Was a Jew Identified as the Ripper?
In 1888, the most infamous murders of all time took place in London’s East End.
Five prostitutes, destitute women who knew of no other way to survive, were
killed and slaughtered by a supposedly unknown killer who bears the nickname
Jack the Ripper.
The victims are listed below:
Mary Ann Nichols, Friday 31st August
Annie Chapman, Saturday 8th September
Elizabeth Stride, Sunday 30 September
Catherine Eddowes, Sunday 30 September
Mary Jane Kelly, Friday 9th November
This is the accepted list and we will go with it for this article.
Nobody at the time is on any existing record as having said the murders were
solved. But it was insisted later that they were indeed solved by Swanson,
Anderson and Abberline. Those men were in a position to have done just that. In
fact the murders could have been solved and it is clear from the records that it
was not simply a matter of getting an identification and putting the killer
away. The investigators would have found their work to be very frustrating.
Disagreement about how to proceed was high. There is no evidence of lying so the
word of those who knew comes first.
No reward was ever offered for the Ripper murders. This is because the
case became a media circus and a lot of liars came out pretending to have had
information.
Sources from the time claim that a Jew of the lower class was shown to be the
Ripper. Other names put forward by the police were Druitt and Ostrog. The only
definite thing we get from the records that it was the Polish Jew called
Kosminski. There is no first name or initial. Through surveying the records an
Aaron Kosminski comes up who is a definite match.
Swanson says the Ripper was identified
Chief Inspector (London Metropolitan Police Superintendent) Donald Swanson, head
of the Ripper investigation, wrote a personal note in 1910 that the Ripper was
identified at the Seaside Home and was returned to Whitechapel and later he went
to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch, Lunatic Asylum. He wrote that
Kosminski was this man and he died soon after. Swanson was only writing in a
margin and not for the public so he should be believed.
"After the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been
sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he
knew he was identified. On suspect’s return to his brother’s house in
Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short
time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney
Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards – Kosminski was
the suspect – DSS".
The killer if committed to an asylum could not be identified. So it is certain
that the identification happened before he was committed or maybe during a
discharge. Whatever he was doing at the Seaside Home he cannot be considered to
be committed there or it was not an asylum.
He wrote that the suspect had been identified by a witness at the Seaside Home.
And that the killer had been identified by a witness who wouldn’t testify
against him because both suspect and witness were Jewish. He said the witness
did this "because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would
convict the suspect and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged
which he did not wish to be left on his mind. And after this identification
which suspect knew no other murder of this kind took place in London."
The killings stopped. That does not necessarily mean the killer was put off but
was just put in a position where he could not kill any more.
The murder of this kind would refer to strangling, throat cutting and
mutilation. But these still happened though they lacked any indication that the
Ripper was involved. Swanson made a mistake. Or did he? Kosminksi was free when
some of the other murders happened ...
Nobody knows for sure where the Seaside Home is. The failure to say exactly
where the Ripper was identified is a smokescreen designed to avoid media
attention.
Swanson's declarations however were kept private and that lends sincerity to his
claims that a Polish Jew was as good as identified by a witness who would not
testify so the man returned to London to live with his brother where “he was
watched by police by day & night.”
Swanson said he was definite in 1895 that the killer was then dead. For him,
then the slayings, “were the work of a man who is now dead.” This could be
tactical police misdirection as Kosminski was alive. And if it was assumed that
the killer had syphilis and everybody seems to have believed he did then they
naturally did take it for granted he would not live long. There was no need for
misdirection in a scribble from 1910 so Swanson really thought the killer had
died.
Back to the witness. Did he not realise the man was a Jew? Did the man not have
an obvious Jewish appearance? Did he pretend not to know? Why did he let himself
get involved at all? He probably only wanted to identify the killer to make sure
he was locked away but did not want to get the killer put to death by
testifying.
We know Aaron Kosminski did at times stay with his brother. No other Ripper
suspect is on record as having done that.
Anderson says the Ripper was identified
Sir Robert Anderson as Assistant Commissioner CID was described as having a
perfectly plausible theory that the Ripper was a madman whose crimes ended when
he went to the asylum. The problem is with it being called a theory. He is
firmer than that. He declared that it was a definite fact that the Ripper was a
lower class Polish Jew. "In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating
a definitely ascertained fact." (The Lighter Side of My Official Life, 1910).
Major Arthur Griffiths stated that Anderson was sure that the murderer was a
maniac who had to be put in an asylum which ended the murders.
Anderson wrote, "When the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum,
the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified
him, but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear
to him."
Anderson tells us nothing but that the man was a Jew.
Anderson makes the error of forgetting that an asylum inmate cannot be
identified. But an informal identification could be what he means. It would be
of no use to the police.
He had also written, "One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that
the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type; that he was living in the
immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living
absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to
justice". He gives a hint here that he knew the man was not a recluse. He knows
the killer was living with "people" and not just a mother or wife or something.
That was why he didn't write, "and that he was either living alone and if he was
not then somebody at least knew of his guilt".
Bridgend Journal
The Bridgend Journal of 12 March 1910 says that only one witness strangely
enough was able to point the finger and say, "That's the murderer; I recognise
him as the man". The man upon learning he was accusing a fellow Jew said he
would go no further and would not stand by it. Anderson explained that the man
was quiet and harmless but something came over him that made his ferocity know
no bounds.
It has been remarked that nothing Anderson said can be disproven or shown
unlikely with strong evidence.
The eyewitness
Daily Telegraph 18 February 1891 -
'Further it is certain that the police are not neglecting the facts which came
to light in connection with the previous murders. Probably the only trustworthy
description of the assassin was that given by a gentleman who, on the night of
the Mitre-square murder, noticed in Duke-street, Aldgate, a couple standing
under the lamp at the corner of the passage leading to Mitre-square. The woman
was identified as one victim of that night, Sept. 30, the other having been
killed half an hour previously in Berner-street. The man was described as "aged
from thirty to thirty-five; height 5ft 7in, with brown hair and big moustache;
dressed respectably. Wore a pea jacket, muffler, and a cloth cap with a peak of
the same material." The witness has confronted Sadler and has failed to identify
him.'
Sadler was the man accused of killing Frances Coles and it is not surprising
that the witness failed to identify him as Sadler may not have killed Coles and
definitely was not the Ripper. Her killing was very different.
Sagar
According to London Police Inspector Robert Sagar: “We had good reason to
suspect a man who worked in Butcher’s Row, Aldgate. We watched him carefully.
There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends
thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was
removed, there were no more Ripper atrocities.” (Reynolds News, 15 September
1946.)
In 1905, Sagar claimed "suspicion fell upon a man, who, without a doubt, was the
murderer. Identification being impossible, he could not be charged. He was,
however, placed in a lunatic asylum and the series of atrocities came to an
end.” (The City Press, 7 January 1905).
This account reads like the truth but what about how it says there was no
identification? It is very certain the killer was known. He may have assumed
that as nobody would testify that there was no identification. That is an easy
mistake to make writing years after the event. The best interpretation is that
he means an identification intended to get a conviction. That was the kind of
identification that was impossible and does not rule out a Jewish witness
picking out the Ripper.
A policeman saw the Ripper?
Griffiths who must have consulted Macnaghten and others wrote in 1898 that there
was some evidence that the killer was a Polish Jew who was known as a lunatic
who was roaming around Whitechapel at the times of the murders and who was put
into an asylum afterwards for his urge to kill. It says the police constable at
Mitre Court meaning Mitre square where Eddowes was found murdered got a glimpse
of him and agreed that the person was the murderer.
It has been suggested that the man who asked James Blenkinsop at 1.30 am to ask if he had seen a man and woman going to Mitre square was a policeman in plain clothes. Eddowes was already dead then.
Anderson wrote in 1910 that the only person who got a good look at the killer
identified the suspect without hesitation but wouldn’t give evidence against
him. It is thought that this was the policeman. But we read the policeman got a
glimpse while somebody else got a good look. And a policeman would have to give
evidence. Take it as a good look rather than a glimpse. The episode would not
count enough to be even remembered if all happened was a quick look. The
glimpse thing is a smokescreen to offset questions about the witness.
Policemen in civilian clothing and getting people to go out and keep watch in
case there was another murder was one of the ways London's East End tried to
handle the threat. Assuming Joseph Levy was doing some vigilance work a mistake
might have happened. Did he slip into the records as a policeman?
Mitre Square was called Mitre Court by both Joseph Levy and by Griffiths, a
friend of both Anderson and Macnaghten, who wrote a book called Mysteries of
Police and Crime, in 1898. Is it because of Joseph that Griffiths and those he
consulted ended up calling a murder site the wrong name, Mitre Court rather than
the correct Mitre Square? If so then it certainly looks like that what Levy told
the police made a huge impression on them!
Joseph Lawende was not the witness for Griffiths could not have made the mistake
of thinking such a well-known and prominent witness had been a policeman for he
wasn’t. But he could have made the mistake that Joseph Levy was a policeman for
Joseph was less known and indeed tried to keep a low profile.
The Witness at the Identification
No source names the Jew who got a look at the Ripper and who was able to
identify him and send him to the gallows.
We need to ask that question of who he was for that can lead us to the
perpetrator.
The Jew Israel Schwartz was not the identifier. He was present just before
Stride was murdered and saw two dangerous men there. Her murder unlike the
others was dealt with by the Metropolitan police who would have arranged the
identification. However that is not clear but it is clear that he is not the
witness for he never actually saw anybody enter the yard where she died with
her. He was driven away from the scene by a threatening man.
When Eddowes died, she had been seen going to the place of her death with a man.
The man was noticed by Jews Joseph Lawende, Joseph Hyam Levy and Harry Harris.
The witness is usually thought to refer to Joseph Lawende but it is more likely
to be Joseph Levy. The third man, Harry Harris, paid so little attention that he
definitely was not of use as a witness.
Lawende did say he could not identify the man. Some say he had no choice but to
say for detection reasons that he would not know the man he seen with Eddowes
for sure. If so is that because he himself would be in danger from the Ripper or
his family? It would indicate he knew the killer.
However he made a detailed statement about the appearance of the killer. He saw
the woman facing the man chatting. She had put her hand on his chest. The man
was medium build and looked like a sailor. He wore a pepper and salt coloured
jacket which was loose and a grey cap and wore a red neckerchief. He was about 5
foot 7 about 30 with a fair complexion and a moustache. He said he wouldn’t be
able to identify the man again. Thus it seems best to supposed that he was not
the man who identified the Ripper.
William Marshall saw a man looking like a sailor talking to Elizabeth Stride not
long before her murder. But this was a different man – not the killer.
The man was described by Lawende as fair complexion which does not fit Mrs Long
saying he looked like a foreigner. In the inquest, Lawende was careful to drop
all the detail and give nothing away. He really did act as if he wanted to avoid
giving away the Jewishness of the killer.
The Assistant City Police Commissioner in 1888 was a Major Henry Smith. He wrote
that he interviewed one of the Mitre Square witnesses who he described as a sort
of hybrid German. Lawende was a Polish Jew so he was not the interviewee. It had
to have been Joseph Levy who was a Dutch Jew. The three witnesses spoke German.
But that doesn’t make them hybrid Germans. Joseph Levy was the best candidate
for being the hybrid German or mistaken as one.
The Ripper could have been brought to the Seaside Home. Swanson wrote that there
was difficulty with getting the suspect there. Evidently the difficulties were
not in restraining him if insane or transporting him there. If he had been that
awkward he would have been committed in which case there would have been no
point in trying to get him identified. It must have had to do with different
police jurisdictions and the red tape.
It has been pointed out that a suspect Jewish butcher lived at a point near
Middlesex Street probably on the boundary between the City Police and the
Metropolitan jurisdictions. Jurisdiction problems could have come up if he was
taken for identification.
However Swanson says the difficulties were to do with the suspect. But that
could mean anything and we cannot assume it was about jurisdiction.
Joseph Levy was indeed the witness for he behaved so strangely from the start
that he would have been the type of man to identify the killer and then refuse
to testify in court against the man. The witness told a strange lie in saying he
didn’t want the man put to death over his testimony. If so then why didn’t he
just say that the man was not the Ripper? The witness then acted like Joseph
Levy – true to form! And even more so when he lied that he wouldn’t testify in
court against the killer for it would lead to the killer being hanged. But
surely he knew that a man suffering from mental illness couldn’t be hanged –
even if he wasn’t committed yet! True to form again!
The fear
Joseph Levy and two friends, Joseph Lawende and Harry Harris, saw a man and
woman standing talking to one another near Mitre Square. Minutes later Catherine
Eddowes was found dead and mutilated in the a corner of the Square. Joseph Levy
said to Harris: “I don't like going home by myself when I see these sort of
characters about. I'm off!”. He stated that somebody should keep a close eye on
Mitre Square.
