would not be able to identify the man he saw with her. All of the sudden he does, two years after the fact, state conclusively that Kosminski's the man. Sounds suspicious. More reason to discredit Lawende's identification is the fact he I.D'ed Grainger (?) four years later as Jack. If Lawende was indeed the eye-witness providing the only evidence against Kosminski, the case against the Polish Jew gets even weaker, doesn't it? Good day, eh? SKeenan
Author: D. Radka Saturday, 12 December 1998 - 12:37 am
Mr. Begg, If Schwartz was the witness, why do you think the City Criminal Investigation Division was watching the house in Sion Square? Schwartz witnessed a crime in, and would have in 1888 dealt with the police of, the Metropolitan District. Sion Square is in the Metropolitan District, too. How do you think the City Police came to get involved two years later--would Anderson have been sharing information, evidence, or suspicions with them, do you feel? Who exactly was Anderson's opposite number at the City Police at the time of the Seaside confinement? Was he a friend of Anderson's, a rival, a colleague? Thank you very much. David
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 31 December 1998 - 05:45 am
I'm sorry not to have replied to these questions earlier, but the answers are actually quite complicated. Skeenan - Actually, the man who committed the assault called out "Lipski" as Schwartz retreated, not approached the scene and it was never established whether it was addressed at Schwartz or the pipe man. More importantly, we don't know exactly what was called out. None of our sources say whether "Lipski" was yelled out alone or in a sentence. Abberline simply wrote that he questioned 'Schwartz very closely�as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.' And finally, although Abberline tells us that "Lipski" had come to be used as a term of derision by Gentiles against Jews, he does not say that it was exclusively used as such. So, could a Jew have actually shouted out "Hey, another Lipski!" or "He's done another Lipski!" All we know is that the witness was a Jew. Of the known witnesses the witness has to be either Lawende or Schwartz. Philip Sugden chooses Lawende and then does a pretty good demolition job on his worth. The reasons Sugden gives were among the very reasons I rejected Lawende as the witness in the first place. We are told by Swanson that the witness testimony would have hanged the suspect. Lawende only glanced at a woman whom he was later only able to identify as Eddowes by her (admittedly distinctive) dress. Any lawyer could cast doubt on that identification, but even if it was accepted that the woman was Eddowes, Lawende had repeatedly stated at the time that he couldn't recognise the man again. A lawyer would simply have argued that the suspect wasn't that man. And even if it was allowed that the man was the suspect, a lawyer would simply have argued that the suspect walked away from the woman seconds after Lawende had passed and that in the absence of evidence to the contrary it could not be proven that suspect murdered Eddowes. I don't think Lawende's testimony would even have made it into court, let alone hanged the suspect. On top of this, Anderson said that the witness was the only person to get a good view of the murderer. The only crime where we can be reasonably certain that the victim was murdered by the person seen in her company is the case of Stride. And as a capper to this reasoning there's my answer to David's question. All in all I think all this adds up to Schwartz being far and away the more likely witness even allowing that "Lipski" being shouted by one Jew after another presents problems. David - Swanson states that subsequent to the identification the suspect was released and returned to his brother's house where he was kept under 24-hour surveillance by the City CID. There is no easily conceivable reason why the Metropolitan Police would have requested that the City maintain surveillance on the suspect, so therefore I think we have to assume that the City CID were maintaining surveillance on the suspect before the identification took place. Now, whatever they suspected him of we know it was serious (which puts pay to the 'harmless lunatic' idea; the police don't go to the trouble and expense of maintaining 24-hour surveillance on harmless lunatics) and that it was a City crime (either already committed or anticipated). If it wasn't Ripper related in any way then we must ask why the Met got suspicious enough that he could be the Ripper to have him identified. Alternatively, of course, the City did suspect Kosminski of being the Ripper - and it's possible that Kosmnski was the suspect referred to by Sagar - and that is why the Met became suspicious. So, let's assume that the City suspected Kosminski of murdering Eddowes and that the witness was Lawende: we thus have the strikingly remarkable case of the Metropolitan Police taking a City suspect in a City crime to be identified by a City witness. A bit improbable in my opinion and that's another reason why I strongly dismiss Lawende as the witness.
