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

[Darryl Kenyon]

the ID obviously grew into something over the years in Andersons head that it wasnt when it happened. Lawende probably said something alomg the lines of it looks like him but i cant swear to it. as time went on, along with andersons rather boastful nature and or slipping memory it changed to him convincing himself he had solved the case and knew who the ripper was.
It really is as simple as that.

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

[Abby Normal]

the ID obviously grew into something over the years in Andersons head that it wasnt when it happened. Lawende probably said something alomg the lines of it looks like him but i cant swear to it. as time went on, along with andersons rather boastful nature and or slipping memory it changed to him convincing himself he had solved the case and knew who the ripper was.
It really is as simple as that.

[Darryl Kenyon]

That is not true.

I did not believe it to be a recent conversation.

Why should I have?

Anderson indicated that the conversation was not recent and, contrary to your assertion, I did read the article before citing it.

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And this from someone who mentions an article from 1908 believing it to be a recent conversation of Anderson's with someone who had been dead for four years

That is not true.

I did not believe it to be a recent conversation.

Why should I have?

Anderson indicated that the conversation was not recent and, contrary to your assertion, I did read the article before citing it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As has been pointed out to you by others PI Swanson did not need to name dates etc Who was he expecting to read it. This was not a published HO document.

PS When are you going to admit you are wrong . I have pointed out to you that Harcourt was dead in 1908 . Anderson was recalling a tale from years earlier that is fact . When are you going to accept this .

Regards Darryl

I wrote:

Anderson stated in September 1908 that he would not accept responsibility for the fact that the murderer was not identified.

He said:

I told Sir William Harcourt, who was then Home Secretary, that I could not accept responsibility
for non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes ...

He made that statement in 1908.

He made a statement in 1908 about not accepting responsibility.

The word would can refer both to the past and present, e.g. I would not go to the ball (to which I was invited) or I would not go to the ball (even if I were invited).

The same goes for could, although a distinction is made in German.

I did not make any mistake.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Perhaps you should have checked first regarding Harcourt before stating that Anderson said the murders where unsolved in 1908 . Not forgetting the fact that at least since 1895 Anderson had been alluding otherwise . Or was it a simple mistake you made like Anderson could have when recalling something from 20 yrs earlier regarding that interview.

Regards Darryl

I did read the article before citing it.


Anderson did say in 1908 that the murders were unsolved.


I do not think I made a mistake.

I wrote in # 610:

Anderson stated in 1892 that the murderer had not been identified and stated it again in 1908.


You then challenged me in # 616:

Please show me where this is concrete fact rather than your interpretation of interviews .


What he stated in 1908 was:

I told Sir William Harcourt, who was then Home Secretary, that I could not accept responsibility
for non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes ...

He did say in 1908 that the murderer had not been identified.


My original statement, which you challenged, was therefore correct.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you're missing the point.

Swanson's loyalty to Anderson is admirable, but as I pointed out, he could not name names or give dates to back up anything Anderson had claimed.

The witness is unnamed.

False. He named Anderson's suspect as Kosminski.

Not a single policeman or witness to the transportation, identification or surveillance of Kosminski is given.

There is nothing to support the contention that Swanson was relating anything with which he had any personal familiarity and much to suggest he was not.

He cannot get the name of the workhouse right and he gets Kosminski's date of death wrong by about three decades, compared with which my slip about a former Home Secretary looks insignificant - but I suppose it depends on what you're looking for.

Worst of all, Swanson thinks the murders stopped because Kosminski was identified, whereas we know that he was walking a dog in the City of London more than a year later.

False. Swanson simply pointed out that there were no more murders after the identification. Something which was undoubtedly true.

Swanson swallowed Anderson's tale and Anderson himself gave away the fact it was nothing more than a tale when he had to remove all mention of Kosminski's incarceration.

He said in 1892 the murderer had not been identified

False. Anderson said no such thing in 1892. Your comprehension skills are appalling. As has already been pointed out to you, a journalist wrote that the crimes were "still undiscovered

and confirmed it in 1908 and then announced in 1910 that he had known his identity all along.

False. In 1908 he complained 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."

You conveniently skip over the fact that in 1895, Arthur Griffiths stated that Anderson, "has a perfectly plausible theory that the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum"and that in 1901 he was reported as saying that JTR "had been safely caged in an asylum".


The whole Anderson-Swanson story has been exposed as another Anderson's fairy tale.

Nothing has been "exposed" by your nitpicking, and we return to the absurdity, which you cannot explain, of why Swanson would have written a "fairy tale" in his own private notes in a personal copy of a book which he is not known to have shown to a living soul.

[Sunny Delight]

I would have thought the fact that Anderson thought he had a conversation with the Home Secretary about the Whitechapel Murders when that Home Secretary was in office BEFORE the murders took place would alert you to the obvious fact that Anderson is a completely unreliable witness, whose confusion is proven not only by that glaring error.

As for me, I would remind you that I was born in a later century, and suggest it would be unreasonable to expect me to recall which Home Secretary Anderson had a conversation with and when.

That was his affair and this latest revelation is one more nail in the coffin of the entire Anderson - Swanson fantasy.

So you believe Anderson was not being truthful and that Swanson expanded on Andersons falsehood with a falsehood of his own. How did McNaughten know that Kosminski strongly resembled the man seen by a City PC near Mitre Square? How did McNaghten know what Kosminski looked like?

[Darryl Kenyon]

I think you're missing the point.

Swanson's loyalty to Anderson is admirable, but as I pointed out, he could not name names or give dates to back up anything Anderson had claimed.

The witness is unnamed.

Not a single policeman or witness to the transportation, identification or surveillance of Kosminski is given.

There is nothing to support the contention that Swanson was relating anything with which he had any personal familiarity and much to suggest he was not.

He cannot get the name of the workhouse right and he gets Kosminski's date of death wrong by about three decades, compared with which my slip about a former Home Secretary looks insignificant - but I suppose it depends on what you're looking for.

Worst of all, Swanson thinks the murders stopped because Kosminski was identified, whereas we know that he was walking a dog in the City of London more than a year later.

Swanson swallowed Anderson's tale and Anderson himself gave away the fact it was nothing more than a tale when he had to remove all mention of Kosminski's incarceration.

He said in 1892 the murderer had not been identified and confirmed it in 1908 and then announced in 1910 that he had known his identity all along.

The whole Anderson-Swanson story has been exposed as another Anderson's fairy tale.

As has been pointed out to you by others PI Swanson did not need to name dates etc Who was he expecting to read it. This was not a published HO document.

PS When are you going to admit you are wrong . I have pointed out to you that Harcourt was dead in 1908 . Anderson was recalling a tale from years earlier that is fact . When are you going to accept this .

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

I would have thought the fact that Anderson thought he had a conversation with the Home Secretary about the Whitechapel Murders when that Home Secretary was in office BEFORE the murders took place would alert you to the obvious fact that Anderson is a completely unreliable witness, whose confusion is proven not only by that glaring error.

As for me, I would remind you that I was born in a later century, and suggest it would be unreasonable to expect me to recall which Home Secretary Anderson had a conversation with and when.

That was his affair and this latest revelation is one more nail in the coffin of the entire Anderson - Swanson fantasy.

Perhaps you should have checked first regarding Harcourt before stating that Anderson said the murders where unsolved in 1908 . Not forgetting the fact that at least since 1895 Anderson had been alluding otherwise . Or was it a simple mistake you made like Anderson could have when recalling something from 20 yrs earlier regarding that interview.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Of course it didn't . That's why Swanson references it in his own copy of a book for his own consumption. Who was he trying to kid ? And what would he be gaining from it ?

I think you're missing the point.

Swanson's loyalty to Anderson is admirable, but as I pointed out, he could not name names or give dates to back up anything Anderson had claimed.

The witness is unnamed.

Not a single policeman or witness to the transportation, identification or surveillance of Kosminski is given.

There is nothing to support the contention that Swanson was relating anything with which he had any personal familiarity and much to suggest he was not.

He cannot get the name of the workhouse right and he gets Kosminski's date of death wrong by about three decades, compared with which my slip about a former Home Secretary looks insignificant - but I suppose it depends on what you're looking for.

Worst of all, Swanson thinks the murders stopped because Kosminski was identified, whereas we know that he was walking a dog in the City of London more than a year later.

Swanson swallowed Anderson's tale and Anderson himself gave away the fact it was nothing more than a tale when he had to remove all mention of Kosminski's incarceration.

He said in 1892 the murderer had not been identified and confirmed it in 1908 and then announced in 1910 that he had known his identity all along.

The whole Anderson-Swanson story has been exposed as another Anderson's fairy tale.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And this from someone who mentions an article from 1908 believing it to be a recent conversation of Anderson's with someone who had been dead for four years

I would have thought the fact that Anderson thought he had a conversation with the Home Secretary about the Whitechapel Murders when that Home Secretary was in office BEFORE the murders took place would alert you to the obvious fact that Anderson is a completely unreliable witness, whose confusion is proven not only by that glaring error.

As for me, I would remind you that I was born in a later century, and suggest it would be unreasonable to expect me to recall which Home Secretary Anderson had a conversation with and when.

That was his affair and this latest revelation is one more nail in the coffin of the entire Anderson - Swanson fantasy.

[Darryl Kenyon]

And that means that the identification of Kosminski did not take place.[/B]

Of course it didn't . That's why Swanson references it in his own copy of a book for his own consumption. Who was he trying to kid ? And what would he be gaining from it ?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes I have seen some of your, should I say strange answers on the JFK thread.

Then perhaps you have noticed that I am still waiting for a response there to my # 1666.

If the arguments I employ are so questionable, why cannot one of my adversaries come up with a refutation?

They cannot - because I rely on hard facts.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I think you should.

And this from someone who mentions an article from 1908 believing it to be a recent conversation of Anderson's with someone who had been dead for four years