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

[Herlock Sholmes]

So Anderson just made up the identification? Was he helped by the Freemasons by any chance?

[Aethelwulf]

For me, the problem that I have with dismissing Kosminski is that the police were clearly interested in him as a suspect but we we don’t know what they might have known. It’s surely not much of a stretch to suggest that they might at least have had reasonable grounds for suspicion? An apparent lack of reasons to suspect him today doesn’t equate to a lack of reasons to suspect him then. Justified or not. We certainly have unanswered questions but should we simply dismiss Anderson and Swanson because of that? For me, Kosminski remains firmly in the top three likeliest of the named suspects. It could easily have been someone else though of course (as long as it can be proven that they were in the country at the time though)

I don't have an issue with the marginalia and I can't really see anything that makes me think DS didn't write all of it. I don't believe the whole Seaside Home business was made up, so I think there must have been an ID attempt of some sort. My issue is that the people who got the best potential view of the ripper didn't provide a particularly clear description, and some said they wouldn't even recognise him again, yet if what Daryl said is correct, three years later we are to believe there is a solid ID? I find that hard to believe to the point that the ID is fairly meaningless. The police could have had something important on Koz, or equally, it could have been something fairly run of the mill that required checking e.g. someone told about the knife story, he seems odd, perhaps resembles some of the sightings given in build/hair colour etc. As someone one else said, perhaps the witness was in Brighton and couldn't leave for some reason so they had to drag him down there.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't have an issue with the marginalia and I can't really see anything that makes me think DS didn't write all of it. I don't believe the whole Seaside Home business was made up, so I think there must have been an ID attempt of some sort. My issue is that the people who got the best potential view of the ripper didn't provide a particularly clear description, and some said they wouldn't even recognise him again, yet if what Daryl said is correct, three years later we are to believe there is a solid ID? I find that hard to believe to the point that the ID is fairly meaningless. The police could have had something important on Koz, or equally, it could have been something fairly run of the mill that required checking e.g. someone told about the knife story, he seems odd, perhaps resembles some of the sightings given in build/hair colour etc. As someone one else said, perhaps the witness was in Brighton and couldn't leave for some reason so they had to drag him down there.

Nothing detracts from the fact that the ID as described in the marginalia is flawed on all fronts and is lacking in any corroboration

The police cannot simply take a person off the street, or from his home address and take him 60 miles to take part in an ID parade without his consent and as I have said before if he was a prime suspect they had the option to arrest him, there is no evidence of that either.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nothing detracts from the fact that the ID as described in the marginalia is flawed on all fronts and is lacking in any corroboration

No it’s not. The report said that there was very strong evidence that Swanson wrote it and that there was no evidence of anyone else writing it. Which you conveniently ignore in you repeated efforts to make it seem ‘dodgy.’ The ‘suspect’ for the alleged forgery is just about the unlikeliest imaginable and with no apparent motive when we consider risk versus reward. Everything points to it being genuine. Your forgery suggestion is a fantasy.

The police cannot simply take a person off the street, or from his home address and take him 60 miles to take part in an ID parade without his consent and as I have said before if he was a prime suspect they had the option to arrest him, there is no evidence of that either.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And how do you know that he didn’t give his consent? And there’s much in the case that we have no surviving record for…..does that mean that the only things that happened in that investigation are things that we have a record of? And as I’ve suggested, the whole thing could have been undertaken with the minimum of officers required to keep quiet and anyone at the Seaside Home might not have been told the reason for the ID.

Anderson could have invented something far better if he wanted to make stuff up about Kosminski.

[AdamNeilWood]

"I am quite prepared to take the responsibility of adopting the most drastic or arbitrary measures that the Sec of State can name which would further the securing of the murderer however illegal they may be, provided H.M. Gov. will support me.

…Three weeks ago I do not think the public would have acquiesced in any illegal action but now I think they would welcome any thing which shews activity & enterprise."

Letter from Sir Charles Warren, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, to Secretary of State, 4th October 1888 (National Archives: HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 83-85).

