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

[Abby Normal]

A point worth re-stating (imo) is that it was actually Swanson and not Anderson who claimed that the witness only refused to identify the suspect because he was Jewish. Anderson imply said that he refused to identify him (with no reason given) I tend to forget this and assume that Anderson said it.

What do we think about these words of Anderson’s?:

“Having regard to the interest attaching to this case, I’m almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer and of the pressman who wrote the letter above referred to. But no public benefit would result from such a course, and the traditions of my old department would suffer.”

How do we think that the traditions of his old department would have suffered if he’d have come out and said “we caught the ripper but the witness just wouldn’t identify him and we didn’t have enough evidence to get him convicted even though our investigation convinced us of his guilt. We then ensured that he was safely locked in an asylum where he could do no more harm.”

Basically he would have been saying ‘we caught him and had him locked away for the rest of his life.’

Would that have harmed his old department?

hey herlock
probably not, but i think he was just using that as an excuse and was afraid of libel, and that he really wasnt as certain as he boasted about later.

[Herlock Sholmes]

hey herlock
probably not, but i think he was just using that as an excuse and was afraid of libel, and that he really wasnt as certain as he boasted about later.

It’s certainly possible Abby. Unless those that were present at the ID misinterpreted things.

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell

We don't know if the witness wasn't presented individually with say two or three people before Kosminski .

ANNEX D CONFRONTATION BY AN EYE-WITNESS

1. Before the confrontation takes place, the eye-witness must be told that the person they saw
on a specified earlier occasion may, or may not, be the person they are to confront and that
if they are not that person, then the witness should say so.

This is from the police code of 1984 but I would imagine something similar would be used in 1891

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl.

If there is more than one person presented to the witness it's not a confrontation ID.

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Darryl.

If there is more than one person presented to the witness it's not a confrontation ID.

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell .
What I was trying to get at, was say Kosminski was taken somewhere for an ID , perhaps the witness was shown [ confronted ] with one or two people individually one at a time with a few minutes gap inbetween before Kosminski at the said place, or at a different venue at a different time . To test his veracity as such.

Regards Darryl

[Aethelwulf]

Hello Wulf,

If only we had more info! Did they have more to make them suspect Koz or did he just fit their idea (profile) of the ripper (low class, foreigner, mad etc)? It’s not impossible that tunnel vision might have prevented taking another potential suspect like Bury more seriously. There could of course have been some evidence that we don’t know about that counted Bury out for them but it’s also possible that this might have been something like a false alibi. I don’t know. As I said in an earlier post, perhaps the witnesses first thought was “well it certainly looks like him” but then he started to have doubts and wasn’t prepared to give a conclusive “yes” considering the possible consequences?

Hi H,

My main point is that in the same book as Andersen is boasting about his knowledge of the ripper, he is clearly talking b******s about the Mylet case. 5 doctors examined the body, 4 said it was murder by strangulation (Philips saying the murderer was basically a bit of a student of the subject), and very obviously murder, bond said not but as the coroner said, he was at a disadvantage as he only saw the body after 5 days had passed. So what else is Andersen potentially misreading or BSing about?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi H,

My main point is that in the same book as Andersen is boasting about his knowledge of the ripper, he is clearly talking b******s about the Mylet case. 5 doctors examined the body, 4 said it was murder by strangulation (Philips saying the murderer was basically a bit of a student of the subject), and very obviously murder, bond said not but as the coroner said, he was at a disadvantage as he only saw the body after 5 days had passed. So what else is Andersen potentially misreading or BSing about?

I don’t have an answer Wulf. I just can’t see Anderson inventing the Seaside Home ID though and, as I’m convinced by the genuineness of the marginalia, we have it confirmed by Swanson but as Roger said it doesn’t mean that Swanson shared Anderson’s confidence. Maybe being nearer to the investigation on the ground and being a more experienced police officer Swanson was more inclined to caution? I still think it’s at least possible that Anderson might have, in effect, heard what he wanted to hear in that the officers present might have told him that the witness began by being positive then started to express doubts. So perhaps Swanson wasn’t sold on Kosminski as the ripper?

So if the ripper wasn’t Koz then it must have been Druitt.

[Aethelwulf]

I still think it’s at least possible that Anderson might have, in effect, heard what he wanted to hear

Yes, this is what I'm thinking. There must have been an ID of sorts at the seaside home and I don't think anything has been made up. I just think that if Andersen can pat himself on the back and overrule/dismiss four doctors and a coroner, what else may he have selectively interpreted about the ID? Perhaps he's taken reluctance to ID a potentially innocent man and send him to gallows as proof he was the man in question?

So if the ripper wasn’t Koz then it must have been Druitt

Ha ha, to go off topic, I'll go with these three from Norm who apparently had it from people on the case, reproduced on SE's Bury site:

• “On the day before his execution two detectives were sent from London to be present should he make a last statement. This I myself only learned years afterwards, so carefully guarded was the secret, but it shows the importance Scotland Yard attached to their discoveries”
• The Scotland Yard detectives who investigated Bury “kept their own counsel, and when Bury came up for trial it was the common opinion that he was guilty of the Whitechapel crimes and would make a full confession in the event of his being condemned to death”
• “the facts they (Scotland Yard) gathered pointed more and more clearly to Bury being Jack the Ripper, but it was a slow task, entailing months of work, and they had been ordered to make nothing public”

Question is, who exactly was doing the 'ordering' and 'sending' and why no more on the 'common opinion'? Perhaps for another thread.

[Sunny Delight]

I don’t have an answer Wulf. I just can’t see Anderson inventing the Seaside Home ID though and, as I’m convinced by the genuineness of the marginalia, we have it confirmed by Swanson but as Roger said it doesn’t mean that Swanson shared Anderson’s confidence. Maybe being nearer to the investigation on the ground and being a more experienced police officer Swanson was more inclined to caution? I still think it’s at least possible that Anderson might have, in effect, heard what he wanted to hear in that the officers present might have told him that the witness began by being positive then started to express doubts. So perhaps Swanson wasn’t sold on Kosminski as the ripper?

So if the ripper wasn’t Koz then it must have been Druitt.

Well one huge problem for Anderson would be the murder of Frances Coles. I am inclined to believe she was a Ripper victim and if she was then Kosminski cannot have been the Ripper. I have no doubt whatever that the ID took place but we will never know the conditions and it seems to me that Anderson convinced himself that he had not been bettered by the Ripper. He was a proud man and the Ripper case must have weighed heavily and he surely must have felt that failure acutely. In his desire to alleviate that feeling he became convinced that they had caught the Ripper and got him off the streets. It maybe even made him feel better on a personal level that they had prevented more murders. The ID became more and more intertwined over time with a sense of redemption. This despite from what we know an unsatisfactory ID.

I also think it very important to note McNaghten's words on Kosminski. We obviously believe the City PC was witness Lawende mis identified by McNaghten but if as he stated Kosminski strongly resembled the man seen by Lawende then was he also aware of the ID having taken place? Otherwise how could he know what Kosminski looked like and how would he know he resembled the man seen at Mitre Square?

[Darryl Kenyon]

A point worth re-stating (imo) is that it was actually Swanson and not Anderson who claimed that the witness only refused to identify the suspect because he was Jewish. Anderson imply said that he refused to identify him (with no reason given) I tend to forget this and assume that Anderson said it.

What do we think about these words of Anderson’s?:

“Having regard to the interest attaching to this case, I’m almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer and of the pressman who wrote the letter above referred to. But no public benefit would result from such a course, and the traditions of my old department would suffer.”

How do we think that the traditions of his old department would have suffered if he’d have come out and said “we caught the ripper but the witness just wouldn’t identify him and we didn’t have enough evidence to get him convicted even though our investigation convinced us of his guilt. We then ensured that he was safely locked in an asylum where he could do no more harm.”

Basically he would have been saying ‘we caught him and had him locked away for the rest of his life.’

Would that have harmed his old department?

Hi Herlock
I am wondering if Anderson was in consultation with Swanson when he was writing his book and particularly the chapter dealing with Jack. We know that Swanson didn't agree with public reminisces and, according to an article in the Police Review, published on 15th May, 1896, he viewed "his work as decidedly secret service" and was "opposed to public "reminiscences" Perhaps it was him who dissuaded Anderson to name JTR [ Traditions of my old department etc ].

Regards Darryl

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell .
What I was trying to get at, was say Kosminski was taken somewhere for an ID , perhaps the witness was shown [ confronted ] with one or two people individually one at a time with a few minutes gap inbetween before Kosminski at the said place, or at a different venue at a different time . To test his veracity as such.

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl.

Misunderstanding on my part then. Apologies.

I still don't get why the ID, if there was one, was done 50 miles away in Sussex. Doing something like that in another Force area (even in a building owned by the Met themselves) would be unique in my experience, so highly irregular and therefore IMHO highly improbable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock
I am wondering if Anderson was in consultation with Swanson when he was writing his book and particularly the chapter dealing with Jack. We know that Swanson didn't agree with public reminisces and, according to an article in the Police Review, published on 15th May, 1896, he viewed "his work as decidedly secret service" and was "opposed to public "reminiscences" Perhaps it was him who dissuaded Anderson to name JTR [ Traditions of my old department etc ].

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

Its a possibility but I also wonder if Anderson could have received mixed opinions on the ID parade with Swanson urging caution? Is it out of the question that Swanson might have been present at the ID?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Darryl,

Its a possibility but I also wonder if Anderson could have received mixed opinions on the ID parade with Swanson urging caution? Is it out of the question that Swanson might have been present at the ID?

hi herlock
not at all. i think there was a good chance he was. "and he knew he was identified". sounds like something someone said if he was there.
also, i think swansons more than is just filling in detail of anderson. "after which no more murders took place" seems to me like he agrees with anderson that koz was the killer, but obviously not to the ridiculous extent of andersons definitely ascertained fact.

[GBinOz]

We obviously believe the City PC was witness Lawende mis identified by McNaghten

Not necessarily.

Pearson's Weekly August 6, 1912, told by ex PC E.T. Langdon:
"Let me recall one of the murders, the Mitre Square murder. It was night and the policeman passed through the square once, everything then being apparently alright. He walked on, coming to a court leading out of a street out of Mitre Square. Halfway up the court he stood sideways to allow a man to pass him. The man came from the direction of the square."

Cheers, George

[Sunny Delight]

Not necessarily.

Pearson's Weekly August 6, 1912, told by ex PC E.T. Langdon:
"Let me recall one of the murders, the Mitre Square murder. It was night and the policeman passed through the square once, everything then being apparently alright. He walked on, coming to a court leading out of a street out of Mitre Square. Halfway up the court he stood sideways to allow a man to pass him. The man came from the direction of the square."

Cheers, George

An interesting paragraph. It must be accepted that much original documentation is now lost to us forever. It may be the case that a City PC did see someone who was possibly the murderer. However we know of both PC's who patrolled that night and neither mentioned seeing someone come out of the square let alone stopping to let someone pass them. A fantastical tale but one that doesn't tie in with much of established fact of that night as we know them (and again yes much has been lost to us which must always be a caveat).

[Herlock Sholmes]

An interesting speculation about the City PC from Bridewell made on another thread:

“And what remains of Harvey's file (stored at the London Metropolitan Archive) includes letters of recommendation endorsing his appointment but not documents detailing the reason for his dismissal - which were presumably there originally. Throw in MacNaghten's teaser about no-one ever seeing the Ripper except perhaps "the City PC who was (on) a beat near Mitre Square" and you have to wonder if Harvey saw something (or someone) which he failed to report at the time.”

An interesting possibility imo.