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

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only way anyone could prove that Druitt did not have an alibi would be if they could find a record that he had been unable to provide one when challenged by police.

He was never challenged because he did not become a suspect until after his death, just as Kosminski did not become a suspect until after his incarceration.

The statement

Druitt definitely didn’t have an alibi for Nichols

cannot be substantiated and, according to Elamarna's definition, amounts to invention.

PI, I’ve been posting on here for around 6 years and I have never met a poster who is less likely to debate honestly than you. You simply refuse to do so. It’s just absolutely impossible to have a reasoned conversation with you because you appear to feel the need not just to ‘win’ the debate but to ‘prove’ that every single point that you make is correct and that every single point everyone else makes is wrong. To do this you repeatedly move the goalposts or attempt to twist words. You said this about Druitt in post #801:

“It turns out that he had an alibi for the first murder.”

It has been shown by research to have been untrue. Even if the game that Druitt was playing in finished at the latest possible time Chris Phillips discovered that there was still one (or possibly 2 trains) that he could have caught which would have got him back well in time for the murder of Nichols. For him to have an alibi it would need to be shown that such was not possible. That has not been shown by anyone at any time. Therefore it is a fact to say that Druitt hasn’t got an alibi. It’s also a fact that he no longer has an alibi for Tabram.

So…unless you can provide alternative research (and not just your opinion or a ludicrous “he probably had an alibi,”) that proves this statement made by YOU is correct:

“It turns out that he had an alibi for the first murder.”

then you stand accused of not telling the truth. And you’ll remain in a position of not being truthful, as every single honest poster on here will see.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

It is entirely possible that the person called Kosminski by MM was in an asylum in early 1889.
Such would almost certainly be a voluntary admission, arranged either by the individual or by his family.
Such is in keeping with the comments attributed to Henry Cox, who said of an unnamed suspect he watched

“From time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey.”

Such is of course I concede speculation.


Macnaghten's comment removed to an asylum does not suggest a voluntary admission.

Macnaghten's comment suggests that it was a permanent incarceration - like Anderson's safely caged in an asylum - which does not match Cox's suspect who used to spend a portion of his time in an asylum.

I suggest that if another Kosminski than Aaron was admitted to an asylum about four months after the last murder, then it is stretching credulity to suggest that both of them practised solitary vices and that in both cases it was known to anyone else.



However, more importantly we have NO records to show if Kosminski was IN an asylum in early 89 or if he was NOT.

So your claim that Macnaghten's statement that Kosminski was in an asylum in early 89 , is untrue, is incorrect.

It is unknown.


Macnaghten's comment removed to an asylum - like Anderson's safely caged in an asylum - suggests that it was a permanent incarceration.

Aaron Kosminski was seen walking a dog in Central London about nine months after Kosminski's supposed removal to an asylum.

Macnaghten does not say that he left the asylum within months of entering it.

If he was really suspected of being the murderer, the police would have needed to know about something like that.

Consequently, Macnaghten's statement can hardly be true.



And, as I stated in my previous post, there is no evidence that Kosminski was a suspect prior to his incarceration.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Macnaghten thought Druitt was a doctor, that Ostrog was on the outside, that Kosminski was put away in March 1889, that Ostrog was a homicidal maniac, that Druitt was sexually insane, and that Kosminski had a great hatred of women.

The first four statements are untrue and the last two unsupported.

Macnaghten is hardly a reliable source - is he?

He does not provide any evidence that Kosminski was a suspect prior to his incarceration - and neither do Anderson or Swanson.

Nothing.

Not even a reference to a search carried out or something incriminating found.

There is no evidence that Kosminski was a suspect prior to his incarceration.

Kosminski did not have the chance to clear himself because he was not even a suspect. Post 812

There is no evidence that Kosminski was a suspect prior to his incarceration. Post 821

Which is it please ?

[Elamarna]

I did state a few months ago that the cricket alibi is not cast iron.

But it did seem clear, on the evidence presented at that time, that he had an alibi.