[Trevor Marriott]

And how do you know that he didn’t give his consent? And there’s much in the case that we have no surviving record for…..does that mean that the only things that happened in that investigation are things that we have a record of? And as I’ve suggested, the whole thing could have been undertaken with the minimum of officers required to keep quiet and anyone at the Seaside Home might not have been told the reason for the ID.

Anderson could have invented something far better if he wanted to make stuff up about Kosminski.

You are inventing scenarios let's stick to the facts as we know them and the evidence that points to it being flawed

Do you not think that if as you say officers were told to keep quiet someone would have talked in later years ie Abberline,Reid,Magnaghten staff at the seaside this ID would have been worth a fortune to the press

Let me ask, Would you consent if the police turned up on your door and said we suspect you of being a serial killer would you mind coming with us to Brighton so we can subject you to an ID parade? Not in a million years would you agree, so an arrest would follow so that they could put you on an ID parade whether you consented or not, and having been identified the police would then question you and give you the opportunity to comment on the positive ID which you would have been aware of. They would not have told you that the witness who identified you was not prepared to go to court to give evidence to see your reaction

If the police had that much suspicion they would have arrested him and we know that didn't happen because MM would have mentioned it in both his versions and Swanson also. Had one been formally arrested there would have been an arrest record and the world and his brother in Whitechapel and around would have know about it

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

"I am quite prepared to take the responsibility of adopting the most drastic or arbitrary measures that the Sec of State can name which would further the securing of the murderer however illegal they may be, provided H.M. Gov. will support me.

…Three weeks ago I do not think the public would have acquiesced in any illegal action but now I think they would welcome any thing which shews activity & enterprise."

Letter from Sir Charles Warren, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, to Secretary of State, 4th October 1888 (National Archives: HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 83-85).

Charles Warren had resigned in 1888 so it would have been a matter for the current commissioner to authorise any illegal acts subject to government approval but of course, illegal acts can be defined in different ways and of course, there is nothing to show that any illegal acts were authorized by the Government

I doubt an illegal Id parade would have been authorised as it would have jeopardised any future prosecution which might have arisen from such an illegal act.

I am still waiting for you to reply on the Dr Totty's examination of the marginalia

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

The police cannot simply take a person off the street, or from his home address and take him 60 miles to take part in an ID parade without his consent and as I have said before if he was a prime suspect they had the option to arrest him, there is no evidence of that either.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If the ID was in early 1891 by then it seems Kosminski was not of sound mind at all. Perhaps the police sought permission of Kosminski's next of kin ? They may have given permission because of the attack with a knife on his sister/sister in law, and for their own peace of mind. Or the fact they couldn't believe he was a serial murderer as a lot of family's , spouses of serial killers do . Take the green rivers killers wife for instance.
Remember Hanratty's family gave permission for his body to be dug up even though by then DNA from his brother had pointed to him being guilty of the A1 murder. Because they believed he was innocent.
Regards Darryl

[rjpalmer]

I have a different interpretation of Sir Charles Warren's strange declaration:

"I am quite prepared to take the responsibility of adopting the most drastic or arbitrary measures that the Sec of State can name which would further the securing of the murderer however illegal they may be, provided H.M. Gov. will support me."

I've often felt that this is being misinterpreted. There is a sly subtlety to it.

Warren is throwing the responsibility for any illegal acts back onto the government and the "Secretary of State."

I see it as a slightly sarcastic Charles Warren reminding the Home Secretary that the police have limited powers and can't simply do whatever they want.

The government is applying pressure to catch the murderer from above and Warren is saying, "okay, sir, I'll do whatever illegal act you decide but am I assured that you'll turn around and support me when there's a public outcry?"

It's as if Warren is reminding the Home Secretary of the difficulties the police are facing and calling his bluff.

Warren favored a law and order/"stop crime before it happens" approach to policing. He wasn't all that keen on the C.I.D. aspect of poking around in what some might view to be a semi-illegal fashion. It should be read in the context that Warren had been squabbling with the Home Office for quite some time--there is an air of sarcasm to it, in my opinion.

