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

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Which may have been anywhere...

The Seaside Home was not any seaside home!

It was the Convalescent Police Seaside Home in Hove.

[Scott Nelson]

Which may have been anywhere...

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well, cessation of murders: November 9, 1888. Seaside Home ID, say, late in November or early December 1888.

Not if the seaside home was the Seaside Home!

[Scott Nelson]

Well, cessation of murders: November 9, 1888. Seaside Home ID, say, late in November or early December 1888.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You just keep repeating the same things over and over. My opinion is that the ID was nowhere near as definite as Anderson claimed. From what we can discern it would have been decidedly unsatisfactory. However the ID did take place. To argue that it didn't based on the points you have raised is ridiculous.

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There was no record to survive because it could not have happened as described in the marginalia, and if Kosminski was identified as being the killer why does MM tend to exonerate him. Swanson, Anderson and MM are clearly not all singing from the same song sheet so how can you rely on with any certainty anything any of the three of them say?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

. how can you rely on with any certainty anything any of the three of them say

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.