How Brown
09-20-2007, 04:51 PM
1. In the reading of Sugden's Complete...what is your view on Lawende being asked not once,but thrice,to identify first the Seaside Home inmate,Grainger and then Sadler? Do you agree and if not,why not?
Well, it hasn’t been established who the witness was at the attempted Seaside Home identity pararde but general consensus is that it was Lawende or Schwartz. Sadlers attempted ID was indeed Lawende and the Grainger ID stems from a news report, which Mr Sugden logically deduces, was Lawende again.
Yeah, I agree. Lawende would have been considered a valued witness. This down to the fact that…
a) he saw a couple, which was confirmed by Levy. Also, the female was wearing similar clothes to the victim.
b) the location of the sighting was very close to the murder sight
c) the timing of the sighting
d) and the most important of all, he saw the man face to face.
The only problem we have is that the attempted identifying occurs years after his original sighting. Recall deteriorates over time, becomes confused with other events. I feel this was the reason the seaside home ID failed, though its stated it failed on the basis that both witness and suspect were Jewish and the lack of evidence to convict (Swanson – though his hanging comment confuses me). Which, in my opinion, is an indication the witness was not certain.
2. Do you have another article lined up with the participation of Jake Laukenen in the works?
Erm, yes. Its kinda been put on the back burner mainly due to the fact Im preparing for the 2007 Conference next month and Jake has other commitments. Once the conf is out of the way I can commit more to it. At this stage there is no need for us to work together, that’ll come more towards the end. Some know whom we are working on, some don’t. What I will say is that this time we are looking outside the Canon.
3. Since you are speaking at the Wolverhampton Convention, I was wondering if this will be your first public speech. I sort of wish I was there to heckle you,but if you have experience,could you elaborate buddy?
Im deaf, so heckle away!
I’ve given evidence many a time in court, due to my work I stress to add, but that’s answering questions. The last public speech I did on a specific topic was back in school on Australian Rules football.
Im talking to people about what is probably the most well known aspect of Catherines story, her death. People are going to know when I make a mistake. This coupled with the fact that when I look up I’ll be seeing the faces of the likes of Stewart Evans, Don Rumbelow, Don Souden, Dan Norder looking back, and that really does put the pressure on.
My biggest fear however, is the letting down of others. I mean, this talk isn’t all my own work. Lots of people have contributed. Jane Coram, Gareth Williams, Rob Clack, Phil Hutchinson, Deb Arif, and Gavin Bromley have all made valued additions. Adam Wood has been extremely helpful too, believe it or not.
Jake has been an immense help. The stuff he sees, little things that interests the hell out of me. For example, I bet you didn’t know about the wall that jutted out into Goulston Street from the end of the Wentworth Model dwellings. I didn’t realise that until he mentioned it earlier this week. It may have had a bearing on that pet topic of yours, the graffiti. Then again, it may not. He spots stuff like that and the next thing you know there is a flurry of mails between ourselves, Gavin, Rob, Debs and opinions are exchanged and ideas progress. Also my knowledge increases, Ive learnt a hell of a lot from these guys and I really enjoy that.
Anyway, the talk. Our aim is to put you there, in Duke Street as Lawende passes by or the Square as Watkins comes across the unfortunate Eddowes. If we have done that then I am a happy man.
4. Do you feel that the direction of the field in general is moving towards a mutual understanding of the individual scenarios as opposed to the discovery of the Ripper or at least is there more work being done to explain, for instance, Hanbury Street and the gap between the time Bowyer found Kelly and the notification of the police afterwards?
I think understanding of what happened, why it happened and when is important. However, I don’t think that on its own will lead to a discovery of Jack. In my opinion, there is an increase of reconstruction/ recreation work (call it what you will) and I think that is born out of interest in what exactly did happen. I think that’s just human nature. We are all nosey buggers.
5. Give me ( in 1,000 words or less...) your appraisal of the work Gavin Bromley has been providing over the last year in the Rip
Valued…..that do?
I can understand if it is not every ones favourite cup of tea, Gavin himself is aware that some may find it complex. However, for someone like myself who finds the mechanics of specific events interesting, his work is a valued source. Instead of wondering where PC Smith or Harvey was, Gavin has pinpointed almost exactly their positions. That all helps in the understanding.
His Goulston Street work was wonderful and I know Tom Westcott found his article(s) on Berner Street a great aid. Gavin is currently helping me out on the talk as well as on Jake and my latest article. He has already put forward some really interesting suggestions on that front.
P.S. I wouldn't heckle you for real...I'd jump up and say. "Thatsamyboy !! You tell 'em Monty !!"
What, that the wall writing wasn’t done by Jack? Too right you will
Cheers
Monty
:)
Well, it hasn’t been established who the witness was at the attempted Seaside Home identity pararde but general consensus is that it was Lawende or Schwartz. Sadlers attempted ID was indeed Lawende and the Grainger ID stems from a news report, which Mr Sugden logically deduces, was Lawende again.
Yeah, I agree. Lawende would have been considered a valued witness. This down to the fact that…
a) he saw a couple, which was confirmed by Levy. Also, the female was wearing similar clothes to the victim.
b) the location of the sighting was very close to the murder sight
c) the timing of the sighting
d) and the most important of all, he saw the man face to face.
The only problem we have is that the attempted identifying occurs years after his original sighting. Recall deteriorates over time, becomes confused with other events. I feel this was the reason the seaside home ID failed, though its stated it failed on the basis that both witness and suspect were Jewish and the lack of evidence to convict (Swanson – though his hanging comment confuses me). Which, in my opinion, is an indication the witness was not certain.
2. Do you have another article lined up with the participation of Jake Laukenen in the works?
Erm, yes. Its kinda been put on the back burner mainly due to the fact Im preparing for the 2007 Conference next month and Jake has other commitments. Once the conf is out of the way I can commit more to it. At this stage there is no need for us to work together, that’ll come more towards the end. Some know whom we are working on, some don’t. What I will say is that this time we are looking outside the Canon.
3. Since you are speaking at the Wolverhampton Convention, I was wondering if this will be your first public speech. I sort of wish I was there to heckle you,but if you have experience,could you elaborate buddy?
Im deaf, so heckle away!
I’ve given evidence many a time in court, due to my work I stress to add, but that’s answering questions. The last public speech I did on a specific topic was back in school on Australian Rules football.
Im talking to people about what is probably the most well known aspect of Catherines story, her death. People are going to know when I make a mistake. This coupled with the fact that when I look up I’ll be seeing the faces of the likes of Stewart Evans, Don Rumbelow, Don Souden, Dan Norder looking back, and that really does put the pressure on.
My biggest fear however, is the letting down of others. I mean, this talk isn’t all my own work. Lots of people have contributed. Jane Coram, Gareth Williams, Rob Clack, Phil Hutchinson, Deb Arif, and Gavin Bromley have all made valued additions. Adam Wood has been extremely helpful too, believe it or not.
Jake has been an immense help. The stuff he sees, little things that interests the hell out of me. For example, I bet you didn’t know about the wall that jutted out into Goulston Street from the end of the Wentworth Model dwellings. I didn’t realise that until he mentioned it earlier this week. It may have had a bearing on that pet topic of yours, the graffiti. Then again, it may not. He spots stuff like that and the next thing you know there is a flurry of mails between ourselves, Gavin, Rob, Debs and opinions are exchanged and ideas progress. Also my knowledge increases, Ive learnt a hell of a lot from these guys and I really enjoy that.
Anyway, the talk. Our aim is to put you there, in Duke Street as Lawende passes by or the Square as Watkins comes across the unfortunate Eddowes. If we have done that then I am a happy man.
4. Do you feel that the direction of the field in general is moving towards a mutual understanding of the individual scenarios as opposed to the discovery of the Ripper or at least is there more work being done to explain, for instance, Hanbury Street and the gap between the time Bowyer found Kelly and the notification of the police afterwards?
I think understanding of what happened, why it happened and when is important. However, I don’t think that on its own will lead to a discovery of Jack. In my opinion, there is an increase of reconstruction/ recreation work (call it what you will) and I think that is born out of interest in what exactly did happen. I think that’s just human nature. We are all nosey buggers.
5. Give me ( in 1,000 words or less...) your appraisal of the work Gavin Bromley has been providing over the last year in the Rip
Valued…..that do?
I can understand if it is not every ones favourite cup of tea, Gavin himself is aware that some may find it complex. However, for someone like myself who finds the mechanics of specific events interesting, his work is a valued source. Instead of wondering where PC Smith or Harvey was, Gavin has pinpointed almost exactly their positions. That all helps in the understanding.
His Goulston Street work was wonderful and I know Tom Westcott found his article(s) on Berner Street a great aid. Gavin is currently helping me out on the talk as well as on Jake and my latest article. He has already put forward some really interesting suggestions on that front.
P.S. I wouldn't heckle you for real...I'd jump up and say. "Thatsamyboy !! You tell 'em Monty !!"
What, that the wall writing wasn’t done by Jack? Too right you will
Cheers
Monty
:)