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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Kosminski could have been a fair-haired, drunk, anti-Semitic Polish Jew, who had the appearance of a sailor, whose spelling of English words was perfect, but who was unable to spell the word Jew correctly, and who smoked a distinctive type of clay pipe?

Is that what you are saying?

No. You must be imagining things.

What I'm saying is that he was a Polish Jew who could quite easily have been able to write a limited amount of English in a competent manner, like many Polish Jews could in England in the 1880s, and that, at the same time, as a foreigner, he might easily have mistakenly spelt the word "Jews" as "Juwes", or he might have done so deliberately. Do you have any idea how competent Kosminski was in writing English?

He might also have smoked a distinctive type of clay pipe. Do you have any idea whether he did or did not do so?

All the rest seems to have come from your imagination, having nothing to do with what Anderson said in 1908.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes. For the reasons I already explained

Kosminski could have been a fair-haired, drunk, anti-Semitic Polish Jew, who had the appearance of a sailor, whose spelling of English words was perfect, but who was unable to spell the word Jew correctly, and who smoked a distinctive type of clay pipe?

Is that what you are saying?

[Herlock Sholmes]

MY points are utterly ridiculous??

.

Yes. For the reasons I already explained

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your points are utterly ridiculous anyway. Kosminski could easily have been unable to spell the word "Jews" in English, or he could simply have been pretending not to be able to spell it in order to throw attention off himself (while giving himself away with his handwriting), and could, for all we know, have smoked a distinctive type of clay pipe.

MY points are utterly ridiculous??

You are using the well-worn tactic of turning the evidence into the opposite of what it suggests, by means of unwarranted speculation.

Kosminski could have been a fair-haired, drunk, anti-Semitic Polish Jew, who had the appearance of a sailor, whose spelling of English words was perfect, but who was unable to spell the word Jew correctly, and who smoked a distinctive type of clay pipe.

That is obviously not what the evidence suggests.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your points are utterly ridiculous anyway. Kosminski could easily have been unable to spell the word "Jews" in English, or he could simply have been pretending not to be able to spell it in order to throw attention off himself (while giving himself away with his handwriting), and could, for all we know, have smoked a distinctive type of clay pipe.

MY points are utterly ridiculous??

You are using the well-worn tactic of turning the evidence into the opposite of what it suggests, by means of unwarranted speculation.

Kosminski could have been a fair-haired, drunk, anti-Semitic Polish Jew, who had the appearance of a sailor, whose spelling of English words was perfect, but who was unable to spell the word Jew correctly.

That is obviously not what the evidence suggests.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you're entirely missing the point.

If Anderson thought that the destruction of evidence in Goulston Street and supposed destruction of evidence in Dorset Street had wrecked the chances of solving the case, then that means the murderer couldn't spell the word Jews and smoked a clay pipe.

That rules out Kosminski.

Except that, as I already explained to you, he was putting this supposed destruction of evidence forward as an EXCUSE for not securing the proof to convict Jack the Ripper.

Your points are utterly ridiculous anyway. Kosminski could easily have been unable to spell the word "Jews" in English, or he could simply have been pretending not to be able to spell it in order to throw attention off himself (while giving himself away with his handwriting), and could, for all we know, have smoked a distinctive type of clay pipe.
,
But to focus on those distractions is to entirely miss the point (which you've now done twice in a row) which is that Anderson's 1908 article wasn't about Kosminski. It was him moaning about the destruction of clues by others, thereby explaining to the public why Scotland Yard CID under his leadership had not arrested and convicted Jack the Ripper.

Whether he genuinely thought he was impeded by that we'll never know but to repeat the point which you've simply ignored, he was consistent over many years from 1895 in expressing his belief that JTR had been committed to a lunatic asylum. That's the fact that you seem unable to acknowledge or confront.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think you're entirely missing the point.

If Anderson thought that the destruction of evidence in Goulston Street and supposed destruction of evidence in Dorset Street had wrecked the chances of solving the case, then that means the murderer couldn't spell the word Jews and smoked a clay pipe.

That rules out Kosminski.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He first said that clues had been destroyed "that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin"...

In other words, he was saying he unable to accept responsibility for the non-detection of the killer because, for reasons outside of his control and not his fault, he wasn't able to prove the killer's identity.

(HERLOCK SHOMES)


One of the clues Anderson referred to was the Goulston Street Graffito.

You're implying that Anderson meant it might have been possible to prove that the message about the Jews had been written by a Polish Jew.

Assuming you are not claiming that Anderson and Swanson had a disagreement about his identity, then he must have meant Kosminski.


Please explain why:


Anderson thought a Jew wrote the message when his view at the time was that a gentile had written it.

Why a Jew would mis-spell Jews as Juwes, bearing in mind that a number of pro-Anderson/Swanson members here have argued that the reports of Kosminski's court appearance prove that he spoke English and further that he must have had a reasonable command of the language after having lived in England for several years.

Why, if a Polish Jew could spell all the other words correctly, he had not learned how to spell the very word that described him.


The other clue Anderson referred to was the clay pipe.


Please refer us to evidence that Aaron Kosminski smoked a clay pipe.

I imagine you may require some time to come up with that.

You're entirely missing the point.

It's got nothing to do with Kosminski.

Anderson in 1908 was simply trying to put forward (very weak) excuses as to why his department had been unable to prove the identity of the killer.

He was subtly blaming Warren for destroying the writing and a doctor for smashing the clay pipe. It wasn't HIS fault, in other words, why the killer was never arrested and convicted.

This is very different from the question of who he thought had committed the murders. As to that, he was very consistent over a number of years, starting from 1895, in stating his belief that the killer had been committed to a lunatic asylum.

……

And perhaps you could explain why you can use the quote function when responding to any other poster but you appear to be incapable of doing it when responding to me?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

He first said that clues had been destroyed "that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin"...

In other words, he was saying he unable to accept responsibility for the non-detection of the killer because, for reasons outside of his control and not his fault, he wasn't able to prove the killer's identity.

(HERLOCK SHOMES)


One of the clues Anderson referred to was the Goulston Street Graffito.

You're implying that Anderson meant it might have been possible to prove that the message about the Jews had been written by a Polish Jew.

Assuming you are not claiming that Anderson and Swanson had a disagreement about his identity, then he must have meant Kosminski.


Please explain why:


Anderson thought a Jew wrote the message when his view at the time was that a gentile had written it.

Why a Jew would mis-spell Jews as Juwes, bearing in mind that a number of pro-Anderson/Swanson members here have argued that the reports of Kosminski's court appearance prove that he spoke English and further that he must have had a reasonable command of the language after having lived in England for several years.

Why, if a Polish Jew could spell all the other words correctly, he had not learned how to spell the very word that described him.


The other clue Anderson referred to was the clay pipe.


Please refer us to evidence that Aaron Kosminski smoked a clay pipe.

I imagine you may require some time to come up with that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But it's clear that he was directing his focus towards the failure to detect the Ripper crimes by proving the identity of the murderer.

(Herlock Shomes)


Not in 1908.

He does not even hint that he knew the identity of the murderer.

And then in 1910, he claims that he had known the identity of the murderer all along.

He obviously was not telling the truth about that.

Why don’t you just use the quote function?

What are you talking about? It's exactly what he said in 1908.

He first said that clues had been destroyed "that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin". He then says that it's because of the destruction of these clues, amongst other reasons, that he "could not accept responsibility for non-detection of the Ripper crimes".

In other words, he was saying he unable to accept responsibility for the non-detection of the killer because, for reasons outside of his control and not his fault, he wasn't able to prove the killer's identity.

He does not even hint that he knew the identity of the murderer.


Why should he? He was addressing a different point. He was complaining that there were clues destroyed, which is why he couldn't prove the killer's identity and gain a conviction.

In any case, he was under no obligation to give the Daily Chronicle an exclusive story that he was probably keeping for his book.

And then in 1910, he claims that he had known the identity of the murderer all along.

He obviously was not telling the truth about that.

As your reasoning is faulty, your conclusion cannot be relied upon.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But it's clear that he was directing his focus towards the failure to detect the Ripper crimes by proving the identity of the murderer.

(Herlock Shomes)


Not in 1908.

He does not even hint that he knew the identity of the murderer.

And then in 1910, he claims that he had known the identity of the murderer all along.

He obviously was not telling the truth about that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The fact that he talks about non-detection of the murderer without any qualification suggests that the murderer was still undetected.

If Anderson believed in 1908 that it was a definitely ascertained fact that the Whitechapel Murderer was a certain Polish Jew, why did he talk about the non-detection of the murderer?

Why did he not say,

I cannot accept responsibility for non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes - because I did in fact detect him!

I suggest it is quite clear that Anderson is implying that, whenever the conversation took place, the murderer was still undetected.

So you're going to continue to ignore that what Anderson actually said in 1908 was that he hadn't been able to obtain the clues to secure"the proof of the identity of the assassin"and that he, therefore, "could not accept responsibility for non-detection of the Ripper crimes."

I mean, if you ignore his actual words and take a snippet out of context I suppose you can arrive at whatever conclusion you want to arrive at. But it's clear that he was directing his focus towards the failure to detect the Ripper crimes by proving the identity of the murderer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Chief Inspector Donald Sutherland Swanson (1848 - 1924) was the man who was placed in overall charge of the Whitechapel murders police investigation on the 7th of September 1888. He would remain at the helm of the investigation until the 6th of October, 1888

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Where do you get all this nonsense from Trevor? Do you have an unlimited supply of it?

This is actual testimony from Swanson, giving evidence to a Superannuation Committee on 29 November 1889:


Q. You were employed in the Whitechapel cases?

A. Yes.

Q. What were your hours then?

A. I had to be at the office at half-past 8 in the morning; then I had to read through all the papers that had come in which took me till 11 p.m., and sometimes 1 and 2 in the morning; then I had to go to Whitechapel to see the officers - generally getting home between 2 and 3 a.m.

Q. How long did that go on?

A. That went on from September till December.


And also, you do know the identity of the individual to whom all reports by detectives filed at Scotland Yard about the Whitechapel investigation were addressed, don't you?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Alright, committal to an asylum 1895 . The point is from 1895 and perhaps earlier Anderson held the view that the killer had been put in an asylum.

Another point is that there is no evidence that he had any name for his hypothetical suspect in 1895.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I do not see what that has to do with my replies in # 653.

Why don't you ask Trevor Marriott how your case against Kosminski is shaping up so far?