Author: Guy Hatton Thursday, 31 December 1998 - 07:46 am
Hi Paul! Surely, given that it was almost universally accepted at the time that Stride and Eddowes (and Nichols, Chapman et. al.) were murdered by the SAME man, should it be so surprising that the Met. should wish to co-ordinate their investigation with the City police, including interviewing City suspects and witnesses? I can't help but feel that Anderson's stated reason for the witness' refusal to testify may be suspect. He seems to be prone to making what appear to be extravagant claims - eg. that the identity of the "Ripper" was a "definitely ascertained fact" - and yet he does not produce any hard evidence to support his claims. I think it quite possible that the witness may indeed have been Lawende, and that he refused to testify for the very reason he gave in 1888 to Major Smith - that he did not think he could identify the man he saw. Anderson's explanation, it seems to me, is tainted by traces of the anti-Semitism he demonstrates elsewhere. Regards Guy.
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 31 December 1998 - 10:36 am
Hi Guy A happy New Year to you. The question of how much cooperation there was between the two forces is a vexed one. McWilliam's long report to the Home office regarding Eddowes was so uninformative that the Home Secretary pencilled a note: 'They evidently want to tell us nothing.' Anyway, whatever the degree of cooperation that existed, I'm pretty certain that it would not have extended as far as the City letting the Met take their suspect to be identified by their witness. And if they had done so, presumably Major Smith would have known about it, would have known who Anderson was talking about, would have known Anderson's reasons for believing as he did, and would not have come down so hard on him. I honestly don't think Anderson would have expected to be called upon to justify himself and I don't think we should expect him to have done so. After all, he wasn't offering a theory, but stating what he regarded as a fact and he could expect his authority as a former head of the CID to be sufficient for him to be believed. And I'm not sure what other extravagant claims Anderson makes. His autobiography contains three remarkable admissions. One was that the organiser of the Jubilee Plot was a British informer, another was that he had himself written the Parnell letters, and the third was that the Ripper's identity was known to the police. Research has shown that "Jinks" (General Millen) was indeed a British informer and, of course, Anderson's admission about authoring The Times articles caused uproar in Parliament and almost resulted in his pension being revoked. I see no reason to therefore suppose that he was being anything less than honest when he wrote that the Ripper's identity was 'a definitely ascertained fact'. It may, of course, have only been 'a definitely ascertained fact' as far as Anderson (and perhaps Swanson) was concerned. Frankly, Anderson was writing about his life and his experiences as the head of the CID and he would no more have expected to be called upon to prove the statemente he made than a veteran of the Somme would expect to prove that they were actually there and not did not sit out the War in a boozer in Woolwich. And to anyone who argues that Anderson would have provided support for his claims in a case as important as the Ripper, I'd point out that nobody seems to have questioned his claims about the Ripper anyway or questioned his equally remarkable claims that "Jinks" was a British informer, and that both these revelations were considerably overshadowed by Anderson's Parnell revelations. I'm not sure what anti-Semitism Anderson shows elsewhere. He was a friend of the Chief Rabbi. He was at pains to point out that he in no way meant to criticise the Jewish faith. A distinction must be drawn between anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant, on which chapter twelve, 'The Alien Question', of John Sweeney's memoirs At Scotland Yard (London: Grant Richards, 1904) repays a careful reading. There was considerable ill-feeling towards the immigrants, but not because they were Jewish, I agree that the witness could have been Lawende, but I still don't think he fits Anderson's description of the only person ever to have seen the murderer or Swanson's statement that the witness's testimony would have hung the suspect
Author: Guy Hatton Thursday, 31 December 1998 - 04:39 pm
Hi Paul! Thanks for putting me straight on Anderson - it certainly seems, on closer inspection, that I was overstating the case against him. I still think, though, that his claim that the killer�s identity was a �definitely ascertained fact� could be viewed as somewhat extravagant. I take your point that he and Swanson evidently believed this, but there were clearly others (Abberline and Littlechild, for instance) who disagreed with him. I would have expected a �definitely ascertained fact� to command a greater concensus. I agree also that Anderson is, after all, writing his memoirs, and he�s allowed to say whatever the hell he likes, and expect to be believed. I wasn�t so much berating him for not giving evidence to back up his claims, but meant that it�s a shame that he didn�t. Perhaps my perception of him as an anti-Semite was based on a confusion between anti-Semitic and anti-immigrant, fuelled by the constant claim in the literature that �foreigner� was so often used as a euphemism for �Jew� at the time. But he does seem to have been very keen to press the point that, in his opinion, the murderer was a Jew, and at first sight, his comments regarding his witness� refusal to testify looked rather like a polite way of saying �those filthy Jews are only interested in looking after their own kind.� Maybe, as you imply, Major Smith was over-zealous in his criticism of Anderson - but I also got the impression that Smith suspected Anderson�s motivation for wanting to pin the blame on a Jew. Please correct me if I�m wrong here too - again, I don�t have the precise text to hand! Finally, I agree that Lawende doesn�t really seem to fit the bill as being the �only person ever to have seen the murderer� - but then again, who does? After all, Mrs. Long, Israel Schwartz, Lawende, and George Hutchinson could all be brought forward as at least possibly having seen the miscreant - so where does that leave us? Isn�t Anderson exaggerating at least a little here too? A very Happy New Year to you and yours, and thank you again for taking the time to reply Guy
Author: D. Radka Friday, 01 January 1999 - 02:41 am
Dear Mr. Begg, On behalf of all your readers gathered here, let us wish you a Happy New Year, and best wishes for many years of successful writing to come. And to this end, please, please mind the pastry, sir. Thank you for your answer above. I have a follow-up question, if I may. Why do think Ripper authors, yourself and Mr. Sugden come to mind, seem to feel so strongly that the witness HAD to be either Lawende or Schwartz? It seems we also have Harris, Levy, the two men in the orange market (longshots), and Goldstein (a way-longshot) also as possibles--they are male Jews present at crime scenes. What compelling reason leads us to accept the "HAD to be"? Is it just because they seem improbable based on what they said at the time they were originally interviewed? Are the reasons for them not being witnesses two years later conclusive, such as them being then deceased or abroad, or rather a function of thinking practically about probabilities in the case? Thank you. David
Author: The Viper Friday, 01 January 1999 - 06:33 am
Guy, Paul. Good morning, Happy New Year. Guy, I think you raise a really good point here. Paul, I know that you have defended Anderson before against the �extravagant claims� charge. However considering the circumstances I don�t think it�s unreasonable to make that charge. After all, this is a man who wrote "I go so far as to say that I could myself in a few days unravel the mystery provided I could spare the time to give undivided attention to it" early in the investigation. Having failed miserably to deliver on this in 1888, he then claims in a book written twenty-two years after the murders that the killer�s identity is a "definitely ascertained fact" (though declining to name names) and blames an unfortunate witness for the lack of a conviction! Enormous resources were invested in trying to catch the murderer, ultimately to no avail. For those directing the hunt this must have been crushing, especially since the police were held up to ridicule in some parts of the press. It looks to me as though when addressing the JTR murders, Anderson is indulging in the old �politicians memoirs� trick, you know, rewriting history to put a positive spin on failed policies. His comments have failed to convince a lot of us cynics because he doesn�t name the suspect or the witness; (didn�t he just throw in some red herring about wanting the publishers to pay his legal bills?). Guy in his first note says he detects anti-Semitism in Anderson�s comments. I agree with him, though whether Anderson was specifically an anti-Semite I�m not sure because as Paul says he is basically being anti-foreigner. From the 1880s onwards the East End was full of migrants from Continental Europe. Not all were Jewish, by any means, but it seems to be a popular impression that they were. Various writers about JTR have commented that when witnesses used the word 'foreigner' they actually meant 'Jew'. What makes me suspicious of Anderson�s claims that the witness was Jewish and that he refused to testify against one of his own kind is the timing of his writing. He was deliberately playing the anti-alien card. In 1910 when his autobiography was published, it had never been easier to bash Johnny Foreigner. The previous year had seen the 'Tottenham Outrage' in which a policeman and a small boy were killed by a pair of gun-totting Latvians in a wages snatch. The two men were political refugees and the robbery may have been an expropriation. Trading on the usual prejudices the press had a field day at the expense of immigrants, and Russians in particular, whipping up hostility towards them. (Even worse would follow with the Houndsditch Murders and the Siege of Sidney Street, but that was just after the publication of Anderson's book). The East End had a large alien population in 1888 when JTR was operating, by 1910 it had an enormous one. Immigrants were widely mistrusted and disliked. Who better to deflect the blame to for the failure to catch Jack The Ripper? (A couple of other points here while they�re relevant. For anybody wanting to read more about this subject do read Don Rumbelow�s "The Houndsditch Murders and the Siege Of Sidney Street" - it's excellent. During his time as a policeman, Rumbelow came across boxes of important old papers about the case which were about to dumped. No wonder there are also gaps in the JTR records!) Regards, V
Author: Odista Friday, 01 January 1999 - 11:53 pm
Hello everyone. I hope everyone had a Happy New Year. For what it's worth, here's my two cents. I do believe Kosminski is the most plausible suspect to date and D. Radka had raised an interesting point. Why does Anderson's witness have to be either Lawende or Schwartz? Couldn't the witness have been Levy? According to a newspaper, didn't Levy leave the impression that he knew more than what he was saying? Wasn't the possibility hinted at that he might have recognized the man talking to Eddowes? What about the connection between Levy and Martin Kosminski? Didn't Levy sponsor Martin's naturalization? Could Martin have been related to Aaron in any way? If Levy recognized and knew Eddowes's killer then a lot of things do fall in place. Levy's possible reluctance to tell what he knew. Anderson's saying Jack's identity "was a definitely ascertained fact." Wouldn't a witness who actually knew the killer make a more positive identification than a witness who only had a brief glance like Lawende or a witness some two year after the sighting like Schwartz? Wouldn't a witness's acquaintance with the killer be a more plausible motive for not giving evidence against the killer rather than his race? I feel these are interesting points and I look forward to reading all comments
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 02 January 1999 - 06:28 am
TO GUY Hi Guy. Please don't misunderstand me. There is absolutely no reason why the claim could not be extravagant or, indeed, completely wrong. That's why we are trying to identify the suspect, learn more about the evidence against him and test the worth of Anderson's statement. Why Anderson's opinion doesn't appear to have been more widely accepted is a vexed question. Either other people didn't accept it or they didn't know about it. I am inclined to think it was the latter. I think this because if they knew about it, surely they would have commented on it - particularly Macnaghten? Littlechild may have done, of course, although I feel that he was actually referring to Macnaghten, but even if he wasn't, his comment simply raises the question of how much did Littlechild know about what Anderson believed and why he believed it. And that's really one of the major problems we face at the moment: when does 'a definitely ascertained fact' become 'a definitely ascertained fact'? I mean, if Anderson witnessed the identification and saw the recognition and reaction of the suspect, he may personally have had no doubt whatsoever of the suspect's guilt, which for Anderson nade the suspect's guilt 'a definitely ascertained fact'. For others, it may have been no more than Anderson's opinion. As far as Anderson being anti-Semitic, he may well have been, but I can't summon to mind any evidence to support that contention other than his statement about the Ripper being a Jew. And it could be argued that Anderson was at pains to deny or refute any accusations of anti-Semitism when he wrote: "In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact. And my words are meant to specify race, not religion. For it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the brute.' The only statement which strikes me as possibly anti-Semitic in tone, if not in content, is Anderson's observation that 'it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End (meaning 'low-class Polish Jews) will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.' Viper refers to Donald Rumbelow's book The Houndsditch Murders and the Siege of Sidney Street - which is indeed essential reading for anyone interested in the Ripper and in particular the social background pertaining