What a strange reaction! He should have been used to seeing characters like that
all the time. Why would he feel he would have been in danger from them? Why
would he feel the need to get away so fast? There could have been nothing
upsetting about seeing Eddowes and the Ripper talking because neither of them
looked out of the ordinary. Why would he say that Mitre Square especially would
have to be watched? Prostitutes had their haunts everywhere.
Joseph Levy admitted to being afraid yet he didn’t take with his friends the
quickest way back to his house in Hutchinson Street that night which was through
the smaller streets. This street juts off Middlesex Street. He took the longest
way back because it was better lit. He must have been afraid. Of what?
Was he afraid he might see the murderer ripping up a woman in one of the darker
streets? Probably he was afraid of seeing an undiscovered victim slain earlier
that night lying somewhere. Or was he afraid because he and the Ripper knew each
other at least by sight. Did he guess that the Ripper would take the back
streets to return to his lair?
Perhaps the Ripper knew he had been seen. He went to the trouble of putting
Catherine Eddowes on her side as if he would not mutilate her and then acted
like he changed his mind and put her on her back to butcher her. Like with
Stride, he wasn’t going to go any further and the desire to mutilate Eddowes
took over and he gave in to his frenzy.
Joseph Levy was fearful not just because of what he seen but because the man he
saw was the man he already suspected of being the killer. That was why he wanted
to get away. He knew the man who was with Eddowes. He was the one who in the
later reports written by police was the Jew who was able to identify the suspect
without hesitation as being with Eddowes and being her murderer. Instead of
wanting to help the woman, he wanted to get away. He didn’t want to be involved.
He worried that he might have to identify the killer. He wanted to be off the
scene to avoid that. However he did identify the killer later. He had to.
They knew the killer?
The witnesses certainly acted like the killer was from nearby and somebody they
knew.
Joseph Levy lived close by the Eddowes murder scene in Hutchison Street. The
police went door to door in that street after the murder. Harris and Levy may as
well have lived in Goulston Street where the Ripper dumped a rag taken from
Eddowes. It is possible that Harris lived in the Wentworth buildings. Get that?
The Ripper a short time after killing Eddowes threw a rag taken from Eddowes in
the door as if he knew Harris had seen him and wanted to incriminate him.
It is felt that there was not much blood on the rag which is inconsistent with
it being used to wrap bloody organs like the uterus and a kidney in. If so then
the Ripper took it to plant somewhere to put the police off the scent.
Lawende tried to use misdirection by painting the killer as a non-Jew. Joseph
Levy failed to be discreet though he tried to be and told too much.
A thought
When Eddowes was murdered, how did the killer see so well to cut her so precisely on the face?
It is possible that the door at Kearly & Tonge had been open. So the killer had some light. When the policeman went past the door was closed and he did not see her mutilated remains for it was so dark. There had to be a stench but that did not get his attention either. Dr Sequeira did say there was enough light for the killer to conduct his infernal business so was that down to the door? Why were there no blood marks going away from the scene. How did the killer avoid getting anything on his shoes?
Did somebody willingly or accidentally help him get away?
Was it Lawende, Harris or Levy?
A witness identified the Ripper months later.
Lawende or Levy or Harris didn’t, as far as we know, see a crime being
committed. Schwartz did. Could it be that Lawende or Levy or Harris did see
something and this was kept private for he needed protection as the man he saw
was a Jew who knew him? Schwartz seeing a man attacking Stride and then not
realising until after the identification that it was a fellow Jew is too
far-fetched.
Family?
Was the real reason Joseph Levy didn’t want to testify in court concerning who
the murderer was because he didn’t want to bring shame on his own family? He was
a cousin of suspect Jacob Levy but Jacob was not the Ripper for there is no
evidence that he hated women and he did not go to Colney Hatch. He is only
accused for he died soon after the murders.
Joseph Levy then might have identified the killer even if it meant telling on a
fellow Jew but surely not if the killer were a relative! And why not just say,
"This man is a cousin so I cannot have him put to death?" Why say, "I am a
fellow Jew and cannot have him put to death."
Jacob Levy unlike Aaron Kosminksi could not be identified or convicted as he was
disturbed all the time.
Levy is Tight-lipped
In the aftermath of the Eddowes murder, Lawende and Joseph Levy would have
discussed what to say to the police and would have talked to each other about
the man they had seen. Joseph knew the man so here Lawende must have been
pretending to have known nothing about the man. Lawende said more than Joseph
Levy would have had agreed with him saying. But out of respect for Levy he
didn’t say too much. Lawende’s behaviour was also suspicious.
Lawende was loquacious and prominent at Eddowes Inquest unlike Joseph Levy. The
latter's name was not even given. Joseph Levy didn’t want the attention at all.
He didn't want to help. When Joseph Levy was interviewed he must really have
known a lot more than he wanted people to think. He must have known the killer.
The Evening News issue 9th October 1888 printed the following, "Mr Levy is
absolutely obstinate and refuses to give the slightest information and he leaves
one to infer that he knows something but that he is afraid to be called on the
inquest. At the inquest Levy admitted observing a man and a woman at the
entrance to Church Passage though he did not take any particular notice of them
although he described the man as having been three inches taller than the woman
and when pressed under cross examination he denied thinking her appearance as
`terrible' and went on to add that he was not exactly afraid for himself".
Joseph Levy had forgotten what he said about the pair being a sinister looking
pair which was why later he denied saying the woman looked terrible in
appearance. Evidently, when he said the pair looked sinister what he really
thought and meant was that it was the man he didn’t want to have to look at. The
reason was not the man’s appearance but who he was. He knew him. From Lawende,
we know that there was nothing sinister looking about the man. But if you know
something bad about somebody you will think of their appearance as terrible.
This explains why Joseph Levy thought the man looked sinister too and why he
started to tell lies later on denying that he was shocked by the pair.
Joseph Levy lied about not paying much notice. He didn’t want to have to say too
much about the man he saw for he had taken a lot of notice. He took so much
notice because he recognised the man with Eddowes. That was why his memory was
so clear that he was able to identify the suspect without any doubt with the
police later.
His saying that the man was three inches taller than the woman gives us the
height of Jacob Levy. Jacob Levy was five foot three making him three inches
taller than Eddowes.
When you see a couple together especially at night you don’t think of what
height they are. He was sure the man was three inches taller which may indicate
that he already knew what height the man was. But not too much can be read into
this for witnesses did often give varying heights.
What does Joseph’s behaviour throughout the affair tell us?
He knew the Ripper was at work. He knew the Ripper was a Jew which was why
though he had two men with him he didn’t try to disturb him or scare him off. He
didn’t want the Ripper to be caught and hanged. Jacob Levy was Joseph Levy’s
neighbour or possible relative – they almost lived on the same street. Joseph
Levy may have heard a confession from the man himself or seen proof before then
that he was the killer. But, whatever, Joseph knew!
You don’t pay too much attention to unmarried men even ones you know who are
going with prostitutes. But you do pay attention to married men you know doing
it for they are hurting their wives and children. Joseph Levy’s behaviour
suggests that the Ripper was a married man. Our suspect was married.
It was dark at the time. It was hard to recognise people in the poor street
lighting unless they were family or neighbours. As stated, Jacob Levy was a
neighbour of Joseph Levy’s. If the man with Eddowes showed a reaction to Joseph
Levy observing him that would prove to Joseph that the man was indeed the man he
knew.
He insisted to the police that he wasn’t exactly afraid of the man for himself.
He talks like he knew the Ripper was only a danger to fallen women. He knew the
Ripper.
The killer was seen by Joseph Levy on 30th September. No murders took place
until Friday 9th November the slaughter of Mary Kelly in her room. The entire
month of October and over a week of November saw no Ripper murders. This was a
long gap for the Ripper. Some think it was because the Ripper may have cut
himself while slashing Eddowes and had to recover. It is unlikely that he would
have cut himself that badly. And when he took bigger risks every time it shows
that he wasn’t thinking of what could happen. He just wanted to kill and
mutilate. If he had been seen at Mitre Square that would have shook him up. At
that point he made up his mind to kill no more women until he got them indoors.
He didn’t want Kelly found too quickly while the other victims were laid out in
a gruesome display. Had he not been seen at Mitre Square he would have left
Kelly’s door open or perhaps dragged her out of the room into the passage.
The killer believed he had been seen. Was that why soon after the Eddowes murder
he left the message at Goulston Street: “The Juwes are the men that Will not be
Blamed for nothing” blaming the Jews for the murders? Was his game then to take
the Jews down with him if he went down? What supports this contention is that if
he was seen by a Jew he could trust not to go to the law about him then what
could be more true than that the Jews are to blame? Why write the Juwes and the
men: plurals? Why not write, “The Juwes are not to blame for nothing”? It was
easier to write. It was quicker. And there was little room on the area where he
wrote. He wrote in the words “are the men who are not to be blamed for nothing”
to emphasis the plural and that it was men.
Another possibility is that the Jews tried to handle the Ripper their own way
and managed to stop him killing for several weeks. One night he got away and cut
up Mary Kelly. When they didn’t do a good job it looks like it was the Ripper’s
family that tried to control the problem.
The witnesses at Mitre Square lived so close to Goulston Street that you would think the killer wanted to point to one of them as the murderer. If so, he would have known them and they him.
The Ripper was very local and so were they.
The whole aura shows that the killer had been seen and he knew it.
The errors
Stewart Evans best scenario regarding the identification. It appears that it is
that the identification took place when Kosminksi was in the workhouse which was
from 12 to 15 July 1890. Evans says he was not identified in the asylum for that
was against the law. He thinks that the suspect was taken to Clarendon Villas in
Brighton and sent back to his brother in Whitechapel. Then he went to Stepney
Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch Asylum where he died.
Evans thinks the errors made by the police are as follows:
Macnaghten got it wrong about the suspect being locked up permanently in March
1889.
Swanson got the name of the workhouse wrong and thinking the suspect died.
Anderson's only proven error was in saying the suspect was put in an asylum and
identified after. But unless the suspect was found to be sane and released this
would have been impossible. And we must remember that Kosminksi was thought to
have recovered for he had been in an asylum and released.
The suspect was sent to the Seaside Home for identification with difficulty.
Evans thinks the problem was getting the Workhouse staff to take him there. But
this does not fit the text "where he had been sent by us with difficulty in
order to subject him to identification." This implies some legal problem not a
man power problem and the police had procedures for getting suspects taken from
workhouses. We know the police feared a backlash against the Jews should a Jew
be accused of the murders - was confidentiality the difficulty?
If "after this identification which suspect knew no other murder of this kind
took place in London" implies that the suspect did not kill just because he was
identified and he knew it then what? Was he released from the asylum after? Why
does he not say the reason for no more murdering was that the killer was locked
away?
Late 1889 Anderson says Ripper not found
Pall Mall Gazette 4 November 1889
Mr. Davis had taken a letter of introduction to Dr. Robert Anderson, the head of
the Criminal Investigation Department, who remarked to him, "I only spoke of it
because they say, as a rule, your people come over here expecting to see dukes
wearing their coronets and the thieves of Whitechapel in prison-cut clothes, and
they are disappointed. But I don't think you will be disappointed in the
district. After a stranger has gone over it he takes a much more lenient view of
our failure to find Jack the Ripper, as they call him, than he did before."
They did fail to find the Ripper. Knowing who it was when it is too late is not finding. And it was only a year after the killing of Kelly so information turning up was a possibility.
George Sims 1907
This writer knew a thing or two. He wrote, "One man only, a policeman,
saw [the Ripper] leaving the place in which he had just accomplished a fiendish
deed, but failed owing to the darkness, to get a good view of him. A
little later the policeman stumbled over the lifeless body of the victim-the
policeman who got a glimpse of Jack in Mitre Court said, when some time
afterwards he saw the Pole, that he was the height and build he had seen on the
night of the murder."
Finally
We know a Jew identified a fellow Jew as the Ripper but refused to testify
against him in court.
Who was this witness? It was not Israel Schwartz who virtually seen the Ripper
along with Elizabeth Stride but he didn't see him dispatching her. He saw a man
with a knife who scared him away. When Schwartz said so much about this man he
would have identified him and had him hanged. He even talked to the papers.
It was not Joseph Lawende the Jew who saw the man with Catherine Eddowes that
same night minutes before her murder. He said he couldn’t identify the man. The
witness had to have been the Jew, Joseph Levy, who was in his company. This man
acted so strangely that undoubtedly he knew more than he let on.
We need a positive identification to prove who the Ripper was. And the men
investigating the murders said there had been one. There is much confusion about
who the witness who made the identification was. But it can be cleared up.
Joseph Levy saw the killer with Catherine Eddowes and it was somebody he knew.
Joseph Levy didn’t want to say anything about the killer but he may have changed
his mind later when he identified him.
Major Griffiths said that many suspects were considered by the police "all of
them known to be homicidal lunatics, and against three of these held very
plausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion." The accused then were
certainly known to have at least tried to kill other people.
A Jew was identified as the Ripper. We know that much.