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

[Tom_Wescott]

It has always been fairly clear to me that the ID took place in July 1890 during Kosminski's first stint in the workhouse. Swanson states that the suspect was released to his brothers care, watched by City CID and a short time later taken back to the workhouse with hands tied behind his back. We know from the records that Kosminski was released from the workhouse into his brother in laws care in July 1890 and in February 1891 taken back to the workhouse and committed as insane. So that is the period in which City CID watched him day and night.

I like Tom Westcotts suggestion that Major Smith when speaking about Joseph Lawende years later was actually delivering a fatal blow to Andersons claims that the witness had unhesitatingly identified Kosminski as the man seen near Mitre Square and hence JTR. Lawende however at the Inquest says he probably would not recognise the man again. He did not say he definitely would not. So that is significant in viewing Anderson and Swanson as seeing Lawende as useful in that regard.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

And thats the trouble researchers seem to always for some reason want to believe these senior officers who were clearly not all singing from the same song sheet. I will always go with the officers who worked the case on the ground they had no reason to lie or make anything up. and they all corroborate each other when they say there were no clues as to the identity of the killer. Unlike Anderson with his over-inflated ego and the obvious flaws in the marginalia which have been pointed out many times

If you think this ID took place for real where is the evidence to show __________

where it took place
when it took place
who was present
how was Kosminski transported to the ID parade
who transported him
where was he transported from
and why did the likes of Abberline, Reid,Dew, and Major Smith and MM no nothing about such an Id procedure

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Unless their names are Hutt and Robinson of course.

I have never suggested they were lying mistaken, I would suggest is more apt to describe their testimony

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I will always go with the officers who worked the case on the ground they had no reason to lie or make anything up.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unless their names are Hutt and Robinson of course.

[Trevor Marriott]

That you were not aware of this , is simply astounding.
This document as been in the public domain for a number of years and is included in Adam Wood's Swanson. I work I would have assumed was essential if one wishes to discuss Swanson and the Marginlia.

Both this memo and the often quoted draft document were found together.
I further quote from Swanson

""Attached to this memo was a 12-page document numbered ‘Jack 1’ to ‘Jack 12’, with Charles Sandell’s name appearing on the top right hand corner of the first page. The document, obviously a draft of the unused News of the World article (complete with handwritten revisions to the text), admits that little was known about the suspect named by Donald Swanson and that he was far from an exciting solution to the world’s greatest crime mystery: "Somewhere at Scotland Yard there must be a file on Kosminski for his name, and any papers referring to him, have been omitted from the papers available at the Public Records Office. The known facts about him are sketchy. He had a great hatred of women and according to Macnaghten, he had committed many crimes. He particularly hated prostitutes. Macnaghten’s report says: “This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices and he was removed to a lunatic asylum in 1889.” This substantiates Swanson’s comments. Kosminski lived in Whitechapel and consorted with prostitutes until he caught a venereal disease which may have led to his insanity. He certainly knew all the small alleyways in Whitechapel and he was known to have strong homicidal tendencies.""

I notice that when the draft document is quoted, this part of the bundle is rarely mentioned.

As for why Macnaghten says what he does, that's anyone's guess.
However, maybe the document should not be taken at face value, but that's a very different debate.

Who do I prefer to go with, the man who was in charge of coordinating the whole case, or a man who was NOT involved in the case, that's a no brainer.

And thats the trouble researchers seem to always for some reason want to believe these senior officers who were clearly not all singing from the same song sheet. I will always go with the officers who worked the case on the ground they had no reason to lie or make anything up. and they all corroborate each other when they say there were no clues as to the identity of the killer. Unlike Anderson with his over-inflated ego and the obvious flaws in the marginalia which have been pointed out many times

If you think this ID took place for real where is the evidence to show __________

where it took place
when it took place
who was present
how was Kosminski transported to the ID parade
who transported him
where was he transported from
and why did the likes of Abberline, Reid,Dew, and Major Smith and MM no nothing about such an Id procedure

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

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

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

[Sunny Delight]

It is clear from Swanson's account that the CID surveillance lasted only a matter of days and not six to seven months.

Swanson's very short time cannot mean six to seven months:

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

It is clear that Swanson sees the whole sequence of events as taking place over a very short period.

I am used to being told that I have a closed mind and that what I am writing is only my interpretation.

Saying that Swanson got Kosminski's date of death wrong by about three decades is not a matter of interpretation.

And I am also familiar with the retort that I am making an assumption that Swanson's Kosminski is Aaron.

That is ludicrous.

No-one has ever come up with another Kosminski in Colney Hatch, sent there around the same time, nor explained why Swanson should have been unaware that there were two and that it might be a good idea to mention the first name of his suspect.

Nor has anyone explained why it would have been necessary to watch the Kosminski residence day and night for an indefinite period, which suggests that had he not been sent to an asylum, CID would have watched him for the next thirty years.

And what for?

Not one scrap of concrete evidence was ever so much as mentioned by Anderson or Swanson and the only possible evidence alluded to by Macnaghten was wholly circumstantial.

And on the strength of that, City CID were prepared to watch him for 30 years?

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

[Elamarna]

It is, I suggest, unusual to accuse someone who disagrees with you of having a closed mind.

I don't accuse you of having a closed mind.

And you have nothing to say about your description of an opinion of mine as pure invention?

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It has always been fairly clear to me that the ID took place in July 1890 during Kosminski's first stint in the workhouse. Swanson states that the suspect was released to his brothers care, watched by City CID and a short time later taken back to the workhouse with hands tied behind his back. We know from the records that Kosminski was released from the workhouse into his brother in laws care in July 1890 and in February 1891 taken back to the workhouse and committed as insane. So that is the period in which City CID watched him day and night

It is clear from Swanson's account that the CID surveillance lasted only a matter of days and not six to seven months.

Swanson's very short time cannot mean six to seven months:

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

It is clear that Swanson sees the whole sequence of events as taking place over a very short period.

I am used to being told that I have a closed mind and that what I am writing is only my interpretation.

Saying that Swanson got Kosminski's date of death wrong by about three decades is not a matter of interpretation.

And I am also familiar with the retort that I am making an assumption that Swanson's Kosminski is Aaron.

That is ludicrous.

No-one has ever come up with another Kosminski in Colney Hatch, sent there around the same time, nor explained why Swanson should have been unaware that there were two and that it might be a good idea to mention the first name of his suspect.

Nor has anyone explained why it would have been necessary to watch the Kosminski residence day and night for an indefinite period, which suggests that had he not been sent to an asylum, CID would have watched him for the next thirty years.

And what for?

Not one scrap of concrete evidence was ever so much as mentioned by Anderson or Swanson and the only possible evidence alluded to by Macnaghten was wholly circumstantial.

And on the strength of that, City CID were prepared to watch him for 30 years?

[Sunny Delight]

Of course I have long discarded. Lawende as the witness.
There is a talk on the podcast section of this site, from the 2021 online conference, in which I outline my reasoning in attempting to evaluate who the witness might be.
Lawende, actually surprised me, at just how far he didn't fit the bill, as the witness.

As for the timing of the ID, I would at this point tend to agree with you. However, that view is not set in stone, and could alter with new evidence.

Steve

Thanks I will check it out. I admit to not being an expert on the case so always open to hearing new ideas that challenge me to think again.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The quote is from a journalist, in 1981.
Of course it's wrong about "he had committed many crimes" . Macnaghten doesn't even say that.

No one at that stage even had a suggested a first name for Kosminski.

The reporter clearly knew nothing other than the name Kosminski was in the book.

That is what the quote shows, that the name Kosminski was in the book when he saw it in 1981.

Which fits the reason I was told the paper did not run the story, it was about an unknown person, and would have required hours if not weeks of research. Not worth the effort for them.
The late Martin Fido did just that, some 5 or 6 years later.

You assume the asylum would be told, you consider that to be obvious, but such need not be so.

You have made it very clear that you consider Anderson and Swanson lied and that it's impossible the killer was Jewish.

That's your position, it clearly will never change, there is nothing to be gained by debating seriously with you. A close mind.

It is, I suggest, unusual to accuse someone who disagrees with you of having a closed mind.

I don't accuse you of having a closed mind.

And you have nothing to say about your description of an opinion of mine as pure invention?

[Elamarna]

It has always been fairly clear to me that the ID took place in July 1890 during Kosminski's first stint in the workhouse. Swanson states that the suspect was released to his brothers care, watched by City CID and a short time later taken back to the workhouse with hands tied behind his back. We know from the records that Kosminski was released from the workhouse into his brother in laws care in July 1890 and in February 1891 taken back to the workhouse and committed as insane. So that is the period in which City CID watched him day and night.

I like Tom Westcotts suggestion that Major Smith when speaking about Joseph Lawende years later was actually delivering a fatal blow to Andersons claims that the witness had unhesitatingly identified Kosminski as the man seen near Mitre Square and hence JTR. Lawende however at the Inquest says he probably would not recognise the man again. He did not say he definitely would not. So that is significant in viewing Anderson and Swanson as seeing Lawende as useful in that regard.

Of course I have long discarded. Lawende as the witness.
There is a talk on the podcast section of this site, from the 2021 online conference, in which I outline my reasoning in attempting to evaluate who the witness might be.
Lawende, actually surprised me, at just how far he didn't fit the bill, as the witness.

As for the timing of the ID, I would at this point tend to agree with you. However, that view is not set in stone, and could alter with new evidence.

Steve

[Sunny Delight]

A few answers to the questions that people cant answer according to your post.

The suggestion that Kosminski likely had an alibi for some of the murders takes us from reasoned speculation to pure invention.


That you wish to believe that Swanson intended his notes to become public is also simply a personal opinion.

One could ask, did he therefore expect any of the comments and notes he made in other books to likewise become public?
Did such happen?

You suggest making Notes for oneself is NOT CREDIBLE, the reality is many people do just that every day.

On to the ID

Your contention that Swanson could only have meant the Home at Hove is again simply your opinion.
That you are unwilling to accept that you may be wrong speaks volumes.

The insistence that ONLY this location fits is an example of the same thinking, as the supporters of suspect X or Y , who insist ONLY their suspect is possible as the killer, ONLY they are CORRECT.

With regards to why Swanson used capitals, one might suggest that he was talking of a certain place, which HE was aware of, and where the ID took place.
He could very well have meant the Home in Hove, but such is NOT the only possibility.

If the ID occurred in late 88 or early 89, as proposed by those supporting Cohen as Anderson's suspect, then clearly the reference CANNOT be refering to that establishment.


Swanson says, that after the ID, no more murders of this type occurred, he does not say when the last murder occurred in relation to the murders stopping, just that no more occurred after the ID took place.

For many who like AK as Kosminski, we could say this last murder was possibly McKenzie in mid 89.
For those people, the ID may have taken place in Mid 90, during the time Aaron is supposedly at the workhouse before being released to his brother.

Such however is speculation, it is based on the fact that Aaron is out of circulation for a period that would allow the moment to the Seaside Home, and his return is as per the Marginlia.
It is however. Speculation, and is presented as such. It is not presented as the ONLY interpretation.

For those who prefer an unknown Kosminski , they may suggest Coles was the last murder and that the ID occurred sometime after her death .

Such again could be supported by several arguments. Firstly that Coles is included on the list of possible victims, and is the last in the file.
Secondly that in 1890, Anderson is hinting that the identity of the killer is still unknown, but by 92, he is indicating the killer is known.

Both of those murdrrs are completely in order for the ID taking place in Hove, either in 90 or 91.

It is very clear, that you have made your mind up on several issues.

1.That the Killer could not be Jewish, a totally unrealistic standpoint, to rule out a large proportion of the local population.

2. That Anderson and Swanson lied, and knowingly lied. Such is simply your personal opinion.

There seems to be little point in debating with you, debate is meant to explore the possibilities, and be ready to concede that one may be incorrect.
Such is never going to occur with you PI, you are so convinced your opinion is not only correct, but the only opinion precludes meaningful debate.

It has always been fairly clear to me that the ID took place in July 1890 during Kosminski's first stint in the workhouse. Swanson states that the suspect was released to his brothers care, watched by City CID and a short time later taken back to the workhouse with hands tied behind his back. We know from the records that Kosminski was released from the workhouse into his brother in laws care in July 1890 and in February 1891 taken back to the workhouse and committed as insane. So that is the period in which City CID watched him day and night.

I like Tom Westcotts suggestion that Major Smith when speaking about Joseph Lawende years later was actually delivering a fatal blow to Andersons claims that the witness had unhesitatingly identified Kosminski as the man seen near Mitre Square and hence JTR. Lawende however at the Inquest says he probably would not recognise the man again. He did not say he definitely would not. So that is significant in viewing Anderson and Swanson as seeing Lawende as useful in that regard.

[Elamarna]

I further quote from Swanson

..... The known facts about him are sketchy. He had a great hatred of women and according to Macnaghten, he had committed many crimes....

(ELAMARNA, # 773)

Whoever was responsible for the statement in bold, it was certainly pure invention.

The only 'crime' committed by Kosminski that has been uncovered is that of walking a dog without a muzzle 13 months after he is alleged to have spent two hours dissecting Mary Kelly.

What special arrangements were made for the man who, according to his accusers, was the most dangerous man in London, who had committed many supposedly-violent crimes, and was a menace to his fellow inmates at the asylums?

If there had been any, his accusers would be crowing.

Their glee on reading that the Polish maniac had to be put in a straitjacket, or have no knives and forks at mealtimes, would doubtless have been seized upon with glee, as would any mention of special arrangements having to be made because the asylum had been discreetly advised that this inmate was suspected of having murdered and mutilated five women.

Instead, it is recorded that he was not dangerous and that he was harmless.

The only invention here is in the case against Kosminski.

The quote is from a journalist, in 1981.
Of course it's wrong about "he had committed many crimes" . Macnaghten doesn't even say that.

No one at that stage even had a suggested a first name for Kosminski.

The reporter clearly knew nothing other than the name Kosminski was in the book.

That is what the quote shows, that the name Kosminski was in the book when he saw it in 1981.

Which fits the reason I was told the paper did not run the story, it was about an unknown person, and would have required hours if not weeks of research. Not worth the effort for them.
The late Martin Fido did just that, some 5 or 6 years later.

You assume the asylum would be told, you consider that to be obvious, but such need not be so.

You have made it very clear that you consider Anderson and Swanson lied and that it's impossible the killer was Jewish.

That's your position, it clearly will never change, there is nothing to be gained by debating seriously with you. A close mind.

[Sunny Delight]

Which reader would that be?

He was writing in his own copy of the book, there is NO indication it was for anyone but himself.l, or that he expected anyone else to read it.

No no. Swanson fully expected that by the year 2023 amateur sleuths would be using a device called a computer or mobile phone to access a thing called a website where they would discuss all things JTR and discuss the investigation in depth. They would also pore over every word written by him in the book which he annotated.

Why didn't he give more information when he knew all this!!!!!!