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

[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

https://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?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Pi Where have I said that Kosminski was the ripper ?

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

[Darryl Kenyon]

Pi Where have I said that Kosminski was the ripper ?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Did Anderson mean Kosminski was still there in 1895*, 1901 or 1907?

* "now in asylum" - where did this come from?

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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Please show me where in The Lighter side of my official life Anderson says that the ID occurred after the suspect had been safely caged in an asylum . It is quite obvious he omitted this part from the book because Anderson had realised his mistake. This has been pointed out to you.

Well obviously Kosminski is going to tell the police that he got rid of incriminating evidence, just like all killers do .And how do we know the police didn't find any, which led to suspicion against Kosminski ?
Why don't you ask Trevor how your case is shaping up that the killer wrote the GSG Or you can ask him how his case is shaping up that the killer never removed any organs . And why are you bringing other people into our discussion anyway ? But if you want I can ask Herlock how your argument about a wide conspiracy to kill JFK is going on, rather than a lone gunman. Not that I need to ask Herlock since your whole argument is preposterous

Like you must have read time and again that Anderson in his 1908 interview was referring to an earlier conversation which you admit but still say that he is saying there and then he had no idea who the killer was despite other earlier interviews to the contrary

Yes Swanson could have named Lawende but again he was making private notes on the case . what he and he himself expected to read. It was up to him what he wrote and why he wrote it . Not me nor you.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.



Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1

If Kosminski is a decent suspect,

Why is there no evidence that he became a suspect prior to his incarceration in an asylum and - on the contrary - evidence that it was only after he was incarcerated that he did become a suspect?

He was put in an asylum after the ID . Anderson omitted that part about before from his book . You have been told this time and again.


That is not correct.

Anderson did not just OMIT the part about Kosminski being admitted to an asylum AFTER the ID.

He has him ALREADY IN the asylum BEFORE the ID.

And that constitutes the evidence - to which I referred - that it was only after he was incarcerated that he did become a suspect.

And you must have read this time and again.




Why is there no evidence that any possibly incriminating evidence was ever found in any search of his home - e.g. the clothing described by Lawende?

Have you never heard of a murderer getting rid of the clothing he committed the killing in ?


Where is the evidence that Kosminski destroyed incriminating evidence?

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

Or ask Elamarna whether he agrees with me that you are making an assumption!




Why is there no evidence to support Anderson's and Swanson's claims of a connection between Kosminski's incarceration or identification and the cessation of the murders?

It is obvious that they mean no more murders where committed by Jack after Kosminski was put in an asylum . Dennis Radar for instance could go years between murders

It is obvious that they claimed a proximity between the time of Kosminski's incarceration and that of the cessation of the murders.

And we know that Kosminski was walking a dog in the City of London more than a year after the last murder.

That completely destroys Anderson's and Swanson's claim.

And you must have read this time and again.




Why is there no record of the name of the person who allegedly identified him as the murderer - and can you mention any other murder case in which the decisive part in proving the guilt of a suspect is played by an unidentified person?

If Lawende was the witness and he was named so , would there not be fear of recrim

No.

Swanson could have named him, without amy fear of recrimination against either him or Lawende, but chose not to.

He did not mind practically accusing Kosminski of being a serial killer, without any evidence, and the only possible evidence that he refers to - the alleged identification - is provided by a person whom Swanson will not name.

[/QUOTE]

[Scott Nelson]

Anderson 1895 - Anderson has a perfectly plausible theory that he was a homicidal maniac now in asylum

Anderson 1901 - Before the mania seized him or after he had been put in an asylum

Anderson 1907 - safely caged in an asylum

Did Anderson mean Kosminski was still there in 1895*, 1901 or 1907?

* "now in asylum" - where did this come from?

[Abby Normal]

I more or less agree with you on Anderson Abby. But I cannot get over the fact it is what Swanson pretty much wrote as well [ that's not to say I am sure Kosminski is the ripper, more a decent suspect ]. Swanson was a man who was the eyes and ears of the force regarding the murders. And a man who kept his thoughts on the case just about to himself . It is likely he concurred with Anderson, and must have had is own reasoning for doing so.

Regards Darryl

agree. And yes hes a decent suspect, or as I like to say-one of the least weak.