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

[Elamarna]

According to his own grandson, he was in the habit of writing such marginalia.

I wonder how he knew.

That his grandson read the comments many years later and was thus aware that Swanson made such annotations, does not mean that Swanson ever made the comments with the intention of them being read by another person.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Anderson and Swanson did not personally take Kosminski anywhere for any form of an ID procedure... No one outside of Anderson and Swanson makes any mention of any such ID procedure so we have to ask if it did take place as described why is it that no one else makes any mention of any such ID procedure?

According to Anderson's and Swanson's supporters, no-one else of any importance was involved in or privy to the identification.

Who then was?

And whoever they were, why did they not come forward when Anderson was practically accused of making the identification up?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Probably saw him do it on other occasions.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

According to his own grandson, he was in the habit of writing such marginalia.

I wonder how he knew.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, I don’t agree. I believe that the evidence strongly favours that the ID took place so if Reid was unaware of it there was a reason for that. We just don’t know what it was.

Why do you believe Reid over Anderson and Swanson?

Its not just Reid there are many others who do not corroborate Anderson and Swanson. Reid, as I keep saying was head of Whitechapel CID. Anderson and Swanson did not personally take Kosminski anywhere for any form of an ID procedure. Thats not how it works, the likes of Reid and others would have been designated to take Kosminski to wherever they, would have been actively engaged in any such ID procedure and would have been present when any ID procedure took place and would have then been involved in conveying him back to wherever. No one outside of Anderson and Swanson makes any mention of any such ID procedure so we have to ask if it did take place as described why is it that no one else makes any mention of any such ID procedure? Even major Smith makes no mention of such an ID procedure, and if the witness had been Lawende Major Smith would have been kept in the loop but he makes no mention.

So we are left to ponder
Did Swanson pen all of the marginalia, and if he did when he did, at what age he was, and whether or not he was suffering from some neurological illness which affected his memory? The forensic findings indicate that not all of the marginalia were written at the same time.

As a result of sceptical comments made by several Ripper researchers, which were also published in the Telegraph article, James Swanson wrote a letter to the newspaper; however, this was never published. There is one part of this letter, which is crucial when trying to judge the authenticity of the marginalia. This part reads, “My Grandfather was a highly intelligent man. He was in complete command of all his faculties at the time of his death in 1924 at the age of 76. My Grandfather’s notes were made in 1910 when he was 62.”

How did James Swanson know when the notes were made?
How did he know that if and when he wrote the marginalia he still had all his faculties?

And why do Adam Wood and Paul Begg keep ignoring the request to publish the first forensic report by Dr Totty? which Paul Begg commissioned

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I am aware that you say that what Anderson and Swanson wrote has to be interpreted, but this is not an exercise in biblical exegesis.

Either Swanson said what he meant or he was writing in parables.

It is not the height of folly to take a person's words to mean what they say.

Neither of your interpretations above contains the word Seaside, with a capital S.

If Swanson meant someone's personal home, he could have named the person or given his initials.

He could have written, J.... B....'s seaside home.

He did not.

He wrote the Seaside Home.

Being a policeman, he must have known how any reader would have understood what he wrote.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But they did didn't they?

Detective Inspector Reid speaking again in Lloyds Weekly:

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal 'Jack the Ripper’, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr Anderson, Dr Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

Detective Inspector Reid speaking in Lloyds Weekly and The East London Observer

“ 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

Insp Reid was head of Whitechapel CID so if anyone would have been in the know it would have been him would you not agree?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, I don’t agree. I believe that the evidence strongly favours that the ID took place so if Reid was unaware of it there was a reason for that. We just don’t know what it was.

Why do you believe Reid over Anderson and Swanson?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well its a case of weighing up "all" the facts for and against it having taken place as it is described, and clearly the facts and evidence to show it didn't take place far outweigh the facts to show that it did.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’d say the opposite is the case. There is no evidence that it didn’t happen, only a shortage of evidence that it did happen.

[Trevor Marriott]

Would an egotistical man have wanted to have his reputation tarnished by having people coming out of the woodwork and calling him a liar?

But they did didn't they?

Detective Inspector Reid speaking again in Lloyds Weekly:

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal 'Jack the Ripper’, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr Anderson, Dr Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

Detective Inspector Reid speaking in Lloyds Weekly and The East London Observer

“ 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

Insp Reid was head of Whitechapel CID so if anyone would have been in the know it would have been him would you not agree?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Why do you keep saying that it couldn’t have happened? You’re not being consistent.

You repeatedly tell us how useless and inefficient the Police were and how the senior officers were all untrustworthy but to defend this point you claim that the police couldn’t possible have done something that wasn’t precisely by the book. You can’t have it both ways.

Why would MacNaghten and Anderson have to had agreed with each other?

And you’re doing it again Trevor; you appear not to be able to help yourself.



Im not relying on them. I’m giving consideration to the possibility of them being truthful - and in assessing them I see no great benefit for Anderson to lie but I see a huge down side in terms of reputation if a lie was exposed, and I see absolutely no reason why Swanson would bother confirming a lie in a book that was never likely to be seen publicly. Therefore I believe the evidence favours that the ID took place.

And let’s face it Trevor, apart from maybes and what if’s you can’t produce a single piece of solid evidence that it didn’t occur.

Well its a case of weighing up "all" the facts for and against it having taken place as it is described, and clearly the facts and evidence to show it didn't take place far outweigh the facts to show that it did.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

He wasn't writing for readers.

I suppose that is not an assumption.

[Scott Nelson]

He wasn't writing for readers.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is no proof of where was meant by the Seaside Home.
It was initial proposed as the police Home at Hove.
Other places have been suggested, such as the Home suggested by Adam Wood, close to Dover, in his book SWANSON.

Others have suggested other places, including the possibility that the seaside home referred to an actual home, where someone lived by the sea.

To suggest that anyone knows where it was is the hight of folly.

I am aware that you say that what Anderson and Swanson wrote has to be interpreted, but this is not an exercise in biblical exegesis.

Either Swanson said what he meant or he was writing in parables.

It is not the height of folly to take a person's words to mean what they say.

Neither of your interpretations above contains the word Seaside, with a capital S.

If Swanson meant someone's personal home, he could have named the person or given his initials.

He could have written, J.... B....'s seaside home.

He did not.

He wrote the Seaside Home.

Being a policeman, he must have known how any reader would have understood what he wrote.

[Sunny Delight]

I repeat:

[Swanson] says the identification took place in the Seaside Home, and that the identification coincided with the cessation of the murders.

That is impossible.

If the identification took place in the Seaside Home, then it could not have coincided with the cessation of the murders.


What is ridiculous about that?

You don't know that.

[Elamarna]

Was it? Do you have documentary evidence of that? Or is it another assumption?

There is no proof of where was meant by the Seaside Home.
It was initial proposed as the police Home at Hove.
Other places have been suggested, such as the Home suggested by Adam Wood, close to Dover, in his book SWANSON.

Others have suggested other places, including the possibility that the seaside home referred to an actual home, where someone lived by the sea.

To suggest that anyone knows where it was is the hight of folly.