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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lechmere almost certainly had alibis for at least some of the Whitechapel murders, which took place before he had even set out for work or on days when he can reasonably have been expected to be with his family.

From what we know of Kosminski, it is reasonable to speculate that he had alibis for at least some of the murders.

And that, as I think you know deep down, is not invention.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

An Astro-physicist would.

Swanson was not an Astro-physicist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You cannot be serious!

Seven months cannot be a very short space of time.

How many people here would ever describe seven months as a a very short space of time?

An Astro-physicist would.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Druitt has been accused of committing the Whitechapel murders.

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

It is reasonable to speculate that he had alibis for others in the series.

No it’s not.

That is not invention.

Yes it is.
.

This is certainly untrue.

If you had read the thread over on JTRForums where a researcher thought that she might have discovered that Druitt couldn’t have killed Nichols for logistical reasons you would know that this has been proven not to have been the case. Even researchers who have no time for Druitt as a suspect have had no choice but to accept this. So Druitt definitely didn’t have an alibi for Nichols. What was also discovered as a result of researchers looking into that very point was that contrary to what was previously believed, Druitt also didn’t have an alibi for the Tabram murder either. Everyone had assumed, including myself, that DJ Leighton was correct when he stated that Druitt was playing cricket on that day but it was simply untrue. This is not opinion. It’s proven fact.

So whatever anyone’s opinion of Druitt as a suspect he categorically doesn’t have an alibi for any of the murders (unless you choose to count Mackenzie of course) I’m now in the familiar position of wondering if you will actually acknowledge these facts or will you just move on without comment?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Of course "in a very small short time" is a highly subjective term, and will mean different things to different people.

And of course he was writting for himself, so he didn't need to be more specific .

Steve

You cannot be serious!

Seven months cannot be a very short space of time.

How many people here would ever describe seven months as a a very short space of time?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Considering he was annotating many years later 7 months would seem a very short space of time would it not?

Seven months is not a a very short space of time in anyone's book - even Swanson's.

Can you give an example of someone in all seriousness ever having described such a time period as a very short space of time?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I am open to possibilities, you are not.
To say a suspect is likely to have alibis for at least some of the murders , is unsupported speculation, that is invention.

There is nothing else to say on this matter.

There is plenty more to say on this matter.

First, what you are claiming is untrue.

What I wrote is a reasonable speculation.

That is not invention.

Even if it were, as you claim, unsupported speculation, that is NOT invention and everyone here knows it.

Pizer was accused of committing Whitechapel murders.

He had alibis.

Druitt has been accused of committing the Whitechapel murders.

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

It is reasonable to speculate that he had alibis for others in the series.

That is not invention.

Lechmere almost certainly had alibis for at least some of the Whitechapel murders, which took place before he had even set out for work or on days when he can reasonably have been expected to be with his family.

From what we know of Kosminski, it is reasonable to speculate that he had alibis for at least some of the murders.

And that, as I think you know deep down, is not invention.

[Darryl Kenyon]

If there ever was one it certainly didn't take place in the way described in the marginalia, and that's the whole issue as to whether the marginalia can safely be relied on. In my opinion, it cant be

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In your post 794 you say - I don't think any of them were deliberate liars but given the many years gap between what Anderson wrote in his book and what Swanson wrote in the marginalia the accuracy of what they wrote has to be questioned.

So could that mean they could be out with some of the detail but not all ? If they weren't liars why did they believe an ID did take place ? What was the basis ? And I believe Trevor, you don't believe all Swanson's annotations to be genuine, but if you are only sure that the line Kosminski is the suspect is false , who do you believe Swanson was talking about when he mentioned a seaside home id ?
PS not sure what questions you mean Trevor , in what I haven't answered .

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

But according to the marginalia and Anderson Kosminski was positively identified and as Reid was head of Whitechapel CID surely he would have known about this, to suggest anything to the contrary is just plain ludicrous.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But he was subordinate to Abberline in the investigation. And the suspect wasn’t, in reality, positively identified was he? For whatever reason Anderson thought that the witness wouldn’t positively identify him because he was Jewish (this might or might not actually have been the case) So they had a suspect that they couldn’t convict (but they could have him watched). Why is the idea of a difference in opinion anathema to you Trevor? I’m sure that you’ve disagreed with colleagues over the years? Reid might have thought that Kosminski was a poor suspect (after all, he thought that the killer was a drunk who met his victims in the pub so Koz didn’t fit his idea of the killer) He might even have been contemptuous of Anderson and Swanson and then when they didn’t get a witness who would stand up in court he saw that as evidence of the suspect being a ‘waste of time’ and that senior officers like those two “hadn’t a clue?”

