The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It has been stated in # 855 that Kosminski had no alibi.

There is no correction forthcoming from Elamarna nor from any of the other sticklers who pounce on suppositions, assumptions and speculations when it suits them.

Now we're being told that unless I can provide Kosminski with an alibi, he had no alibi.

That is a fallacy.

If Pizer had not been accused to his face, we would almost certainly be reading similar accusations now that he had no alibi.

Kosminski was never given the chance to produce an alibi because he was never accused to his face.

Anderson never answered his own accusers because he could not and Swanson kept his silence because there never was any case against Kosminski and never will be.

Are you for real?

An alibi has to be proven. You can’t just imagine one. No proof of an alibi then no alibi. It’s very simple. Ask Trevor, he’s a former police officer who has no time for Kosminski as a suspect but even he will tell you that an alibi has to be established and not just assumed.

[Fiver]

It has been stated in # 855 that Kosminski had no alibi.

Kosminski has no alibi that we know of. I don't think that he was the Ripper, but we have no evidence that shows he was probably, let alone definitely somewhere else when the victims were killed.

In contrast to Prince Albert Victor, who had solid alibis. Or William Gull, who was a recovering stroke victim. Or Charles Lechmere, who was at work when some of the murders were committed. Or Robert Anderson and Walter Sickert, who weren't even in England when some of the murders occurred.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It has been stated in # 855 that Kosminski had no alibi.

There is no correction forthcoming from Elamarna nor from any of the other sticklers who pounce on suppositions, assumptions and speculations when it suits them.

Now we're being told that unless I can provide Kosminski with an alibi, he had no alibi.

That is a fallacy.

If Pizer had not been accused to his face, we would almost certainly be reading similar accusations now that he had no alibi.

Kosminski was never given the chance to produce an alibi because he was never accused to his face.

Anderson never answered his own accusers because he could not and Swanson kept his silence because there never was any case against Kosminski and never will be.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Abby says that Kosminski had no alibi.

You don't find that ludicrous?

You couldn't even attempt to refute the points I made in # 853 and repeated in # 856.

There is no evidence that Kosminski came to the police's attention prior to his incarceration.

No evidence of an arrest, no evidence of his being questioned, no evidence of failure to produce an alibi, no evidence that there was any incriminating evidence against him, no evidence that he was put under surveillance, and no evidence that he was ever subjected to an identification procedure.

This is the only case in British criminal history in which it is claimed that a suspect was identified by an unnamed witness at a venue which his two accusers cannot even agree about, and in the presence of people who have never been named or identified themselves.

A total fiction.

Provide the evidence that places Kosminski elsewhere at the time of any of the murders. That’s exactly what you have to do to show that he had an alibi.

If you can’t (and you can’t) then by definition he has no alibi.

It looks like we can add Darryl to the lengthening list of posting who find you an impossibly frustrating poster to discuss this case with. Or any case for that matter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see that Druitt is being expected to prove his Dorset alibi, as some expect Sickert to prove his French alibi.

No, Druitt is dead……I’m asking you to prove his alibi…..

I suggest the police would not have taken seriously the idea that Druitt was using one of his cricketing trips to Dorset as a cover to commit murder in Whitechapel any more than that of Sickert commuting between England and France for the same purpose.

Again, you’re just making things up. No one has ever said, suggested or even hinted at Druitt using a cricket trip as an alibi.

Where is the evidence that Druitt ever visited Whitechapel?

What evidence could there be?

Is there any evidence that Frank Sinatra ever visited Park City, Utah? If there isn’t does that mean he couldn’t possibly have been there?

You said that Druitt had an alibi…..no amount of waffle will help you disguise that fact……..we know for an absolute fact that he didn’t have an alibi.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I am done arguing with you. Like Abby says to suggest that Kosminski was never a suspect [ no matter how strong ], is completely ludicrous .What do you think ? They stuck a pin in the street directory or lunatic records and pulled his name out ? If Martin Fido had never found him in the asylum records all those years ago I am sure that you would suggest that he never existed and was wishful thinking in Anderson's mind of some sort of Hybrid Leather apron and crazy Jew character

Abby says that Kosminski had no alibi.

You don't find that ludicrous?

You couldn't even attempt to refute the points I made in # 853 and repeated in # 856.

There is no evidence that Kosminski came to the police's attention prior to his incarceration.

No evidence of an arrest, no evidence of his being questioned, no evidence of failure to produce an alibi, no evidence that there was any incriminating evidence against him, no evidence that he was put under surveillance, and no evidence that he was ever subjected to an identification procedure.

This is the only case in British criminal history in which it is claimed that a suspect was identified by an unnamed witness at a venue which his two accusers cannot even agree about, and in the presence of people who have never been named or identified themselves.

A total fiction.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I quote from my # 853.

As far as I can see, you have not even attempted to refute these points.

I suggest they are irrefutable.



None of them ('Anderson, MM, Swanson and perhaps Sagar') provided any evidence even that Kosminski was ever arrested or questioned.

No such CID officer (who allegedly watched Kosminski) has ever been named nor identified himself.

If his alibi did not stand up, why did your two senior policemen never mention it?

There is no evidence that he was ever arrested.

There is no evidence to support your statements (that Kosminski was sent to be identified and was identified).

None of the [senior police officers] cited one shred of incriminating evidence against him.

According to Macnaghten, the case was wholly circumstantial and, according to Anderson and Swanson, depended on identification by a witness who obviously did not exist, which is why he was never named.

I am done arguing with you. Like Abby says to suggest that Kosminski was never a suspect [ no matter how strong ], is completely ludicrous .What do you think ? They stuck a pin in the street directory or lunatic records and pulled his name out ? If Martin Fido had never found him in the asylum records all those years ago I am sure that you would suggest that he never existed and was wishful thinking in Anderson's mind of some sort of Hybrid Leather apron and crazy Jew character

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I see that Druitt is being expected to prove his Dorset alibi, as some expect Sickert to prove his French alibi.

I suggest the police would not have taken seriously the idea that Druitt was using one of his cricketing trips to Dorset as a cover to commit murder in Whitechapel any more than that of Sickert commuting between England and France for the same purpose.

Where is the evidence that Druitt ever visited Whitechapel?

[Herlock Sholmes]

When I dare to point out that Druitt, who was on a cricketing trip in Dorset at the time of the first murder, had an alibi, fire from heaven descends upon me.

But now we have someone stating (# 855) that Kosminski had no alibi.

Is that supposition, assumption or pure speculation?

Are you still peddling this lie?

It has been proven, absolutely proven that Druitt had no alibi.

Just for once display a bit of integrity and go with the truth. Why is this so hard for you to admit? Even those researchers who have little or no time for Druitt as a suspect have accepted the inescapable fact that he didn’t have an alibi.

You are the most infuriating poster that I’ve ever come across on any forum anywhere.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Which officers specifically say an ID never took place ?

Which officers specifically say Kosminski was arrested, or that he failed to produce an alibi, or that any incriminating evidence against him was ever found?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

When I dare to point out that Druitt, who was on a cricketing trip in Dorset at the time of the first murder, had an alibi, fire from heaven descends upon me.

But now we have someone stating (# 855) that Kosminski had no alibi.

Is that supposition, assumption or pure speculation?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PI - Because Anderson latched onto Macnaghten's comments about Kosminski, insanity, and the murderer dying soon after the murders ended, and in his confusion made them into one tale

I think this says it all .

I quote from my # 853.

As far as I can see, you have not even attempted to refute these points.

I suggest they are irrefutable.



None of them ('Anderson, MM, Swanson and perhaps Sagar') provided any evidence even that Kosminski was ever arrested or questioned.

No such CID officer (who allegedly watched Kosminski) has ever been named nor identified himself.

If his alibi did not stand up, why did your two senior policemen never mention it?

There is no evidence that he was ever arrested.

There is no evidence to support your statements (that Kosminski was sent to be identified and was identified).

None of the [senior police officers] cited one shred of incriminating evidence against him.

According to Macnaghten, the case was wholly circumstantial and, according to Anderson and Swanson, depended on identification by a witness who obviously did not exist, which is why he was never named.

[Abby Normal]

There is no evidence that he was ever arrested.
Watched by city CID

Bingo DK-
and taken away "with his hands tied".
Koz was obviously a police suspect, was sent for an ID (probably by the witness Lawende), was surveilled, and mentioned as such by three police officials.
He had no alibi.
To try an argue he wasnt as suspect is absolutely ludicrous.

[Darryl Kenyon]

In reply to Darryl Kenyon.

My comments appear in bold:


He is suspected because of totally unsubstantiated writings by Anderson and Swanson.

so why write about Kosminski ? Why pick on him rather than say David Cohen who on the face of it is a much better suspect.

Because Anderson latched onto Macnaghten's comments about Kosminski, insanity, and the murderer dying soon after the murders ended, and in his confusion made them into one tale.



There is no evidence that Kosminski was ever a police suspect.

Anderson, MM, Swanson and perhaps Sagar

None of them provided any evidence even that Kosminski was ever arrested or questioned.



There is no evidence that he was ever arrested.

Watched by city CID

No such CID officer has ever been named nor identified himself.

And that is not the same as being arrested.



There is no evidence that he failed to provide an alibi when challenged to do so.

If he did and it checked out why do you think two senior policemen would waste so much time on him

If his alibi did not stand up, why did your two senior policemen never mention it?



There is no evidence that he was ever identified as the murderer.

Yes an unsuccesful ID but the point is he was still sent for an id and if the id was successful he may have been charged

There is no evidence to support your statements.

Not a single witness to the identification and an unnamed, non-existent, witness, and a sending which as you well know, without an arrest having been made, the Whitechapel Murderer would never have consented to.



There is no evidence that any incriminating evidence was ever found against him.

Why was he suspected then ?

He was not a police suspect.

He became a 'suspect' only on account of his incarceration.



There is no case against him.

Again Anderson, MM Swanson

None of them cited one shred of incriminating evidence against him.

According to Macnaghten, the case was wholly circumstantial and, according to Anderson and Swanson, depended on identification by a witness who obviously did not exist, which is why he was never named.

PI - Because Anderson latched onto Macnaghten's comments about Kosminski, insanity, and the murderer dying soon after the murders ended, and in his confusion made them into one tale

I think this says it all .

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In reply to Darryl Kenyon.

My comments appear in bold:


He is suspected because of totally unsubstantiated writings by Anderson and Swanson.

so why write about Kosminski ? Why pick on him rather than say David Cohen who on the face of it is a much better suspect.

Because Anderson latched onto Macnaghten's comments about Kosminski, insanity, and the murderer dying soon after the murders ended, and in his confusion made them into one tale.



There is no evidence that Kosminski was ever a police suspect.

Anderson, MM, Swanson and perhaps Sagar

None of them provided any evidence even that Kosminski was ever arrested or questioned.



There is no evidence that he was ever arrested.

Watched by city CID

No such CID officer has ever been named nor identified himself.

And that is not the same as being arrested.



There is no evidence that he failed to provide an alibi when challenged to do so.

If he did and it checked out why do you think two senior policemen would waste so much time on him

If his alibi did not stand up, why did your two senior policemen never mention it?



There is no evidence that he was ever identified as the murderer.

Yes an unsuccesful ID but the point is he was still sent for an id and if the id was successful he may have been charged

There is no evidence to support your statements.

Not a single witness to the identification and an unnamed, non-existent, witness, and a sending which as you well know, without an arrest having been made, the Whitechapel Murderer would never have consented to.



There is no evidence that any incriminating evidence was ever found against him.

Why was he suspected then ?

He was not a police suspect.

He became a 'suspect' only on account of his incarceration.



There is no case against him.

Again Anderson, MM Swanson

None of them cited one shred of incriminating evidence against him.

According to Macnaghten, the case was wholly circumstantial and, according to Anderson and Swanson, depended on identification by a witness who obviously did not exist, which is why he was never named.