And he wants it in writing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are inventing scenarios let's stick to the facts as we know them and the evidence that points to it being flawed

What we know is that any corroborating evidence doesn’t or no longer exists. As the marginalia is very clearly genuine then we have Swanson corroborating Anderson.

Do you not think that if as you say officers were told to keep quiet someone would have talked in later years ie Abberline,Reid,Magnaghten staff at the seaside this ID would have been worth a fortune to the press.

Let me ask, Would you consent if the police turned up on your door and said we suspect you of being a serial killer would you mind coming with us to Brighton so we can subject you to an ID parade? Not in a million years would you agree, so an arrest would follow so that they could put you on an ID parade whether you consented or not, and having been identified the police would then question you and give you the opportunity to comment on the positive ID which you would have been aware of. They would not have told you that the witness who identified you was not prepared to go to court to give evidence to see your reaction

If the police had that much suspicion they would have arrested him and we know that didn't happen because MM would have mentioned it in both his versions and Swanson also. Had one been formally arrested there would have been an arrest record and the world and his brother in Whitechapel and around would have know about it

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unanswered questions don’t mean that we should simply dismiss something. We cannot know the exact circumstances of what went on or how things were done. Or even what mindset Kosminski had at the time. I just can’t see Anderson inventing something like this. And we have it confirmed by Swanson. I’m not a conspiracy theorist so I’m happy with my own position. As ever you have a bee-in-your-bonnet on an issue. Such is life.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Charles Warren had resigned in 1888 so it would have been a matter for the current commissioner to authorise any illegal acts subject to government approval but of course, illegal acts can be defined in different ways and of course, there is nothing to show that any illegal acts were authorized by the Government

I doubt an illegal Id parade would have been authorised as it would have jeopardised any future prosecution which might have arisen from such an illegal act.

I am still waiting for you to reply on the Dr Totty's examination of the marginalia

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You doubt? How can you know what things were like at the time? A time of far fewer rules and regulations.

[Trevor Marriott]

You doubt? How can you know what things were like at the time? A time of far fewer rules and regulations.

But what rules there were had to be adhered to otherwise there would be no point in having rules, especially with regard to the possible identification of a much sought after serial killer.

Do you not think it a bit strange why a so-called prime suspect is not named in full by both MM and then by Swanson MM is able to name in full the suspects he is referring to but not Kosminksi.

The annotations could not have been written in the marginalia before 1910

Certainly, Swanson should have known the full name by 1910 given his position

If the annotations have been tampered with it must have been between 1981 -1987 that is when Martin Fido discovered Aaron Kosminsk and after it was first offered to the NOW in 1981 who after paying a hefty price for the rights didn't publish it,

I ask again was that because the last line naming Kosminski was absent from the annotations? in 1981 but was present in 1987, perhaps the forger had burnt his bridges by adding the name Kosminski before the revelation by Fido as the full name of Aaron Kosminsk in the annotations might have then removed all doubt

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But what rules there were had to be adhered to otherwise there would be no point in having rules, especially with regard to the possible identification of a much sought after serial killer.

Do you not think it a bit strange why a so-called prime suspect is not named in full by both MM and then by Swanson MM is able to name in full the suspects he is referring to but not Kosminksi.

The annotations could not have been written in the marginalia before 1910

Certainly, Swanson should have known the full name by 1910 given his position

If the annotations have been tampered with it must have been between 1981 -1987 that is when Martin Fido discovered Aaron Kosminsk and after it was first offered to the NOW in 1981 who after paying a hefty price for the rights didn't publish it,

I ask again was that because the last line naming Kosminski was absent from the annotations? in 1981 but was present in 1987, perhaps the forger had burnt his bridges by adding the name Kosminski before the revelation by Fido as the full name of Aaron Kosminsk in the annotations might have then removed all doubt

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don’t think that the fact that no Christian name is given is strange in the slightest. It means absolutely nothing and nothing can be deduced from it.

The marginalia wasn’t forged. The evidence against it is more than ample. The unlikeliest of forgers + Insufficient reason for forging it + massive risk versus meagre benefit + the conclusion of the Davies report = genuine. Therefore Swanson confirms what Anderson said. That should be an end of it as far as I’m concerned but we still suffer from conspiracy theorist thinking.

[Sunny Delight]

If the ID was in early 1891 by then it seems Kosminski was not of sound mind at all. Perhaps the police sought permission of Kosminski's next of kin ? They may have given permission because of the attack with a knife on his sister/sister in law, and for their own peace of mind. Or the fact they couldn't believe he was a serial murderer as a lot of family's , spouses of serial killers do . Take the green rivers killers wife for instance.
Remember Hanratty's family gave permission for his body to be dug up even though by then DNA from his brother had pointed to him being guilty of the A1 murder. Because they believed he was innocent.
Regards Darryl

If we look at what Swanson says in regards Kosminski and compare it with the notes on Kosminski at the time it looks likely to me that the ID took place in 1890. Swanson talks of an ID and the suspect then being taken into his brothers care before a short time later again being readmitted again. If we look at what we know of Kosminski, he was admitted to the workhouse in July 1890 before being released to his brothers care and in February 1891 readmitted. So it seems likely to me that the ID took place in July 1890 and I would hazard a guess that after Kosminski threatened his sister with a knife and displayed worrying mental issues his family or someone in his family reported him to the Police as a dangerous individual. The Police hearing of a potentially violent, mentally ill foreigner who lived in Whitechapel made the connection with Jack the Ripper and set up an ID out of London and with a City Police witness Joseph Lawende.

We do not know the conditions of the ID or how it was conducted. Therefore we can't assess Anderson's claim with any degree of certainly. We can be fairly sure however that if Lawende who seems the most likely witness to ID the suspect it would not be satisfactory. At the Inquest as we know Lawende said he could not readily identify the man he had seen. He doubted he would know him again. Crucially though doubt does not mean he could not as some seem to have suggested over the years. But doubt certainly is a huge obstacle when declaring 'ascertained' facts. I think Lawende likely said Kosminksi looked like the man he had seen and when informed Kosminski could be arrested on his evidence he declared he could not swear to it. This seems the most likely scenario to me.

Interestingly I watched a documdntary on Robert Napper after his name was mentioned on the forum. I think you were correct in your assertion that we would be looking for someone quite similar. Work colleagues described him as 'reliable' and 'quiet'. Actually his boss stated that sometimes the girls from work would be fearful of walking near Plumstead and Napper who walked through there to get home would walk home with them. Also although seen as an oddball no one really felt he was a violent person. His confession to his mother that he had raped a woman is also interesting. At one time he obviously had some sort of conscience or felt conflicted. One often wonders if JTR started in a similar manner in the 1880's and what chances were missed early on. Kosminski's mental state in 1888 is crucial to our understanding. I have seen it mentioned he appeared in court for having an unmuzzled dog in 1888/89? Could he have been of a sounder mind then? Looking at Napper once arrested in incarcerated he had fantastical stories of being abducted by the IRA, losing his fingers which had grown back etc. Delusions possibly like Kosminski.

Personally I have never really seen much to convince me that Kosminski is a great suspect and as we know from painful experience in cases like these sometimes the Police although well meaning can get things drastically wrong.

[Sunny Delight]

I don’t think that the fact that no Christian name is given is strange in the slightest. It means absolutely nothing and nothing can be deduced from it.

The marginalia wasn’t forged. The evidence against it is more than ample. The unlikeliest of forgers + Insufficient reason for forging it + massive risk versus meagre benefit + the conclusion of the Davies report = genuine. Therefore Swanson confirms what Anderson said. That should be an end of it as far as I’m concerned but we still suffer from conspiracy theorist thinking.

Interestingly McNaghton refers to Druitt and Ostrog with first names or initials but only refers to a 'Kosminski'. Always found that interesting.