When I say that I think it likely that Kosminski had an alibi for at least one of the murders, that becomes pure invention.

When Herlock says that Druitt definitely did not have an alibi, when he evidently had some kind of alibi, that becomes a tad too strong.

That is obviously a double standard.

Not at all, Herlock clearly does not think the alibi stands up to scrutiny, and you it seems question it yourself.
The statement is not INVENTION, it is based on an assesment of the known facts.

The suggestion that Kosminski "likely had an alibi for at least one of the murders", is based on nothing, there are NO FACTS that support the view that he had an alibi for any of the murders. the statement is unsupported speculation, that is invention.

[Elamarna]

Macnaghten thought Druitt was a doctor, that Ostrog was on the outside, that Kosminski was put away in March 1889, that Ostrog was a homicidal maniac, that Druitt was sexually insane, and that Kosminski had a great hatred of women.

The first four statements are untrue and the last two unsupported.

Macnaghten is hardly a reliable source - is he?

He does not provide any evidence that Kosminski was a suspect prior to his incarceration - and neither do Anderson or Swanson.

Nothing.

Not even a reference to a search carried out or something incriminating found.

There is no evidence that Kosminski was a suspect prior to his incarceration.

It is entirely possible that the person called Kosminski by MM was in an asylum in early 1889.
Such would almost certainly be a voluntary admission, arranged either by the individual or by his family.
Such is in keeping with the comments attributed to Henry Cox, who said of an unnamed suspect he watched

“From time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey.”

Such is of course I concede speculation.

However, more importantly we have NO records to show if Kosminski was IN an asylum in early 89 or if he was NOT.

So your claim that Macnaghten's statement that Kosminski was in an asylum in early 89 , is untrue, is incorrect.

It is unknown.

[Abby Normal]

This is absolutely untrue. I have no time for Lechmere as a suspect (and neither does Steve, as everyone knows) but to say that he “almost certainly had alibis.” Is not only untrue it’s completely meaningless. Can any of us imagine the police office who would say:” yeah we can dismiss suspect x because he’s probably got alibis.”

Alibis have to be presented and not speculated upon.

So yes, it’s a 100% invention.

you are absolutely 100% correct Herlock. People on here are constantly tossing around the word alibis like it was nothing. Its unbeleiveable.
lech didnt have an alibi
Druitt didnt have an alibi
Koz didnt have an alibi

so yes to say a suspect had an alibi is total invention. and saying someone probably had an alibi is ludicrous. you either have one or you dont. its like saying someone is probably pregnant. it dosnt work like that.

you know who had an alibi? ostrog. he was in a french prison. thats an alibi.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Not sure exactly what the point is here.

We know Druitt was playing cricket the day before the murder of Polly Nicholls, away from London.

We know he could in theory, depending on the finish time of play , have caught a train to get him to London in time to kill Polly

However, we do not know what time the matched finished, so cannot say if he could have caught said train.

Therefore, while for some people, there is an alibi( they reject the possibility of him catching the train, they consider it unlikely) it is far from what would call a cast iron alibi.

The statement that Druitt "definitely didn't have an alibi " is maybe a tad too strong, too definitive.
It is however based on the information that he could if he wanted have got to London after the cricket( again it's all dependent on the finish time, which we do not know.) thus nullifying the alibi that he was playing cricket outside of London the day before.

I did state a few months ago that the cricket alibi is not cast iron.

But it did seem clear, on the evidence presented at that time, that he had an alibi.

When I say that I think it likely that Kosminski had an alibi for at least one of the murders, that becomes pure invention.

When Herlock says that Druitt definitely did not have an alibi, when he evidently had some kind of alibi, that becomes a tad too strong.

That is obviously a double standard.

[Elamarna]

Druitt definitely didn’t have an alibi for Nichols

(HERLOCK SHOMES)


According to Elamarna, unsupported speculation amounts to invention.

It follows that, according to Elamarna, Herlock's statement above amounts to invention.

If he disputes that, he is welcome to do so.

Not sure exactly what the point is here.

We know Druitt was playing cricket the day before the murder of Polly Nicholls, away from London.

We know he could in theory, depending on the finish time of play , have caught a train to get him to London in time to kill Polly

However, we do not know what time the matched finished, so cannot say if he could have caught said train.

Therefore, while for some people, there is an alibi( they reject the possibility of him catching the train, they consider it unlikely) it is far from what would call a cast iron alibi.

The statement that Druitt "definitely didn't have an alibi " is maybe a tad too strong, too definitive.
It is however based on the information that he could if he wanted have got to London after the cricket( again it's all dependent on the finish time, which we do not know.) thus nullifying the alibi that he was playing cricket outside of London the day before.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

MM in his memorandum specifically calls Kosminski a suspect . I suppose you think he was making it up as well

Macnaghten thought Druitt was a doctor, that Ostrog was on the outside, that Kosminski was put away in March 1889, that Ostrog was a homicidal maniac, that Druitt was sexually insane, and that Kosminski had a great hatred of women.

The first four statements are untrue and the last two unsupported.

Macnaghten is hardly a reliable source - is he?

He does not provide any evidence that Kosminski was a suspect prior to his incarceration - and neither do Anderson or Swanson.

Nothing.

Not even a reference to a search carried out or something incriminating found.

There is no evidence that Kosminski was a suspect prior to his incarceration.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The only way anyone could prove that Druitt did not have an alibi would be if they could find a record that he had been unable to provide one when challenged by police.

He was never challenged because he did not become a suspect until after his death, just as Kosminski did not become a suspect until after his incarceration.

The statement

Druitt definitely didn’t have an alibi for Nichols

cannot be substantiated and, according to Elamarna's definition, amounts to invention.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Kosminski did not have the chance to clear himself because he was not even a suspect.

A careful reading of Anderson's memoirs reveals that even according to Anderson, his conclusion that the murderer had to be a Polish Jew was not arrived at as a result of any search yielding any positive result and that the suspect was no longer living in Whitechapel at the time that he became a suspect.

MM in his memorandum specifically calls Kosminski a suspect . I suppose you think he was making it up as well

[Herlock Sholmes]

Druitt definitely didn’t have an alibi for Nichols

(HERLOCK SHOMES)


According to Elamarna, unsupported speculation amounts to invention.

It follows that, according to Elamarna, Herlock's statement above amounts to invention.

If he disputes that, he is welcome to do so.

Because it’s not speculation it’s perfectly true. We know for an absolute fact that Druitt had 2 or 3 different trains that would have got back to London well in time for the Nichols murder. And we know that the cricket match that he was supposed to be playing in when Tabram was killed didn’t take place.

So these are facts arrived at by research. Not speculation.

I know that it might stick in your throat PI, but the evidence is there and unequivocal…So…..will you accept that you are wrong?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Druitt definitely didn’t have an alibi for Nichols

(HERLOCK SHOMES)


According to Elamarna, unsupported speculation amounts to invention.

It follows that, according to Elamarna, Herlock's statement above amounts to invention.

If he disputes that, he is welcome to do so.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well someone was less than economical with the truth thats for sure

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think in Anderson's case, that is clear, but does it really matter whether he knew that what he wrote was not true?

We know that when he claimed to have discussed the murders with the Home Secretary, William Harcourt, Harcourt was not Home Secretary.

We know that he confused Alice McKenzie with Mary Kelly.

We know that he confused the political parties of leading politicians.

We know that he thought a clear-cut case of murder was a natural death.

We know that Winston Churchill called him a fantasist.

We know that he changed an important detail about his suspect's history when he realised it could not have happened.

We know that when challenged by Inspector Reid, he made no response.

What does that tell you?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Druitt definitely didn’t have an alibi for Nichols

(HERLOCK SHOMES)

Would Elamarna kindly tell us whether the statement quoted above is invention?

It was you that made the assertion. How about you giving an answer to the question I directed at you (a note that I mentioned in my post that you would try and swerve the question.)

Will you now concede that you were wrong?