[Trevor Marriott]

I don’t know how many officers at the various levels and in the various capacities were employed by the Met Trevor but out of all of them you come up with…..one man. Don’t you think that it could have been the case that Reid simply didn’t have any time for Kosminski as a suspect and then when he wasn’t positively ID’d he completely dismissed him believing that those in the upper echelons ‘didn’t have a clue?’

But according to the marginalia and Anderson Kosminski was positively identified and as Reid was head of Whitechapel CID surely he would have known about this, to suggest anything to the contrary is just plain ludicrous.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But we do have one policeman who was directly involved in the investigation who challenges what Anderson say that is Insp Reid and I quote from The Morning Advertiser April 23rd 1910. Following the publication of Anderson’s book: “Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew, that I challenge him to prove, and what is more it was never suggested at the time of the murders. I challenge anyone to prove that there was a tittle of evidence against man, woman or child in connection with the murders, as no man was ever seen in the company of the women who were found dead.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don’t know how many officers at the various levels and in the various capacities were employed by the Met Trevor but out of all of them you come up with…..one man. Don’t you think that it could have been the case that Reid simply didn’t have any time for Kosminski as a suspect and then when he wasn’t positively ID’d he completely dismissed him believing that those in the upper echelons ‘didn’t have a clue?’

[Trevor Marriott]

So how did the ID take place then Trevor

Regards Darryl

If there ever was one it certainly didn't take place in the way described in the marginalia, and that's the whole issue as to whether the marginalia can safely be relied on. In my opinion, it cant be

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

I don't think any of them were deliberate liars but given the many years gap between what Anderson wrote in his book and what Swanson wrote in the marginalia the accuracy of what they wrote has to be questioned.

I see you have not answered the questions in my previous post, answers which could have proved conclusively that the ID parade did take place as you and others believe. But we know the answers to those questions can't be forthcoming from any source, and thos lack of answers conclusively prove that the ID did not take place in the way described in the marginalia.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So how did the ID take place then Trevor

Regards Darryl

[Trevor Marriott]

So if the senior officers were liars, why would it be an issue for them to have kept things to themselves?

I don't think any of them were deliberate liars but given the many years gap between what Anderson wrote in his book and what Swanson wrote in the marginalia the accuracy of what they wrote has to be questioned.

I see you have not answered the questions in my previous post, answers which could have proved conclusively that the ID parade did take place as you and others believe. But we know the answers to those questions can't be forthcoming from any source, and thos lack of answers conclusively prove that the ID did not take place in the way described in the marginalia.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for that, Sunny D. It's the most direct evidence we have in that it's a feud between two high ranking police officials at the time. What they don't say is important as what they do say. Even if it might not make sense to us that Anderson would use Lawende, that doesn't mean that Anderson always made sense. After all, he seems to espouse as fact that the Ripper wrote the GSG when there's no way he could know that for a fact. But the fact that Smith does not take the opportunity either in his book or in the press to admonish Anderson for fabricating a witness ID means that he was aware of one occurring. That he downgrades his star witness to a witness incapable of offering a solid ID speaks volumes to me. And the people he wanted to get the message (his police contemporaries) got the message loud and clear.

I respect that other posters will disagree with this. What I don't understand is the point of view that Anderson lied and then Swanson bolstered the lie in memoranda. Or worse, that more recent generations of his ancestors faked the entries to throw us off. There is no motive for any of this. And it must be taken on board that if the whole thing was a fanciful fabrication, why did not one single policeman from the time write to the press to call him out on the lie? They certainly weren't quiet about other things, were they?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

But we do have one policeman who was directly involved in the investigation who challenges what Anderson say that is Insp Reid and I quote from The Morning Advertiser April 23rd 1910. Following the publication of Anderson’s book: “Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew, that I challenge him to prove, and what is more it was never suggested at the time of the murders. I challenge anyone to prove that there was a tittle of evidence against man, woman or child in connection with the murders, as no man was ever seen in the company of the women who were found dead.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk