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

[Trevor Marriott]

You and I have gone over this so many times that I’ve lost count Trevor. You keep repeating that people are ‘accepting without question…’ when this very clearly isn’t the case. No one is doing this although it might be suggested that you are in the habit of ‘dismissing without question.” People are looking at the evidence without preconception and discussing what might very well have occurred. You can no more prove that this ID never took place any more than others can prove that it did and you seem unwilling to apply context in that firstly, so many documents haven’t survived, and secondly that it’s perfectly understandable that someone remembering back over 20 years previously might get one or two details wrong (and for all that we know they might simply have been given incorrect information.)

You still want to dismiss on the grounds that no physical evidence of this ID remains to us (apart from the evidence of Anderson and Swanson course - and whatever random police officers that you choose to quote there’s just no getting past the fact that these two were the top two men on the ripper case and were more likely to have access to every thread of information than all of the other officers that you’ve mentioned)

And talking of evidence….the evidence tells us the marginalia is genuine. We have Dr. Davies report which is quite clear on this point. You choose not to accept but again that smacks of you doing so because it doesn’t conform to your own preconception.

I think that you, and not only you, should try and be a little more open-minded in your approaches and you shouldn’t let your personal opinions cloud your judgment on an issue where so much is unknown. It’s simply a fact that you cannot disprove that the ID took place. This doesn’t prove that it did take place of course. We don’t know but we have the two senior officers on the case who tell us that it did. For me, they tend to outweigh the others in your list.

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?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

I personally think that the information you refer to was never there in the first place.


I agree - and if there was anything there about Kosminski, it must have been purely circumstantial, as indicated by Macnaghten.


This is the same Sir Robert Anderson who in his book published in 1910 and up until that time had stated on many occasions he knew the identity of the Ripper but didn’t name him


Thanks for providing all the quotes, but is it not the case that until 1910, Anderson made no claim to know the identity of the murderer?
According to Major Griffiths, by 1895 Anderson had no more than a theory and, by way of confirmation, during his interview in 1892 Anderson could do no better than speculate, 'It is impossible to believe [the murders] were acts of a sane man'.

Even in 1908, as you pointed out, he was talking about the murderer not even having been detected.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I personally think that the information you refer to was never there in the first place. There are two sides to this murder investigation, on one side we have some senior officers who were not directly involved in the day-to-day investigation and I will single out Anderson and Swanson who in later years penned in memoirs or newspaper reports misleading details surrounding likely suspects which researchers today are ready to accept without question despite the flaws in their statements/memoirs being highlighted many times.

I think time for some researchers to wake up to reality and accept that all that they have read, and readily accept without question may not be as accurate as they want to believe

www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/FONT][/SIZE]

You and I have gone over this so many times that I’ve lost count Trevor. You keep repeating that people are ‘accepting without question…’ when this very clearly isn’t the case. No one is doing this although it might be suggested that you are in the habit of ‘dismissing without question.” People are looking at the evidence without preconception and discussing what might very well have occurred. You can no more prove that this ID never took place any more than others can prove that it did and you seem unwilling to apply context in that firstly, so many documents haven’t survived, and secondly that it’s perfectly understandable that someone remembering back over 20 years previously might get one or two details wrong (and for all that we know they might simply have been given incorrect information.)

You still want to dismiss on the grounds that no physical evidence of this ID remains to us (apart from the evidence of Anderson and Swanson course - and whatever random police officers that you choose to quote there’s just no getting past the fact that these two were the top two men on the ripper case and were more likely to have access to every thread of information than all of the other officers that you’ve mentioned)

And talking of evidence….the evidence tells us the marginalia is genuine. We have Dr. Davies report which is quite clear on this point. You choose not to accept but again that smacks of you doing so because it doesn’t conform to your own preconception.

I think that you, and not only you, should try and be a little more open-minded in your approaches and you shouldn’t let your personal opinions cloud your judgment on an issue where so much is unknown. It’s simply a fact that you cannot disprove that the ID took place. This doesn’t prove that it did take place of course. We don’t know but we have the two senior officers on the case who tell us that it did. For me, they tend to outweigh the others in your list.

[Tom_Wescott]

I am quite sure Smith did not know anything about the identification procedure - because it couldn't have happened!

Lawende's suspect was a man with the appearance of a sailor and a fair moustache.

He was not a Polish Jew.

This is possible, but I prefer a simpler approach that doesn't require setting aside huge chunks of evidence and testimony merely because it's inconvenient. This is how too many Ripper writers and commentators work and I see no fun in it. Best to take it all on board and look at the inconveniences as helpful clues and then construct a scenario in which everything fits together. You get closer to the truth that way.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

If, as an example, Trevor told us that he’d interviewed a Mr X in 1982 but the station had been destroyed by fire and that he no longer had his notebook from that time would be be treating him fairly if we accused him off making it up? And what if, thinking back, he gave a provable error in detail? Would he be a liar or would we be fairer to point out the fallibility or memory or that he might have, either at the time or later, been given a piece of misleading information by a colleague?

In the case in hand we all know that we are dealing with a huge amount of information which no longer exists. How can we possibly express confidence that such corroboration didn’t exist at one time?

I personally think that the information you refer to was never there in the first place. There are two sides to this murder investigation, on one side we have some senior officers who were not directly involved in the day-to-day investigation and I will single out Anderson and Swanson who in later years penned in memoirs or newspaper reports misleading details surrounding likely suspects which researchers today are ready to accept without question despite the flaws in their statements/memoirs being highlighted many times.

On the other side, we have those officers who were actively involved in the day-to-day investigation Abberline,Reid, and Dew who all in later years make no specific mention of any likely suspect and certainly make no mention of any ID parade where the killer was identified. I think researchers should take note that the likes Abberline,Reid and Dew would have been the ones directly involved in an such ID procedure or any arrest of any prime suspect.

I am sure this has been posted before but it is relevant to my post

October 23rd 1888
Sir Robert Anderson, Ass. Comm, Met Police said:
“But that five successive murders should have been committed, without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.”

November 4th 1889
Sir Robert Anderson in the Pall Mall Gazette in an interview with American journalist: “Our failure to find Jack the Ripper as they call him.”
This is the same Sir Robert Anderson who in his book published in 1910 and up until that time had stated on many occasions he knew the identity of the Ripper but didn’t name him

November 1890
James Monro following his resignation as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, November 1890 stated:
“The police had nothing positive in the way of clues about the identity of the Ripper.”

February 15th 1891
Significantly, in the Lloyds Weekly News of February 15th 1891, Sir Edward Bradford, by this time, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, felt convinced from the evidence of previous murders in Whitechapel that the murdered woman (Coles) was a victim of the same killer responsible for the Ripper murders two years previously.
If there had already been a previous positive identification (Kosminski), why would Bradford, who would surely have known about it, have thought the Ripper to be still at large?

In Cassell’s Saturday Journal Chief Inspector Abberline is quoted:

“Theories! We were lost almost in theories; there were so many of them.”

June 1892
Sir Robert Anderson in Cassell's Saturday Journal, 1892 stated:
“The mention of this appalling sequence of still undiscovered crimes.”

February 1893
Eastern Post and Daily Chronicle, Superintendent Thomas Arnold said:
“We had some of the finest men from all parts of London, but all their efforts were useless.”

October 1898
Detective Inspector Sewell on his retirement in 1898 in The East London Advertiser
“Although the identity of the man was never discovered, most of us believed he was a sailor, who came to London on pretty frequent intervals. When the crimes ceased in London, they commenced after a short period abroad, and generally, they were in or near a port”

March 1903
Chief Inspector Abberline now retired and living in Bournemouth in speaking to the Pall Mall Gazette:
“We have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic or anything of that kind.”Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

September 1908
Speaking retrospectively to the Daily Chronicle Sir Robert Anderson said:
“I told Sir William Harcourt that I could not accept the responsibility for the non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes.”

April 23rd 1910
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.”

East London Observer 1910
“What should we do if it were proved that beyond all doubt Jack the Ripper was dead? We should have to fall back on the big gooseberry or the sea serpent from stock. Some years ago Major Griffiths in his book “Mysteries of Crime and Police” endeavoured to prove that “Jacks” body was found floating in the Thames seven weeks after the last Whitechapel murder on the last day of the year 1888. Considering that there were considered to have been nine murders. I think it is wonderful that the man’s body should have been found in the Thames before the last of the murders was committed

1910
Major Henry Smith, retired City of London Police Commissioner
“The Ripper ...completely beat me and every Police officer in London." and that "...I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago."

February 4th 1912
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.” 1913

Chief Inspector Henry Moore speaking in The Police Review magazine
"Well, so far as I could make out he was a mad foreign sailor, who paid periodical visits to London on board ship. He committed the crimes and then went back to his ship, and remembered nothing about them"

1914
Sir Melville Macnaghten author of the now questionable Macnaghten Memorandum written in 1894 wrote in his 1914 book titled “Days of my years”:
“No light was vouchsafed to us, and after two or three weeks it seemed as if the Muswell Hill murder was going to climb on the shelf of undiscovered crimes alongside Jack the Ripper and the Cafe Royal case of eighteen months before.”

1938
Walter Dew a Whitechapel Detective actively engaged in the investigation of the murders, and would later be instrumental in the arrest of Dr Crippen. In his book titled “I Caught Crippen,” he refers to the Whitechapel murders in a chapter titled “The Hunt for Jack the Ripper” and states

“Since 1888, many people have written on the subject of the Ripper's uncanny escapes, some of them putting forward their own theories. I was on the spot, actively engaged throughout the whole series of crimes. I ought to know something about it. Yet I have to confess I am as mystified now as I was then:
One big question remains to be asked, but, I am afraid, not to be answered. Who was Jack the Ripper?
I was closely associated with most of the murders. Yet I hesitate to express a definite opinion as to whom, or what the man may have been.
He may have been a doctor. He may have been a medical student. He may have been a foreigner. He may even have been a slaughterman, and so on.
Such speculation is little more than childish, for there is no evidence to support one view any more than another

I think its time for some researchers to wake up to reality and accept that all that they have read, and readily accept without question may not be as accurate as they want to believe

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

If, as an example, Trevor told us that he’d interviewed a Mr X in 1982 but the station had been destroyed by fire and that he no longer had his notebook from that time would be be treating him fairly if we accused him off making it up? And what if, thinking back, he gave a provable error in detail? Would he be a liar or would we be fairer to point out the fallibility or memory or that he might have, either at the time or later, been given a piece of misleading information by a colleague?

In the case in hand we all know that we are dealing with a huge amount of information which no longer exists. How can we possibly express confidence that such corroboration didn’t exist at one time?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And equally, a lack of corroborating evidence doesn’t mean that an event couldn’t have occurred; this isn’t logical. Of course it’s only reasonable to state that Swanson was only adding comments in the margins of a book. He wasn’t giving, or even intending to give, a chapter and verse description of events, so we cannot claim that just because such details are absent this is somehow proof of a lack of knowledge.

We also have to ask why Anderson would lie and why would Swanson confirm that lie in his jottings in a book that he had no way of knowing would ever see the light of day.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So Anderson was lying and Swansons notes are what? Forgeries?

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m certain that it’s obvious to almost all that the “it couldn’t have happened” argument holds no more water than if it was stated that “we know that the police couldn’t have been interested in x because we know that x wasn’t the killer.”

It’s also an established fact that eye witnesses can be very unreliable, even under favourable circumstances, and that the police, even today, approach them with caution. Lawende himself admitted that he only saw the man briefly, at night, near a gas lamp. He saw him so briefly that he was unsure if he could have identified him had he seen him again. It was also pointed out that Lawende didn’t even look back at the man and woman after they had passed by. This tells us that he gave the couple little attention. So we know, from Lawende himself, that he saw the man briefly, in passing, at night under a gas lamp and that he paid little attention. Given the known unreliability of witnesses who had a better view of their subject these were very far from being ideal conditions and so extreme caution should be applied by all of us.

The fact that he said that the man had a light moustache therefore has to also be considered with caution. He could simply have been mistaken when thinking back. Experts tell us the we can all be guilty of ‘filling in the gaps’ when recalling events so again, caution is vital. We also know that colours are often difficult to judge under lighting….how much more so at a brief glance? How, for example, can we know that the man in question didn’t have a moustache fused with grey? People can go grey at pretty much any age (and before comment is made, I’m not claiming this as a fact or even a particularly likely possibility, but I’d suggest that it’s a possibility nonetheless)

That he felt that he had the appearance of a sailor has been discussed in detail elsewhere but we have to remember some facts here. Firstly, we have absolutely no way of knowing what gave Lawende this impression or if another person might have arrived at the same impression or not. It might simply have been because of the kind of headwear that he was wearing. We can only speculate in the absence of information. Secondly, it should go without saying that just because someone ‘had the appearance of ***’ we can’t assume that they actually were ***. Most people in that area were extremely poor and the clothes that they wore would have been of the cheapest kind (possibly bought at pawn shops or market stalls or even handed down from a family member) And finally, of course, we have to consider the almost certain fact that the killer wanted to continue what he was doing and to avoid capture. So, if he was a sailor, would he have made himself stand out by appearing at or near the crime scene dressed obviously as a sailor? It’s been suggested that the killer might have been a police officer but we would hardly expect that person to have been in uniform. It’s it entirely reasonable that the killer would have worn old clothes so that he was less likely to stand out or to be recognised. If he had spare clothes might he not have worn different clothes on occasion for that reason?

Lawende’s ID can’t point us toward or away from any particular suspect unless he had some impossible to hide characteristics like being 20 stone or 6 feet 9 or having one leg (perhaps with a crutch and a parrot on his shoulder)

[Sunny Delight]

I am quite sure Smith did not know anything about the identification procedure - because it couldn't have happened!

Lawende's suspect was a man with the appearance of a sailor and a fair moustache.

He was not a Polish Jew.

So Anderson was lying and Swansons notes are what? Forgeries?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If he knew nothing about it, he would have said he knew nothing and would have pointed out that he WOULD have known something. Which he would have. This bit about Lawende wasn't for the benefit of the lay reader, it was for the benefit of those in the know. And I'm sure they all got the message. I personally do not think Anderson was lying at all about the Seaside Home ID. Why would he? It happened, it probably just did not have the gravitas he wished it did. After all, the witness refused to give evidence against the suspect. That part is often left out by those wanting to imbue the identity parade with more relevance than it perhaps carries. But if we put aside random newspaper accounts for a minute and look at just what the contemporary investigators tell us (directly or otherwise), I'd say we get a picture of an identification occurring with Joseph Lawende as the witness and someone who goes by 'Kosminski' as the suspect, and it ends without a positive ID, possibly because the witness (who maybe enjoys the attention and notoriety a little too much) was simply not capable of identifying a suspect because, as Smith said, he never got a good enough look.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I am quite sure Smith did not know anything about the identification procedure - because it couldn't have happened!

Lawende's suspect was a man with the appearance of a sailor and a fair moustache.

He was not a Polish Jew.

[Tom_Wescott]

It is certainly true, as you say, that Smith does not deny in his memoir that the identification confrontation, claimed by Anderson to have happened, actually happened.

On the other hand, he does not concede that it did.

Is it possible that, as he knew nothing about it, he was arguing that IF such an identification confrontation did take place, it COULDN'T have resulted in the witness saying that he recognised the suspect?

If he knew nothing about it, he would have said he knew nothing and would have pointed out that he WOULD have known something. Which he would have. This bit about Lawende wasn't for the benefit of the lay reader, it was for the benefit of those in the know. And I'm sure they all got the message. I personally do not think Anderson was lying at all about the Seaside Home ID. Why would he? It happened, it probably just did not have the gravitas he wished it did. After all, the witness refused to give evidence against the suspect. That part is often left out by those wanting to imbue the identity parade with more relevance than it perhaps carries. But if we put aside random newspaper accounts for a minute and look at just what the contemporary investigators tell us (directly or otherwise), I'd say we get a picture of an identification occurring with Joseph Lawende as the witness and someone who goes by 'Kosminski' as the suspect, and it ends without a positive ID, possibly because the witness (who maybe enjoys the attention and notoriety a little too much) was simply not capable of identifying a suspect because, as Smith said, he never got a good enough look.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is certainly true, as you say, that Smith does not deny in his memoir that the identification confrontation, claimed by Anderson to have happened, actually happened.

On the other hand, he does not concede that it did.

Is it possible that, as he knew nothing about it, he was arguing that IF such an identification confrontation did take place, it COULDN'T have resulted in the witness saying that he recognised the suspect?

[Tom_Wescott]

I know which part of Smith's memoir you are referring to:

"You will easily recognize him, then," I [Smith] said. "Oh no!" he [Lawende] replied ; "I only had a short look at him."

Are you suggesting that Smith may have been conceding that a confrontation, with Lawende as the witness, may have taken place but that Anderson's claim that Lawende identified the suspect was untrue?

Yes. The Seaside Home ID happened as Anderson said, but Smith is pointing out that the witness the police are using is not a good one. And he WOULD have been aware that the witness ID happened, and that the city witness Lawende had been used. That's why he doesn't contradict Anderson on that point, But he does give to history his knowledge that Lawende would not have been able to identify the man he saw with Eddowes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I know which part of Smith's memoir you are referring to:

"You will easily recognize him, then," I [Smith] said. "Oh no!" he [Lawende] replied ; "I only had a short look at him."

Are you suggesting that Smith may have been conceding that a confrontation, with Lawende as the witness, may have taken place but that Anderson's claim that Lawende identified the suspect was untrue?