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

[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!!!!!!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That you were not aware of this , is simply astounding.


I suggest it is astounding that you have not replied to my # 763, in which I responded to your # 758, in which you described an opinion I had expressed in # 757 as 'pure invention'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because all that he recalled about Mary Kelly is proven fact with the exception of one minor error

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, he was mistaken about the heart.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Because all that he recalled about Mary Kelly is proven fact with the exception of one minor error

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And as I pointed out the other day, Anderson confused a detail of the Kelly murder with a detail of the McKenzie murder.

And we know that Anderson got confused about other things - such as the political parties to which prominent politicians belonged, the identity of a Home Secretary with whom he said he discussed the murders, and whether the identification of the alleged suspect took place before or after his incarceration.

And he never responded to Reid's contradiction of his claim that the police were convinced that the murderer was a Jew at the time that the murders were being investigated.

How could he?

He knew that what Reid stated was true.

[Elamarna]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

It's in Swanson by Adam Wood.


"Contained in the papers was an internal memo from Charles Sandell to the News of the World’s News Editor dated 15th April 1981, which read:
"Re Letter to the Editor about Jack the Ripper Scotland Yard’s files on the original Jack the Ripper case have remained a secret. The name of the man who murdered and mutilated five prostitutes in the late 1880s has been a matter of speculation for decades. One author named the Duke of Clarence as the Ripper, another said the killer was a homicidal doctor named Pedachenko, while a third said he was a barrister named Montague John Druitt. Now the grandson of the Scotland Yard detective, who was ordered to investigate the Ripper murders, believes he has stumbled on the true identity of Jack the Ripper. Mr. James Swanson, a 69-year-old retired Tannery director and general manager, who lives in Peaslake, near Dorking, Surrey, believes he has discovered the Ripper’s identity and the reasons why he was not brought to justice. Before he died in 1924 Detective Supt. Donald Swanson of Scotland Yard wrote details of the Ripper investigation and his views (about 200 words) in the back of a book written by Sir Robert Anderson, former head of the C.I.D. at Scotland Yard. The Yard detective names the man as Kosminski, a Polish Jew. Mr. James Swanson only recently discovered the book while examining the property of his Aunt who died a few months ago. He had also discovered the original document ordering the Yard detective to investigate the Ripper case. This in itself is unique. The document shows nine murders and one attempted murder. I have twice visited Mr. Swanson and I am convinced of his authenticity. The Yorkshire Ripper trial is bound to stimulate interest in the original Jack the Ripper and it seems an appropriate time to run a story. Mr. Swanson originally asked for £1,000 but he has come down to £750.""

Surely you are aware of this document, if not you should be.

Steve

No, I was not aware of that document but it still does not negate the view that the last line "Kosminksi was the suspect" could have been added because that line is out of context with the rest of the marginalia and does not explain why MM knew nothing about this ID procedure and he exonerates Kosminski from suspicion who is telling or writing porkies.

My understanding is that there were two Charles Sandell documents the first which makes no mention of the name Kosminski and the second to which you refer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Obviously some people have better memories that others. This is just a fact of life. It’s interesting though that you assume that Reid’s memory was good. How do you know that what he recalled he recalled correctly?

Because all that he recalled about Mary Kelly is proven fact with the exception of one minor error

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk