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

[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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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.

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 ?

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

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 recrimations against him ?

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

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.

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

Statement by Sadler taken by Chief Inspector Swanson MET police CID Scotland Yard 14 Feb 1891. Mepo file 3/140 for example

[Trevor Marriott]

So Swanson wasn't directly involved in trying to find the killer ?

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If you do not believe it was a recent conversation but Anderson reminiscing about an exchange, [ possibly from Sept 1888, JTR A-Z] how on earth does that mean he believed that now. IE He had no idea who Jack was in 1908. He is either talking about a recent conversation IE present tense, or one from years ago IE past tense.
You can't have it both ways PI

Regards Darryl

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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

But those thoughts you refer to could only have been generated as a result of the police investigation and as I keep saying none of those officers who were directly involved in that investigation makes any mention of Kosminski or an ID procedure

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So Swanson wasn't directly involved in trying to find the killer ?

[Trevor Marriott]

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

But those thoughts you refer to could only have been generated as a result of the police investigation and as I keep saying none of those officers who were directly involved in that investigation makes any mention of Kosminski or an ID procedure

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk