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

[FISHY1118]

We have umbrella’s being used as signals, we have men firing from storm drains, we have Woody Harrelson’s dad being claimed as the sniper, we have Garrison identifying about 20 snipers being involved! We have LBJ being involved, Hoover being involved, rogue police officers being the killer, the Mafia, the CIA, the Texas oil men hiring Mexican assassins. Where does it end? With group of conspirators putting a gunmen behind a picket fence near numerous bystanders who could have decided to go and apprehend the killer or at the very least told investigators that the shots came from there. They might also have been able to have given a description of him. They have him standing with a huge car park full of cars behind him where at any time someone could have parked up or gone to his car and seen the killer or even tried to apprehend him. This killer who stood on muddy ground but didn’t leave a single print or mark. And did they have a car waiting to spirit Oswald away from Dallas as even the dimmest of plotters would have done? No they leave him wandering around catching a bus then leaving the bus when it got stuck in traffic to jump into a taxi to take him to his rooming house. But does he get dropped outside the door? No he gets dropped a distance away then walks back. He then picks up a revolver, as any innocent man would do, and just happens to pass a police officer who is killed with the same gun. A gun, like the rifle, which was ordered via mail by an Alex Hidell (who didn’t exist) And what name was on the card in Oswald’s pocket? Yup, Alex Hidell. How many rabbit holes have to be opened up to try and disprove the obvious? It’s madness. Oswald was clearly guilty. To quote Blackadder, he was “as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.”

Anyway, we all have our opinions, let’s dump the JFK stuff and return to Kosminski.

''Oswald was clearly guilty''. after 60 years with all we know as fact about the descrepencies in the W.C this is an extraordinary statement .

I think most people fell into the Warren Commission Conspiracy way to easily . No point argueing the point, its been shown to be about as accurate the Maybrick and Hitler diarys from the start. . Back to kominsky it is .

[Herlock Sholmes]

''Oswald was clearly guilty''. after 60 years with all we know as fact about the descrepencies in the W.C this is an extraordinary statement .

I think most people fell into the Warren Commission Conspiracy way to easily . No point argueing the point, its been shown to be about as accurate the Maybrick and Hitler diarys from the start. . Back to kominsky it is .

If you want to ignore the mountain of behaviour by Oswald that day that absolutely screams ‘man clearly up to something serious’ then it’s up to you Fishy. There are still many people that believe Oswald to have been the lone gunman but people love a good conspiracy theory especially if it involves ‘big bad government’ or secret cabals or whatever but they’re reluctant to accept the more prosaic solution. That the man who carried the gun to work and left it on the floor of a building where he alone was at the time of the murder did it. Every point made by one side is countered by points made by the other. Conspiracy theorists have had 60 years to come up with stuff, often more and more bizarre, but still no killer blow. Not one creditable person has come forward to say “ I know that it was a conspiracy and here is the proof.” Point me at any crime, give me time, and I could come up with more than one conspiracy which would be at least possible. How much easier with a canvas the size of the JFK assassination. If someone found a tape with Oswald saying “I’m going to kill the President today,” people would still be shouting ‘conspiracy.’

[FISHY1118]

If you want to ignore the mountain of behaviour by Oswald that day that absolutely screams ‘man clearly up to something serious’ then it’s up to you Fishy. There are still many people that believe Oswald to have been the lone gunman but people love a good conspiracy theory especially if it involves ‘big bad government’ or secret cabals or whatever but they’re reluctant to accept the more prosaic solution. That the man who carried the gun to work and left it on the floor of a building where he alone was at the time of the murder did it. Every point made by one side is countered by points made by the other. Conspiracy theorists have had 60 years to come up with stuff, often more and more bizarre, but still no killer blow. Not one creditable person has come forward to say “ I know that it was a conspiracy and here is the proof.” Point me at any crime, give me time, and I could come up with more than one conspiracy which would be at least possible. How much easier with a canvas the size of the JFK assassination. If someone found a tape with Oswald saying “I’m going to kill the President today,” people would still be shouting ‘conspiracy.’

I dont chose to ignore anything Herlock, i just choose one version of events over another, based on my 40 years of reading the available evidence provided . We all can make our own conclusions from and studying the case. I dont belive the Warren Commissions fairytale version of events that have shown to be and have over time proven to be flawed on so many levels . No more than i do the Maybrick diary, both not worth the paper there written on.

[Bridewell]

What has Lee Harvey Oswald got to do with The Seaside Home?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What has Lee Harvey Oswald got to do with The Seaside Home?

Absolutely nothing Colin. Discussion moved to the appropriate thread. Apologies for the sidetracking.

[Bridewell]

Absolutely nothing Colin. Discussion moved to the appropriate thread. Apologies for the sidetracking.

Not to worry. We all get distracted from time to time but that one seemed to be dragging on a bit.

[Trevor Marriott]

One thing which IMHO, rather perversely, supports the possibility that the Seaside Home incident took place is the siting of it. If you were going to invent a positive ID scenario why would you site it somewhere as implausible as the Seaside Home? You can literally place it anywhere you choose. Why would you not put it in a remote police station or an obscure church hall in a London suburb for example? I'm undecided on the Seaside Home ID. I suspect it may be a partially accurate recollection. The problem then is identifying what is bathwater and what is baby.

As to the authenticity of the marginalia, Anderson's book was published in 1910 so Swanson could not have written the marginalia before then

In the Pall Mall gazette dated 1895 Swanson is quoted as saying “The Whitechapel murders were the work of a man who is now dead”.

Aaron Kosminski was institutionalized at that time and he didn’t die until 1919, so that would rule him out

So Did part of the marginalia relate to William Grant Grainger who I believe died in prison around 1895

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

As to the authenticity of the marginalia, Anderson's book was published in 1910 so Swanson could not have written the marginalia before then

In the Pall Mall gazette dated 1895 Swanson is quoted as saying “The Whitechapel murders were the work of a man who is now dead”.

Aaron Kosminski was institutionalized at that time and he didn’t die until 1919, so that would rule him out

So Did part of the marginalia relate to William Grant Grainger who I believe died in prison around 1895

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Or was it simply an error of memory. Or did a former colleague mistakenly tell him that he thought that Kosminski had died? Or was he unwilling to let the public know that they never managed to arrest him and so saying that he was dead was his way of ending the conversation?

[Trevor Marriott]

Or was it simply an error of memory. Or did a former colleague mistakenly tell him that he thought that Kosminski had died? Or was he unwilling to let the public know that they never managed to arrest him and so saying that he was dead was his way of ending the conversation?

So many or`s in your reply, all are nothing more than conjecture on your part

Well if it was an error of memory in 1895 when he made the press statement then anything that he wrote after he got Andersons book sometime after 1910 is unsafe

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

So many or`s in your reply, all are nothing more than conjecture on your part

Why do you object when other people speculate Trevor. We all do it….including you.

Well if it was an error of memory in 1895 when he made the press statement then anything that he wrote after he got Andersons book sometime after 1910 is unsafe

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So if someone makes an error we should disbelieve anything that they ever say again?

[Trevor Marriott]

So if someone makes an error we should disbelieve anything that they ever say again?

But you cant prove he made an error

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you cant prove he made an error

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The marginalia states as follows (my bold):

"On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS"

Kosminski was admitted to Colney Hatch in April 1984. If Swanson thought when he wrote the marginalia that he had "died shortly afterwards", this is consistent with his quoted comment in May 1895 (more than a year after Kosminski had been admitted to Colney Hatch) that the suspect had already died.

In other words, the May 1895 Pall Mall Gazette quote actually SUPPORTS the notion that Swanson wrote the marginalia which named Kosminski as the suspect!

[Trevor Marriott]

The marginalia states as follows (my bold):

"On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS"

Kosminski was admitted to Colney Hatch in April 1984. If Swanson thought when he wrote the marginalia that he had "died shortly afterwards", this is consistent with his quoted comment in May 1895 (more than a year after Kosminski had been admitted to Colney Hatch) that the suspect had already died.

In other words, the May 1895 Pall Mall Gazette quote actually SUPPORTS the notion that Swanson wrote the marginalia which named Kosminski as the suspect!

But Kosminski didn't die until 1919 so how could Swanson state in 1895 that the killer was dead if Kosminski was his suspect based on what is set out in the marginalia and Anderson's book was not published until 1910 and he makes no mention of the suspect is dead.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But Kosminski didn't die until 1919 so how could Swanson state in 1895 that the killer was dead if Kosminski was his suspect based on what is set out in the marginalia and Anderson's book was not published until 1910 and he makes no mention of the suspect is dead.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, but Trevor you're missing the point that if Swanson always believed that Kosminski died shortly after transferring to Colney Hatch in April 1894 which is precisely what the marginalia states this would explain why he said in May 1895 that the Whitechapel murders were the work of a man who was dead.

It's irrelevant whether Kosminski was actually dead or not, or what Anderson believed. If Swanson believed that Kosminski was dead as at May 1895, which, to repeat, is what the marginalia states, it explains everything.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, but Trevor you're missing the point that if Swanson always believed that Kosminski died shortly after transferring to Colney Hatch in April 1894 which is precisely what the marginalia states this would explain why he said in May 1895 that the Whitechapel murders were the work of a man who was dead.

It's irrelevant whether Kosminski was actually dead or not, or what Anderson believed. If Swanson believed that Kosminski was dead as at May 1895, which, to repeat, is what the marginalia states, it explains everything.

And why should he believe the killer died after being admitted to Colney Hatch, and why didn't he go public with the name, if the killer was dead after all you cannot libel/slander the dead and the same applies to what Anderson wrote.

Of course, it's relevant in 1895 Swanson is stating categorically that the killer is dead, But Kosminski was very much alive in 1895 he didn't also die after being transferred to Colney Hatch he lived till 1919 so Aaron Kosminski could not have been the Kosminski referred to in the marginalia or the content of the marginalia is not safe to rely on.

My money is on the latter

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk