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

[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.

https://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

[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?