to the immigrants (as, indeed, is The Trials of Israel Lipski by Martin L. Friedland). In his book Don describes how the expropriators did not believe that the British police were unarmed and how they interpreted a house-to-house inquiry as a minor pogrom - the police in their own country had been the people who carried out the atrocities against them. And this was in 1909/1910. Imagine, then, how much worse those feelings must have been twenty years earlier. It serves to illustrate not only the privations and outright cruelties suffered by these poor people in their homeland, but also how and why they clustered in tight-knit, often street-based communities in the East End. Baffled by the culture, unable to understand the language, fearful of authority, anxious to avoid the hostility of their Gentile neighbours, would they have handed over one of their own, whatever the crime? Chiam Bermant, in his excellent book about Jewish immigration, Point of Arrival, acknowledged that the immigrants probably wouldn't have handed one of their own over to the police, not only fearing reprisals from the populace in general but from the authorities. You write: 'I agree that Lawende doesn't really seem to fit the bill as being the "only person ever to have seen the murderer" - but then again, who does? After all, Mrs. Long, Israel Schwartz, Lawende, and George Hutchinson could all be brought forward as at least possibly having seen the miscreant - so where does that leave us? Isn't Anderson exaggerating at least a little here too?' Well, I suppose it is a fine point, but Schwartz saw a woman he identified as Stride attacked at the place where ten minutes later she was found murdered. The balance of probability is that she was murdered by the man who attacked her. So, whereas all our other witnesses saw a woman with a man, there is arguably no guarantee that the man was the murderer. In the case of Stride, it is reasonably certain that she was killed by the man whom Schwartz saw attack her. Strictly speaking, Schwartz therefore was the only person ever to have had a good view of the murderer. TO DAVID and ODISTA Your point is an excellent one and Levy and Harris do get overlooked (I'm not sure why Goldstein would even be considered as a possible witness, though, as he doesn't seem to have seen anything), but the report by Swanson says that Levy and Harris 'took but little notice and state they could not identify man or woman.' Harris didn't even attend the inquest (as far as we know) and all sources agree that he saw nothing. Levy is a different matter, of course, and shouldn't really be excluded. Indeed, it still strikes me as a coincidence almost too remarkable to be a coincidence that Levy, a witness, knew a Kosminski, the name of a primary suspect. TO VIPER I have a number of problems with your 'timing of the writing' argument, not the least being that it requires the assumption that Anderson was anti-Semitic and was sufficiently anti-Semitic to wish to stir up anti-Semitic feelings by claiming that the Ripper was a Jew. It also poses problems regarding Swanson. Was he anti-Semitic too? Did he lie to himself when he tacitly endorsed Anderson's story? The thing is, even if Anderson was 'deliberately playing the anti-alien card', that doesn't mean that the event described did not take place. If it did - if there was a witness, a suspect and a positive identification - then at some point Anderson became convinced of the suspect's guilt. Anti-Semitism could have made him more receptive to accepting the suspect's guilt, but that doesn't mean the identification never happened. The answer to most of your comments really boils down to: did the identification take place? If it did, then we have a suspect, a witness and a positive identification, and we have Anderson (and tacitly Swanson) at some point thereafter becoming convinced of the suspect's guilt. The question, therefore, is How receptive would anti-Semitism have made Anderson to acceptance of the suspect's guilt? As for those words about catching the criminal, they were written before Anderson left for a recuperative holiday at the time of the Tabram/Nichols murder and when it may have looked as if the crime was easily soluble. It strikes me as a little unfair to suggest it reveals Anderson as someone prone to make extravagant remarks. Nevertheless, it a point well made and worthy of consideration. I would perhaps give the idea that Anderson was prone to making extravagant remarks if it were not for Swanson's tacit agreement. The marginalia was never intended to be read by anyone other than Swanson, so there was no reason why Swanson shouldn't have written 'tosh' or 'claptrap' next to Anderson's assertion. And a happy New Year to everyone and thank you for your much appreciated comments, David. I shall watch the pastry - believe me I'll watch it. My wife won't let me eat it!
Author: The Viper Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 06:22 am
Hello Paul. Thanks for your comments on the earlier post. Your interpretation that much depends on whether there was an interview at the Seaside Home is one I agree with on reflection since it is at the heart of the matter. But if we assume that the incident did occur, the value of the identification was never tested in a Court of Law. What Anderson described as a �definitely ascertained fact� was therefore nothing of the sort. Maybe (and I believe that this is the point you are making to Guy), that�s what he wanted to believe � indeed in the circumstances it would be surprising if him and Swanson didn�t want to think that the Ripper had been caught. Anderson�s comments on the matter and the tone in which they were made still suggest to me strongly that he was scapegoat hunting. Regarding Swanson. Firstly his marginalia aren�t written in the xenophobic tone of Anderson�s. To my mind that invalidates your question as to whether he was anti-Semitic or not. If he too had convinced himself that the witness had identified the killer, the race or nationality issue may not have been important to him. Secondly, if his comments were not intended for anybody else�s eyes, (and I mean either during his lifetime OR after it), why did he write them? He was hardly likely to forget such a fundamental detail as the suspect's name himself. In addition to the Friedland and Rumbelow books you mention which deal with the life and crime of East End immigrants, I would like to mention one more, namely �Steinie - Murder On The Common� by Andrew Rose, (Bodley Head 1985). Regards, V
Author: Guy Hatton Tuesday, 05 January 1999 - 03:06 pm
While re-reading Philip Sugden�s Complete History of Jack the Ripper earlier today, I came across the following passage, which had escaped my recollection at the time of my last posts on the subject of �Anderson�s witness�: Nowhere does Anderson so much as hint that the witness who identified his suspect was used on any other occasion. Yet we have evidence that he was - twice. In February 1891, after Kosminski had been lodged in Colney Hatch (my emphasis), Tom Sadler, the suspect in the Coles case, was put in a line-up to see if Lawende could identify him. He couldn�t. But then, in the spring of 1895 the CID came up with another Ripper suspect in the person of William Grant Grainger. The Pall Mall Gazette, reporting their inquiries, says: �there is one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer with a woman a few minutes before that woman�s dissected body was found in the street. That person is stated to have identified Grainger as the man he then saw. But obviously identification after so cursory a glance, and after the lapse of so long an interval, could not be reliable.� Sugden, The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, p.411. Surely this casts a whole new light on the police definition of �the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer�. Paul Begg has made a very good case both here and elsewhere for Israel Schwartz as best fulfilling that description, based on Schwartz�s apparent sighting of an actual attack on Elizabeth Stride. If the above statements are correct, though, it would appear that it was nonetheless Lawende who was seen by the Met. as their �star witness�, not Schwartz. The Pall Mall Gazette report should, of course, be treated with care, as should all uncorroborated newspaper material. it is notable, however, that the description of the supposed witness does not match Schwartz at all. Schwartz saw an obvious assault on a woman. It was Lawende, on the other hand, who saw a man �with a woman� a few minutes before the discovery of a body in the street. Stride�s body could not reasonably be described as having been �dissected�. Eddowes� most certainly could. Sugden does not give the source for his assertion that Lawende was called to identify Sadler. I would be grateful if anyone here could say where this information comes from, and confirm (or deny) its authenticity. If he is right, though, it must be seen as extremely damning for the �Schwartz-as-Anderson�s-witness� claim. It seems unlikely that anybody other than the witness who had �identified� Kosminski would be taken to view Sadler and Grainger. Remember that the witness in the case of Kosminski, the first of these suspects to be subjected to scrutiny, is said by Anderson to be the only person to have had a good view of the murderer. We should perhaps not assume more than one �star witness�. If, as seems to me to be overwhelmingly likely, Lawende was Anderson�s witness, and hence also the witness who was required to identify Sadler and Grainger too, then some explanation of his behaviour is required. The Pall Mall Gazette makes the very valid point about the reliability of an identification made so long after the event. Lawende insisted to the City police that he would not be able to recognise the man he had seen. In spite of Anderson and Swanson�s views, it appears that he refused, as might be expected, to identify Kosminski in 1891, and also, predictably, Sadler later that year. But then he gives a positive identification of Grainger in 1895? We can only wonder what pressure was being applied to force him to identify somebody, having already �let down� the police twice, and why they were so convinced that he knew more than he was admitting. If, after he had supposedly identified Kosminski to Anderson and Swanson�s satisfaction, it was felt necessary to parade two other suspects before him, then surely Anderson�s �definitely ascertained fact� can also be nailed conclusively. Anderson was still in office in 1895, and would surely, had he been so sure of Kosminski�s guilt, have rejected any further attempts at identifying the murderer as futile. That he did not apparently consider them so, strongly suggests to me at least that he was simply doing in his memoirs what anybody in that situation might be tempted to do - avoiding a potentially embarrassing admission of failure. Regards Guy P.S. Paul - thanks for the book recommendations. What is your opinion of Professor Fishman's books - I was thinking of attempting to obtain East End 1888?
Author: D. Radka Tuesday, 05 January 1999 - 11:31 pm
Mr. Guy, How do you know that Anderson was involved with witness identifications in the Whitechapel murders case post-Kosminski? Couldn't these subsequent line-ups have been instigated by officers in the department beneath Anderson, without his knowing about it? The Met is, and was, a big unit, I'm sure you're aware, and sundry suspects continued to be considered by a potpourri of policemen. Tumblety, Grainger, Druitt, and others all had their followers. Many policemen themselves became Ripperologists in the 1890s, much like us! Perhaps Anderson (and Swanson) felt secure enough in the Kosminski identification, and then simply absented themselves from further discussion about the case, letting others in the Met do as they may, in order to insure quiet about Mr. Big, their witness. If Anderson were to say that he knew who the perpetrator was based on a witness identification, but had not coerced testimony with a subpoena, he'd likely be taken to task in various ways, probably asked who the witness was, and confidentiality might be lost. Besides, it appears that Anderson and Swanson really stepped on the toes of the City CID big time by their Seaside escapade in any event--so why would they ever do anything to foster discussion on THAT topic? When you've made a mistake like this one, going over peoples' heads whom you shouldn't, you shut up about it. David
Author: Rotter Thursday, 11 February 1999 - 05:48 pm
Amateur psychology: Does the Kosminski obsession of the 1890's with only eating food from the gutter have any bearing on the choice of women "from the gutter?" Bear in mind that they were also murdered "in the gutter." He also claimed to have been controlled by an "instinct that knows the movements of all mankind"-paranoia after being hunted as the Ripper (which apparently happened, whether or not the identification was correct)? As for not washing...? Wild speculation, all of it.
Author: Scott Nelson Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 06:59 pm
All of you may be focusing on the wrong "Kosminski". The suspect the police were searching for was about 40 years of age, and was coherent or savy enough to approach and engage street women in quiet conversation, IN ENGLISH. A quiet psychtoic with a history of family mental illness my have (or his family) convinced police that another family member, one who spoke only Yiddish or German, and had not resided long in Whitechpael, was the killer.
Author: Peter Birchwood Monday, 22 March 1999 - 01:17 pm
I've reason to believe that the name "Pizer" may be occsionally used as a first name and indeed have found it so used at least twice. I have a problem locating Jack Pizer's family in the 1881 census so perhaps someone could assist be posting details of the 1881-1891 census results on this family. Might there be another surname involved here? Peter.