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

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because Anderson was egotistical and full of b-----t

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Sunny Delight]

Swanson may have believed Anderson's fantasy, but that belief is being taken by some as corroboration of Anderson's tale, which it is not.

Swanson provided no inside information that would confirm that he had any personal familiarity with the case he was describing.

He did not name the witness, the suspect's brother's name, the street he lived in, nor provide the name of a single person involved in the transportation, identification, or surveillance of Kosminski.

When he does name something - the workhouse - it is wrong.

Most seriously, he claims that the identification of Kosminski coincided with the cessation of the murders, whereas we know that more than a year after the last murder, Kosminski was walking a dog in the City of London.

All manner of excuses are made for Swanson - that he could not be expected to provide such details and that a literal reading of his claim makes it true.

The problem is that Kosminski was free to commit murder for 27 months following the murder of Kelly, but did not do so.

If Anderson and Swanson were aware of that fact, then they must have known that they were accusing an innocent man.

If they did not know, then they are completely unreliable witnesses to what really happened.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What conceivable purpose could Swanson have had in writing his marginalia other than to back up Anderson's account?

And how does he do so?

Like Anderson, he mentions an identification and incarceration, but no dates.

He mentions a workhouse, but it is the wrong one.

He mentions a witness, but does not name him.

He mentions an identification, but does not name anyone present at it other than Kosminski.

He mentions CID surveillance, but does not name anyone in CID.

He mentions the house being watched, but does not mention the name of the street.

He never explains why a trip to the coast was necessary or justified - only that it was difficult.

He never explains how or why a suspect could be taken from London to the coast, allowed to return to his home, and only then taken away with his hands tied behind his back, nor whether he had ever been arrested!

He says the suspect dies about three decades earlier than he did.

He 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.

The marginalia are not credible and all the excuses for Swanson's errors, vagueness, and lack of detail on all the important matters cannot make them credible.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why am I?

I simply read what Anderson and Swanson wrote. I see no reason or benefit for them to have lied and the evidence points very strongly to the Marginalia being genuine. Kosminski was a real person. McNaghten mentions him as a suspect.

You, on the other hand, have to assume that Anderson lied for some reason and then that, in a book that was never going to be made public, Swanson then dishonestly (and pointlessly) confirms Anderson’s lie (despite having no way of knowing how many people might emerge to call them both liars). And that MacNaghten simply plucked Kosminski’s name out of thin air.

Its just not credible Trevor.

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would he have lied?

Because Anderson was egotistical and full of b-----t

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why would he have lied?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think it is obvious that Anderson knew his story was not credible.

He claimed that he tried to obtain a murder conviction of a man who was already permanently incarcerated in a lunatic asylum - a conviction which, as Swanson later elaborated, would have resulted in the lunatic being hanged.

Whether he himself realised his error or someone else had to point it out to him, he then changed his story so that no mention of the incarceration was made.

Anderson must have known that his accusations against the Jews would cause an outcry.

When challenged by Inspector Reid, who pointed out that the idea that the murderer had been Jewish had not been in the minds of the police at the time that the murders were being investigated, Anderson made no response.

Anderson was certainly not a man who was sure of his facts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, you are clearly biased in favour of the fact that the Id did take place as described, despite all the rules of evidence the police should have adopted with regard to ID procedures being ignored.

I have a question for you who do you was involved in the transportation of Kosminski for his day out at the seaside, and who from the police oversaw the ID procedure as described?

I haven’t a clue Trevor. I wasn’t there and no record has survived. It could have been as few as two officers and the staff at The Seaside Home could easily have been told that the ID was from some other crime so they would have had no reason to remember it or mention it in the future.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why am I?

I simply read what Anderson and Swanson wrote. I see no reason or benefit for them to have lied and the evidence points very strongly to the Marginalia being genuine. Kosminski was a real person. McNaghten mentions him as a suspect.

You, on the other hand, have to assume that Anderson lied for some reason and then that, in a book that was never going to be made public, Swanson then dishonestly (and pointlessly) confirms Anderson’s lie (despite having no way of knowing how many people might emerge to call them both liars). And that MacNaghten simply plucked Kosminski’s name out of thin air.

Its just not credible Trevor.