Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post



    1. Why are you so keen to trust MacNaghten on this issue but when discussing Druitt you accuse him of being unreliable? Is he reliable or unreliable or is it a case of either when it suits?

    I am not so keen to trust the writings of any of these high-ranking officers. I am more inclined to believe the officers who were directly involved in the investigations like Abberline,Reid and Dew all of whom make no mention of this game changing mythical ID parade and do not corroborate what Anderson says in his book quite the contrary

    But you made the point that MacMaghten didn’t think that Kosminski was the ripper. So why would you think that important when you always portray him as being unreliable. It’s a simple enough point.


    2. The result of the ID as per Anderson is well known but Swanson simply confirms that Kosminski was the suspect (because Anderson didn’t mention the name.) We can’t assume to what extent Swanson agreed or disagreed with that opinion. So it’s hardly surprising that another officer (MacNaghten) was less convinced.

    No, he doesn't Swanson gives more of an insight into what allegedly happened. There could not have been an ID parade as is set out in the marginalia and the reasons why are set out in the previous post

    Swanson only states that the suspect at the ID was Kosminski.

    Stating that there couldn’t have been an ID is just wrong. Time after time you criticise and demonise the Police but now that it suits you try and claim that the police would never have done anything that wasn’t strictly by the book. Efficient or inefficient? Honest or liars? Take your pick….its what you usually do when it’s convenient.

    You can set out as many ‘reasons’ as you like Trevor it makes no difference. Unless you hold to the belief that if there’s no evidence of something then it couldn’t have occurred then your points hold no water. Especially concerning events that occurred 135 years ago and where we know that there is so much stuff missing. Your opinion is stated as fact again. You can’t state definitively that the ID parade didn’t take place.


    3. Any quibbles that you might have about the marginalia pale into insignificance when compared to the evidence for it being genuine. The fact that you persist in this blatant attempt to discredit proves that you are, as ever, fixated on something to the extent that you will try absolutely anything.

    The only person fixated is you in trying to prove that an ID parade took place as described and that the killer was positively identified

    There’s no evidence that it didn’t take place. That is a fact. There is no evidence of forgery in the marginalia. That is a fact.

    This is why you go into conspiracy theory mode on the marginalia because you realise how unlikely it would have been for Swanson to have backed up a lie in a book not meant for the general public.


    How can one person be wrong all of the time? It’s quite an achievement.​​​​​​​
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 01-26-2023, 05:50 PM.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      How can one person be wrong all of the time? It’s quite an achievement.​​​​​​​
      Well you seem to manage it

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        The result of the ID as per Anderson is well known but Swanson simply confirms that Kosminski was the suspect (because Anderson didn’t mention the name.) We can’t assume to what extent Swanson agreed or disagreed with that opinion.
        My thoughts exactly.
        It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

        All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

        ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          My thoughts exactly.
          hi GB and herlock.
          i disagree. dosnt.." and he knew he was identified" and "after which there were no more murders..l" sound like someone who is actually agreeing with anderson that they think he was the ripper?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            hi GB and herlock.
            i disagree. dosnt.." and he knew he was identified" and "after which there were no more murders..l" sound like someone who is actually agreeing with anderson that they think he was the ripper?
            Hi Abby, And GB and Herlock
            When you consider, that Anderson almost certainly got his info from Swanson who coordinated the whole case to begin with, Anderson was not hands on, I find interpreting Swanson's Marginlia as anything other than confirmation and support of Anderson, highly implausible.
            If he didn't agree, in a private note to himself, he would say so I suggest.
            That's irrespective of the name issue.

            But each to their own, as always

            Steve

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

              Hi Abby, And GB and Herlock
              When you consider, that Anderson almost certainly got his info from Swanson who coordinated the whole case to begin with, Anderson was not hands on, I find interpreting Swanson's Marginlia as anything other than confirmation and support of Anderson, highly implausible.
              If he didn't agree, in a private note to himself, he would say so I suggest.
              That's irrespective of the name issue.

              But each to their own, as always

              Steve
              Hello Steve,

              After a re-read and a re-think I have to say that I agree with you.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                Hi Abby, And GB and Herlock
                When you consider, that Anderson almost certainly got his info from Swanson who coordinated the whole case to begin with, Anderson was not hands on, I find interpreting Swanson's Marginlia as anything other than confirmation and support of Anderson, highly implausible.
                If he didn't agree, in a private note to himself, he would say so I suggest.
                That's irrespective of the name issue.

                But each to their own, as always

                Steve
                so just to be clear-you agree with me that swanson is agreeing with anderson that koz was the ripper (or probably was the ripper).

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Hello Steve,

                  After a re-read and a re-think I have to say that I agree with you.
                  hey! what about me?? Im the one who brought it up!!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                    I find interpreting Swanson's Marginlia as anything other than confirmation and support of Anderson, highly implausible.
                    I agree that there is something about the general tone of the Marginalia that suggests agreement, but I think it might be going too far to say that other explanations are "highly implausible."

                    I used to have a college professor who assigned his own books as required reading. He would lecture on the same topic, of course, and it wasn't unusual to come across a brief passage in one of his books that vaguely alluded to something that he often spoke about. I could see myself 'fleshing out' his opinion in the book's margin for my own benefit. Anderson gave nearly no details at all about his suspect, or the witness, or when the identification took place in The Lighter Side, so it wouldn't be entirely unnatural for Swanson to supply those details.

                    Can anyone envision D. S. Swanson, reading a copy of Macnaghten's memoirs, jotting down some extra information about 'the drowned doctor' theory, even though he didn't necessarily endorse Macnaghten's suspicions? "The police traced the suspect to various flogging-shops in the West End, whose inhabitants described the suspect as sexually insane. There were suspicions against him at the school in Blackheath and he committed suicide three weeks after the final murder. Macnaghten here means M.J. Druitt."

                    A rhetorical question, only. I do agree that the Polish Jew was very likely to have been Swanson's preferred suspect to begin with, so he wasn't endorsing Anderson so much as it was Anderson who was endorsing him.

                    We'd have a lot more certainty about what all of this meant if some bastard or bastards hadn't stolen all the suspect files. ​

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                      hey! what about me?? Im the one who brought it up!!
                      Sorry Abby, you too.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                        so just to be clear-you agree with me that swanson is agreeing with anderson that koz was the ripper (or probably was the ripper).
                        Yes Abby

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                          I agree that there is something about the general tone of the Marginalia that suggests agreement, but I think it might be going too far to say that other explanations are "highly implausible."

                          I used to have a college professor who assigned his own books as required reading. He would lecture on the same topic, of course, and it wasn't unusual to come across a brief passage in one of his books that vaguely alluded to something that he often spoke about. I could see myself 'fleshing out' his opinion in the book's margin for my own benefit. Anderson gave nearly no details at all about his suspect, or the witness, or when the identification took place in The Lighter Side, so it wouldn't be entirely unnatural for Swanson to supply those details.

                          Can anyone envision D. S. Swanson, reading a copy of Macnaghten's memoirs, jotting down some extra information about 'the drowned doctor' theory, even though he didn't necessarily endorse Macnaghten's suspicions? "The police traced the suspect to various flogging-shops in the West End, whose inhabitants described the suspect as sexually insane. There were suspicions against him at the school in Blackheath and he committed suicide three weeks after the final murder. Macnaghten here means M.J. Druitt."

                          A rhetorical question, only. I do agree that the Polish Jew was very likely to have been Swanson's preferred suspect to begin with, so he wasn't endorsing Anderson so much as it was Anderson who was endorsing him.

                          We'd have a lot more certainty about what all of this meant if some bastard or bastards hadn't stolen all the suspect files. ​
                          I often think Anderson's suspect, should really be called Swanson's.

                          However, Anderson was the public figure, he wrote the rough details in his 1910 book(and hinted much the same from.1895 onwards), so we say Anderson's suspect .

                          Steve

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                            I'd just like to take this opportunity to compliment you on your dissertation titled The Butcher’s Row Suspect – Was He Jack the Ripper? Excellent research and logical conclusions. Well done.
                            Thanks, George.

                            It's possible Sagar may have been present at the Seaside Home Identification. He got the identification being impossible part of his statement from somewhere, if it wasn't from personal observation.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                              Thanks, George.

                              It's possible Sagar may have been present at the Seaside Home Identification. He got the identification being impossible part of his statement from somewhere, if it wasn't from personal observation.
                              I agree Scott.
                              Wasn't Sagar in close contact with regular meetings with officers from Lemen st station ? Its very possible that as Elamarna as pointed out , Kosminski was Swanson's suspect. And he got all the info regarding the ID from Sagar. This assumes that Lawende was the witness of course and Kosminski was the butchers row suspect.
                              An ID would have been impossible [ as such ], if the witness wouldn't swear to the suspect.

                              Regards Darryl

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                                In its current form, Trev?

                                Would it be any safer if you took one of your own crayons to it?

                                'Bye bye Kosminski. Hello sailor.' TM

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                TM or JL?

                                In 1888, Joseph Lawende--believed by many to be Swanson's witness--described a sailor-like suspect.

                                And in 1891, the same Joseph Lawende was apparently used in an attempt to identify Tom Sadler as the Whitechapel Murderer, a sailor and ship's fireman--but hardly a foreign Jew.

                                As such, I can't entirely blame Trevor for trying to discern a non-Jewish sailor hiding somewhere in the shadows of 'Kosminski.'

                                Maybe a better way of saying it is that the 'current' marginalia doesn't necessarily jive with what Joseph Lawende saw in 1888--nor with how the police used him in 1891.
                                Last edited by rjpalmer; 01-31-2023, 03:00 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X